JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Alan J. Ford on May 11, 2023, 05:22:12 PM
-
Nearly 60 years later, the American public are still being lied to about the cowardly ambush of a duly elected representative of the People. The mere fact that information still isn't privy to the general public, conveyed in an honest and open manner remains a glaring red-flag.
Despite officialdom's purposely misleading hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure, the wrongly accused is not responsible for President Kennedy's nor Mr. Tippitt's shooting either. In fact, the wrongly-accused did not leave Dealey Plaza amid a hasty escape on a phantom bus ride nor an equally phantom cab ride either. The self-serving lies of those truly responsible for the events surrounding November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas has run its course. It's now time for truth...
They say "pictures don't lie", so thank goodness for photographic evidence that places the wrongly-accused still in Dealey Plaza as late as 1:12PM on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, nowhere near 10th & Patton let alone responsible for Mr. Tippitt's shooting...
Thank goodness for photographic evidence that puts the wrongly-accused in the same clothing worn in Dealey Plaza that fateful afternoon in the same clothing upon his apprehension at the Texas Theatre later that afternoon...
Thank goodness for photographic evidence that puts the wrongly-accused once again in the same clothing for a 3rd time later that same day at his midnight-presser...
There was never a hasty escape via a phantom bus ride nor an equally phantom cab ride. While Mr. Tippitt's dual attackers ambushed him for whatever nefarious reasons still unknown, the wrongly accused was photographed still in Dealey Plaza. The wrongly-accused did not shoot anybody. Anybody.
-
They say "pictures don't lie", so thank goodness for photographic evidence that places the wrongly-accused still in Dealey Plaza as late as 1:12PM on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, nowhere near 10th & Patton let alone responsible for Mr. Tippitt's shooting...
I'd be very interested to see the photographic evidence that places Oswald in Dealey Plaza as late as 1:12PM as I am unaware of it.
This would, obviously, be a game-changer.
-
Despite officialdom's purposely misleading hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure, the wrongly accused is not responsible for President Kennedy's nor Mr. Tippitt's [sic] shooting either. In fact, the wrongly-accused did not leave Dealey Plaza amid a hasty escape on a phantom bus ride nor an equally phantom cab ride either. The self-serving lies of those truly responsible for the events surrounding November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas has run its course. It's now time for truth.
They say "pictures don't lie", so thank goodness for photographic evidence that places the wrongly-accused still in Dealey Plaza as late as 1:12PM on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, nowhere near 10th & Patton let alone responsible for Mr. Tippitt's [sic] shooting.
Prior to this minute, I had never once heard of any conspiracy theorist who ever claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald was still hanging around Dealey Plaza as late as 1:12 PM (CST) on 11/22/63.
Such a claim, of course, is ludicrous (and provably wrong) in light of the information gleaned from several witnesses in Oak Cliff, plus the words that came from Lee Oswald's own mouth after he was arrested. Oswald himself admitted during his interrogations that he had, indeed, left the Book Depository Building a very short time after the assassination and took a bus and a cab to his roominghouse in Oak Cliff. (But CTers probably think it was Captain Fritz who was the liar during that interrogation of Oswald, right Alan?)
And if LHO had been in Dealey Plaza at 1:12 PM, it would mean that housekeeper Earlene Roberts was lying when she said all of the things she said about seeing Oswald at the Beckley roominghouse at about 1:00 PM on Nov. 22 [see the video linked below].
Or, maybe the CTers who don't want to come out and call Mrs. Roberts a bald-faced liar would like to pretend that Oswald hurried back to Dealey Plaza with lightning-like speed after being seen by Roberts at the roominghouse.
I think it's time for JFK Assassination conspiracy theorists to stop playing their silly games with the evidence and to start making at least a halfway decent effort at evaluating the sum total of evidence and testimony in the JFK and Tippit murder cases in at least a somewhat reasonable, sensible, and proper fashion. Because if they don't, then we're always going to be subjected to preposterous discussions like this one authored by Alan J. Ford.
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibNCiU9oa8f-ud-2J62JYt1TMzyHdWsIvNxtBiIelEmIKsqsGAzOnoeIJT2dXptLhiKmc8KRHqG0T7FisEOfYu-kRYkHEQ-S2wFC2YqdP3_lJOacNqy-EPTq0RecXateEGdFBvNGPQyqD4k3YM_7i4K18-b7Gudhomk79iusn5mPFVYuGxBWTEokhH/s625/Interview%20With%20Earlene%20Roberts%20(11-22-63)(KLIF-Radio)(Thumbnail).png) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x1GUpR8kxetw8_zgskti8MDaOd-o_F9S/view)
-
Prior to this minute, I had never once heard of any conspiracy theorist who ever claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald was still hanging around Dealey Plaza as late as 1:12 PM (CST) on 11/22/63.
Such a claim, of course, is ludicrous (and provably wrong) in light of the information gleaned from several witnesses in Oak Cliff, plus the words that came from Lee Oswald's own mouth after he was arrested. Oswald himself admitted during his interrogations that he had, indeed, left the Book Depository Building a very short time after the assassination and took a bus and a cab to his roominghouse in Oak Cliff. (But CTers probably think it was Captain Fritz who was the liar during that interrogation of Oswald, right Alan?)
And if LHO had been in Dealey Plaza at 1:12 PM, it would mean that housekeeper Earlene Roberts was lying when she said all of the things she said about seeing Oswald at the Beckley roominghouse at about 1:00 PM on Nov. 22 [see the video linked below].
Or, maybe the CTers who don't want to come out and call Mrs. Roberts a bald-faced liar would like to pretend that Oswald hurried back to Dealey Plaza with lightning-like speed after being seen by Roberts at the roominghouse.
I think it's time for JFK Assassination conspiracy theorists to stop playing their silly games with the evidence and to start making at least a halfway decent effort at evaluating the sum total of evidence and testimony in the JFK and Tippit murder cases in at least a somewhat reasonable, sensible, and proper fashion. Because if they don't, then we're always going to be subjected to preposterous discussions like this one authored by Alan J. Ford.
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibNCiU9oa8f-ud-2J62JYt1TMzyHdWsIvNxtBiIelEmIKsqsGAzOnoeIJT2dXptLhiKmc8KRHqG0T7FisEOfYu-kRYkHEQ-S2wFC2YqdP3_lJOacNqy-EPTq0RecXateEGdFBvNGPQyqD4k3YM_7i4K18-b7Gudhomk79iusn5mPFVYuGxBWTEokhH/s625/Interview%20With%20Earlene%20Roberts%20(11-22-63)(KLIF-Radio)(Thumbnail).png) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x1GUpR8kxetw8_zgskti8MDaOd-o_F9S/view)
I think it's time for JFK Assassination conspiracy theorists to stop playing their silly games with the evidence and to start making at least a halfway decent effort at evaluating the sum total of evidence and testimony in the JFK and Tippit murder cases in at least a somewhat reasonable, sensible, and proper fashion.
The meager evidence that exists regarding who was on the 6th floor before, during and after the assassination almost all points away from Oswald:
Three eye-witnesses - Arnold, Fischer and Roberts - describe the man on the 6th floor as wearing clothes Oswald never wore that day and didn't own.
Amos Euins describes a distinctive bald spot that Oswald never had.
Jack Dougherty, stood feet from the back stairway, doesn't report Oswald using it.
Dorothy Garner follows her colleagues to the back stairway seconds after the shooting. She hears Adams and Styles descend the stairs, she sees Truly and Baker ascend the stairs, but she doesn't see Oswald in between.
Oswald is reported to have said he was in the first floor lunch room at the time of the assassination from where he saw two men who can only be James Jarman and Hank Norman. This would place him in the Domino Room less than five minutes before the assassination.
In stark contrast to the official narrative of Oswald hiding out in the SN, Arnold reports seeing a man with a scoped rifle at the opposite end of the 6th floor 15 minutes before the motorcade entered Dealey Plaza.
At the same time he reports an black male at the SN window.
Bonnie Ray Williams' lunch remains were discovered on top of the boxes that form the SN yet later photographed in a spot some 30 feet away.
These remains, including a soda bottle covered in fingerprints, were initially thought to belong to whoever was in the SN at the time of the assassination, yet were not deemed important enough to hand over to the FBI that evening.
Approximately two hours after assassination, Williams, a young black man being questioned by DPD detectives, lies to their faces regarding his whereabouts before the assassination. He doesn't "misremember", he outright lies.
Two other members of the 6th floor laying crew, Lovelady and Shelley, also lie in their various statements to the investigating authorities. It's not a question of misremembering or confusion, it's outright fabrication.
Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney and reporter Tom Alyea both report Fritz handling the shells discovered on the 6th floor.
O P Wright, the man who handed in the bullet found in Parkland to the authorities, categorically denies that the bullet he gave to SA Johnsen was CE 399
It's easy to step out of the shadows when some Tinfoiler posts a ridiculous claim and take the opportunity to "advise" CTers.
But it is LNers who need to acknowledge that there are massive anomalies in the case that need some kind of resolution. Anomalies that they themselves must sweep under the carpet and turn a blind eye to.
It's also a cheap shot to band all CTers together, it's an easy cop-out when faced with the genuinely troublesome aspects of this case.
-
First, an excellent response Mr. O'meara to Mr. von Pein's anticipated knee jerk drool merely meant to further serve nothing more than a widely held but false belief or idea amid a hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure...
“The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived and dishonest--but the myth--persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- President John F. Kennedy
On a public computer but will in good faith make an honest to goodness attempt to pull up the information I've gathered to place the wrongly-accused still in Dealey Plaza as late as 1:12PM, nowhere near 10th & Patton let alone one of the two attackers who ambushed Mr. Tippitt. Will post over the next 1/2 an hour...
-
It is very important to note the dispatch time at the very bottom in the last sentence of the following statement...
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth532627/m1/1/
We are all in agreement that the recorded time reads "1:02PM", right?
The significance of that dispatch time means we have to still add travel time to the red fire truck's arrival in Dealey Plaza.
More to follow...
Now, venture over to the following link and note the image of the man standing at the bottom of the screen to the right...
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2888.0.html
For even better clarity...scroll down to the 3rd response made courtesy of Mr. Reeves to note the colour of that man's shirt, which will be prominently featured in three/four other sequences as this post unfolds worn only by one single individual (1) post-assassination;(2) his apprehension at the Texas Theatre; (3) his stroll by Mr. Lovelady at the station; and, (4) donned during his midnight-presser as well. Only one single individual will account for that shirt, worn in the same specific manner in each sequence of events as they unfolded that fateful afternoon.
Additional supporting material will be accessed this weekend on my private PC and provided here as I'll plan on retracing my steps back here early next week the Good Lord willing...
It's amazing what some lying treasonous cowards will do and say for thirty pieces of silver.
“Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder.
” ― George Washington
The wrongly accused did Not shoot anybody. Anybody.
-
It is very important to note the dispatch time at the very bottom in the last sentence of the following statement...
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth532627/m1/1/
We are all in agreement that the recorded time reads "1:02PM", right?
The significance of that dispatch time means we have to still add travel time to the red fire truck's arrival in Dealey Plaza.
More to follow...
Now, venture over to the following link and note the image of the man standing at the bottom of the screen to the right...
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2888.0.html
For even better clarity...scroll down to the 3rd response made courtesy of Mr. Reeves to note the colour of that man's shirt, which will be prominently featured in three/four other sequences as this post unfolds worn only by one single individual (1) post-assassination;(2) his apprehension at the Texas Theatre; (3) his stroll by Mr. Lovelady at the station; and, (4) donned during his midnight-presser as well. Only one single individual will account for that shirt, worn in the same specific manner in each sequence of events as they unfolded that fateful afternoon.
Additional supporting material will be accessed this weekend on my private PC and provided here as I'll plan on retracing my steps back here early next week the Good Lord willing...
It's amazing what some lying treasonous cowards will do and say for thirty pieces of silver.
“Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder.
” ― George Washington
The wrongly accused did Not shoot anybody. Anybody.
None of this provides even a single iota of evidence to support your silly claim that Oswald was still in DP as late as 1:12. Much less rebut the mountain of evidence to the contrary. Multiple witnesses place him at the Tippit scene with the gun. Witnesses place him on the bus and cab and at his boardinghouse in the timeframe after the assassination. In addition:
"Oswald told Captain Fritz that he rode a bus to a stop near his home and then walked to his roominghouse.483 When queried the following morning concerning a bus transfer found in his possession at the time of his arrest, he admitted receiving it.484 And when interrogated about a cab ride, Oswald also admitted that he left the slow-moving bus and took a cab to his roominghouse."
-
None of this provides even a single iota of evidence to support your silly claim that Oswald was still in DP as late as 1:12. Much less rebut the mountain of evidence to the contrary. Multiple witnesses place him at the Tippit scene with the gun. Witnesses place him on the bus and cab and at his boardinghouse in the timeframe after the assassination. In addition:
"Oswald told Captain Fritz that he rode a bus to a stop near his home and then walked to his roominghouse.483 When queried the following morning concerning a bus transfer found in his possession at the time of his arrest, he admitted receiving it.484 And when interrogated about a cab ride, Oswald also admitted that he left the slow-moving bus and took a cab to his roominghouse."
A mountain of "evidence" alright, Mr. Smith,
and guess what? You nor any other LN can actually produce any authentic genuine evidence what the wrongly accused actually said on that fateful day. There's a reason for that:
IF they dared to actually utilize Video and/or Audio recording of those rubber-stamp proceedings the whole world would know the genuine Truth as opposed to those charged with "investigating" this sordid ordeal putting words in someone's mouth (major difference between hearing someone actually say something as opposed to others merely putting words in his/her mouth)
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave...when first we practice to deceive.” -- Sir Walter Scott
Now, in fairness to you, go ahead and share a single instance where the wrongly accused can be actually heard saying anything you claim he said...you're on the clock, Mr. Smith...
Cannot do it, can you? There's a reason for that...
*Sidebar/self-reminder: Upon returning next week, please note/share the 3.7 miles distance from Fire Station 3 to Dealey Plaza to confirm the 1:12PM time that records the wrongly-accused still in Dealey Plaza.
-
...the wrongly-accused still in Dealey Plaza as late as 1:12PM...
Then who did Earlene Roberts see dash in and out of the Beckley roominghouse at approx. 1:00 PM, Alan?
Did she see an "Oswald imposter"?
Or do you want to brand Mrs. Roberts as a teller of tall tales?
-
Then who did Earlene Roberts see dash in and out of the Beckley roominghouse at approx. 1:00 PM, Alan?
Did she see an "Oswald imposter"?
Or do you want to brand Mrs. Roberts as a teller of tall tales?
Or do you want to brand Mrs. Roberts as a teller of tall tales?
Her employer did!
Do you also accept her story about a police car honking twice in front of the house?
Did she see an "Oswald imposter"?
No, she probably did see Oswald, just like she saw him standing at the bus stop several minutes past 1 PM.
Which of course makes it completely impossible for Oswald to have been at 10th/Patton when Tippit was killed.
-
Do you also accept her [Earlene Roberts'] story about a police car honking twice in front of the house?
Well, that's another matter entirely. The topic I was referring to earlier was whether or not Earlene Roberts had really seen Lee Harvey Oswald enter and leave the Beckley roominghouse at about 1:00 PM on November 22.
Apparently the originator of this discussion, Alan J. Ford, thinks Mrs. Roberts did lie about that subject (or maybe Alan thinks Roberts saw one of the many "Oswald doubles" that so many CTers think were running around Dallas in circa 1963).
But whether or not Mrs. Roberts was telling the truth about the police car honking its horn outside the roominghouse has no bearing on whether she was telling the truth about seeing Oswald on 11/22, and that's because her story about seeing Oswald that day was verified by Lee Oswald himself, who told the police after his arrest that he had, indeed, gone to his Beckley room shortly after the assassination occurred.
Regarding Mrs. Roberts and the alleged horn-honking incident, here's what I had to say about that subject several years ago:
---------------------------
"It must be kept in mind that Mrs. Roberts testified that it was not unusual at all for a police car to stop in front of the roominghouse and toot its horn. It happened on multiple OTHER days, according to Roberts. So even if such an occurrence DID take place on November 22nd, it could be looked upon as a NORMAL occurrence, not an ABNORMAL or unusual one.
Or do some conspiracy theorists think that the Dallas Police were so shrewd in their advanced planning of the so-called "Frame-Up" of Lee Harvey Oswald that they had a police car stop in front of 1026 N. Beckley Avenue every so often in the weeks and/or months BEFORE the assassination, just so the car could honk its horn in front of the house...in order to make it look like an ordinary occurrence?
I'd like to know how the conspiracy theorists who think that a police car was "signalling" to Oswald on November 22 can possibly explain away the very same kind of horn-honking which took place at that exact same residence on multiple OTHER days when Presidents WEREN'T being murdered?
When we look at the horn-honking topic from that point-of-view, it makes any 11/22 horn-honking incident seem much less sinister. And if it WAS "sinister", then it's an awfully strange coincidence that the horn was honked ("tip-tip", says Roberts) in the exact same manner in which it was honked by other policemen on OTHER days prior to November 22nd. Wouldn't you agree?"
-- DVP; April 17, 2008
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-195.html
Also See:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/in-lee-harvey-oswalds-room.html
---------------------------
BTW, here's how author Vincent Bugliosi handled Earlene Roberts' story about the police car:
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmA33k0WpwqwBZmNNjSi0FTeYsIbZpjDBNr_PMLf_QnLlxPFmFBdh3EBr6WPyH2ROW2QbM1U3DYNMPi7Jaq-PzpVpkWVLLORGL0sBzghzOb3GQTkhlib-capJlRP1QgtD8GSVqJ8Wn7IYEtxHTVpqy5ERkTPcUsQLXbLYrsEHs4v_Gl0yb6aL49V5F/s5000/Reclaiming%20History%20Book%20Excerpt%20--%20Earlene%20Roberts%20And%20The%20Police%20Car.png) (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmA33k0WpwqwBZmNNjSi0FTeYsIbZpjDBNr_PMLf_QnLlxPFmFBdh3EBr6WPyH2ROW2QbM1U3DYNMPi7Jaq-PzpVpkWVLLORGL0sBzghzOb3GQTkhlib-capJlRP1QgtD8GSVqJ8Wn7IYEtxHTVpqy5ERkTPcUsQLXbLYrsEHs4v_Gl0yb6aL49V5F/s5000-h/Reclaiming%20History%20Book%20Excerpt%20--%20Earlene%20Roberts%20And%20The%20Police%20Car.png)
-
Well, that's another matter entirely. The topic I was referring to earlier was whether or not Earlene Roberts had really seen Lee Harvey Oswald enter and leave the Beckley roominghouse at about 1:00 PM on November 22.
Apparently the originator of this discussion, Alan J. Ford, thinks Mrs. Roberts did lie about that subject (or maybe Alan thinks Roberts saw one of the many "Oswald doubles" that so many CTers think were running around Dallas in circa 1963).
But whether or not Mrs. Roberts was telling the truth about the police car honking its horn outside the roominghouse has no bearing on whether she was telling the truth about seeing Oswald on 11/22, and that's because her story about seeing Oswald that day was verified by Lee Oswald himself, who told the police after his arrest that he had, indeed, gone to his Beckley room shortly after the assassination occurred.
Regarding Mrs. Roberts and the alleged horn-honking incident, here's what I had to say about that subject several years ago:
---------------------------
"It must be kept in mind that Mrs. Roberts testified that it was not unusual at all for a police car to stop in front of the roominghouse and toot its horn. It happened on multiple OTHER days, according to Roberts. So even if such an occurrence DID take place on November 22nd, it could be looked upon as a NORMAL occurrence, not an ABNORMAL or unusual one.
Or do some conspiracy theorists think that the Dallas Police were so shrewd in their advanced planning of the so-called "Frame-Up" of Lee Harvey Oswald that they had a police car stop in front of 1026 N. Beckley Avenue every so often in the weeks and/or months BEFORE the assassination, just so the car could honk its horn in front of the house...in order to make it look like an ordinary occurrence?
I'd like to know how the conspiracy theorists who think that a police car was "signalling" to Oswald on November 22 can possibly explain away the very same kind of horn-honking which took place at that exact same residence on multiple OTHER days when Presidents WEREN'T being murdered?
When we look at the horn-honking topic from that point-of-view, it makes any 11/22 horn-honking incident seem much less sinister. And if it WAS "sinister", then it's an awfully strange coincidence that the horn was honked ("tip-tip", says Roberts) in the exact same manner in which it was honked by other policemen on OTHER days prior to November 22nd. Wouldn't you agree?"
-- DVP; April 17, 2008
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-195.html
Also See:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/in-lee-harvey-oswalds-room.html
---------------------------
BTW, here's how author Vincent Bugliosi handled Earlene Roberts' story about the police car:
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmA33k0WpwqwBZmNNjSi0FTeYsIbZpjDBNr_PMLf_QnLlxPFmFBdh3EBr6WPyH2ROW2QbM1U3DYNMPi7Jaq-PzpVpkWVLLORGL0sBzghzOb3GQTkhlib-capJlRP1QgtD8GSVqJ8Wn7IYEtxHTVpqy5ERkTPcUsQLXbLYrsEHs4v_Gl0yb6aL49V5F/s5000/Reclaiming%20History%20Book%20Excerpt%20--%20Earlene%20Roberts%20And%20The%20Police%20Car.png) (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmA33k0WpwqwBZmNNjSi0FTeYsIbZpjDBNr_PMLf_QnLlxPFmFBdh3EBr6WPyH2ROW2QbM1U3DYNMPi7Jaq-PzpVpkWVLLORGL0sBzghzOb3GQTkhlib-capJlRP1QgtD8GSVqJ8Wn7IYEtxHTVpqy5ERkTPcUsQLXbLYrsEHs4v_Gl0yb6aL49V5F/s5000-h/Reclaiming%20History%20Book%20Excerpt%20--%20Earlene%20Roberts%20And%20The%20Police%20Car.png)
One theory is that the area outside the rooming house was a street junction and it would be common for cars to hoot the horn there when a driver in front fails to move off quickly enough at the junction. Though that would not explain why only police cars seemed to hoot the horn.
-
Well, that's another matter entirely. The topic I was referring to earlier was whether or not Earlene Roberts had really seen Lee Harvey Oswald enter and leave the Beckley roominghouse at about 1:00 PM on November 22.
Apparently the originator of this discussion, Alan J. Ford, thinks Mrs. Roberts did lie about that subject (or maybe Alan thinks Roberts saw one of the many "Oswald doubles" that so many CTers think were running around Dallas in circa 1963).
But whether or not Mrs. Roberts was telling the truth about the police car honking its horn outside the roominghouse has no bearing on whether she was telling the truth about seeing Oswald on 11/22, and that's because her story about seeing Oswald that day was verified by Lee Oswald himself, who told the police after his arrest that he had, indeed, gone to his Beckley room shortly after the assassination occurred.
I have reduced your post to the part I want to reply to.
Well, that's another matter entirely.
Actually, no it isn't. It goes to the credibility of the witness.
But whether or not Mrs. Roberts was telling the truth about the police car honking its horn outside the roominghouse has no bearing on whether she was telling the truth about seeing Oswald on 11/22
Of course it does have a bearing on her testimony if she is shown to be lying about other things. If she doesn't completely tell the truth on everything how do you know what is true and what isn't?
her story about seeing Oswald that day was verified by Lee Oswald himself, who told the police after his arrest that he had, indeed, gone to his Beckley room shortly after the assassination occurred.
Who did Oswald tell that?
Oswald's presence at the rooming house is one of the most crucial issues in the Tippit case. If Oswald was there, but only a few minutes later than "just after 1", he could not have been at 10th & Patton on time to kill Tippit. If he didn't leave the rooming house with a jacket, or left it with a darker color jacket (as Roberts testified) he could not be the person witnesses saw wearing a light grey (or white) jackets. Yet, the investigators, just [rather selectively] took the word of a woman who was blind in one eye and had poor sight in the other and who was known to her employer as unreliable.
-
If she [Earlene Roberts] doesn't completely tell the truth on everything, how do you know what is true and what isn't?
Re: the topic of "Did Mrs. Roberts Actually See Oswald Enter The Roominghouse On 11/22/63?"....
There are multiple ways to verify that she was telling the truth about that. Besides Oswald's own admission (see my next comment), there's also cab driver William Whaley, who took Oswald to the general area of his roominghouse on 11/22. (Am I now supposed to believe that Whaley took some Oswald look-alike to Oak Cliff instead of the real LHO?)
Given all the things that verify Oswald went to 1026 Beckley on 11/22, is it truly reasonable to believe otherwise? I think not.
Who did Oswald tell that?
Captain Fritz. (See WCR Page 601, below.)
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0313a.htm
Oswald's presence at the rooming house is one of the most crucial issues in the Tippit case. If Oswald was there, but only a few minutes later than "just after 1", he could not have been at 10th & Patton on time to kill Tippit.
Conspiracy theorists never seem to want to evaluate ALL of Earlene Roberts' testimony concerning the time that Oswald spent in his room. It's true that Mrs. Roberts testified that Oswald "went on to his room and stayed about 3 or 4 minutes" [6 H 438 (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0224b.htm)], but it's also a fact that she also said that Oswald was in his room "just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on" [6 H 440 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0225b.htm)].
No CTer ever wants to add in that last important statement made by Roberts.
And does it really take 3 or 4 minutes to wander around a closet-sized bedroom and grab a jacket, a gun, and a few bullets?
Also.....if Oswald was walking faster than the WC investigators who timed the trip from Neely St. to 1026 Beckley at 5 min./45 sec. (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0337b.htm), then Oswald would have reached his room prior to 1:00. That fact, coupled with the almost certain fact that he was only in that room (per Mrs. Roberts) "just long enough to go in there and get a jacket", plus the additional unknown factor of Oswald possibly walking very fast or even running at least part of the way from Beckley to 10th Street (we'll never know his speed for certain), gives LHO ample time to make it to the site of J.D. Tippit's murder by approx. 1:14 to 1:15 PM CST (which is the time when the sum total of evidence indicates Tippit was very likely shot).
If he didn't leave the rooming house with a jacket, or left it with a darker color jacket (as Roberts testified)....
Maybe you'd better listen again to this 11/22 interview (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x1GUpR8kxetw8_zgskti8MDaOd-o_F9S/view) with Mrs. Roberts. If you fast-forward to 2:40 you'll hear Roberts say that Oswald left his room wearing a "short gray coat".
Yes, Roberts said something different later on (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0224a.htm) regarding the jacket color. But on Day One, she said "short gray coat".
Of course, we could now start discussing the various shades of "gray" that exist in the color spectrum—light gray vs. dark gray vs. medium gray, etc.
Bonus Link:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/in-lee-harvey-oswalds-room.html
-
Re: the topic of "Did Mrs. Roberts Actually See Oswald Enter The Roominghouse On 11/22/63?"....
There are multiple ways to verify that she was telling the truth about that. Besides Oswald's own admission (see my next comment), there's also cab driver William Whaley, who took Oswald to the general area of his roominghouse on 11/22. (Am I now supposed to believe that Whaley took some Oswald look-alike to Oak Cliff instead of the real LHO?)
Given all the things that verify Oswald went to 1026 Beckley on 11/22, is it truly reasonable to believe otherwise? I think not.
I don't believe otherwise. I think it's reasonable to accept that Oswald did in fact go to the roominghouse on 11/22. It's the overall credibility of Earlene Roberts as a witness that I question.
Captain Fritz. (See WCR Page 601, below.)
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0313a.htm
Fritz wrote his report from memory after Oswald's death. There is no way to verify what was true or not. Fritz, in my mind, lost all credibility when he presented Buell Wesley Frazier with a pre-written "confession" on Friday evening, which Frazier refused to sign.
Conspiracy theorists never seem to want to evaluate ALL of Earlene Roberts' testimony concerning the time that Oswald spent in his room. It's true that Mrs. Roberts testified that Oswald "went on to his room and stayed about 3 or 4 minutes" [6 H 438 (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0224b.htm)], but it's also a fact that she also said that Oswald was in his room "just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on" [6 H 440 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0225b.htm)].
No CTer ever wants to add in that last important statement made by Roberts.
Why do you want to shift the argument to what "conspiracy theorists" do or don't want to do. According to the reports (if they are to be believed) Oswald told his interrogators that he changed all his clothes, which makes Robert's "observation" somewhat questionable.
And does it really take 3 or 4 minutes to wander around a closet-sized bedroom and grab a jacket, a gun, and a few bullets?
You're using a very vague time estimate of Earlene Roberts to make some sort of point. Even worse, you are doing so while ignoring the fact the Roberts said that she was concentrating on the television as she wanted to see the 1 PM news, just as Oswald walked in. That places his arrival at just about 1 PM and his departure at around 1:03 or 1:04
Also.....if Oswald was walking faster than the WC investigators who timed the trip from Neely St. to 1026 Beckley at 5 min./45 sec. (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0337b.htm), then Oswald would have reached his room prior to 1:00. That fact, coupled with the almost certain fact that he was only in that room (per Mrs. Roberts) "just long enough to go in there and get a jacket", plus the additional unknown factor of Oswald possibly walking very fast or even running at least part of the way from Beckley to 10th Street (we'll never know his speed for certain), gives LHO ample time to make it to the site of J.D. Tippit's murder by approx. 1:14 to 1:15 PM CST (which is the time when the sum total of evidence indicates Tippit was very likely shot).
Pure speculation.
And, no, the total evidence does not indicate that Tippit was shot at 1:14 or 1:15. A simple example;
Markham testified that she left her home a little after 1 PM, perhaps 1:06. She needed to walk two blocks to get to the bus stop on Jefferson. According to their timetable there were busses at 1:12 and 1:22. Markham estimated that she would catch her usual bus at 1:15, which could be either one of the busses mentioned. To walk two blocks, Markham would have needed no more that 6 minutes, which means that she would have passed by 10th and Patton no later than 1:09 or 1:10 and she would have arrived at the bus stop at around 1:12 or 1:13. It is physically impossible for Markham to have been at 10th and Patton when Tippit was killed, if that indeed happened at 1:14 or 1:15. It does, however, match a timeline where Tippit is killed between 1:08 and 1:10.
Maybe you'd better listen again to this 11/22 interview (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x1GUpR8kxetw8_zgskti8MDaOd-o_F9S/view) with Mrs. Roberts. If you fast-forward to 2:40 you'll hear Roberts say that Oswald left his room wearing a "short gray coat".
Yes, Roberts said something different later on (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0224a.htm) regarding the jacket color. But on Day One, she said "short gray coat".
Of course, we could now start discussing the various shades of "gray" that exist in the color spectrum—light gray vs. dark gray vs. medium gray, etc.
No need to. At her WC testimony she was shown the jacket and she denied that it was the jacket she had seen. Why do you prefer what she said in an interview? Haven't we already established this is an unreliable witness?
Bonus Link:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/in-lee-harvey-oswalds-room.html
It adds no significant value, but it's noted.
-
Fritz wrote his report from memory after Oswald's death.
With the aid of his handwritten notes, of course. You're not going to pretend Fritz' notes (https://web.archive.org/web/19991008085244/http://www.jfklancer.com/Fritzdocs.html) were written up days later, are you?
Fritz, in my mind, lost all credibility when he presented Buell Wesley Frazier with a pre-written "confession" on Friday evening, which Frazier refused to sign.
I have some serious doubts as to whether that event took place.
It's not surprising, though, to see the conspiracy theorists jumping for joy after Buell Frazier came up with that story about Captain Fritz 39 years after it allegedly occurred (while never saying a word about it prior to 2002).
But, what do I know? Maybe it did happen. But the 39-year delay should make a person at least wonder about it a little bit.
More about Mr. Frazier's multiple late-arriving bombshell tales here (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1349.html).
You're using a very vague time estimate of Earlene Roberts to make some sort of point. Even worse, you are doing so while ignoring the fact the Roberts said that she was concentrating on the television as she wanted to see the 1 PM news, just as Oswald walked in. That places his arrival at just about 1 PM and his departure at around 1:03 or 1:04.
The one and only source for the "1:03" or "1:04" departure time for Oswald is Earlene Roberts' absurdly long (IMO) estimate of the length of time Oswald was inside his room ("3 or 4 minutes").
But if the actual time that LHO spent in that room was along the lines of 30 to 60 seconds (which is very likely much more accurate, especially given the "hurried" nature that Oswald was said to have exhibited during both his arrival and his departure from the roominghouse that day), then that would have provided Oswald with up to 3 additional minutes to travel the 0.85 mile from 1026 Beckley to 10th & Patton.
But a CTer named Martin Weidmann, who just said in his last post that he thinks Mrs. Roberts is an "unreliable witness", seems to want to embrace Roberts' "3 or 4 minutes" testimony as the absolute truth. Therefore, per many CTers, Mrs. Roberts' estimate is now written in stone and has (somehow) been turned into a rock-solid and proven fact. (Pot meets Kettle once more, it would seem.)
The total evidence does not indicate that Tippit was shot at 1:14 or 1:15. A simple example: Markham testified that she left her home a little after 1 PM, perhaps 1:06. She needed to walk two blocks to get to the bus stop on Jefferson. According to their timetable there were busses at 1:12 and 1:22. Markham estimated that she would catch her usual bus at 1:15, which could be either one of the busses mentioned. To walk two blocks, Markham would have needed no more [than] 6 minutes, which means that she would have passed by 10th and Patton no later than 1:09 or 1:10 and she would have arrived at the bus stop at around 1:12 or 1:13. It is physically impossible for Markham to have been at 10th and Patton when Tippit was killed, if that indeed happened at 1:14 or 1:15. It does, however, match a timeline where Tippit is killed between 1:08 and 1:10.
Helen Markham's Bus --- Click Here (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1242.html).
Also See --- Tippit Timelines (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/tippit-timelines.html).
At her WC testimony, she [Earlene Roberts] was shown the jacket and she denied that it was the jacket she had seen.
No, she didn't. When Mrs. Roberts was shown Oswald's gray zipper jacket (CE162), she did say "It seems like the one he put on was darker than that", but she didn't flat-out "deny" that CE162 was the jacket she saw Oswald wearing on Nov. 22nd. In fact, she said "Well, maybe it was". And she also said "I won't be sure, because I really don't know." (Source: 6 H 439 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0225a.htm).)
-
With the aid of his handwritten notes, of course. You're not going to pretend Fritz' notes (https://web.archive.org/web/19991008085244/http://www.jfklancer.com/Fritzdocs.html) were written up days later, are you?
They absolutely were. I’m surprised you don’t know this.
-
You're not going to pretend Fritz' notes were written up days later, are you?
They absolutely were. I’m surprised you don’t know this.
Yes, you're correct. After seeing your post here, I refreshed my memory on this topic by revisiting Captain Fritz' WC testimony [at 4 H 209 (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUrypIFH0EBlwfza4upExW_DormSUiYVOg29sw70Sc_QS4VTuxCHDFPUwoznjYsO0vw8f4-EXW2x4CV6q_F3UbFOr9kQ0KpeeLhz5OmeH2DfKq3QdfTxcDEvmpsWAoQDtWif5YPlUx1wv6otK8fIlrsOYhPbi3vabHhh3_aeeFLshHgsuFjWqOzd86/s1419/Fritz-WC-Excerpt.png)], and Fritz did, indeed, say his notes were created "several days later".
I had totally forgotten about that Fritz testimony, even though I know I've read it in the past when this same topic has come up at the various JFK forums.
So, I officially stand corrected on this point regarding J.W. Fritz' notes.
Thank you.
-
With the aid of his handwritten notes, of course. You're not going to pretend Fritz' notes (https://web.archive.org/web/19991008085244/http://www.jfklancer.com/Fritzdocs.html) were written up days later, are you?
I have some serious doubts as to whether that event took place.
It's not surprising, though, to see the conspiracy theorists jumping for joy after Buell Frazier came up with that story about Captain Fritz 39 years after it allegedly occurred (while never saying a word about it prior to 2002).
But, what do I know? Maybe it did happen. But the 39-year delay should make a person at least wonder about it a little bit.
More about Mr. Frazier's multiple late-arriving bombshell tales here (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1349.html).
The one and only source for the "1:03" or "1:04" departure time for Oswald is Earlene Roberts' absurdly long (IMO) estimate of the length of time Oswald was inside his room ("3 or 4 minutes").
But if the actual time that LHO spent in that room was along the lines of 30 to 60 seconds (which is very likely much more accurate, especially given the "hurried" nature that Oswald was said to have exhibited during both his arrival and his departure from the roominghouse that day), then that would have provided Oswald with up to 3 additional minutes to travel the 0.85 mile from 1026 Beckley to 10th & Patton.
But a CTer named Martin Weidmann, who just said in his last post that he thinks Mrs. Roberts is an "unreliable witness", seems to want to embrace Roberts' "3 or 4 minutes" testimony as the absolute truth. Therefore, per many CTers, Mrs. Roberts' estimate is now written in stone and has (somehow) been turned into a rock-solid and proven fact. (Pot meets Kettle once more, it would seem.)
Helen Markham's Bus --- Click Here (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1242.html).
Also See --- Tippit Timelines (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/tippit-timelines.html).
No, she didn't. When Mrs. Roberts was shown Oswald's gray zipper jacket (CE162), she did say "It seems like the one he put on was darker than that", but she didn't flat-out "deny" that CE162 was the jacket she saw Oswald wearing on Nov. 22nd. In fact, she said "Well, maybe it was". And she also said "I won't be sure, because I really don't know." (Source: 6 H 439 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0225a.htm).)
I have some serious doubts as to whether that event took place.
It's not surprising, though, to see the conspiracy theorists jumping for joy after Buell Frazier came up with that story about Captain Fritz 39 years after it allegedly occurred (while never saying a word about it prior to 2002).
But, what do I know? Maybe it did happen. But the 39-year delay should make a person at least wonder about it a little bit.
Of course you have serious doubts. You have an agenda and want to discredit every witness who says something that does not fit your desired narrative.
If you really want to wonder about something why not do so over the fact that Fritz made no attempt whatsoever to accurately record verbatim what Oswald said during the interrogation.
The one and only source for the "1:03" or "1:04" departure time for Oswald is Earlene Roberts' absurdly long (IMO) estimate of the length of time Oswald was inside his room ("3 or 4 minutes").
But if the actual time that LHO spent in that room was along the lines of 30 to 60 seconds (which is very likely much more accurate, especially given the "hurried" nature that Oswald was said to have exhibited during both his arrival and his departure from the roominghouse that day), then that would have provided Oswald with up to 3 additional minutes to travel the 0.85 mile from 1026 Beckley to 10th & Patton.
And if LHO spent 5 minutes in that room he would have had even less time to get to 10th & Patton. Your entire argument is hot air. You don't know how long Oswald was in his room and what he did there. Nor do you know how long he waited at the bus stop where Roberts saw him. Even if Oswald did arrive at 1 PM and left the house again a minute later and then waited only one minute at the bus stop that still has him leaving Beckley at around 1:02 PM at the earliest. To walk the distance to 10th & Patton, on the fastest route, would have taken him 11 minutes. That means he would have arrived at 10th & Patton at 1:13 PM at the earliest. By then Markham would have been at the bus stop on Jefferson, as it only took her 6 minutes max to walk the two blocks from 9th to Jefferson.
But a CTer named Martin Weidmann, who just said in his last post that he thinks Mrs. Roberts is an "unreliable witness", seems to want to embrace Roberts' "3 or 4 minutes" testimony as the absolute truth. Therefore, per many CTers, Mrs. Roberts' estimate is now written in stone and has (somehow) been turned into a rock-solid and proven fact. (Pot meets Kettle once more, it would seem.)
You simply can not make an argument without mentioning what you (often incorrectly) think CTrs and non-believers think. It's pathetic. I am not embracing Roberts' "3 or 4 minutes" estimate. It is you who wants to reduce that timeframe based on what you (foolishly) think is "reasonable". I don't rely on Roberts for anything solid. You do... except for those things she said that you don't like. Hypocrite!
Helen Markham's Bus --- Click Here (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1242.html).
Also See --- Tippit Timelines (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/tippit-timelines.html).
Sorry, not interested in your discussions with others.
The facts in Markham's case are fairly straight foward, whether you like it or not. She left her home just after 1 PM to go to the washateria to (iirc) make a phone call. After that, at around 1:06 PM, she was on her way to the bus stop on Jefferson to catch her regular bus to work. Anybody who takes the same bus to work every day is accutely aware of the time. To argue otherwise is just plain silly. The FBI checked the distance from 9th street to Jefferson and found that it took about 2,5 minutes to pass one block. In other words, if Markham left at 1:06 PM and walked two blocks she would have arrived at the Jefferson bus stop 5 to 6 minutes later, at around 1:12 PM, where she would have taken the first available bus. In her estimate that normally happened around 1:15 PM. As busses seldom arrived exactly on time, she could have taken a delayed bus that should have arrived at 1:12 PM or the next one.
Markham's timeline is also corroborated by Bowley's. He picked up his daughter from school just before 1 PM and was on his way to pick up his wife. The fastest route (Marsalis) would have taken him 13 minutes, so if he left the school just before 1 PM, he would have arrived at 10th street at around 1:10 PM (just as he said) and by then Tippit was already shot. Markham would have arrived at 10th & Patton, after a 2,5 or 3 minute walk, at around 1:08 or 1:09 PM, just before the shooting. It all matches up. And how do we know with certainty that Bowley arrived at the scene only seconds after the shooting? Easy, when Ted Callaway heard the shots, he hesitated for a moment, shouted something at the man coming towards him and ran the distance between his position and the scene, which was less than a block. When Callaway arrived at the scene, Bowley was not only already there but also had made his 45 seconds (iirc) call to the DPD dispatcher.
Markham witnessing the shots being fired, Bowley's arrival and call to DPD before Callaway arrived at the scene after running only a distance of 2/3 of a block all tie in together. This means that if you want to move the timeline to later, you need to explain what Markham was doing during those 6 or 7 extra minutes and why Bowley needed the same extra time to drive the distance to the scene.
It isn't a coincidence (IMO) that roughly at timestamp 1:12 the dictabelt recording of DPD radio goes haywire for nearly two minutes.
No, she didn't. When Mrs. Roberts was shown Oswald's gray zipper jacket (CE162), she did say "It seems like the one he put on was darker than that", but she didn't flat-out "deny" that CE162 was the jacket she saw Oswald wearing on Nov. 22nd. In fact, she said "Well, maybe it was". And she also said "I won't be sure, because I really don't know." (Source: 6 H 439 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0225a.htm).)
More vagueness. If Roberts isn't sure, she's not only contradicting her previous statement (the one you relied on) but she offers no confirmation at all that CE162 is in fact the jacket she saw. If she actually saw a jacket at all! We are dealing here with a woman who is blind in one eye and doesn't see much with the other. Not only that but she was concentrating on getting the television to work, which means she had her back turned to the living room. Oswald's room was in the back of the living room and she would not have seen him as he walked towards the front door. There she may have caught a glance of him but only for one or two seconds. Add to this that there is evidence that places CE162 in Irving on Thursday evening and all you've got is absolutely nothing conclusive as far as the jacket is concerned.
-
To walk the distance to 10th & Patton, on the fastest route, would have taken him 11 minutes.
And that route doesn’t involve walking west on 10th street, so it doesn’t work.
-
Re: the topic of "Did Mrs. Roberts Actually See Oswald Enter The Roominghouse On 11/22/63?"....
There are multiple ways to verify that she was telling the truth about that. Besides Oswald's own admission (see my next comment), there's also cab driver William Whaley, who took Oswald to the general area of his roominghouse on 11/22. (Am I now supposed to believe that Whaley took some Oswald look-alike to Oak Cliff instead of the real LHO?)
Given all the things that verify Oswald went to 1026 Beckley on 11/22, is it truly reasonable to believe otherwise? I think not.
Captain Fritz. (See WCR Page 601, below.)
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0313a.htm
Conspiracy theorists never seem to want to evaluate ALL of Earlene Roberts' testimony concerning the time that Oswald spent in his room. It's true that Mrs. Roberts testified that Oswald "went on to his room and stayed about 3 or 4 minutes" [6 H 438 (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0224b.htm)], but it's also a fact that she also said that Oswald was in his room "just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on" [6 H 440 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0225b.htm)].
No CTer ever wants to add in that last important statement made by Roberts.
And does it really take 3 or 4 minutes to wander around a closet-sized bedroom and grab a jacket, a gun, and a few bullets?
Also.....if Oswald was walking faster than the WC investigators who timed the trip from Neely St. to 1026 Beckley at 5 min./45 sec. (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0337b.htm), then Oswald would have reached his room prior to 1:00. That fact, coupled with the almost certain fact that he was only in that room (per Mrs. Roberts) "just long enough to go in there and get a jacket", plus the additional unknown factor of Oswald possibly walking very fast or even running at least part of the way from Beckley to 10th Street (we'll never know his speed for certain), gives LHO ample time to make it to the site of J.D. Tippit's murder by approx. 1:14 to 1:15 PM CST (which is the time when the sum total of evidence indicates Tippit was very likely shot).
Maybe you'd better listen again to this 11/22 interview (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x1GUpR8kxetw8_zgskti8MDaOd-o_F9S/view) with Mrs. Roberts. If you fast-forward to 2:40 you'll hear Roberts say that Oswald left his room wearing a "short gray coat".
Yes, Roberts said something different later on (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0224a.htm) regarding the jacket color. But on Day One, she said "short gray coat".
Of course, we could now start discussing the various shades of "gray" that exist in the color spectrum—light gray vs. dark gray vs. medium gray, etc.
Bonus Link:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/in-lee-harvey-oswalds-room.html
cab driver William Whaley, who took Oswald to the general area of his roominghouse on 11/22. (Am I now supposed to believe that Whaley took some Oswald look-alike to Oak Cliff instead of the real LHO?)
There is a great deal of evidence that Lee was NOT Whaley's passenger that Friday afternoon.
One piece of that evidence is the FACT that Lee said he engaged in small talk with the cab driver as they traveled....and then he paid the cabbie a fare of 85 cents .... It's recorded in Whaley's trip log that his passenger paid a fare of 95 cents. And Whaley said that his passenger was dressed in BLUE workman's uniform..... Lee was wearing a reddish brown shirt a grey trousers....
It's beyond my comprehension how some folks continue to believe Whaley's BS.
-
This Oswald chose to ride in the FRONT seat so the cab driver could get a real close up of his face, as well as displaying a gold bracelet on his wrist , which theoretically should have been not that easily visible if he had on an OVERSIZE jacket = sleeves longer than necessary.
There seems to be a pattern with this Oswald of drawing attention to himself.
1. He bangs on the doors of McWaters bus and he sits for only a couple of minutes and then wants a transfer ticket from McWaters AS he is also interrupting other passenger trying to get ON the bus.
2. He decides to take Whaleys Taxi just AS another woman is about to get the taxi and makes a point of demonstrating himself rather than just stopping himself When he saw the woman. Instead he made a point of “competing”with woman by engaging in unnecessary conversation of asking her if she wanted the cab, then offering it to her.
3. In addition to the Front seat ride, this Oswald person further gave the cab driver an easy reason to recall him by NOT showing any interest in the event that the REST of the WORLD was fixated upon: The assassination of the POTUS. This Oswald remained silent as he sat right next to the cab driver Whaley , even after Whaley asked him about the event.
4. This Oswald person then made it easy for the boarding room lady Earlene Roberts to be wondering about his behavior by showing NO INTEREST in the reports of the national emergency event that Roberts herself was watching on the TV .
5. This Oswald then left and took some kind of walking stroll somewhere that did something to attract the attention of DPD officer Tippet just passing by 10th and Patton, enough to cause the cop to slow down and follow him for a while.
6. Then there was the dramatic 4 shots fired by this Oswald at Tippet, in midst of onlooking witness, the final shot being delivered to the head by walking over to the body of Tippet laying on the ground.
7. Then this Oswald did NOT quickly leave the scene, but walked over CLOSE to Markam kind of casually, and as he took about another minute at least to empty revolver shells one by one, discarding them in LOS of several observers at the scene.
8. This Oswald decided then that he should draw as much attention to himself as possible by holding the pistol up in the air as he began a trot down the street.
9. Of all the places that this Oswald could have chosen to discard a jacket UNSEEN doing so, he instead chose a fairly public car lot and threw the jacket under the car . He thenwalked out to the MAIN st after he had just gone past several people who saw him just previously with jacket on and/or saw him throw the jacket under the car.
10. On to Brewers store, where this Oswald stops in just WHEN a police car goes by, and then he just stares at Brewer.
12. On to the theater and into the theater this Oswald went, at approx 1:30, without stopping by the ticket booth, causing both the ticket girl and Brewer who was still observing him to become suspicious.
13. Butch Burroughs thought he saw some Oswald or clone Oswald buy popcorn at around 1:07. Jack Davis thought he saw an Oswald sit near him about 1:20, then get up and move around several times to different seats.
14. The late arriving Oswald (1:30) apparently never made contact with the earlier Oswald who bought the popcorn at 1:07, or sat next to the Oswald that Jack Davis saw at 1:20.
15.The final theater scene is an Oswald making a big show of getting arrested, revolver in his hand and several other cops wrestling with him, and then out front of the theater entrance display in a crowd and photographed in his “struggle” of his brown shirt being pulled off.
Conclusion:
If Mr Fords new idea is correct that Oswald was still in Dealey Plaza at 12:40 , given that the man in the “M” film DOES SEEM to be coincidentally a figure resembling Oswald, then 15 examples indicating a pattern to draw attention unnecessarily to oneself , might be reason to reconsider the Oswald double theory.
-
Mr. von Pein tosses another bogus claim, akin to putting words in the wrongly-accused's mouth ---->
But whether or not Mrs. Roberts was telling the truth about the police car honking its horn outside the roominghouse has no bearing on whether she was telling the truth about seeing Oswald on 11/22, and that's because her story about seeing Oswald that day was verified by Lee Oswald himself, who told the police after his arrest that he had, indeed, gone to his Beckley room shortly after the assassination occurred.
The challenge here for all LNs is they cannot produce any actual phrase that the wrongly-accused is claimed to have said in his own voice. The reason for that is the wrongly-accused never said 99.9% of what he was claimed to have said. LNs parroting back unsubstantiated claims is Not evidence, it's bogus "evidence" amid a hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure.
-
This Oswald chose to ride in the FRONT seat so the cab driver could get a real close up of his face, as well as displaying a gold bracelet on his wrist , which theoretically should have been not that easily visible if he had on an OVERSIZE jacket = sleeves longer than necessary.
There seems to be a pattern with this Oswald of drawing attention to himself.
1. He bangs on the doors of McWaters bus and he sits for only a couple of minutes and then wants a transfer ticket from McWaters AS he is also interrupting other passenger trying to get ON the bus.
2. He decides to take Whaleys Taxi just AS another woman is about to get the taxi and makes a point of demonstrating himself rather than just stopping himself When he saw the woman. Instead he made a point of “competing”with woman by engaging in unnecessary conversation of asking her if she wanted the cab, then offering it to her.
3. In addition to the Front seat ride, this Oswald person further gave the cab driver an easy reason to recall him by NOT showing any interest in the event that the REST of the WORLD was fixated upon: The assassination of the POTUS. This Oswald remained silent as he sat right next to the cab driver Whaley , even after Whaley asked him about the event.
4. This Oswald person then made it easy for the boarding room lady Earlene Roberts to be wondering about his behavior by showing NO INTEREST in the reports of the national emergency event that Roberts herself was watching on the TV .
5. This Oswald then left and took some kind of walking stroll somewhere that did something to attract the attention of DPD officer Tippet just passing by 10th and Patton, enough to cause the cop to slow down and follow him for a while.
6. Then there was the dramatic 4 shots fired by this Oswald at Tippet, in midst of onlooking witness, the final shot being delivered to the head by walking over to the body of Tippet laying on the ground.
7. Then this Oswald did NOT quickly leave the scene, but walked over CLOSE to Markam kind of casually, and as he took about another minute at least to empty revolver shells one by one, discarding them in LOS of several observers at the scene.
8. This Oswald decided then that he should draw as much attention to himself as possible by holding the pistol up in the air as he began a trot down the street.
9. Of all the places that this Oswald could have chosen to discard a jacket UNSEEN doing so, he instead chose a fairly public car lot and threw the jacket under the car . He thenwalked out to the MAIN st after he had just gone past several people who saw him just previously with jacket on and/or saw him throw the jacket under the car.
10. On to Brewers store, where this Oswald stops in just WHEN a police car goes by, and then he just stares at Brewer.
12. On to the theater and into the theater this Oswald went, at approx 1:30, without stopping by the ticket booth, causing both the ticket girl and Brewer who was still observing him to become suspicious.
13. Butch Burroughs thought he saw some Oswald or clone Oswald buy popcorn at around 1:07. Jack Davis thought he saw an Oswald sit near him about 1:20, then get up and move around several times to different seats.
14. The late arriving Oswald (1:30) apparently never made contact with the earlier Oswald who bought the popcorn at 1:07, or sat next to the Oswald that Jack Davis saw at 1:20.
15.The final theater scene is an Oswald making a big show of getting arrested, revolver in his hand and several other cops wrestling with him, and then out front of the theater entrance display in a crowd and photographed in his “struggle” of his brown shirt being pulled off.
Conclusion:
If Mr Fords new idea is correct that Oswald was still in Dealey Plaza at 12:40 , given that the man in the “M” film DOES SEEM to be coincidentally a figure resembling Oswald, then 15 examples indicating a pattern to draw attention unnecessarily to oneself , might be reason to reconsider the Oswald double theory.
An astute observation/assessment, Mr. Mason, so encouraging to read your thoughts, and ditto @ Mr. Weidmann (sp?), Mr. Iacoletti and Mr. Cakebread as well.
LNs will never be able to share an iota of proof what the wrongly-accused is claimed to have said. It's so much easier for them to simply fall in line and parrot back a hastily contrived script of phantom "evidence" mired in the stench of horse manure to frame an innocent party.
-
It's him @ the wrongly-accused's presence down in Dealey Plaza as late as 1:12PM...
Mr. Mentesana (Ernest Charles), an amateur photographer that fateful afternoon captures the wrongly accused standing alongside Bill Shelley (to the wrongly-accused's right) and the arrival of Fire Station 3's big red truck 12-15 yards away from them on Elm Street to the left of the tandem. At one point the wrongly-accused steps to his left to gain a better view of the unfolding situation post-assassination. One thing I have always noticed is how much easier it is for LNs to parrot back claims of what others said the wrongly-accused was claimed to have said, but they retreat rather quickly from the Fact that the wrongly-accused was recorded as saying he stood out front post-assassination with Bill Shelley...
Of course, for them to even admit as much would derail the whole hastily contrived script about fetching a bus and a cab, yada, yada, yada...
Back in a few minutes to pick up the wrongly accused's movements from Dealey Plaza post 1:12PM...nowhere near 10th & Patton, let alone one of the two assailants truly responsible for ambushing Mr. Tippit.
-
In fairness to honest research, I will readily admit I personally do not know how the wrongly-accused truly made his exit from Dealey Plaza post-assassination time sometime after 1:12PM...
That honest admission said, let's move on: Our 1st stop post 1:12PM is at 213 Jefferson, where let's note how Mr. Brewer (Johnny) describes the wrongly-accused ---->
Mr. BREWER. And had brown hair. He had a brown sports shirt on. His
shirt tail was out.
Mr. BELIN. Any jacket?
Mr. BREWEB No.
Mr. BELIN. What color of trousers, do you remember?
Mr. BREWER. I don’t remember.
Mr. BELIN. Light or dark?
Mr. BREWER. I don’t remember that either.
Mr. BELIN. Any other clothing that you noticed?
Mr. BREWER. He had a T-shirt underneath his shirt.
Mr. BELIN. Was his shirt buttoned up all the way?
Mr. BREWER. A couple of buttons were unbuttoned at the time.
Sound familiar folks @ the 1:12PM post-assassination photo down in Dealey Plaza @ unmistakably "Brown" coloured shirt; and, the icing on the cake conjures up the wrongly-accused's unique style of wearing that brown coloured shirt with, Quote, "A couple of buttons were unbuttoned at the time."
Let's now move on further up the street to 231 Jefferson Avenue...and learn what Julia Postal at the Texas Theatre observes about the colour and manner of wear of this same brown shirt...
-
Julia Postal's observation of the wrongly-accused's brown coloured shirt and manner worn ---->
Mr. Ball. Outside his pants?
Mrs. Postal. Uh-huh.
Mr. Ball. Wasn't tucked into his pants?
Mrs. Postal. Huh-uh.
Mr. Ball. When he went in was it tucked in his pants when he went in?
Mrs. Postal. No, sir; because I remember he came flying around the corner, because his hair was and shirt was kind of waving.
Mr. Ball. And his shirt was out?
Mrs. Postal. Uh-huh.
Mr. Ball. You say——
Mrs. Postal. It was hanging out.
Sounds familiar folks @ same brown shirt colour and manner of wear in now three places (Dealey Plaza post-assassination @ 1:12PM; 213 Jefferson and now 231 Jefferson at the Texas Theatre as well)
In fairness to those of you who may be reading along and have already progressed to the 4th scene (being escorted out of the Texas Theatre in the same brown shirt worn in the same manner in Dealey Plaza, 213 Jefferson and 231 Jefferson) let's stop here today and further examine the importance of WC Exhibit 150 later this week the Good Lord willing with several more instances along the wrongly-accused's progression from Dealey Plaza post-assassination @ 1:12PM to his donning the same brown shirt worn in the same manner all day long (post-assassination to his midnight-presser). In each instance note the manner the shirt is worn (Mr. Brewer and Miss Postal both confirm Mr. Mentesana's photo capture in Dealey Plaza post assassination @ 1:12PM, and the examples shared later this week will do the same)
The wrongly accused didn't shoot anybody. Anybody.
It's amazing what some people will do & say for thirty pieces of silver amid a hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure to frame an innocent man.
Bunch of lying treasonous cowards.
-
Since the reddish brown shirt that was worn by the Oswald who may be out front on the entrance steps of TSBD was NOT the shirt that the Oswald who was arrested in Texas theater had on, a tangled web had be conceived.
It is the WC web and it gets ever more convoluted as each incremental segment of the alleged Oswald the Lone Nut trek from the SN 6th floor of TSBD to the Texas theater is analyzed.
Just the the jacket dilemma itself upsets the equation because how could the blue gray jacket wind up being found in the TSBD Domino room a month later if that was the blue gray jacket that Oswald was supposedly wearing when he left the TSBD and the jacket which he was supposed to have on when he got into Whaleys taxi?
How is it that Bledsoe could see a hole in the elbow sleeve of the brown shirt that the Oswald who allegedly got on Mcwatters bus was wearing, if Oswald had on the blue gray jacket?
Rolled up the jacket sleeves but left the brown shirt sleeves down? It’s absurd.
It’s pointless to even to try to explain it since Bledsoe did NOT say she saw Oswald wearing any jacket, She just saw ( she claims) Oswald on the bus wearing a brown shirt and noticed the “hole” in the elbow sleeve.
But that’s ridiculous too, because THAT shirt, could NOT be the shirt Oswald was wearing, because that shirt he did not have on until AFTER he put it on at the boarding room.( he changed from the reddish brown solid shirt to the brown shirt with hole in the sleeve).
And this is all before getting to the anomaly of Earlene Roberts NOT seeing either a red/brown shirt OR a jacket on the Oswald who entered the boarding house at 1:00pm.
-
Since the reddish brown shirt that was worn by the Oswald who may be out front on the entrance steps of TSBD was NOT the shirt that the Oswald who was arrested in Texas theater had on, a tangled web had be conceived.
It is the WC web and it gets ever more convoluted as each incremental segment of the alleged Oswald the Lone Nut trek from the SN 6th floor of TSBD to the Texas theater is analyzed.
Just the the jacket dilemma itself upsets the equation because how could the blue gray jacket wind up being found in the TSBD Domino room a month later if that was the blue gray jacket that Oswald was supposedly wearing when he left the TSBD and the jacket which he was supposed to have on when he got into Whaleys taxi?
How is it that Bledsoe could see a hole in the elbow sleeve of the brown shirt that the Oswald who allegedly got on Mcwatters bus was wearing, if Oswald had on the blue gray jacket?
Rolled up the jacket sleeves but left the brown shirt sleeves down? It’s absurd.
It’s pointless to even to try to explain it since Bledsoe did NOT say she saw Oswald wearing any jacket, She just saw ( she claims) Oswald on the bus wearing a brown shirt and noticed the “hole” in the elbow sleeve.
But that’s ridiculous too, because THAT shirt, could NOT be the shirt Oswald was wearing, because that shirt he did not have on until AFTER he put it on at the boarding room.( he changed from the reddish brown solid shirt to the brown shirt with hole in the sleeve).
And this is all before getting to the anomaly of Earlene Roberts NOT seeing either a red/brown shirt OR a jacket on the Oswald who entered the boarding house at 1:00pm.
It was indeed the wrongly accused standing outside on those entrance steps, nowhere near the 6th floor let alone lurking in ambush in a staged sniper's nest to imply the fateful bullet came from behind the presidential limo.
An astute assessment of the WC's hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure failing miserably to withstand the test of time or keen analysis void of parrot speak.
Mrs. Bledsoe did Not see the wrongly-accused on a bus that afternoon. She was coached amid a spoon-feeding to parrot back her scripted "evidence".
Occam's razor is a principle of theory construction or evaluation according to which, other things equal, explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more.
*Source: Brittania
The WC fails Occam's razor miserably (because it doesn't take 26 volumes to present a case that is authentic). The plain simple truth doesn't require 1 volume let alone 26. However, we have been purposely mislead for nearly 60 years now. This case was never about the Truth, it was about a home-grown coup d'é·tat with a groomed pasty in the waiting.
