The "smirk"

[John Iacoletti]

Please specify what probable cause they had to suspect the man at the library or the man in the theater committed a crime.

A major crime (shooting a police officer) had been committed in the immediate vicinity. The police had an eyewitness description of the offender running away on foot and were canvasing the area looking for him. They both fit the description and were acting suspiciously.

Then I don’t think you understand what probable cause means. “Acting suspiciously” is not probable cause of a crime having been committed.

BTW, the police didn't really need reasonable cause to stop and question someone, only to arrest, or search, or seize property.

Right. They searched Hamby, Oswald, and the two other men in the theater without probable cause. They arrested Oswald for murder without probable cause.

[John Iacoletti]

Is there any corroboration for Aynesworth’s claim to have been there? His claim that Oswald pointed a gun at McDonald’s stomach and pulled the trigger is not corroborated by any witness account, not even McDonald’s.

[Charles Collins]

Then I don’t think you understand what probable cause means. “Acting suspiciously” is not probable cause of a crime having been committed.

Right. They searched Hamby, Oswald, and the two other men in the theater without probable cause. They arrested Oswald for murder without probable cause.

Then I don’t think you understand what probable cause means. “Acting suspiciously” is not probable cause of a crime having been committed.

There was no doubt that a crime had been committed. One of their own was DOA at the nearest hospital. Someone appearing to match the description of the suspect and running to hide from the police search is certainly suspicious behavior which warrants investigation.

Right. They searched Hamby, Oswald, and the two other men in the theater without probable cause.

Frisking someone for weapons is not the same as searching them. Especially, under the circumstances of a search for a cop killer.


They arrested Oswald for murder without probable cause.

By the time he was arrested and handcuffed, he had punched McDonald in the face and pulled out his pistol and tried to shoot him. Both of those are more than probable cause.

[Charles Collins]

How appropriate was cigar chompin' Detective Paul Bentley's smirk, seen here mugging for the camera?



It's called setting up the patsy, otherwise, there is no way in hell that the inept Keystone Cops DPD captured Oswald an hour after he shot JFK. The whole timeline stinks of double-cross and rush to judgement.

How appropriate was cigar chompin' Detective Paul Bentley's smirk, seen here mugging for the camera?

That wasn't a smirk, it's a grimace. He actually broke an ankle during the scuffle. Amazingly, he also has the cigar in his mouth in the picture of him and the others handcuffing LHO after the scuffle!

[John Iacoletti]

There was no doubt that a crime had been committed. One of their own was DOA at the nearest hospital. Someone appearing to match the description of the suspect and running to hide from the police search is certainly suspicious behavior which warrants investigation.

No argument, but it’s not probable cause to detain, search, or arrest. By the way, who was “running to hide”?

Frisking someone for weapons is not the same as searching them. Especially, under the circumstances of a search for a cop killer.

There was no distinction in 1963. Frisking on a reasonable suspicion wasn’t a thing until 1968. But there wasn’t a reasonable suspicion, either.

They arrested Oswald for murder without probable cause.

By the time he was arrested and handcuffed, he had punched McDonald in the face and pulled out his pistol and tried to shoot him. Both of those are more than probable cause.

He was arrested for murder. There is nothing on the arrest report about punching anyone or “pulling out a pistol and trying to shoot” someone (of which there is no evidence whatsoever, anyway).

[John Iacoletti]

By the way, please explain how this is a “matching description”:

“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 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”

[Charles Collins]

By the way, please explain how this is a “matching description”:

“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 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”

He could have been holding a sign that said "I shot the poor dumb cop" and you would say: "What poor dumb cop?" 

[John Iacoletti]

He could have been holding a sign that said "I shot the poor dumb cop" and you would say: "What poor dumb cop?" 

Does that mean that you can’t explain your claim that it was a “matching description”.