With the word truth in mind let's get back to the two more instances, where the wrongly accused is still wearing the same shirt as captured by amateur photographer Mr. Mentesana (Earnest Charles) that afternoon; and, confirmed by both Mr. Brewer (Johnny) and Miss Postal (Julia) in sequence.
-
The Texas Theatre...
Turning our attention now to the venue where the wrongly-accused was apprehended, let's take a look at the following image depicting the scene outside of the Texas Theatre...
https://www.alamy.com/lee-harvey-oswald-arrested-at-the-texas-theatre-dallas-texas-22-november-1963-image396007357.html
Same shirt depicted in Dealey Plaza post-assassination time as late as 1:12PM worn by the wrongly-acused as he and his supervisor Bill Shelley take in the scene, standing on lower Elm Street in close proximity to Fire Station 3's big red truck, which was dispatched earlier at 1:02PM four (4) miles away from Dealey Plaza.
Note the Same manner of wear as observed and shared by both Mr. Brewer & Ms Postal as well. This isn't rocket science folks, we have been purposely lied to and, akin to most other cases, the Truth has been hiding in plain sight. The wrongly accused did not shoot anybody. Anybody.
One more instance today, and let's regroup early next week to share a couple more instances where Mr. Mentesana's capture is and has always been WC Exhibit 150 (take a long honest look at that shirt and Mr. Mentesana's confirmation photo of the person donning that brown shirt still in Dealey Plaza post-assassination @ 1:12PM).
-
After taking in the post-assassination scene still in Dealey Plaza @ 1:12PM standing there w/his supervisor Bill Shelley near Fire Station 3's big red truck (see Mr. Mentesana still photo), the wrongly-accused (prior to his exit from Dealey Plaza) can also be seen in the background of the following photo, courtesy of Mr. Groden (Robert), where the main focus is upon the so-called Three Tramps...
https://www.facebook.com/jfkassassinationtruth/posts/picture-of-the-week-1719-three-tramps-taken-for-questioning-soon-after-the-assas/627330764390892/
True to form in his intelligence gathering cover-role, choose one...w/the FBI
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95331#relPageId=3
Or on behalf of the Agency...
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=260#relPageId=1
the wrongly-accused is sharing his analysis there post-assassination with a member of the Dallas Police Department...
On two separate occasions now (Mr. Mentesana's still frame and in this instance as well) we see the wrongly-accused still in Dealey Plaza.
We have already covered his experiences w/Mr. Brewer and Miss Postal, who both separately confirm the same shirt worn in the same manner, so later this week the Good Lord willing I'll share a couple more instances of the wrongly accused donning Commission Exhibit (CE) 150 in the same manner throughout his extended stay in Dealey Plaza right up to his midnight presser.
The wrongly-accused did Not shoot any anybody. Anybody.
It's amazing what some people will say & do for thirty pieces of silver...bunch of lying treasonous cowards.
“Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder."
― George Washington
-
The wrongly-accused, despite a hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure to the contrary, did not leave Dealey Plaza via a phantom bus ride nor a fictitious cab ride either. It is w/good reason that the LNs cannot refute amateur photographer Mr. Mentesana's image of the wrongly-accused still in Dealey Plaza post-assassination time as late as 1:12PM. They cannot explain away how someone who is supposed to be clear across town at 10th & Patton wearing an Eisenhower sport jacket cannot be in two places all at once. We may never know the genuine identities of the two assailants truly responsible for Mr. Tippit's ambush, but those of us who don't believe in magic bullets also know no one can be in two places all at once. That said, let's get back to Dealey Plaza, where the wrongly accused remained post-assassination.
Take a long hard honest to goodness look at the following garment...
https://www.docsteach.org/documents/document/oswald-shirt?tmpl=component&print=1
Only a single individual donned this material on Friday, November 22, 1963 pre-assassination, during the assassination and post-assassination. Comparing the garment to Mr. Mentesana's capture of the wrongly-accused leaves no wiggle room for the LNs to explain the obvious away. It's the exact same material, same colour and same manner of style. Today, let's train our focus on two other instances where this garment material and the wrongly-accused shares the same space and time:
be right back...
(A)
(B)
11:28 EST...at this time I don't have my Martin & Hughes post-assassination film handy; however, in the following film, courtesy of the Dallas Cinema Associates (DCA), fast-forward to the 5:43 mark and freeze that frame.
If you are not a parrot with an agenda parroting back the same old hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure about a phantom bus ride and equally fictitious cab ride you will readily admit the wrongly accused & his brown shirt shared in yet another filming sequence is still in Dealey Plaza in yet another instance (this time the object of interest by Mr. Williams (Bonnie Ray) and Mr. Lovelady (Billy Nolan) standing below him on our viewing left and right respectively.
One gets the impression--at least from the grimace upon Mr. Williams (Bonnie Ray's face) that something isn't going as planned...
Next week--the Good Lord willing will return here to share my Martin & Hughes images that---with no offense to the DCA film--captures more detailed and an extended view of the wrongly-accused actually climbing the front steps which once again puts him still in Dealey Plaza post-assassination time, nowhere near 10th & Patton where two assailants were ambushing Mr. Tippit.
The wrongly accused did Not shoot anybody. Anybody.
“Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder."― George Washington
Bunch of lying treasonous cowards.
-
Happy belated Memorial Day wishes...how fitting that this year the national holiday actually fell upon the birthday of President Kennedy.
Picking up where we left off last week wanted to elaborate briefly about an observation I made about Mr. Williams (Bonnie Ray's grimace) upon watching the wrongly accused walk right up the TSBD front steps and enter the building post-assassination time...
Note the same clothing as depicted in Mr. Mentesana's camera lens; Mr. Brewer's testimony and also that of Ms. Postal (Julia) as well. The same gray colour pants (Dealey Plaza post-assassination and at the Texas Theatre as well as the same brown shirt worn in similar fashion in all sequence instances. If indeed "clothes make the man" (Shakespeare) the next picture only heightens the fright & alarm upon Mr. Williams' countenance ---->
https://jfkwitnesses.omeka.net/items/show/572
Guess anyone in on the framing of an innocent party would be just as alarmed since the hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure puts the wrongly-accused nowhere near Dealey Plaza post-assassination time. But there he was to the shocking chagrin of Mr. Williams climbing the entrance steps of the TSBD in this instance; being filmed in yet another instance post-assassination time in the lens of Mr. Mentesana's camera standing right alongside his supervisor Bill Shelley; and, yet again talking shop in yet another post-assassination sequence with one of the Dallas Police Department white-hats as the three tramps walked by the TSBD entrance steps.
Back later this week the Good Lord willing to post some in depth Mr. Martin (David) and Mr. Hughes (Robert) images further detailing confirmation of the wrongly-accused still in Dealey Plaza during and after the unfolding ambush of Mr. Tippit by two assailants clear across town at 10th & Patton.
The wrongly accused did Not shoot anybody. Anybody.
-
Back later this week the Good Lord willing to post some in depth Mr. Martin (David) and Mr. Hughes (Robert) images further detailing confirmation of the wrongly-accused still in Dealey Plaza during and after the unfolding ambush of Mr. Tippit by two assailants clear across town at 10th & Patton.
The wrongly accused did Not shoot anybody. Anybody.
Wrong!
The eyewitnesses who positively identified Oswald and confirmed he was carrying a gun
Mr. BALL. Which way?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Towards Jefferson, right across that way.
Mr. DULLES. Did he have the pistol in his hand at this time?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had the gun when I saw him.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you said you saw the man with the gun throw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you see the man empty his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it
Mr. BALL. And what did you see the man doing?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, first off she went to screaming before I had paid too much attention to him, and pointing at him, and he was, what I thought, was emptying the gun.
Mr. BALL. He had a gun in his hand?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. And how was he holding the gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. We used to say in the Marine Corps in a raised pistol position.
Mr. BALL. What did you see him doing?
Mr. GUINYARD. He came through there running and knocking empty shells out of his pistol and he had it up just like this with his hand.
Mr. BALL. With which hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. With his right hand; just kicking them out.
Mr. BALL. He had it up?
Mr. B.M. PATTERSON, 4635 Hartford Street, Dallas, Texas, currently employed by Wyatt's Cafeteria, 2647 South Lancaster, Dallas, Texas, advised he was present at the used car lot of JOHNNY REYNOLDS' on the afternoon of November 22, 1963.
PATTERSON advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, he was standing on JONNY REYNOLDS' used car lot together with L.J. LEWIS and HAROLD RUSSELL when they heard shots coming from the vicinity of 10th and Patton Avenue, Dallas, Texas. A minute or so later they observed a white male approximately 30 years of age, running south on Patton Avenue, carrying what appeared to be a revolver in his hand and was obviously trying to reload same while running.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see this man's face that had the gun in his hand?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Very good.
HAROLD RUSSELL, employee, Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, he was standing on the lot of Reynolds Used Cars together with L.J. LEWIS and PAT PATTERSON, at which time they heard shots come from the vicinity of Patton and Tenth Street, and a few seconds later they observed a young white man running south on Patton Avenue carrying a pistol or revolver which the individual was attempting to either reload or place in his belt line.
Mr. BELIN. Did he have anything in his hand?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He had a pistol in his left hand.
Jack Tatum
Next. this man with a gun in his hand ran toward the back of the squad car, but instead of running away he stepped into the street and shot the police officer who was lying in the street.
The Police Officers who were confronted with the murdering Oswald.
Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. When you saw Oswald's hand by his belt, which hand did you see then?
Mr. WALKER. He had ahold of the handle of it.
Mr. BELIN. Handle of what?
Mr. WALKER. The revolver.
Mr. BELIN. Was there a revolver there?
Mr. WALKER. Yes; there was.
Mr. HUTSON. McDonald was at this time simultaneously trying to hold this person's right hand. Somehow this person moved his right hand to his waist, and I saw a revolver come out, and McDonald was holding on to it with his right hand, and this gun was waving up toward the back of the seat like this.
Oswald even admitted carrying his revolver.
Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.
Mr. McCLOY. Was it a sharpshooter's or a marksman's? There are two different types, you know.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
Oswald admitted that he was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 22d of November 1963, where he had been employed since the 15th of October. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was a laborer in this building and had access to the entire building. It had offices on the first and second floors with storage on third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building.
He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home. He went to his residence on North Beckley, changed his clothes, and then went to a movie.
Captain Fritz asked him if he always carried a pistol when he went to the movie, and he said he carried it because he felt like it. He admitted that he did have a pistol on him at the time of his arrest, in this theatre, in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. He further admitted that he had resisted arrest and had received a bump and a cut as a result of his resisting of arrest. He then denied that he had killed Officer Tippit or President Kennedy.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.
(http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h441/johniscool5/LHOrev_Fig02_080510_zpsch4v5bkj.jpg)
(http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h441/johniscool5/LHOrev_Fig04_0805101_zps85fc9281.jpg)
Oswald was positively identified.
Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. V DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in that room?
Mrs. B DAVIS. Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.
Mr. CALLAWAY. No. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." So they brought four men in.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.
Mr. BALL. You mean he looked like the same man?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Then what did you do?
Mr. GUINYARD. I was looking--trying to see and after I heard the third shot, then Oswald came through on Patton running---came right through the yard in front of the big white house---there's a big two-story white house---there's two of them there and he come through the one right on the corner of Patton.
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Four? Did any one of the people look anything like strike that. Did you identify anyone in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I identified him.
RUSSELL positively identified a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans Police Department # 112723, taken August 9, 1963, as being identical with the individual he had observed at the scene of the shooting of Dallas Police Officer J.D. TIPPIT on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas.
Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
JohnM
-
Unfair, biased lineups and identifications from a single photo months later are not reliable.
-
Forty-five minutes after the shooting in Dealey Plaza, out of the close to three-quarters of a million or so people in Dallas, Lee Harvey Oswald is the one who just happened to murder Dallas police officer J. D. Tippit on Tenth Street near Patton in the Oak Cliff area, only about nine-tenths of a mile from his rooming house. One witness, Helen Markham, identified Oswald in a lineup later in the day as the man she saw shoot Tippit. (Years later, the HSCA found another witness, Jack Tatum, who saw Oswald shoot and kill Tippit). Another witness, William Scoggins, identified Oswald as the man he saw approach Tippit’s car after it pulled up alongside Oswald, who was walking on the sidewalk. He lost sight of Oswald behind some shrubbery, but heard the shots that killed Tippit, saw Tippit fall, and then saw Oswald, with a pistol in his left hand, run away south on Patton Street in the direction of Jefferson Boulevard.64 Another witness, William Smith, heard some shots, looked up, and saw Oswald running west on Tenth Street out of his sight. Two other witnesses, Virginia and Barbara Davis, identified Oswald as the man they saw cutting across the front lawn of their apartment house right after they heard the sound of gunfire from the Tippit murder scene and a woman screaming. Oswald had a revolver in his hand and was unloading the shells from his gun on their lawn. They saw Oswald proceed down Patton toward Jefferson Boulevard. Four other witnesses (Ted Callaway, Sam Guinyard, B. M. Patterson, and Harold Russell), from their position on two used-car lots at the intersection of Patton and Jefferson, identified Oswald as being the man who, right after the Tippit shooting, ran past them on Patton toward Jefferson Boulevard (where the Texas Theater was located) holding a revolver in his hand. Two men who were on one of the lots, Warren Reynolds (the owner of the lot) and Patterson, followed Oswald until they lost him behind a Texaco gasoline station on Jefferson. Mrs. Mary Brock, the wife of a man who worked at the gas station, identified Oswald as the person she saw walk past her, at a fast pace, into the parking lot behind the station.
One of the canards of the conspiracy theorists that they’ve sold to millions is that there was only one eyewitness to Oswald killing Officer Tippit, Helen Markham, and she wasn’t a strong one. But in addition to Jack Tatum also being an eyewitness to the killing, for all intents and purposes there were eight other eyewitnesses. For instance, with the Davis women, can anyone make the argument that although someone else shot Tippit, it was Oswald who was seen running from the Tippit murder scene with a revolver in his hand unloading shells? And when Scoggins saw Oswald approach Tippit’s car and then lost sight of him for a moment, Tippit’s true killer appeared out of nowhere, shot and killed Tippit, then vanished into thin air, whereupon Scoggins then saw Oswald again, running away from Tippit’s car with a pistol in his hand?
So there were ten witnesses who identified Oswald as the murderer. And we know that the physical evidence was all corroborative of their testimony.
Granted, mistaken identity has resulted in many wrongful convictions. But here, and not counting Mrs. Brock, there were many eyewitnesses who identified Oswald. Show me any other case where ten eyewitnesses were wrong. I argued to the jury in London that “Oswald’s responsibility for President Kennedy’s assassination explains, explains why he was driven to murder Officer Tippit. The murder bore the signature of a man,” I argued, “in desperate flight from some awful deed. What other reason under the moon would he have had to kill Officer Tippit?” It should be noted that even if we assume just for the sake of argument that Oswald didn’t murder Officer Tippit, then who in the world did? The conspiracy community never says. And although we know why Oswald would have had a reason to kill Tippit, what possible reason would the phantom killer have had?
Reclaiming History Vincent Bugliosi
JohnM
-
identifications from a single photo months later are not reliable.
Representative FORD. In other words, they showed you pictures of how many people altogether, how many different people, your best estimate?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I would say 4 or 5.
JohnM
-
Forty-five minutes after the shooting in Dealey Plaza, out of the close to three-quarters of a million or so people in Dallas, Lee Harvey Oswald is the one who just happened to murder Dallas police officer J. D. Tippit on Tenth Street near Patton in the Oak Cliff area, only about nine-tenths of a mile from his rooming house. One witness, Helen Markham, identified Oswald in a lineup later in the day as the man she saw shoot Tippit. (Years later, the HSCA found another witness, Jack Tatum, who saw Oswald shoot and kill Tippit). Another witness, William Scoggins, identified Oswald as the man he saw approach Tippit’s car after it pulled up alongside Oswald, who was walking on the sidewalk. He lost sight of Oswald behind some shrubbery, but heard the shots that killed Tippit, saw Tippit fall, and then saw Oswald, with a pistol in his left hand, run away south on Patton Street in the direction of Jefferson Boulevard.64 Another witness, William Smith, heard some shots, looked up, and saw Oswald running west on Tenth Street out of his sight. Two other witnesses, Virginia and Barbara Davis, identified Oswald as the man they saw cutting across the front lawn of their apartment house right after they heard the sound of gunfire from the Tippit murder scene and a woman screaming. Oswald had a revolver in his hand and was unloading the shells from his gun on their lawn. They saw Oswald proceed down Patton toward Jefferson Boulevard. Four other witnesses (Ted Callaway, Sam Guinyard, B. M. Patterson, and Harold Russell), from their position on two used-car lots at the intersection of Patton and Jefferson, identified Oswald as being the man who, right after the Tippit shooting, ran past them on Patton toward Jefferson Boulevard (where the Texas Theater was located) holding a revolver in his hand. Two men who were on one of the lots, Warren Reynolds (the owner of the lot) and Patterson, followed Oswald until they lost him behind a Texaco gasoline station on Jefferson. Mrs. Mary Brock, the wife of a man who worked at the gas station, identified Oswald as the person she saw walk past her, at a fast pace, into the parking lot behind the station.
One of the canards of the conspiracy theorists that they’ve sold to millions is that there was only one eyewitness to Oswald killing Officer Tippit, Helen Markham, and she wasn’t a strong one. But in addition to Jack Tatum also being an eyewitness to the killing, for all intents and purposes there were eight other eyewitnesses. For instance, with the Davis women, can anyone make the argument that although someone else shot Tippit, it was Oswald who was seen running from the Tippit murder scene with a revolver in his hand unloading shells? And when Scoggins saw Oswald approach Tippit’s car and then lost sight of him for a moment, Tippit’s true killer appeared out of nowhere, shot and killed Tippit, then vanished into thin air, whereupon Scoggins then saw Oswald again, running away from Tippit’s car with a pistol in his hand?
So there were ten witnesses who identified Oswald as the murderer. And we know that the physical evidence was all corroborative of their testimony.
Granted, mistaken identity has resulted in many wrongful convictions. But here, and not counting Mrs. Brock, there were many eyewitnesses who identified Oswald. Show me any other case where ten eyewitnesses were wrong. I argued to the jury in London that “Oswald’s responsibility for President Kennedy’s assassination explains, explains why he was driven to murder Officer Tippit. The murder bore the signature of a man,” I argued, “in desperate flight from some awful deed. What other reason under the moon would he have had to kill Officer Tippit?” It should be noted that even if we assume just for the sake of argument that Oswald didn’t murder Officer Tippit, then who in the world did? The conspiracy community never says. And although we know why Oswald would have had a reason to kill Tippit, what possible reason would the phantom killer have had?
Reclaiming History Vincent Bugliosi
JohnM
The opinion of Vincent Bugliosi is not evidence
Representative FORD. In other words, they showed you pictures of how many people altogether, how many different people, your best estimate?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I would say 4 or 5.
JohnM
So what? Does that make his identification more reliable?
Bottom line; the Warren Commision relied completely on selected eye-witnesses who were never cross examined by a defense lawyer. This alone makes their conclusions extremely weak and unreliable.
-
The opinion of Vincent Bugliosi is not evidence
The scholarly educated and well experienced Bugliosi firstly presented the mountain of evidence and then drew a logical conclusion.
JohnM
-
So what? Does that make his identification more reliable?
Mr. BELIN. How many people were in the lineup, if you can remember?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Four.
Mr. BELIN. Four? Did any one of the people look anything like strike that. Did you identify anyone in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I identified him.
JohnM
-
The scholarly educated and well experienced Bugliosi firstly presented the mountain of evidence and then drew a logical conclusion.
JohnM
BS... Like the WC before him, he started with Oswald being guilty and then looked for arguments to support that guilt.
Mr. BELIN. How many people were in the lineup, if you can remember?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Four.
Mr. BELIN. Four? Did any one of the people look anything like strike that. Did you identify anyone in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I identified him.
JohnM
Eye witness testimony is the least reliable evidence there is. In this case, Scoggins was shown a photograph of Oswald one day after the bogus line up and he failed to identify him.
Had this case ever gone to trial, Scoggins is one of those individuals who IMO would never have made it to the stand.
-
BS... Like the WC before him, he started with Oswald being guilty and then looked for arguments to support that guilt.
What a ridiculously biased statement, Even blind Freddy could see that Oswald was guilty and all the evidence supported Oswald's guilt.
it was Oswald's rifle that murdered Kennedy.
it was Oswald's prints on the rifle
it was Oswald's shirt threads that matched the threads on the rifle
it was Oswald's fresh prints in the snipers nest
it was Oswald who fled the scene of the crime
it was Oswald that killed Tippit
it was Oswald's shells at the Tippit crime scene
it was Oswald that left his wedding ring behind that morning.
it was Oswald who left most of his life savings with Marina
it was Oswald who attempted to kill more Police in the Theatre
it was Oswald who lied about owning the rifle
it was Oswald who bought the revolver
it was Oswald who lied about where he placed the rifle in Frazier's car
it was Oswald who made his first mid week visit to retrieve his rifle
it was Oswald lied who about curtain rods
it was Oswald who got out of his cab way past his rooming house
it was Oswald who at the time was identified in the sniper's nest
it was Oswald who lied about where and who he had lunch with
it was Oswald who admitted that he retrieved his revolver from his room because “You know how boys do when they have a gun, they just carry it.”
it was Oswald who ducked into a dark theatre
it was Oswald who made a clenched fist salute.
it was Oswald who denied the backyard photos
And on and on it goes, the mountain of evidence is conclusive!
See Martin the only person who's desperately digging for evidence for anything is you in support of Oswald's innocence and so far you've got nothing.
JohnM
-
What a ridiculously biased statement, Even blind Freddy could see that Oswald was guilty and all the evidence supported Oswald's guilt.
it was Oswald's rifle that murdered Kennedy.
it was Oswald's prints on the rifle
it was Oswald's shirt threads that matched the threads on the rifle
it was Oswald's fresh prints in the snipers nest
it was Oswald who fled the scene of the crime
it was Oswald that killed Tippit
it was Oswald's shells at the Tippit crime scene
it was Oswald that left his wedding ring behind that morning.
it was Oswald who left most of his life savings with Marina
it was Oswald who attempted to kill more Police in the Theatre
it was Oswald who lied about owning the rifle
it was Oswald who bought the revolver
it was Oswald who lied about where he placed the rifle in Frazier's car
it was Oswald who made his first mid week visit to retrieve his rifle
it was Oswald lied who about curtain rods
it was Oswald who got out of his cab way past his rooming house
it was Oswald who at the time was identified in the sniper's nest
it was Oswald who lied about where and who he had lunch with
it was Oswald who admitted that he retrieved his revolver from his room because “You know how boys do when they have a gun, they just carry it.”
it was Oswald who ducked into a dark theatre
it was Oswald who made a clenched fist salute.
it was Oswald who denied the backyard photos
And on and on it goes, the mountain of evidence is conclusive!
See Martin the only person who's desperately digging for evidence for anything is you in support of Oswald's innocence and so far you've got nothing.
JohnM
So sad. This is what happens when you live in a bubble and refuse to learn something new once in a while; you keep on repeating the same dishonest, unproven and debunked BS claims.
It convinced only the most feeble minds in 1964 and it hasn't conviced much more people ever since.
the mountain of evidence is conclusive!
The "mountain" is in reality nothing more that a molehole consisting of speculation, flawed assumptions and utterly false claims. There is nothing conclusive about it.
-
Unfair, biased lineups and identifications from a single photo months later are not reliable.
Words of wisdom, Mr. Iacoletti, akin to a top-shelf defense attorney, who knows the difference between "a mountain of parroted-back phantom evidence" amid a hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure to frame an innocent party than the plain simple truth.
-
So sad. This is what happens when you live in a bubble and refuse to learn something new once in a while; you keep on repeating the same dishonest, unproven and debunked BS claims.
It convinced only the most feeble minds in 1964 and it hasn't conviced much more people ever since.
the mountain of evidence is conclusive!
The "mountain" is in reality nothing more that a molehole consisting of speculation, flawed assumptions and utterly false claims. There is nothing conclusive about it.
A spot on exemplary assessment, Mr. Weidmann, about as an excellent summation there ever was and is.
-
What a ridiculously biased statement, Even blind Freddy could see that Oswald was guilty and all the evidence supported Oswald's guilt.
it was Oswald's rifle that murdered Kennedy.
it was Oswald's prints on the rifle
it was Oswald's shirt threads that matched the threads on the rifle
it was Oswald's fresh prints in the snipers nest
it was Oswald who fled the scene of the crime
it was Oswald that killed Tippit
it was Oswald's shells at the Tippit crime scene
it was Oswald that left his wedding ring behind that morning.
it was Oswald who left most of his life savings with Marina
it was Oswald who attempted to kill more Police in the Theatre
it was Oswald who lied about owning the rifle
it was Oswald who bought the revolver
it was Oswald who lied about where he placed the rifle in Frazier's car
it was Oswald who made his first mid week visit to retrieve his rifle
it was Oswald lied who about curtain rods
it was Oswald who got out of his cab way past his rooming house
it was Oswald who at the time was identified in the sniper's nest
it was Oswald who lied about where and who he had lunch with
it was Oswald who admitted that he retrieved his revolver from his room because “You know how boys do when they have a gun, they just carry it.”
it was Oswald who ducked into a dark theatre
it was Oswald who made a clenched fist salute.
it was Oswald who denied the backyard photos
And on and on it goes, the mountain of evidence is conclusive!
See Martin the only person who's desperately digging for evidence for anything is you in support of Oswald's innocence and so far you've got nothing.
JohnM
The contrarian rebuttal? "Oswald's rifle - LOL." It is difficult to even contemplate how there could be more evidence against Oswald than exists. It is a slam dunk. Oswald took some measures to cover up his criminal acts and there are certain things that can never be known with certainty (e.g. his exact motivation). Contrarians cling to these straws in desperation to create any false doubt of his guilt. But for reasonable people there is no great mystery about this case. Oswald did it. There is also no credible evidence of his involvement with any other person or group even after nearly six decades with CTers beating the bushes for any such clue. It would take a time machine to convince these people. And some of them would no doubt gouge their own eyes out rather than witness Oswald pulling the trigger. The only mystery left after all these years is why some feel so emotionally invested in Oswald's innocence. Only the mental health professionals can sort that out.
-
Mr. Mytton,
First, explain to the rest of us here reading along how one of the witnesses you cited observed someone he thought was the wrongly-accused emptying his revolver while also, quote, was standing in a raised pistol position akin to a Marine with both arms extended forward in a firing position? You cannot do both at the same time, Mr. Mytton, unless of course the magic-bullet leaped out of Governor Connelly's thigh and somersaulted over to 10th & Patton to aid in defying physics once again...please excuse the eyeroll sir.
It's this kind of BS: that continues to plague yours and all LNs in general when it comes to your self-professed, quote, " the mountain of evidence is conclusive!" A mountain exists alright...a mountain of "evidence" amid a hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure to frame an innocent party.
Now, a quick question for you, since I noticed you and all the other LNs are cowering away from the obvious truth (the wrongly accused remained in Dealey Plaza well after Mr. Tippit's demise amid an ambush by two assailants, one even drove away from the scene in a grey car in erratic fashion taking down a stop sign in his wake)
Rather than cower away from the obvious, go ahead and dare to shed your parroting back agenda, and explain away the multiple sequences of the wrongly accused still in Dealey Plaza post-assassination time well past 1:12PM CST...
You can't do it, Mr. Mytton, can you?
There's a reason for that...the hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure is unable to stand amid much closer examination. Scripted lies always crumble or need revision unlike the plain simple truth that is more than capable of standing all on its own. Moreover, you like so many other LNs often say the wrongly-accused said this, the wrongly accused said that...but's what's interesting is that none of you have ever shared any 1st person authentic details of anything you folks cite as evidence that he did say this or say that.
Go ahead and prove me wrong sir...You can't do it, can you? There's a reason for that too ---->
The wrongly-accused did Not shoot anybody. Anybody.
-
Mr. Smith,
Dare to explain away the multiple appearances of the wrongly-accused in several different sequences still in Dealey Plaza post-assassination time well after 1:12PM CST.
Those of us reading along understand if you should cower away from a simple question...
or make a desperate attempt to change the subject or resort to name calling, etc. We get it. LNs have nothing to explain away the plain simple truth hidden in plain sight. The wrongly accused was nowhere near 10th & Patton, let alone one of the two assailants who ambushed Mr. Tippit for whatever nefarious reasons.
-
Mr. Smith,
Dare to explain away the multiple appearances of the wrongly-accused in several different sequences still in Dealey Plaza post-assassination time well after 1:12PM CST.
Yes, it is a false premise driven by some type of psychological compulsion on your part. There are a multitude of witnesses who confirm Oswald was elsewhere in the known timeframe that makes your premise impossible. Claiming some person in a fuzzy picture is Oswald not convincing. Even if you do it multiple times. You couldn't identify your own mother in those images. Not a single one of Oswald's coworkers put him there.
-
The contrarian rebuttal? "Oswald's rifle - LOL." It is difficult to even contemplate how there could be more evidence against Oswald than exists. It is a slam dunk. Oswald took some measures to cover up his criminal acts and there are certain things that can never be known with certainty (e.g. his exact motivation). Contrarians cling to these straws in desperation to create any false doubt of his guilt. But for reasonable people there is no great mystery about this case. Oswald did it. There is also no credible evidence of his involvement with any other person or group even after nearly six decades with CTers beating the bushes for any such clue. It would take a time machine to convince these people. And some of them would no doubt gouge their own eyes out rather than witness Oswald pulling the trigger. The only mystery left after all these years is why some feel so emotionally invested in Oswald's innocence. Only the mental health professionals can sort that out.
But for reasonable people there is no great mystery about this case. Oswald did it.
So the majority of Americans are not reasonable people? :D :D :D :D :D :D
You've had 60 years time to prove a conclusive case and have failed miserably. All you've got are speculation, assumptions not supported by evidence and misrepresentations of the evidence that actually is there.
The evidence that Oswald came down the stairs after the last shot is that it actually happened - Richard Smith ::)
-
But for reasonable people there is no great mystery about this case. Oswald did it.
So the majority of Americans are not reasonable people? :D :D :D :D :D :D
That's probably right. Just look who we have for our president. The clown show is just missing the tricycle. Of course, though, the vast majority of Americans don't know the first thing about the JFK assassination. It's a lot more fun to express belief in nonsense like Bigfoot, UFOs, and JFK conspiracies than to live in the real world.
-
That's probably right. Just look who we have for our president. The clown show is just missing the tricycle. Of course, though, the vast majority of Americans don't know the first thing about the JFK assassination. It's a lot more fun to express belief in nonsense like Bigfoot, UFOs, and JFK conspiracies than to live in the real world.
And the real world is believing there is a "deep state", that everybody in government is corrupt, that the 2020 election was stolen and that the insurrection of January 6th was nothing more than tourists on a sightseeing tour?
Please give me a break....
-
And the real world is believing there is a "deep state", that everybody in government is corrupt, that the 2020 election was stolen and that the insurrection of January 6th was nothing more than tourists on a sightseeing tour?
Please give me a break....
I don't hold any of those views except possibly the first depending on how "deep state" is defined. Remember, though, that in the JFK situation CTers frequently claim that reaching a conclusion that Oswald was guilty is based on a lack of skepticism of the government and acceptance of the "official" story. So keep your narrative straight for once. There are no more kooky believers in corrupt and sinister governmental forces than JFK conspiracy nuts such as yourself. Meanwhile, you accept the baseless word of the current government and FBI on any topic.
-
I don't hold any of those views except possibly the first depending on how "deep state" is defined. Remember, though, that in the JFK situation CTers frequently claim that reaching a conclusion that Oswald was guilty is based on a lack of skepticism of the government and acceptance of the "official" story. So keep your narrative straight for once. There are no more kooky believers in corrupt and sinister governmental forces than JFK conspiracy nuts such as yourself. Meanwhile, you accept the baseless word of the current government and FBI on any topic.
So keep your narrative straight for once.
What narrative would that be?
I don't hold any of those views except possibly the first depending on how "deep state" is defined.
Yeah right, pull the other one....
Meanwhile, you accept the baseless word of the current government and FBI on any topic.
So, despite your denials you do consider the Government and FBI to be corrupt.... Except of course in the JFK case where they can't do anything wrong and would not purposely lie to the people....
-
So keep your narrative straight for once.
What narrative would that be?
I don't hold any of those views except possibly the first depending on how "deep state" is defined.
Yeah right, pull the other one....
Meanwhile, you accept the baseless word of the current government and FBI on any topic.
So, despite your denials you do consider the Government and FBI to be corrupt.... Except of course in the JFK case where they can't do anything wrong and would not purposely lie to the people....
Hilarious from the guy who claims over and over and over again that the FBI and highest levels of the US government were involved in the murder of the president, covered up the identity of the real assassin, and possibly framed an innocent man for the crime and then murdered him. Now he is calling me out for being skeptical of the government! Surreal.
-
Hilarious from the guy who claims over and over and over again that the FBI and highest levels of the US government were involved in the murder of the president, covered up the identity of the real assassin, and possibly framed an innocent man for the crime and then murdered him. Now he is calling me out for being skeptical of the government! Surreal.
from the guy who claims over and over and over again that the FBI and highest levels of the US government were involved in the murder of the president
Where did I claim that exactly?
Now he is calling me out for being skeptical of the government! Surreal.
Hilarious. The guy who claims that the FBI (under Hoover, the biggest crook of them all) couldn't possibly have any involvement in the cover up of the JFK assassination is now claiming that the FBI is crooked as can be. Surreal!
-
from the guy who claims over and over and over again that the FBI and highest levels of the US government were involved in the murder of the president
Where did I claim that exactly?
Now he is calling me out for being skeptical of the government! Surreal.
Hilarious. The guy who claims that the FBI (under Hoover, the biggest crook of them all) couldn't possibly have any involvement in the cover up of the JFK assassination is now claiming that the FBI is crooked as can be. Surreal!
You have never claimed that the FBI and/or US government was involved in the plot to kill JFK and frame Oswald? You accept their underlying evidence and conclusion that Oswald was the assassin? You do not believe they manipulated or even fabricated evidence in this case? Here you to refer to Hoover as a criminal - LOL.
I never said that Hoover "couldn't be involved" in the cover up. I have said there is no credible evidence of such. The FBI has and continues to do many questionable acts. That is not, however, evidence of complicity in the JFK assassination as you stupidly imply.
-
You have never claimed that the FBI and/or US government was involved in the plot to kill JFK and frame Oswald? You accept their underlying evidence and conclusion that Oswald was the assassin? You do not believe they manipulated or even fabricated evidence in this case? Here you to refer to Hoover as a criminal - LOL.
I never said that Hoover "couldn't be involved" in the cover up. I have said there is no credible evidence of such. The FBI has and continues to do many questionable acts. That is not, however, evidence of complicity in the JFK assassination as you stupidly imply.
I asked you to show me where I claimed that "the FBI and highest levels of the US government were involved in the murder of the president".
Obviously you can't, so you can rant on all you want. It's meaningless.
You accept their underlying evidence and conclusion that Oswald was the assassin?
What underlying evidence? I'd really like to see it. It's been 60 years and all I have ever seen is self-serving speculation, unsupported assumption and bogus claims.
You do not believe they manipulated or even fabricated evidence in this case?
Nuance just isn't your forte. Depending on their personal circumstances individual people in a command structure can be manipulated to do something without understanding it's implication. But that's probably way over your head.
Here you to refer to Hoover as a criminal
He wasn't? Really?
I never said that Hoover "couldn't be involved" in the cover up. I have said there is no credible evidence of such.
There isn't a shred of evidence to show that the Biden family didn't do anything wrong. Does that make any difference to you?
The FBI has and continues to do many questionable acts.
Says the keyboard analyst.... :D :D :D :D :D :D
That is not, however, evidence of complicity in the JFK assassination as you stupidly imply.
When did I imply that?
-
Hilarious from the guy who claims over and over and over again that the FBI and highest levels of the US government were involved in the murder of the president, covered up the identity of the real assassin, and possibly framed an innocent man for the crime and then murdered him. Now he is calling me out for being skeptical of the government! Surreal.
(https://media.tenor.com/lr8W5AadieAAAAAM/smile-laughing.gif)
Weidmann's the laughing stock of this Forum, it's just clanger after clanger, yet he actually believes that he's making a worthwhile contribution. He's pathetically™ hilarious™!
JohnM
-
(https://media.tenor.com/lr8W5AadieAAAAAM/smile-laughing.gif)
Weidmann's the laughing stock of this Forum, it's just clanger after clanger, yet he actually believes that he's making a worthwhile contribution. He's pathetically™ hilarious™!
JohnM
This is an example of a "worthwhile contribution"?
-
What a ridiculously biased statement, Even blind Freddy could see that Oswald was guilty and all the evidence supported Oswald's guilt.
it was Oswald's rifle that murdered Kennedy.
it was Oswald's prints on the rifle
it was Oswald's shirt threads that matched the threads on the rifle
it was Oswald's fresh prints in the snipers nest
it was Oswald who fled the scene of the crime
it was Oswald that killed Tippit
it was Oswald's shells at the Tippit crime scene
it was Oswald that left his wedding ring behind that morning.
it was Oswald who left most of his life savings with Marina
it was Oswald who attempted to kill more Police in the Theatre
it was Oswald who lied about owning the rifle
it was Oswald who bought the revolver
it was Oswald who lied about where he placed the rifle in Frazier's car
it was Oswald who made his first mid week visit to retrieve his rifle
it was Oswald lied who about curtain rods
it was Oswald who got out of his cab way past his rooming house
it was Oswald who at the time was identified in the sniper's nest
it was Oswald who lied about where and who he had lunch with
it was Oswald who admitted that he retrieved his revolver from his room because “You know how boys do when they have a gun, they just carry it.”
it was Oswald who ducked into a dark theatre
it was Oswald who made a clenched fist salute.
it was Oswald who denied the backyard photos
And on and on it goes, the mountain of evidence is conclusive!
See Martin the only person who's desperately digging for evidence for anything is you in support of Oswald's innocence and so far you've got nothing.
Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence. Nor do they need to be rebutted.
-
You have never claimed that the FBI and/or US government was involved in the plot to kill JFK and frame Oswald? You accept their underlying evidence and conclusion that Oswald was the assassin?
Yet another false dichotomy from Strawman “Smith”.
-
Weidmann's the laughing stock of this Forum, it's just clanger after clanger, yet he actually believes that he's making a worthwhile contribution. He's pathetically™ hilarious™!
No, that would be the cowardly trolls hiding behind fake names.
-
Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence. Nor do they need to be rebutted.
Indeed. But don't tell John Mytton. You'll only confuse him when you use words like "sustantiate". He simply doesn't know what that means.
-
It could not be threads from Oswald’s brown shirt that he had on at the Texas theater that matched threads on the MC rifle because Oswald CHANGED the reddish brown shirt he had on at TSBD when he got to his boarding house.
One has to wonder also why an expired transfer bus ticket would be taken out of the pocket of the shirt taken off and placed into the pocket of the brown shirt put on. And why such ticket having been touched so by thumb and forefingers of the bus driver and then Oswald multiple times , would have no fingerprints in the ticket?
-
It could not be threads from Oswald’s brown shirt that he had on at the Texas theater that matched threads on the MC rifle because Oswald CHANGED the reddish brown shirt he had on at TSBD when he got to his boarding house.
One has to wonder also why an expired transfer bus ticket would be taken out of the pocket of the shirt taken off and placed into the pocket of the brown shirt put on. And why such ticket having been touched so by thumb and forefingers of the bus driver and then Oswald multiple times , would have no fingerprints in the ticket?
It could not be threads from Oswald’s brown shirt that he had on at the Texas theater that matched threads on the MC rifle because Oswald CHANGED the reddish brown shirt he had on at TSBD when he got to his boarding house.
The fibres didn't necessarily have to come from that day, but Oswald's shirt fibres did match the fibres found on the rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, returning once more to this question of freshness. Would you say they had been placed there within 1 hour, or 1 day, or 1 week of the time when you received the rifle or longer?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I couldn't say in that regard to any period of time. I refer, by saying they appeared fresh, to the fact that the other fibers I removed from this gun were greasy, mashed, and broken, where these were fairly good long fibers. They were not dirty, with the exception of a little bit of fingerprint powder on them which I cleaned off, and the color was good. They were in good shape, not fragmented. They could conceivably have been put on 10 years ago and then the gun put aside and remain the same. Dust would have settled on them, would have changed their color a little bit, but as far as when they got on the gun, I wouldn't be able to say. This would just be speculation on my part.
One has to wonder also why an expired transfer bus ticket would be taken out of the pocket of the shirt taken off and placed into the pocket of the brown shirt put on. And why such ticket having been touched so by thumb and forefingers of the bus driver and then Oswald multiple times , would have no fingerprints in the ticket?
The fact that Oswald was discovered with the bus ticket on his person is more than enough evidence to prove that Oswald possessed the Bus Ticket.
And we know that McWatters the Bus Driver gave Oswald the Bus Transfer with the crescent punch because all the bus drivers have a different punch mark.
Mr. BALL - What did they tell you?
Mr. McWATTERS - Well, they told me that they had a transfer that I had issued that was cut for Lamar Street at 1 o'clock, and they wanted to know if I knew anything about it. And I, after I looked at the transfer and my punch, said yes, that is the transfer I issued because it had my punch mark on it.
Mr. BALL - Did your punch mark have a distinctive mark?
Mr. McWATTERS - It had a distinctive mark and it is registered, in other words, all the drivers, every driver has a different punch mark.
(https://www.money.org/uploads/2019/02/09/800_vkqi1ppy2xmjscgblxim.jpg)
JohnM
-
The fibres didn't necessarily have to come from that day,
Or that shirt.
-
McWatters the bus driver, gave testimony that seems to indicate he followed dutifully the rules of the bus company such as being on time to each bus stop.
He also explained the rule that transfer tickets
Were not to be issued earlier than 15 minutes from the expiration time.
So if McWatters was being consistent in his dedication to follow the company rules, then the ticket that allegedly was given to Oswald , being a 1:00 transfer ticket would not have been given to Oswald any earlier than 12:45.
Of course this completely upsets the timeline of getting Oswald to William Walleys taxi , which Walleys manifest record indicates an Oswald entering his cab not later than 12:45.
Fortunately and coincidentally for the WC, Mcwatters who had just given an ample amount of testimony about how he followed the rules, then explained how he often would hand out tickets earlier than 15 minutes, (a clear violation of the rules) which was quite a contradiction for a man who was portraying himself as a most dutifully employee.
One has to wonder if McWatters was under some pressure to help out the WC given this crucial time line that Needed to be established to fit Walleys manifest of 12:30-12:45 block.
Even with this “helpful” McWatters modification of breaking the company rule in just this one area, the time line STILL had problems because Oswald would not have arrived to his boarding room until 1:00 and then did not leave until 1:04.
So then the Markam 1:06-1:07 time stamp and the Bowley watch that read 1:10 had to be dismissed as mistaken times, and the DPD radio dispatch record of 1:16 being declared as the official time.
But they still had a problem , because of the 1:15 DOA time stamp from the emergency room doctor, which de facto would mean the ambulance had to have been dispatched at 1:10-1;11, because it takes approx 2 minutes of travel time from hospital to Tippet scene and back and about 30 secs to load body and unload body from ambulance, and to the actual room, thus arriving to doctor AT 1:15.
That would mean that Bowleys 1:10 watch WAS correct and that Bowleys radio call most likely was1:10:30, which then means the shooting of Tippet had to have been approx 1:07-1:08, because of Benavides having waited 2 minutes approx after the shooter had left the scene before Benavides went to Tippets car and attempted a call just preceding Bowley.
One attempted solution offered on this forum was that the 1:15 time stamp was NOT the doctor noting the time of the dead body arriving, rather it was the physicians “estimate” of when he thought the death of Tippet occurred.
So this why it’s so difficult to ascertain the “absolute” truth about the time line because of the witnesses own personal time estimates as well as the DOA time stamp of the emergency doctor, vs the DPD radio records, which do not appear to be reconcilable.
If the WC timeline is the “truth” then Markam & Bowley, must be wrong, McWatters must be accepted as an inconsistent dutiful employee who violated just one rule, allowing an earlier arrival of Oswald to Walleys taxi by 12:45 and the DOA 1:15 time stamp by the emergency doctor must be alternatively interpreted as “estimate of death” meaning Tippet was shot at 1:15.
This all to give Oswald the necessary 11 minutes required to “walk briskly” from leaving boarding room at 1:04 approx.
-
Yep, because whatever it takes.
BTW, there is no DPD radio dispatch record of 1:16.
-
Or that shirt.
That's true, no one ever denied that someone else who was wearing clothes including pants, socks, underwear or even a handy rag, made up of Oswald's shirt fibres could have come into contact with C2766, hence the usage of "probability".
But, and this is very important, the probability of a random contact is as Bugliosi tells us, is prohibitive.
At the end of the day, some random piece of material which contains not one but the same three threads with the same twists, same colour, same dye batch, same amount of fading, etc etc touched C2766
The FBI agrees
"Put another way, the chance of finding known fibers from a randomly selected suspect source that match the questioned fibers is remote"
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/april1999/houckch1.htm
(https://i.postimg.cc/C5ZrbCd0/brownshirtfibers-zpsrgyy13mq.jpg)
JohnM
-
That's true, no one ever denied that someone else who was wearing clothes including pants, socks, underwear or even a handy rag, made up of Oswald's shirt fibres could have come into contact with C2766, hence the usage of "probability".
“Oswald’s shirt fibers”. LOL.
But, and this is very important, the probability of a random contact is as Bugliosi tells us, is prohibitive.
Bugliosi doesn’t know what the probability is.
At the end of the day, some random piece of material which contains not one but the same three threads with the same twists, same colour, same dye batch, same amount of fading, etc etc touched C2766
Nobody ever determined anything about “same dye batch” or “same amount of fading”. Shame on you.
The FBI agrees
The relevant information is that it cannot be determined what the source of the fibers was. Everything else here is typical “Mytton” exaggeration.
-
“Oswald’s shirt fibers”. LOL.
Bugliosi doesn’t know what the probability is.
Nobody ever determined anything about “same dye batch” or “same amount of fading”. Shame on you.
The relevant information is that it cannot be determined what the source of the fibers was. Everything else here is typical “Mytton” exaggeration.
So out of the hundreds or perhaps thousands of Carcano's available in America, and the thousands or perhaps millions of shirts available in America at the time, Oswald was just unlucky enough to own a Carcano which someone else's shirt fibers which incidentally just happened to match his own shirt fibers, just happened to touch Oswald's rifle?
What an unlucky son of a gun!
Maybe he should of purchased a Lottery ticket instead of Killing the President?
JohnM
-
So out of the hundreds or perhaps thousands of Carcano's available in America, and the thousands or perhaps millions of shirts available in America at the time, Oswald was just unlucky enough to own a Carcano which someone else's shirt fibers which incidentally just happened to match his own shirt fibers, just happened to touch Oswald's rifle?
What an unlucky son of a gun!
Maybe he should of purchased a Lottery ticket instead of Killing the President?
JohnM
Oswald was just unlucky enough to own a Carcano
Prove that Oswald owned a Carcano and try not to use too many assumptions and leaps of faith!
-
Oswald was just unlucky enough to own a Carcano
Prove that Oswald owned a Carcano and try not to use too many assumptions and leaps of faith!
Hahahahahaha!
For the best part of a decade you have been desperately trying to prove that Oswald's rifle wasn't Oswald's rifle and so far you have been failing miserably, but do keep trying because your pathetic attempts are absolutely hilarious!
JohnM
-
Hahahahahaha!
For the best part of a decade you have been desperately trying to prove that Oswald's rifle wasn't Oswald's rifle and so far you have been failing miserably, but do keep trying because your pathetic attempts are absolutely hilarious!
JohnM
First of all, I have never been trying to prove that "Oswald's rifle" isn't Oswald's rifle. That's just another outright lie.
Secondly, you clearly can not prove that Oswald owned a Carcano, because if you could you would have shown it here instead of a pathetic attempt to pivot away from the question.
-
First of all, I have never been trying to prove that "Oswald's rifle" isn't Oswald's rifle. That's just another outright lie.
(https://i.postimg.cc/kM0fm14r/prove-dictionary.jpg)
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/prove
Using the above example;
Martin suspected that "Oswald's rifle" was not Oswald's rifle, but Martin could never prove it.
JohnM
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/kM0fm14r/prove-dictionary.jpg)
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/prove
Using the above example;
Martin suspected that "Oswald's rifle" was not Oswald's rifle, but Martin could never prove it.
JohnM
When you start to do your usual song and dance it simply means that you can't back up your pathetic claim with actual evidence.
Ridicule doesn't help you. I don't need to prove it was not Oswald's rifle. I don't even have to suspect that it wasn't Oswald's rifle.
You claimed it was his rifle so you are the one who needs to prove it.
But don't bother because you will never be able to do so and any further posts from you about the subject will be an even bigger waste of time than they usually are.
The bottom line is a simple one;
"John Mytton" claimed that Oswald owned a Carcano but can not prove it.
"John Mytton" claimed Kleins' sent a rifle to Oswald but can not prove it
"John Mytton" falsely claimed that the HSCA photographic panel confirmed Oswald was holding C2677 in the BY photos but not only can't he prove it, he has been proven a liar
See the pattern?
Thanks for playing, Johnny :D
-
But don't bother because you will never be able to do so and any further posts from you about the subject will be an even bigger waste of time than they usually are.
No worries, I knew you'd run away, cowards always run.
I've proved beyond all doubt with actual evidence that Oswald purchased C2766.
I've proved beyond all doubt with actual evidence that Oswald possessed C2766.
I've proved beyond all doubt with actual evidence that Oswald's rifle with his prints and matching shirt fibers was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace.
Btw reading your pathetic rebuttals while failing miserably and then watching you self destruct because you don't know the evidence is very satisfying.
(https://media.tenor.com/JIS_KDKKsgYAAAAd/guaton-computadora.gif)
And please keep looking stupid but this time come up with something new so I can destroy you all over again.
JohnM
-
No worries, I knew you'd run away, cowards always run.
I've proved beyond all doubt with actual evidence that Oswald purchased C2766.
I've proved beyond all doubt with actual evidence that Oswald possessed C2766.
I've proved beyond all doubt with actual evidence that Oswald's rifle with his prints and matching shirt fibers was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace.
Btw reading your pathetic rebuttals while failing miserably and then watching you self destruct because you don't know the evidence is very satisfying.
(https://media.tenor.com/JIS_KDKKsgYAAAAd/guaton-computadora.gif)
And please keep looking stupid but this time come up with something new so I can destroy you all over again.
JohnM
No worries, I knew you'd run away, cowards always run.
Well, you've had enough experiences over the past decade in running away and then project that on others. Nothing new there.
I've proved beyond all doubt with actual evidence that Oswald purchased C2766.
I've proved beyond all doubt with actual evidence that Oswald possessed C2766.
I've proved beyond all doubt with actual evidence that Oswald's rifle with his prints and matching shirt fibers was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace.
Ah the sound of total delusion..... In reality you haven't proven a thing as you are incapable of proving anything.
Btw reading your pathetic rebuttals while failing miserably and then watching you self destruct because you don't know the evidence is very satisfying.
So, not only completely delusional but also delusions of grandeur. Hilarious!
What I said;
any further posts from you about the subject will be an even bigger waste of time than they usually are.
has turned out to be completely accurate.... :D :D :D
And please keep looking stupid but this time come up with something new so I can destroy you all over again.
Why would I have to come up with something new, when you can't even deal with what is being discussed right now.
-
..... In reality you haven't proven a thing as you are incapable of proving anything.
Proven to whom, YOU, the King of Kooks??? Hahahahahahahaha!
JohnM
-
Proven to whom, YOU, the King of Kooks??? Hahahahahahahaha!
JohnM
Insults, ridicule, misrepresentations and delusions of grandeur is all you've got.
What you haven't got is a conclusive narrative or credible evidence to support your pathetically wild claims....
You behave like a 5 year old.
-
Insults, ridicule, misrepresentations and delusions of grandeur is all you've got.
What you haven't got is a conclusive narrative or credible evidence to support your pathetically wild claims....
You behave like a 5 year old.
Geez another meltdown!
What's amusing is that we have proven that you don't even know the basics of this case yet you've appointed yourself as some sort of ultimate arbiter but the painful reality is that, you just keep embarrassing yourself.
And please explain how your "Amazon" analogy is even slightly relevant?
JohnM
-
Geez another meltdown!
What's amusing is that we have proven that you don't even know the basics of this case yet you've appointed yourself as some sort of ultimate arbiter but the painful reality is that, you just keep embarrassing yourself.
And please explain how your "Amazon" analogy is even slightly relevant?
JohnM
Here you go again with that pathetic I/we "have proven" stuff when in reality you clearly don't even know what proof is.
And please explain how your "Amazon" analogy is even slightly relevant?
Because the answer is proof that your "Waldman confirmed that C2766 was sent" is utter BS.
-
And please explain how your "Amazon" analogy is even slightly relevant?
Because the answer is proof that your "Waldman confirmed that C2766 was sent" is utter BS.
You're very confused and are still making zero sense?
Let me get this straight, Amazon processes and records completed paperwork which says that they sent out to an exact address a package which contains a checkable specific serial numbered item by post/courier etc and on a certain date but in reality they don't send out the package?
JohnM
-
You're very confused and are still making zero sense?
Let me get this straight, Amazon processes and records completed paperwork which says that they sent out a package which contains a checkable specific serial numbered item by post/courier etc and on a certain date but in reality they don't send out the package?
JohnM
Never mind, John. I'll have better luck explaining it to a wall.
-
Never mind, John. I'll have better luck explaining it to a wall.
C'mon Martin, Let's explore this and see where it goes.
Amazon has stock in their inventory.
The stock is a specific item with a serial number say an Italian Carcano, Serial number C2766.
The paperwork indicates the item and serial number.
The paperwork is addressed to PO box 2915 Dallas Texas.
The paperwork is sent by PP Parcel Post.
The paperwork indicates it was sent on a specific date 3/20/63
A week later I don't receive the item so I complain, Amazon checks their inventory and search the entire complex for a very specific item and then Amazon tells me that the order was sent by parcel post and they don't have the item.
Conclusions
1. The packer steals the rifle. Not likely because the rifle got to despatch
2. Despatch steals the item. Is it worth losing your job for a war surplus 20 dollar rifle? Not likely, and they probably have staff discount.
3. It was lost in transit. Perhaps, it happens. But the package was sent.
4. The guy receiving the rifle at the post Office steals the large package. But even if a postal employee did do a five finger discount it doesn't conflict with our original premise that Amazon sent the item.
5. If the item wasn't received by me and I complained that I didn't receive the item, then Amazon would produce paperwork to record that a customer didn't receive the item and after a thorough search the item wasn't on the premises.
Therefore the rifle was sent and it went missing at some stage thereafter, thus negating your piss poor analogy.
Try again!
JohnM
-
C'mon Martin, Let's explore this and see where it goes.
Amazon has stock in their inventory.
The stock is a specific item with a serial number say an Italian Carcano, Serial number C2766.
The paperwork indicates the item and serial number.
The paperwork is addressed to PO box 2915 Dallas Texas.
The paperwork is sent by PP Parcel Post.
The paperwork indicates it was sent on a specific date 3/20/63
A week later I don't receive the item so I complain, Amazon checks their inventory and search the entire complex for a very specific item and then Amazon tells me that the order was sent by parcel post and they don't have the item.
Conclusions
1. The packer steals the rifle. Not likely because the rifle got to despatch
2. Despatch steals the item. Is it worth losing your job for a war surplus 20 dollar rifle? Not likely, and they probably have staff discount.
3. It was lost in transit. Perhaps, it happens. But the package was sent.
4. The guy receiving the rifle at the post Office steals the large package. But even if a postal employee did do a five finger discount it doesn't conflict with our original premise that Amazon sent the item.
5. If the item wasn't received by me and I complained that I didn't receive the item, then Amazon would produce paperwork to record that a customer didn't receive the item and after a thorough search the item wasn't on the premises.
Therefore the rifle was sent and it went missing at some stage thereafter, thus negating your piss poor analogy.
Try again!
JohnM
C'mon Martin, Let's explore this and see where it goes.
Yes, let's....
Conclusions
1. The packer steals the rifle. Not likely because the rifle got to despatch
2. Despatch steals the item. Is it worth losing your job for a war surplus 20 dollar rifle? Not likely, and they probably have staff discount.
3. It was lost in transit. Perhaps, it happens. But the package was sent.
4. The guy receiving the rifle at the post Office steals the large package. But even if a postal employee did do a five finger discount it doesn't conflict with our original premise that Amazon sent the item.
5. If the item wasn't received by me and I complained that I didn't receive the item, then Amazon would produce paperwork to record that a customer didn't receive the item and after a thorough search the item wasn't on the premises.
All these "conclusions" start with the assumption that the package was indeed sent and are thus meaningless, because there is no evidence, other than the supplier's paperwork, that the article had indeed been sent. But it is telling that you ruled out from the beginning the possibility that the supplier had indeed not sent the package! Talk about dishonesty.
Therefore the rifle was sent and it went missing at some stage thereafter.
This is such a pathetic level of selfserving "reasoning"!
If a customer does not receive the package that he orders, it's up to the supplier to prove that it was sent in the first place and there isn't a sane person in the world that would accept the supplier's claim that it was sent because their internal paperwork says so.
Only a fool would accept a supplier's word for it. It seems I'm talking to one of those, right now.
-
But it is telling that you ruled out from the beginning the possibility that the supplier had indeed not sent the package!
WOW!
That's absolutely Bonkers.
Please explain why a hugely financially successful company like Amazon or indeed Kleins would take an order, produce paperwork indicating a specific serial numbered item, method of transit and date of despatch and then wouldn't send out the requested item?
I've always known you've got a screw loose but interacting with you over the last few days has proved that you are rapidly going down hill and I'm starting to feel sorry for you.
Please Martin, get out and get help!
JohnM
-
WOW!
That's absolutely Bonkers.
Please explain why a hugely financially successful company like Amazon or indeed Kleins would take an order, produce paperwork indicating a specific serial numbered item, method of transit and date of despatch and then wouldn't send out the requested item?
I've always known you've got a screw loose but interacting with you over the last few days has proved that you are rapidly going down hill and I'm starting to feel sorry for you.
Please Martin, get out and get help!
JohnM
Ladies and gentlemen, we've found him!
The only fool in the whole world who would blindly accept it when a supplier claims (without proof) that a product he ordered, paid for but never received, was in fact sent out!
I've always known you've got a screw loose but interacting with you over the last few days has proved that you are rapidly going down hill and I'm starting to feel sorry for you.
Please Martin, get out and get help!
And there is the ad hom attack again.... a sure signal that Johnny has his balls in a twist. But considering that the guy who is saying this has demonstrated beyond any doubt to be dumber than a box of rocks with no capability of any kind of sound judgement, I'll just rub my shoulders and let it pass.
I'll just let him claim victory (which he will do) and move on to avoid too much exposure to his wacky idiotic world.
-
Ladies and gentlemen, we've found him!
The only fool in the whole world who would blindly accept it when a supplier claims (without proof) that a product he ordered, paid for but never received, was in fact sent out!
No worries Martin, I fully agree that some of the biggest companies became absolutely massive because they totally screwed over their customers, I mean why sell 1 item once when you can sell the same item over and over again, how could I be such a fool not to see the obvious, I'm so glad you educated me!
JohnM
-
There is the Backyard photo of Oswald holding an MC rifle that looks similar to the one that was lifted by Lt. Day in Tom Aleyas film footage.
There is a mail order receipt for an MC rifle from Kleins that has the name Alex Hidell written in some kind of letter style that some hand writing experts claim Is Oswald’s handwriting.
There is a P.O.Box addressed to Oswald with a secondary name Alex Hidell whom also could receive mail at that same address.
That’s about all the evidence there is to link Oswald to the MC rifle Lt. Day held up for the cameras.
But is that enough to really claim that Oswald actually owned that rifle or had possession of that rifle on 11/23/63?
Could not someone else have ordered the rifle, filled out an order form copying Oswald’s crude lettering, and opened a P.O.box using a fake Oswald ID and listing Alex Hidell as a secondary?
After all , there’s no mail clerk who ever came forward to Recount seeing an Oswald or someone representing themselves as Oswald, or having seen a long narrow box or seen whom picked up a long box at the post office.
So somebody else could have ordered the rifle and picked it up and gave it to Oswald with instruction to have himself photographed with it in hand.
Then the rifle could have been stolen from Oswald sometime later, wherever he kept it, whether at the Paines garage or at his boarding room.
An MC rifle could have been pre planted on 6th floor inside a wooden pallet stacked with boxes ( Walt Cakebread theory) on the early AM hour of 11/23/63, by a gunman who entered the unsecured TSBD. He hid on the 7th floor until about 12:10 pm when he came down to the 6th floor with his semi auto folding stock rifle w/center mounted scope , and he was momentarily near the SW 6th floor window spotted by Arnold Rowland. He had to retreat because of seeing Bonnie Ray Williams, but the gunman returned after BRW left the floor about 12:24, and the gunman placed a box on the SE window ledge just before 12:25 when it was captured in the Bronson film.
-
None of the juvenile “Mytton” posturing in the world can make up for the fact that Waldman had no personal knowledge of any particular rifle being shipped through the postal service, or even who circled “PP” on the Waldman 7 picture, when it was circled, or why.
Where is the evidence that the USPS ever handled such an item? Where is the evidence that anybody signed for it and picked it up?
Sometimes what you don’t have evidence of is more important than what you do have.
-
Sometimes what you don’t have evidence of is more important than what you do have.
Yes, if Oswald didn't receive his rifle then naturally he would complain and Kleins would be expected to have to some sort record of how they handled his non delivery but alas no evidence appears to exist. Meaning that Oswald's rifle was delivered.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QtRXsZqy/Oswald-s-Backyard-photo-a.jpg)
JohnM
-
Yes, if Oswald didn't receive his rifle then naturally he would complain and Kleins would be expected to have to some sort record of how they handled his non delivery but alas no evidence appears to exist. Meaning that Oswald's rifle was delivered.
JohnM
Hilariously stupid.
First of all, if Kleins' "would be expected to have to some sort record of how they handled his a non delivery" they can also be expected to have evidence (i.e. some sort of shipping document) for every transaction. The mere fact that no such document exists, for the Hidell transaction, could very well mean that the article was never shipped in the first place.
A reason for the absence of a shipping document could very well be that the transaction was cancelled because Kleins' no longer stocked the rifle ordered!
no evidence appears to exist. Meaning that Oswald's rifle was delivered.
It's getting more idiotic; how in the world does the absence of a proper shipping document even remotely mean that a rifle was delivered.
Bottom line; Waldman had no first hand knowledge of the Hidell transaction. All he could do is confirm the meaning of some handwritten markings on an internal document. Kleins' was never able to produce any shipping document that proves a rifle was actually sent.
I hope you learned something, but I fear the worst....
-
Hilariously stupid.
First of all, if Kleins' "would be expected to have to some sort record of how they handled his a non delivery" they can also be expected to have evidence (i.e. some sort of shipping document) for every transaction. The mere fact that no such document exists, for the Hidell transaction, could very well mean that the article was never shipped in the first place.
A reason for the absence of a shipping document could very well be that the transaction was cancelled because Kleins' no longer stocked the rifle ordered!
no evidence appears to exist. Meaning that Oswald's rifle was delivered.
It's getting more idiotic; how in the world does the absence of a proper shipping document even remotely mean that a rifle was delivered.
Bottom line; Waldman had no first hand knowledge of the Hidell transaction. All he could do is confirm the meaning of some handwritten markings on an internal document. Kleins' was never able to produce any shipping document that proves a rifle was actually sent.
I hope you learned something, but I fear the worst....
Thank you Martin, of course you are right.
JohnM
-
Yes, if Oswald didn't receive his rifle then naturally he would complain and Kleins would be expected to have to some sort record of how they handled his non delivery but alas no evidence appears to exist. Meaning that Oswald's rifle was delivered.
“His rifle”. LOL.
So you expect Klein’s to have “some record of non-delivery”, but not the postal service to have some record of shipment or delivery. How convenient.
-
So you expect Klein’s to have “some record of non-delivery”,
A mail order company's bread and butter comes directly from packages being successfully delivered and if a package isn't received by a customer, then someone would record the eventual outcome.
I don't know Kleins exact procedure because in the case being discussed there is no presented evidence of an unsuccessful delivery.
JohnM
-
A mail order company's bread and butter comes directly from packages being successfully delivered and if a package isn't received by a customer, then someone would record the eventual outcome.
I don't know Kleins exact procedure because in the case being discussed there is no presented evidence of an unsuccessful delivery.
JohnM
HAHAHAHA There is also no evidence of a successful delivery.
-
HAHAHAHA There is also no evidence of a successful delivery.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QtRXsZqy/Oswald-s-Backyard-photo-a.jpg)
JohnM
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/QtRXsZqy/Oswald-s-Backyard-photo-a.jpg)
JohnM
Wrong again. At best it's evidence of a very poor leap of faith based on no evidence whatsoever.
The mere fact that somebody is photographed holding a rifle doesn't mean he owns it, nor does it mean he received it in the mail.
Care to try again?
-
Yes, if Oswald didn't receive his rifle then naturally he would complain and Kleins would be expected to have to some sort record of how they handled his non delivery but alas no evidence appears to exist. Meaning that Oswald's rifle was delivered.
But then you’re assuming that Oswald ever ordered a rifle.
I supposed you consider your imagination about what records would be kept to be evidence too. Everything that pops into your head is “evidence”.
Let see… if the postal service had shipped and delivered such a package they would be expected to have some sort of records of shipment and delivery. Meaning that it was never shipped and delivered.
Hoist by the petard of your own bad argument.
-
HAHAHAHA There is also no evidence of a successful delivery.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QtRXsZqy/Oswald-s-Backyard-photo-a.jpg)
LOL.
-
Yes, if Oswald didn't receive his rifle then naturally he would complain and Kleins would be expected to have to some sort record of how they handled his non delivery but alas no evidence appears to exist. Meaning that Oswald's rifle was delivered.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QtRXsZqy/Oswald-s-Backyard-photo-a.jpg)
JohnM
This is all just speculation.
-
This is all just speculation.
Sure, I was posed with a hypothetical scenario by Martin and speculated on how a non-delivery would be resolved but as we both know, the reality is that the rifle purchase was completed as proven by the Back yard photos.
Read the thread and learn how Martin desperately grasps at straws to keep the rifle out of Oswald's hands, it's all very strange.
JohnM
-
Sure, I was posed with a hypothetical scenario by Martin and speculated on how a non-delivery would be resolved but as we both know, the reality is that the rifle purchase was completed as proven by the Back yard photos.
Read the thread and learn how Martin desperately grasps at straws to keep the rifle out of Oswald's hands, it's all very strange.
JohnM
I've known for some time now that you have great difficulty grasping even the most basic concepts, but this one is way out there.
A guy in a poor quality picture is holding a rifle and that's somehow proof that "the rifle purchase was completed"?
LOL
-
I've known for some time now that you have great difficulty grasping even the most basic concepts, but this one is way out there.
A guy in a poor quality picture is holding a rifle and that's somehow proof that "the rifle purchase was completed"?
LOL
Thanks for your opinion.
JohnM
-
Thanks for your opinion.
JohnM
I'm glad that you finally understand that your usual BS just isn't working, no matter how often you repeat it.
-
Sure, I was posed with a hypothetical scenario by Martin and speculated on how a non-delivery would be resolved but as we both know, the reality is that the rifle purchase was completed as proven by the Back yard photos.
"proven". LOL.
-
All the Back Yard Photo does is show Oswald able to stand in a pose with a rifle in a stance that appears he had a double jointed knee and could balance off center in way which no one else seems to able to replicate.
Anyone have a photo of a person with a backwards jointed knee and holding an MC rifle off center like Oswald appears to be doing in the BYP?
It would be most helpful in determining if this BYP was possible , because so far, all the photos I’ve seen of people trying to pose EXACTLY as Oswald did, have NOT matched the BYP.
-
All the Back Yard Photo does is show Oswald able to stand in a pose with a rifle in a stance that appears he had a double jointed knee and could balance off center in way which no one else seems to able to replicate.
Anyone have a photo of a person with a backwards jointed knee and holding an MC rifle off center like Oswald appears to be doing in the BYP?
It would be most helpful in determining if this BYP was possible , because so far, all the photos I’ve seen of people trying to pose EXACTLY as Oswald did, have NOT matched the BYP.
A photo is just a snapshot in time.
(https://image1.masterfile.com/getImage/NjQ5LTA4MTI1NDg4ZW4uMDAwMDAwMDA=AO9YBo/649-08125488en_Masterfile.jpg)
As for the backyard photos, it's been well established that the same camera that took Oswald's family photo came from the same camera, upon microscopic examination the film grain is consistent across the whole frame meaning no compositing, the growth of the plants clearly indicates that the photo was taken many months before any assassination. Just accept that the photos show Oswald holding the exact type of rifle that was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace and start any conspiracy from that point, like Oswald was tricked into holding the rifle or perhaps consider the obvious that Oswald was standing with the rifle he just got from Kleins.
JohnM
-
A photo is just a snapshot in time.
(https://image1.masterfile.com/getImage/NjQ5LTA4MTI1NDg4ZW4uMDAwMDAwMDA=AO9YBo/649-08125488en_Masterfile.jpg)
As for the backyard photos, it's been well established that the same camera that took Oswald's family photo came from the same camera, upon microscopic examination the film grain is consistent across the whole frame meaning no compositing, the growth of the plants clearly indicates that the photo was taken many months before any assassination. Just accept that the photos show Oswald holding the exact type of rifle that was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace and start any conspiracy from that point, like Oswald was tricked into holding the rifle or perhaps consider the obvious that Oswald was standing with the rifle he just got from Kleins.
JohnM
Just accept that the photos show Oswald holding the exact type of rifle that was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace
Why would he accept that? Just because you say so? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
There likely were thousands of rifles of "the exact type of rifle" and you, even after 60 years are still not able to prove that the rifle found at the TSBD is the same one Oswald was holding in the photos.
It's all assumptions and leaps of faith and you call it "evidence" :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
There likely were thousands of rifles
Cite? LOL
We are not talking about any old rifle but a very specific 40 inch Italian Carcano not the 36 inch model but the 40 inch Italian Carcano and at the time Texas had a population of over ten million people, so Oswald is photographed with the exact same type of 40 inch Italian Carcano and this photo is taken just after Kleins sent the 40 inch Italian Carcano to Oswald's PO Box. Geez how unlucky is Oswald!
And again that poor unlucky Oswald is confronted with yet another obscure coincidence, which leads straight to the same type of 40 inch Italian Carcano found on the 6th floor of the very place where he works, that guy can't catch a break and another powerful coincidence is the 40 inch Italian Carcano found on the 6th floor just happens to have the same serial number of the 40 inch Italian Carcano that Kleins sent to Oswald's PO BOX. Poor poor Oswald! LOL
Also worth noting and of considerable importance is that Kleins at the time just started changing their ads to the 40 inch Italian Carcano. Ouch!
JohnM
-
Cite? LOL
We are not talking about any old rifle but a very specific 40 inch Italian Carcano not the 36 inch model but the 40 inch Italian Carcano and at the time Texas had a population of over ten million people, so Oswald is photographed with the exact same type of 40 inch Italian Carcano and this photo is taken just after Kleins sent the 40 inch Italian Carcano to Oswald's PO Box. Geez how unlucky is Oswald!
And again that poor unlucky Oswald is confronted with yet another obscure coincidence, which leads straight to the same type of 40 inch Italian Carcano found on the 6th floor of the very place where he works, that guy can't catch a break and another powerful coincidence is the 40 inch Italian Carcano found on the 6th floor just happens to have the same serial number of the 40 inch Italian Carcano that Kleins sent to Oswald's PO BOX. Poor poor Oswald! LOL
Also worth noting and of considerable importance is that Kleins at the time just started changing their ads to the 40 inch Italian Carcano. Ouch!
JohnM
What are you babbling about?
We are not talking about any old rifle but a very specific 40 inch Italian Carcano not the 36 inch model but the 40 inch Italian Carcano
What is so specific about a 40 inch MC?
and at the time Texas had a population of over ten million people,
What does that have to do with anything? You're all over the place
Oswald is photographed with the exact same type of 40 inch Italian Carcano and this photo is taken just after Kleins sent the 40 inch Italian Carcano to Oswald's PO Box.
Two massive assumption don't make it a fact.
Oswald is confronted with yet another obscure coincidence, which leads straight to the same type of 40 inch Italian Carcano found on the 6th floor of the very place where he works,
I don't believe in coincidences. If Oswald was indeed set up as a patsy, what better way than have him photographed holding a rifle that would later be found on the 6th floor?
The argument goes both ways. You just prefer one version and reject the other. That's what happens when you have an agenda.
another powerful coincidence is the 40 inch Italian Carcano found on the 6th floor just happens to have the same serial number of the 40 inch Italian Carcano that Kleins sent to Oswald's PO BOX.
There is no evidence whatsoever to show that any rifle was sent to Oswald's PO box, nor is there anyway to authenticate Waldman 7, which is the only document that has a serial number handwritten on it.
You keep going round in circles and it's getting you nowhere.
-
As for the backyard photos, it's been well established that the same camera that took Oswald's family photo came from the same camera,
BS: At best you can only say that about the one photo that a negative exists for. But even that doesn't preclude a composite being re-photographed.
Just accept that the photos show Oswald holding the exact type of rifle that was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace and start any conspiracy from that point,
"exact type of rifle". LOL.
-
We are not talking about any old rifle but a very specific 40 inch Italian Carcano not the 36 inch model but the 40 inch Italian Carcano and at the time Texas had a population of over ten million people, so Oswald is photographed with the exact same type of 40 inch Italian Carcano
How did you determine the rifle in the photos is a "40 inch Italian Carcano". Oh yeah, you did nothing but simply claiming it.
and this photo is taken just after Kleins sent the 40 inch Italian Carcano to Oswald's PO Box. Geez how unlucky is Oswald!
"Kleins sent the 40 inch Italian Carcano to Oswald's PO Box". LOL.
-
@ John Mytton
It’s not so much that your presentations are irrational, because there is a probability that some of the evidence and some of the witnesses are correct to some percentage that we the “jury” can overcome some of our many doubts about the general WC theory and decide that only this one kook person killed JFK without really even much of a motive other than simply “opportunity”.
You and Bill Brown are the champion defenders of the WC theory to such extent that there seems to be no willingness on your part to at least modify the general WC theory to account for some of the timeline issues.
For example, the escape timeline from the SN to the 2nd floor lunchroom is basically LOCKED to an absolute not later than 90 secs post shots, and it is often presented that the meeting most likely occurred earlier than that because of the WC time trial establishing a possible earliest time of approx 75 sec post shots.
Why does this particular time of not later than 90 secs max HAVE to be the absolute truth?
Is it because of Mrs Reid who interjected herself in the equation with her particular story of ascended to the the 2nd floor office BY HERSELF and NOT in the company of any other employees?
Note: an assertion contradicted by Geneva Hines who witnessed Reid entering the office in the company of other employees.
Why not minimize Mrs Reid similar to Carolyn Arnold, Arnold Rowland, Dorothy Garner, etc. so that the 90 sec absolute can be adjusted with some degree of reasonable probability to allow the extra time Oswald would have needed on the 6th floor to wipe his prints off the rifle, and hiding it, as well to accommodate the “rifle slowly withdrawn”sighting by Bob Jackson and Malcolm Couch?
Just 15 secs longer than 90 secs and reassessing Mrs Reid as probably mistaken about an earlier meeting seeing Oswald in just a t-shirt , would resolve the time line problem.
Also, Imo, it is a mistake to avoid Mrs Garner and to alter Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles timing issue by just claiming it was 3 minutes post shots rather than 60 secs post shots of the 2 girls reaching the ground floor.
If Mrs Reid could be minimized as an “uncertain” witness, due to her WC testimony of not really knowing the time, and Bakers own judgement that the time of meeting Oswald was probably 1min 30 secs at least ( which implies it could have been even a bit later ie: 2 min) , then the time line issue for the escape route is 90% resolved.
The remaining 10% is Mrs Garners statement of having exited the 4th floor following Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles using the phrases “almost immediately” and “right behind them”, which is a time not exactly established in terms of secs. All that is known is that apparently Mrs Garner modified her original statement of “seeing” Adams and Styles go down the stairs to “hearing them” going down when Garner reached the staircase herself.
So there WAS an opportunity by Barry Ernest who was interviewing Garner to ask the question “What exactly did you hear on the staircase” or “ Did you hear just creaking noises or did you actually hear Adams and Styles voices or heels clacking?
Unfortunately , the question still remains as to exactly when Mrs Garner exits the 4th floor office door that allows her a clear LOS to the rear staircase and could she state definitely hearing Adams/Styles or did Garner just hear creaking noises on the steps?
If the later, then the other 10% of the problem is resolved, as it would be possible for Oswald to descend in a gap of time between A/S exiting the 4th floor office and Mrs Garner exiting and the noise of creaking heard was actually Oswald.
-
@ John Mytton
It’s not so much that your presentations are irrational, because there is a probability that some of the evidence and some of the witnesses are correct to some percentage that we the “jury” can overcome some of our many doubts about the general WC theory and decide that only this one kook person killed JFK without really even much of a motive other than simply “opportunity”.
You and Bill Brown are the champion defenders of the WC theory to such extent that there seems to be no willingness on your part to at least modify the general WC theory to account for some of the timeline issues.
For example, the escape timeline from the SN to the 2nd floor lunchroom is basically LOCKED to an absolute not later than 90 secs post shots, and it is often presented that the meeting most likely occurred earlier than that because of the WC time trial establishing a possible earliest time of approx 75 sec post shots.
Why does this particular time of not later than 90 secs max HAVE to be the absolute truth?
Is it because of Mrs Reid who interjected herself in the equation with her particular story of ascended to the the 2nd floor office BY HERSELF and NOT in the company of any other employees?
Note: an assertion contradicted by Geneva Hines who witnessed Reid entering the office in the company of other employees.
Why not minimize Mrs Reid similar to Carolyn Arnold, Arnold Rowland, Dorothy Garner, etc. so that the 90 sec absolute can be adjusted with some degree of reasonable probability to allow the extra time Oswald would have needed on the 6th floor to wipe his prints off the rifle, and hiding it, as well to accommodate the “rifle slowly withdrawn”sighting by Bob Jackson and Malcolm Couch?
Just 15 secs longer than 90 secs and reassessing Mrs Reid as probably mistaken about an earlier meeting seeing Oswald in just a t-shirt , would resolve the time line problem.
Also, Imo, it is a mistake to avoid Mrs Garner and to alter Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles timing issue by just claiming it was 3 minutes post shots rather than 60 secs post shots of the 2 girls reaching the ground floor.
If Mrs Reid could be minimized as an “uncertain” witness, due to her WC testimony of not really knowing the time, and Bakers own judgement that the time of meeting Oswald was probably 1min 30 secs at least ( which implies it could have been even a bit later ie: 2 min) , then the time line issue for the escape route is 90% resolved.
The remaining 10% is Mrs Garners statement of having exited the 4th floor following Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles using the phrases “almost immediately” and “right behind them”, which is a time not exactly established in terms of secs. All that is known is that apparently Mrs Garner modified her original statement of “seeing” Adams and Styles go down the stairs to “hearing them” going down when Garner reached the staircase herself.
So there WAS an opportunity by Barry Ernest who was interviewing Garner to ask the question “What exactly did you hear on the staircase” or “ Did you hear just creaking noises or did you actually hear Adams and Styles voices or heels clacking?
Unfortunately , the question still remains as to exactly when Mrs Garner exits the 4th floor office door that allows her a clear LOS to the rear staircase and could she state definitely hearing Adams/Styles or did Garner just hear creaking noises on the steps?
If the later, then the other 10% of the problem is resolved, as it would be possible for Oswald to descend in a gap of time between A/S exiting the 4th floor office and Mrs Garner exiting and the noise of creaking heard was actually Oswald.
It’s not so much that your presentations are irrational...
Just a hint, if you expect me to read past your opening sentence, this is definitely not the way to start!
JohnM
-
Sorry Mr. Bugliosi Dangerfield :)
I personally think you are VERY rational, and I follow your arguments and agree about 50% or more and struggle with questions you ask such as “How did the MC rifle get to 6th floor?
-
Just a hint, if you expect me to read past your opening sentence, this is definitely not the way to start!
JohnM
Can't handle the truth? :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
Can't handle the truth? :D :D :D :D :D :D
You're ruining this Forum.
There was once a lot of bright and sincere conspiracy theorists who used to post here but clearly they don't want to be associated with a nasty bully like you.
I hope you're proud of yourself.
JohnM
-
You're ruining this Forum.
There was once a lot of bright and sincere conspiracy theorists who used to post here but clearly they don't want to be associated with a nasty bully like you.
I hope you're proud of yourself.
JohnM
Hilarious...
A classic way over the top response from a cry baby who dishes it out but can't take it when he is confronted with opposition. Perhaps if you stopped misleading people by misrepresenting evidence and for once tried to have a rational debate things might be different. But instead you turn nasty every time one of your flawed arguments get you in trouble and you get stuck. Don't be surprised to get pay back in kind.
-
Hilarious...
A classic way of the top response from a cry baby who dishes it out but can't take it when he is confronted with opposition. Perhaps if you stopped misleading people by misrepresenting evidence and for once tried to have a rational debate things might be different. But instead you turn nasty every time one of your flawed arguments gets you in trouble and you get stuck. Don't be surprised to get pay back in kind.
Thanks for proving my point.
JohnM
-
Thanks for proving my point.
JohnM
Whatever.....
Several years ago, I was with some friends in Las Vegas and we were watching this one guy making a killing at a poker table. He was winning time after time. Then, one of my friends, who is a professional poker player, asked if he could join the game. When he did, the guy doing all the winning started to lose. He got so frustrated that at some point he just said;
"You're ruining this game"
A reasonable man would have replied to my comment by suggesting we both take a step back and do away with the animosity and try to have a normal debate, but it seems that isn't you, right?
-
A reasonable man would have replied to my comment by suggesting we both take a step back and do away with the animosity and try to have a normal debate, but it seems that isn't you, right?
You had your chance and decided to call me more names, then you try this tact.
C'mon Martin from the time I recently came back you've been constantly insulting and bullying me and I made the mistake of attempting to teach you a lesson by treating you with the same animosity but if anything you doubled down with the aggression.
I now accept that you are indeed passionate and will misrepresent me, ignore what challenges your world view and debate with the same arguments as any other conspiracy theorist but you say you aren't a conspiracy theorist, and I'm OK with that, carry on!
JohnM
-
You had your chance and decided to call me more names, then you try this tact.
C'mon Martin from the time I recently came back you've been constantly insulting and bullying me I made the mistake of attempting to teach you a lesson treating you with the same animosity but if anything you doubled down with the aggression.
I now accept that you are indeed passionate and will misrepresent me, ignore what challenges your world view and debate with the same arguments as any other conspiracy theorist but you say you aren't a conspiracy theorist, and I'm OK with that, carry on!
JohnM
You had your chance and decided to call me more names, then you try this tact.
Thank you for showing your true colors.
I made the mistake of attempting to teach you a lesson
He said.... arrogantly
I now accept that you are indeed passionate and will misrepresent me, ignore what challenges your world view and debate with the same arguments as any other conspiracy theorist but you say you aren't a conspiracy theorist, and I'm OK with that, carry on!
Hilarious.
-
I made the mistake of attempting to teach you a lesson by treating you with the same animosity but if anything you doubled down with the aggression.
Who are you trying to kid? Your demeanor is the same as it has always been.
-
Who are you trying to kid? Your demeanor is the same as it has always been.
Thumb1:
-
Who are you trying to kid?
Well John, obviously not you!
JohnM
-
Sorry Mr. Bugliosi Dangerfield :)
I personally think you are VERY rational, and I follow your arguments and agree about 50% or more and struggle with questions you ask such as “How did the MC rifle get to 6th floor?
No worries Mr Robot, and thank you. Thumb1:
I also appreciate your honesty, and yes if it wasn't Oswald then “How did the MC rifle get to 6th floor?" is a doozy.
Some hardcore CT's suggest that C2766 was not sent to Oswald, and that the 40 inch Carcano photographed with Oswald just after it was "supposedly" sent by Kliens is just a coincidence, yet this coincidence they can never explain but for some reason it's my fault to insist that it's a reasonable inference to reach the logical conclusion based on the still not disproven evidence.
As I have said previously, to go to such absurd lengths to keep C2766 out of Oswald's hands is detrimental to the Conspiracy cause and it would be far better just to accept it and find some other tree to bark up.
Just imagine in court that some conspiracy biased lawyer tried to Defend Oswald, with the very basic philosophy that almost every bit of evidence was faked, planted, and lied about and that all the Civilian eyewitnesses were mistaken etc etc, said Lawyer would be laughed out of court, yet here on this Forum, some members do exactly that and they congratulate each other with thumbs up. Hilarious!
JohnM
-
What’s hilarious is that “Mytton” thinks appeals to ignorance and shifting the burden are effective arguments for his fantasy conclusion.
-
What’s hilarious is that “Mytton” thinks appeals to ignorance and shifting the burden are effective arguments for his fantasy conclusion.
This is the perfect encapsulation of the faith based Conspiracy Mind set. Btw I like how you search through various "argument fallacy" lists and present inappropriate fallacies/appeals that set you up as yet another evidence avoiding, self serving arbiter. Also from previous interactions, whenever I see you put my Forum name in quotes, you are stuck, will predictably lack any meaningful refuation and will present a nonsense diversionary tactic which is perfectly illustrated in your above response. Thanks for being so boringly predictable.
The CT's dismiss the evidence for the most absurd reasons and keep demanding that the Proven Evidence needs to bne Proven to some newly invented unreasonable standard by essentially splitting the split hair, then claim it's my burden to reprove some newly thought up objection. It's truly never ending.
Using my example that you responded to.
The coupon, envelope and Waldman 7 in Kleins completed business documents which all indicate Oswald's return PO Box which in any other case would be more than enough evidence to prove that someone sent an order then the order was fulfilled. But welcome to the Bonkers World of the ever more demanding Conspiracy Buff, where by their circular logic of "knowing" Oswald is innocent means something more is required and needs a new level of proof, or they conclude that this new evidence was faked or somebody lied, etc etc.
The original investigation went above and beyond the call of duty and tracked down the Money Order, established that Crescent sent Kleins C2766, found Lifschultz who transported C2766 and acquired the Kleins banking records. But how could the Warren Commission possibly be aware that this intricate level of intensive investigation still wouldn't be enough.
For example;
1. A member of this Forum who's new demand is that the writing on Kleins business document Waldman 7 needs verification. And if for some reason the WC could see the future and had a few words on Waldman 7 verified then the next split hair would be split even further and the usual someone must have lied or the form is fake, proves that something is sinister. There will never be evidence that will ever be satisfactory, the rabbit hole just gets deeper and deeper.
2. The microfilm is "missing"! For a start as far as I know, this has only been claimed by 1 CT(Armstrong) and even if true how is this relevant, Waldman verified the microfilm way back when the assassination actually happened, I doubt that 60 years later that any one is left alive that can verify it's authenticity but every time the microfilm is mentioned some "clever" Ct adds "missing", because in their mind it must mean conspiracy! Obviously nothing new from this microfilm can be proved but so what, it's "MISSING"!!
3. In the verified Oswald documents, I haven't seen any examples besides the Hidell revolver coupon, where Oswald was forced into writing in a very small area. But with next to no samples of scrunched up writing to compare, another member here casts doubt because only 2 Block letters could be matched, No Kidding Einstein! But the envelope where Oswald had plenty of room to write had plenty of matches but for some reason said member wants to separate this single Microfilm image into two because they could be separate orders?, but if there was actually two different separate images for the Coupon and Envelope then by the above reasoning it would be up to the honest LNer to prove that they were part of the same order. Round and round we go.
4. The money order has a solid chain of custody so the keen CT first casts doubt and attacks any authority figure along this chain but having no luck, starts attacking the Money Order itself, and again we have amateurs with no banking experience deciding the inauthenticity of the Money Order. Madness. Luckily Lance from the Ed Forum put this issue to bed, well until the next time, when a new split hair is split.
5. The Dallas Post Office must have someone who remembered giving the rifle package to Oswald. Another unrealistic request considering the length of time and the number of packages that they deal with on a daily basis.
I could go on but why bother, there will NEVER be enough evidence for the true Buff and anyone and their dog can invent some new unattainable or missing piece of evidence and then create doubt because this evidence MUST be produced or there MUST be a conspiracy. For just 1 of many avenues for conspiracy, I have demonstrated the amount of effort required to magically create the Hidell persona, but still I am required to prove the already proven evidence to some unknown or knowingly unattainable standard that it's all authentic, then the hollow victory is declared. It's all a bit sad really.
The modern CT can't see the forest for the trees.
JohnM
-
Btw I like how you search through various "argument fallacy" lists and present inappropriate fallacies/appeals that set you up as yet another evidence avoiding, self serving arbiter.
Uh, that’s what you recently did when you trotted out 5 logical fallacies that didn’t even apply in some sort of retaliatory hissy fit.
Also from previous interactions, whenever I see you put my Forum name in quotes, you are stuck, will predictably lack any meaningful refuation and will present a nonsense diversionary tactic which is perfectly illustrated in your above response.
No, I put “Mytton” in quotes because it’s not your name.
The CT's dismiss the evidence for the most absurd reasons and keep demanding that the Proven Evidence needs to bne Proven to some newly invented unreasonable standard by essentially splitting the split hair, then claim it's my burden to reprove some newly thought up objection. It's truly never ending.
Reliable and conclusive evidence that proves your claims beyond a reasonable doubt. How “unreasonable” ::)
The coupon, envelope and Waldman 7 in Kleins completed business documents which all indicate Oswald's return PO Box which in any other case would be more than enough evidence to prove that someone sent an order then the order was fulfilled.
No, in “any other case” something that isn’t evidence of shipment isn’t evidence of shipment.
But welcome to the Bonkers World of the ever more demanding Conspiracy Buff, where by their circular logic of "knowing" Oswald is innocent means something more is required and needs a new level of proof, or they conclude that this new evidence was faked or somebody lied, etc etc.
Strawman. Next?
The original investigation went above and beyond the call of duty and tracked down the Money Order, established that Crescent sent Kleins C2766, found Lifschultz who transported C2766 and acquired the Kleins banking records. But how could the Warren Commission possibly be aware that this intricate level of intensive investigation still wouldn't be enough.
“The Warren Commission worked really hard, therefore their conclusions were correct”.
2. The microfilm is "missing"! For a start as far as I know, this has only been claimed by 1 CT(Armstrong) and even if true how is this relevant, Waldman verified the microfilm way back when the assassination actually happened, I doubt that 60 years later that any one is left alive that can verify it's authenticity but every time the microfilm is mentioned some "clever" Ct adds "missing", because in their mind it must mean conspiracy! Obviously nothing new from this microfilm can be proved but so what, it's "MISSING"!!
Waldman didn’t “verify” anything. For one thing he had nothing to do with filling the orders, generating the paperwork or creating the microfilm. Also, the microfilm was confiscated before he ever looked at it. As such, he was a very curious pick for the WC to interview.
3. In the verified Oswald documents, I haven't seen any examples besides the Hidell revolver coupon, where Oswald was forced into writing in a very small area. But with next to no samples of scrunched up writing to compare, another member here casts doubt because only 2 Block letters could be matched, No Kidding Einstein! But the envelope where Oswald had plenty of room to write had plenty of matches but for some reason said member wants to separate this single Microfilm image into two because they could be separate orders?, but if there was actually two different separate images for the Coupon and Envelope then by the above reasoning it would be up to the honest LNer to prove that they were part of the same order. Round and round we go.
4. The money order has a solid chain of custody so the keen CT first casts doubt and attacks any authority figure along this chain but having no luck, starts attacking the Money Order itself, and again we have amateurs with no banking experience deciding the inauthenticity of the Money Order. Madness. Luckily Lance from the Ed Forum put this issue to bed, well until the next time, when a new split hair is split.
5. The Dallas Post Office must have someone who remembered giving the rifle package to Oswald. Another unrealistic request considering the length of time and the number of packages that they deal with on a daily basis.
I could go on but why bother, there will NEVER be enough evidence for the true Buff and anyone and their dog can invent some new unattainable or missing piece of evidence and then create doubt because this evidence MUST be produced or there MUST be a conspiracy. For just 1 of many avenues for conspiracy, I have demonstrated the amount of effort required to magically create the Hidell persona, but still I am required to prove the already proven evidence to some unknown or knowingly unattainable standard that it's all authentic, then the hollow victory is declared. It's all a bit sad really.
This long rant basically amounts to whining that finding good evidence to support your claims is too hard, therefore questionable evidence or non-evidence should be “good enough” because that’s the best you can do. And your faith demands that you believe it, regardless. Therefore, so should everybody else.
-
The problem is that it just seems incredibly stupid that Oswald would have used his P.O. Box to list a secondary fake name to receive mail at that same address.
If Oswald could make a fake ID then why not just open a P.O. Box addressed ONLY to that fake name and then there’s virtually no link to himself , since in 1963 there were not many cameras recording people in real time as much as in 2023.
Because Oswald seemed fairly smart in his ability to get in and out of the U.S.S.R. and was able to speak fluent Russian, then is it not plausible to suggest that Oswald was NOT a stupid person?
Somewhere I read that Oswald’s IQ was only 108, but I don’t know if that’s really true or if it could be part of an CIA defector program to hide the true ability of Oswald if he were in fact a CIA operative in such program.
There’s also the stupidity of ordering a rifle by mail and creating a paper trail when it would have been just as easy to buy a rifle from some shady gun dealer for cash.
Then there’s the curiosity of leaving the serial no.on the rifle and the pistol and why not get the pistol from some other shady character instead of ordering it by mail?
Since there appears to be some evidence of Oswald having had a meticulous plan of finding Gen Walker, getting to the scene by bus or other means and carrying a rifle without being seen, it’s reasonable to question why Oswald would make it so easy to trace a rifle and a pistol to himself , when he had other options which if he were such a meticulous person, then he theoretically should have figured out a better plan.
Oswald having his wife take a picture of himself holding an MC rifle was pretty stupid also, if he were intending to use an MC rifle in any criminal act, so it’s either a case of kook stupidity, or it’s a case of Oswald being set up somehow, or believing himself to be on some CIA mission whether real or imagined.
-
There are a multitude of witnesses who confirm Oswald was elsewhere in the known timeframe that makes your premise impossible. Not a single one of Oswald's coworkers put him there.
These same "multitude of witnesses", Mr. Smith, were given a hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure to parrot back, nothing more, nothing less. The deception surrounding the events at 10th & Patton were nothing more than a crafty invention placing the wrongly-accused nowhere near where he truly was (still in Dealey Plaza post-assassination time @ 1:12PM CST). Please spare those of us reading along here the horse manure about the wrongly-accused even admitting to going to his rooming house (another clever deceptive rendering to place him in proximity of 10th & Patton, while stopping at his rooming house to fetch a fictitious pistol and change his shirt that he is wearing in Mr. Mentesana's film capture post-assassination time while still in Dealey Plaza and yet again at his midnight presser)...Care to explain that away, Mr. Smith? you want to usher in some "evidence" that suggests after supposedly changing his shirt he went back to the rooming house and switched back into his original-and-only shirt he wore that afternoon (in Dealey Plaza, in front of the shoe store, at the Texas Theatre, and once again at his midnight presser.
There is no audio recording of the wrongly-accused saying anything they said he said. Care to prove that assertion wrong, Mr. Smith? Cannot do it, can you? There's a reason for that. They said he said this or said that because they knew there would be no rebuttal...dead men cannot speak.
Now, to your 2nd comment, quote, Not a single one of Oswald's coworkers put him there, unquote
meaning the post-assassination time of 1:12Pm as depicted in Mr. Mentesana's film. Of course, none of his lying coworkers would dare come off script...
Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder. -- George Washington
yet both Mr. Williams (Bonnie) and Mr. Lovelady (Billy Nolan) watched him climb the entrance steps in the Hughes film post-assassination time as the wrongly-accused enters the TSBD building. The issue here for you and every LN is the wrongly-accused remains in the same shirt from post-assassination time 1:12PM as depicted by Mr. Mentesana's film right through to his midnight presser, further buttressed by the separate descriptions along the same timeline sequence given by employees at the shoe store and movie theatre respectively. Both of them describe the wrongly-accused's attire as depicted in Mr. Mentesana's film right down to even agreeing with the manner of dress...different time sequences but the same outcome @ wearing the same attire.
Your "multitude of witnesses", Mr. Smith, are simply parrots parroting back a hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure to align with what those framing an innocent party said he said he did (please excuse the eyeroll). Now, a simple question, unless of course you care to cower away from it again, How do you explain away how the wrongly-accused is depicted in five different sequences post-assassination time wearing the same attire he is factually in, yet support a hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure?
The wrongly-accused did not shoot anybody. Anybody.
-
LNs are stumped...
they cannot explain away why the wrongly accused remained in Dealey Plaza post-assassination time, well after the hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure said he was elsewhere.
Mr. Brewer: He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out.
Mr. BELIN. Any jacket?
Mr. BREWEB No.
Mr. BELIN. Any other clothing that you noticed?
Mr. BREWER. He had a T-shirt underneath his shirt.
Mr. BELIN. Was his shirt buttoned up all the way?
Mr. BREWER. A couple of buttons were unbuttoned at the time.
Sound familiar folks?
Only one single individual in Dealey Plaza that afternoon wore this particular brown shirt and in the manner described by multiple witnesses and/or filmed post-assassination time (see the embedded video below and freeze the frame at the times noted) Same shirt, same untucked dress manner.
Texas Theatre employee Julia Postal described the same attire worn in the same fashion. Both her and Mr. Brewer's observations are further confirmed when the wrongly-accused is escorted from the Texas Theatre donning the same clothing as depicted by both these post-assassination witnesses. It's of particular interests that in both the Texas Theatre images and the film taken by Mr. Hughes post-assassination time in Dealey Plaza we actually get to also see the same grey coloured pants worn with the brown shirt in Dealey Plaza and upon the wrongly-accused being escorted from the movie theatre.
To further buttress both Mr. Mentesana's post-assassination film and Mr. Hughes' post-assassination film footage as well, we all are privy to the the wrongly-accused's clothing attire and the manner he wore it (see Mr. Brewer's testimony above), because he wore the same clothing in the same manner at his midnight presser.
Mr. Hughes (Robert) freeze at 8:03 -- 8:04 as the wrongly-accused reenters the TSBD post-assassination time; and Mr. Mentesana's post-assassination time capture of the wrongly-accused still in Dealey Plaza post-assassination time freeze at 8:44 -- 8:52...
Same brown shirt, worn in the same manner in all sequence instances in Dealey Plaza post-assassination time; and described in detail by both Mr. Brewer (Johnny) and Ms. Postal (Julia) as well. The slam-dunk is the midnight presser (same shirt, same manner of dress).
The nefarious invention about the wrongly-accused going to his rooming house was just that a deceptive invention to place him where it served the interests of those framing him, nothing more, nothing less. He said this, he said that (Riiiiight) Amazing what some people will do for thirty pieces of silver (bunch of lying treasonous cowards).
The wrongly-accused did not shoot anybody. Anybody. It's time for truth.
-
Apology to Alan Ford for diversionary discussion with Mr Buglio Mytton whom I no doubt will never be swayed there was a conspiracy of ANY sort.
That’s his perception of the “truth” and I can see why he made his conclusion IF he believes the evidence is essentially sound and that anomalous details have plausible explanations
For myself,however, the magnitude of so many anomalies seems to defy mere incompetent handling of evidence, and or confusion of overlapping agencies of FBI CIA, SS, DPD conducting their parallel investigations, as a suitable explanation.
The PM theory was one of the best alternative CT theories , It seemed to me and many other CTs , because the figure resembles Oswald and the location in that corner a logical place that an aloof character as Oswald, would go if he arrived late to the steps at 12:29, having been prompted from having seen Norman and Jarman renter TSBD from rear door whilst Oswald was eating his lunch on the Domino room at 12:25.
However since no one on this forum has substantially proved the newest version of Darnell image of PM is some kind of fake image or that the effect of the white ring around the neck of PM is some anomaly caused by translation of the original Darnell to computer pixel format, then reluctantly, Oswald =PM is rendered doubtful.
Grant me my suspicions of doctored imaging of the Darnell film , due to what other images Mr. Ford has already shown in the lengthy PM discussion thread such as the dark shadow anomaly in Weigman film and the Cronkite version of the Altgens no.6 photo. Image alteration which suggests some government coverup efforts to negate the Hosty interview notes of Oswald began at the very start of Will Fritz investigation in 1963.
-
white ring around the neck of PM
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNjFjYjZmNzItYTg4Yi00NjMzLTlhNzAtZGE1MjU3NTY1NjA2XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjUxMjc1OTM@._V1_.jpg)
-
Apology to Alan Ford for diversionary discussion with Mr Buglio Mytton whom I no doubt will never be swayed there was a conspiracy of ANY sort.
That’s his perception of the “truth” ...
Image alteration which suggests some government coverup efforts to negate the Hosty interview notes of Oswald began at the very start of Will Fritz investigation in 1963.
Well said, Mr. Mason, especially your assessment of Captain Fritz's hatchet job @ Mr. Hosty's notes. No great surprise since the coverup of the plain simple truth (the wrongly-accused did not shoot anybody) had to be ignored amid a hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure. Lest the research community forgets it was Captain Fritz who invented the whole he said this and said that about returning to his rooming house. Quite a clever invention albeit nefarious in nature to put the wrongly-accused near the event that unfolded across town at 10th & Patton. The problem with Fritz's notes are twofold: (A) The photo images of both Mr. Mentesana (Ernest) and Mr. Hughes (Robert) capturing the wrongly-accused still in Dealey Plaza post-assassination time after the big red Fire Station 3 fire-truck arrives in Dealey Plaza (1:12PM) and (B) no great surprise that Fritz like so many others involved in the coverup succumbed to the following quote...
Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder. -- George Washington
Just a quick question before I gather my notes to make a brief post: Do you have any thoughts on the "white ring around the neck" photo shared by Mr. Iacoletti?
-
There's plenty of evidence that the wrongly-accused spent ample time with Warren C. de Brueys down in New Orleans during the Summer of 1963. Back next week to make a follow-up on comparing the well-heeled suited gentleman in the Mentesana film standing roughly 25' away from the wrongly-accused in Dealey Plaza post-assassination time (1:12PM) ... no need to click upon the video just note the balding suited figure standing there in close proximity to the wrongly-accused in his familiar attire...
and compare with the the following video filmed down in New Orleans during the Summer of 1963 (freeze the frame at 9 secs in for better clarity) and note the blading suited gentleman just in front of the suited gentleman with one arm raised just behind him...
A striking resemblance for sure. Could the balding gentlemen in both venues standing in close proximity of the wrongly-accused each time of the year (Summer & late Fall) be none other than Bureau agent Warren C. de Brueys?
Will take a much closer look and return back here next week the Good Lord willing to follow-up. Meanwhile, safe travels, best of health & happiness to all. Somebody was responsible for handling the movements of the wrongly-accused. Perhaps the same person also transported him out of Dealey Plaza post-assassination time (1:12PM).
-
Mr. Hughes (Robert) freeze at 8:03 -- 8:04 as the wrongly-accused reenters the TSBD post-assassination time;
Mr. Ford, this man being escorted inside the building by an officer is NOT Mr. Oswald but a black man
(https://i.postimg.cc/yxtkkzbk/Martin-Film-Clip-With-Lovelady.gif)
-
However since no one on this forum has substantially proved the newest version of Darnell image of PM is some kind of fake image or that the effect of the white ring around the neck of PM is some anomaly caused by translation of the original Darnell to computer pixel format, then reluctantly, Oswald =PM is rendered doubtful.
If the round neckline were just white, there would be no problem!
-
I’ve ruled out that PM is the women reporter with a microphone, because its highly doubtful she would have not informed anyone about being on those steps and witnessing the event from that vantage point.
Pauline Sanders is a good fit imo, but as Mr.I and myself have pointed out, her known recorded statements have no mention of moving from her east side of the entrance steps to the west side.
The object in the hands of PM is not likely a camera being raised to take a photo because surely there would have been a photo from such camera contributed to the investigators.
What then is it? It’s not a white sandwich because why would there be only one bite taken and then never again?
A woman’s make up thingy or mirror being raised to check one’s appearance? Now why would a woman who’s basically back in the shadows who isn’t likely going be seen anyway ( and is only a 5’2” woman wearing glasses like Sanders) be worried about her appearance?
Not likely a cigarette lighter as there’s no indication of erratic change/flicker in the shape of the white area nor does there appear to be cigarette in PMs mouth.
A white radio? It would have been held up to the EAR at the SIDE of the head, not up to the mouth.
Since it does appear it’s going up to the mouth and down again in just a few seconds then it’s more probably a bottle with white label or it’s a white cup, with liquid in it, because there’s not much reason to lift up an EMPTY bottle or cup to mouth.
Since it’s therefore promote probably a bootie or white cup, then which one is more probable?
If PM is Pauline Sanders, she could have brought out a white cup of some liquid. However as Walt Cakebread once suggested, would such a small cup if having coffee or tea in it not have already been totally consumed in 15-20 minutes waiting on the steps?
So this points to a larger bottle which contains 20 0z or larger volume of liquid which if such bottle had been bought at 12:17 from the 2nd floor lunchroom, has a fair probability that some % of liquid was still left in the bottle at 12:29.
Now all one has to do is prove that a bottle of a 1963 Dr.Pepper bottle (or Coke) from the 2nd floor lunchroom soda machine has an oval shaped white label that could plausibly appear as a white fuzzy ball if held in hand by someone standing in the shadows at PMs location at 12:29 Nov 22/63, with label facing towards the camera, and the bottle held by the hand at the base of the bottle thus not obscuring the label.
-
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/shopping?q=tbn:ANd9GcRQQpSJzMgvnyqsPR5O6zNGPDK2Rn7MGxb-atigKeIchbmUXkFy1yv3_ECdKcZaOTxIdOQTyigMo9JEq54iImmJabFUJ1an66Wo_QDkpDdw2uU6BCfA2fed)
-
The problem is that it just seems incredibly stupid that Oswald would have used his P.O. Box to list a secondary fake name to receive mail at that same address.
If Oswald could make a fake ID then why not just open a P.O. Box addressed ONLY to that fake name and then there’s virtually no link to himself , since in 1963 there were not many cameras recording people in real time as much as in 2023.
Because Oswald seemed fairly smart in his ability to get in and out of the U.S.S.R. and was able to speak fluent Russian, then is it not plausible to suggest that Oswald was NOT a stupid person?
Somewhere I read that Oswald’s IQ was only 108, but I don’t know if that’s really true or if it could be part of an CIA defector program to hide the true ability of Oswald if he were in fact a CIA operative in such program.
There’s also the stupidity of ordering a rifle by mail and creating a paper trail when it would have been just as easy to buy a rifle from some shady gun dealer for cash.
Then there’s the curiosity of leaving the serial no.on the rifle and the pistol and why not get the pistol from some other shady character instead of ordering it by mail?
Since there appears to be some evidence of Oswald having had a meticulous plan of finding Gen Walker, getting to the scene by bus or other means and carrying a rifle without being seen, it’s reasonable to question why Oswald would make it so easy to trace a rifle and a pistol to himself , when he had other options which if he were such a meticulous person, then he theoretically should have figured out a better plan.
Oswald having his wife take a picture of himself holding an MC rifle was pretty stupid also, if he were intending to use an MC rifle in any criminal act, so it’s either a case of kook stupidity, or it’s a case of Oswald being set up somehow, or believing himself to be on some CIA mission whether real or imagined.
This is the old claim that there is so much evidence against Oswald that we can only conclude he is innocent. Oswald used a fake name to order his rifle. He did what he could to cover his tracks. Of course, when he ordered the rifle, he also had no intention of leaving it at the crime scene to be discovered. He intended to hide it after the Walker attempt and later retrieve it. Which is what he did. The JFK/TSBD scenario would not have entered into consideration where the rifle was left at the crime when he ordered the rifle. But more importantly, if Oswald was an intelligent guy as you point out, he realized that there was no getting away after assassinating the president. He would have known that arrest or death was part of the decision to carry out that deed. And he decided to move forward with the act knowing the consequences. The evidence left behind was of no consequence to him. It was committing the act and becoming a person of historical significance that mattered.
-
There goes “Richard” again, telling us with his imagined mad mindreading skilz what Oswald “intended”.
-
The contrarians think it takes mind reading skills to conclude that assassinating the president in broad daylight in the presence of law enforcement is not an act that an assassin expects to get away with. Do they think that Oswald had any expectation that he could just go about his life after assassinating the president? He was going to show up to work on Monday like nothing had happened? HA HA HA. Such idiocy. Oswald knew that assassinating the president carried with it his death or arrest. That is why he left his wedding ring and most of his money with his wife. He wasn't ever coming back. He could not have escaped after committing that crime. This is where the CTers ask why he even left the building if there was no hope of escape. Of course, every desperate criminal in history plays out the hand. They have nothing to lose at that point. Oswald kept moving until he couldn't. A common narrative with criminals on the run.
-
The contrarians think it takes mind reading skills to conclude that assassinating the president in broad daylight in the presence of law enforcement is not an act that an assassin expects to get away with. Do they think that Oswald had any expectation that he could just go about his life after assassinating the president? He was going to show up to work on Monday like nothing had happened? HA HA HA. Such idiocy. Oswald knew that assassinating the president carried with it his death or arrest. That is why he left his wedding ring and most of his money with his wife. He wasn't ever coming back. He could not have escaped after committing that crime. This is where the CTers ask why he even left the building if there was no hope of escape. Of course, every desperate criminal in history plays out the hand. They have nothing to lose at that point. Oswald kept moving until he couldn't. A common narrative with criminals on the run.
That is why he left his wedding ring and most of his money with his wife. He wasn't ever coming back.
There goes “Richard” again, telling us with his imagined mad mindreading skilz what Oswald “intended”.
Indeed... and he keeps on going....
-
See the common theme here? No matter what Oswald did, it is exactly what a murderer would do, and the evidence for that is because that’s what “the murderer” did.
-
The contrarians would have us believe it was just a matter of bad luck that the one and only time of his marriage that he left his wedding ring at home was on the morning of Nov. 22. Do they really believe this nonsense? All the circumstances that link Oswald to the crimes over and over and over again are all just bad luck. The contrarians attempt to compartmentalize the evidence as though each piece is independent of all the other evidence against him. Oswald worked in the building from which JFK was assassinated. He was one of the few people who we know was in the building at the moment the shots were fired. Unlike most of the OTHER TSBD employees, Oswald was in the building at the moment the shots were fired. Unlike most of the OTHER TSBD employees he was not in the presence of any of his coworkers who could provide him with an alibi. All those folks can be eliminated as suspects. So we very quickly place Oswald in a small subset of the TSBD employees as the possible assassin. Only a handful of folks were in the building. He is one of them. What terrible luck for him. How many TSBD employees who were IN the building took off within minutes of the assassination not to return? Some who were OUTSIDE the building were blocked from reentering, but Oswald was IN the TSBD and left for good. To compare those two situations as though they are the same highlights the lengths these contrarians will go to exonerate Oswald.
He also leaves his wedding ring at home for the very first time that very day. Bad luck. He also leaves his wife a large amount of money. Bad luck. All of this suggests some foreknowledge that he will not be returning when viewed in the totality of circumstances. Why? Because he didn't just leave his wedding ring at home as contrarians frame this. He did so for the first and only time on the very same day he was arrested for murder. He carries a long package that very morning from the location where his own wife indicates he kept a rifle. Bad luck. A bag with his prints is found next to the location from which witnesses saw a rifle pointed at JFK at the moment of the assassination. Terrible luck. He is the only TSBD employee to leave identifiable prints on the very boxes in the SN. What bad luck. He decides to knock off for the day and gets his gun. He passes the vicinity of the Tippit murder on his way to the movies and looks so much like the shooter that multiple witnesses place him at the scene with his gun. He has the same two brands of ammo in his possession used to kill Tippit. What are the chances? But it's more just bad luck.
-
The contrarians would have us believe it was just a matter of bad luck that the one and only time of his marriage that he left his wedding ring at home was on the morning of Nov. 22. Do they really believe this nonsense? All the circumstances that link Oswald to the crimes over and over and over again are all just bad luck. The contrarians attempt to compartmentalize the evidence as though each piece is independent of all the other evidence against him. Oswald worked in the building from which JFK was assassinated. He was one of the few people who we know was in the building at the moment the shots were fired. Unlike most of the OTHER TSBD employees, Oswald was in the building at the moment the shots were fired. Unlike most of the OTHER TSBD employees he was not in the presence of any of his coworkers who could provide him with an alibi. All those folks can be eliminated as suspects. So we very quickly place Oswald in a small subset of the TSBD employees as the possible assassin. Only a handful of folks were in the building. He is one of them. What terrible luck for him. How many TSBD employees who were IN the building took off within minutes of the assassination not to return? Some who were OUTSIDE the building were blocked from reentering, but Oswald was IN the TSBD and left for good. To compare those two situations as though they are the same highlights the lengths these contrarians will go to exonerate Oswald.
He also leaves his wedding ring at home for the very first time that very day. Bad luck. He also leaves his wife a large amount of money. Bad luck. All of this suggests some foreknowledge that he will not be returning when viewed in the totality of circumstances. Why? Because he didn't just leave his wedding ring at home as contrarians frame this. He did so for the first and only time on the very same day he was arrested for murder. He carries a long package that very morning from the location where his own wife indicates he kept a rifle. Bad luck. A bag with his prints is found next to the location from which witnesses saw a rifle pointed at JFK at the moment of the assassination. Terrible luck. He is the only TSBD employee to leave identifiable prints on the very boxes in the SN. What bad luck. He decides to knock off for the day and gets his gun. He passes the vicinity of the Tippit murder on his way to the movies and looks so much like the shooter that multiple witnesses place him at the scene with his gun. He has the same two brands of ammo in his possession used to kill Tippit. What are the chances? But it's more just bad luck.
The contrarians would have us believe it was just a matter of bad luck that the one and only time of his marriage that he left his wedding ring at home was on the morning of Nov. 22.
A marriage can only end once. Marina and Ruth Paine both testified they believed Oswald came to Irving on Thursday to save his marriage. When Marina refused to live with him again, he concluded that his marriage was over and left his ring and money for the kids behind. Not really an occurrence that happens more than once.
Oswald worked in the building from which JFK was assassinated. He was one of the few people who we know was in the building at the moment the shots were fired.
Indeed, one of the few people we know
So we very quickly place Oswald in a small subset of the TSBD employees as the possible assassin.
How do you know that the assassin must have been a TSBD employee?
Only a handful of folks were in the building. He is one of them.
Who are the others?
How many TSBD employees who were IN the building took off within minutes of the assassination not to return? Some who were OUTSIDE the building were blocked from reentering, but Oswald was IN the TSBD and left for good.
That's what the official story says, but there is no real evidence for it that Oswald left "within minutes not to return"
He also leaves his wedding ring at home for the very first time that very day. Bad luck. He also leaves his wife a large amount of money. Bad luck. All of this suggests some foreknowledge that he will not be returning when viewed in the totality of circumstances.
Maybe, but only when the "totality of circumstances" is in fact what really happened. You keep on assuming that the WC story is true, when in fact most of it is conjecture based on very little and conflicting evidence.
He did so for the first and only time on the very same day he was arrested for murder.
So, he left his ring because he knew he was going to be arrested for murder? Is that what you are saying? Was Oswald psychic?
He carries a long package that very morning from the location where his own wife indicates he kept a rifle.
So many misrepresentation to unpack here. Yes he left Irving carrying a package, which according to the descriptions of the only two witnesses who saw it, could not have contained a broken down rifle. A broken down carcano doesn't fit between the cup of Oswald's hand and his shoulder. And Marina never indicated Lee kept a rifle in the garage. At best, she only saw a rifle (or the wooden stock of one) once, in late September, just after leaving New Orleans. She had no knowledge if there was still a rifle in the garage on 11/21/63. She also could only assume that the rifle she had seen in late September belonged to Oswald, since she never talked to him about it.
A bag with his prints is found next to the location from which witnesses saw a rifle pointed at JFK at the moment of the assassination.
That's what some police officers said, but others didn't see it and there is no in situ photograph of it. They claimed the bag was folded up, but when it was carried out the TSBD it was unfolded and held upside down. What was in it, to keep it upright and how could fibers similar to those of the blanket still be in there? Also, that bag was made from TSBD materials and had to have been made at the TSBD. This means Oswald must have made it and taken it to Irving, but nobody ever saw him near the wrapping paper machines and Frazier did not see Oswald carry a folded up bag with him to Irving. Too many unanswered questions to reach any conclusion about that bag.
He is the only TSBD employee to leave identifiable prints on the very boxes in the SN.
So, that fact that other prints also found on the boxes were not identified makes Oswald guilty because his prints were identified? Is that your what you are saying?
He passes the vicinity of the Tippit murder on his way to the movies
Are you for real?
looks so much like the shooter that multiple witnesses place him at the scene with his gun.
Which gun was that? The one for which there is no chain of custody and Hill apparently walked around with for several hours or the one Oswald said he bought in Fort Worth?
What are the chances?
What are the chances that you would tell a story honestly, rather than concocting are weak circumstantial prosecutorial fairytale for which you lack credible evidence?
-
The contrarians would have us believe it was just a matter of bad luck that the one and only time of his marriage that he left his wedding ring at home was on the morning of Nov. 22.
A marriage can only end once. Marina and Ruth Paine both testified they believed Oswald came to Irving on Thursday to save his marriage. When Marina refused to live with him again, he concluded that his marriage was over and left his ring and money for the kids behind. Not really an occurrence that happens more than once.
So much contrarian "logic" and false premises, but just to highlight a couple. There is no indication that Oswald intended to end his marriage on Nov. 22 and that was the explanation for his leaving his wedding ring at home on that particular day. And think about how improbable this coincidence would be. Playing exactly into the "bad luck" line of events that contrarians peddle. LOL. In fact, what Oswald told Marina is that he wanted to return living with her. Not that he was ending the marriage. But this is the classic "bad luck" claim. It was just "bad luck" that this happened on Nov. 22 according to the contrarian apologist for Oswald. And talk about reading minds!!! Suddenly Martin can say what Oswald concluded. Where is the disclaimer that this is only his "opinion." Comedy gold. That one is a real keeper.
-
How many TSBD employees who were IN the building took off within minutes of the assassination not to return? Some who were OUTSIDE the building were blocked from reentering, but Oswald was IN the TSBD and left for good.
That's what the official story says, but there is no real evidence for it that Oswald left "within minutes not to return"
There is "no real evidence" that Oswald left the TSBD within minutes not to return? A witness who knew him placed him on a bus within minutes. A cab driver drove him to his boardinghouse a few minutes later. He was seen at his boardinghouse a few miles from the TSBD around 1PM. How does he get there by then without a car unless he leaves the TSBD within minutes of the assassination at 12:30.? But there is "no real evidence" of this?
-
He did so for the first and only time on the very same day he was arrested for murder.
So, he left his ring because he knew he was going to be arrested for murder? Is that what you are saying? Was Oswald psychic?
This is possibly one of the dumbest posts in the history of this forum. You think Oswald needed to be psychic to understand that if he assassinated the president that day that he would be arrested or killed and never return home? If you were to list the acts that would lead to arrest or death, then assassinating the president would be at the top of that list. Even if he managed to evade arrest and get out of Dallas, he was never going home again. It's obvious that leaving his wedding ring at home that very day suggests foreknowledge that he would never be returning. Ironically, the only way Oswald would need to be psychic is if he wasn't planning on assassinating the president and this was otherwise just another normal day for him in which he had no obvious reason to contemplate never coming home.
-
So much contrarian "logic" and false premises, but just to highlight a couple. There is no indication that Oswald intended to end his marriage on Nov. 22 and that was the explanation for his leaving his wedding ring at home on that particular day. And think about how improbable this coincidence would be. Playing exactly into the "bad luck" line of events that contrarians peddle. LOL. In fact, what Oswald told Marina is that he wanted to return living with her. Not that he was ending the marriage. But this is the classic "bad luck" claim. It was just "bad luck" that this happened on Nov. 22 according to the contrarian apologist for Oswald. And talk about reading minds!!! Suddenly Martin can say what Oswald concluded. Where is the disclaimer that this is only his "opinion." Comedy gold. That one is a real keeper.
There is no indication that Oswald intended to end his marriage on Nov. 22 and that was the explanation for his leaving his wedding ring at home on that particular day.
Misrepresentation 101. Nobody said that Oswald intended to end his marriage. In fact the opposite is true. According to Marina and Ruth Paine he came to Irving to save his marriage, by asking Marina to live with him again. When she refused he concluded his marriage was over. What else should he have concluded?
And talk about reading minds!!! Suddenly Martin can say what Oswald concluded.
If you can constantly do it, so can I. Except a guy leaving his wedding ring and some money for the kids behind because he believed his marriage was over is far more likely than leaving his wedding ring behind because he somehow knew he was going to be arrested for murder.
Where is the disclaimer that this is only his "opinion."
It's not my opinion. It's Marina's opinion. I can't help it if you don't know the evidence.
There is "no real evidence" that Oswald left the TSBD within minutes not to return? A witness who knew him placed him on a bus within minutes. A cab driver drove him to his boardinghouse a few minutes later. He was seen at his boardinghouse a few miles from the TSBD around 1PM. How does he get there by then without a car unless he leaves the TSBD within minutes of the assassination at 12:30.? But there is "no real evidence" of this?
A witness who knew him placed him on a bus within minutes.
Yeah, right... a highly unreliable "witness" didn't even remember the day it supposedly happened;
Mr. BALL - Now, when did you see Oswald again?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, I went down to the parade. Oh, when was the parade? The 22d of---the next---22d of February---when was the parade?
Mr. BALL - The 22d of November the President came to Dallas.
and, although she didn't look at him, saw a hole in a sleeve his shirt that can not be seen on any photograph taken after Oswald's arrest. Out of hundreds, if not thousands, photos not one shows a hole in one of the sleeve!
Mrs. BLEDSOE - And, after we got past Akard, at Murphy---I figured it out. Let's see. I don't know for sure. Oswald got on. He looks like a maniac. His sleeve was out here [indicating]. His shirt was undone.
Mr. BALL - You are indicating a sleeve of a shirt?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - It was unraveled?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Was a hole in it, hole, and he was dirty, and I didn't look at him. I didn't want to know 1 even seen him, and I just looked off,
And then there is this mess;
Mr. BALL - Yes. You tell me what do you see here? What permits you to recognize it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I recognize---first thing I notice the elbow is out and then I saw---when the man brought it out and let me see it?
Mr. BALL - No, I am talking about---I am showing you this shirt now, and you said, "That is it." You mean---What do you mean by "that is it"?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is the one he had out there that day?
Mr. BALL - Who had it out there?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Some Secret Service man.
Mr. BALL - He brought it out. Now, I am---you have seen this shirt then before?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - It was brought out by the Secret Service man and shown to you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Had you ever seen the shirt before that?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well---
Mr. BALL - Have you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No; he had it on, though.
Mr. BALL - Who had it on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oswald.
Mr. BALL - Oswald had it on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oswald had it on.
Mr. BALL - Now, what is there about the shirt that makes you believe that this is the shirt that Oswald had on when he was on the bus? What is there about it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, let's see the front of it. Yes See all this [indicating]? I remember that.
Mr. BALL - Tell me what you see there?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I saw the---no; not so much that. It was done after---that is part I recognize more than anything.
Mr. BALL - You are pointing to a hole in the right elbow?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - What about the color?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, I---What do you mean?
Mr. BALL - Well----
Mrs. BLEDSOE - When he had it on?
Mr. BALL - Yes.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Before he was shot? Yes; I remember it being brown.
Mr. BALL - You remember the shirt being brown. Was it this color?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes; it was that color.
Mr. BALL - In other words, when you remember that you have seen something before---
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Uh-huh.
Mr. BALL - In order to convince me that you did see it before you've got to tell me what there is about it that is the same, you see. Now, you try to convince me, or tell me why it is that you believe that this is the shirt that Oswald had on when you saw him on the bus?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, I would say it was. That hole---
Mr. BALL - Mostly the hole in the right sleeve?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
She remembers mostly a hole in the right sleeve of a shirt that a Secret Service man (actually it was an FBI agent) showed her at her home.... A hole that wasn't there when Oswald was photographed after his arrest...
A cab driver drove him to his boardinghouse a few minutes later.
A cab driver who said the man he drove was wearing two jackets, when Oswald is supposed to have left the TSBD without a jacket. Just how well does a cab drive observe the person his is driving somewhere?
He was seen at his boardinghouse a few miles from the TSBD around 1PM.
This is true. That's what Earlene Roberts said.
How does he get there by then without a car unless he leaves the TSBD within minutes of the assassination at 12:30.?
Maybe by car.... like the Rambler that was seen by several witnesses picking up somebody coming down the grassy knoll?
Oswald seems to have had magical powers to get down the stairs of the TSBD unseen by 12 persons in 75 seconds after the last shot, and get from the roominghouse to 10th street in less than 11 minutes (which can not be done walking) so why can't he have used his magic in getting to the roominghouse as well?
You may be too dumb to understand this, but this is one of those things that makes the official fairytale fall apart.
But there is "no real evidence" of this?
Indeed... the "evidence" you've got is pretty pathetic.
This is possibly one of the dumbest posts in the history of this forum. You think Oswald needed to be psychic to understand that if he assassinated the president that day that he would be arrested or killed and never return home? If you were to list the acts that would lead to arrest or death, then assassinating the president would be at the top of that list. Even if he managed to evade arrest and get out of Dallas, he was never going home again. It's obvious that leaving his wedding ring at home that very day suggests foreknowledge that he would never be returning. Ironically, the only way Oswald would need to be psychic is if he wasn't planning on assassinating the president and this was otherwise just another normal day for him in which he had no obvious reason to contemplate never coming home.
You think Oswald needed to be psychic to understand that if he assassinated the president that day that he would be arrested or killed and never return home?
So, you are saying that when he left his wedding ring behind, Oswald knew, he would assassinate later that day? Let's assume for a second that Oswald did indeed want to kill Kennedy; what if he didn't get an opportunity to take a shot? What if the limo passed the building on schedule, and he wasn't in the sniper's nest?
It's obvious that leaving his wedding ring at home that very day suggests foreknowledge that he would never be returning.
It's only obvious to an idiot like you. There is no way in the world that Oswald could predict that he would never be returning. He may have planned the murder, but he could not have planned it being executable or successful.
Ironically, the only way Oswald would need to be psychic is if he wasn't planning on assassinating the president and this was otherwise just another normal day
Why would he need to be psychic if it was going to be a normal day with him not planning on assassinating the President? It would be a normal day, right?
-
A witness who knew him placed him on a bus within minutes.
Yeah, right... a highly unreliable............
????
Bledsoe's second day affidavit is way too accurate for random guesses.
Was it public knowledge that Oswald got on the Bus about Murphy Street?
Was it public knowledge that Oswald got off the Bus after a few blocks?
Was it public knowledge that while the bus was stuck in traffic at the same time as Oswald was on the Bus that a man said the President was shot?
Was it public knowledge that Oswald even caught a Bus?
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bledsoe1.htm
And in Bledsoe's testimony she goes into detail about a woman who also got off at the same time as Oswald who wanted to get to the train station which along with the above Bledsoe recollections can be confirmed by cross referencing with Bus Driver McWatters testimony.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bledsoe.htm
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/mcwatters.htm
JohnM
-
The contrarians would have us believe it was just a matter of bad luck that the one and only time of his marriage that he left his wedding ring at home was on the morning of Nov. 22. Do they really believe this nonsense? All the circumstances that link Oswald to the crimes over and over and over again are all just bad luck.
How does leaving a ring behind “link Oswald to the crimes”? Talk about desperate.
The contrarians attempt to compartmentalize the evidence as though each piece is independent of all the other evidence against him.
What other evidence against him? You mean like a wedding ring? LOL.
Oswald worked in the building from which JFK was assassinated.
You don’t know where JFK was assassinated from.
He was one of the few people who we know was in the building at the moment the shots were fired.
And how exactly do we “know” this if he was unaccounted for at the time? By the way, at least 15 other people were “in the building at the time”.
Unlike most of the OTHER TSBD employees he was not in the presence of any of his coworkers who could provide him with an alibi.
Neither were at least 5 other employees. But who says it had to be an employee?
He also leaves his wedding ring at home for the very first time that very day. Bad luck. He also leaves his wife a large amount of money. Bad luck. All of this suggests some foreknowledge that he will not be returning when viewed in the totality of circumstances.
What it suggests is how desperate “Richard” is to label his overactive imagination “evidence”. Bad luck for “Richard” that it’s not.
-
It's obvious that leaving his wedding ring at home that very day suggests foreknowledge that he would never be returning.
It's only obvious to an idiot like you. There is no way in the world that Oswald could predict that he would never be returning. He may have planned the murder, but he could not have planned it being executable or successful.
Ironically, the only way Oswald would need to be psychic is if he wasn't planning on assassinating the president and this was otherwise just another normal day
Why would he need to be psychic if it was going to be a normal day with him not planning on assassinating the President? It would be a normal day, right?
This is very simple. If Oswald planned to assassinate the president of the United States in the presence of numerous law enforcement and secret service agents, he had good cause to know that he would never be coming home again. He would either be arrested, killer, or on the run after that event. The one thing he would never be doing is coming home again. You believe he needed to be psychic to reach this conclusion? That is unreal. Even you can't believe that. And your idiotic explanation that perhaps something might happen to preclude him from the attempt doesn't negate his decision to make the attempt. If for some reason the opportunity hadn't arisen that day, he just returns home and collects his ring. If asked, he just says he forgot it. No one is the wiser. This is not rocket science. It's stunning to me that this all eludes you. Leaving his wedding ring at home that morning - taken in the totality of all the events and circumstances - demonstrates foreknowledge that he would not be returning that day. Guilty.
-
This is very simple. If Oswald planned to assassinate the president of the United States in the presence of numerous law enforcement and secret service agents, he had good cause to know that he would never be coming home again. He would either be arrested, killer, or on the run after that event. The one thing he would never be doing is coming home again. You believe he needed to be psychic to reach this conclusion? That is unreal. Even you can't believe that. And your idiotic explanation that perhaps something might happen to preclude him from the attempt doesn't negate his decision to make the attempt. If for some reason the opportunity hadn't arisen that day, he just returns home and collects his ring. If asked, he just says he forgot it. No one is the wiser. This is not rocket science. It's stunning to me that this all eludes you. Leaving his wedding ring at home that morning - taken in the totality of all the events and circumstances - demonstrates foreknowledge that he would not be returning that day. Guilty.
He would either be arrested, killer, or on the run after that event. The one thing he would never be doing is coming home again.
So, people who kill somebody never go home? Is that what you are saying?
If Oswald planned to assassinate the president of the United States in the presence of numerous law enforcement and secret service agents, he had good cause to know that he would never be coming home again.
If indeed
And your idiotic explanation that perhaps something might happen to preclude him from the attempt doesn't negate his decision to make the attempt.
Too bad you can't even prove that he made such a decision in the first place.
-
He would either be arrested, killer, or on the run after that event. The one thing he would never be doing is coming home again.
So, people who kill somebody never go home? Is that what you are saying?
No. People who assassinate the president. That entails death or arrest. Are you really suggesting that someone could assassinate the president on a public street in the midst of law enforcement and secret service agents and expect to go home? They would need "psychic" powers in your opinion to understand that it was incredibly risky with a likelihood of death or arrest. Wow. Can you cite some examples of presidential assassins who returned home? Almost all of them were apprehended at the scene. Booth - like Oswald - managed to escape arrest at the scene and made a run for it. It's unreal that you are arguing that Oswald would not expect to be arrested or killed on Nov. 22 if he planned to assassinate the president that day. I've read some far out conspiracy theories on this forum and some really idiotic claims but this one is an outlier even by those low standards.
-
This is very simple.
Your “I imagined it, therefore it’s true” arguments are indeed simple. I’ll give you that.
-
No. People who assassinate the president. That entails death or arrest. Are you really suggesting that someone could assassinate the president on a public street in the midst of law enforcement and secret service agents and expect to go home? They would need "psychic" powers in your opinion to understand that it was incredibly risky with a likelihood of death or arrest. Wow. Can you cite some examples of presidential assassins who returned home? Almost all of them were apprehended at the scene. Booth - like Oswald - managed to escape arrest at the scene and made a run for it. It's unreal that you are arguing that Oswald would not expect to be arrested or killed on Nov. 22 if he planned to assassinate the president that day. I've read some far out conspiracy theories on this forum and some really idiotic claims but this one is an outlier even by those low standards.
They would need "psychic" powers in your opinion to understand that it was incredibly risky with a likelihood of death or arrest. Wow.
I never said that. You just made that up. Of course killing the President would be risky, and Oswald, if he wanted to kill Kennedy, would probably have understood that, but that's not what you claimed. You said;
Oswald knew that assassinating the president carried with it his death or arrest. That is why he left his wedding ring and most of his money with his wife. He wasn't ever coming back. He could not have escaped after committing that crime.
and that's simply not true. Oswald could not have known that with certainty, when he left his wedding ring behind.
As per usual your entire "logic" is flawed. Why? Because if it wasn't Oswald who killed Kennedy, then somebody else did and that person most likely simply went home.
-
They would need "psychic" powers in your opinion to understand that it was incredibly risky with a likelihood of death or arrest. Wow.
I never said that. You just made that up. Of course killing the President would be risky, and Oswald, if he wanted to kill Kennedy, would probably have understood that, but that's not what you claimed. You said;
and that's simply not true. Oswald could not have known that with certainty, when he left his wedding ring behind.
As per usual your entire "logic" is flawed. Why? Because if it wasn't Oswald who killed Kennedy, then somebody else did and that person most likely simply went home.
You have really lost it here. If Oswald was planning to assassinate the president, then he knew it might happen that day. The fact that it was possible that he might not get the opportunity doesn't change this analysis. That is profound idiocy. I've explained to you as to a small child, that if something had arisen to preclude Oswald from making the attempt, then he would just retrieve his wedding ring on his next trip home. If anyone asked, all he has to say is that he forgot it. What is so difficult about this to understand? Good grief. Again, if Oswald intended to assassinate the president that day, he would have fully understood that it entailed the likelihood of his arrest or death. He would not need to be psychic to understand this. He leaves his wedding ring at home for that reason. If, however, something arose to preclude him from making the attempt, then he just goes about his business and retrieves his ring the next time he is at the Paine residence. I'm shocked that you either can't understand this or are just playing the endless contrarian even though it is humiliating.
-
You have really lost it here. If Oswald was planning to assassinate the president, then he knew it might happen that day. The fact that it was possible that he might not get the opportunity doesn't change this analysis. That is profound idiocy. I've explained to you as to a small child, that if something had arisen to preclude Oswald from making the attempt, then he would just retrieve his wedding ring on his next trip home. If anyone asked, all he has to say is that he forgot it. What is so difficult about this to understand? Good grief. Again, if Oswald intended to assassinate the president that day, he would have fully understood that it entailed the likelihood of his arrest or death. He would not need to be psychic to understand this. He leaves his wedding ring at home for that reason. If, however, something arose to preclude him from making the attempt, then he just goes about his business and retrieves his ring the next time he is at the Paine residence. I'm shocked that you either can't understand this or are just playing the endless contrarian even though it is humiliating.
Still desperately looking for a way out of yet another mess you have created?
You went from;
Oswald knew that assassinating the president carried with it his death or arrest. That is why he left his wedding ring and most of his money with his wife. He wasn't ever coming back. He could not have escaped after committing that crime.
to;
If Oswald was planning to assassinate the president, then he knew it might happen that day
and
if Oswald intended to assassinate the president that day, he would have fully understood that it entailed the likelihood of his arrest or death.
First you have Oswald leaving his wedding ring behind because he knew he would be killed or arrested and would never return home.
Now, it is that Oswald understood that he might be arrested or killed and if that didn't take place or something happened that prevented an assassination attempt, he would just go home as if nothing had happened.
That is so pathetically weak!
Even weaker, but a perfect example of your dishonesty, is that you ignored the reason why your entire "logic" is flawed. So, I'll repeat it here again;
You said;
No. People who assassinate the president. That entails death or arrest. Are you really suggesting that someone could assassinate the president on a public street in the midst of law enforcement and secret service agents and expect to go home?
and my answer was;
If it wasn't Oswald who killed Kennedy, then somebody else did and that person most likely simply went home. :D
But don't worry. I won't hold it against you that you are unable to understand what I am telling you.
-
As long as DPD officer Barnetts WC testimony time stamp of 3 minutes post shots locking the TSBD front doors stands as a probable certainty, then there’s no way to work out Oswald leaving the TSBD to be seen by BW. Frazier in the vicinity of Elm st and Houston st. Just before BWF returned into TSBD via the front door BEFORE it was locked.
As long as Mrs Reid’s WC testimony of Oswald and 2min time trial via the Belin stop watch trial remains as a probable certainty, there is no way to get Oswald to the front door by 3 minutes post shots let alone to meet a reporter Peirce Allman In the front lobby at 2min 45 sec post shots. ( Allman allegedly to entered TSBD before the front doors were locked )
Reid said Oswald appeared to be wearing only a T- shirt which de facto means he had to have taken OFF his brown shirt ( and or jacket too) just after he was seen by DPD officer Baker approx 90 sec post shots.
Reid suggested Oswald walked slowly across the office floor.
If “slow”= 3ft/sec pace and the distance was approx 90 ft from vestibule door to the front office door, then Oswald would not have exited the office until 2 min 30 sec post shots
If the WC theory implies it’s a probable certainty that Oswald WAS wearing his jacket when he left the TSBD, then Oswald de facto must return to the 2nd floor lunchroom via an 80 ft long outer hallway, and another 10 ft of vestibule space and some distance into the lunchroom, to retrieve his brown shirt at the least and or his jacket too.
If Oswald double timed ran at 8 ft per/ sec down the hallway it would still take at least approx 15 secs ( includes about 3 secs to put on his brown shirt before exiting).
Therefore Oswald would not have exited again from lunchroom until approx 2 min 45 sec post shots.
It’s difficult to see how then Oswald could have ever made it out the front door of TSBD just secs before 3 min post shots Officer Barnett supposedly locked the front door.
-
It’s difficult to see how then Oswald could have ever made it out the front door of TSBD just secs before 3 min post shots Officer Barnett supposedly locked the front door.
As already explained, Mr Mason, he didn't:
He left AFTER the building had been locked down.
According to Mr Harry D. Holmes, Mr Oswald in custody recalled being stopped at the front door by an officer, who only let him pass when he was cleared as an employee by his superintendent of the place. The superintendent of the place was Mr Roy Truly.
From Asst. Chief Charles Batchelor's report on the activities of Deputy Chief of Police George L. Lumpkin:
(https://i.postimg.cc/xdFT6ptH/Kaminski-Batchelor-report-on-Lumpkin.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Mr Oswald knew the precise system that had been put in place several minutes after the shooting-----i.e. Mr Truly at the front door vouching for employees to a police officer-----because Officer Kaminski, having checked with Mr. Truly, allowed him to step outside.
Mr. Billy Lovelady saw this, and told Mr. James Jarman all about it. From Mr. Jarman's HSCA interview:
Well, there was a Billy Lovelady standing out there, he was on the steps, see... Oswald was coming out the door and [Lovelady] said the police had stopped Oswald and sent him back in the building, Billy Lovelady said that Mr. Truly told the policemen that Oswald was alright, that he worked there, so Oswald walked on down the stairs.
The Martin film shows that precise system in operation (Mr. Truly is standing behind the glass [right of screen]).
Mr. Lovelady is standing on the steps.
All as per Mr. Jarman's account.
Substitute the black man being ushered through the door here with Mr. Oswald, and we have the scene as described by Mr. Lovelady to Mr. Jarman:
(https://i.postimg.cc/yxtkkzbk/Martin-Film-Clip-With-Lovelady.gif)
NB! Mr. Oswald was given permission to step outside. He was NOT given permission to leave the scene. But he did.
-
According to BE Frazier, he went back inside the TSBD BEFORE the doors got locked.
And his alleged (50+ years later memory) sighting of Oswald in the Elm st/ Houston st intersection happened just BEFORE Frazier entered the TSBD, which would require Oswald to have exited the TSBD IF Oswald had been inside, by 2min 45 sec at the latest.
But what if it’s a case of Oswald being OUTSIDE ON THE STEPS at time of shots fired per FBI agent Hosty notes?.
Oswald could simply have run out into that intersection from his place on the front steps immediately following the shots fired.
He could therefore have been seen by Frazier as early as only 1-2 minutes post shots near the Elm st/Houston st intersection, and there would still be enough time for Oswald to run back to the front steps ( post Darnell film) and re enter TSBD well before Barnett locked the doors at 3 min post shots.
Then Oswald finds himself basically trapped in the TSBD and has to wait 8 minutes until Truly returns from the rooftop , shows up in the front lobby and Truly motions to officers guarding the front door at this time, to open the door and Oswald is verified and let out.
Does this somehow coincide with Roger Craig’s sighting of a man he thought looked like Oswald at the SW comer of TSBD, at 12:45pm, running down to a Rambler station wagon driven by DC man after a whistle was heard?
-
According to BE Frazier, he went back inside the TSBD BEFORE the doors got locked.
Whatever the credibility of Mr. Frazier's claim about seeing Mr. Oswald a few minutes after the shooting, the post-lockdown building was more leaky than than you assume, Mr Mason.
Here, for example, is Mr. Bonnie Ray Williams before the WC:
Mr. McCLOY. Were you physically kept from leaving the building when you got downstairs? Did you try to go out of the building?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir; I wasn't trying to go out of the building because there wasn't any use of trying to, because at the time we arrived on the first floor, I heard an officer shout out and say, "No one leave the building."
And yet here is Mr. Williams out on the front steps just a few minutes after the assassination:
(https://i.postimg.cc/yxtkkzbk/Martin-Film-Clip-With-Lovelady.gif)
How did he get out? Mr. Truly must have vouched for him at the door.
In the other direction, Mr. Lovelady himself is out on the steps here too, and yet we know he got back in at some point after this. As did Mr. Arce. As indeed did Mr. Williams.
Thus the idea that it would have been impossible for Mr. Frazier to re-enter the building after ~12:33 just doesn't hold up.
The crucial point: Mr. Oswald took advantage of the rather lax door policy. Like e.g. Mr. Bonnie Ray Williams, he was permitted to step outside---but told not to leave the scene. Unlike Mr. Williams, he did leave the scene.
-
Top of the morning to you, Mr. Mason, as always you ask some rather intriguing questions. Between you, Mr. Ford, and the dynamic-duo of Mr. Weidmann(sp) & Mr. Iacoletti, those of us reading along have the best chances of arriving at the plain simple truth in this six decade old case. We can always count on the dynamic-duo mentioned above to keep the LNs in check whenever they slip into overdrive parroting back a hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure to frame an innocent party.
That said, I'm taking the liberty here of making a response (bold lettering) to your post below...
According to BE Frazier, he went back inside the TSBD BEFORE the doors got locked.
And his alleged (50+ years later memory) sighting of Oswald in the Elm st/ Houston st intersection happened just BEFORE Frazier entered the TSBD, which would require Oswald to have exited the TSBD IF Oswald had been inside, by 2min 45 sec at the latest.
But what if it’s a case of Oswald being OUTSIDE ON THE STEPS at time of shots fired per FBI agent Hosty notes?.
Spot-On! There's lil' doubt about where the wrongly-accused really was that afternoon. Right where he and Mr. Hosty's notes said he was all along.
Oswald could simply have run out into that intersection from his place on the front steps immediately following the shots fired.
Not an unreasonable reaction, especially if he caught a glimpse of James Richard Worrell Jr., 20, reactions near the intersection of Elm & Houston ---->
Mr. SPECTER - Now, how close were you standing to this building which I will ask you to identify; first of all, what building is that?
Mr. WORRELL - That is the Texas Depository.
Mr. SPECTER - All right. Now how close to that building were you standing?
Mr. WORRELL - I was, I don't know, 4 or 5 feet out from it.
Mr. SPECTER - Were you standing with your face to the building, with your back to the building, or how?
Mr. WORRELL - My back was to the building.
Mr. SPECTER - Where did you run, which is what you have just described that you did next?
Mr. WORRELL -I ran down Houston Street alongside the building
Again, it wouldn't be unreasonable for the wrongly-accused and/or anyone for that matter to instinctively believe someone taking flight in the manner of Mr. Worrell may be the responsible party producing the gunfire, and simply ran towards the Elm & Houston intersection to get a much closer look.
He could therefore have been seen by Frazier as early as only 1-2 minutes post shots near the Elm st/Houston st intersection, and there would still be enough time for Oswald to run back to the front steps ( post Darnell film) and re enter TSBD well before Barnett locked the doors at 3 min post shots.
Then Oswald finds himself basically trapped in the TSBD and has to wait 8 minutes until Truly returns from the rooftop , shows up in the front lobby and Truly motions to officers guarding the front door at this time, to open the door and Oswald is verified and let out.
Quick question? Have you ever seen any photo(s) of Roy "nothing truly about him" and Baker atop the roof? If so please produce it because I have a same day affidavit in my research files where a Dallas County Sheriff (running up the same backstairs as the lying rooftop tandem claimed they did) came upon access to the rooftop where his affidavit says, quote, "the door to the roof was locked on the inside", therefore he returned backstairs. Roy "nothing truly about him" and Baker had a script to follow, nothing more, nothing less...
Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder. -- George Washington
Does this somehow coincide with Roger Craig’s sighting of a man he thought looked like Oswald at the SW comer of TSBD, at 12:45pm, running down to a Rambler station wagon driven by DC man after a whistle was heard?
That said, Mr. Ford, should you happen along sir, Any idea what the Black man's name is? (in Mr. Hughes' film, where I believe the wrongly-accused is reentering the TSBD). Meanwhile, I'll take a virtual stroll through the CE 1381 statements to account for every Negro employee on scene that fateful afternoon to get an idea that IF that figure in the Hughes film is a man of colour...perhaps there may be a clue in there who it could be. Just strange that he would be wearing the same attire as the wrongly-accused (familiar reddish brown openly worn shirt and grey coloured pants as well) IF he is indeed a Black man there are at least five (5) of them on scene that afternoon who are MUCH heavier and donning different attire than the gentleman seen in Mr. Hughes' capture. Back later this week to share more specifics on this individual.
Meanwhile, a quick follow-up post, courtesy of the exemplary research of Joan Mellon as I continue to make a connection with Bureau agent Warren_C_Debrueys, who I'm beginning to believe was the wrongly-accused's handler in New Orleans and Dallas as well.
-
*self-reminder: pick up on the following connection later this week the Good Lord willing...
http://joanmellen.com/wordpress/gallery/warren-de-brueys/
Could this man have been the wrongly-accused's handler during the Summer of 1963 down in New Orleans? and, Is he also the individual who set the theatrics at the Texas Theatre in motion?
-
I'll take a virtual stroll through the CE 1381 statements to account for every Negro employee on scene that fateful afternoon to get an idea that IF that figure in the Hughes film is a man of colour...
No if about it----------look at the back of his right hand!
(https://i.postimg.cc/yxtkkzbk/Martin-Film-Clip-With-Lovelady.gif)
-
Where I applaud your apt assessment @ male figure, Mr. Ford, I respectfully disagree that the wrongly-accused's right hand suggests he is a man of colour. More below to cast doubt on that, but let me add that taking the same image you shared into consideration both the neckline and back of left-hand is characteristic of someone who isn't a Black male. That said, let's take the following into consideration as well...
(A) None of the Black male employees that afternoon wore clothing characteristic of the attire the wrongly-accused wpre that afternoon; (B) 90% of the Balck male TSBD employees employed that afternoon are very dark-complected skin tones, save for Mr. Williams (Bonnie Ray) who is easily eliminated because he appears in the same film capture as the wrongly-accused; (C) upon reading their CE 1381 statements, WC testimony, etc. none of the Black male TSBD employees returned to the building in the film capture shared timeline as each of them were forbidden to leave the building until upwards of 2PM that afternoon; and (D) the only Black males who did leave the building prior to that time (James "Junior" Jarman and Harold Norman) were quickly detained by Mr. Sorrels and ushered back inside per Mr. Brennan pointing them out as the figures he saw in the 5th floor window). Moreover, neither of these men wore the same clothing as the wrongly-accused's familiar reddish-brown openly worn shirt and grey coloured trousers as captured in 1. Mr. Mentesana's film, 2. once again in the film sequence we are discussing and 3. yet again at the Texas Theatre.
I had give some thought that IF he was indeed a man of colour there would be a possibility he could have been Mr. Givens (Charles). However, after researching that possibility there are two issues here with that possibility (1) Givens stood a towering 6'3" tall and (B) his following testimony as well ---->
Mr. Givens: So I stood therefor a while, and I went over to try to get to the building after they found out the shots came from there, and when I went over to try to get back in the officer at the door would’t let me in.
Mr. BELIN. Did you tell him you worked there?Mr. GIVENS. Yes; but he still wouldn’t let me in. He told me he wouldn’tlet no one in.
Mr. BELIN. This was the front of Elm Street?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes. So I goes back over to the parking lot.
Not wishing to stop prematurely with Givens, I then researched every other Black male employee of the TSBD...starting with Carl Jones & Roy Lewis, who were easily eliminated as they both appear in Mr. Hughes film as well, watching the wrongly-accused bound up the entrance stairs and reentering the building. BRB...
Troy West, Edward Sheilds and Eddie Piper were also eliminated as a possibility due to their respective WC testimonies about either being detained in the building until 2PM or in Edward Sheilds case simply remaining several streets away at the parking lot he and Givens shared space with a friend/associate named Tracy.
The wrongly-accused remained in Dealey Plaza post-assassination time as recorded by Mr. Mentesana & Mr. Hughes. There was no phantom bus ride nor fictitious cab ride amid a hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure to frame an innocent party. The wrongly-accused did not shoot anybody. Anybody. That we both agree upon, Mr. Ford, keep shining light, truth and justice on this case sir.
-
No if about it----------look at the back of his right hand!
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/martinhughessynch100prkc9v.gif)
-
Unlikely Oswald reentering TSBD with officers help, because the shirt is no where near red enough to ever register as “red shirt “ man ( formally though to be Lovelady) on the steps in Hughes film raising that object to his mouth level.
Also would it not be Oswald coming OUT, not going back in, because 1st Oswald LEFT the steps to run out somewhere near the Elm st/Houston st. and then ran back into TSBD just BEFORE DPD officer Barnett locked the doors approx 3 min post shots?
And that man on the steps with the hat and suit on, , is not he Mr. Campbell who was with Mrs Reid standing on the Elm st Curb when Weigman film pans past the TSBD entrance?
-
Since Mr. I has posted a photo of Oswald wearing just his white shirt in response to my questioning the white ring effect that’s now more visible on PM in the more recent Darnell film version, then I’m not sure what that means.
I doubt Mr. I is suggesting it’s impossible the effect could be caused just from a portion of T-shirt that would be visible if Oswald wore his reddish brown shirt open at the neck, because Mr.I is rarely that “absolute” about anything.
And since everyone (maybe) except Mr. Doyle has decided it’s either not definite or that’s it’s unlikely that PM could be Sarah Stanton, then there is still some probability that PM is Oswald IF the fuzzy white ring could be shown to be an aberration just from translating this version of Darnell film vs ALL the other earlier internet versions that did NOT show this exaggerated white fuzzy ring effect around PMs neck.
And since I just shot down the idea of the reflection of the illuminated woman in light clothing having her face reflected in the glass since her face is NOT facing the glass, therefore the apparent image that some people think is the 5’2” Pauline Sanders would be Pauline Sanders INSIDE the front lobby close to the glass looking out.
Now since Sanders affidavit statement is somewhat more detailed than the the average detail of other witnesses , especially about having actually seen a DPD officer running up the steps , something which BW Frazier and other witness did not notice, then one has to wonder why Sanders would not have also added that she moved from her east side corner position to the west side corner of the landing (PMs position) , in that same affidavit statement.
There does not appear imo to be any glasses On the face of PM. So if PM is Sanders then she must have taken the glasses off.
Suggestion was made that the PM white object raised to mouth level was a purse and so what follows from that if PM is Sanders is that she took off her glasses while standing outside, then checked her face in some small mirror affixed to part of her purse momentarily. Then, satisfied she looked better without glasses on, stayed that way until after shots were fired, when she then moved from the PM position to the inside of the lobby and put her glasses on again.
Again however, would not Sanders have stated all this moving around several times in her affidavit statement that was more detailed than the average statements of most of other witnesses?
-
I don't believe otherwise. I think it's reasonable to accept that Oswald did in fact go to the roominghouse on 11/22. It's the overall credibility of Earlene Roberts as a witness that I question.
Fritz wrote his report from memory after Oswald's death. There is no way to verify what was true or not. Fritz, in my mind, lost all credibility when he presented Buell Wesley Frazier with a pre-written "confession" on Friday evening, which Frazier refused to sign.
Why do you want to shift the argument to what "conspiracy theorists" do or don't want to do. According to the reports (if they are to be believed) Oswald told his interrogators that he changed all his clothes, which makes Robert's "observation" somewhat questionable.
You're using a very vague time estimate of Earlene Roberts to make some sort of point. Even worse, you are doing so while ignoring the fact the Roberts said that she was concentrating on the television as she wanted to see the 1 PM news, just as Oswald walked in. That places his arrival at just about 1 PM and his departure at around 1:03 or 1:04
Pure speculation.
And, no, the total evidence does not indicate that Tippit was shot at 1:14 or 1:15. A simple example;
Markham testified that she left her home a little after 1 PM, perhaps 1:06. She needed to walk two blocks to get to the bus stop on Jefferson. According to their timetable there were busses at 1:12 and 1:22. Markham estimated that she would catch her usual bus at 1:15, which could be either one of the busses mentioned. To walk two blocks, Markham would have needed no more that 6 minutes, which means that she would have passed by 10th and Patton no later than 1:09 or 1:10 and she would have arrived at the bus stop at around 1:12 or 1:13. It is physically impossible for Markham to have been at 10th and Patton when Tippit was killed, if that indeed happened at 1:14 or 1:15. It does, however, match a timeline where Tippit is killed between 1:08 and 1:10.
No need to. At her WC testimony she was shown the jacket and she denied that it was the jacket she had seen. Why do you prefer what she said in an interview? Haven't we already established this is an unreliable witness?
It adds no significant value, but it's noted.
At her WC testimony she was shown the jacket and she denied that it was the jacket she had seen. Why do you prefer what she said in an interview? Haven't we already established this is an unreliable witness?
So you agree that Earlene Roberts indeed saw Oswald leave in a jacket of some sort, regardless of the color. Why do you believe Oswald would get rid of this jacket between the rooming house and the shoe store on Jefferson?
-
So you agree that Earlene Roberts indeed saw Oswald leave in a jacket of some sort, regardless of the color. Why do you believe Oswald would get rid of this jacket between the rooming house and the shoe store on Jefferson?
No, I merely quoted what Earlene Roberts said in her testimony. I, personally, have serious doubts about what she did and could see in the few seconds she saw Oswald going out of the front door.
I seem to remember that you have actually been inside the roominghouse, as I have. So, you know how short the distance is between Oswald's room and the front door. You also know, as Roberts told the WC, she was concentrating on the television, which means she had her back turned towards the part of the room where Oswald must have walked. I wouldn't be surpised if she only saw him briefly and in a glance as he opened the front door and walked out. No more than two or three seconds at best.
-
No, I merely quoted what Earlene Roberts said in her testimony. I, personally, have serious doubts about what she did and could see in the few seconds she saw Oswald going out of the front door.
I seem to remember that you have actually been inside the roominghouse, as I have. So, you know how short the distance is between Oswald's room and the front door. You also know, as Roberts told the WC, she was concentrating on the television, which means she had her back turned towards the part of the room where Oswald must have walked. I wouldn't be surpised if she only saw him briefly and in a glance as he opened the front door and walked out. No more than two or three seconds at best.
But Roberts said she saw Oswald zipping up the jacket.
-
But Roberts said she saw Oswald zipping up the jacket.
Do you take everything she said at face value or just the parts you like?
The bottom line is that Roberts is an unreliable witness.
-
Let’s assume for the sake of argument, even though it can’t be proven, that it was Oswald who Roberts saw.
Let’s further assume for the sake of argument, even though it can’t be proven, that Roberts saw Oswald wearing and zipping up a jacket as he went out the door.
Let’s further assume for the sake of argument, even though it can’t be proven, that it was Oswald who Brewer saw in front of his shop.
Let’s further assume for the sake of argument, even though it can’t be proven, that Oswald was not wearing or holding a jacket when Brewer saw him.
How does this demonstrate that Oswald deliberately “got rid of” the jacket?
-
Do you take everything she said at face value or just the parts you like?
The bottom line is that Roberts is an unreliable witness.
Point being, you attacked her vision. Fair enough. She was admittedly blind in one eye. But, she had two eyes.
She said Oswald was zipping up the jacket as he went out the door. That begs the question of why did he get rid of this jacket between the rooming house and the shoe store.
It's obvious why you stay a million miles away from answering this simple question.
-
Point being, you attacked her vision. Fair enough. She was admittedly blind in one eye. But, she had two eyes.
She said Oswald was zipping up the jacket as he went out the door. That begs the question of why did he get rid of this jacket between the rooming house and the shoe store.
It's obvious why you stay a million miles away from answering this simple question.
Well, first of all, it begs the question if Roberts did in fact see what she believed she saw.
Yes, Roberts had one good eye, but that's not all. She was concentrating on the television, which means she had her back turned to the living room, which in turn means she wasn't concentrating on Oswald. She only would have seen him for a second or two. Add to this that her employer described her as a person who made up things.
Why are you so sure she did see what she believed she saw?
It's obvious why you stay a million miles away from answering this simple question.
It's not only a simple question but it is also a moot and hypothetical one when you can not show, other than with the questionable testimony of Roberts, that Oswald did in fact leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket. Show that first and then I'll deal with your question.
-
Well, first of all, it begs the question if Roberts did in fact see what she believed she saw.
Yes, Roberts had one good eye, but that's not all. She was concentrating on the television, which means she had her back turned to the living room, which means she wasn't concentrating on Oswald. She only would have seen him for a second or two. Add to this that her employer described her as a person who made up things.
Why are you so sure she did see what she believed she saw?
It's obvious why you stay a million miles away from answering this simple question.
It's not only a simple question but it is also a moot and hypothetical one when you can not show, other than with the questionable testimony of Roberts, that Oswald did in fact leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket. Show that first and then I'll deal with your question.
Nonsense.
Roberts was the only human being present when Oswald left the rooming house and she said he left in a jacket. Show that Oswald did not leave the rooming house in as jacket, zipping it up as he went out the door. Then I'll deal with your (jnvalid) point.
-
Nonsense.
Roberts was the only human being present when Oswald left the rooming house and she said he left in a jacket. Show that Oswald did not leave the rooming house in as jacket, zipping it up as he went out the door. Then I'll deal with your (jnvalid) point.
You might just as logically have written:
'Roberts was the only human being present when Oswald left the rooming house and she said he left in a dark jacket. Show that Oswald did not leave the rooming house in a dark jacket.'
-
Nonsense.
Roberts was the only human being present when Oswald left the rooming house and she said he left in a jacket. Show that Oswald did not leave the rooming house in as jacket, zipping it up as he went out the door. Then I'll deal with your (jnvalid) point.
Nonsense.
Why is it nonsense? Just because you don't like it?
Roberts was the only human being present when Oswald left the rooming house and she said he left in a jacket.
Just because she was the only person who saw Oswald leaving the rooming house doesn't automatically make her right.
In her WC testimony she was asked to describe the shirt Oswald was wearing when he entered the house and she failed miserably. She couldn't provide any conclusive details, which doesn't bode well for her observation powers. So, what happened in the brief time that Oswald was at the rooming house that improved her power of observation? And why are you sure she actually saw Oswald zipping up a jacket when, at the same time, she failed completely to notice the color of that "jacket"?
Show that Oswald did not leave the rooming house in as jacket, zipping it up as he went out the door.
Asking me to prove a negative, is not only disingenuous but also exposes the weakness of your own argument. You claimed Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket, so it's up to you to prove it and an unreliable witness like Roberts isn't going to do it for you. To rely on her is a pure sign of utter desperation.
-
You might just as logically have written:
'Roberts was the only human being present when Oswald left the rooming house and she said he left in a dark jacket. Show that Oswald did not leave the rooming house in a dark jacket.'
Thumb1:
Exactly. Two can play the burden-shifting game.
Show that Oswald “got rid of his jacket” before invalidly asking why.
-
Earlene Roberts probably saw Oswald zipping up some kind of jacket on his way out the boarding house at approx 1:04 pm. Since she could not ID the jacket as the light gray jacket, then Oswald might not have been wearing the light gray jacket ( appearing as White in one film clip) which some mystery person allegedly found under a car some time after Tippit was shot dead.
Since Oswald cannot walk or run to get to the 10th & Patton st to shoot Tippit by 1:08 then the only way he could have arrived there in time is if he got a ride by car.
Weird circumstantial stuff:
Tippits police Car no. 10 goes to 10th st intersection of Patton.
Earlene Roberts suggested that she saw police car and heard horn honking while Oswald was at the boarding house. She thought the no. of the car might have been 100 or 107 but wasn’t sure.
Tippit and Oswald ate breakfast at the same diner.
Markam described Tippit and Oswald ( or similar looking man) as engaged in conversation as though they knew each other.
-
You might just as logically have written:
'Roberts was the only human being present when Oswald left the rooming house and she said he left in a dark jacket. Show that Oswald did not leave the rooming house in a dark jacket.'
To my point, the color of the jacket does not matter.
Roberts said Oswald left the rooming house in a jacket. Why did Oswald get rid of the jacket, even if it was rainbow-colored, between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?
-
Earlene Roberts probably saw Oswald zipping up some kind of jacket on his way out the boarding house at approx 1:04 pm. Since she could not ID the jacket as the light gray jacket, then Oswald might not have been wearing the light gray jacket ( appearing as White in one film clip) which some mystery person allegedly found under a car some time after Tippit was shot dead.
Since Oswald cannot walk or run to get to the 10th & Patton st to shoot Tippit by 1:08 then the only way he could have arrived there in time is if he got a ride by car.
Weird circumstantial stuff:
Tippits police Car no. 10 goes to 10th st intersection of Patton.
Earlene Roberts suggested that she saw police car and heard horn honking while Oswald was at the boarding house. She thought the no. of the car might have been 100 or 107 but wasn’t sure.
Tippit and Oswald ate breakfast at the same diner.
Markam described Tippit and Oswald ( or similar looking man) as engaged in conversation as though they knew each other.
Earlene Roberts probably saw Oswald zipping up some kind of jacket on his way out the boarding house at approx 1:04 pm.
Why do you suppose Oswald ditched this jacket by the time he was seen at the shoe store on Jefferson?
-
@Bill Brown: I’m not sure that the Oswald that Earlene Roberts saw was the same Oswald that Brewer saw.
The Oswald (or similar ) that Roger Craig saw at 12:45 , was not wearing a jacket , but apparently only a short sleeve light color shirt with a collar . That man got a ride in the rambler station wagon with DC man after a whistle was heard.
Earlene Roberts describes the Oswald she saw entering the boarding house , as wearing a light color shirt w/sleeves also., not a dark blue jacket or (any other color jacket for that matter)
The dark blue jacket was apparently never on Oswald when he left the TSBD, because that jacket was supposedly not found until a month after the fact in the Domino room. ( is this really a fact or is it just an oft repeated story?)
Maybe someone can clear this up for me because it doesn’t seem to work out how Whaley sees an Oswald who has on some kind of jacket or maybe even 2 jackets which shouldn’t be the case if Oswald was just wearing the brown shirt with the hole in the sleeve.
So IDK how plausible it is that there is one Oswald who the entire time was just wearing the brown shirt with a hole in the sleeve who winds up at Brewers store while another man who resembled Oswald , arrived at Earlene Roberts boarding house, whom took Oswald’s light gray jacket , then got a ride by Tippits police car that honked the horn, drove that Oswald double to 10th and Patton, and that man then got out and shot Tippit in front of witnesses purposely , left shells purposely and then discarded Oswald’s light gray jacket in view of other witnesses, all for the purpose of further implicating the brown shirt Oswald who somehow got from TSBD to Brewers store.
The only reason I’m considering the lookalike Oswald theory is because of that anomalous photo of Oswald with distinctly fatter nose than all the other Oswald photos , which you can easily see if posting the total collection of photos of Oswald all grouped together.
This same fat nose Oswald is in a photo with some Alpha 66 members ( alledged ) and he appears in just a white t-shirt and these is supposedly a photo of Oswald and fellow USMC recruits during their training period.
-
To my point, the color of the jacket does not matter.
Roberts said Oswald left the rooming house in a jacket.
Mrs. Roberts said Mr. Oswald left the rooming house in a dark jacket. Do you accept that that he therefore must have left the rooming house in a dark jacket?
-
Mrs. Roberts said Mr. Oswald left the rooming house in a dark jacket. Do you accept that that he therefore must have left the rooming house in a dark jacket?
Earlene Roberts didn't say that the jacket was a different type or was longer or shorter, she merely said that it was darker and even then she wasn't sure but that it was definitely zippered. Also what must be taken into consideration was that the lighting conditions were not identical between the two locations and the contrasting environments are an important factor to be considered.
What Earlene Roberts actually said.
Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?
Mr. BALL. Yes---it has a zipper down the front.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe it was.
Mr. BALL. It was a zippered jacket, was it?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
In the following example "A" looks way darker than "B" but they are EXACTLY the same.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Checker_shadow_illusion.svg)
Btw what happened to the jacket and why would Oswald throw away his jacket?
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/oswald-1527194255.jpg)
JohnM
-
What Earlene Roberts actually said.
Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?
Mr. BALL. Yes---it has a zipper down the front.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe it was.
Mr. BALL. It was a zippered jacket, was it?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
Thank you, cherry-picker!
Here's what Mrs. Roberts actually said long before her WC testimony:
“Oswald did not have a jacket when he came in to the house and I don’t recall what type of clothing he was wearing. Oswald went to his room and was only there a few minutes before coming out. I noticed he had a jacket he was putting on. I recall the jacket was a dark color"
(signed affidavit of Mrs. Earlene Roberts of Dec 5, 1963 for the Warren Commission)
Thumb1:
-
Thank you, cherry-picker!
Here's what Mrs. Roberts actually said long before her WC testimony:
“Oswald did not have a jacket when he came in to the house and I don’t recall what type of clothing he was wearing. Oswald went to his room and was only there a few minutes before coming out. I noticed he had a jacket he was putting on. I recall the jacket was a dark color"
(signed affidavit of Mrs. Earlene Roberts of Dec 5, 1963 for the Warren Commission)
Thumb1:
Nice try but thanks for proving my point, Earlene doesn't say it was a different type of jacket but that it was just dark and from the following example under different lighting and contrasting conditions it's obvious why she could reach this conclusion.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Checker_shadow_illusion.svg)
Btw, now that we agree that Earlene saw Oswald wearing a jacket, what happened to the jacket??
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/oswald-1527194255.jpg)
JohnM
-
Nice try but thanks for proving my point, Earlene doesn't say it was a different type of jacket but that it was just dark and from the following example under different lighting and contrasting conditions it's obvious why she could reach this conclusion.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Checker_shadow_illusion.svg)
Nice gaslighting, worthy of Mr. Organ himself!
Did Mrs. Roberts also think Mr. Oswald had transformed into a dark-complected man? :D
Btw, now that we agree that Earlene saw Oswald wearing a jacket, what happened to the jacket??
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/oswald-1527194255.jpg)
Which jacket do you mean, Mr. Mytton? The light-colored one (CE162) or the dark one Mrs. Roberts said she saw?
-
Which jacket do you mean, Mr. Mytton? The light-colored one (CE162) or the dark one Mrs. Roberts said she saw?
I think John's point is that you can pick either jacket - then explain where that jacket has got to.
Clearly, Oswald was not wearing a jacket when he was arrested but it is accepted that Roberts is reliable when describing Oswald leaving the rooming house wearing a jacket.
Where did this jacket get to?
Did he lose it as he strolled down to the Texas Theater from the boarding house? Did it just fall off him?
Or is it the jacket that was discovered on the same route the killer of Tippit used to flee the scene?
Or was it lost somewhere else?
Either way, a jacket has gone missing and it needs to be explained.
-
Could Roberts have mistaken seeing Oswald buttoning up his darker brown long sleeve shirt as a jacket being zipped up?
If so then it is possible that Oswald stopped by Brewers store on his way to the Texas theater , just to take a quick look at some shoes. Oswald had visited that store on prior occasion because Brewer remembered him. Brown brown
The dark blue jacket had been left in the Domino room where Oswald had taken it off to eat lunch about 12:25 after he had bought a coke from the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:15.
The light gray jacket therefore would have been at the boarding room and so that jacket could have easily just been taken by the same investigators who were in on the post event plot to make sure that “Oswald is our man” by order of LBJ , and that the public must be convinced there was no conspiracy by the Hoover directive.
-
Clearly, Oswald was not wearing a jacket when he was arrested but it is accepted that Roberts is reliable when describing Oswald leaving the rooming house wearing a jacket.
Is it? Why?
-
Is it? Why?
Is Oswald wearing a jacket in the picture of him being arrested?
Where is his jacket?
Where is the jacket Earlene Roberts describes Oswald zipping up?
Where has that jacket gone?
-
Is Oswald wearing a jacket in the picture of him being arrested?
Nope!
Where is his jacket?
Where is the jacket Earlene Roberts describes Oswald zipping up?
Where has that jacket gone?
Slow down, you move too fast.
"The jacket Earlene Roberts describes Oswald zipping up" was a dark jacket. Do you believe that Mr. Oswald was zipping up a dark jacket as he left the rooming house?
-
Nope!
Slow down, you move too fast.
"The jacket Earlene Roberts describes Oswald zipping up" was a dark jacket. Do you believe that Mr. Oswald was zipping up a dark jacket as he left the rooming house?
if he was zipping it up, he was wearing a jacket.
Where has that jacket gone?
It doesn't matter if it was light, dark or pastel green with maroon stripes.
Where has the jacket gone that he left the rooming house wearing?
-
if he was zipping it up, he was wearing a jacket.
If Mrs. Roberts was paying enough attention to notice that he was zipping it up, then we have no reason on the face of it to assume she wasn't paying enough attention to notice whether it was light or dark.
Agreed?
-
From 4/1/64 FBI report:
“Marina was questioned further concerning clothing jackets which had been owned by Lee Harvey Oswald. She said to the best of her recollection Lee Harvey Oswald had only two jackets, one a heavy jacket, blue in color, and another light jacket, gray in color. She said she believes Oswald possessed both of these jackets in Russia and had purchased them in the United States prior to his departure for Russia. She said she cannot recall that Oswald ever sent either of these jackets to any laundry or cleaners anywhere. She said she can recall washing them herself. She advised to her knowledge Oswald possessed both of these jackets at Dallas on November 22, 1963.”
Here's Mr. Oswald in Minsk:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Jn6X8rv0/LHO-gray-jacket-minsk.jpg)
I ask a question which the excellent Mr. Greg Doudna has been asking:
Is the jacket Mr. Oswald is wearing here the gray jacket Mrs. Marina Oswald mentions above?
-
Here's Mr. Oswald in Minsk:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Jn6X8rv0/LHO-gray-jacket-minsk.jpg)
I ask a question which the excellent Mr. Greg Doudna has been asking:
Is the jacket Mr. Oswald is wearing here the gray jacket Mrs. Marina Oswald mentions above?
It seems logical to think so, yes? Mrs. Marina Oswald only recalls Mr. Oswald wearing two jackets, both of which he purchased in America, took to the Soviet Union, and brought back to America. Both of which he still had in Dallas in Nov. 1963.
Which means Mrs. Earlene Roberts' recollection of a dark + gray zip-up jacket just got a whole lot more difficult to dismiss out of hand.
If the jacket we see Mr. Oswald wearing in Minsk is indeed the gray jacket Mrs. Marina Oswald refers to, then is it not reasonable to propose that it is the jacket Mrs. Roberts saw him zipping up as he left the rooming house?
If if is that jacket, then things get rather interesting.
If it's not that jacket, then we have to ask a simple question: Why was that jacket not found amongst his personal effects in Beckley after the assassination?
-
It seems logical to think so, yes? Mrs. Marina Oswald only recalls Mr. Oswald wearing two jackets, both of which he purchased in America, took to the Soviet Union, and brought back to America. Both of which he still had in Dallas in Nov. 1963.
Which means Mrs. Earlene Roberts' recollection of a dark + gray zip-up jacket just got a whole lot more difficult to dismiss out of hand.
If the jacket we see Mr. Oswald wearing in Minsk is indeed the gray jacket Mrs. Marina Oswald refers to, then is it not reasonable to propose that it is the jacket Mrs. Roberts saw him zipping up as he left the rooming house?
If if is that jacket, then things get rather interesting.
If it's not that jacket, then we have to ask a simple question: Why was that jacket not found amongst his personal effects in Beckley after the assassination?
Where did the jacket go Alan?
And just to clarify something - where does Earlene Roberts say Oswald was zipping up a "dark" jacket?
-
From 4/1/64 FBI report:
“Marina was questioned further concerning clothing jackets which had been owned by Lee Harvey Oswald. She said to the best of her recollection Lee Harvey Oswald had only two jackets, one a heavy jacket, blue in color, and another light jacket, gray in color. She said she believes Oswald possessed both of these jackets in Russia and had purchased them in the United States prior to his departure for Russia. She said she cannot recall that Oswald ever sent either of these jackets to any laundry or cleaners anywhere. She said she can recall washing them herself. She advised to her knowledge Oswald possessed both of these jackets at Dallas on November 22, 1963.”
Here's Mr. Oswald in Minsk:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Jn6X8rv0/LHO-gray-jacket-minsk.jpg)
I ask a question which the excellent Mr. Greg Doudna has been asking:
Is the jacket Mr. Oswald is wearing here the gray jacket Mrs. Marina Oswald mentions above?
(https://i.postimg.cc/T3q77SCS/LHO-gray-jacket-minsk-b.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/fb8HZd4f/Osw-ald-blue-zipper-jacket-b.jpg)
JohnM
-
Where did the jacket go Alan?
You mean the dark gray jacket that Mrs. Roberts said she saw him leave in? The simplest solution would be that he took it off inside the Texas Theatre and it was left there.
And just to clarify something - where does Earlene Roberts say Oswald was zipping up a "dark" jacket?
Reply #191
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/T3q77SCS/LHO-gray-jacket-minsk-b.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/fb8HZd4f/Osw-ald-blue-zipper-jacket-b.jpg)
JohnM
:D :D :D
-
You mean the dark gray jacket that Mrs. Roberts said she saw him leave in? The simplest solution would be that he took it off inside the Texas Theatre and it was left there.
Reply #191
The simplest solution would be that he took it off inside the Texas Theatre and it was left there.
What evidence is there for this? There is none. You're just making stuff up.
But there is evidence against this - Brewer said Oswald wasn't wearing a jacket before he entered the Texas Theater.
So, where did his jacket go before he got to Brewer's shop? (Time to make something else up)
-
The simplest solution would be that he took it off inside the Texas Theatre and it was left there.
What evidence is there for this? There is none. You're just making stuff up.
Where do you think the dark gray jacket Mrs. Roberts saw ended up, Mr. O'Meara?
-
Where do you think the dark gray jacket Mrs. Roberts saw ended up, Mr. O'Meara?
So you're just going to side-step Brewer's testimony because it blows away you're made up nonsense.
Oswald left the rooming house with a jacket on and wasn't wearing it before he went into the Texas Theater.
According to Marina's testimony, the woman who washed his clothes including his jackets, Oswald had two jackets.
One jacket was a dark colour and one was a light colour.
Whether or not it was the dark or light coloured jacket, Oswald "lost" it somewhere between the rooming house and Brewer's shop.
How did Oswald "lose" his jacket on the way to the Texas Theater?
-
if he was zipping it up, he was wearing a jacket.
Where has that jacket gone?
It doesn't matter if it was light, dark or pastel green with maroon stripes.
Where has the jacket gone that he left the rooming house wearing?
Unanswerable, and irrelevant because not only can the premise not be proven correct, but knowing the answer to that question wouldn’t prove anything one way or the other anyway.
-
Oswald left the rooming house with a jacket on
But you only believe that because Mrs. Roberts says so-----------the same Mrs. Roberts whose accompanying recollection about the jacket you completely dismiss.
You're banking the house on a witness you yourself find very unreliable. Not a coherent approach, I'm afraid!
-
Brewer did not see Oswald with a jacket on.
If Oswald took off a jacket and left it in the theater , then that would have to be before Oswald entered Brewers store.
Butch Burroughs thought he saw Oswald buying popcorn about 1:07 pm.
Maybe Burroughs was wrong about the time because it’s not enough time for Oswald to get from boarding house leaving at 1:04 and make it to the theater in just 3 minutes
If Burroughs may be a questionable witness then the next time Oswald was seen in the theater is supposedly by Jack White who saw Oswald seated about 1:20 pm
15 minutes is probably enough time to walk from the boarding house to the theater.
So if someone can find a statement from Jack White that Oswald was wearing a jacket at 1:20 pm then it’s possible Oswald could have taken off the jacket in the theater , left it there while he went for a quick look at some shoes at Brewers store for a few minutes, then returned and because Oswald had already bought a ticket from Julia Postal earlier, just went past the ticket booth without stopping.
Brewer seeing that would thus think Oswald had not paid for a ticket.
-
Unanswerable, and irrelevant because not only can the premise not be proven correct, but knowing the answer to that question wouldn’t prove anything one way or the other anyway.
It proves a lot John.
Oswald was seen zipping up his jacket as he left the rooming house.
A short distance away he was seen at the Tippit crime scene killing Tippit with a gun and wearing a jacket.
Oswald who was trying to alter his appearance after killing Tippit was seen entering a car park where his jacket was found.
Oswald was seen not wearing a jacket while passing Johnny Brewer and at the front of the Texas Theater Oswald was not wearing his jacket.
Oswald was arrested with the same gun which exclusively matched the shells Oswald was seen discarding at the Tippit crime scene.
Some of the jacket eyewitnesses at the Tippit crime scene who positively identified Oswald
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a jacket, what general color of jacket?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It was a short jacket open in the front, kind of a grayish tan.
Mr. BELIN. Was the jacket open or closed up?
Mrs. DAVIS. It was open.
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this now. When you first saw this man, had the police car stopped or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on.
Mr. BALL. How was this man dressed that had the pistol in his hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. He had on a pair of black britches and a brown shirt and a lithe sort of light-gray-looking jacket.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket.
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; a light gray jacket and a white T-shirt.
Oswald's jacket in the carpark.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jjT9Rf8D/oswald-jacket-in-car-park-b.jpg)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0RMLQwkxteo/U-FN7FmA3XI/AAAAAAAA2JY/avVQ3aw3qSQ/s530/Commission-Document-630--(24).jpg)
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-i52uJPaG6lg/U-FOpwbTxCI/AAAAAAAA2Jk/9xTLXSR5iAE/s530/Commission-Document-630--(27).jpg)
The DP initials on Oswald's jacket
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Gray_Zipper_Jacket_Belonging_to_Lee_Harvey_Oswald_-_NARA_-_305140_%28page_4%29.gif)
Oswald without his jacket, after punching McDonald and being arrested at the Texas Theatre.
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/oswald-1527194255.jpg)
JohnM
-
I've seen the jacket. It is a nondescript color that could be characterized in different ways depending on the circumstances. Grasping at straws to avoid the obvious conclusion that Oswald ditched the jacket to change his appearance after murdering Tippit is weak sauce.
-
But you only believe that because Mrs. Roberts says so-----------the same Mrs. Roberts whose accompanying recollection about the jacket you completely dismiss.
You're banking the house on a witness you yourself find very unreliable. Not a coherent approach, I'm afraid!
;D
So, now you don't think Oswald was even wearing a jacket when he left the rooming house!
You think Roberts might have been wrong about that even though it's you who is relying on her testimony concerning a dark coloured jacket to try and make some kind of point.
But when you're asked a simple question - how did Oswald "lose" this jacket between the rooming house and the Texas Theater? - you find you have no coherent answer.
So now you turn on the sole witness you've based you're argument on!
-
So, now you don't think Oswald was even wearing a jacket when he left the rooming house!
I don't know for sure what Mr. Oswald was wearing. Neither do you.
You think Roberts might have been wrong about that even though it's you who is relying on her testimony concerning a dark coloured jacket to try and make some kind of point.
IF (as you believe) she got the color all wrong, then it's possible she barely looked at him leaving. Perhaps all she noticed was that he was wearing a darker top (CE150) than he had come in with (CE151) and, not realizing he had changed shirts, assumed he had put on a jacket----------and mistook his buttoning it up for his zipping it up. In her memory, she later equated this with a dark jacket she had previously seen him wear.
It's also possible, however, that she saw just what she said she saw: Mr. Oswald leave in a dark gray jacket.
But when you're asked a simple question - how did Oswald "lose" this jacket between the rooming house and the Texas Theater? - you find you have no coherent answer.
No, you just don't have the gotcha you thought you had.
IF Mr. Oswald left the rooming house wearing his 'Minsk' jacket, then it's perfectly possible (albeit unprovable) that he simply took it off inside the cinema.
We have good reason to believe that, at the time Mr. Brewer saw 'him' at Hardy's shoe store, the actual Mr. Oswald was already in the cinema.
-
I don't know for sure what Mr. Oswald was wearing. Neither do you.
IF (as you believe) she got the color all wrong, then it's possible she barely looked at him leaving. Perhaps all she noticed was that he was wearing a darker top (CE150) than he had come in with (CE151) and, not realizing he had changed shirts, assumed he had put on a jacket----------and mistook his buttoning it up for his zipping it up. In her memory, she later equated this with a dark jacket she had previously seen him wear.
It's also possible, however, that she saw just what she said she saw: Mr. Oswald leave in a dark gray jacket.
No, you just don't have the gotcha you thought you had.
IF Mr. Oswald left the rooming house wearing his 'Minsk' jacket, then it's perfectly possible (albeit unprovable) that he simply took it off inside the cinema.
We have good reason to believe that, at the time Mr. Brewer saw 'him' at Hardy's shoe store, the actual Mr. Oswald was already in the cinema.
at the time Mr. Brewer saw 'him' at Hardy's shoe store, the actual Mr. Oswald was already in the cinema
And off into Unicorn land we go....
That didn't take you too long.
Rather than some long, drawn out, tiresome reveal, why not cut to the chase and directly explain what this means.
Start off with the "him" Brewer sees.
-
at the time Mr. Brewer saw 'him' at Hardy's shoe store, the actual Mr. Oswald was already in the cinema
And off into Unicorn land we go....
~Grin~
'Excessive deviation from ze official story vill not be tolerated!'
If you're not even aware of the problems with Mr. Brewer's story, Mr. O'Meara, then you haven't done your homework. I'm not here to do your homework. You do your homework.
-
Correcting a mistake: The witness claiming seeing Oswald in the theater at 1:20 pm was Jack Davis ( not white).
-
Correcting a mistake: The witness claiming seeing Oswald in the theater at 1:20 pm was Jack Davis ( not white).
Mr. Davis' account of Mr. Oswald's strange behavior inside the Texas Theatre----------moving from seat to seat, sitting right beside a succession of individuals-----------tells us the reason he was there
-
~Grin~
'Excessive deviation from ze official story vill not be tolerated!'
If you're not even aware of the problems with Mr. Brewer's story, Mr. O'Meara, then you haven't done your homework. I'm not here to do your homework. You do your homework.
So, Roberts was wrong and Brewer was lying ::)
Oswald rushed into the rooming house for no particular reason, strolled on down to the Texas Theater and paid to go in.
Unfortunately for him, Tippit was murdered while he was in the cinema and, somehow, it was known Oswald would be there and fresh for framing.
How am I doing so far?
-
So, Roberts was wrong and Brewer was lying ::)
Oswald rushed into the rooming house for no particular reason, strolled on down to the Texas Theater and paid to go in.
Unfortunately for him, Tippit was murdered while he was in the cinema and, somehow, it was known Oswald would be there and fresh for framing.
How am I doing so far?
Very poorly
-
Very poorly
Have you even decided whether or not Oswald was wearing a jacket when he left the rooming house?
-
Have you even decided whether or not Oswald was wearing a jacket when he left the rooming house?
Lol, I don't get to 'decide' what Mr. Oswald was wearing as he left the rooming house. He does.
What does the scanty evidence available to us suggest? That IF he was wearing a jacket it was not light-colored a la CE162
-
They showed Whaley the taxi driver both the CE 162 ( light gray) jacket and the CE 163 (dark blue) jacket and Whaley said that Oswald was wearing BOTH jackets !?
Whaley must have been totally confused, lying, or some other man than Lee Harvey Oswald got into his taxi, because CE 162 was the jacket that was at Oswalds boarding house , and CE 163 , the dark blue jacket , was LEFT by Oswald in the Domino room ( where it was found a month after the tragic event,)
So whatever jacket(s) that Whaley thinks he saw were NOT jackets that Oswald could have been wearing , IF Oswald owned ONLY the 2 jackets , CE 162 and CE 163.
That is , IF there were no nefarious relocating both these jackets after the fact similar to the rearrangement of boxes in the SN, and the various paper bag locations and the 3 shells tossed on the floor, failure to document chain of custody etc.
-
It proves a lot John.
Oswald was seen zipping up his jacket as he left the rooming house.
A short distance away he was seen at the Tippit crime scene killing Tippit with a gun and wearing a jacket.
Oswald who was trying to alter his appearance after killing Tippit was seen entering a car park where his jacket was found.
Your speculative guess about what Oswald was “trying” to do is not proof of anything.
Oswald was seen not wearing a jacket while passing Johnny Brewer and at the front of the Texas Theater Oswald was not wearing his jacket.
Proving what, exactly?
Oswald was arrested with the same gun which exclusively matched the shells Oswald was seen discarding at the Tippit crime scene.
LOL.
-
And off into Unicorn land we go....
That didn't take you too long.
Rather than some long, drawn out, tiresome reveal, why not cut to the chase and directly explain what this means.
Start off with the "him" Brewer sees.
This is the point at which we always go off into LN-La-La-land. It’s just presumed that Brewer is correct and Burroughs and Davis are not. As if there is anything that makes his claims automatically true.
-
I've seen the jacket. It is a nondescript color that could be characterized in different ways depending on the circumstances. Grasping at straws to avoid the obvious conclusion that Oswald ditched the jacket to change his appearance after murdering Tippit is weak sauce.
I have also seen the jacket and there is no way that witnesses could describe it as being dark, never mind the circumstances.
-
This is the point at which we always go off into LN-La-La-land. It’s just presumed that Brewer is correct and Burroughs and Davis are not. As if there is anything that makes his claims automatically true.
??
Brewer describes this suspicious looking guy outside his shop and police sirens out on the street. The man walks towards the Theater and Brewer goes out and sees him enter the cinema. He goes up to Postal and asks if the man bought a ticket. Postal confirms this in her WC testimony. Brewer decides to go in and asks Burroughs to help him check the exits. Burroughs confirms this in his WC testimony.
In their WC testimonies both Postal and Burroughs confirm key parts of Brewer's testimony regarding following Oswald into the cinema.
What's the issue?
-
??
Brewer describes this suspicious looking guy outside his shop and police sirens out on the street. The man walks towards the Theater and Brewer goes out and sees him enter the cinema. He goes up to Postal and asks if the man bought a ticket. Postal confirms this in her WC testimony. Brewer decides to go in and asks Burroughs to help him check the exits. Burroughs confirms this in his WC testimony.
In their WC testimonies both Postal and Burroughs confirm key parts of Brewer's testimony regarding following Oswald into the cinema.
What's the issue?
Five issues:
- Brewer didn’t see anybody enter the cinema. The doors weren’t visible from his position.
- Postal didn’t see anybody enter the cinema. She was out on the sidewalk looking west on Jefferson.
- Brewer didn’t immediately go talk to Postal. He went back into his store and talked to the IBM men first.
- Postal told both Brewer and the FBI that she wasn’t sure if she sold the man a ticket or not.
- Just because Brewer thought the man he saw was Oswald, doesn’t mean that the man he saw was Oswald, anymore than the man that Burroughs saw or the man that Jack Davis saw.
-
- Brewer didn’t see anybody enter the cinema. The doors weren’t visible from his position.
- Postal didn’t see anybody enter the cinema. She was out on the sidewalk looking west on Jefferson.
- Brewer didn’t immediately go talk to Postal. He went back into his store and talked to the IBM men first.
- Postal told both Brewer and the FBI that she wasn’t sure if she sold the man a ticket or not.
Thumb1:
So Mr. Brewer sees a man acting suspiciously outside his shoe store. He then sees the man go down the street and turn into the recessed front entrance of the Texas Theatre. He then goes back to the shoe store and gets his two IBM buddies to lock up for him so he can check out the man. He then goes to the Texas Theatre and asks Ms. Postal did she just see a man enter without paying. She, understanding him to mean someone other than anyone who might have entered earlier than within the last couple of minutes or so, says no.
OK. At this point, Mr. Brewer cannot know whether the man actually entered the cinema or not. As Mr. Brewer didn't have his eye on the entrance the whole time (return to shoe store), it's quite possible the man only ducked into the recessed entrance momentarily before going back out on the street (just as he did with the shoe store).
Dialogue with Ms. Postal and Mr. Burroughs only increases the probability of this latter scenario. Neither saw this man whom Mr. Brewer is convinced entered the cinema.
But Mr. Brewer doesn't let up.
He gets Mr. Burroughs to help him check out the patrons in the balcony and out on the main floor. Mr. Brewer fails to see the man, despite the fact that the cinema is only sparsely populated.
But Mr. Brewer doesn't let up.
He gets Ms. Postal to CALL THE COPS, and then gets Mr. Burroughs to help him guard the exits. He now has no good reason to believe that the suspicious man did actually enter the cinema beyond the recessed front entrance lobby, but he's convinced this man is connected to the shooting of an officer in Oak Cliff, and so he wants to be absolutely sure.
Why does he believe this? Because, just before seeing the man acting suspiciously outside his shoe store, he heard the officer's killer described on radio, and the suspicious man at the shoe store matched the description.
Only one problem: Mr. Brewer almost certainly never heard any such radio broadcast.
And out of all this half-baked suspicioning on the part of Mr. Brewer, we get the Dallas police swarming on the Texas Theatre.
What must have run through the minds of Ms. Postal and Mr. Burroughs when they saw arrested-------as the man who had ducked into the cinema just before the man from the shoe store turned up--------a man whom they both knew had entered the cinema many minutes earlier than that?
The names of the other patrons in the cinema were taken by police afterwards, but there was little or no follow up. We still don't know the names of most of these crucial eyewitnesses.
Thanks to Mr. Jack Davis, we know why: Mr. Oswald entered the cinema many minutes before the Brewer 'sighting', and sat beside one patron after another. He was there to meet a contact.
As for Mr. Brewer, this critically important witness whose heroic civic-minded super-vigilance led to Mr. Oswald's capture, his first official statement on the affair was not taken until two weeks after the assassination.
And his two IBM buddies were never identified, let alone questioned.
LN-La-La-Land indeed
-
In contrarian land, you can see a man walking toward you, and then disappear behind you and not be able to claim he went into the theatre when that is the only place he could have gone. HA HA HA. Was Oswald beamed up to the Starship Enterprise or become the Invisible Man in that moment? The contrarian doesn't know or care. They are desperately grasping at pedantic straws to sow false doubt even when it makes no sense. Why? Because we know beyond any doubt that Oswald WAS in the theatre because that is where he was arrested a few minutes later! That means he HAD to enter the theatre. And when was the best time for him to have done so without Postal selling him a ticket? When she was standing out on the sidewalk. The contrarians undermine their own "logic." But the contrarians still dispute that he entered the theatre? Wow.
-
In contrarian land, you can see a man walking toward you, and then disappear behind you and not be able to claim he went into the theatre when that is the only place he could have gone. HA HA HA. Was Oswald beamed up to the Starship Enterprise or become the Invisible Man in that moment? The contrarian doesn't know or care. They are desperately grasping at pedantic straws to sow false doubt even when it makes no sense. Why? Because we know beyond any doubt that Oswald WAS in the theatre because that is where he was arrested a few minutes later! That means he HAD to enter the theatre. And when was the best time for him to have done so without Postal selling him a ticket? When she was standing out on the sidewalk. The contrarians undermine their own "logic." But the contrarians still dispute that he entered the theatre? Wow.
not be able to claim he went into the theatre when that is the only place he could have gone. HA HA HA.
The only place he could have gone? Really.... So, continue walking down the sidewalk wasn't an option? HA HA HA HA HA
when it makes no sense. Why? Because we know beyond any doubt that Oswald WAS in the theatre because that is where he was arrested a few minutes later!
The only thing that doesn't make sense is you (as per usual) making an assumption.... in this case; that Oswald (who was indeed in the theatre) was the man Brewer saw.
But the contrarians still dispute that he entered the theatre?
Who.. Oswald or the guy Brewer saw?
As he was there when DPD found him, Oswald clearly must have entered the theatre. The question to be answered is; when did he enter? Since nobody saw him actually going in, all you have is your usual circular conjecture.
-
EXHIBIT A!
Mr. BREWER - [...] And I and two or three other officers walked out on the stage and I pointed him out, and there were officers coming in from the front of the show, I guess, coming toward that way, and officers going from the back.
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you see?
Mr. BREWER - Well, I saw this policeman approach Oswald, and Oswald stood up and I heard some hollering.
EXHIBIT B!
11/22/63 affidavit:
(https://i.postimg.cc/7h1SCHLR/George-Applin-11-22-marked.png)
If Mr. Brewer had pointed THE man out, the officer would have gone straight to THAT man. But the officer didn't do that-----------he first tried his luck with two other men. And THEN he came to Mr. Oswald, whose reaction told him he had struck gold.
Ergo, Mr. Brewer didn't point Mr. Oswald out. He hadn't a clue which man was the man they were after.
-
Five issues:
- Brewer didn’t see anybody enter the cinema. The doors weren’t visible from his position.
- Postal didn’t see anybody enter the cinema. She was out on the sidewalk looking west on Jefferson.
- Brewer didn’t immediately go talk to Postal. He went back into his store and talked to the IBM men first.
- Postal told both Brewer and the FBI that she wasn’t sure if she sold the man a ticket or not.
- Just because Brewer thought the man he saw was Oswald, doesn’t mean that the man he saw was Oswald, anymore than the man that Burroughs saw or the man that Jack Davis saw.
::)
Brewer testifies that he sees this guy acting suspiciously at the front of his shop while police sirens are blaring outside. As the sirens pass the guy moves on:
"He turned and walked out of the lobby and went up West Jefferson toward the theatre, and I walked out the front and watched him, and he went into the theatre."
The suspicious looking guy enters the Texas Theatre. Does Brewer need to see this guy actually enter the door to know he has entered the building? Brewer watches the man turn into the building and knows he has entered the theatre:
Mr. Brewer: No; he just turned and walked right straight in.
Mr. Belin: When he walked right straight in, could you see the box office?
Mr. Brewer: Well, the box office is right in the middle in front of the theatre, and he turned right at the corner and went in. You could see him if he was buying a ticket, because the box office is flush with all the other buildings.
Mr. Belin: If he had purchased a ticket, would you have seen him purchasing the ticket from where you were standing or walking?
Mr. Brewer: I could have seen him, yes; standing in front of the box office.
"...he just turned and walked right straight in...he turned right at the corner and went in."
The doors of the cinema are recessed from the front of the building. Brewer does not see Oswald pass through the doors but he does see him walk into the large recessed area at the entrance of the cinema.
Even though Postal doesn't see Oswald enter the theatre, she does provide us with the information that Oswald never passed her position as she was looking west, up Jefferson. Postal was stood on the sidewalk just in front of the Box Office, checking out the police cars blaring by. She actually sees Oswald approaching from the east but then she turns to look west and doesn't see him ducking into the theatre:
Mr. Ball: The last time you had seen him before he ducked in, he was just standing outside of the door, was he?
Mrs. Postal: No, sir; he was still just in----just off of the sidewalk, and he headed for the theatre.
She has no idea Oswald has gone into the theatre, she turns around to find Brewer there asking about the suspicious guy who ducked into the theatre.
Brewer sees the man turn into the building and Postal confirms the man she saw approaching her never passed by her position at the front of the Box Office. Brewer and Postal confirm each others account of talking about whether the man who had entered the theatre had paid for his ticket:
Postal - I was right at the box office facing west, because I thought .the police were stopping up quite a ways. Well, just as I turned around then Johnny Brewer was standing there and he asked me if the fellow that ducked in bought a ticket, and I said, "No; by golly, he didn't," and turned around expecting to see him.
Brewer - I walked up to the theatre, to the box office and asked Mrs. Postal if she sold a ticket to a man who was wearing a brown shirt, and she said no, she hadn't.
It is agreed that Brewer will go inside to see if he can find the man who ducked inside:
Brewer - I said that a man walked in there, and I was going to go inside and ask the usher if he had seen him.
Postal - I said, "Go in and see if you can see him,"
It is agreed to get Butch Burroughs involved:
Mr. Brewer: ... So I walked in and Butch Burroughs.----
Mr. Belin: Who was Burroughs?
Mr. Brewer: ...he operated the concession ... I asked him if he would come with me and show me where the exits were and we would check the exits.
Postal - I told Johnny this, don't tell him [Burroughs], because he is an excitable person, and just have him, you know, go with you and examine the exits and check real good
Butch never saw the man who ducked in without paying:
Brewer - He was behind the counter. He operated the concession and takes tickets. He was behind the concession stand and I asked him if he had seen a man in a brown shirt of that description, matching that description, and he said he had been working behind the counter and hadn't seen anybody.
Burroughs - ...I had a lot of stock candy to count and put in the candy case for the coming night, and if he had came around in front of the concession out there, I would have seen him, even though I was bent down, I would have seen him, but otherwise I think he sneaked up the stairs real fast.
Brewer's account of following Oswald into the Texas Theater is confirmed by both Postal and Burroughs as are other details. Brewer checks the back exit which is locked (this can only be done from the inside) so he knows no-one has left through that exit. He and Burroughs go back through the cinema but can't see the man they are looking for and return to Postal at the front who decides to call the police:
Brewer - When we first went down to the exit by the stage, we heard a seat pop up, but couldn't see anybody. And we never did see him. But we went back and upstairs and checked, and we came down and went back to the box office and told Julia that we hadn't seen him ... and she called the police, and we went----Butch went to the front exit, and I went down by the stage to the back exit and stood there until the police came.
Postal - I told Johnny [Brewer] this ... just have him [Burroughs], you know, go with you and examine the exits and check real good, so, he came back and said he hadn't seen anything although, he had heard a seat pop up like somebody getting out, but there was nobody around that area, so, I told Johnny about the fact that the President had been assassinated. "I don't know if this is the man they want," I said, "in there, but he is running from them for some reason," and I said "I am going to call the police, and you and Butch go get on each of the exit doors and stay there."
Other aspects of Brewer's account are confirmed by various officers. Brewer has taken up a position guarding the back exit:
Brewer - I heard a noise outside, and I opened the door, and the alley, I guess it was filled with police cars and policemen were on the fire exits and stacked around the alley, and they grabbed me, a couple of them and held and searched me and asked me what I was doing there, and I told them that there was a guy in the theatre that I was suspicious of, and he asked me if he was still there.
And I said, yes, I just seen him. And he asked me if I would point him out.
And I and two or three other officers walked out on the stage and I pointed him out, and there were officers coming in from the front of the show, I guess, coming toward that way, and officers going from the back.
Officer Hutson - We pulled up to this location and I was the first out of the car to hit the ground. As I walked up to the fire exit doors, Officer Hawkins and Baggett were getting out of the car, and the door to the theatre opened, and this unknown white male was exiting.
I drew my pistol and put it on him and told him to put up his hands and not to make a move, and he was real nervous and scared and said: "I am not the one. I just came back to open the door. I work up the street at the shoestore, and Julia sent me back to open the door so you could get in. I walked up and searched him briefly and I could see by the description and his clothes that he wasn't the person we were looking for."
Officer Walker - I went in the alley up to the back door. When I arrived there, there was several officers there ... around the back of the theatre, and myself, and/McDonald, and Officer Hutson went in the back door. And this man told us, or this boy told us that there was someone, said the person that he had seen was inside the theatre, and that he had changed seats several times, and he thought he was out there in the middle now.
Brewer's account of what happened seems completely credible and is corroborated by multiple witnesses and there is no doubt in Brewer's mind that the man he saw outside his shop and who ducked into the Texas Theater was the man he pointed out to police and who was subsequently arrested in the cinema - Lee Harvey Oswald.
-
EXHIBIT A!
Mr. BREWER - [...] And I and two or three other officers walked out on the stage and I pointed him out, and there were officers coming in from the front of the show, I guess, coming toward that way, and officers going from the back.
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you see?
Mr. BREWER - Well, I saw this policeman approach Oswald, and Oswald stood up and I heard some hollering.
EXHIBIT B!
11/22/63 affidavit:
(https://i.postimg.cc/7h1SCHLR/George-Applin-11-22-marked.png)
If Mr. Brewer had pointed THE man out, the officer would have gone straight to THAT man. But the officer didn't do that-----------he first tried his luck with two other men. And THEN he came to Mr. Oswald, whose reaction told him he had struck gold.
Ergo, Mr. Brewer didn't point Mr. Oswald out. He hadn't a clue which man was the man they were after.
You're assuming the officer described in the affidavit was the one Brewer pointed Oswald out to.
Multiple officers entered the back exit at the same time. Hutson describes pulling a gun on Brewer and searching him but nothing about Brewer pointing Oswald out, he just got on with searching the cinema.
LATER EDIT:
This from McDonald's testimony [this is the officer Applin was describing in his affidavit]:
Mr. Mcdonald: Well, when I got to the front of the theater there was several police cars already at the scene, and I surmised that officers were already inside the theater.
So I decided to go to the rear, in the alley, and seal off the rear. I parked my squad car. I noticed there were three or four other officers standing outside with shotguns guarding the rear exits. There were three other officers at the rear door. I joined them. We walked into the rear exit door over the alley.
Mr. Ball: What were their names?
Mr. Mcdonald: Officer Hawkins, T. A. Hutson, and C. T. Walker. And as we got inside the door, we were met by a man that was in civilian clothes, a suit, and he told us that the man that acted suspiciously as he ran into the theater was sitting downstairs in the orchestra seats, and not in the balcony. He was sitting at the rear of the theater alone.
Officer Walker and I went to the exit curtains that is to the left of the movie screen. I looked into the audience. I saw the person that the shoe store salesman had pointed out to us.
Mr. Ball: Were the lights on or off?
Mr. Mcdonald: The lights were up, and the movie was playing at this time.
Mr. Ball: And could you see to the rear of the theater?
Mr. Mcdonald: Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball: You could see the man. Did the civilian point out to you the man in one of the rear seats?
Mr. Mcdonald: He didn't point out personally. He was pointing out the suspect to another officer with him on the right of the stage, just right of the movie screen.
Mr. Ball: What did you do then?
Mr. Mcdonald: Well, after seeing him, I noticed the other people in the theater--there was approximately 10 or 15 other people seated throughout the theater. There were two men sitting in the center, about 10 rows from the front.
I walked up the left center aisle into the row behind these two men, and Officer C. T. Walker was behind me. When I got to these two men, I told them to get on their feet. They got up. I searched them for a weapon.
I looked over my shoulder and the suspect that had been pointed out to me. He remained seated without moving, just looking at me.
Mr. Ball: Why did you frisk these two men in the center of the theater?
Mr. McDONALD, I wanted to make sure that I didn't pass anything or miss anybody. I wanted to make sure I didn't overlook anybody or anything.
Mr. Ball: And you still kept your eye on the suspect?
Mr. Mcdonald: Yes, sir. He was to my back. I was looking over my shoulder at him.
Mr, BALL. Was he sitting nearest the right or the left aisle as you came in?
Mr. Mcdonald: The right center aisle. He was in the second seat.
Mr. Ball: What did you do then?
Mr. Mcdonald: After I was satisfied that these two men were not armed or had a weapon on them, I walked out of this row, up to the right center aisle toward the suspect...
-
Mr. Brewer: Well, the box office is right in the middle in front of the theatre, and he turned right at the corner and went in. You could see him if he was buying a ticket, because the box office is flush with all the other buildings.
Nonsense.
The view from outside Hardy's Shoe Store:
(https://i.postimg.cc/y80CdWSD/Brewer-view.jpg)
The box office is not "flush with all the other buildings":
(https://i.postimg.cc/NM9W3MYG/Brewer-view4.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/7ZHjxXDW/Brewer-view3.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/Bb5w3Pz3/Brewer-view5.jpg)
-
Mr. Mcdonald: Well, after seeing him, I noticed the other people in the theater--there was approximately 10 or 15 other people seated throughout the theater. There were two men sitting in the center, about 10 rows from the front.
I walked up the left center aisle into the row behind these two men, and Officer C. T. Walker was behind me. When I got to these two men, I told them to get on their feet. They got up. I searched them for a weapon.
I looked over my shoulder and the suspect that had been pointed out to me. He remained seated without moving, just looking at me.
Mr. Ball: Why did you frisk these two men in the center of the theater?
Mr. McDONALD, I wanted to make sure that I didn't pass anything or miss anybody. I wanted to make sure I didn't overlook anybody or anything.
Mr. Ball: And you still kept your eye on the suspect?
Mr. Mcdonald: Yes, sir. He was to my back. I was looking over my shoulder at him.
Mr, BALL. Was he sitting nearest the right or the left aisle as you came in?
Mr. Mcdonald: The right center aisle. He was in the second seat.
Mr. Ball: What did you do then?
Mr. Mcdonald: After I was satisfied that these two men were not armed or had a weapon on them, I walked out of this row, up to the right center aisle toward the suspect...
Lol, a feeble post hoc justification from Officer McDonald for the witnessed fact that he didn't know which man to approach.
Mr. Brewer, in his testimony, makes no mention of this shaking down of the two men. Instead he gives the impression of the simple sequence:
1. I pointed out the man
2. The officer approached that man.
Why does Mr. Brewer give this false impression? Because he never pointed out any man.
-
Brewer - I walked up to the theatre, to the box office and asked Mrs. Postal if she sold a ticket to a man who was wearing a brown shirt, and she said no, she hadn't.
Again, what Mr. Brewer is leaving out is the fact that, BEFORE walking up to the cinema and speaking with Ms. Postal, he returned to his shoe store and spoke with his two IBM pals in there-----------------the same two guys with whom he had shortly before this heard, on a transistor radio, the non-existent radio broadcast of the Tippit killer.
And here's the most important point: If Mr. Brewer's grimly determined pursuit of 'Oswald' seems too good to be true, that's as nothing compared to the Dallas police's amazing intuition that this fellow's half-suspicion justifies the descent by a squadron of cops on the Texas Theatre in response to the radio dispatch "Have information a suspect just went in the Texas Theater . . . Supposed to be hiding in the balcony".
-
The suspicious looking guy enters the Texas Theatre. Does Brewer need to see this guy actually enter the door to know he has entered the building?
Yes.
Even though Postal doesn't see Oswald enter the theatre, she does provide us with the information that Oswald never passed her position as she was looking west, up Jefferson.
Walking past Postal isn’t the only other option. The man could have done an about face. He could have crossed the street. He could have gone down the alley separating the theater from the furniture store.
Postal was stood on the sidewalk just in front of the Box Office, checking out the police cars blaring by. She actually sees Oswald approaching from the east but then she turns to look west and doesn't see him ducking into the theatre:
That’s what she claimed, but when Brewer asked her if she sold a ticket to “that man” she said “what man?”. By the way, she never said anything about it being Oswald.
Also, if Brewer really “knew” that man entered the theater without buying a ticket then why ask Postal at all if she sold him a ticket? And why would she say she wasn’t sure? None of this fits together.
Brewer's account of following Oswald into the Texas Theater is confirmed by both Postal and Burroughs
Bull. How does not seeing someone enter confirm when somebody entered?
"I don't know if this is the man they want," I said, "in there, but he is running from them for some reason,"
Postal saw nothing that would suggest that anybody in the theater was “running” from the police.
Brewer's account of what happened seems completely credible and is corroborated by multiple witnesses
Brewer’s account of when and how Oswald entered the theater is corroborated by nothing and nobody. And it is contradicted by Burroughs and Davis.
and there is no doubt in Brewer's mind that the man he saw outside his shop and who ducked into the Texas Theater was the man he pointed out to police and who was subsequently arrested in the cinema - Lee Harvey Oswald.
When did Brewer ever say there was no doubt in his mind?
-
Mrs. POSTAL. - So, well, I called the police, and he wanted to know why I thought it was their man, and I said, "Well, I didn't know," and he said, "Well, it fits the description," and I have not---I said I hadn't heard the description. All I know is, "This man is running from them for some reason." And he wanted to know why, and told him because everytime the sirens go by he would duck and he wanted to know----well, if he fits the description is what he says. I said, "Let me tell you what he looks like and you take it from there." And explained that he had on this brown sports shirt and I couldn't tell you what design it was, and medium height, ruddy looking to me, and he said, "Thank you"
The police officer who took the call had heard this description of the suspect:
(https://i.postimg.cc/gJknbYkg/Tippit-suspect-description-marked.jpg)
"Thank you", indeed...................
-
Dallas Assistant District Attorney Jim Bowie confirmed Mrs. Postal's call when asked by researcher Mr. Leo Sauvage, but added that it was just one of "half a dozen calls” to the police concerning a suspicious man sneaking into the theater.
Mrs. Postal's call, based on Mr. Brewer's half-suspicion, was not the one that drew DPD en masse to the Texas Theatre.
Either that or what she actually described, in her call to police, and what Mr. Brewer actually described to her, was a man wearing a white shirt.
No wonder it took the 'investigating' authorities a couple of weeks to put Mr. Brewer and Mrs. Postal on the record!
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/gJknbYkg/Tippit-suspect-description-marked.jpg)
Note----------------by the way---------------the words "Have a description on the suspect on Jefferson. Last seen about the three hundred block of East Jefferson".
This description will have come from Mr. Warren Reynolds.
Two days after being interviewed by FBI and failing to make a positive identification of the man as Mr. Oswald, Mr. Reynolds was shot in the head. The bullet evidently entered at an angle such as to concentrate his mind: thereafter, Mr. Reynolds positively identified Mr. Oswald as the man.
-
Mrs. POSTAL. - So, well, I called the police, and he wanted to know why I thought it was their man, and I said, "Well, I didn't know," and he said, "Well, it fits the description," and I have not---I said I hadn't heard the description. All I know is, "This man is running from them for some reason." And he wanted to know why, and told him because everytime the sirens go by he would duck and he wanted to know----well, if he fits the description is what he says. I said, "Let me tell you what he looks like and you take it from there." And explained that he had on this brown sports shirt and I couldn't tell you what design it was, and medium height, ruddy looking to me, and he said, "Thank you"
The police officer who took the call had heard this description of the suspect:
(https://i.postimg.cc/gJknbYkg/Tippit-suspect-description-marked.jpg)
"Thank you", indeed...................
Oswald does fit that basic description.
-
Oswald does fit that basic description.
~Grin~
-
~Grin~
What were the police supposed to do in your fantasy world? They get a report of a suspicious person in the area of the crime. He matches the general description of the suspect. With 60 years of hindsight, you can find a single anomaly. Ironically, based on Oswald's efforts to change his appearance. The police acted exactly as they should have and captured the murderer. Great work with the assistance of the public. An unhinged killer was taken into custody without further loss of life.
-
What were the police supposed to do in your fantasy world? They get a report of a suspicious person in the area of the crime. He matches the general description of the suspect.
A man in a brown shirt does not fit the description of a suspect in a white shirt, lol
-
A man in a brown shirt does not fit the description of a suspect in a white shirt, lol
Again, what should the police have done? Said to themselves: This couldn't be the guy even though he meets the physical description, is reported in the area of the crime, and is acting suspiciously. Good grief. Of course, Oswald did change his appearance between the crime scene and the TT. Fortunately, the police exercised basic common sense.
-
Again, what should the police have done? Said to themselves: This couldn't be the guy even though he meets the physical description,
No, they should have said to themselves: This doesn't sound like the guy as the description doesn't match, but heck, let's send a squadron of officers to turn the place upside down as it could be Shamus 'Ten Shirts' McGready and his gang
-
Note that Postal gave hardly any “general description” at all. She said, “he had on this brown sports shirt and I couldn't tell you what design it was, and medium height, ruddy looking to me”. Somehow this made him a murder suspect.
-
No, they should have said to themselves: This doesn't sound like the guy as the description doesn't match, but heck, let's send a squadron of officers to turn the place upside down as it could be Shamus 'Ten Shirts' McGready and his gang
I'm really glad that you do not work for the police (or any position of responsibility). Thankfully they exercised common sense to remove a killer from the public without anyone else getting killed including Oswald who they had every reason to use lethal force against when he pulled his gun. Brewer was a hero. Tippit was a hero. Postal was a hero. The police officers who risked their lives approaching this cold blood killer in the theatre were heroes. Top notch police work.
-
I'm really glad that you do not work for the police (or any position of responsibility). Thankfully they exercised common sense to remove a killer from the public without anyone else getting killed including Oswald who they had every reason to use lethal force against when he pulled his gun. Brewer was a hero. Tippit was a hero. Postal was a hero. The police officers who risked their lives approaching this cold blood killer in the theatre were heroes. Top notch police work.
Top notch police work.
LOL
-
I'm really glad that you do not work for the police (or any position of responsibility). Thankfully they exercised common sense to remove a killer from the public without anyone else getting killed including Oswald who they had every reason to use lethal force against when he pulled his gun. Brewer was a hero. Tippit was a hero. Postal was a hero. The police officers who risked their lives approaching this cold blood killer in the theatre were heroes. Top notch police work.
Yeah, top notch-----------they arrested a guy who had shot neither Pres. Kennedy nor Officer Tippit
-
Yeah, top notch-----------they arrested a guy who had shot neither Pres. Kennedy nor Officer Tippit
Let's just have a look at some of the things these "top notch" cops did or did not do.....
They find a jacket under a car, but they don't know the name of the officer who "found" it, nor do they know who the officer was that Captain Westbrook gave that (white) jacket to or how it made it's way to the DPD office. Then, suddenly, the jacket (which is now grey), shows up in the possession again of Captain Westbrook, with markings on it from DPD officers that never handled the jacket and were never part of the chain of custody.
Then we have the BY photos, which the DPD officers allegedly "found" in Ruth Paine's garage during the second search of her home, on Saturday afternoon, with a search warrant. Strangely enough, Michael Paine testified that a FBI agent showed him one of the photos on Friday evening for identification of the location and Fritz already had a blow up of one of the photos on Saturday morning.
Then there is the bus transfer and some bullets that they allegedly "found" on Oswald's person, during, not the first, not the second but the third search of his body. How is that even possible?
Then we have officer Hill, who was given a revolver at the Texas Theatre and was told it belonged to Oswald. Instead of marking it and entering it in the evidence room as soon as he arrived (with Oswald) in the car, he decided to carry it around for a couple of hours and then ask some fellow officers to put markings on a revolver presented to them as being the one that Hill had received at the Texas Theatre.
And it goes on and on. Lt Day claims to have lifted a print from the rifle found at the TSBD. The same rifle that nobody bothered to check if it even had been fired that day. Instead of turning it over to the FBI on Friday evening, Day kept it for several days on an evidence card and only presented it to the FBI on 11/26/63.
A folded up paper bag was allegedly "found" at the so-called sniper's nest at the TSBD, but the first six officers who were in that location did not recall seeing it. Then Studebaker, the second in charge of the forensics department, showed up and failed to photograph that bag in situ. It's only after his arrival, that officers started seeing the paper pag in the sniper's nest. The first time the paper bag is seen in public is when officer Montgomery carried it out of the TSBD in an unfolded state, with something inside holding it up, which means the opening was at the bottom, which allowed for anything inside the bag to fall out. Yet, later, they somehow "found" fibers matching Oswald's blanket in that bag.... Go figure.
It goes on and on.... but, yes, if you disregard all this, they really did a "top notch" job Thumb1:
-
Exactly right Martin. Egregious incompetence and misconduct at every turn. That “Richard” thinks this is “top notch” just demonstrates how delusional (or brainwashed) he is.
-
Let's just have a look at some of the things these "top notch" cops did or did not do.....
They find a jacket under a car, but they don't know the name of the officer who "found" it, nor do they know who the officer was that Captain Westbrook gave that (white) jacket to or how it made it's way to the DPD office. Then, suddenly, the jacket (which is now grey), shows up in the possession again of Captain Westbrook, with markings on it from DPD officers that never handled the jacket and were never part of the chain of custody.
Then we have the BY photos, which the DPD officers allegedly "found" in Ruth Paine's garage during the second search of her home, on Saturday afternoon, with a search warrant. Strangely enough, Michael Paine testified that a FBI agent showed him one of the photos on Friday evening for identification of the location and Fritz already had a blow up of one of the photos on Saturday morning.
Then there is the bus transfer and some bullets that they allegedly "found" on Oswald's person, during, not the first, not the second but the third search of his body. How is that even possible?
Then we have officer Hill, who was given a revolver at the Texas Theatre and was told it belonged to Oswald. Instead of marking it and entering it in the evidence room as soon as he arrived (with Oswald) in the car, he decided to carry it around for a couple of hours and then ask some fellow officers to put markings on a revolver presented to them as being the one that Hill had received at the Texas Theatre.
And it goes on and on. Lt Day claims to have lifted a print from the rifle found at the TSBD. The same rifle that nobody bothered to check if it even had been fired that day. Instead of turning it over to the FBI on Friday evening, Day kept it for several days on an evidence card and only presented it to the FBI on 11/26/63.
A folded up paper bag was allegedly "found" at the so-called sniper's nest at the TSBD, but the first six officers who were in that location did not recall seeing it. Then Studebaker, the second in charge of the forensics department, showed up and failed to photograph that bag in situ. It's only after his arrival, that officers started seeing the paper pag in the sniper's nest. The first time the paper bag is seen in public is when officer Montgomery carried it out of the TSBD in an unfolded state, with something inside holding it up, which means the opening was at the bottom, which allowed for anything inside the bag to fall out. Yet, later, they somehow "found" fibers matching Oswald's blanket in that bag.... Go figure.
It goes on and on.... but, yes, if you disregard all this, they really did a "top notch" job Thumb1:
All this from the guy who denies he is alleging a conspiracy or that the evidence was fabricated. But his constant response to the evidence against Oswald is that some unknown person COULD have fabricated it to frame him. This is just a lazy defense attorney approach. There is nothing "allegedly" about any of this evidence. In many cases, there are actually films and photos of the evidence at the crime scene etc.
-
All this from the guy who denies he is alleging a conspiracy or that the evidence was fabricated. But his constant response to the evidence against Oswald is that some unknown person COULD have fabricated it to frame him. This is just a lazy defense attorney approach. There is nothing "allegedly" about any of this evidence. In many cases, there are actually films and photos of the evidence at the crime scene etc.
Name one thing I said that isn't correct.......
He won't.... Nothing new there. Rather than dealing with actual facts, "Richard", as always, prefers to just ignore them and instead go on another pathetic insignificant off topic rant.
He still hasn't understood (and probably never will) that questioning the evidence against Oswald does not automatically mean alleging a conspiracy. That's just another idiotic strawman used by a guy who fully understands that the evidence against Oswald isn't nearly as conclusive and credible as he would like it to be. That's why he can't stand people looking more closely at the evidence. For "Richard" (and guys like him) it's a simple matter of believing evidence that he can't present because, in the real world, it doesn't exist.
All this from the guy who denies he is alleging a conspiracy or that the evidence was fabricated.
Wrong again. All this from the guy who is stating factual and true information. You should try it once....
But his constant response to the evidence against Oswald is that some unknown person COULD have fabricated it to frame him.
You still haven't grasped the reality of the fact that the person claiming somebody is guilty needs to present credible and authenticated evidence to support his claim. Again, you should try it once.
There is nothing "allegedly" about any of this evidence.
Total and utter BS. All there is, is "cop said so".... :D
In many cases, there are actually films and photos of the evidence at the crime scene etc.
Don't just say it (as per usual), but present that film and photographic evidence.... Go on then
-
They find a jacket under a car, but they don't know the name of the officer who "found" it
This may be because the jacket was in fact found by Mrs. Doretha Dean (of Dean's Dairy Way), who claimed she found a jacket thrown onto a tire rack. Not dramatically furtive enough-------------------> 'Let's say we found it hidden under a car'
Mr. Dale Myers LOVES Mrs. Dean's story of 'Oswald' making noise at the second-hand furniture store, and so gives it full credence. He dislikes Mrs. Dean's jacket story, however, so dismisses it as an uncredible embellishment............
Those of us not signed-up life members of the Warren Gullibility Fellowship need not be so agenda-driven in our sifting of the evidence.
Tan Jacket Man (the man who shot Officer Tippit) was seen going into the alley off Patton.
Light-Gray Jacket Man (the man who went all the way down Patton AFTER Tan Jacket Man) was in all likelihood the owner of the discarded jacket. Before discarding his jacket, he was seen by Mr. Warren Reynolds going into the furniture store: this sighting formed the basis of the suspect description that would go out on police radio. There is a very good chance THIS man was the man seen a little later by Mrs. Dean (who found his jacket), and after that by Mr. Johnny Calvin Brewer (or was it actually Mr. Tommy Rowe who saw him?).
Mr. Oswald was in the Texas Theatre when all this was going down, moving from seat to seat beside a series of people sitting solo, wondering where the hell his promised contact was. And then the cops came in, which confirmed Mr. Oswald's worst fear: he had been hung out to dry.
-
Does it seem kind of odd that Oswald just didn’t get rid of his revolver ( if he even had one on his person in the first place), when he observed that
1. He couldn’t escape as the police officers were entering the theater
2. Officer McDonald was searching 2 other people BEFORE having yet approached Oswald .
Now if the explanation for this keeping the revolver is that Oswald had intention to have a final “shootout” with cops in the theatre then why did Oswald not pull out the revolver when he STOOD UP to move and then sat down again , which action occurred just as the lights came on and the police were entering the theater.?
And as for McDonald, Oswald supposedly HIT McDonald and McDonald fell BACKWARD (according to one witness) and THEN a revolver is seen in the hands of Oswald AND several police including McDonald who bounced back up quickly and grabbed a revolver simultaneously with several OTHER hands on it also.
So it does seem (to me ) that Oswald must have had the revolver in his hand at some point just after hitting McDonald and its difficult imo to see how the revolver could have been shoved into Oswald’s hand by McDonald or other cop as a post event set up of Oswald. ( But I could be wrong if McDonald lied as Mr.I has already provide a link that kind of makes one wonder about McDonald).
But what about the firing pin of the revolver?
It was not functional apparently after McDonalds hand web supposedly was able to get stuck in between hammer and pin , which is an amazing thing since the hammer of a revolver doesn’t have to be “cocked” back before firing, One only has to press the trigger and the hammer is automatically engaged and then released striking the pin.
Would Oswald have been wearing his revolver with the hammer already cocked?
Is this a typical thing with revolvers that a web of a thumb and forefinger getting caught between hammer and pin as the hammer strikes would cause the firing pin to become permanently dysfunctional thereafter?
-
..or Oswald didn’t have a revolver at all and the gun that was struggled over was a throw-down gun that McDonald brought.
-
How many people have been added to the conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime within just an hour of the assassination? And mostly random citizens. That was quite a plan. They are willing to lie or avoid telling the truth to help frame Oswald. Never in their entire lives do they ever say differently or indicate that anyone coerced them into lying. It's just possible. Or it can't be disproven with absolute certainty to the subjective satisfaction of CTer/contrarians. Imagine applying that standard to any other criminal case or fact in human history.
-
..or Oswald didn’t have a revolver at all and the gun that was struggled over was a throw-down gun that McDonald brought.
And how did McDonald know the person he was supposed to framing with the "throw-down gun" was in the Texas Theater?
-
Brewer's basic story of seeing a man acting suspiciously on the street who he saw go into the Texas Theater and who he followed, is confirmed by a number of eye-witnesses he told this story to before Oswald was arrested.
Postal, Burroughs and Walker confirm the detail that Brewer had mentioned the man ducking into his own store before moving on.
Brewer then points out Oswald as the man who he saw acting suspiciously.
Postal - Well, just as I turned around then Johnny Brewer was standing there and he asked me if the fellow that ducked in bought a ticket, and I said, "No; by golly, he didn't," and turned around expecting to see him... Mr. Brewer said he had been ducking in at his place of business, and he had gone by me, because I was facing west, and I said, "Go in and see if you can see him," it isn't too much people in there.
Burroughs - ...the police were cruising up and down Jefferson hunting for Oswald, and he ran to a shoestore and then came out and came on up to the Texas, and the man [Brewer] came in and told me that a man fitting that description came in the show and he wanted me to help him find him, and we went and checked the exit doors...
Hawkins - I believe Officer McDonald was at the back door at the time and Officer Hutson and Captain Westbrook and Officer Walker and myself went in the rear door, all went to the rear door, and at this time we saw a white male [Brewer] there and began talking to him and he identified himself as being the manager of a shoe store next door and that he was the person who had noted the suspicious acting on the suspect, and he at that time was brought into the rear of the theatre and on the stage and he pointed the person out sitting about three or four rows from the back of the theatre on the right hand or the south side.
Walker- I went in the alley up to the back door. When I arrived there, there was several officers ... around the back of the theatre, and myself, and/McDonald, and Officer Hutson went in the back door. And this man [Brewer] told us, or this boy told us that there was someone, said the person that he had seen was inside the theatre, and that he had changed seats several times, and he thought he was out there in the middle now ... He said he seen him duck into the store where he worked, kind of looked back, and looked like he was running, and just run into the theatre ... He said he looked like he was scared.
Mcdonald - ... And as we got inside the door, we were met by a man that was in civilian clothes [Brewer], a suit, and he told us that the man that acted suspiciously as he ran into the theater was sitting downstairs in the orchestra seats, and not in the balcony. He was sitting at the rear of the theater alone.
Officer Walker and I went to the exit curtains that is to the left of the movie screen. I looked into the audience. I saw the person that the shoe store salesman had pointed out to us.
This doesn't prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the man Brewer pointed out was the same man he saw entering the cinema. It might just be an outrageously perverse coincidence that the man he pointed out was Oswald.
Or maybe Brewer was the man Oswald was going to meet at the cinema and he concocted this story on the spot in order to get the police down there.
And maybe McDonald was carrying a "throw-down gun" with him all that day, knowing that Tippit was going to be shot and that it would be needed to frame the soon-to-be prime suspect in the assassination of JFK, who Brewer was going to throw under the bus. ::)
-
Brewer's basic story of seeing a man acting suspiciously on the street
No: Mr. Brewer's 'basic story' is that this man matched the description of the cop killer he had heard on the radio
who he saw go into the Texas Theater
No: Mr. Brewer did not see him go into the Texas Theatre
and who he followed
No: Mr. Brewer returned to the shoe store before re-emerging out onto the street and going down to the Texas Theatre
-
How many people have been added to the conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime within just an hour of the assassination? And mostly random citizens. That was quite a plan. They are willing to lie or avoid telling the truth to help frame Oswald. Never in their entire lives do they ever say differently or indicate that anyone coerced them into lying. It's just possible. Or it can't be disproven with absolute certainty to the subjective satisfaction of CTer/contrarians. Imagine applying that standard to any other criminal case or fact in human history.
Imagine applying the “‘Richard’ imagined it, therefore it’s a fact” standard to another case in human history.
-
Brewer's basic story of seeing a man acting suspiciously on the street who he saw go into the Texas Theater and who he followed, is confirmed by a number of eye-witnesses he told this story to before Oswald was arrested.
Postal, Burroughs and Walker confirm the detail that Brewer had mentioned the man ducking into his own store before moving on.
Uh, nobody disputes that Brewer saw somebody in front of his store that he thought went into the theater. Just like Burroughs saw somebody buying popcorn that he thought was Oswald. Just like Jack Davis saw somebody moving around to different seats that he thought was Oswald.
-
No: Mr. Brewer's 'basic story' is that this man matched the description of the cop killer he had heard on the radio
Can you help me out here.
I can't find where Brewer says he hears the description of the suspect on the radio.
No: Mr. Brewer did not see him go into the Texas Theatre
I agree he doesn't see him enter the doors, but he seems really convinced he sees the man turn into the recessed part at the front.
No: Mr. Brewer returned to the shoe store before re-emerging out onto the street and going down to the Texas Theatre
No, Brewer followed him out of the store and saw him go into the Texas Theater, then returned and asked his friends to lock up.
Then went to the cinema.
[/quote]
-
Walker- I went in the alley up to the back door. When I arrived there, there was several officers ... around the back of the theatre, and myself, and/McDonald, and Officer Hutson went in the back door. And this man [Brewer] told us, or this boy told us that there was someone, said the person that he had seen was inside the theatre, and that he had changed seats several times, and he thought he was out there in the middle now ...
???
This is a highly significant detail from Patrolman Walker.
Mr. Brewer's story was always that he did NOT know where Mr. Oswald was until the lights were turned on: last he had seen of the man was when he ducked into the entrance area of the Texas Theatre. Now we have him (and it presumably is him) telling officers the same story that Mr. Jack Davis will tell: Mr. Oswald had changed seats several times.
How do we reconcile these conflicting accounts?
Well, Mr. Brewer must have picked up this information via someone who had, unlike him, actually seen the odd behavior of Mr. Oswald. Perhaps Mr. Burroughs. Perhaps Mr. Davis himself. Perhaps some other patron (the pregnant woman?). 'Yeah, there's a guy who keeps changing seats on the main floor.' Mr. Brewer, hearing this, assumed that this must be the man he had seen behaving suspiciously out in the street--------the 'suspect'. The lights come on, and Mr. Oswald gets into a ruckus with Officer McDonald. Mr. Brewer convinces himself that this must be his 'suspect' from the shoe store.
What Mr. Brewer doesn't know, however, is that THIS man's (i.e. Mr. Oswald's) strange seat-changing behavior started many minutes before the shoe store sighting. He assumes all this must have happened just in the last few minutes. He doesn't realize that Mr. Oswald cannot possibly have been the man acting suspiciously at the shoe store.
Note also the continuation of Patrolman Walker's account:
"And this man [Brewer] told us, or this boy told us that there was someone, said the person that he had seen was inside the theatre, and that he had changed seats several times, and he thought he was out there in the middle now"
"He thought he was out there in the middle now": this is very different to a confident pointing out of the man. Mr. Brewer has merely HEARD that the man who kept changing seats is now sitting in the middle section of the main floor. THIS is the second-hand information he passes on to the officers. He does not NOT point out Mr. Oswald specifically. He does NOT identify him positively as the man he saw at the shoe store. There is NO visual recognition here. And Officer McDonald, going only on the tip that the suspect is "in the middle now", first shakes down two men in the middle section, AND ONLY THEN Mr. Oswald.
If Mr. Brewer afterwards realized that this was a case of mistaken identity, he opted to play along with the official story. Indeed, he revelled in his heroic role as The Man Who Helped Capture the Presidential Assassin. And, in order to play his role the better, he embellished his story (radio report, matching description, brown shirt, etc.).
-
Can you help me out here.
I can't find where Brewer says he hears the description of the suspect on the radio.
Multiple places. Start with his FBI interview 2/27/64
I agree he doesn't see him enter the doors, but he seems really convinced he sees the man turn into the recessed part at the front.
And, in order to justify this really convinced state of mind, he misrepresents a basic fact as to the visibility of the box office from his vantage point
No, Brewer followed him out of the store and saw him go into the Texas Theater,
Still nope
then returned and asked his friends to lock up.
Then went to the cinema.
And misrepresents the basic sequence of events in his WC testimony:
Mr. BREWER. - [...] He walked into the Texas Theatre and I walked up to the theatre
-
Well, Mr. Brewer must have picked up this information via someone who had, unlike him, actually seen the odd behavior of Mr. Oswald. Perhaps Mr. Burroughs. Perhaps Mr. Davis himself. Perhaps some other patron (the pregnant woman?).
It's one of the most intriguing things witnessed by Mr. Davis: one of the people Mr. Oswald sat down beside was a pregnant woman. She then got up and left the cinema------and didn't return.
Well, here's a scenario that would explain why Mr. Brewer's bad feeling about the guy he saw at the shoe store, and his mere belief that this man had snuck into the cinema, was amplified into collective CERTAINTY that this suspicious man was indeed in the cinema: The pregnant woman left the screening and, before leaving the cinema in disgust, complained to Mr. Burroughs or Mrs. Postal about a male patron's creepy behavior.
Only one problem: she was talking about a different man to the man Mr. Brewer saw outside. But, in the excitement, this fact (the non-matching timelines) went unnoticed...................
And what information does the pregnant woman give before leaving? Well, to quote Patrolman Walker again: "he [...] changed seats several times, and [...] he [is] out there in the middle now ..."-------------which is where the pregnant woman had been sitting.
It is this information that the otherwise clueless Mr. Brewer will pass on to the officers when they come in
-
..or Oswald didn’t have a revolver at all and the gun that was struggled over was a throw-down gun that McDonald brought.
"a throw-down gun that McDonald brought."
LOL
-
"a throw-down gun that McDonald brought."
LOL
Not any more LOL-worthy than “Oswald brought CE143 into the theater”.
-
The more likely time that Tippit was shot was approx 1:08 because of the DOA document time stamp of 1:15pm , Oswald pronounced dead on arriving AT the hospital AT 1.15pm. And because Bowley arrived at the scene 1:10pm (per his own watch time).
For Oswald to have shot Tippet approx 1:08 pm only 4 minutes after Oswald left his boarding house at 1:04pm and then Oswald traveled approx 2 miles from 10th &Patton to the Texas Theater, in just 12 minutes , to be seen by Jack Davis at 1:20pm would only be possible if Oswald was given a ride by car or he was able to use a bus.
The only way that the WC timeline works is if Markam, Bowley, Earlene Roberts, and Jack Davis are considered mistaken on their times of seeing Oswald.
And the DOA time stamp of 1:15 has to be interpreted to mean the physicians estimate of when the death of Tippit occurred.
And then other little problems like Whaley the taxi driver , seeing Oswald wearing BOTH the dark blue jacket AND the light gray jacket, well.. he was just confused on that .. BUT he was right none the less that the man he picked up not later than 12:45 (via Whaley's own manifest ) was dropped off 9 minutes later ( also by Whaleys own estimate) about 5 blocks from Oswald’s boarding house, at approx 12:54pm.
And that man must be Oswald never the less the impossibility of Oswald having on EITHER jacket, because Whaley identified a gold colored.bracelet on the wrist of the man he saw as the same bracelet that Oswald had on in a picture that Whaley saw.
-
Uh, nobody disputes that Brewer saw somebody in front of his store that he thought went into the theater. Just like Burroughs saw somebody buying popcorn that he thought was Oswald. Just like Jack Davis saw somebody moving around to different seats that he thought was Oswald.
"...nobody disputes that Brewer saw somebody in front of his store that he thought went into the theater."
That's all I've been getting at - that there is a general trustworthiness regarding Brewer's account as it is corroborated by multiple witness accounts.
There can also be little doubt that the man Brewer pointed out to various officers was Lee Harvey Oswald.
However, unlike Davis or Burroughs, Brewer recognised Oswald as a particularly awkward customer he had served in the recent past. This is supported by the fact that among the inventory of Oswald's possessions are a pair of shoes, "John Hardy brand".
It appears Oswald had indeed bought shoes from that particular shoestore and was remembered by Brewer as an awkward customer. So it is safe to assume, because Brewer recognised Oswald as a previous customer, that the man he saw ducking into his store, the man he believed went into the Texas Theater and the man he pointed out to multiple police officers in the cinema, were one and the same man.
What is very hard to deny is that the sole reason the police descended on the Texas Theater was the phone call from Postal.
And that the reason for this phone call was Brewer's intervention due to the suspicious activity of his ex-customer at a time when sirens were blaring up and down Jefferson and it had just been reported on the radio that there had been a shooting in Oak Cliff.
It is also safe to say that, if it hadn't been for Brewer's intervention, Oswald would not have been arrested in the Texas Theater.
-
"...nobody disputes that Brewer saw somebody in front of his store that he thought went into the theater."
That's all I've been getting at - that there is a general trustworthiness regarding Brewer's account as it is corroborated by multiple witness accounts.
There can also be little doubt that the man Brewer pointed out to various officers was Lee Harvey Oswald.
However, unlike Davis or Burroughs, Brewer recognised Oswald as a particularly awkward customer he had served in the recent past. This is supported by the fact that among the inventory of Oswald's possessions are a pair of shoes, "John Hardy brand".
It appears Oswald had indeed bought shoes from that particular shoestore and was remembered by Brewer as an awkward customer. So it is safe to assume, because Brewer recognised Oswald as a previous customer, that the man he saw ducking into his store, the man he believed went into the Texas Theater and the man he pointed out to multiple police officers in the cinema, were one and the same man.
What is very hard to deny is that the sole reason the police descended on the Texas Theater was the phone call from Postal.
And that the reason for this phone call was Brewer's intervention due to the suspicious activity of his ex-customer at a time when sirens were blaring up and down Jefferson and it had just been reported on the radio that there had been a shooting in Oak Cliff.
It is also safe to say that, if it hadn't been for Brewer's intervention, Oswald would not have been arrested in the Texas Theater.
Good grief, nearly every sentence of this is packed with naive and ill-informed silliness.
What will be the next installment of garbage from Mr. O'Meara in his campaign to position himself as a Moderate Warren Gullible? 'There is a general trustworthiness regarding Brennan's account as it is corroborated by multiple witness accounts. There can also be little doubt that the man Brennan saw on the sixth floor was Lee Harvey Oswald.'
-
Well!
Imagine by some miracle one of the eager beaver Warren Gullibles actually does finally uncover an amazingly early local radio broadcast informing listeners that an officer has been shot in Oak Cliff and the suspect is a white male wearing a WHITE jacket and a WHITE shirt.
OK. You're Mr. Brewer. You see a man in a BROWN shirt acting suspiciously. What do you think to yourself? 'Gee, that guy fits the description!' I don't think so.
Mr. Brewer's local radio broadcast is almost certainly a fabrication. And if it isn't, that would only make things worse for his story.
-
Well!
Imagine by some miracle one of the eager beaver Warren Gullibles actually does finally uncover an amazingly early local radio broadcast informing listeners that an officer has been shot in Oak Cliff and the suspect is a white male wearing a WHITE jacket and a WHITE shirt.
OK. You're Mr. Brewer. You see a man in a BROWN shirt acting suspiciously. What do you think to yourself? 'Gee, that guy fits the description!' I don't think so.
Mr. Brewer's local radio broadcast is almost certainly a fabrication. And if it isn't, that would only make things worse for his story.
You really are suggesting that the police and witnesses should ignore a person who is acting suspiciously in the vicinity of the crime because he allegedly didn't match the EXACT description down to every piece of clothing. You find that suspicious? Good grief. And, of course, we know that Oswald did make efforts to change his appearance after the Tippit shooting by discarding his jacket. Oswald matched the general description. He was acting suspiciously in the immediate vicinity of the crime. The police acted the same way that they did when they saw a guy running inot the library (who didn't meet the descritpion exactly).
-
The police acted the same way that they did when they saw a guy running inot the library (who didn't meet the descritpion exactly).
Please describe for us the guy seen running into the library at Marsalis
-
You really are suggesting that the police and witnesses should ignore a person who is acting suspiciously in the vicinity of the crime because he allegedly didn't match the EXACT description down to every piece of clothing. You find that suspicious? Good grief. And, of course, we know that Oswald did make efforts to change his appearance after the Tippit shooting by discarding his jacket. Oswald matched the general description. He was acting suspiciously in the immediate vicinity of the crime. The police acted the same way that they did when they saw a guy running inot the library (who didn't meet the descritpion exactly).
And, of course, we know that Oswald did make efforts to change his appearance after the Tippit shooting by discarding his jacket.
We know this? Really? Your imagination is working overtime again....
-
And, of course, we know that Oswald did make efforts to change his appearance after the Tippit shooting by discarding his jacket.
We know this? Really? Your imagination is working overtime again....
It's my imagination? LOL. Why not be honest for a single time when discussing this case. Oswald had a jacket on when he left his boardinghouse. He did not have a jacket when arrested at the TT. Thus, his appearance had change between the boarding house and TT. But that doesn't even matter. The issue is whether the police should have taken seriously a report of an individual acting suspiciously in proximity to the crime scene just because one aspect of his clothing description was different. No sane person would suggest that the police should have ignored that report and not responded.
-
Please describe for us the guy seen running into the library at Marsalis
Gray sweater. Differing from the exact description but acting suspiciously by running in the vicinity of the crime scene. Police respond in force. The guy explains himself instead of resisting arrest and trying to pull a gun.
-
It's my imagination? LOL. Why not be honest for a single time when discussing this case. Oswald had a jacket on when he left his boardinghouse. He did not have a jacket when arrested at the TT. Thus, his appearance had change between the boarding house and TT. But that doesn't even matter. The issue is whether the police should have taken seriously a report of an individual acting suspiciously in proximity to the crime scene just because one aspect of his clothing description was different. No sane person would suggest that the police should have ignored that report and not responded.
Oswald had a jacket on when he left his boardinghouse.
LOL... Because Earlene Roberts, who was blind in one eye, was paying attention to the television, with her back turned to the room, and only saw Oswald for a second or two, said so? How convenient....
But that doesn't even matter.
Of course it matters. Except for a statement made by a highly unreliable witness, there is no credible evidence that Oswald left the roominghouse wearing a jacket. And without that evidence, all your subsequent claims are build on quicksand.
-
Oswald had a jacket on when he left his boardinghouse.
LOL... Because Earlene Roberts, who was blind in one eye, was paying attention to the television, with her back turned to the room, and only saw Oswald for a second or two, said so? How convenient....
But that doesn't even matter.
Of course it matters. Except for a statement made by a highly unreliable witness, there is no credible evidence that Oswald left the roominghouse wearing a jacket. And without that evidence, all your subsequent claims are build on quicksand.
Why are you going down this rabbit hole again after recently being humiliated by Bill and others on this topic? And Roberts wasn't the only person to confirm that Oswald was wearing a jacket. Multiple witnesses at the Tippit shooting who later ID Oswald as the shooter indicated that he was wearing a jacket. He has no jacket when he is arrested. He has changed his appearance. But AGAIN, that is not relevant to the point being made. You are having trouble following. The police received a report of a person acting suspiciously in the vicinity of the crime scene. He fits the general description of the suspect (white slender male). One particular regardging his shirt color is different. Should they have responded or not? LOL.
-
Gray sweater. Differing from the exact description but acting suspiciously by running in the vicinity of the crime scene.
Ah, a GRAY sweater. Thank you, Mr. Smith Thumb1: (And could you please give us a source for this detail?)
So! Patrolman Walker sees a guy in a gray sweater running into the library. Perhaps he doesn't even get a good enough look of the top to see that it's a sweater rather than a shirt. Perhaps he just sees: gray top. But even if he does recognize it as a sweater, he understands it's very easy for a gray sweater under a jacket to have been confused by a witness for a white shirt. Well within the normal margin of error. Coupled with the fact of his running in the vicinity of the crime scene, it makes perfect sense for Patrolman Walker to think 'This must be our guy' and to excitedly put out a confident radio dispatch, "He's in the library".
Now compare this with:
A report comes in of a guy in a brown shirt ducking into the Texas Theatre. Very unlikely for a brown shirt to be confused by a witness for a white shirt. Well outside the normal margin of error. It may make sense to send a cop or two to check the thing out, but it makes very little sense to hit the cinema with anything like the fervor with which the library was hit before this.
**
By the way, we know that Patrolman Walker was on high alert in these manhunt minutes for one thing: a man in a white shirt. Makes sense: like other officers, he had heard the description broadcast, followed by the information that the jacket had been discarded and found. But we have extra confirmation that what he was on high alert for was: a man in white shirt. Because the NEXT man Patrolman Walker confronted was a guy he saw behind a fence. As it happened, the guy was just out walking his dog. But Patrolman Walker didn't know that at first. He saw this man as a suspect for one reason: he was wearing a WHITE SHIRT.
**
Change one detail in the Brewer story and the response of the police to the call from the Texas Theatre makes sense: the man seen by Brewer had on a white shirt. The brown shirt was only 'remembered' later------------------after Mr. Oswald's arrest.
-
Why are you going down this rabbit hole again after recently being humiliated by Bill and others on this topic? And Roberts wasn't the only person to confirm that Oswald was wearing a jacket. Multiple witnesses at the Tippit shooting who later ID Oswald as the shooter indicated that he was wearing a jacket. He has no jacket when he is arrested. He has changed his appearance. But AGAIN, that is not relevant to the point being made. You are having trouble following. The police received a report of a person acting suspiciously in the vicinity of the crime scene. He fits the general description of the suspect (white slender male). One particular regardging his shirt color is different. Should they have responded or not? LOL.
Why are you going down this rabbit hole again after recently being humiliated by Bill and others on this topic?
Now I know for sure that your imagination is in full overdrive, again.... :D :D
And Roberts wasn't the only person to confirm that Oswald was wearing a jacket. Multiple witnesses at the Tippit shooting who later ID Oswald as the shooter indicated that he was wearing a jacket.
Hilarious... More circular "logic"....
If Oswald didn't leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket, then he couldn't have been the man those "multiple witnesses" saw and thus probably mistakenly identified in highly questionable line ups.
-
Oswald had a jacket on when he left his boardinghouse.
"a jacket", lol
“Oswald did not have a jacket when he came in to the house and I don’t recall what type of clothing he was wearing. Oswald went to his room and was only there a few minutes before coming out. I noticed he had a jacket he was putting on. I recall the jacket was a dark color"
(signed affidavit of Mrs. Earlene Roberts of Dec 5, 1963 for the Warren Commission)
-
Ah, a GRAY sweater. Thank you, Mr. Smith Thumb1: (And could you please give us a source for this detail?)
So! Patrolman Walker sees a guy in a gray sweater running into the library. Perhaps he doesn't even get a good enough look of the top to see that it's a sweater rather than a shirt. Perhaps he just sees: gray top. But even if he does recognize it as a sweater, he understands it's very easy for a gray sweater under a jacket to have been confused by a witness for a white shirt. Well within the normal margin of error. Coupled with the fact of his running in the vicinity of the crime scene, it makes perfect sense for Patrolman Walker to think 'This must be our guy' and to excitedly put out a confident radio dispatch, "He's in the library".
Now compare this with:
A report comes in of a guy in a brown shirt ducking into the Texas Theatre. Very unlikely for a brown shirt to be confused by a witness for a white shirt. Well outside the normal margin of error. It may make sense to send a cop or two to check the thing out, but it makes very little sense to hit the cinema with anything like the fervor with which the library was hit before this.
**
By the way, we know that Patrolman Walker was on high alert in these manhunt minutes for one thing: a man in a white shirt. Makes sense: like other officers, he had heard the description broadcast, followed by the information that the jacket had been discarded and found. But we have extra confirmation that what he was on high alert for was: a man in white shirt. Because the NEXT man Patrolman Walker confronted was a guy he saw behind a fence. As it happened, the guy was just out walking his dog. But Patrolman Walker didn't know that at first. He saw this man as a suspect for one reason: he was wearing a WHITE SHIRT.
**
Change one detail in the Brewer story and the response of the police to the call from the Texas Theatre makes sense: the man seen by Brewer had on a white shirt. The brown shirt was only 'remembered' later------------------after Mr. Oswald's arrest.
So the suspect could have stopped and bought a sweater after killing Tippit and put that on over his "white shirt? Wow! The police did not pursue him because of what they thought about his shirt/sweater. The obvious point is that a report of a suspicious person that matches the general description of the suspect warrants a police response. That is what happened at the library. That is what happened at the TT. There were undoubtedly lots of people wearing white, gray, and brown shirts walking around. They were not stopped because of that. The individuals that the police pursued were reported as acting suspiciously. Running into a library for no apparent reason. Trying to avoid the police and then sneaking into the TT without buying a ticket.
-
An interesting dispatch:
"There is nothing to this Marsalis [library] here. Let's go back up to the place and work to north Jefferson. We got a witness that saw him shed his jacket and check towards Tyler."
Who was this witness?
-
So the suspect could have stopped and bought a sweater after killing Tippit and put that on over his "white shirt?
Yikes, you really are flailing here................
Wow! The police did not pursue him because of what they thought about his shirt/sweater. The obvious point is that a report of a suspicious person that matches the general description of the suspect warrants a police response.
"matches the general description", lol
A man in a brown shirt does not fit the description of a man in a white shirt.
Your increasingly desperate gaslighting is getting you precisely nowhere, Mr. Smith!
Thumb1:
-
Yikes, you really are flailing here................
"matches the general description", lol
A man in a brown shirt does not fit the description of a man in a white shirt.
Your increasingly desperate gaslighting is getting you precisely nowhere, Mr. Smith!
Thumb1:
Simple question. Should the police have responded to the report of a person acting suspiciously in the vicinity of the crime scene or not? Particularly when the person meets the general description of a slender, white male.
-
Simple question. Should the police have responded to the report of a person acting suspiciously in the vicinity of the crime scene or not? Particularly when the person meets the general description of a slender, white male.
Should the police have responded to the report of a person, who didn't plausibly match the clothing description of the suspect, acting suspiciously in the vicinity of the crime scene?
Fair question! To which the answer is: Yes, absolutely, they should have sent a couple of officers to check it out. There was a chance the man in the brown shirt might be somehow involved.
That would have been a rational and proportional response to a report that was interesting, but not nearly as promising as the library report.
Thumb1:
-
Why are you going down this rabbit hole again after recently being humiliated by Bill and others on this topic?
Now I know for sure that your imagination is in full overdrive, again.... :D :D
And Roberts wasn't the only person to confirm that Oswald was wearing a jacket. Multiple witnesses at the Tippit shooting who later ID Oswald as the shooter indicated that he was wearing a jacket.
Hilarious... More circular "logic"....
If Oswald didn't leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket, then he couldn't have been the man those "multiple witnesses" saw and thus probably mistakenly identified in highly questionable line ups.
What mind boggling logic. You claimed that Roberts was the "only" person to see Oswald was wearing a jacket. When it is pointed out that this is false because other witnesses also reported him wearing a jacket you somehow twist this to mean he wasn't wearing a jacket! Astounding in its lunacy.
-
"a jacket", lol
“Oswald did not have a jacket when he came in to the house and I don’t recall what type of clothing he was wearing. Oswald went to his room and was only there a few minutes before coming out. I noticed he had a jacket he was putting on. I recall the jacket was a dark color"
(signed affidavit of Mrs. Earlene Roberts of Dec 5, 1963 for the Warren Commission)
If the sole witness who saw Mr. Oswald leave the rooming house was correct in her recollection that he left wearing a dark jacket, then he may have simply gone to the Texas Theatre with it on and taken it off inside before his arrest.
If the cops found this jacket afterwards, the very last thing they would have wanted to do would be to reveal the fact. That would have destroyed the entire narrative that had been constructed for Officer Tippit's murder.
-
Should the police have responded to the report of a person, who didn't plausibly match the clothing description of the suspect, acting suspiciously in the vicinity of the crime scene?
Fair question! To which the answer is: Yes, absolutely, they should have sent a couple of officers to check it out. There was a chance the man in the brown shirt might be somehow involved.
That would have been a rational and proportional response to a report that was interesting, but not nearly as promising as the library report.
Thumb1:
We are making snail-like progress. No one could have thought it possible! So the police SHOULD have responded to the TT. We have cleared that up. Now grasshopper ask yourself the next question. Who are the police looking for in that area? A cop murdering killer. Is such a person potentially dangerous? Yes! This guy could turn out to be that person. He could turn out not to be that person like the guy in the library where a heavy police response was sent. What should they do? Send a light response and potentially get more officers killed or send a heavy response to ensure the safety of the responding officers?
-
We are making snail-like progress. No one could have thought it possible! So the police SHOULD have responded to the TT. We have cleared that up. Now grasshopper ask yourself the next question. Who are the police looking for in that area? A cop murdering killer.
Wearing a white shirt.
A man in a brown shirt is highly unlikely to be the cop-murdering killer.
You lose! Thumb1:
-
What mind boggling logic. You claimed that Roberts was the "only" person to see Oswald was wearing a jacket. When it is pointed out that this is false because other witnesses also reported him wearing a jacket you somehow twist this to mean he wasn't wearing a jacket! Astounding in its lunacy.
So, you don't understand how circular "logic" works? And still you use it far too often.
I'm not twisting anything. That's your departement!
Now pay attention and at least try to understand this; If Oswald did not leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket (as you assume he did) and the other witnesses saw a man wearing a jacket, Oswald couldn't have been the man they saw.
We know from Marina that Oswald only had two jackets, a light grey and a blue/grey one. Both are now in the National Archives. Buell Wesley Frasier saw Oswald wearing a light grey jacket to Irving on Thursday evening and we know that Oswald was wearing the blue/grey jacket on Friday morning, as it was found at the TSBD after the assassination. So, genius, how can Oswald put on a light grey jacket at the rooming house when Frazier places that same jacket in fact in Irving?
-
So, you don't understand how circular "logic" works? And still you use it far too often.
I'm not twisting anything. That's your departement!
Now pay attention and at least try to understand this; If Oswald did not leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket (as you assume he did) and the other witnesses saw a man wearing a jacket, Oswald couldn't have been the man they saw.
We know from Marina that Oswald only had two jackets, a light grey and a blue/grey one. Both are now in the National Archives. Buell Wesley Frasier saw Oswald wearing a light grey jacket to Irving on Thursday evening and we know that Oswald was wearing the blue/grey jacket on Friday morning, as it was found at the TSBD after the assassination. So, genius, how can Oswald put on a light grey jacket at the rooming house when Frazier places that same jacket in fact in Irving?
Good grief. I don't "assume" anything. It's the witness at the boardinghouse who testified that Oswald was wearing a jacket when he left. Other witnesses who saw him before he reached the TT confirm he was wearing a jacket. They didn't just identify a "man" wearing a jacket. They identified Oswald as the "man" and the man (Oswald) as wearing a jacket. So multiple witnesses put Oswald in a jacket before reaching the TT.
-
Wearing a white shirt.
A man in a brown shirt is highly unlikely to be the cop-murdering killer.
You lose! Thumb1:
That is not the question. You already agreed that the police had cause to go to the TT because they had received a report of a suspicious man entering that theatre that was in the vicinity of the crime. The question then becomes how they should respond. Now who are they looking for? A cop killing murderer who is armed and dangerous. Right? Maybe it turns out he is not the guy in the TT. Maybe he is. What level of force should they use to sort this out? At the library, they sent a heavy response because their suspect is obviously dangerous. What should they do at the TT? The same thing. There is nothing lost by having too many officers responding to a potentially dangerous situation. There is a risk of harm coming to send too few.
-
Good grief. I don't "assume" anything. It's the witness at the boardinghouse who testified that Oswald was wearing a jacket when he left. Other witnesses who saw him before he reached the TT confirm he was wearing a jacket. They didn't just identify a "man" wearing a jacket. They identified Oswald as the "man" and the man (Oswald) as wearing a jacket. So multiple witnesses put Oswald in a jacket before reaching the TT.
Oh boy.... The whole thing is a multitude of assumptions.
Why do you assume that Roberts is correct, when Buell Wesley Frazier places the light grey jacket in Irving on Thursday evening?
And why are you assuming that eyewitness testimony (which in fact is the most unreliable evidence there is) is always correct?
-
That's all I've been getting at - that there is a general trustworthiness regarding Brewer's account as it is corroborated by multiple witness accounts.
I disagree. Literally nothing and nobody corroborates the early radio broadcast of the police shooting, the man in front of the shoe shop looking “funny”, or anybody turning the corner into the recessed area of the theater. Maybe if the mysterious “IBM men” could be found…
There can also be little doubt that the man Brewer pointed out to various officers was Lee Harvey Oswald.
I have no problem with that.
It appears Oswald had indeed bought shoes from that particular shoestore and was remembered by Brewer as an awkward customer. So it is safe to assume, because Brewer recognised Oswald as a previous customer, that the man he saw ducking into his store, the man he believed went into the Texas Theater and the man he pointed out to multiple police officers in the cinema, were one and the same man.
An assumption, nonetheless. By the way, like the Burroughs account being belated, the story about having sold Oswald shoes doesn’t appear in Brewer’s affidavit or testimony.
What is very hard to deny is that the sole reason the police descended on the Texas Theater was the phone call from Postal.
Despite the fact that the description that Postal said she gave the dispatcher was nothing like the description of the guy at the Tippit scene that was broadcast. Go figure.
And that the reason for this phone call was Brewer's intervention due to the suspicious activity of his ex-customer at a time when sirens were blaring up and down Jefferson and it had just been reported on the radio that there had been a shooting in Oak Cliff.
Postal didn’t mention any of this to the police dispatcher either.
It is also safe to say that, if it hadn't been for Brewer's intervention, Oswald would not have been arrested in the Texas Theater.
Perhaps and perhaps not. Either way, there was no probable cause to arrest Oswald for murder. The police overstepped. Not Brewer’s or Postal’s fault, but even Brewer admitted that he thought “what am I doing here?” as he approached the theater.
-
You really are suggesting that the police and witnesses should ignore a person who is acting suspiciously in the vicinity of the crime because he allegedly didn't match the EXACT description down to every piece of clothing.
As if the only options are “ignore it” and “search, beat up, and arrest for murder with no probable cause.”
You find that suspicious? Good grief. And, of course, we know that Oswald did make efforts to change his appearance after the Tippit shooting by discarding his jacket.
No, we don’t “know” that. It’s another one of your self-serving assumptions.
Oswald matched the general description.
What “general description”? Male?
He was acting suspiciously in the immediate vicinity of the crime.
Since when is 0.6 miles, “the immediate vicinity”. Since when is looking funny to a shoe salesman probable cause for murder?
The police acted the same way that they did when they saw a guy running inot the library (who didn't meet the descritpion exactly).
Is this supposed to justify it?
-
Gray sweater. Differing from the exact description but acting suspiciously by running in the vicinity of the crime scene. Police respond in force. The guy explains himself instead of resisting arrest and trying to pull a gun.
He was running you say? String him up.
Don’t ever go into law enforcement. You would be the poster child for “suspended without pay”.
-
The individuals that the police pursued were reported as acting suspiciously. Running into a library for no apparent reason. Trying to avoid the police and then sneaking into the TT without buying a ticket.
Except for one small detail. The police responded before anyone ever told them that anyone sneaked into the theater without buying a ticket. Something which, by the way, nobody actually saw.
-
We are making snail-like progress. No one could have thought it possible! So the police SHOULD have responded to the TT. We have cleared that up. Now grasshopper ask yourself the next question. Who are the police looking for in that area? A cop murdering killer. Is such a person potentially dangerous? Yes! This guy could turn out to be that person. He could turn out not to be that person like the guy in the library where a heavy police response was sent. What should they do? Send a light response and potentially get more officers killed or send a heavy response to ensure the safety of the responding officers?
Sure, “Richard”, come out guns-blazing to every “slender white male” in the vicinity. The hell with probable cause and the Constitution. If a cop wants to do it, then it’s ok.
-
Good grief. I don't "assume" anything. It's the witness at the boardinghouse who testified that Oswald was wearing a jacket when he left. Other witnesses who saw him before he reached the TT confirm he was wearing a jacket. They didn't just identify a "man" wearing a jacket. They identified Oswald as the "man" and the man (Oswald) as wearing a jacket. So multiple witnesses put Oswald in a jacket before reaching the TT.
Wherein we once again see “Richard’s” confusion between fact and ridiculously contrived unfair lineup.
-
That is not the question. You already agreed that the police had cause to go to the TT because they had received a report of a suspicious man entering that theatre that was in the vicinity of the crime.
But the dispatch doesn't say "Have information a man acting suspiciously just went into the Texas Theatre". Rather it says "Have information the suspect just went into the Texas Theatre".
No way would a description of a man in a brown shirt give rise to such a leaping-to-counterintuitive-conclusion dispatch
The question then becomes how they should respond. Now who are they looking for? A cop killing murderer who is armed and dangerous. Right? Maybe it turns out he is not the guy in the TT.
It would be very surprising indeed if some suspicious-acting brown-shirted guy in the TT should turn out to be the white-shirted suspect everyone's looking for.
However, change but one detail in the after-the-event Brewer story (---------->he described the man as white-shirted) and the DPD's response becomes perfectly intelligible. This could reasonably be seen as "information the suspect just went into the Texas Theatre".
-
Ah, a GRAY sweater. Thank you, Mr. Smith Thumb1: (And could you please give us a source for this detail?)
Bumped for Mr. Smith
-
Buell W. Frazier describes (sort of)Oswald wearing a blue jacket when Oswald rode in BWFs car that Friday morning of Nov/22/63.
If that’s the dark blue jacket and Oswald wore that jacket when he left the TSBD approx 12:33, pm and IF Oswald never actually went to McWatters bus, and instead went more directly to Whaleys taxi, then what Whaley saw as Oswald’s OUTER garment is close enough to be the dark blue jacket.
It may have taken Oswald more than just 7 minutes to walk directly to Whaleys taxi, so the timing of entering the taxi about 12:44-45 may still be the approx time , which therefore still precludes Oswald having walked to 10th and Patton st by 1:08 pm.
How to explain Earlene Roberts seeing Oswald entering the house wearing just a light colored long sleeve shirt?
If Oswald took off the dark blue jacket just as he was entering the house and just before Roberts looked at him, then it’s possible she would have only seen the light pinkish reddish shirt that Oswald had on and remember that more vaguely as a light colored long sleeves shirt.
How to explain Roberts seeing Oswald zipping up a dark blue jacket as Oswald was leaving the house?
While Earlene Roberts was fixated on the TV news about JFK, Oswald could have exited his room and made it to the place in the house where he had taken off his dark blue jacket when he had entered the house, and he was able to put that dark blue jacket back on and just as he was zipping it up on his way to the front door, is the moment when Roberts looked up and saw him zipping it.
So since the time exiting the house was 1:04,pm it’s not likely that Oswald ever was at 10th and Patton st at 1:07-1:08pm.
So that leaves the sightings of Oswald in the theatre by Burroughs at 1:15 ( his later statements) and Davis at 1:20pm and Brewers 1:30 sighting of Oswald at his store.
Can Oswald walk to the theatre from the boarding house in just 11 minutes? Maybe, if he walked “briskly”. :)
Burroughs didn’t actually see Oswald enter the theater , so Oswald could have had on his dark blue jacket when he entered the theater .
Davis only saw Oswald moving around in the DARK so maybe he didn’t notice if Oswald had on a jacket or the color of the Oswald’s clothing.
Oswald could have also just taken off the jacket leaving it at one seat and then started moving around to the other seats.
CT explanations for Brewers sighting at 1:30 pm of Oswald just in the brown shirt?
Options:
A. Brewer saw Oswald earlier about 1:16pm wearing the dark blue jacket. There was some kind of coercion of Brewer by the WC to alter his observation and time.
B. Oswald took off his dark blue jacket after entering theater at 1:15om. He had bought a ticket from Postal, and so Oswald went back out for a few minutes to visit Brewers store, wearing only his brown shirt. Oswald returned about 1:19 , and went past the ticket booth without stopping because he had already paid. Brewer observed this and misinterpreted that as Oswald having nefariously slipped into the theatre. For the next 60 seconds , Oswald moved around in the dark to several seats which is why Jack Davis noticed him and noted the time as 1:20 pm.
C: Some other man resembling Oswald and wearing only a brown shirt showed up at Brewers store at 1:30 pm and then this man entered the theater a few minutes later and went to the balcony. If this man was the Tippit shooter, he could have already discarded his gun before entering the theater and so when he was questioned by the police, there was no cause to arrest him.
D: Oswald was being transported by a conspirator car To be able to move quicker to arrive at 10th and Patton by 1:08 and then at the theater by 1:15 pm.
-
Buell W. Frazier describes (sort of)Oswald wearing a blue jacket when Oswald rode in BWFs car that Friday morning of Nov/22/63.
No, he describes him as wearing a gray flannel-looking jacket.
No one has ever explained what happened to this jacket.
-
Bumped for Mr. Smith
Does anyone have a source for the gray sweater worn by the man Patrolman Walker saw running into the library?
-
Not any more LOL-worthy than “Oswald brought CE143 into the theater”.
"Not any more LOL-worthy than 'Oswald brought CE143 into the theater'."
LOL
-
I disagree. Literally nothing and nobody corroborates the early radio broadcast of the police shooting, the man in front of the shoe shop looking “funny”, or anybody turning the corner into the recessed area of the theater. Maybe if the mysterious “IBM men” could be found…
This "funny" business...
John would have everyone believe that the only reason that Brewer took notice of Oswald was that Oswald looked "funny" to Brewer, but there's more to it than that.
Here is a condensed version of Brewer's account, taken from his WC testimony. I've cut and pasted Brewer's statements, leaving out Belin's questions, redundancies, etc:
I heard a siren coming down East Jefferson headed toward West Jefferson. I looked up and out towards the street and the police cars. I saw the man enter the lobby. He stood there with his back to the street. He just stood there and stared. [He wasn't looking at the merchandise], not anything in particular. He was just standing there staring. He just seemed funny. His hair was sort of messed up and looked like he had been running, and he looked scared. His shirt tail was out
The police made a U-turn and went back down East Jefferson. The sirens were going away. I presume back to where the officer had been shot, because it was back down that way. And when they turned and left, [the man] looked over his shoulder and turned around and walked up West Jefferson towards the theatre.
From Brewer's account, Oswald not only "looked funny," he also looked scared, appeared disheveled (as if "he had been running"). More importantly, what's implied in this account is that Oswald was acting as if he was trying to avoid being identified by the approaching police cars. As they approach, he ducks into the vestibule of Brewer's store putting his back to the street. He doesn't appears to be interested in anything in the store. And after the police cruisers pass, he pops back out and continues up the street. Somehow, John can't seem to understand why someone would think this might be seen as suspicious.
-
Bumped for Mr. Smith
Dale Myers book. He interviewed Hamby.
-
So many falsehoods from the contrarian. Postal confirms in her affidavit that she told the police on the telephone call that the man had entered the theatre without buying a ticket. The police did not enter with "guns blazing." LOL. Instead they calmly approached Oswald who pulled his gun. They did not string up the guy seen running into the library. They approached him and he explained himself.
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338516/m1/1/
-
This "funny" business...
John would have everyone believe that the only reason that Brewer took notice of Oswald was that Oswald looked "funny" to Brewer, but there's more to it than that.
Here is a condensed version of Brewer's account, taken from his WC testimony. I've cut and pasted Brewer's statements, leaving out Belin's questions, redundancies, etc:
I heard a siren coming down East Jefferson headed toward West Jefferson.
Let's restore the specific redundancy from Mr. Belin to which Mr. Brewer is replying here:
Mr. BELIN - All right, would you describe what happened after you heard on the radio that an officer had been shot?
And here's what Mr. Brewer had told FBI on 2/27/64:
"... he heard a radio announcement to the effect that an officer had been shot in Oak Cliff [...] a radio broadcast describing the suspect and the man he observed in the store foyer resembled this person"
Seems Mr. Brewer has been working a little too hard to retrospectively justify his intense, way-above-the-call-of-duty interest in the man.
**
Cf. Ms. Julia Postal's affidavit 12/4/63:
"I told Johnny he had to be in there, and that he was running from the Police for something."
Cf. also from her WC testimony:
"... so, I told Johnny about the fact that the President had been assassinated. 'I don't know if this is the man they want,' I said, 'in there, but he is running from them for some reason'"
"... So, seemed like I hung up the intercom phone when here all of a sudden, police cars, policemen, plainclothesmen, I never saw so many people in my life. And they raced in, and the next thing I knew, they were carrying----well, that is when I first heard Officer Tippit had been shot because some officer came in the box office and used the phone, said, "I think we have got our man on both accounts." "What two accounts?" And said, "Well, Officer Tippit's [...]""
Does this sound to you like Mr. Brewer said a single word to Ms. Postal relating this suspicious man to the Oak Cliff shooting of an officer?
-
Dale Myers book. He interviewed Hamby.
Thank you! Thumb1:
-
"Not any more LOL-worthy than 'Oswald brought CE143 into the theater'."
LOL
LOL
-
This "funny" business...
John would have everyone believe that the only reason that Brewer took notice of Oswald was that Oswald looked "funny" to Brewer, but there's more to it than that.
Brewer’s words, not mine.
Mr. BELIN - Why did you happen to watch this particular man?
Mr. BREWER - He just looked funny to me. Well, in the first place, I had seen him some place before. I think he had been in my store before. And when you wait on somebody, you recognize them, and he just seemed funny. His hair was sort of messed up and looked like he had been running, and he looked scared, and he looked funny.
Here is a condensed version of Brewer's account, taken from his WC testimony.
Condensed. LOL.
Somehow, John can't seem to understand why someone would think this might be seen as suspicious.
What John understands is that this doesn’t constitute probable cause for the police to conduct a search or a murder arrest.
-
So many falsehoods from the contrarian. Postal confirms in her affidavit that she told the police on the telephone call that the man had entered the theatre without buying a ticket.
Then why did she tell both Brewer and the FBI that she wasn’t sure if he did or not?
“Confirms”. LOL.
The police did not enter with "guns blazing." LOL. Instead they calmly approached Oswald who pulled his gun.
Ordering people on their feet, throwing people up against walls (Brewer), and conducting illegal searches is not calm. Oswald didn’t “pull his gun”, that’s LN mythology. But McDonald said he was holding his gun when he approached.
They did not string up the guy seen running into the library. They approached him and he explained himself.
If you really read Myers’ propaganda piece you would know that they did a hell of a lot more than “approach” him, Dishonest “Richard”.
-
Dale Myers book. He interviewed Hamby.
From With Malice:
"Hamby’s choice of clothing that day — a gray sweater and gray slacks — was about to propel the young student into a near fatal encounter."
And there we have it. Mr. Hamby's clothing being close enough to the suspect description was what gave Patrolman Walker due cause to think he was the man.
And boy were they sure:
Dispatcher: 221.
221 [Summers]: Might can give you some additional information, I got an eyeball witness to the getaway man that — ah — suspect in this shooting. He’s a
white male, 27, 5 feet 11, 165, black wavy hair, fair complected, wearing a light gray Eisenhower-type jacket, dark trousers and a
white shirt. And — ah — about — last seen — ah — running on the north side of the street from — ah —
Patton, on Jefferson, on East Jefferson. And he was apparently armed with a 32 dark finish automatic — ah — pistol, which he had in his right
hand.
Dispatcher: 10-4. For your information, 221, they have the the suspect cornered in the library at Marsalis and Jefferson.
221: 10-4. This man can positively identify him if — they need him.
Dispatcher: Well, they do have the suspect under arrest now.
Which brings us back to the problem with Mr. Brewer's story. A man in a brown shirt was way off the suspect description ("white shirt"). And yet we're supposed to believe there was due cause for the police to conclude that "the suspect" was in the Texas Theatre.
Doesn't wash.
-
An interesting dispatch:
"There is nothing to this Marsalis [library] here. Let's go back up to the place and work to north Jefferson. We got a witness that saw him shed his jacket and check towards Tyler."
Who was this witness?
Alternative transcript of what Captain Westbrook said:
"We got a witness that seen him going north after he shed his jacket. And check from that vicinity towards Tyler."
Who was this witness?
It kind of matters because this witness will have seen what the suspect looked like after shedding his jacket. This witness would have seen the suspect with no upper garment on other than his shirt.
Now if the suspect were indeed Mr. Oswald, then we would expect Captain Westbrook to say the following:
'Suspect wearing a brown shirt."
I mean, he'd be anxious to update the description from what he now must know was an erroneous "white shirt" description. Right?
But no. As you were. Keep on looking out for a man in a white shirt.
It wasn't Mr. Oswald.
-
Alternative transcript of what Captain Westbrook said:
"We got a witness that seen him going north after he shed his jacket. And check from that vicinity towards Tyler."
Who was this witness?
Mr. B. M. Patterson?
-
I disagree. Literally nothing and nobody corroborates the early radio broadcast of the police shooting, the man in front of the shoe shop looking “funny”, or anybody turning the corner into the recessed area of the theater. Maybe if the mysterious “IBM men” could be found…
There's some confusion here which is my bad as I should have phrased it differently.
When I wrote:
"That's all I've been getting at - that there is a general trustworthiness regarding Brewer's account as it is corroborated by multiple witness accounts."
I was not trying to claim that witnesses had corroborated Brewer's account of seeing the man ducking into his store or hearing the radio broadcast or watching the man turn into the recessed area of the Texas Theater.
It was a reference to my earlier post, Reply#263, which begins:
"Brewer's basic story of seeing a man acting suspiciously on the street who he saw go into the Texas Theater and who he followed, is confirmed by a number of eye-witnesses he told this story to before Oswald was arrested."
In this post I list multiple witnesses who confirm that Brewer was telling his story of the suspicious looking man who ducked into his store and who he followed into the Texas Theater. And that he was telling this story before Oswald was arrested. So, Brewer was either telling the truth or he had fabricated this story before he interacted with Postal, which would put Brewer at the heart of a conspiracy to frame Oswald. A conspiracy that would have Brewer having foreknowledge of the Tippit murder and the general direction the shooter would leave the scene of the shooting.
I have no problem with that.
There is Brewer's account of pointing out Oswald to police officers, confirmed by the accounts of some of the officers involved.
There can be little doubt as to Brewer's fundamental role in the capture and arrest of Oswald.
This is not to say that the suspicious looking man Brewer followed was Oswald, it may have just been a staggering coincidence that the man Brewer pointed out was also the prime suspect in the assassination of JFK.
An assumption, nonetheless. By the way, like the Burroughs account being belated, the story about having sold Oswald shoes doesn’t appear in Brewer’s affidavit or testimony.
It is strange that you say Brewer's story about having sold shoes to Oswald doesn't appear in Brewer's testimony and then a few posts later you write:
Mr. BELIN - Why did you happen to watch this particular man?
Mr. BREWER - He just looked funny to me. Well, in the first place, I had seen him some place before. I think he had been in my store before. And when you wait on somebody, you recognize them, and he just seemed funny. His hair was sort of messed up and looked like he had been running, and he looked scared, and he looked funny.
Brewer recognised Oswald as a past customer. In the inventory of Oswald's possessions there is listed a pair of shoes "John Hardy brand".
Brewer recognised the man who ducked into his store and recognised the man he pointed out to police in the cinema.
It was the same man and that man was Oswald.
Despite the fact that the description that Postal said she gave the dispatcher was nothing like the description of the guy at the Tippit scene that was broadcast. Go figure.
Postal didn’t mention any of this to the police dispatcher either.
I take it this is a tacit agreement of the point I was making - that the sole reason the police descended on the Texas Theater was Postal's call to the police. Without this call they would never have known where to find Oswald in order to frame him, if that's what happened. In her description of Oswald's suspicious behavior to the police she is obviously quoting Brewer's story about Oswald ducking into his store in order to avoid the police. This would place either Brewer or Postal or both at the heart of some convoluted conspiracy to capture Oswald. A conspiracy that would have Oswald conveniently placing himself in a location in the direction the shooter was seen fleeing the scene of the crime.
Perhaps and perhaps not. Either way, there was no probable cause to arrest Oswald for murder. The police overstepped. Not Brewer’s or Postal’s fault, but even Brewer admitted that he thought “what am I doing here?” as he approached the theater.
There can be very little doubt as to Brewer's involvement in Oswald's capture and arrest. It's not really open to question.
I do agree that there was no probable cause to arrest Oswald for murder and the police most certainly "overstepped".
There are two things that need to be addressed here.
Firstly, Oswald wasn't being arrested when McDonald went up to him, he was being checked out, just like the boy in the library was being checked out. Obviously, when he attacked the officer and pulled out a revolver (if he did), they were confident they had their man. In fact, it must be said that there seems to have been a very strange, immediate confidence among many in law enforcement that Oswald had not only killed Tippit but was also involved in the assassination.
Secondly, many people seem to find it suspicious that so many officers descended on the Texas Theater because someone had entered without buying a ticket. But it seems to me that as soon as Tippit's murder came over the radio a lot of officers dropped what they were doing and headed out to Oak Cliff. They weren't really waiting to be dispatched. When the call came in about a suspect at the library, many officers raced straight there without waiting for orders to do so.
I get the impression there was some kind of "posse" mentality going on and any report of suspicious activity was going to get the full treatment.
The people in the library were ordered out at the end of a shotgun and came out with their hands up. Where's the probable cause for that? When Brewer opened the back door he was grabbed at gunpoint and questioned. Where's the probable cause for that?
This was a posse, searching houses and alleyways, cruising the streets and responding to the slightest sign of suspicious behavior en masse.
-
LOL
LOL, indeed.
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Don't you agree?
You pushed out the "a throw-down gun that McDonald brought" without any supporting evidence. LOL
You then followed up with "Not any more LOL-worthy than “Oswald brought CE143 into the theater." Also thrown up without evidence. Also LOL
Sauce for the Goose.
-
You pushed out the "a throw-down gun that McDonald brought" without any supporting evidence. LOL
I didn’t “push” it out. It’s no less plausible than the evidence-less official claim about the revolver. Which was the whole point.
-
I was not trying to claim that witnesses had corroborated Brewer's account of seeing the man ducking into his store or hearing the radio broadcast or watching the man turn into the recessed area of the Texas Theater.
It was a reference to my earlier post, Reply#263, which begins:
"Brewer's basic story of seeing a man acting suspiciously on the street who he saw go into the Texas Theater and who he followed, is confirmed by a number of eye-witnesses he told this story to before Oswald was arrested."
In this post I list multiple witnesses who confirm that Brewer was telling his story of the suspicious looking man who ducked into his store and who he followed into the Texas Theater. And that he was telling this story before Oswald was arrested. So, Brewer was either telling the truth or he had fabricated this story before he interacted with Postal, which would put Brewer at the heart of a conspiracy to frame Oswald. A conspiracy that would have Brewer having foreknowledge of the Tippit murder and the general direction the shooter would leave the scene of the shooting.
Fair enough. But nobody is suggesting that Brewer fabricated the story about seeing a guy in front of his shop. That however doesn’t necessarily make the man Oswald.
This is not to say that the suspicious looking man Brewer followed was Oswald, it may have just been a staggering coincidence that the man Brewer pointed out was also the prime suspect in the assassination of JFK.
Not really. There was nothing that made him “the prime suspect” at the time. Some would say still to this day.
It is strange that you say Brewer's story about having sold shoes to Oswald doesn't appear in Brewer's testimony and then a few posts later you write:
My bad. It went from “I think he had been in my store before” in his testimony to certainty about it and the exact shoes he brought by the time Brewer talked to Griggs. Speaking of cases of improved memory…
I take it this is a tacit agreement of the point I was making - that the sole reason the police descended on the Texas Theater was Postal's call to the police. Without this call they would never have known where to find Oswald in order to frame him, if that's what happened.
I’m certainly not claiming that the police decided to frame Oswald before Postal’s call.
In her description of Oswald's suspicious behavior to the police she is obviously quoting Brewer's story about Oswald ducking into his store in order to avoid the police.
There’s nothing at all obvious about that. All we know about this call is what she said in her testimony and what went out over the police radio, neither of which mention “Oswald ducking into Brewer’s store to avoid the police”.
I do agree that there was no probable cause to arrest Oswald for murder and the police most certainly "overstepped".
Thumb1:
There are two things that need to be addressed here.
Firstly, Oswald wasn't being arrested when McDonald went up to him, he was being checked out, just like the boy in the library was being checked out.
But a search required probable cause too.
Obviously, when he attacked the officer and pulled out a revolver (if he did), they were confident they had their man. In fact, it must be said that there seems to have been a very strange, immediate confidence among many in law enforcement that Oswald had not only killed Tippit but was also involved in the assassination.
Exactly. Based on what? They didn’t even know who he was, supposedly.
I get the impression there was some kind of "posse" mentality going on and any report of suspicious activity was going to get the full treatment. The people in the library were ordered out at the end of a shotgun and came out with their hands up. Where's the probable cause for that? When Brewer opened the back door he was grabbed at gunpoint and questioned. Where's the probable cause for that?
This was a posse, searching houses and alleyways, cruising the streets and responding to the slightest sign of suspicious behavior en masse.
Agreed, there was none. The misconduct was rampant that day. I would argue that it wasn’t just that day or with that event, and that this sort of thing was business as usual for the Dallas PD. And for the DA’s office.
In fact, it’s typical of police in general. Once they decide who did it, they figure out a way to make the evidence “fit”. Even if they have to bring their own.
-
It is strange that you say Brewer's story about having sold shoes to Oswald doesn't appear in Brewer's testimony and then a few posts later you write:
Mr. BELIN - Why did you happen to watch this particular man?
Mr. BREWER - He just looked funny to me. Well, in the first place, I had seen him some place before. I think he had been in my store before. And when you wait on somebody, you recognize them, and he just seemed funny. His hair was sort of messed up and looked like he had been running, and he looked scared, and he looked funny.
Brewer recognised Oswald as a past customer.
No--------"I had seen him some place before" is much vaguer than "I had seen him in my store before".
From Mr. Brewer's 1996 interview with Mr. Ian Griggs:
(https://i.postimg.cc/QtV7DBcs/Brewer-Griggs.jpg)
As he looked at the man in the lobby of his shoe store, Mr. Brewer did NOT recognize him as a past customer.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZKjdMt96/Brewer-Griggs-postal1.jpg) (https://i.postimg.cc/HxGcyTK1/Brewer-Griggs-postal2.jpg)
'Yes, I'd like to report a suspicious man in the Texas Theatre.'
'Well, can you give me a description so we can see if he fits our suspect description?'
'Suspect description for what?'
'For the shooting of an officer'
'I won't know about that until you guys arrive, but he has on a brown shirt'
'He's wearing a SHIRT?! We'll be right there....................'
-
In this post I list multiple witnesses who confirm that Brewer was telling his story of the suspicious looking man who ducked into his store and who he followed into the Texas Theater. And that he was telling this story before Oswald was arrested. So, Brewer was either telling the truth or he had fabricated this story before he interacted with Postal, which would put Brewer at the heart of a conspiracy to frame Oswald. A conspiracy that would have Brewer having foreknowledge of the Tippit murder
Complete non sequitur ::)
-
Brewer’s words, not mine.
Mr. BELIN - Why did you happen to watch this particular man?
Mr. BREWER - He just looked funny to me. Well, in the first place, I had seen him some place before. I think he had been in my store before. And when you wait on somebody, you recognize them, and he just seemed funny. His hair was sort of messed up and looked like he had been running, and he looked scared, and he looked funny.
I didn't say that Brewer didn't say "funny." I even quoted him saying it.
What I did say was that you "would have everyone believe that the only reason that Brewer took notice of Oswald was that Oswald looked 'funny' to Brewer, but there's more to it than that." I went on to say
"From Brewer's account, Oswald not only "looked funny," he also looked scared, appeared disheveled (as if "he had been running"). More importantly, what's implied in this account is that Oswald was acting as if he was trying to avoid being identified by the approaching police cars. As they approach, he ducks into the vestibule of Brewer's store putting his back to the street. He doesn't appears to be interested in anything in the store. And after the police cruisers pass, he pops back out and continues up the street. Somehow, John can't seem to understand why someone would think this might be seen as suspicious."
Not only did you fail respond to the point, you deleted what I wrote from your reply, as if you thought it would go away if you simply avoided engaging with it.
Condensed. LOL.
Condensed, yes. Apparently, you can't find anything wrong with the condensed version.
What John understands is that this doesn’t constitute probable cause for the police to conduct a search or a murder arrest.
You don't understand that at all. Oswald was arrested because he pulled a gun on McDonald. And we've been
over the so-called "illegal search" thing before. See the thread "Why did Oswald go to the movies?" Reply #874 to be exact.
Specifically, follow this link:
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/when-can-the-police-stop-and-frisk-you-on-the-street
-
I didn't say that Brewer didn't say "funny." I even quoted him saying it.
What I did say was that you "would have everyone believe that the only reason that Brewer took notice of Oswald was that Oswald looked 'funny' to Brewer, but there's more to it than that." I went on to say
"From Brewer's account, Oswald not only "looked funny," he also looked scared, appeared disheveled (as if "he had been running"). More importantly, what's implied in this account is that Oswald was acting as if he was trying to avoid being identified by the approaching police cars. As they approach, he ducks into the vestibule of Brewer's store putting his back to the street. He doesn't appears to be interested in anything in the store. And after the police cruisers pass, he pops back out and continues up the street. Somehow, John can't seem to understand why someone would think this might be seen as suspicious."
Not only did you fail respond to the point, you deleted what I wrote from your reply, as if you thought it would go away if you simply avoided engaging with it.
Condensed, yes. Apparently, you can't find anything wrong with the condensed version.
You don't understand that at all. Oswald was arrested because he pulled a gun on McDonald. And we've been
over the so-called "illegal search" thing before. See the thread "Why did Oswald go to the movies?" Reply #874 to be exact.
Specifically, follow this link:
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/when-can-the-police-stop-and-frisk-you-on-the-street
More arguments for argument's sake.
John actually quoted Brewer's testimony. No need for "condensed" versions.
As per usual, you are just looking for something to argue ad nauseam about. And no doubt you will continue to do so.
-
I didn't say that Brewer didn't say "funny." I even quoted him saying it.
What I did say was that you "would have everyone believe that the only reason that Brewer took notice of Oswald was that Oswald looked 'funny' to Brewer, but there's more to it than that." I went on to say
"From Brewer's account, Oswald not only "looked funny," he also looked scared, appeared disheveled (as if "he had been running").
So what? That’s not probable cause for murder either. But in describing the man in front of the shop, he notably doesn’t say suspicious, he doesn’t say ducked, he doesn’t say avoid. He does say “funny” though. It is you who is embellishing what he said with your characterization and your “condensing”. I don’t need to “deal with” your interpretation of what somebody “implied”.
You don't understand that at all. Oswald was arrested because he pulled a gun on McDonald.
Bull. He was arrested for murder. The arrest report says nothing about “pulling a gun on McDonald”. In fact no testimony of a single person in the theater says that Oswald “pulled a gun”. McDonald clearly states that the gun came out after he grabbed Oswald’s hand and yanked.
And we've been over the so-called "illegal search" thing before. See the thread "Why did Oswald go to the movies?" Reply #874 to be exact.
Specifically, follow this link:
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/when-can-the-police-stop-and-frisk-you-on-the-street
Nope. I guess you missed the part that says “the current stop and frisk policy has been legal since 1968, when the Supreme Court ruled in Terry v. Ohio”.
-
I didn't say that Brewer didn't say "funny." I even quoted him saying it.
What I did say was that you "would have everyone believe that the only reason that Brewer took notice of Oswald was that Oswald looked 'funny' to Brewer, but there's more to it than that." I went on to say
"From Brewer's account, Oswald not only "looked funny," he also looked scared, appeared disheveled (as if "he had been running"). More importantly, what's implied in this account is that Oswald was acting as if he was trying to avoid being identified by the approaching police cars. As they approach, he ducks into the vestibule of Brewer's store putting his back to the street. He doesn't appears to be interested in anything in the store. And after the police cruisers pass, he pops back out and continues up the street. Somehow, John can't seem to understand why someone would think this might be seen as suspicious."
The problem is not that Mr. Brewer claims he found this suspicious, but that he claims he thought the man might have been the shooter of the officer in Oak Cliff. Why? Because he 'fitted the description' just broadcast on radio. What description? What broadcast?
The further problem is that the police, who were looking for a man wearing a white shirt, got a report about a man in a brown shirt and concluded that this brown-shirted man was "the suspect" in the Tippit killing.
-
Oswald was arrested because he pulled a gun on McDonald.
You're speaking nonsense here, of course. But your remark does raise a genuinely interesting question: How would things have gone down if Mr. Oswald had divested himself of his gun and reacted to Officer McDonald as other cinema patrons had done-----------i.e. behaved in a non-guilty fashion? Would Officer McDonald & co. have proceeded on up to the balcony to look for the suspect?
-
From With Malice:
"Hamby’s choice of clothing that day — a gray sweater and gray slacks — was about to propel the young student into a near fatal encounter."
And there we have it. Mr. Hamby's clothing being close enough to the suspect description was what gave Patrolman Walker due cause to think he was the man.
And boy were they sure:
Dispatcher: 221.
221 [Summers]: Might can give you some additional information, I got an eyeball witness to the getaway man that — ah — suspect in this shooting. He’s a
white male, 27, 5 feet 11, 165, black wavy hair, fair complected, wearing a light gray Eisenhower-type jacket, dark trousers and a
white shirt. And — ah — about — last seen — ah — running on the north side of the street from — ah —
Patton, on Jefferson, on East Jefferson. And he was apparently armed with a 32 dark finish automatic — ah — pistol, which he had in his right
hand.
Dispatcher: 10-4. For your information, 221, they have the the suspect cornered in the library at Marsalis and Jefferson.
221: 10-4. This man can positively identify him if — they need him.
Dispatcher: Well, they do have the suspect under arrest now.
Which brings us back to the problem with Mr. Brewer's story. A man in a brown shirt was way off the suspect description ("white shirt"). And yet we're supposed to believe there was due cause for the police to conclude that "the suspect" was in the Texas Theatre.
Doesn't wash.
Wow. So wearing a gray sweater is close enough to a white shirt to warrant a heavy police response but a brown shirt is not. We are in the Twilight Zone.
-
The problem is not that Mr. Brewer claims he found this suspicious, but that he claims he thought the man might have been the shooter of the officer in Oak Cliff. Why? Because he 'fitted the description' just broadcast on radio. What description? What broadcast?
The further problem is that the police, who were looking for a man wearing a white shirt, got a report about a man in a brown shirt and concluded that this brown-shirted man was "the suspect" in the Tippit killing.
Brewer's reasons for following Oswald to the TT don't matter unless you are alleging that he was part of some conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime. Imagine in this fantasy that his role was to get a job at a shoe store and then wait for Oswald to pass so that he could alert the police. That is a laughable narrative. There doesn't need to be any agreement on whether Brewer acted reasonably or had legitimate cause to find Oswald's behavior worthy enough to follow. Again, the police got a report of a man acting suspiciously in the vicinity of the crime. They reacted the same as when they saw a man in a gray sweater running into the library. There were undoubtedly a multiude of men walking around in white shirts. The police were not stopping folks for that reason. They were responding to reports of suspicious behavior.
-
So wearing a gray sweater is close enough to a white shirt to warrant a heavy police response but a brown shirt is not.
Exactly--now you've got it
-
Brewer's reasons for following Oswald to the TT don't matter unless you are alleging that he was part of some conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime. Imagine in this fantasy that
'Mr. Strawman, bring me a dream...'
-
Exactly--now you've got it
Got what? A gray sweater is no more similar to a white shirt than a brown shirt. It's not even a shirt. They saw a man matching the general description acting suspiciously by running into the library. He did not have on a white shirt. Nevertheless, a heavy police response was sent to check him out. The exact same thing occurred at the TT. The police received a report of a person acting suspiciously who matched the general description. A heavy police response was sent to check it out. They were searching for an armed and dangerous killer. It could have turned out that the person at the TT was not their suspect, but they had to respond as though he could be just as they did at the library.
-
Got what? A gray sweater is no more similar to a white shirt than a brown shirt.
Keep telling yourself that, lol
It's not even a shirt.
How apparent would that have been to an officer who saw him running?
Even your guru, Mr. Myers, understands that it was the clothing that swung it for Patrolman Walker
-
Got what? A gray sweater is no more similar to a white shirt than a brown shirt. It's not even a shirt. They saw a man matching the general description acting suspiciously by running into the library. He did not have on a white shirt. Nevertheless, a heavy police response was sent to check him out. The exact same thing occurred at the TT. The police received a report of a person acting suspiciously who matched the general description. A heavy police response was sent to check it out. They were searching for an armed and dangerous killer. It could have turned out that the person at the TT was not their suspect, but they had to respond as though he could be just as they did at the library.
What “Richard” is trying to say is that the police “had to” respond with an illegal and inappropriate use of force, because a shoe salesman thought he looked funny.
-
Keep telling yourself that, lol
How apparent would that have been to an officer who saw him running?
Even your guru, Mr. Myers, understands that it was the clothing that swung it for Patrolman Walker
You tell me. This is your fantasy. You are arguing that the police would not respond to any report of a suspect not wearing a white shirt. At the library they responded to a report of a guy wearing a gray sweater.
-
I didn’t “push” it out. It’s no less plausible than the evidence-less official claim about the revolver. Which was the whole point.
"It’s no less plausible than the evidence-less official claim about the revolver"
LOL
Another assertion delivered without any supporting evidence.
You don't know how to play by your own rules, do you?
-
Exactly--now you've got it
-
I agree that the swarm of DPD patrol cars to converge on the Texas theater just because there was report of someone wearing a brown shirt whom a witness saw not stop at the ticket booth before going into a theater seems not quite enough of an event / probable cause to warrant such a swarm of DPD to converge to the theater.
However once a revolver was observed in the hand of a man, (or his pants) and the man did not give PRIOR warning to police officers in proximity , (and raise both hands in the air ) , that he was armed As one is supposed to do when conceal carrying , then the NEXT response of several officers acting nearly simultaneously (because they are trained to react quickly) , is to subdue the person seen with revolver in hand until it’s determined if the person is criminal or just a conceal carrying regular citizen.
In other words: the cops have NO IDEA on first contact with a citizen if that citizen is an innocent person or is a criminal.
And so ANY kind of movement such as merely exposing the revolver WITHOUT having verbally warned the officers ( with hands in air also) could be easily mistaken as a threat by the officers, who would then immediately act to the perceived threat ( whether actual or not) by subduing the person and that would of course probably be grabbing for the gun first.
So it might have been simply a mistake by Oswald remaining silent instead of first INFORMING officer McDonald that he, Oswald , was armed while McDonald was searching other persons not far from Oswald and then as McDonald approached Oswald.
So there is possibility that as McDonald got near to Oswald, that McDonald got a glimpse of the revolver under Oswald’s loose shirt and because Oswald had said nothing, that McDonald actually made the1st move by grabbing for the gun instinctively, and then Oswald reacted to that the wrong way by trying to stop McDonalds hand and then there was either or both men hitting each other or wrestling which was joined in with other officers.
This would explain why Oswald was heard saying he was not resisting arrest.
But there seems to be some continuation of “struggle “ by Oswald outside the theatre and a coincidental photo taken of that , which doesn’t really make much sense for some one who has already declared he’s not resisting arrest.
So this where the suspicion of a post event set up of Oswald starts to begin, with this amazingly timed coincidental photo and the police guy is even posing with his cigar in his mouth.
-
No--------"I had seen him some place before" is much vaguer than "I had seen him in my store before".
From Mr. Brewer's 1996 interview with Mr. Ian Griggs:
(https://i.postimg.cc/QtV7DBcs/Brewer-Griggs.jpg)
As he looked at the man in the lobby of his shoe store, Mr. Brewer did NOT recognize him as a past customer.
"I had seen him some place before"
This is not a vague statement. Brewer is saying he recognised the man who was acting suspiciously outside his store and he recognised the man in the cinema as being the same man he saw outside his store and who he followed out of his store and who he was convinced went into the Texas Theater.
"I had seen him some place before" - what's vague about that?
It may be later that he specifically remembered where he knew Oswald from, but that in no way alters the fact that Brewer recognised the man.
It seems to get lost how powerful it is that Brewer pointed out Oswald in the cinema as the man he felt was acting suspiciously outside his store.
Brewer is listening to the radio about the shooting of JFK. There is an announcement that there has been a shooting in Oak Cliff, in the very area Brewer is located. Suddenly police sirens are blaring up and down the street and, as he is looking out onto the street, a guy approaches from the left who ducks into the front of his store, pretending to look at the merchandise, with his back to the street instead of showing interest in what's going on.
Brewer is convinced that the man is avoiding the police.
This man's behavior is so suspicious it compels Brewer to follow him. Brewer enters the cinema looking for this man. When the lights go up Brewer sees the man and points him out to the police. The man is Oswald.
It is very strong evidence that the man Brewer sees outside his store is Lee Harvey Oswald, particularly as Brewer had "seen him some place before".
To imply Brewer is anything other than the manager of a shoe store who did his civic duty is preposterous.
Your fantasyland BS: take on every aspect of this case is tiresome.
-
Fair enough. But nobody is suggesting that Brewer fabricated the story about seeing a guy in front of his shop. That however doesn’t necessarily make the man Oswald.
Not really. There was nothing that made him “the prime suspect” at the time. Some would say still to this day.
My bad. It went from “I think he had been in my store before” in his testimony to certainty about it and the exact shoes he brought by the time Brewer talked to Griggs. Speaking of cases of improved memory…
I’m certainly not claiming that the police decided to frame Oswald before Postal’s call.
There’s nothing at all obvious about that. All we know about this call is what she said in her testimony and what went out over the police radio, neither of which mention “Oswald ducking into Brewer’s store to avoid the police”.
Thumb1:
But a search required probable cause too.
Exactly. Based on what? They didn’t even know who he was, supposedly.
Agreed, there was none. The misconduct was rampant that day. I would argue that it wasn’t just that day or with that event, and that this sort of thing was business as usual for the Dallas PD. And for the DA’s office.
In fact, it’s typical of police in general. Once they decide who did it, they figure out a way to make the evidence “fit”. Even if they have to bring their own.
But a search required probable cause too.
I'm not sure why you keep going on about probable cause.
It was a manhunt for a cop-killer. A posse marauding around Oak Cliff intent on catching him.
Probable cause was out of the window. It had nothing to do with the search that preceded Oswald's arrest.
Where was the probable cause for marching the people out of the library with their hands in the air at the end of a shotgun?
Where was the probable cause for pulling a gun on Brewer when he opened the door?
Where was the probable cause for searching the two people at the front of the cinema?
There was no probable cause, but this doesn't mean the treatment Oswald got was any different from what other people were getting.
It's not like police procedure was being followed elsewhere but when it came to Oswald all bets were off.
And it must be remembered that when Postal called the police she kept reiterating her belief that the man who had ducked into the cinema was on the run from the police. At that specific moment in time, the report of an individual avoiding the police - during a police manhunt - was going to get the full treatment. And if that would have been a false lead, doubtless the posse would have continued marauding the streets of Oak Cliff.
As over-the-top and illegal as the police response was, there is actually nothing suspicious about it. It was a mob with badges.
-
It may be later that he specifically remembered where he knew Oswald from, but that in no way alters the fact that Brewer recognised the man.
~Grin~
So I was right: your claim that "Brewer recognised Oswald as a past customer" was without foundation
-
I agree that the swarm of DPD patrol cars to converge on the Texas theater just because there was report of someone wearing a brown shirt whom a witness saw not stop at the ticket booth before going into a theater seems not quite enough of an event / probable cause to warrant such a swarm of DPD to converge to the theater.
However once a revolver was observed in the hand of a man, (or his pants) and the man did not give PRIOR warning to police officers in proximity , (and raise both hands in the air ) , that he was armed As one is supposed to do when conceal carrying , then the NEXT response of several officers acting nearly simultaneously (because they are trained to react quickly) , is to subdue the person seen with revolver in hand until it’s determined if the person is criminal or just a conceal carrying regular citizen.
In other words: the cops have NO IDEA on first contact with a citizen if that citizen is an innocent person or is a criminal.
This. We have good reason to believe Mr. Oswald was identified as the suspect not by Mr. Brewer but by Mr. Oswald's own actions.
Mr. Oswald had come here to meet a contact. No show from the contact. Show from the police. Mr. Oswald draws the conclusion: 'I've been set up'
-
At the heart of Mr. Brewer's story is his claim that his suspicions about this man, and his sense of urgency about how serious this situation might be, are centered on a radio broadcast he has heard giving a description of the man who had shot an officer in Oak Cliff.
OK, let's take a huge leap of faith and pretend he can have actually heard such a broadcast by ~1:30pm.
So he goes down to the Texas Theatre and speaks with Mrs. Postal and Mr. Burroughs. He refuses to let up. He prevails upon Mrs. Postal to call the police, impressing upon her the potential importance of this man he believes is in the cinema: 'There's been an officer shot in Oak Cliff. That's what all the police activity must be about. I think this guy might be the one they're looking for. He fits the description.'
Except........... I made that last bit up. Mr. Brewer doesn't say anything like that. At all. In fact, in all his time down at the Texas Theatre, right up to the arrival of the police, he never even mentions the shooting of the policeman he's heard about. Mrs. Postal doesn't learn about that shooting until the police arrive--------and is greatly shocked when a police officer informs her.
Bizarre!
-
At the heart of Mr. Brewer's story is his claim that his suspicions about this man, and his sense of urgency about how serious this situation might be, are centered on a radio broadcast he has heard giving a description of the man who had shot an officer in Oak Cliff.
OK, let's take a huge leap of faith and pretend he can have actually heard such a broadcast by ~1:30pm.
So he goes down to the Texas Theatre and speaks with Mrs. Postal and Mr. Burroughs. He refuses to let up. He prevails upon Mrs. Postal to call the police, impressing upon her the potential importance of this man he believes is in the cinema: 'There's been an officer shot in Oak Cliff. That's what all the police activity must be about. I think this guy might be the one they're looking for. He fits the description.'
Except........... I made that last bit up. Mr. Brewer doesn't say anything like that. At all. In fact, in all his time down at the Texas Theatre, right up to the arrival of the police, he never even mentions the shooting of the policeman he's heard about. Mrs. Postal doesn't learn about that shooting until the police arrive--------and is greatly shocked when a police officer informs her.
Bizarre!
Are you claiming that Brewer was part of a plot to frame Oswald? If not, why do his motivations matter?
-
"It’s no less plausible than the evidence-less official claim about the revolver"
LOL
Another assertion delivered without any supporting evidence.
You don't know how to play by your own rules, do you?
Obviously you don’t know what an assertion is.
-
"I had seen him some place before" - what's vague about that?
You don’t think “some place before” is vague?
Brewer is listening to the radio about the shooting of JFK. There is an announcement that there has been a shooting in Oak Cliff, in the very area Brewer is located.
Except there’s no evidence that this announcement ever happened.
-
But a search required probable cause too.
I'm not sure why you keep going on about probable cause.
It was a manhunt for a cop-killer. A posse marauding around Oak Cliff intent on catching him.
Probable cause was out of the window. It had nothing to do with the search that preceded Oswald's arrest.
Where was the probable cause for marching the people out of the library with their hands in the air at the end of a shotgun?
Where was the probable cause for pulling a gun on Brewer when he opened the door?
Where was the probable cause for searching the two people at the front of the cinema?
There wasn’t any. Therein lies the problem. What they were doing required a warrant or probable cause. Being on a “manhunt for a cop killer” doesn’t change that.
There was no probable cause, but this doesn't mean the treatment Oswald got was any different from what other people were getting.
So what? Is that supposed to justify what the cops did?
It's not like police procedure was being followed elsewhere but when it came to Oswald all bets were off.
And it must be remembered that when Postal called the police she kept reiterating her belief that the man who had ducked into the cinema was on the run from the police.
Which of course she would have no way of knowing.
As over-the-top and illegal as the police response was, there is actually nothing suspicious about it. It was a mob with badges.
Police who don’t worry about following rules are going to worry about whether evidence is legitimate either. You can’t just say you can otherwise trust them not to be an illegal mob in every other aspect.
-
You don’t think “some place before” is vague?
What is not vague is that fact he recognised the man.
That's what's important here.
Not where he recognised him from or when it was.
He recognised the man outside his store and he recognised the man in the cinema as the same man.
That man was Lee Harvey Oswald.
Brewer's recognition of Oswald [not that he knew him as Oswald at the time], his recognition of him outside his store and his recognition of him inside the cinema is incredibly strong evidence that the man who ducked into Brewer's store was Oswald.
It is Brewer's recognition of this man that is important and that Brewer did recognise this man is not vague at all.
Where it was he recognised him from is irrelevant.
That said, Brewer did finally recognise him as a past customer which was then confirmed by the discovery of a pair of shoes from that very shop in Oswald's possession.
Except there’s no evidence that this announcement ever happened.
Is there evidence it didn't happen?
-
There wasn’t any. Therein lies the problem. What they were doing required a warrant or probable cause. Being on a “manhunt for a cop killer” doesn’t change that.
So what? Is that supposed to justify what the cops did?
Which of course she would have no way of knowing.
Police who don’t worry about following rules are going to worry about whether evidence is legitimate either. You can’t just say you can otherwise trust them not to be an illegal mob in every other aspect.
There has been no justification of any police actions in anything I written.
I totally agree the police were acting unlawfully and it would have been interesting to see how that would have played out in a trial.
The point I was making is that the way the police acted had nothing to do with Oswald. Some researchers like to make a big deal about how the police descended on the Texas Theater en masse, as if it suggests something suspicious.
But it doesn't.
Oswald was not the only person being treated unlawfully that day.
Which of course she would have no way of knowing.
Brewer told her about this suspicious acting man who was ducking into doorways avoiding the police.
That's how she knew about it.
But it doesn't matter if that's the case or not, the point I was making was that, whether she actually saw it or not, Postal was convinced this man was avoiding the police and she made that clear when she called them.
The dispatcher didn't know where she was getting her information from. All the dispatcher heard was this women repeating that a man who was conspicuously avoiding the police had entered the Texas Theater. There was a man-hunt for a cop killer going on at that exact moment. That the dispatcher put the call out for a suspect in the Texas Theater is in no way suspicious.
And that the posse of officers marauding Oak Cliff reacted like they did is, unfortunately, not surprising.
Police who don’t worry about following rules are going to worry about whether evidence is legitimate either.
Again, I totally agree.
The treatment of evidence in this case is appalling.
The profound incompetence on display is jaw-dropping.
That corrupt practices were rife can hardly be doubted.
-
~Grin~
So I was right: your claim that "Brewer recognised Oswald as a past customer" was without foundation
Yes, well done Alan, you win a lollipop.
I was wrong to say Brewer recognised Oswald as a past customer when he saw him duck into the lobby of the shoe store.
But I was not wrong to say Brewer recognised him - you are wrong about.
Brewer did recognise him although he didn't immediately recall from where.
He recognised outside his store and he recognised in the cinema.
Logic dictates that the man Brewer saw outside his store was Lee Harvey Oswald.
-
Yes, well done Alan, you win a lollipop.
I was wrong to say Brewer recognised Oswald as a past customer when he saw him duck into the lobby of the shoe store.
You certainly were---------one of quite a few authoritative statements you've made on the Brewer thing that have not held up to scrutiny. You just can't help yourself from wading in before having done your homework, can you?
But I was not wrong to say Brewer recognised him - you are wrong about.
Brewer did recognise him although he didn't immediately recall from where.
He recognised outside his store and he recognised in the cinema.
Logic dictates that the man Brewer saw outside his store was Lee Harvey Oswald.
No, logic dictates that Mr. Brewer's claims aren't all true just by virtue of his having made them.
His story that he thought the man at the shoe store might be the suspect in the officer shooting doesn't hold up. Even if by some miracle there was an extremely early local radio broadcast describing the Tippit suspect, then Mr. Brewer would have seen that the man's clothing did NOT match the description. And the fact that he said never a word to Mrs. Postal about the possible connection of the man to the Tippit suspect (she didn't hear about that shooting until the cops arrived!) speaks volumes.
The fact that the two 'IBM men' who he says were in the shoe store with him at the time were never identified, let alone questioned, is telling. Zero corroboration for Mr. Brewer's claim that the suspicious-acting man was Mr. Oswald in his brown shirt.
His claim that the box office was flush with the other buildings on the street was an outright-----------and rather telling----------misrepresentation.
The idea that he got Mrs. Postal to ring police and tell them about a brown-shirted man, and that this led them to believe that the white-shirted suspect they were on the hunt for was in the Texas Theatre is, well, hard to credit.
As for Mr. Brewer's 'recognition' of Mr. Oswald in the Texas Theatre, the evidence is that Officer McDonald did NOT go straight to Mr. Oswald after Mr. Brewer supposedly pointed him out. It's very possible that word having reached the ears of Mr. Brewer & co. that a man on the main floor kept changing seats and sitting beside patrons at random may have been what had led Mr. Brewer to believe that the man he had seen was now on the main floor. And then Mr. Oswald's reaction to being approached may have led Mr. Brewer to assume this guy must be guilty----of something. Or maybe Mr. Brewer was just confused, and convinced himself this must have been the guy at the shoe store. The fact that Mr. Oswald's face looked familiar may have helped with this confusion.
Like many others, I believe there is strong evidence pointing to the scenario that, subsequent to Mr. Oswald's arrest, a second man was arrested, up in the balcony, who was taken out by the rear exit------------and that he was positively identified on the spot by Mr. Brewer as the white-shirted man he'd seen at the shoe store.
Once Mr. Oswald was identified as a TSBD employee, and once word came down from on high that 'No Conspiracy' was the only acceptable solution to the JFK & Tippit killings, DPD wrote the second arrest out of history. And the fact that Mr. Oswald had bought a ticket and entered the cinema many minutes before Mr. Brewer's shoe store sighting was suppressed also. And Mr. Brewer, who was only too happy to revel in the glory of being The Man Who Led The Cops To Oswald, played along. As, initially at least, did Mrs. Postal and Mr. Burroughs. But they both helped clarify matters later on.
The pathetic lack of follow up with Texas Theatre patron-witnesses speaks very large volumes here: things almost certainly did NOT go down as the official version of events would have us believe.
-
Has it been firmly established that Mr. Tommy Rowe really did work at Hardy's Shoe Store?
-
You certainly were---------one of quite a few authoritative statements you've made on the Brewer thing that have not held up to scrutiny. You just can't help yourself from wading in before having done your homework, can you?
No, logic dictates that Mr. Brewer's claims aren't all true just by virtue of his having made them.
His story that he thought the man at the shoe store might be the suspect in the officer shooting doesn't hold up. Even if by some miracle there was an extremely early local radio broadcast describing the Tippit suspect, then Mr. Brewer would have seen that the man's clothing did NOT match the description. And the fact that he said never a word to Mrs. Postal about the possible connection of the man to the Tippit suspect (she didn't hear about that shooting until the cops arrived!) speaks volumes.
The fact that the two 'IBM men' who he says were in the shoe store with him at the time were never identified, let alone questioned, is telling. Zero corroboration for Mr. Brewer's claim that the suspicious-acting man was Mr. Oswald in his brown shirt.
His claim that the box office was flush with the other buildings on the street was an outright-----------and rather telling----------misrepresentation.
The idea that he got Mrs. Postal to ring police and tell them about a brown-shirted man, and that this led them to believe that the white-shirted suspect they were on the hunt for was in the Texas Theatre is, well, hard to credit.
As for Mr. Brewer's 'recognition' of Mr. Oswald in the Texas Theatre, the evidence is that Officer McDonald did NOT go straight to Mr. Oswald after Mr. Brewer supposedly pointed him out. It's very possible that word having reached the ears of Mr. Brewer & co. that a man on the main floor kept changing seats and sitting beside patrons at random may have been what had led Mr. Brewer to believe that the man he had seen was now on the main floor. And then Mr. Oswald's reaction to being approached may have led Mr. Brewer to assume this guy must be guilty----of something. Or maybe Mr. Brewer was just confused, and convinced himself this must have been the guy at the shoe store. The fact that Mr. Oswald's face looked familiar may have helped with this confusion.
Like many others, I believe there is strong evidence pointing to the scenario that, subsequent to Mr. Oswald's arrest, a second man was arrested, up in the balcony, who was taken out by the rear exit------------and that he was positively identified on the spot by Mr. Brewer as the white-shirted man he'd seen at the shoe store.
Once Mr. Oswald was identified as a TSBD employee, and once word came down from on high that 'No Conspiracy' was the only acceptable solution to the JFK & Tippit killings, DPD wrote the second arrest out of history. And the fact that Mr. Oswald had bought a ticket and entered the cinema many minutes before Mr. Brewer's shoe store sighting was suppressed also. And Mr. Brewer, who was only too happy to revel in the glory of being The Man Who Led The Cops To Oswald, played along. As, initially at least, did Mrs. Postal and Mr. Burroughs. But they both helped clarify matters later on.
The pathetic lack of follow up with Texas Theatre patron-witnesses speaks very large volumes here: things almost certainly did NOT go down as the official version of events would have us believe.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the scenario you've outlined above seems to depend on a truly staggering coincidence.
Oswald is innocently sitting in the cinema minding his own business. Around the same time, at the TSBD building, Roy Truly is reporting to Fritz that one of his employees can't be found. Oswald is suddenly a person of interest as far as Fritz is concerned.
Brewer follows a man in a white shirt to the Texas Theater and, along with Postal, causes the posse of officers hellbent on catching the murderer of Tippit to descend on the cinema. For some inexplicable reason, Oswald decides to attack McDonald, leading to his arrest. When they get him back to the DPD Fritz enters ordering officers to track this man Oswald down only to be told, by some gargantuan coincidence, that Oswald is already in custody. It is then decided to frame Oswald for both the murder of Tippit and the assassination of JFK.
Is that what you're proposing?
-
From Mrs. Julia Postal's 12/4 affidavit:
(https://i.postimg.cc/9QrgST5w/Postal-Dec-4.jpg)
"Johnny said he just wasn't in there". Not: 'I can't find him because it's too dark in there with the house lights off'. But: 'He's just not in there'.
In his affidavit a couple of days later, Mr. Brewer completely skips over this failure to find the man inside the cinema that led him to the conclusion that man just wasn't in there:
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJBsmKQt/Brewer-6-Dec-affidavit.jpg)
I spoke with Julia.... I spoke with Butch... We checked the exits... I got Julia to call the police.
The unsuccessful search for the man Mr. Brewer saw at the shoe shop has been deleted.
But on 2 March he is a little more forthcoming:
(https://i.postimg.cc/nzH48bjS/Brewer-affidavit-6-Dec.png)
Nicely ambiguous in its implication: my failure to see him may have been due to the darkness--------it didn't necessarily mean he just wasn't in there
Now the DPD radio dispatch that went out said that "the suspect" was "Supposed to be hiding in the balcony". Not: 'in the balcony'. Not: 'hiding in the Texas Theatre'. But: 'hiding in the balcony'.
So what happened?
It would seem that Mr. Brewer had concluded that the reason he had been unable to find the white-shirted man was that he was hiding rather than sitting like a normal patron. He had heard the noise of a seat popping up in the balcony, but when he looked there was no one there.
This was Mr. Brewer's belief when he told Mrs. Postal to call the police, and she passed it on: suspect is hiding in the balcony. Thinking that the man might be armed and dangerous, Mr. Brewer was not about to go hunting for him down under the seats himself. Best leave that job to the police.
By the time the cops arrived, however, word had reached Mr. Brewer & co. that a man on the main floor had been moving from seat to seat. Mr. Brewer concluded that the man who had been hiding up in the balcony had come downstairs and was not on the main floor.
Which was Mr. Brewer's understanding at the moment the police came in the back door.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but the scenario you've outlined above seems to depend on a truly staggering coincidence.
Oswald is innocently sitting in the cinema minding his own business.
Is that what you're proposing?
Not even close ::)
-
Not even close ::)
Okay, so Oswald is in the Texas Theater trying to locate some kind of contact?
-
By the time the cops arrived, however, word had reached Mr. Brewer & co. that a man on the main floor had been moving from seat to seat. Mr. Brewer concluded that the man who had been hiding up in the balcony had come downstairs and was not on the main floor.
Combining this with what I wrote a couple of posts back--------------
"As for Mr. Brewer's 'recognition' of Mr. Oswald in the Texas Theatre, the evidence is that Officer McDonald did NOT go straight to Mr. Oswald after Mr. Brewer supposedly pointed him out. It's very possible that word having reached the ears of Mr. Brewer & co. that a man on the main floor kept changing seats and sitting beside patrons at random may have been what had led Mr. Brewer to believe that the man he had seen was now on the main floor. And then Mr. Oswald's reaction to being approached may have led Mr. Brewer to assume this guy must be guilty----of something."
-------------there is a very real possibility that Mr. Brewer, as he looked out from the curtains with the house lights up, did NOT see the white-shirted man he'd seen at the shoe store but DID believe that man was hiding under one of the seats (just as Mr. Brewer believed he'd done up in the balcony). So Mr. Brewer indicated as much to the officer(s).
-
Okay, so Oswald is in the Texas Theater trying to locate some kind of contact?
Clap clap!
-
Combining this with what I wrote a couple of posts back--------------
"As for Mr. Brewer's 'recognition' of Mr. Oswald in the Texas Theatre, the evidence is that Officer McDonald did NOT go straight to Mr. Oswald after Mr. Brewer supposedly pointed him out. It's very possible that word having reached the ears of Mr. Brewer & co. that a man on the main floor kept changing seats and sitting beside patrons at random may have been what had led Mr. Brewer to believe that the man he had seen was now on the main floor. And then Mr. Oswald's reaction to being approached may have led Mr. Brewer to assume this guy must be guilty----of something."
-------------there is a very real possibility that Mr. Brewer, as he looked out from the curtains with the house lights up, did NOT see the white-shirted man he'd seen at the shoe store but DID believe that man was hiding under one of the seats (just as Mr. Brewer believed he'd done up in the balcony). So Mr. Brewer indicated as much to the officer(s).
You do realise that this is just stuff you're making up.
"It's very possible" and "there is a very real possibility" are just ways of saying you're making it up.
What evidence do you have that supports any of this? Speculations and assumptions based on some kind of evidence are fine but this is just stuff you're making up.
-
Clap clap!
So, how does this alter the staggering coincidence that Brewer and Postal just happened to lead the police to Oswald's location?
-
You do realise that this is just stuff you're making up.
"It's very possible" and "there is a very real possibility" are just ways of saying you're making it up.
What evidence do you have that supports any of this? Speculations and assumptions based on some kind of evidence are fine but this is just stuff you're making up.
~Grin~
This is rich coming from you, Mr. O'Meara, after all the sloppy claims of yours I've already had to correct on this thread.
There are serious problems with Mr. Brewer's story. Your gullibility towards that story, and your hostility to any querying of it, are rather amusing. I might as well be talking to Mr. Richard Smith here.
As for the fact that you don't think my theorizing as to what might have really happened is based on evidence, well that only confirms what I've been saying all along: you don't know the evidence. The more you posture, the more foolish you make yourself look
-
So, how does this alter the staggering coincidence that Brewer and Postal just happened to lead the police to Oswald's location?
It's only a staggering coincidence if the man seen by Mr. Brewer at the shoe store had no connection to the JFK/Tippit killings
-
So what? That’s not probable cause for murder either.
Another assertion made without any supporting argument or evidence.
LOL
But in describing the man in front of the shop, he notably doesn’t say suspicious, he doesn’t say ducked, he doesn’t say avoid. He does say “funny” though.
There is no requirement that anyone explicitly use the word "suspicious" to describe suspicious behavior. Nor does the failure to use the word "duck" somehow negate the idea that the man was acting suspiciously. Nor does Brewer have to use the word "avoid" to describe a man trying to avoid. These are just artificial constraints you baselessly assert in an attempt to bullsh-- your way through. Of course, if such stipulations actually existed, then maybe you could enlighten the rest of us as to which ancient stone tablets these commandments are carved into.
And, yes, Brewer says "funny." And also, "scared." And "looked as if he'd been running." Etc, etc. You dote on "funny" but ignore the rest of Brewer's description.
It is you who is embellishing what he said with your characterization and your “condensing”. I don’t need to “deal with” your interpretation of what somebody “implied”.
I've embellished nothing. You certainly haven't come up with an example of it. The 'condensed version' of Brewer's testimony is composed of Brewer's own statements. Yes, there are a pair of parenthetical additions, but all they do it preserve context that already exists in the testimony. And you still can't deal with it. All you can manage is hissing and sputtering like an enraged kitten.
Bull. He was arrested for murder. The arrest report says nothing about “pulling a gun on McDonald”. In fact no testimony of a single person in the theater says that Oswald “pulled a gun”. McDonald clearly states that the gun came out after he grabbed Oswald’s hand and yanked.
No. Whatever they might have intended to do, the actual physical arrest was because Oswald pulled a gun on McDonald as McDonald attempted to frisk Oswald. That kind of thing tends to get you arrested PDQ. BTW, McDonald had already frisked a couple of other theater patrons and let them go prior to approaching LHO; at the time McDonald reached out to frisk Oswald, he gave no external indication that he would treat Oswald differently.
JI: "In fact no testimony of a single person in the theater says that Oswald 'pulled a gun'"
Your fact is, in fact, not a fact. What's disappointing is that we've been here before. From the same post that the "stop and frisk" discussion came from:
"Mr. BALL - Which fist did he hit you with?
Mr. McDONALD - His left fist.
Mr. BALL - What happened then?
Mr. McDONALD - Well, whenever he knocked my hat off, any normal reaction was for me to go at him with this hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes. I went at him with this hand, and I believe I struck him on the face, but I don't know where. And with my hand, that was on his hand over the pistol.
Mr. BALL - Did you feel the pistol?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Which hand was--was his right hand or his left hand on the pistol?
Mr. McDONALD - His right hand was on the pistol.
Mr. BALL - And which of your hands?
Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir."
Further, from the same post:
"Brewer, John Gibson, and George Applin all saw a pistol in Oswald's hand during the melee with the cops. How did it get there if he didn't draw it himself? I mean, did a feral revolver that lived in the alley charge into the theater through the open back door then lunge at McDonald's throat before Oswald bravely saved the day by grabbing the rabies-crazed firearm to protect McDonald from it's venomous bite?"
Nope. I guess you missed the part that says “the current stop and frisk policy has been legal since 1968, when the Supreme Court ruled in Terry v. Ohio”.
You simply don't know what you're talking about. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. The weapon was found during a "stop and frisk" search when Terry and a couple of friend ignited the spider-sense of a nearby police officer. Terry sued Ohio hoping to have the search declared illegal. This would resulted in the evidence from the search being thrown out of court under the exclusionary rule. The Supremes ruled against Terry, with Chief Justice Diana Ross going so far as to say, "so sorry, sucker" in her affirming opinion. BTW, Terry lost at every level of the judiciary. That is to say, the Supreme Court ratified as legal something that was already common practice. Had you done something as simple as read the Wikipedia article on Terry v Ohio, you would know this.
-
No. Whatever they might have intended to do, the actual physical arrest was because Oswald pulled a gun on McDonald as McDonald attempted to frisk Oswald. That kind of thing tends to get you arrested PDQ. BTW, McDonald had already frisked a couple of other theater patrons and let them go prior to approaching LHO; at the time McDonald reached out to frisk Oswald, he gave no external indication that he would treat Oswald differently.
So..................... if Mr. Oswald had managed to get rid of the gun and had behaved calmly, he wouldn't have been arrested?
-
~Grin~
This is rich coming from you, Mr. O'Meara, after all the sloppy claims of yours I've already had to correct on this thread.
There are serious problems with Mr. Brewer's story. Your gullibility towards that story, and your hostility to any querying of it, are rather amusing. I might as well be talking to Mr. Richard Smith here.
As for the fact that you don't think my theorizing as to what might have really happened is based on evidence, well that only confirms what I've been saying all along: you don't know the evidence. The more you posture, the more foolish you make yourself look
You posted:
"As for Mr. Brewer's 'recognition' of Mr. Oswald in the Texas Theatre, the evidence is that Officer McDonald did NOT go straight to Mr. Oswald after Mr. Brewer supposedly pointed him out. It's very possible that word having reached the ears of Mr. Brewer & co. that a man on the main floor kept changing seats and sitting beside patrons at random may have been what had led Mr. Brewer to believe that the man he had seen was now on the main floor. And then Mr. Oswald's reaction to being approached may have led Mr. Brewer to assume this guy must be guilty----of something."
-------------there is a very real possibility that Mr. Brewer, as he looked out from the curtains with the house lights up, did NOT see the white-shirted man he'd seen at the shoe store but DID believe that man was hiding under one of the seats (just as Mr. Brewer believed he'd done up in the balcony). So Mr. Brewer indicated as much to the officer(s).
I've asked what evidence you have for any of this "theorizing"
It's true McDonald doesn't go directly to Oswald but, as he explains in his testimony, he knows exactly who the suspect pointed out by Brewer is.
The rest is unsupported nonsense.
-
It's only a staggering coincidence if the man seen by Mr. Brewer at the shoe store had no connection to the JFK/Tippit killings
??
How so?
-
And why didn’t Oswald get rid of the revolver before it was too late?
(Presuming Oswald actually had a revolver on
His person in the first place)
The LN reason I’ve read is that Oswald was considering making g a final stand or something.
An alternative might be that Oswald wasn’t worried if he was found with a revolver on his person perhaps because it was a non functional revolver, already had a malfunctioning firing pin?
Never the less, IF he had a revolver, then he’SHOULD have known that it’s dangerous NOT to inform a police approaching you to search you, that you have a concealed gun.
But IDK what was doing on in Oswald’s mind so IDK know if he was paranoid , in fear of his life, or what, especially if there was supposed to have been some contact which didn’t show up.
-
Obviously you don’t know what an assertion is.
An assertion is something stated as truth or fact, generally offered without any underlying or supporting evidence or proof.
That's how I put it.
The American Heritage Dictionary put it this way:
"Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof."
M-W is a little kinder to you:
"A declaration that something is the case"
But notice that it's a "declaration" and supporting evidence is not mentioned.
Dictionary.com follows the AHD:
"A positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason"
Wordnet defines it as:
"A declaration that is made emphatically (as if no supporting evidence were necessary)"
And Collins follows along:
"A positive statement, usually made without an attempt at furnishing evidence"
Now, let's go back and look at what you wrote. First there is:
"a throw-down gun that McDonald brought"
This is a positive statement that you provided no supporting evidence. That is to say, an assertion. You followed up with:
"It’s [the alleged McDonald throw down gun] no less plausible than the evidence-less official claim about the revolver"
This is also a positive statement provided with no supporting documentation, argument, or evidence. That is, another assertion.
-
You posted:
"As for Mr. Brewer's 'recognition' of Mr. Oswald in the Texas Theatre, the evidence is that Officer McDonald did NOT go straight to Mr. Oswald after Mr. Brewer supposedly pointed him out. It's very possible that word having reached the ears of Mr. Brewer & co. that a man on the main floor kept changing seats and sitting beside patrons at random may have been what had led Mr. Brewer to believe that the man he had seen was now on the main floor. And then Mr. Oswald's reaction to being approached may have led Mr. Brewer to assume this guy must be guilty----of something."
-------------there is a very real possibility that Mr. Brewer, as he looked out from the curtains with the house lights up, did NOT see the white-shirted man he'd seen at the shoe store but DID believe that man was hiding under one of the seats (just as Mr. Brewer believed he'd done up in the balcony). So Mr. Brewer indicated as much to the officer(s).
I've asked what evidence you have for any of this "theorizing"
It's true McDonald doesn't go directly to Oswald but, as he explains in his testimony, he knows exactly who the suspect pointed out by Brewer is.
The rest is unsupported nonsense.
'What evidence is there Oswald had been changing seats from patron to patron?'
'What evidence is there Brewer heard a seat popping but saw no one?'
'What evidence is there DPD were after a man in a white shirt?'
'What evidence is there Brewer hadn't been able to find the man in his own searches of the cinema interior and had told Postal he just wasn't in there?'
'What evidence is there the man was reported to police as being up in the balcony, hiding?'
Are you really asking me these questions, Mr. O'Meara?
-
So..................... if Mr. Oswald had managed to get rid of the gun and had behaved calmly, he wouldn't have been arrested?
Actually, that's an interesting question. He might have been detained and questioned (legally "detain" are "arrest" not the same thing). Most likely, the conflict between the Hidell and Oswald ID's would have piqued further interest, and at some point it was going to come out that there was a "Lee Oswald" missing from his workplace at the TSBD. So probably, Oswald still gets arrested, but it just takes longer.
-
Now, let's go back and look at what you wrote. First there is:
"a throw-down gun that McDonald brought"
This is a positive statement that you provided no supporting evidence. That is to say, an assertion.
Nope. What Mr. Iacoletti wrote, in response to a suggested scenario from Mr. Zeon Mason, was:
".or Oswald didn’t have a revolver at all and the gun that was struggled over was a throw-down gun that McDonald brought."
He was offering an alternative possibility, not a 'positive statement'. By leaving out the 'or' you have distorted the sense. I guess you'd call this 'compression'.
-
Actually, that's an interesting question. He might have been detained and questioned (legally "detain" are "arrest" not the same thing). Most likely, the conflict between the Hidell and Oswald ID's would have piqued further interest, and at some point it was going to come out that there was a "Lee Oswald" missing from his workplace at the TSBD. So probably, Oswald still gets arrested, but it just takes longer.
So there would have been nothing prima facie to support the notion that he was their Tippit suspect?
-
Nope. What Mr. Iacoletti wrote, in response to a suggested scenario from Mr. Zeon Mason, was:
".or Oswald didn’t have a revolver at all and the gun that was struggled over was a throw-down gun that McDonald brought."
He was offering an alternative possibility, not a 'positive statement'. By leaving out the 'or' you have distorted the sense. I guess you'd call this 'compression'.
Iacoletti offers his "alternative possibility" without actually providing any evidence for it. That's the point. And an "alternative possibility" without evidence isn't really a possibility in the first place.
-
Iacoletti offers his "alternative possibility" without actually providing any evidence for it. That's the point. And an "alternative possibility" without evidence isn't really a possibility in the first place.
So it wasn't a 'positive statement'. Thank you.
And you're right-------------Officer McDonald didn't give a positive statement saying 'I'm a dirty cop and I brought a throw-down gun with me'; nor did any of his fellow officers give a positive statement saying 'McDonald is a dirty cop and he brought a throw-down gun with him'; therefore it's impossible that he could have brought a throw-down gun with him.
-
??
How so?
Two men connected to the JFK shooting end up in the Texas Theatre: no coincidence.
-
Now!
The police have been called to the Texas Theatre, where the suspect in the killing of Officer Tippit is supposed to be hiding in the balcony.
From Det. John B. Toney's 3 Dec report to Chief Curry:
(https://i.postimg.cc/vTrNhtYK/Det-John-B-Toney-3-Dec-marked.jpg)
Mr. BALL. On November 22, Friday, November 22, 1963, what time did your box office open?
Mrs. POSTAL. We open daily at 12:45, sometimes may be 5, 4 minutes later or something, but that is our regular hours.
Mr. BALL. On this day you opened on 12:45, November 22?
Mrs. POSTAL. Uh-huh.
Who was the young man? How did he come to have been in the theater since 12:05, some forty minutes before opening time? And who was the "manager on duty" who vouched for him?
-
Lt. E. L. Cunningham's report to Chief Curry, also 3 Dec:
(https://i.postimg.cc/fLwCZQD8/E-L-Cunningham-balcony-suspect-3-Dec-marked.jpg)
Again, who was this young man? Why was he singled out for questioning? Who was the manager who--------on this telling--------didn't so much vouch for him as tell them the real suspect was downstairs?
-
And there's this from Sgt. H. H. Stringer (also report to Chief Curry, same date):
(https://i.postimg.cc/xTDLvSbq/Sgt-H-H-Stringer-3-Dec-marked.jpg)
Was the 'questioning' of the young man on the stairs in the balcony section in fact an arrest-in-progress that was disappointingly interrupted by the manager's intervention ('He's been here since 12:05' AND/OR 'The suspect's not here, he's downstairs')?
-
Nope. What Mr. Iacoletti wrote, in response to a suggested scenario from Mr. Zeon Mason, was:
".or Oswald didn’t have a revolver at all and the gun that was struggled over was a throw-down gun that McDonald brought."
He was offering an alternative possibility, not a 'positive statement'. By leaving out the 'or' you have distorted the sense. I guess you'd call this 'compression'.
Mitch’s attempt to obfuscate this by quoting a partial sentence out of context is sadly all too typical of his dishonest tactics.
-
There is no requirement that anyone explicitly use the word "suspicious" to describe suspicious behavior. Nor does the failure to use the word "duck" somehow negate the idea that the man was acting suspiciously. Nor does Brewer have to use the word "avoid" to describe a man trying to avoid. These are just artificial constraints you baselessly assert in an attempt to bullsh-- your way through. Of course, if such stipulations actually existed, then maybe you could enlighten the rest of us as to which ancient stone tablets these commandments are carved into.
Maybe instead you should just stop rewriting what witnesses said to make it be what you want.
No. Whatever they might have intended to do, the actual physical arrest was because Oswald pulled a gun on McDonald as McDonald attempted to frisk Oswald.
What orifice did you pull that out of? The arrest report says murder.
Your fact is, in fact, not a fact. What's disappointing is that we've been here before. From the same post that the "stop and frisk" discussion came from:
The only thing that’s disappointing is that you double down on failed arguments. No matter how many verbal gymnastics you undertake, if the gun didn’t leave his waistband, he didn’t pull it out.
"Brewer, John Gibson, and George Applin all saw a pistol in Oswald's hand during the melee with the cops. How did it get there if he didn't draw it himself?
Really? That’s your evidence that he drew a gun — an argument from ignorance? How did a gun get into Bob Carroll’s hand? He must have drawn it.
By the way, Applin said the arm holding the gun he saw had short sleeves.
You simply don't know what you're talking about. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. The weapon was found during a "stop and frisk" search when Terry and a couple of friend ignited the spider-sense of a nearby police officer. Terry sued Ohio hoping to have the search declared illegal. This would resulted in the evidence from the search being thrown out of court under the exclusionary rule. The Supremes ruled against Terry, with Chief Justice Diana Ross going so far as to say, "so sorry, sucker" in her affirming opinion. BTW, Terry lost at every level of the judiciary. That is to say, the Supreme Court ratified as legal something that was already common practice. Had you done something as simple as read the Wikipedia article on Terry v Ohio, you would know this.
No. Stop and frisk on reasonable suspicion as an exception to the fourth amendment was invented by Terry v Ohio. Not that they even had reasonable suspicion in this case. No behavior was directly witnessed by police, and nothing was witnessed by anybody involved at the time that would constitute suspicion of murder. Even if it was “common practice” (a claim which you have provided no evidence for), that wouldn’t make it legal or constitutional. That’s why it had to be adjudicated. You don’t get to use 1968 case law to justify 1963 conduct.
-
Iacoletti offers his "alternative possibility" without actually providing any evidence for it. That's the point. And an "alternative possibility" without evidence isn't really a possibility in the first place.
That’s absurd nonsense. Possibilities don’t require evidence — that’s why they’re called possibilities.
And what’s your evidence that Oswald brought CE143 into the theater? That’s actually the point.
-
Mitch’s attempt to obfuscate this by quoting a partial sentence out of context is sadly all too typical of his dishonest tactics.
You keep missing the point. Probably intentionally, but you miss it just the same. You've been in the habit of responding to other posters by quoting a phrase or sentence of theirs and adding your own "LOL." When pressed, you defend it with up the old saw, "that which is posited without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Good enough, I guess. Anyway, I figured it would be entertaining to see how you'd react when someone pulled the same thing on you.
It seems that you don't like to be held to the same standard that you impose on others.
And so you wasted little time in falling back on one of your old shibboleths by hurling a baseless accusation of dishonesty, because you lack anything substantial to respond with.
-
That’s absurd nonsense. Possibilities don’t require evidence — that’s why they’re called possibilities.
A possibility needs evidence to be taken seriously as a possibility. Otherwise, it's just a pipe dream.
And what’s your evidence that Oswald brought CE143 into the theater? That’s actually the point.
This is just your attempt to shift the burden of proof.
-
MT: There is no requirement that anyone explicitly use the word "suspicious" to describe suspicious behavior. Nor does the failure to use the word "duck" somehow negate the idea that the man was acting suspiciously. Nor does Brewer have to use the word "avoid" to describe a man trying to avoid. These are just artificial constraints you baselessly assert in an attempt to bullsh-- your way through. Of course, if such stipulations actually existed, then maybe you could enlighten the rest of us as to which ancient stone tablets these commandments are carved into.
Maybe instead you should just stop rewriting what witnesses said to make it be what you want.
I didn't rewrite what Brewer said. It's all verbatim from his testimony. Could you at least try to accuse me of something related so something I've actually done, instead of just making it up as you go along?
As I said --and you failed to respond to-- "I've embellished nothing. You certainly haven't come up with an example of it. The 'condensed version' of Brewer's testimony is composed of Brewer's own statements. Yes, there are a pair of parenthetical additions, but all they do it preserve context that already exists in the testimony. "
What orifice did you pull that out of? The arrest report says murder.
The arrest report was written after the fact, and is therefore cannot be guaranteed to represent the DPDs exact intentions before Oswald's little scuffle with McDonald.
JI: "In fact no testimony of a single person in the theater says that Oswald 'pulled a gun'"
MT: Your fact is, in fact, not a fact. What's disappointing is that we've been here before. From the same post that the "stop and frisk" discussion came from:
The only thing that’s disappointing is that you double down on failed arguments. No matter how many verbal gymnastics you undertake, if the gun didn’t leave his waistband, he didn’t pull it out.
Who said that the gun didn't leave Oswald's waistband?
MT: "Brewer, John Gibson, and George Applin all saw a pistol in Oswald's hand during the melee with the cops. How did it get there if he didn't draw it himself?
Really? That’s your evidence that he drew a gun — an argument from ignorance? How did a gun get into Bob Carroll’s hand? He must have drawn it.
You forgot the other part. Well, no, actually you deleted it from your reply. Once again, it's here:
Mr. McDONALD - Well, whenever he knocked my hat off, any normal reaction was for me to go at him with this hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes. I went at him with this hand, and I believe I struck him on the face, but I don't know where. And with my hand, that was on his hand over the pistol.
Mr. BALL - Did you feel the pistol?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Which hand was--was his right hand or his left hand on the pistol?
Mr. McDONALD - His right hand was on the pistol.
Mr. BALL - And which of your hands?
Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir."
further down:
Mr. BALL - Was the pistol out of his waist at that time?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
So McDonald says Oswald was pulling a gun from his waistband during the first exchange of blows, and said Oswald did indeed manage to pull it out of the waistband during the kerfluffle. Brewer, John Gibson, and Applin saw Oswald holding a pistol in his hand during the fight.
By the way, Applin said the arm holding the gun he saw had short sleeves.
Look at the photos take at the scene and tell me how many of the DPD officers were wearing short sleeves that day. So far, I count....zero. Oswald was wearing a shirt that looked to be a size or two too large for him, which could allow the cuff to be pulled back up the arm. Plus it had a big hole in the right elbow. Either could account for Applin seeing what appeared to him to be a short sleeve.
No. Stop and frisk on reasonable suspicion as an exception to the fourth amendment was invented by Terry v Ohio. Not that they even had reasonable suspicion in this case. No behavior was directly witnessed by police, and nothing was witnessed by anybody involved at the time that would constitute suspicion of murder. Even if it was “common practice” (a claim which you have provided no evidence for), that wouldn’t make it legal or constitutional. That’s why it had to be adjudicated. You don’t get to use 1968 case law to justify 1963 conduct.
Nope. You still don't understand.
The Federal exclusionary rule was codified by Supreme Court in the the Weeks decision of 1914. Initially, it only applied to the Federal courts, while state and local courts retained exclusive purview over exclusion within their own jurisdictions. This included stop-and-frisk, which was generally allowed. In 1961, this all changed when the Supremes decided in Mapp v Ohio that the Federal exclusionary rule extended into the state and local jurisdictions via the 14th amendment. This led to a flood of exclusionary rule cases entering the federal appellate courts that would have previously stopped at the state supreme court level. The Miranda case was the most famous of these. Terry v Ohio was another. In the Terry case, the Supreme Court essentially left the bar where the state courts had it. Stop and frisk had been acceptable and admissible under the jurisdiction of the state courts, and it remained admissible and acceptable under the Supreme Court post Terry. McDonald's attempt to frisk Oswald was legal then, and would be legal now.
-
You keep missing the point. Probably intentionally, but you miss it just the same. You've been in the habit of responding to other posters by quoting a phrase or sentence of theirs and adding your own "LOL." When pressed, you defend it with up the old saw, "that which is posited without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Good enough, I guess. Anyway, I figured it would be entertaining to see how you'd react when someone pulled the same thing on you.
I never said “that which is posited without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." There’s a difference between positing a possibility and making a truth claim.
-
A possibility needs evidence to be taken seriously as a possibility. Otherwise, it's just a pipe dream.
Great. Where’s your evidence that Oswald brought CE143 into the theater?
This is just your attempt to shift the burden of proof.
I didn’t make a truth claim requiring a burden of proof.
-
I didn't rewrite what Brewer said. It's all verbatim from his testimony. Could you at least try to accuse me of something related so something I've actually done, instead of just making it up as you go along?
Stringing together pieces of phrases from different statements made at different times is rewriting
The arrest report was written after the fact, and is therefore cannot be guaranteed to represent the DPDs exact intentions before Oswald's little scuffle with McDonald.
Of course an arrest report is written after an arrest. What’s your point? And I made no argument regarding their exact intentions before the scuffle.
Who said that the gun didn't leave Oswald's waistband?
McDonald did. In his report to Curry:
“With his right hand, he reached to his waist and both of our hands were on a pistol that was stuck in his belt under his shirt. he both fell into the seats struggling for the pistol. At this time I yelled, "I've got him." Three uniformed officers came to my aid immediately. One on the suspect's left, one to the rear in the row behind and one to the front in the row directly in front of the suspect and I. I managed to get my right hand on the pistol over the suspect's hand. I could feel his hand on the trigger. I then got a secure grip on the butt of the pistol. I jerked the pistol and as it was clearing the suspect's clothing and grip I heard the snap of the hammer and the pistol crossed over my left cheek, causing a four inch scratch.”
So McDonald says Oswald was pulling a gun from his waistband during the first exchange of blows, and said Oswald did indeed manage to pull it out of the waistband during the kerfluffle.
No, McDonald jerked the pistol causing it to come out.
Brewer, John Gibson, and Applin saw Oswald holding a pistol in his hand during the fight.
Again, Applin saw a gun in the hand of somebody wearing a short sleeved shirt. Oswald wasn’t.
Many hands were on the gun at some point during the scuffle. It doesn’t just follow that holding a gun means you pulled it out.
Look at the photos take at the scene and tell me how many of the DPD officers were wearing short sleeves that day. So far, I count....zero. Oswald was wearing a shirt that looked to be a size or two too large for him, which could allow the cuff to be pulled back up the arm. Plus it had a big hole in the right elbow. Either could account for Applin seeing what appeared to him to be a short sleeve.
Wow, that wins the prize for lamest LN excuse. If you look at photos of the arrest shirt, you can see that the hole is not “big”. If you look at the photos of Oswald being dragged out of the theater, you can see that his sleeves are not rolled up.
The Federal exclusionary rule was codified by Supreme Court in the the Weeks decision of 1914
I made no reference to the exclusionary rule. It’s not even relevant to the argument.
Initially, it only applied to the Federal courts, while state and local courts retained exclusive purview over exclusion within their own jurisdictions. This included stop-and-frisk, which was generally allowed.
Generally allowed by whom, and says who?
In 1961, this all changed when the Supremes decided in Mapp v Ohio that the Federal exclusionary rule extended into the state and local jurisdictions via the 14th amendment. This led to a flood of exclusionary rule cases entering the federal appellate courts that would have previously stopped at the state supreme court level. The Miranda case was the most famous of these. Terry v Ohio was another. In the Terry case, the Supreme Court essentially left the bar where the state courts had it.
Cite any such Texas adjudication prior to 1963. Particularly one that articulates the “reasonable suspicion” standard the Supreme Court imposed with Terry. The 4th amendment says “probable cause”.
P.S. there was no reasonable suspicion by the Terry standard anyway that the man Brewer pointed out had committed a crime or was armed.
-
MT: You keep missing the point. Probably intentionally, but you miss it just the same. You've been in the habit of responding to other posters by quoting a phrase or sentence of theirs and adding your own "LOL." When pressed, you defend it with up the old saw, "that which is posited without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Good enough, I guess. Anyway, I figured it would be entertaining to see how you'd react when someone pulled the same thing on you.
I never said “that which is posited without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." There’s a difference between positing a possibility and making a truth claim.
Hmm. I seem to recall that you did at one point.
Actually, I hope you did. Otherwise, all you've been doing is repeat what someone else said for no other reason than to laugh at it. Just like Beavis and Butthead. And if you want to act like a pair of 12-year-old morons, I can't say I can't stop you. And everyone can see it for themselves.
-
Hmm. I seem to recall that you did at one point.
What I said is “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." It’s known as Hitchens’ Razor, after Christoper Hitchens who made the statement.
There is a fundamental difference between an assertion of a fact and a speculative possibility.
Actually, I hope you did. Otherwise, all you've been doing is repeat what someone else said for no other reason than to laugh at it.
When somebody claims something to be a fact without any substantiation, all it deserves is a LOL. See Hitchens’ Razor. I don’t just LOL as things stated as opinions, speculations, or possibilities.
Just like Beavis and Butthead. And if you want to act like a pair of 12-year-old morons, I can't say I can't stop you. And everyone can see it for themselves.
If you’re going to try to compare me to Beavis and Butthead, at least try to get their ages right. And you don’t speak for “everyone”. What age moron are you acting like with your belligerence?
-
It could be that Oswald was just ABOUT to tell McDonald he had a revolver in his waist band, but McDonald saw the revolver and reacted to grab it just AS Oswald was going to speak.
If McDonald was attempting to plant a gun on Oswald by shoving it in Oswald’s waist, then why were not any words heard from Oswald such as “THATS NOT MY GUN” or THIS COP TRIED TO PLANT A GUN ON ME!!
Oswald was later yelling out “I’m Just a Patsy” so why didn’t he say something about McDonald trying to plant a gun?
At the midnight conference all Oswald said was that “a police officer hit me”. Nothing about a police officer trying to plant a gun however.
-
MT: A possibility needs evidence to be taken seriously as a possibility. Otherwise, it's just a pipe dream.
Great. Where’s your evidence that Oswald brought CE143 into the theater?
I didn't say anything about CE134. This is just an attempt to change the subject, move the goalposts, and shift the burden of proof.
I didn’t make a truth claim requiring a burden of proof.
"X is a possible" is a "truth statement," even if it's not a definite statement. Something is possible, or it is not. You are saying that it is....without giving us any reason to seriously consider it a possibility.
It is technically possible that a revolver suddenly appeared in Oswald's hand due to an utterly freak quantum entanglement event. Should we seriously consider this possibility? Of course not.
-
If Oswald was the Tippit shooter, then what reason to carry a revolver into the theater and KEEP that revolver on his person even as DPD entered the theater from all directions.
An LN might suggest that the reason was that Oswald was in a state of mind that was basically “”fight or flight”, from having just killed Tippit about 25 minutes earlier, so possibly thinking of a final shootout with cops if Oswald was trapped.
But Oswald is also supposed to be this cool and calculating man who shot JFK so it’s seems inconsistent he wasn’t able to calculate getting rid of incriminating evidence like the revolver and the 2 types of bullets, and NOT to leave shells at ( and his wallet too??) at the Tippit scene.
Even if it could be proved that Oswald was a schizophrenic / bipolar mental case , the 1:15 DOA time stamp and Bowleys 1:10 watch time stamp place the Tippit shooter having to be shooting Tippit at about 1:07 pm which pretty much exonerates Oswald being the shooter anyway.
From my CT perspective, and because of what appears to be an impossibility of Oswald able to even get to 10th and Patton by 1:07 pm, there are only a few alternatives to consider imo:
1. Oswald went directly to the theatre for no other reason than to just watch a movie. It’s uncertain if he would have carried a revolver or not on his person, but if he’s so unconcerned about the magnitude of the events that day to just casually be going to see a movie then he also possibly could have gone to Brewers store just to look at some shoes. This kind of behavior , however, would suggest Oswald had an extremely unsympathetic attitude about the magnitude of the events that day.
2. Oswald went directly to the theater for a purpose other than just to see a movie. The reason most probable is to meet someone. The purpose of the meeting uncertain, but such scenario leads to the idea that Oswald was involved somehow with either FBI or CIA as an operative so it would not be implausible he would carry a revolver as a standard defensive posture.
-
I didn't say anything about CE134.
Neither did I.
This is just an attempt to change the subject, move the goalposts, and shift the burden of proof.
"X is a possible" is a "truth statement," even if it's not a definite statement. Something is possible, or it is not. You are saying that it is....without giving us any reason to seriously consider it a possibility.
It is technically possible that a revolver suddenly appeared in Oswald's hand due to an utterly freak quantum entanglement event. Should we seriously consider this possibility? Of course not.
Should we seriously consider the possibility that Oswald brought the CE143 revolver into the theater without any reason to seriously consider it? Of course not.
Why the double standard?
-
MT: I didn't rewrite what Brewer said. It's all verbatim from his testimony. Could you at least try to accuse me of something related so something I've actually done, instead of just making it up as you go along?
Stringing together pieces of phrases from different statements made at different times is rewriting
The only source I used was Brewer's WC testimony. Not "different statements made at different times." Again, could you at least try to accuse me of something related so something I've actually done, instead of just making it up as you go along?
JI: What orifice did you pull that out of? The arrest report says murder.
MT: The arrest report was written after the fact, and is therefore cannot be guaranteed to represent the DPDs exact intentions before Oswald's little scuffle with McDonald.
Of course an arrest report is written after an arrest. What’s your point? And I made no argument regarding their exact intentions before the scuffle.
I said it explicitly: "The arrest report was written after the fact, and is therefore cannot be guaranteed to represent the DPDs exact intentions before Oswald's little scuffle with McDonald."
MT: Who said that the gun didn't leave Oswald's waistband?
McDonald did. In his report to Curry:
“With his right hand, he reached to his waist and both of our hands were on a pistol that was stuck in his belt under his shirt. he both fell into the seats struggling for the pistol. At this time I yelled, "I've got him." Three uniformed officers came to my aid immediately. One on the suspect's left, one to the rear in the row behind and one to the front in the row directly in front of the suspect and I. I managed to get my right hand on the pistol over the suspect's hand. I could feel his hand on the trigger. I then got a secure grip on the butt of the pistol. I jerked the pistol and as it was clearing the suspect's clothing and grip I heard the snap of the hammer and the pistol crossed over my left cheek, causing a four inch scratch.”
Do you not understand that "as it was clearing the suspect's clothing" means that it left Oswald's waistband?
No, McDonald jerked the pistol causing it to come out.
That's not quite what he actually said. He said he "jerked the pistol" but didn't actually say that he "jerked it out" (I'll refrain from any more double entendre than necessary here). Anyone who has tried to remove a tree stump knows that jerking something isn't necessarily going to cause it to move much, if at all. And McDonald's account doesn't preclude Oswald pulling the gun out of his own accord. McDonald notes that Oswald already had his hand around the gun, with his finger on the trigger. There's only one reason to do that, and it involves pulling a gun. The other witnesses reported seeing the gun in Oswald's hand, but not in McDonald's hand.
Again, Applin saw a gun in the hand of somebody wearing a short sleeved shirt. Oswald wasn’t.
Applin explicitly identified Oswald as the guy in short sleeves holding the gun. You keep leaving that part out for some strange reason. And the cops weren't wearing short sleeve shirts, either.
Many hands were on the gun at some point during the scuffle. It doesn’t just follow that holding a gun means you pulled it out.
I only see Oswald and McDonald with their hands on it in the scrum, with Bob Carrol pulling it out of the fight for good. Three guys does not make for "many" hands.
MT: Oswald was wearing a shirt that looked to be a size or two too large for him, which could allow the cuff to be pulled back up the arm. Plus it had a big hole in the right elbow. Either could account for Applin seeing what appeared to him to be a short sleeve.
Wow, that wins the prize for lamest LN excuse. If you look at photos of the arrest shirt, you can see that the hole is not “big”. If you look at the photos of Oswald being dragged out of the theater, you can see that his sleeves are not rolled up.
First off, I didn't say "rolled up," I said "pushed up." Sleeves can and do get pushed and pulled up the arm during highly physical personal interactions, like fights. And after the fight is over, and the force pushing the cuff up the arm abates, the sleeve as a tendency to retreat to it's original position all on it's own.
That being said, Applin explicitly named Oswald as the owner of the short-sleeved arm. Given that, all that's left would be to explain why Applin thought Oswald had a short sleeve shirt on. It might just take is a glimpse of bare forearm or elbow in the dynamic whirl of melee.
MT: The Federal exclusionary rule was codified by Supreme Court in the the Weeks decision of 1914
I made no reference to the exclusionary rule. It’s not even relevant to the argument.
The exclusionary rule springs directly from the question of, was a search or arrest proper under the 4th amendment? The two are joined at the hip.
Generally allowed by whom, and says who?
You didn't even bother to read the Wikipedia article, did you? If you did, you'd find things like:
"All major American police forces routinely employed the stop-and-frisk practice, and it was historically viewed as a 'low visibility' police procedure and was 'largely ignored by commentators and dealt with ambiguously by most courts.'" The quotes are from Wayne LaFavres' book "Search and Siezure" and Frank Remington's 1960 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminality article on the subject. Some more Remington quotes:
"There is no doubt that it is common police practice to stop and question suspects as to whom there are no sufficient grounds for arrest."
"If the right to stop and question a suspect is recognized, then it follows that the officer ought to be allowed to frisk, under some circumstances at least, to insure that the suspect is not possessed of a dangerous weapon which would put the safety of the officer in peril. Certainly it is current practice to frisk some suspects as to whom there are not sufficient grounds for arrest."
"Usually courts which have recognized a privilege to stop and question a suspect have also recognized the right of the officer to frisk the suspect if the officer has reason to believe him dangerous. This is specifically provided for in the Uniform Arrest Act."
And Wikipedia provides a brief synopsis of Terry's appeals through the court system:
"Terry's lawyer argued that the frisk had been a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that the pistol that McFadden had discovered during the frisk should therefore be excluded from evidence under the exclusionary rule. The trial judge denied his motion on the basis that the stop-and-frisk was generally presumed legal, and Terry was convicted. He appealed to the Ohio District Court of Appeals, which affirmed his conviction, and he then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which dismissed his appeal."
MT: In 1961, this all changed when the Supremes decided in Mapp v Ohio that the Federal exclusionary rule extended into the state and local jurisdictions via the 14th amendment. This led to a flood of exclusionary rule cases entering the federal appellate courts that would have previously stopped at the state supreme court level. The Miranda case was the most famous of these. Terry v Ohio was another. In the Terry case, the Supreme Court essentially left the bar where the state courts had it.
Cite any such Texas adjudication prior to 1963. Particularly one that articulates the “reasonable suspicion” standard the Supreme Court imposed with Terry.
You're the person who originally asserted that "the police overstepped." It's up to you to show that they did, in the eyes of the law. Anything else is just another of your attempts to shift the burden of proof.
The 4th amendment says “probable cause”.
Yes, and what would constitute "probable cause?" I mean, not by your own definition, but by one generally accepted by the courts.
P.S. there was no reasonable suspicion by the Terry standard anyway that the man Brewer pointed out had committed a crime or was armed.
Thus spake the renowned legal scholar, John Iacoletti. Oh, wait, who am I kidding? It's just another unsupported assertion. Thus, LOL. LOL indeed.
-
What I said is “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." It’s known as Hitchens’ Razor, after Christoper Hitchens who made the statement.
Let's compare, shall we?
I said that you said, "that which is posited without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
You said that you said "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"
Maybe it's just me, but these two statements carry exactly the same meaning despite the difference in exact wording. So why did you respond to the first statement with "I never said 'that which is posited without evidence can be dismissed without evidence'" when this statement means exactly the same thing as your own preferred version? Do you even know?
There is a fundamental difference between an assertion of a fact and a speculative possibility.
Well, there certainly is a difference of degree here. But only of degree. A possibility may only be a possibility, but there still needs to be reason to consider a possibility to actually be a possibility. Unless, of course, your goal is not a raise possibilities, but to argue via innuendo what you cannot do with evidence.
When somebody claims something to be a fact without any substantiation, all it deserves is a LOL. See Hitchens’ Razor. I don’t just LOL as things stated as opinions, speculations, or possibilities.
You mean, like when you make unsubstantiated statements like "If he had really pulled out a gun, they would have shot him?" we can LOL you? (BTW, LOL).
To be honest, I don't have a problem with pointing out an unsupported assertion as it's spat out. You can even be cheeky, if you're clever enough. But, the "LOL" thing is juvenile, unoriginal, and the sort of thing I'd expect from some kid who grew up getting ridiculed and bullied and wants nothing more than to pretend to follow in the footsteps of his tormentors. That's not much to aspire to. I'd prefer the practice was banned here (along with the useless interminable accusations that so-and-so is really 'Roger' or 'Howard Gee' or whoever), but the Mod seems to prefer everyone playing on a wide pitch.
Of course, Hitch would respond (when necessary) using elegance, wit, and something made with vodka. BTW, I'm fully aware of Mr Hitchens and his shaving habits.
If you’re going to try to compare me to Beavis and Butthead, at least try to get their ages right.
The exact ages of Beavis and Butthead aren't important. Their behavior is. That's the point.
And you don’t speak for “everyone”.
I never claimed to. I said that everyone can see your behavior.
What age moron are you acting like with your belligerence?
More sour grapes from you, Mr Iacoletti. I'm not being belligerent. I'm treating you as you treat others. If you see that as morony or belligerence, then maybe you should spend some thoughtful time studying a mirror.
-
Were Oswald’s long sleeves buttoned or unbuttoned at time the wrestle match waist band event starts.
If buttoned it’s low probability the sleeves were pushed up by the wrestle match.
-
The only source I used was Brewer's WC testimony. Not "different statements made at different times." Again, could you at least try to accuse me of something related so something I've actually done, instead of just making it up as you go along?
Different parts of his testimony are different statements made at different times. Stringing parts of sentences together to invent continuous statements that he never actually made is dishonest.
I said it explicitly: "The arrest report was written after the fact, and is therefore cannot be guaranteed to represent the DPDs exact intentions before Oswald's little scuffle with McDonald."
Then your point is irrelevant, because I said nothing about DPD’s intentions before the struggle.
Do you not understand that "as it was clearing the suspect's clothing" means that it left Oswald's waistband?
Yes. Do you not understand “I jerked the pistol and”?
That's not quite what he actually said. He said he "jerked the pistol" but didn't actually say that he "jerked it out" (I'll refrain from any more double entendre than necessary here). Anyone who has tried to remove a tree stump knows that jerking something isn't necessarily going to cause it to move much, if at all. And McDonald's account doesn't preclude Oswald pulling the gun out of his own accord.
How quickly you reverted from “Oswald pulled a gun out” to “does not preclude”.
Applin explicitly identified Oswald as the guy in short sleeves holding the gun. You keep leaving that part out for some strange reason.
Let’s look at what Applin actually testified, shall we?
Mr. BALL - Who pulled the pistol?
Mr. APPLIN - I guess it was Oswald, because--for one reason, that he had on a short sleeve shirt, and I seen a man's arm that was connected to the gun.
He guessed it was Oswald because he had on a short-sleeved shirt. He didn’t give any other reason beyond this “one reason”, but your attempt to spin this as a positive identification (and what’s more, evidence that Oswald pulled a gun) is once again, highly dishonest.
I only see Oswald and McDonald with their hands on it in the scrum, with Bob Carrol pulling it out of the fight for good. Three guys does not make for "many" hands.
You see? You see? That’s quite a trick, unless you were there or have video of the event. It was officer C.T. Walker who mentioned all the hands:
“Oswald had ahold of my shirt and he practically pulled off my nameplate by ripping it with his hand. and I was bent over, and I was in an awkward position, and I could see several hands on the gun. The gun finally got out of his belt, and it was about waist high and pointed out at about a 45 degree angle.”
The exclusionary rule springs directly from the question of, was a search or arrest proper under the 4th amendment? The two are joined at the hip.
The exclusionary rule is what motivates police to respect the 4th amendment. The right itself is not defined by it. Nor does it depend on it for its existence.
You didn't even bother to read the Wikipedia article, did you? If you did, you'd find things like:
So the answer to my “says who” question is vague claims in Wikipedia. Thanks.
"If the right to stop and question a suspect is recognized, then it follows that the officer ought to be allowed to frisk, under some circumstances at least, to insure that the suspect is not possessed of a dangerous weapon which would put the safety of the officer in peril. Certainly it is current practice to frisk some suspects as to whom there are not sufficient grounds for arrest."
"Usually courts which have recognized a privilege to stop and question a suspect have also recognized the right of the officer to frisk the suspect if the officer has reason to believe him dangerous. This is specifically provided for in the Uniform Arrest Act."
[
Note all the qualifiers. “Ought to be”. “Some circumstances”. “Some suspects”. “Usually”. “If the officer has reason to believe”.
You're the person who originally asserted that "the police overstepped." It's up to you to show that they did, in the eyes of the law. Anything else is just another of your attempts to shift the burden of proof.
My evidence is a plain reading of the 4th amendment. This has entered the realm of a philosophical argument. You’re arguing that if the police “commonly” do something (whatever that means) that goes against the constitution, then it’s legal until the Supreme Court says it’s not. I’m arguing that it’s illegal until the Supreme Court says it’s permitted. The Supreme Court doesn’t grant certiorari unless there is a constitutional dispute to be settled.
Quoting from the dissent in Terry v. Ohio:
"In other words, police officers up to today have been permitted to effect arrests or searches without warrants only when the facts within their personal knowledge would satisfy the constitutional standard of probable cause. At the time of their "seizure" without a warrant, they must possess facts concerning the person arrested that would have satisfied a magistrate that "probable cause" was indeed present."
This justice, at least, disagrees with you that it was previously permissible merely because police did it.
Yes, and what would constitute "probable cause?" I mean, not by your own definition, but by one generally accepted by the courts.
Quoting from https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/probable-cause.html (https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/probable-cause.html);
"Probable cause for arrest exists when facts and circumstances known by the police officer [emphasis mine] would lead a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is attempting to commit a criminal offense."
"Police must base probable cause on objective facts; it cannot be based upon a hunch."
"Probable cause to search exists when facts and circumstances known to the law enforcement officer [emphasis mine] provide the basis for a reasonable person to believe that they committed a crime at the place to be searched or that evidence of a crime exists at the location."
There were no facts and circumstances known to any law enforcement officer at the time the Texas Theater was raided that Oswald or anybody else in the theater had committed a violent crime or was likely to be dangerous.
Thus spake the renowned legal scholar, John Iacoletti. Oh, wait, who am I kidding? It's just another unsupported assertion. Thus, LOL. LOL indeed.
So says the "legal scholar" who cites Wikipedia. LOL.
Even though the concept of a Terry frisk had not yet been invented in 1963, let's look at the standard and apply it to Brewer, Oswald, and the two unidentified theater patrons who got frisked.
Quoting from the majority opinion in Terry v. Ohio:
"Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime. The officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man, in the circumstances, would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger. Cf. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U. S. 89, 91 (1964); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 174-176 (1949); Stacey v. Emery, 97 U. S. 642, 645 (1878). [Footnote 23] And in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or "hunch," but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience. Cf. Brinegar v. United States supra.
IV"
Now let's look at the circumstances. The police received a telephone call from Julia Postal that said, as recounted by Postal in her testimony:
"So, well, I called the police, and he wanted to know why I thought it was their man, and I said, "Well, I didn't know," and he said, "Well, it fits the description," and I have not---I said I hadn't heard the description. All I know is, "This man is running from them for some reason." And he wanted to know why, and told him because everytime the sirens go by he would duck and he wanted to know----well, if he fits the description is what he says. I said, "Let me tell you what he looks like and you take it from there." And explained that he had on this brown sports shirt and I couldn't tell you what design it was, and medium height, ruddy looking to me, and he said, "Thank you,""
Keeping in mind, the description that was broadcast over police radio:
"Might can give you some additional information. I got an eye-ball witness to the get-away man. That suspect in this shooting is a white male, twenty-seven, five feet eleven, a hundred sixty-five, black wavy hair, fair complected, wearing a light grey Eisenhower-type jacket, dark trousers and a white shirt, and (. . . ?). "
There is literally nothing in common between the two descriptions. In addition to that, no police officer observed any crime or any suspicious behavior. Neither Postal or Brewer saw any criminal activity (apart from -- arguably -- theft of service), or saw a weapon of any kind. So what were the "specific reasonable inferences", beyond a hunch, that the man that Brewer pointed out or anybody else in the theater had been involved in a crime for which he should be detained, and, considered potentially armed and dangerous? There are none. What are the facts and circumstances known to the law enforcement officer that would lead a reasonable person to believe that Oswald committed the crime of murder, justifying the murder arrest? There are none.
The police overstepped.
-
Let's compare, shall we?
I said that you said, "that which is posited without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
You said that you said "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"
Maybe it's just me, but these two statements carry exactly the same meaning despite the difference in exact wording.
So says the guy who tried to make a distinction between rolled up sleeves and pushed up sleeves.
So why did you respond to the first statement with "I never said 'that which is posited without evidence can be dismissed without evidence'" when this statement means exactly the same thing as your own preferred version? Do you even know?
Because I don't agree that they mean exactly the same thing. Asserting something is stating it as fact. Positing is suggesting something as a possibility.
Well, there certainly is a difference of degree here. But only of degree. A possibility may only be a possibility, but there still needs to be reason to consider a possibility to actually be a possibility. Unless, of course, your goal is not a raise possibilities, but to argue via innuendo what you cannot do with evidence.
You mean like your argument that Oswald's sleeves could have been "pushed up", but only when Applin saw the gun?
To be honest, I don't have a problem with pointing out an unsupported assertion as it's spat out. You can even be cheeky, if you're clever enough. But, the "LOL" thing is juvenile, unoriginal, and the sort of thing I'd expect from some kid who grew up getting ridiculed and bullied and wants nothing more than to pretend to follow in the footsteps of his tormentors. That's not much to aspire to. I'd prefer the practice was banned here (along with the useless interminable accusations that so-and-so is really 'Roger' or 'Howard Gee' or whoever), but the Mod seems to prefer everyone playing on a wide pitch.
Thanks for sharing. I'll give your preferences all the consideration that they deserve. On the other hand, seeing how much a little "LOL" gets under your skin is more motivation to keep doing it, because you can't discuss anything without behaving like a belligerent a$$h0le.
Of course, Hitch would respond (when necessary) using elegance, wit, and something made with vodka. BTW, I'm fully aware of Mr Hitchens and his shaving habits.
Good, then you'll avoid the LOLs by refraining from making assertions without evidence. By the way, Hitch drank scotch.
The exact ages of Beavis and Butthead aren't important. Their behavior is. That's the point.
The real point is that the guy who thinks that personally demeaning remarks somehow make for a more convincing argument shouldn't be whining about juvenile behavior. Claming to be responding in kind is patently ridiculous. You do that to everybody who dares to disagree with your edicts, rather than just presenting a better argument and letting that speak for itself.
-
Quote from: Martin Weidmann on May 12, 2023, 11:43:07 PM
Do you also accept her [Earlene Roberts'] story about a police car honking twice in front of the house?
reply from dave von pien .
"Well, that's another matter entirely. The topic I was referring to earlier was whether or not Earlene Roberts had really seen Lee Harvey Oswald enter and leave the Beckley roominghouse at about 1:00 PM on November 22."
i dont thinks its "ANOTHER MATTER " at all . i think its about whether one believes a particular witness to be reliable and credible OR NOT . lone nut advocates that i have seen and debated with (some well known such as bill brown who has posted here in the past ) have said that they dont consider mrs roberts reliable or truthful . in fact bill stated to me elsewhere on bob harris old forum that he considers that she waited about a week and invented the police car story , in essence lied about it .
this is far from the only witness that lone nut advocates first cite as accurate , reliable and truthful witnesses , only to then come along and dispute or attack the same witness when they say something they dont care for . if a witness whom ever they are really did lie about one thing then we should have a concern about everything they said . helen markham is such a witness cited by lone nut advocates as a witness to j d tippits killing and cited as picking oswald from a line up for being the killer . this is the same woman attacked by lone nut advocates when she testifies that while she did not look at a watch or clock that to the best of her belief given she left home at her usual time to catch her bus to work , took her usual route to her bus stop on jefferson and given that she estimated based on that that it was likely 1.07 or 1.08 that the shooting took place . a time that in fairness is not far from t f bowleys 1.10pm time , bowley being the only witness at the scene to look at his watch and note the time . he said that at that time tippit was already shot and down on the street .i of course allow that old analogue watches could be a little off time wise be that fast or slow .
but my point here being that if i thought a witness unreliable or lying that i could not in good conscience rely upon anything they said .if a witness embellished or lied about anything then we have reason to doubt all that they said . atleast that is my philosophy , i cant say its lone nut advocate philosophy , atleast not in my experience .and my point also being that lone nut advocates (not necessarily all ) tend to both rely on witnesses and then attack what they say also .
for the record regarding mrs earlene roberts an elderly lady . i dont think on the day she would have had any reason to associate a honking police car outside with mr oswald .i feel sure that later she would have likely been asked of she remembered any other details , and then she thought/said well I DID SEE A POLICE CAR , BUT THOUGHT LITTLE OF IT AT THE TIME . did this have any relation to mr oswald ? well there is no proof at all that it did , but one would have thought that the police could have and should have accounted for such a car if it existed .
-
"Conspiracy theorists never seem to want to evaluate ALL of Earlene Roberts' testimony concerning the time that Oswald spent in his room. It's true that Mrs. Roberts testified that Oswald "went on to his room and stayed about 3 or 4 minutes" [6 H 438], but it's also a fact that she also said that Oswald was in his room "just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on" [6 H 440].
No CTer ever wants to add in that last important statement made by Roberts.
And does it really take 3 or 4 minutes to wander around a closet-sized bedroom and grab a jacket, a gun, and a few bullets?" dave von pien
well it might if oswald also changed his slacks and shirt as was recorded in interrogation notes of my memory serves me . to add to that an inventory of items taken from oswalds room lists items of clothing taken from the very place where he (according to interrogation notes ) said he put the dirty clothing he took off .
you mentioned that in your opinion CTers dont like to mention certain statements or things that MAY dispute them . so them i am compelled to ask why you didnt mention that oswald said he did more than grab a jacket and gun , that he said he changed his shirt and slacks also ? .
i can think of two reasons off hand why a lone nut advocate and certainly yourself would not be wanting to mention this .. one being changing his clothes to that extent would tend to validate the 3 to 4 minute time estimate . and two being that oswald changing his shirt would blow your fiber evidence out of the water . because if the shirt he was arrested in was not the shirt he wore at work at 12.30 , and he only put it on at beckley post 1pm well then a very valid question must be asked . HOW COULD FIBERS FROM A SHIRT OSWALD ONLY PUT ON HIM ON BECKLEY POST 1PM BE FOUND ON THE RIFLE WHEN HE NEVER WORE THAT SHIRT IN WORK AT 12.30 OR ALL THAT DAY THAT HE WAS IN WORK ? .
-
"But if the actual time that LHO spent in that room was along the lines of 30 to 60 seconds (which is very likely much more accurate, especially given the "hurried" nature that Oswald was said to have exhibited during both his arrival and his departure from the roominghouse that day), then that would have provided Oswald with up to 3 additional minutes to travel the 0.85 mile from 1026 Beckley to 10th & Patton." dave von pien
we know she said she heard the news and was working on her tv , and then oswald walked in . so from that we can pretty much establish that oswald came home at 1pm or shortly there after .
her saying 3 to 4 minutes is an estimate of course , but we have to tie in what she said with what is noted in the interrogation notes . and that is that they note that oswald said he changed his short and slacks . so that would account certainly for 3 to 4 minutes .
we know she also said she was working on her tv , in addition she went to her window to see who was honking outside and said she saw a police car . she returned to her tv . oswald emerges from his room and leaves . she watches tv for a spell longer . then apparently was curious and got up and went to her window and sees oswald still outside by the bus stop . she watched him for a spell , saying he did not leave while she was watching him . then she returned to her tv .its funny you again omit to mention things which not only add time to oswalds departure but which also disputes your own timing estimate .now i understand we are posting comments here and we simply cant mention every single little detail in one comment . but in giving a time estimate about oswalds departure you should be relaying any evidence such as i have posted that dispute you .
-
dave regarding wes frazier . now im sure yoiu cite him as a proof that oswald carried a package as do all lone nut advocates . but you are now saying in essence you believe he embellished or indeed lied , i mean coming out and saying stuff that you dont believe . that again goes back to my earlier post here . IE whether a witness is credible and truthful OR NOT . remember he also told gary mack on film if memory serves me that he saw oswald 5 to 10 minutes after the shooting having left via the rear of the building and crossing over houston street turning right at the daltex and going on to elm wearing a jacket .so is he in your mind a reliable and truthful witness if as you say he invents things / events that never happened ? . i think its a fair question .
-
"The eyewitnesses who positively identified Oswald and confirmed he was carrying a gun " john mytton
a few things her mr mytton .
1/ you cite helen markham as a witness to the shooting and thus to oswald being the shooter . so then one assumes you accept her time estimate for the shooting as about 1.08pm ? . one assumes you accept as true that the killer walked or ran in a completely different direction to what all other witnesses said and came and stood right in front of her looking her in the eyes . and then ran off in past her along 10th street and ran through an empty lot contradictory to what other witnesses said . and that the man she saw kill tippit wore different clothes to what other witnesses such as calloway said the killer wore . surely if you cite her as a reliable , credible and honest witness that you accept all of the above to be true ? . its a fair question .
2/ domingo benavides never went to a line up ever and never identified oswald as the man he saw . in fact he later told the commission that he could not identify the man he saw .
3/ reynolds also failed to identify oswald as the man he saw until after he was shot in the head , it seems a bullet is good for the memory , clears the cob webs from the head .
so why have you listed man benavides as a witness who positively identified oswald as tippits killer ? .when you know full well that he never went to a line up , in fact told cops there was no point in going because he could not identify the man and he reiterated that to the commission .please tell us why you would make this claim .
why have you listed reynolds when you know originally he said he could not identify the man he saw ? .
and why would you cite markham when you know the problems with her some of which i outlined above ? . and why would you not mention any of what i posted here ? .
as for jack tatum didnt he only come along in 15 or 16 years after the assassination ? .
all valid questions b.
-
to mr mytton
Mr. BALL. Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, Sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
quite extraordinary testimony above from a woman you say identified oswald . how does a woman not identify a man , not identify them by clothing , not identify their face , in fact not recognize or know anyone of 4 men in a line up AND STILL BE LISTED AS A WITNESSES WHO IDENTIFIED OSWALD ?. now ok i know ball then led her and got her to remember what he needed her to say and say she picked a number 2 man . but how can any witness be asked such simple and clear questions and answer NO to all of them ? . i mean if she had indeed seen oswald ? . she is on film saying tippits killer STOOD IN FRONT OF HER LOOKING HER IN THE EYE . so its amazing she replied NO to not knowing any one of 4 men by their faces .
-
"One of the canards of the conspiracy theorists that they’ve sold to millions is that there was only one eyewitness to Oswald killing Officer Tippit, Helen Markham, and she wasn’t a strong one. But in addition to Jack Tatum also being an eyewitness to the killing, for all intents and purposes there were eight other eyewitnesses. For instance, with the Davis women " john mytton
OFFICIALLY the only witness according to the warren commission that actually witnessed the shooting was helen markham . so it is not a canard of so called CTers to say that .
jack tatum only told his story some 15 years later . even mr von pien has said he has a problem with witnesses not saying something for many years . he is not the only lone nut advocate who refuses to accept the word of such people . bill brown (i dont know if he is still a member) would certainly dispute any such CT witness .
"So there were ten witnesses who identified Oswald as the murderer"
actually no not really . they cant have identified oswald a man who they say shot tippit because only one witness officially witnessed the shooting . the davis girls were inside the house asleep and so they and all other official witnesses only saw a man walk or run and nothing more .
and the line ups by any standard were at best dishonest . oswald was made to stick out like a sore thumb .
oh and by the way you cite the opinion of bugliosi , by all means do so but it will only be opinion .i think if you must only post what he claims to be proven fact . all be it you will run into problems there also lol lol . but hey its up to you .
-
Yes, In the emotional moment, its easy to see how witnesses at the line up, would probably pick the guy with messed up hair , who had a cut over his eye, was in a T-shirt and was loudly complaining , rather than any of the other men , with clean faces , hair combed , nicely dressed and remains silent.
-
"But if the actual time that LHO spent in that room was along the lines of 30 to 60 seconds (which is very likely much more accurate, especially given the "hurried" nature that Oswald was said to have exhibited during both his arrival and his departure from the roominghouse that day), then that would have provided Oswald with up to 3 additional minutes to travel the 0.85 mile from 1026 Beckley to 10th & Patton." dave von pien
we know she said she heard the news and was working on her tv , and then oswald walked in . so from that we can pretty much establish that oswald came home at 1pm or shortly there after .
her saying 3 to 4 minutes is an estimate of course , but we have to tie in what she said with what is noted in the interrogation notes . and that is that they note that oswald said he changed his short and slacks . so that would account certainly for 3 to 4 minutes .
we know she also said she was working on her tv , in addition she went to her window to see who was honking outside and said she saw a police car . she returned to her tv . oswald emerges from his room and leaves . she watches tv for a spell longer . then apparently was curious and got up and went to her window and sees oswald still outside by the bus stop . she watched him for a spell , saying he did not leave while she was watching him . then she returned to her tv .its funny you again omit to mention things which not only add time to oswalds departure but which also disputes your own timing estimate .now i understand we are posting comments here and we simply cant mention every single little detail in one comment . but in giving a time estimate about oswalds departure you should be relaying any evidence such as i have posted that dispute you .
we know she said she heard the news and was working on her tv , and then oswald walked in . so from that we can pretty much establish that oswald came home at 1pm or shortly there after .
I'm not sure about the logic you're using here.
You can tell it was after 1pm because Roberts was working on her TV?
Roberts own reasoning for placing Oswald's arrival at the rooming house after 1pm is equally ridiculous:
"Now, it must have been around 1 o'clock, or maybe a little after, because it was after President Kennedy had been shot-what time I wouldn't want to say... "
It was after 1pm because it was after JFK had been shot??
What does that mean? How does that make it after 1pm?
That Roberts is totally guessing at the time is revealed by two details in her above statement:
"...it must have been..." = guessing
"...what time I wouldn't want to say..." = doesn't really know.
oswald emerges from his room and leaves . she watches tv for a spell longer . then apparently was curious and got up and went to her window and sees oswald still outside by the bus stop
Where does it state that Roberts watched TV before looking out of her window?
-
Yes, In the emotional moment, its easy to see how witnesses at the line up, would probably pick the guy with messed up hair , who had a cut over his eye, was in a T-shirt and was loudly complaining , rather than any of the other men , with clean faces , hair combed , nicely dressed and remains silent.
lets not forget also they placed oswald in a line up with 3 teen boys one of whom was latino DARK SKINNED . witnesses were left in little to no doubt who the suspect was . even cab driver whalley testified that oswald was being RAILROADED , he said ANYONE WOULD HAVE PICKED HIM .and the late jim leavelle said the line ups were conducted fairly ? ? ? .
-
we know she said she heard the news and was working on her tv , and then oswald walked in . so from that we can pretty much establish that oswald came home at 1pm or shortly there after .
I'm not sure about the logic you're using here.
You can tell it was after 1pm because Roberts was working on her TV?
Roberts own reasoning for placing Oswald's arrival at the rooming house after 1pm is equally ridiculous:
"Now, it must have been around 1 o'clock, or maybe a little after, because it was after President Kennedy had been shot-what time I wouldn't want to say... "
It was after 1pm because it was after JFK had been shot??
What does that mean? How does that make it after 1pm?
That Roberts is totally guessing at the time is revealed by two details in her above statement:
"...it must have been..." = guessing
"...what time I wouldn't want to say..." = doesn't really know.
oswald emerges from his room and leaves . she watches tv for a spell longer . then apparently was curious and got up and went to her window and sees oswald still outside by the bus stop
Where does it state that Roberts watched TV before looking out of her window?
"Where does it state that Roberts watched TV before looking out of her window?" dan omeara
"at approximately 1 :OO pm I was sitting in the
living room watching television about the President’s assassination when a man
I knew as 0. H. Lee, but who has since been identified as Lee Harvey oswald " earlene roberts
"Oswald went out the front door. A moment later I looked out the window. I
saw Lee Oswald standing on the curb at the bus stop just to the right" earlene roberts
she said she was sitting in the living room watching tv , a moment later after oswald left she looked out the window , her words not mine .
to some degree yes she guessed at the time , which means she did not look at a clock .but that does not mean she was not accurate in her guess . thats accurate not perfect .we know when normal programs were stopped and news of the assassination took over .she cant have watched news of the assassination before the news cut in . so we know it had just turned 1pm .
-
"Where does it state that Roberts watched TV before looking out of her window?" dan omeara
"at approximately 1 :OO pm I was sitting in the
living room watching television about the President’s assassination when a man
I knew as 0. H. Lee, but who has since been identified as Lee Harvey oswald " earlene roberts
"Oswald went out the front door. A moment later I looked out the window. I
saw Lee Oswald standing on the curb at the bus stop just to the right" earlene roberts
she said she was sitting in the living room watching tv , a moment later after oswald left she looked out the window , her words not mine .
"her words not mine"
And my point is that you are saying something different from what Roberts is saying.
You are saying that after Oswald left the house, Roberts started watching TV and after a while she decided to look out of the window;
Here's what you actually posted:
oswald emerges from his room and leaves . she watches tv for a spell longer . then apparently was curious and got up and went to her window and sees oswald still outside by the bus stop
But that's not what Roberts says.
She states that after Oswald left the house she looked out of the window.
She does not say she went back to watching the TV and then decided to look out of the window.
That is something you've made up.
It's important that these details are correct when establishing what happened.
to some degree yes she guessed at the time , which means she did not look at a clock .but that does not mean she was not accurate in her guess . thats accurate not perfect .we know when normal programs were stopped and news of the assassination took over .she cant have watched news of the assassination before the news cut in . so we know it had just turned 1pm .
she cant have watched news of the assassination before the news cut in . so we know it had just turned 1pm .
This is completely incorrect.
You appear to be saying that the news of JFK's shooting first appeared on the 1PM news program. You are wrong.
The Roberts story is that she was at the rooming house and a friend of hers rang up to tell her that JFK had been shot and to turn on the TV.
Roberts turns on the TV and a program called "As The World Turns" is on [from 12:30pm to 1pm]
She watches this for a few minutes and a "Special Bulletin" comes on regarding the shooting of JFK.
There is something wrong with the TV and Roberts is trying to fix it, so she can find out about Kennedy and that's when Oswald comes in.
There are three "Special Bulletins" played while "As The World Turns" is on.
The first around 12:40pm
The second around 12:43pm
The third around 12:48pm.
Its is this third bulletin that comes on while she is watching "As The World Turns" [this program resumed playing after the second bulletin]
It can be assumed that her friend had seen one or both of the earlier bulletins then gave Roberts a call.
So it is any time after 12:48pm that Roberts could be referring to as the time when Oswald comes in.
It seems almost certain that it is before 1pm as she appears to be watching the third bulletin when Oswald comes in and not the 1pm News.
She makes no mention of the 1pm News program starting [which it does after the third bulletin].
Here is the actual channel Roberts was watching that day:
-
The only way it would be probable that Oswald could have arrived at the boarding house at an earlier time of 12:50 is if Oswald never went to the McWatters bus , and sat in that bus for several minutes.
To make it to the boarding house by 12:50, Oswald would have had to go directly to Whaleys taxi from leaving the TSBD at approx 1:33pm.
Oswald walked the 7 blocks in about 6-7 minutes so he arrives ti Whaleys taxi approx 12:40pm.
Whaleys drives the distance to the point 5 blocks from the boarding house in approx 7-9 minutes.
Oswald exits the taxi at 12:48
He doubletimes the 5 block distance in about 2.5 minutes, thus arrives to the boarding house approx 12:50-12:51 pm.
-
The only way it would be probable that Oswald could have arrived at the boarding house at an earlier time of 12:50 is if Oswald never went to the McWatters bus , and sat in that bus for several minutes.
To make it to the boarding house by 12:50, Oswald would have had to go directly to Whaleys taxi from leaving the TSBD at approx 1:33pm.
Oswald walked the 7 blocks in about 6-7 minutes so he arrives ti Whaleys taxi approx 12:40pm.
Whaleys drives the distance to the point 5 blocks from the boarding house in approx 7-9 minutes.
Oswald exits the taxi at 12:48
He doubletimes the 5 block distance in about 2.5 minutes, thus arrives to the boarding house approx 12:50-12:51 pm.
I think 12:50 would be pushing it but it is an interesting thought experiment.
If we assume Oswald is desperate and on the run [I'm not saying he is, it's just for the purposes of this thought experiment].
Let's see how quickly it is reasonably possible for Oswald to get from the TSBD to the shooting of Tippit.
Keeping any assumptions within the realms of distinct possibility:
Leaves TSBD at 12:33
6 minutes to get to bus - 12:39
Stays on bus 2 minutes - 12:41
3 minutes to reach taxi - 12:43
9 minute taxi ride - 12:52
3 minutes back to rooming house - 12:55
2 minutes to change - 12:57
2 minutes at bus stop - 12:59
10 minutes to Patton - 1:09
-
"her words not mine"
And my point is that you are saying something different from what Roberts is saying.
You are saying that after Oswald left the house, Roberts started watching TV and after a while she decided to look out of the window;
Here's what you actually posted:
oswald emerges from his room and leaves . she watches tv for a spell longer . then apparently was curious and got up and went to her window and sees oswald still outside by the bus stop
But that's not what Roberts says.
She states that after Oswald left the house she looked out of the window.
She does not say she went back to watching the TV and then decided to look out of the window.
That is something you've made up.
It's important that these details are correct when establishing what happened.
she cant have watched news of the assassination before the news cut in . so we know it had just turned 1pm .
This is completely incorrect.
You appear to be saying that the news of JFK's shooting first appeared on the 1PM news program. You are wrong.
The Roberts story is that she was at the rooming house and a friend of hers rang up to tell her that JFK had been shot and to turn on the TV.
Roberts turns on the TV and a program called "As The World Turns" is on [from 12:30pm to 1pm]
She watches this for a few minutes and a "Special Bulletin" comes on regarding the shooting of JFK.
There is something wrong with the TV and Roberts is trying to fix it, so she can find out about Kennedy and that's when Oswald comes in.
There are three "Special Bulletins" played while "As The World Turns" is on.
The first around 12:40pm
The second around 12:43pm
The third around 12:48pm.
Its is this third bulletin that comes on while she is watching "As The World Turns" [this program resumed playing after the second bulletin]
It can be assumed that her friend had seen one or both of the earlier bulletins then gave Roberts a call.
So it is any time after 12:48pm that Roberts could be referring to as the time when Oswald comes in.
It seems almost certain that it is before 1pm as she appears to be watching the third bulletin when Oswald comes in and not the 1pm News.
She makes no mention of the 1pm News program starting [which it does after the third bulletin].
Here is the actual channel Roberts was watching that day:
ok lets put this to bed . firstly ive made nothing up , that is akin to calling me a liar , if you wish to assert i am a liar atleast be up front about it . everything i said is based upon the time it took to leave the depository , get on and then off a bus , and then walk and get a cab , and the cab journey after that , and also based on warren commission time trials , and based on statements made by roberts .yes there is a certain level of assumption here , as there is in many aspects of this case , things we simply cant know exactingly . you are also using a degree of assumption , because you dont know everything precisely either . in addition where i am atleast making honest efforts to try and determine what and when things happened as accurately as is humanly possible , i have zero agenda here . you on the other hand have an agenda . which is you seek to find ways to give oswald more time , because you know without that time what you would claim he did is made extremely difficult if not outright impossible .
lets re cap here a bit because you are claiming i am saying things that roberts did not , which is false .
you asked the following question , the insinuation being that roberts did not watch tv at all BEFORE LOOKING OUT THE WINDOW .
"Where does it state that Roberts watched TV before looking out of her window?" dan omeara
"at approximately 1 :OO pm I was sitting in the
living room watching television about the President’s assassination when a man
I knew as 0. H. Lee, but who has since been identified as Lee Harvey oswald " earlene roberts sworn statement
now again HER WORDS or atleast her written statement NOT MINE .i think it is quite clear to anyone who reads it properly , or atleast it should be . it states clearly at APPROXIMATELY 1.00PM i was sitting in the living room watching tv WHEN MR OSWALD WALKED IN .
there are atleast three pieces of info there
1/ the time : 1.00pm
2/ what she was doing : she was watching tv at that time
3/ who she saw : and then she saw oswald come in
so by her own admission she was watching tv , maybe she was still working on the picture , but none the less she was watching it when oswald walked in .
roberts gave us some more info , while oswald was in his room she heard toots of a car horn , looked and saw it was a police car , now she either looked out the window or opened her door and looked out .given what was going on on the tv my money is on the window .
next she tells us oswald left , then she tells us she went and looked and saw that oswald was outside at the bus stop . she never said she immediately went and looked to see why he came and went as he did . but it was not very long , i believe the word she used was a moment , but you can put your own spin on that if you want . actually i wouldnt want you to say im INVENTING OR MAKING STUFF UP so lets see her own words again .
"Oswald went out the front door. A moment later I looked out the window. I
saw Lee Oswald standing on the curb at the bus stop just to the right " earlene roberts
so you asked a question IT IS VERY MUCH ANSWERED . not only does it state here what she said , you can see in QUOTE exactly what she said . and you can see where its from , its her sworn statement , and SHE not me said she was WATCHING TV (all be it maybe not with as clear a screen as she might like ) .
my friend some may call it READING BETWEEN THE LINES , you can call it what you will . she was looking at her tv trying to make a clearer picture when she said oswald was walking in . between his entry and his departure she looked out the window because a car tooted its horn . but i would imagine jfks assassination was of a bit more interest to her than a car tooting its horn , wouldnt you agree ? . then at some point not long after oswald leaves . by her OWN ADMISSION again when he came in (her words not mine ) she didnt pay great attention to oswald , she looked but her focus was on the tv .
Mr. BALL. What color was his shirt? Do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember. I didn't pay that much attention for I was interested in the television trying to get it fixed.
lets not assume about where her attention was focused when he left either , i mean i wouldnt want to be making stuff up now would i ? . lets have a look
Mr. BALL. Did he have the same colored pants on when he came in as when he went out?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Now, I wouldn't say that because I don't remember-I didn't pay that much attention. I didn't mean to be hateful, but I didn't.
Mr. BALL. Now, did it appear to you he had on the same pants or different pants from the time he came in and when he went out ?
Mr. ROBERTS. Well, I just didn't pay that much attention. All I remember-he was zipping up a coat and I was trying to find out about President Kennedy--I was still trying to find out about President Kennedy-they was broadcasting it then-I was more interested in that.
so is there a doubt that the tv was more important to her ? i dont think so . yes she noticed things but he main focus was the tv .
what i said was about her working on her tv / watching tv before he came home , while he was home at when he left . i said she could not see the news before it was broadcast that was all , i know the program that was interrupted you dont need to tell me about it . I DID NOT / NEVER said she only started watching tv after he left , maybe i was not as clear as perhaps i could have been . but now its clear is it not ? she was both working on / listening to and watching tv in the time before he came home , while he was at home and when he was leaving . a moment after he left she went to the window HER WORDS not mine .
i am not saying the news of jfks shooting only came on tv at 1pm , there is tv footage between the time of the shooting and 1pm . again i guess i was not as clear as i might have been . i was combining what roberts said , with other things like warren commission time trials , official times such as events on the bus , the cab etc . so im not just speaking based on what roberts said .
but again it is you not i that makes an assumption . you assume that the bulletin kicked in at 12.48 and that she tuned in immediately at that time and that oswald walked in right there .this is because you have a need to give him more time .now lets show people the actual video of as the world turns complete with cbs interruptions
you correctly stated as the world turns started at 12.30 and would end no later than 1pm . as can be seen in the video above the third bulletin which started as you said about 12.48 carried on at the least until 29.37 of that video , or 12.59 and 37 seconds . and im certain after that point also . so your agenda requires that oswald arrive as early as possible pre 1pm , but the news bulletin shows he could have arrived as roberts said at 1pm or shortly there after . a good investigation would have tried to clear up any questions of timing , its not always easy to be precise , but even you mention the bulletin as opposed to the actual 1pm news , they could have asked her about that and clarified . but as she was working on her tv it might have been hard for her to answer , i mean if she had audio with no video for a time . but then all they had to do was say MRS ROBERTS DO YOU RECALL SEEING ANY VIDEO AT ANY TIME WHILE OSWALD WAS THERE ? . not mentioning something perhaps because one was never asked does not automatically mean it never happened or was never the case .
-
I think 12:50 would be pushing it but it is an interesting thought experiment.
If we assume Oswald is desperate and on the run [I'm not saying he is, it's just for the purposes of this thought experiment].
Let's see how quickly it is reasonably possible for Oswald to get from the TSBD to the shooting of Tippit.
Keeping any assumptions within the realms of distinct possibility:
Leaves TSBD at 12:33
6 minutes to get to bus - 12:39
Stays on bus 2 minutes - 12:41
3 minutes to reach taxi - 12:43
9 minute taxi ride - 12:52
3 minutes back to rooming house - 12:55
2 minutes to change - 12:57
2 minutes at bus stop - 12:59
10 minutes to Patton - 1:09
i am curious EXACTLY WHAT PROOF IS THERE THAT OSWALD WALKED OUT THE FRONT DOOR OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12.33 ? . that is proof now NOT ASSUMPTION .
then you say 10 minutes to the corner of 10th and patton . how did you get that time ? . well now gary mack had two time trials of two routes to 10th and patton . like you he worked on the notion that oswald arrived home before 1pm and left at 1pm . that i saw or recall he made no mention that roberts said he arrived about 1pm and stayed 3 to 4 minutes . and lets face it once he started working for the 6th floor museum he was not quite as honest as he could be lol . the official route was timed by the warren commission , it took 16 minutes or so , macks timing was about the same .even mack said that did not work . so he timed a shorter route that took 12 minutes plus , a route that even the warren commission didnt adopt . so where are you getting your 10 minutes from ? .
-
ok lets put this to bed . firstly ive made nothing up , that is akin to calling me a liar , if you wish to assert i am a liar atleast be up front about it . everything i said is based upon the time it took to leave the depository , get on and then off a bus , and then walk and get a cab , and the cab journey after that , and also based on warren commission time trials , and based on statements made by roberts .yes there is a certain level of assumption here , as there is in many aspects of this case , things we simply cant know exactingly . you are also using a degree of assumption , because you dont know everything precisely either . in addition where i am atleast making honest efforts to try and determine what and when things happened as accurately as is humanly possible , i have zero agenda here . you on the other hand have an agenda . which is you seek to find ways to give oswald more time , because you know without that time what you would claim he did is made extremely difficult if not outright impossible .
lets re cap here a bit because you are claiming i am saying things that roberts did not , which is false .
you asked the following question , the insinuation being that roberts did not watch tv at all BEFORE LOOKING OUT THE WINDOW .
"Where does it state that Roberts watched TV before looking out of her window?" dan omeara
"at approximately 1 :OO pm I was sitting in the
living room watching television about the President’s assassination when a man
I knew as 0. H. Lee, but who has since been identified as Lee Harvey oswald " earlene roberts sworn statement
now again HER WORDS or atleast her written statement NOT MINE .i think it is quite clear to anyone who reads it properly , or atleast it should be . it states clearly at APPROXIMATELY 1.00PM i was sitting in the living room watching tv WHEN MR OSWALD WALKED IN .
there are atleast three pieces of info there
1/ the time : 1.00pm
2/ what she was doing : she was watching tv at that time
3/ who she saw : and then she saw oswald come in
so by her own admission she was watching tv , maybe she was still working on the picture , but none the less she was watching it when oswald walked in .
roberts gave us some more info , while oswald was in his room she heard toots of a car horn , looked and saw it was a police car , now she either looked out the window or opened her door and looked out .given what was going on on the tv my money is on the window .
next she tells us oswald left , then she tells us she went and looked and saw that oswald was outside at the bus stop . she never said she immediately went and looked to see why he came and went as he did . but it was not very long , i believe the word she used was a moment , but you can put your own spin on that if you want . actually i wouldnt want you to say im INVENTING OR MAKING STUFF UP so lets see her own words again .
"Oswald went out the front door. A moment later I looked out the window. I
saw Lee Oswald standing on the curb at the bus stop just to the right " earlene roberts
so you asked a question IT IS VERY MUCH ANSWERED . not only does it state here what she said , you can see in QUOTE exactly what she said . and you can see where its from , its her sworn statement , and SHE not me said she was WATCHING TV (all be it maybe not with as clear a screen as she might like ) .
my friend some may call it READING BETWEEN THE LINES , you can call it what you will . she was looking at her tv trying to make a clearer picture when she said oswald was walking in . between his entry and his departure she looked out the window because a car tooted its horn . but i would imagine jfks assassination was of a bit more interest to her than a car tooting its horn , wouldnt you agree ? . then at some point not long after oswald leaves . by her OWN ADMISSION again when he came in (her words not mine ) she didnt pay great attention to oswald , she looked but her focus was on the tv .
Mr. BALL. What color was his shirt? Do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember. I didn't pay that much attention for I was interested in the television trying to get it fixed.
lets not assume about where her attention was focused when he left either , i mean i wouldnt want to be making stuff up now would i ? . lets have a look
Mr. BALL. Did he have the same colored pants on when he came in as when he went out?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Now, I wouldn't say that because I don't remember-I didn't pay that much attention. I didn't mean to be hateful, but I didn't.
Mr. BALL. Now, did it appear to you he had on the same pants or different pants from the time he came in and when he went out ?
Mr. ROBERTS. Well, I just didn't pay that much attention. All I remember-he was zipping up a coat and I was trying to find out about President Kennedy--I was still trying to find out about President Kennedy-they was broadcasting it then-I was more interested in that.
so is there a doubt that the tv was more important to her ? i dont think so . yes she noticed things but he main focus was the tv .
what i said was about her working on her tv / watching tv before he came home , while he was home at when he left . i said she could not see the news before it was broadcast that was all , i know the program that was interrupted you dont need to tell me about it . I DID NOT / NEVER said she only started watching tv after he left , maybe i was not as clear as perhaps i could have been . but now its clear is it not ? she was both working on / listening to and watching tv in the time before he came home , while he was at home and when he was leaving . a moment after he left she went to the window HER WORDS not mine .
i am not saying the news of jfks shooting only came on tv at 1pm , there is tv footage between the time of the shooting and 1pm . again i guess i was not as clear as i might have been . i was combining what roberts said , with other things like warren commission time trials , official times such as events on the bus , the cab etc . so im not just speaking based on what roberts said .
but again it is you not i that makes an assumption . you assume that the bulletin kicked in at 12.48 and that she tuned in immediately at that time and that oswald walked in right there .this is because you have a need to give him more time .now lets show people the actual video of as the world turns complete with cbs interruptions
you correctly stated as the world turns started at 12.30 and would end no later than 1pm . as can be seen in the video above the third bulletin which started as you said about 12.48 carried on at the least until 29.37 of that video , or 12.59 and 37 seconds . and im certain after that point also . so your agenda requires that oswald arrive as early as possible pre 1pm , but the news bulletin shows he could have arrived as roberts said at 1pm or shortly there after . a good investigation would have tried to clear up any questions of timing , its not always easy to be precise , but even you mention the bulletin as opposed to the actual 1pm news , they could have asked her about that and clarified . but as she was working on her tv it might have been hard for her to answer , i mean if she had audio with no video for a time . but then all they had to do was say MRS ROBERTS DO YOU RECALL SEEING ANY VIDEO AT ANY TIME WHILE OSWALD WAS THERE ? . not mentioning something perhaps because one was never asked does not automatically mean it never happened or was never the case .
lets re cap here a bit because you are claiming i am saying things that roberts did not , which is false .
It's quite irritating to have to post the same thing again but here goes.
You posted the following:
"oswald emerges from his room and leaves . she watches tv for a spell longer . then apparently was curious and got up and went to her window and sees oswald still outside by the bus stop"
When you post that Roberts "got up" you are implying she was sat down watching TV.
Oswald leaves the house - Roberts is sat down watching TV "for a spell longer"
She "apparently was curious" so she "got up" and "went to her window".
She looks out the window and sees Oswald "by the bus stop".
This scenario is not supported by Roberts' testimony.
This is what happened according to Roberts' testimony:
"I went and turned it on [the TV] and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in..."
"All I remember-he was zipping up a coat and I was trying to find out about President Kennedy--I was still trying to find out about President Kennedy-they was broadcasting it then-I was more interested in that."
"Oswald went out the front door. A moment later I looked out the window. I saw Lee Oswald standing on the curb at the bus stop just to the right "
She was still "trying to find out about President Kennedy" when Oswald left the house.
After a "moment" she went to the window and looked out.
No sitting down watching TV for a spell longer.
Why is such a seemingly trivial important?
Because the timeline we're dealing with is so tight and every minute counts.
When Roberts says a "moment" she could mean 2 minutes or 3 minutes, but she could also mean 20 seconds.
"so your agenda requires that oswald arrive as early as possible pre 1pm"
"you assume that the bulletin kicked in at 12.48 and that she tuned in immediately at that time and that oswald walked in right there ."
You're looking at this the wrong way.
All I'm saying is that claims it had to be 1pm or later when Oswald entered the rooming house are very questionable.
Roberts is clearly guessing at the time when Oswald came in, what she makes clear is that the news about Kennedy has come on the TV by the time Oswald enters the house.
As demonstrated, the bulletin Roberts almost certainly sees is the one beginning around 12:48pm [she is already watching "As The World Turns" when it comes on].
12:48pm marks the earliest possible time Oswald could have come in and that's all. I'm not saying Oswald entered the rooming house at that time.
What I am definitely saying is, just because news of Kennedy's shooting was on the TV doesn't automatically mean it was 1pm or later.
-
lets re cap here a bit because you are claiming i am saying things that roberts did not , which is false .
It's quite irritating to have to post the same thing again but here goes.
You posted the following:
"oswald emerges from his room and leaves . she watches tv for a spell longer . then apparently was curious and got up and went to her window and sees oswald still outside by the bus stop"
When you post that Roberts "got up" you are implying she was sat down watching TV.
Oswald leaves the house - Roberts is sat down watching TV "for a spell longer"
She "apparently was curious" so she "got up" and "went to her window".
She looks out the window and sees Oswald "by the bus stop".
This scenario is not supported by Roberts' testimony.
This is what happened according to Roberts' testimony:
"I went and turned it on [the TV] and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in..."
"All I remember-he was zipping up a coat and I was trying to find out about President Kennedy--I was still trying to find out about President Kennedy-they was broadcasting it then-I was more interested in that."
"Oswald went out the front door. A moment later I looked out the window. I saw Lee Oswald standing on the curb at the bus stop just to the right "
She was still "trying to find out about President Kennedy" when Oswald left the house.
After a "moment" she went to the window and looked out.
No sitting down watching TV for a spell longer.
Why is such a seemingly trivial important?
Because the timeline we're dealing with is so tight and every minute counts.
When Roberts says a "moment" she could mean 2 minutes or 3 minutes, but she could also mean 20 seconds.
"so your agenda requires that oswald arrive as early as possible pre 1pm"
"you assume that the bulletin kicked in at 12.48 and that she tuned in immediately at that time and that oswald walked in right there ."
You're looking at this the wrong way.
All I'm saying is that claims it had to be 1pm or later when Oswald entered the rooming house are very questionable.
Roberts is clearly guessing at the time when Oswald came in, what she makes clear is that the news about Kennedy has come on the TV by the time Oswald enters the house.
As demonstrated, the bulletin Roberts almost certainly sees is the one beginning around 12:48pm [she is already watching "As The World Turns" when it comes on].
12:48pm marks the earliest possible time Oswald could have come in and that's all. I'm not saying Oswald entered the rooming house at that time.
What I am definitely saying is, just because news of Kennedy's shooting was on the TV doesn't automatically mean it was 1pm or later.
The earliest TV broadcast was not at 12:48 but at 12:45 when Don Pardo read James Altgen’s two shot news bulletin on NBC TV. The earliest radio broadcast was Merriman Smith’s three shot news bulletin read by Walter Cronkite of CBS News. Altgens was the only news reporter who was an eyewitness and was standing mere feet from the car, Smith was an earwitness located by the corner of Houston.
-
"It's quite irritating to have to post the same thing again but here goes.
You posted the following:" dan o meara
its not much either being told i made stuff up .
"oswald emerges from his room and leaves . she watches tv for a spell longer . then apparently was curious and got up and went to her window and sees oswald still outside by the bus stop" fergus obrien
"When you post that Roberts "got up" you are implying she was sat down watching TV.
Oswald leaves the house - Roberts is sat down watching TV "for a spell longer"
She "apparently was curious" so she "got up" and "went to her window".
She looks out the window and sees Oswald "by the bus stop".
This scenario is not supported by Roberts' testimony." dan o meara
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had
a friend that said, “Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot,” and I said,
“Oh, no.” She said, “Turn on your television,” and I said “What are you trying
to do, pull my leg?” And she said, “Well, go turn it on.” I went and turned
it on and I was trying to clear it upI could hear them talking but I couldn’t
get the picture and he come in and I just looked up and I said, “Oh, you are
in a hurry.” He never said a thing, not nothing. He went on to his room and
stayed about 3 or 4 minutes.
Mr. BALL. What color was his shirt? Do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don’t remember. I didn’t pay that much attention for I was
interested in the television trying to get it fixed.
so what are you saying here ? you dispute any notion she was sitting ? . above i posted two relevant segments of her testimony re her tv . nowhere there does she say she stood the whole time fixing her tv and also while watching . but i will grant you she does not say she sat either while fixing or watching her tv . but most normal people do sit while watching tv . so how about this , on this matter let us agree whether she sat or stood that she worked on her tv and watched her tv over the period of time before oswald arrived , while he was there and after he left . and i am willing to stipulate if you are that she neither said she sat or stood while doing this . but your argument in essence appears to be that if a person didnt specifically say they sat or they stood that they did neither , i find that a bit silly . but no matter what you assert , whether sat down or stood up she was working on and watching her tv set while oswald left , and a short time later she stopped and then went to her window and looked out and saw oswald still standing there.i am also considering she was an elderly lady who was not in the best of health .
"She was still "trying to find out about President Kennedy" when Oswald left the house.
After a "moment" she went to the window and looked out.
No sitting down watching TV for a spell longer. " dean omeara
see above reply .
"Why is such a seemingly trivial important?
Because the timeline we're dealing with is so tight and every minute counts.
When Roberts says a "moment" she could mean 2 minutes or 3 minutes, but she could also mean 20 seconds." dean omeara
true , she said a moment and i quoted her saying exactly that as i recall . i know what some people consider a moment , and its anything in line with the numbers you mentioned just above . i have not tried to say it was this long or that long because its an unknown . but what ever it was we have to add that to the time he was in his room , and the time he was at the bus stop .we simply cannot put an exact time on that .just as we cant know sadly how long more he was outside at the bus stop after roberts decided to stop looking .
"You're looking at this the wrong way.
All I'm saying is that claims it had to be 1pm or later when Oswald entered the rooming house are very questionable.
Roberts is clearly guessing at the time when Oswald came in, what she makes clear is that the news about Kennedy has come on the TV by the time Oswald enters the house.
As demonstrated, the bulletin Roberts almost certainly sees is the one beginning around 12:48pm [she is already watching "As The World Turns" when it comes on].
12:48pm marks the earliest possible time Oswald could have come in and that's all. I'm not saying Oswald entered the rooming house at that time.
What I am definitely saying is, just because news of Kennedy's shooting was on the TV doesn't automatically mean it was 1pm or later." dean omeara
on the contrary as i have said i am trying to take in to consideration as much information as is possible . there is zero proof that oswald walked out the front door at 12.33 ZERO . this nonsense that reporters (the names elude me now sorry ) unknowingly spoke to oswald who directed them to a phone is worthless . even the reporters didnt say they say oswald , they were told they may have .cops were out side the door , tv and private cameras recording , as were quite a few of his fellow depository workers , including his pal wes frazier .plus one howard brennan who identified jarmin / norman and williams immediately to cops . NOT A ONE OF THESE SAW OSWALD WALK OUT THE FRONT DOOR at any time . its more likely then that he left via the rear door .all be it we cant prove that either .but it is the more logical in my opinion . that leaves us with what time he left ? , that is a bit of an unknown . but if he did indeed get on the bus , then we can work out how long roughly it took to walk to the bus stop , if for example we can assume he entered the bus at 12.40 then we can subtract the time it takes to walk the distance from the TSBD to the bus from 12.40 .then we have a rough time line , not precise but if you will a good estimate .if that says that he left at about 12.33 so be it .in fact wes frazier all be it belatedly told gary mack that he saw oswald having left via the rear door between 5 and 10 minutes after the shots and wearing a jacket .
you are assuming that she had to have been watching the 12.48 bulletin , or should i say listening to it as it was audio not video .you could be right . but as i have proven that bulletin went on right up 1pm . but the commission (if they were interested in the truth ) should have clarified this with her .
-
"It's quite irritating to have to post the same thing again but here goes.
You posted the following:" dan o meara
its not much either being told i made stuff up .
"oswald emerges from his room and leaves . she watches tv for a spell longer . then apparently was curious and got up and went to her window and sees oswald still outside by the bus stop" fergus obrien
"When you post that Roberts "got up" you are implying she was sat down watching TV.
Oswald leaves the house - Roberts is sat down watching TV "for a spell longer"
She "apparently was curious" so she "got up" and "went to her window".
She looks out the window and sees Oswald "by the bus stop".
This scenario is not supported by Roberts' testimony." dan o meara
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had
a friend that said, “Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot,” and I said,
“Oh, no.” She said, “Turn on your television,” and I said “What are you trying
to do, pull my leg?” And she said, “Well, go turn it on.” I went and turned
it on and I was trying to clear it upI could hear them talking but I couldn’t
get the picture and he come in and I just looked up and I said, “Oh, you are
in a hurry.” He never said a thing, not nothing. He went on to his room and
stayed about 3 or 4 minutes.
Mr. BALL. What color was his shirt? Do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don’t remember. I didn’t pay that much attention for I was
interested in the television trying to get it fixed.
so what are you saying here ? you dispute any notion she was sitting ? . above i posted two relevant segments of her testimony re her tv . nowhere there does she say she stood the whole time fixing her tv and also while watching . but i will grant you she does not say she sat either while fixing or watching her tv . but most normal people do sit while watching tv . so how about this , on this matter let us agree whether she sat or stood that she worked on her tv and watched her tv over the period of time before oswald arrived , while he was there and after he left . and i am willing to stipulate if you are that she neither said she sat or stood while doing this . but your argument in essence appears to be that if a person didnt specifically say they sat or they stood that they did neither , i find that a bit silly . but no matter what you assert , whether sat down or stood up she was working on and watching her tv set while oswald left , and a short time later she stopped and then went to her window and looked out and saw oswald still standing there.i am also considering she was an elderly lady who was not in the best of health .
"She was still "trying to find out about President Kennedy" when Oswald left the house.
After a "moment" she went to the window and looked out.
No sitting down watching TV for a spell longer. " dean omeara
see above reply .
"Why is such a seemingly trivial important?
Because the timeline we're dealing with is so tight and every minute counts.
When Roberts says a "moment" she could mean 2 minutes or 3 minutes, but she could also mean 20 seconds." dean omeara
true , she said a moment and i quoted her saying exactly that as i recall . i know what some people consider a moment , and its anything in line with the numbers you mentioned just above . i have not tried to say it was this long or that long because its an unknown . but what ever it was we have to add that to the time he was in his room , and the time he was at the bus stop .we simply cannot put an exact time on that .just as we cant know sadly how long more he was outside at the bus stop after roberts decided to stop looking .
"You're looking at this the wrong way.
All I'm saying is that claims it had to be 1pm or later when Oswald entered the rooming house are very questionable.
Roberts is clearly guessing at the time when Oswald came in, what she makes clear is that the news about Kennedy has come on the TV by the time Oswald enters the house.
As demonstrated, the bulletin Roberts almost certainly sees is the one beginning around 12:48pm [she is already watching "As The World Turns" when it comes on].
12:48pm marks the earliest possible time Oswald could have come in and that's all. I'm not saying Oswald entered the rooming house at that time.
What I am definitely saying is, just because news of Kennedy's shooting was on the TV doesn't automatically mean it was 1pm or later." dean omeara
on the contrary as i have said i am trying to take in to consideration as much information as is possible . there is zero proof that oswald walked out the front door at 12.33 ZERO . this nonsense that reporters (the names elude me now sorry ) unknowingly spoke to oswald who directed them to a phone is worthless . even the reporters didnt say they say oswald , they were told they may have .cops were out side the door , tv and private cameras recording , as were quite a few of his fellow depository workers , including his pal wes frazier .plus one howard brennan who identified jarmin / norman and williams immediately to cops . NOT A ONE OF THESE SAW OSWALD WALK OUT THE FRONT DOOR at any time . its more likely then that he left via the rear door .all be it we cant prove that either .but it is the more logical in my opinion . that leaves us with what time he left ? , that is a bit of an unknown . but if he did indeed get on the bus , then we can work out how long roughly it took to walk to the bus stop , if for example we can assume he entered the bus at 12.40 then we can subtract the time it takes to walk the distance from the TSBD to the bus from 12.40 .then we have a rough time line , not precise but if you will a good estimate .if that says that he left at about 12.33 so be it .in fact wes frazier all be it belatedly told gary mack that he saw oswald having left via the rear door between 5 and 10 minutes after the shots and wearing a jacket .
you are assuming that she had to have been watching the 12.48 bulletin , or should i say listening to it as it was audio not video .you could be right . but as i have proven that bulletin went on right up 1pm . but the commission (if they were interested in the truth ) should have clarified this with her .
Elsewhere you posted this:
we know she said she heard the news and was working on her tv , and then oswald walked in . so from that we can pretty much establish that oswald came home at 1pm or shortly there after .
It was this statement I felt needed clarification.
How can we establish "from that", that Oswald "came home at 1pm or shortly there after".
The answer is - we can't establish that Oswald came home at 1pm or shortly there after "from that".
As I have demonstrated, it is perfectly possible for Oswald to have arrived back at the rooming house before 1pm.
It doesn't mean he actually did arrive before 1pm, I'm simply saying this possibility can't be disregarded.
-
Oswald had to get to
10th and Patton by 1:06-1:07 because of Benavides waiting a couple of minutes (his estimate)after the shooter left the scene before Benavides went to Tippits police car and tried using the radio.
1:06-1:07 is also the time Markam
estimated 1st seeing the shooter.
Bowley checked his watch which was 1:10pm when he arrived to see Benevides
in Tippits car trying to operate the radio.
Markam said that Tippit followed the shooter for some distance and then there was a brief conversation between the shooter and Tippit, so that could be 30 secs, 45 secs, or 60 secs of time preceding the shooting.
The bus ride is suspect because McWatters did not actually ID Oswald and Bledsoe cannot possibly have seen a hole in Oswald’s shirt because he hadn’t changed into that shirt yet.
If the bus ride is out, then Oswald could have easily made it to Whaleys taxi by 12:38 if he left TSBD by 12:33, and he doubletimed jogged part of the way. (6-7 blocks in 4-5 minutes)
Since whatever Will Fritz claims Oswald said, is suspect, then Oswald may never have said anything about getting on a bus
Because Buell W. Frazier thinks he saw Oswald near the Elm st/Houston st intersection just before Frazier went back inside TSBD BEFORE the front door was locked by DPD officer Barnett (approx not later than 3 minutes post shots,)then there is some probability that Oswald left the TSBD front steps by 2 min 45 sec post shots.
Timeline for Oswald therefore could possibly be:
12:38-12:47 taxi ride.
12:47-12:50 doubletime jogged the 5 blocks from taxi boarding room
12:50-12-54 changes clothes, exits house
12:54-1:07 (11 minutes) walked quickly (possible some jogging) arrives at 1:06-1:07 to 10th and Patton.
But theres still ONE BIG problem that messes this up and its that Earlene Roberts the landlady remembers the jacket that she thought Oswald was zipping up as he went out , was a darker color than light gray.
-
"As I have demonstrated, it is perfectly possible for Oswald to have arrived back at the rooming house before 1pm." dean o meara
you demonstrated ? just how did you do that ? . claiming and proving are not the same thing . your demonstration starts with the official OSWALD LEFT THE DEPOSITORY VIA THE FRONT DOOR AT 12.33 scenario of which there is no proof . in fact the evidence IE known witnesses on the steps and outside the building etc would tend to dispute such a notion .i asked you already about this , and you did not answer . what proof can you provide ? .
as i have said now several times i am going by what roberts said and by looking at all the evidence post 12.30 , and the warren commissions time trials etc .
yes its not unreasonable for you to say ITS NOT IMPOSSIBLE that he can have arrived pre 1pm .but how probable is it ? . and does such an assertion go with facts and evidence ? .
-
"As I have demonstrated, it is perfectly possible for Oswald to have arrived back at the rooming house before 1pm." dean o meara
you demonstrated ? just how did you do that ? . claiming and proving are not the same thing . your demonstration starts with the official OSWALD LEFT THE DEPOSITORY VIA THE FRONT DOOR AT 12.33 scenario of which there is no proof . in fact the evidence IE known witnesses on the steps and outside the building etc would tend to dispute such a notion .i asked you already about this , and you did not answer . what proof can you provide ? .
as i have said now several times i am going by what roberts said and by looking at all the evidence post 12.30 , and the warren commissions time trials etc .
yes its not unreasonable for you to say ITS NOT IMPOSSIBLE that he can have arrived pre 1pm .but how probable is it ? . and does such an assertion go with facts and evidence ? .
claiming and proving are not the same thing
I've never claimed to have proved anything. You are introducing this concept of proof.
I posted a "thought experiment", a series of reasonable assumptions based on Oswald leaving the TSBD as a desperate man on the run. He may have been an innocent man going to watch the movies but that is not what my thought experiment was about.
There is zero proof for what time Oswald left the TSBD building, or for what time he might have caught the bus or the taxi [if he did].
Equally, there is zero proof that Oswald reached the rooming house after 1pm as you keep asserting.
Roberts was guessing at the time and she says as much.
I have not proven anything but I have demonstrated that it is perfectly possible that Oswald reached the rooming house before 1pm.
You might not accept this as it may suit you not to do so. That's none of my business.
But at least you now concede that it is possible Oswald reached the rooming house before 1pm.
That's all I was trying to illustrate.
-
to mr mytton
Mr. BALL. Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, Sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
quite extraordinary testimony above from a woman you say identified oswald . how does a woman not identify a man , not identify them by clothing , not identify their face , in fact not recognize or know anyone of 4 men in a line up AND STILL BE LISTED AS A WITNESSES WHO IDENTIFIED OSWALD ?. now ok i know ball then led her and got her to remember what he needed her to say and say she picked a number 2 man . but how can any witness be asked such simple and clear questions and answer NO to all of them ? . i mean if she had indeed seen oswald ? . she is on film saying tippits killer STOOD IN FRONT OF HER LOOKING HER IN THE EYE . so its amazing she replied NO to not knowing any one of 4 men by their faces .
Seriously?
Markham is clearly meaning that she never saw any of the men before that day.
Markham does go on to confirm that a few hours later she identified Oswald as Tippit's killer.
Mr. BALL. Well, the man that you identified as the number 2 man in the lineup in the police station, you identified him as the man you had seen shoot Officer Tippit?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, I did.
(https://i.postimg.cc/vHxhkyRz/line-up-Oswald-positive-ID.gif)
JohnM
-
Markham is clearly meaning that she never saw any of the men before that day.
"clearly". LOL.
-
Seriously?
Markham is clearly meaning that she never saw any of the men before that day.
Markham does go on to confirm that a few hours later she identified Oswald as Tippit's killer.
Mr. BALL. Well, the man that you identified as the number 2 man in the lineup in the police station, you identified him as the man you had seen shoot Officer Tippit?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, I did.
(https://i.postimg.cc/vHxhkyRz/line-up-Oswald-positive-ID.gif)
JohnM
she said there was a number two man only after she was led by mr ball , a man who would later call her an utter screwball . the questions were very clear , she attended a line up , what did she do that for ? to see if she could identify anyone .she appeared at the commission , why ? , to be deposed about what she said she saw and naturally also about the line up . and still this woman says NO NO NO NO , i didnt recognize nor know anyone in the line up , not even by their clothes , not by their face NOTHING . i am certain given that she was caught in deception in her testimony (saying she never spoke to mark lane when she did , even denying her own voice on a tape played to her ) that ball and the commission would not have relied upon her word if they had had another better witness . well that is one that would point the finger at oswald , that they would never have relied on her and possibly never even called her .
this is the same woman that gave hug aynesworth a description of the killer on or near the scene , a description that did not fit oswald . this is the very reason lane called her , so speak to her about this description . a description lone nutters say LANE OUT IN HER MOUTH . no he did not , that description came from her own mouth to aynesworth . she would give agent odum a description very different again , of a young man about 18 with dark or black hair .
so you think she is an honest and reliable witness and this credible ? . well i would think the above would say otherwise . she said the shooting took place in and around about 1.07 or 1.08 . she said so based on leaving home at her normal time for work and walking her usual route having walked about a block when she arrived at the corner of 10th and patton . and in addition based on the time she got her usual bus to work on jefferson . do you agree with her about this time ? , or is she now suddenly unreliable ? . even the man whos photo you have as an avatar had the good sense to back away from citing or relying upon a nutty witness .
-
The LN-evangelist credo: witnesses are unreliable, except for those times when we want to rely on them.
-
Well just to make things interesting, Markam could NOT ID the light gray Jacket as the one she saw the Tippit shooter wearing. Just like the landlady Earlene Roberts could NOT ID the light gray jacket either, as the one Oswald was wearing when he left the boarding house.
Mr.Mytton has previously suggested that light gray could be seen as almost white or a darker shade of gray given the intensity of light or lack thereof.
What was the level of illumination inside the boarding house that Earlene Roberts experienced vs what the level of illumination was for Markam OUTSIDE at 1:07 pm , (including shade from trees and was it cloudy or sunny at 1:07 pm Nov 22/63?)
Imo if Myttons variable range gray scale idea is correct then the outside area at the Tippit police car would have to have tree shade plus overcast sky to produce the equivalent level of lower illumination as in the boarding house so that Markam and Roberts both saw approx same darker gray hue or causing Markam to see “tan” rather that light gray hue.
-
Well just to make things interesting, Markam could NOT ID the light gray Jacket as the one she saw the Tippit shooter wearing. Just like the landlady Earlene Roberts could NOT ID the light gray jacket either, as the one Oswald was wearing when he left the boarding house.
Mr.Mytton has previously suggested that light gray could be seen as almost white or a darker shade of gray given the intensity of light or lack thereof.
What was the level of illumination inside the boarding house that Earlene Roberts experienced vs what the level of illumination was for Markam OUTSIDE at 1:07 pm , (including shade from trees and was it cloudy or sunny at 1:07 pm Nov 22/63?)
Imo if Myttons variable range gray scale idea is correct then the outside area at the Tippit police car would have to have tree shade plus overcast sky to produce the equivalent level of lower illumination as in the boarding house so that Markam and Roberts both saw approx same darker gray hue or causing Markam to see “tan” rather that light gray hue.
At the end of the day your eyewitnesses didn't say Oswald had no jacket or a longer jacket but agreed that Oswald was wearing a similar jacket but the shade was slighty different, BFD!
The exact same jacket will have a different appearance because of lighting and contrast and don't forget where the WC showed the Jacket would have different lighting as well.
(https://i.postimg.cc/G2kz4b8v/jacket-shade.gif)
Btw this attempt to provide doubt through the perception of a shade of clothing is imo amateurish and pathetic.
JohnM
-
It’s a shame the jacket that was found under the car couldn’t be verified as to whom actually found it.
It’s a shame that jacket was not tested to see if any gunpowder residue was on it.
It’s a shame that the paraffin test on Oswald’s cheek to try prove Oswald had fired a rifle that day , turned out to be negative.
It’s a shame that in an experiment where 7 people who fired an MC rifle and then given paraffin test to test their cheek, ALL were POSITIVE.
But those only refute 3 out of Mr Bugs 50+item mountain of evidence.
Mr. Iacotti probably has refuted the other 50+ points of the mountain in some other thread on this forum, but there may be a way to refute some of those refutations with another look at them again ..
Like with this gray scale thing causing Roberts and Markam to deny that the CE 162 light gray jacket was the one they saw…
And it was a jacket with a zipper in both cases..
And Markam eventually got around to finally say that Oswald WAS the man she saw thru her fingers covering her face, when he walked towards her before he then left…
Maybe ignoring the anomalous stuff and just listing those parts of the WC findings that 2/3rds of the American public can agree on, those parts that have been tested by experiment that 2/3rds agree supports the WC, will finally resolve this controversy and then if it can be ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures, a Constitutional Amendment can be added that declares that the WC theory is a self evident truth. :)
-
It’s a shame the jacket that was found under the car couldn’t be verified as to whom actually found it.
Westbrook retrieved the jacket from under the car, why does it matter so much to you who originally saw it and how does that add to your conspiracy?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Actually, I didn't find it--it was pointed out to me by either some officer that--that was while we were going over the scene in the close area where the shooting was concerned, someone pointed. out a jacket to me that was laying under a car and I got the jacket and told the officer to take the license number.
JohnM
-
Westbrook retrieved the jacket from under the car, why does it matter so much to you who originally saw it and how does that add to your conspiracy?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Actually, I didn't find it--it was pointed out to me by either some officer that--that was while we were going over the scene in the close area where the shooting was concerned, someone pointed. out a jacket to me that was laying under a car and I got the jacket and told the officer to take the license number.
JohnM
A unidentified police officer finding a jacket under a car does not add to anything, when it can't be connected to Oswald. As there is nobody who actually saw a person placing the jacket under a car, it can only be assumed that it was a jacket that belonged to Oswald. Assumptions are not evidence.
The initial description of the jacket was that it was white and Oswald did not own a white jacket. The FBI tried as hard as they could to link Oswald to the jacket now in evidence by trying to track down the origin of a laundry shop label and failed. A few hours after Oswald's arrest, Captain Westbrook presented a grey colored jacket to the DPD evidence room and claimed it was Oswald's. However, there is no information or evidence on how and when Westbrook obtained that jacket or that it is the same one he left with yet another unidentified officer at the carpark. Another strange feature of the grey jacket is that it was initialed by several DPD officers who in reality never handled it or ever were part of the chain of custody.
So, at the end of the day all we have is a white jacket found under a car which can not be linked to Oswald in any other way but by pure assumption and a grey jacket, without a solid chain of evidence, which somehow ended up in Westbrook's possession at the DPD police station and for which there is also no credible evidence that it did belong to Oswald or that he wore it that day leaving the roominghouse.
-
A unidentified police officer finding a jacket under a car does not add to anything, when it can't be connected to Oswald. As there is nobody who actually saw a person placing the jacket under a car, it can only be assumed that it was a jacket that belonged to Oswald. Assumptions are not evidence.
The initial description of the jacket was that it was white and Oswald did not own a white jacket. The FBI tried as hard as they could to link Oswald to the jacket by trying to track down the origin of a laundry shop label and failed. A few hours after Oswald's arrest, Captain Westbrook presented a grey colored jacket to the DPD evidence room and claimed it was Oswald's. However, there is no information or evidence on how Westbrook obtained that jacket for the second time, after having left it with yet another unidentified at the carpark. Another strange feature of the grey jacket is that it was initialed by several DPD officers who in reality never handled it or ever were part of the chain of custody.
So, at the end of the day all we have is a white jacket found under a car which can not be linked to Oswald in any other way but pure assumption and a grey jacket, without a solid chain of evidence, which somehow ended up in Westbrook's possession at the DPD police station and for which there is also no credible evidence that it did belong to Oswald or that he wore it that day leaving the roominghouse.
Someone(you) once told me to follow the dots and the answer will become clear and here every dot perfectly and logically leads to the next dot, whereas the CT alternative is just a mess of unconnected coincidences that require too many leaps of faith. Thumb1:
Fact: Roberts saw Oswald zipping up his jacket when leaving the rooming house.
Fact: A number of eyewitnesses either at or close to the Tippit crime scene described Oswald holding a gun wearing a jacket.
Fact: Oswald was seen entering the car park where the jacket was retreived.
Fact: The same jacket was positively identified by his wife.
Fact: Oswald was arrested without his jacket.
Fact: Oswald was a double murderer who when arrested tried to kill more cops.
(https://22novembernetwork.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/wpid-539w-1.jpg)
JohnM
-
Someone(you) once told me to follow the dots and the answer will become clear and here every dot perfectly and logically leads to the next dot, whereas the CT alternative is just a mess of unconnected coincidences that require too many leaps of faith. Thumb1:
Fact: Roberts saw Oswald zipping up his jacket when leaving the rooming house.
Fact: A number of eyewitnesses either at or close to the Tippit crime scene described Oswald holding a gun wearing a jacket.
Fact: Oswald was seen entering the car park where the jacket was retreived.
Fact: The same jacket was positively identified by his wife.
Fact: Oswald was arrested without his jacket.
Fact: Oswald was a double murderer who when arrested tried to kill more cops.
(https://22novembernetwork.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/wpid-539w-1.jpg)
JohnM
A perfect example of assumptions leading to a massive leap of faith to desperately reach a "conclusion"
Fact: Roberts saw Oswald zipping up his jacket when leaving the rooming house.
And Wesley Buell Frazier saw Oswald wearing his grey jacket to Irving on Thursday evening, which, if true, means that jacket could never have been at the roominghouse on Friday morning.
Fact: A number of eyewitnesses either at or close to the Tippit crime scene described Oswald holding a gun wearing a jacket.
Where and when did they do that?
Fact: Oswald was seen entering the car park where the jacket was retreived.
People walk into car parks all the time. Nobody saw Oswald leaving a jacket under a car
Fact: The same jacket was positively identified by his wife.
Marina only identified the grey jacket that was shown to her. She never identified or was even shown the white jacket that was found under a car. There is no evidence whatsoever that these two jackets were in fact one and the same.
Calling an assumption a "fact" doesn't make it one. Following dots that are actually there is fine, but making up dots isn't.
-
Calling an assumption a "fact" doesn't make it one.
Thumb1: