Lee at the theatre

[John Dolva]

I'm curious about the exact series of events at the time of Oswalds arrest. A summary in Warren Commission Reports state:

"At 1:29 p.m., the police radio had noted the similarity in the descriptions of the suspects in the Tippit shooting and the assassination. At 1:45 p.m., in response to Mrs. Postal's call, the police radio sounded the alarm: "Have information a suspect just went in the Texas Theatre on West Jefferson." Within minutes the theater was surrounded. The house lights were then turned up. Patrolman M. N. McDonald and several other policemen approached the man, who had been pointed out to them by Brewer.

McDonald ordered the man to his feet and heard him say, "Well, it's all over now." The man drew a gun from his waist with one hand and struck the officer with the other. McDonald struck out with his right hand and grabbed the gun with his left hand. After a brief struggle McDonald and several other police officers disarmed and handcuffed the suspect and drove him to police headquarters, arriving at approximately 2 p.m."

In order to verify a possible mistake that can be had from cursorily approaching this issue can be had from the statements:

'..Within minutes the theater was surrounded."

XXX

"The house lights were then turned up."

XXX

"Patrolman M. N. McDonald and several other policemen approached the man, who had been pointed out to them by Brewer."

This is not clear enough for anyone reading it not to have questions. It seems like a summary that has left out connecting points. At some point the Policemen entered the theatre.

Here they have gone from surrounding the theatre to being inside and approaching Lee. The inference of course is that "the house lights were THEN turned up*" was the reason for them being able to approach which implies they have ID'd him and set about approaching. Did this happen before or after they ENTERED the theatre.? How much forewarning DID Lee have and if he had some what does that make of a notion of him being on the run?

Can other members who can see what I mean here about bits being missing help in filling out those missing bits please?

*'turned up' not 'switched on': a dimmer switch that progressively increases luminance to some point: in order to not blind patrons?

Edited December 25, 2005 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

Some answers ,, some questions:

Mr. BALL - You went down to the Texas Theatre?

Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - And that is what address?

Mr. McDONALD - 231 West Jefferson.

Mr. BALL - What did you do?

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 - Now, did you go with them outside?

Mr. McDONALD - No, sir.

Mr. BALL - What did you do?

Mr. McDONALD - I was looking for my hat and flashlight.

[John Dolva]

Mr. BALL - Now, did you go with them outside?

Mr. McDONALD - No, sir.

Mr. BALL - What did you do?

Mr. McDONALD - I was looking for my hat and flashlight.

hmmm...maybe this is part of the problem where fiction overlaps with reality. Could be a reason for arguments against movies like JFK (which I like a lot BTW) or better: an argument for being aware of such things.

a script from an x-files episode:

"SCENE 21

TEXAS THEATRE; 1:45 PM

(An old black-and-white movie is playing. Three army buddies are sitting around, talking in a bunker.)

............

(Oswald walks into the theater.)

..................

(Oswald looks around nervously.)

.........................

(A man walks in through the emergency exit at the front of the theater, near the screen. Oswald watches him carefully.)

..........................

(The lights come up and the movie turns off. Policemen are all over the theater. A woman groans. Oswald's eyes widen.)

POLICE OFFICER #1: Take this side.

POLICE OFFICER #2: All right. Get along.

MAN: Officer, what's going on?

(Oswald sits down, trying to look inconspicuous.)

POLICE OFFICER #2: Go ahead and settle down.

(He walks past Oswald, who looks down. Officer stops, then looks back at Oswald. He walks over to him.)

On your feet. Come on.

(Oswald raises his hands and stands.)

LEE HARVEY OSWALD: It's going to be all over.

(He punches the police officer hard. Other officers race towards Oswald as the officer punches him back. Oswald keels over but does not fall, taking out his gun.)

POLICE OFFICER #2: He's got a gun!

(The officers jump him, surrounding him. He is in the center of them as they swarm him like a mob. His gun is taken and he is placed in handcuffs, screaming. They start leading him out, beating him all the while.)"

Apart from feeling a bit peed off at being subject to the endless rewriting of history for dramatic effect in fictional stuff based on historical events, there still seems to be unanswered questions surrounding the arrest. However I don't want to turn my focus away from the xrays at the moment so I'm just logging this and some thoughts for future reference. A lot of it has been covered in other topics such as Marks 'Oswalds Wallet' and there's no need to do it all over again. When the time comes I'd like to find answers that flesh out the entire sequence of events.

With regards to this specific topic about 'when did the lights come on' and what can one infer from an answer: If Lee had sufficient warning about being arrested, which it would appear he did, then his behaviour would indicate that he wasn't going to run. So why did he run to the theatre and not to some other place? Again I come up against: what is special about a theatre? The obvious things that come to mind is the darkness, the static witnesses and the limited number of entrances.

Of course this is all dependent on him being on the run at all for whatever reason.

_________________________

The other issue that connects is his injuries. I wonder if his temple bruise can be regarded as potentially fatal. Certainly it would be a way of tranferring gun residue to his face about in the area where one might expect it to be. So if this was unwittingly done as a result of the force used to arrest him or to punish him or whatever reasons police use for hitting prisoners, then any tests would be arguably invalid? (a close scrutiny of the bruise reveals a clearly defined shape matching half a rifle stock)

Edited December 25, 2005 by John Dolva

[Robert Howard]

Mr. BALL - Now, did you go with them outside?

Mr. McDONALD - No, sir.

Mr. BALL - What did you do?

Mr. McDONALD - I was looking for my hat and flashlight.

hmmm...maybe this is part of the problem where fiction overlaps with reality. Could be a reason for arguments against movies like JFK (which I like a lot BTW) or better: an argument for being aware of such things.

a script from an x-files episode:

"SCENE 21

TEXAS THEATRE; 1:45 PM

(An old black-and-white movie is playing. Three army buddies are sitting around, talking in a bunker.)

............

(Oswald walks into the theater.)

..................

(Oswald looks around nervously.)

.........................

(A man walks in through the emergency exit at the front of the theater, near the screen. Oswald watches him carefully.)

..........................

(The lights come up and the movie turns off. Policemen are all over the theater. A woman groans. Oswald's eyes widen.)

POLICE OFFICER #1: Take this side.

POLICE OFFICER #2: All right. Get along.

MAN: Officer, what's going on?

(Oswald sits down, trying to look inconspicuous.)

POLICE OFFICER #2: Go ahead and settle down.

(He walks past Oswald, who looks down. Officer stops, then looks back at Oswald. He walks over to him.)

On your feet. Come on.

(Oswald raises his hands and stands.)

LEE HARVEY OSWALD: It's going to be all over.

(He punches the police officer hard. Other officers race towards Oswald as the officer punches him back. Oswald keels over but does not fall, taking out his gun.)

POLICE OFFICER #2: He's got a gun!

(The officers jump him, surrounding him. He is in the center of them as they swarm him like a mob. His gun is taken and he is placed in handcuffs, screaming. They start leading him out, beating him all the while.)"

Apart from feeling a bit peed off at being subject to the endless rewriting of history for dramatic effect in fictional stuff based on historical events, there still seems to be unanswered questions surrounding the arrest. However I don't want to turn my focus away from the xrays at the moment so I'm just logging this and some thoughts for future reference. A lot of it has been covered in other topics such as Marks 'Oswalds Wallet' and there's no need to do it all over again. When the time comes I'd like to find answers that flesh out the entire sequence of events.

With regards to this specific topic about 'when did the lights come on' and what can one infer from an answer: If Lee had sufficient warning about being arrested, which it would appear he did, then his behaviour would indicate that he wasn't going to run. So why did he run to the theatre and not to some other place? Again I come up against: what is special about a theatre? The obvious things that come to mind is the darkness, the static witnesses and the limited number of entrances.

Of course this is all dependent on him being on the run at all for whatever reason.

_________________________

The other issue that connects is his injuries. I wonder if his temple bruise can be regarded as potentially fatal. Certainly it would be a way of tranferring gun residue to his face about in the area where one might expect it to be. So if this was unwittingly done as a result of the force used to arrest him or to punish him or whatever reasons police use for hitting prisoners, then any tests would be arguably invalid? (a close scrutiny of the bruise reveals a clearly defined shape matching half a rifle stock)

At the risk of incurring considerable wrath, I will stipulate that the posts you have made here collectively add up to the 'party line' about said ostensible chain of events. (Not meant as any type of criticism as whaat youve done on this post because it is very Good).

While accurate in a sense, there is, in my mind obvious 'events' that have been conveniently redacted from the historical record, For one the 'other individual' seen leaving by Bernard Haire via back door w/ police escort was, I stipulate 'in the balcony' while the pattern of events you describe was taking place.

An allegation somewhat given additional credence by virtue of the fact, that

1. The 'time frame' for Oswald's arrival at said Theater has never jibed with the Warrenized version.

(Hint he arrived much later than the official version recounts it, while the other individual arrived in more than enough time.

2. Allegations of T.F. White (see page 277 High Treason) 'Around 2:00 PM White observed a Red 1957 Plymouth 4-door at the parking lot of an El Chico only several blocks from the Texas Theater with a man in it whom he said "looked like Lee Harvey Oswald" who then drove off at a high rate of speed."

White was certainly no 'kook' the license plate number he gave to the FBI revealed the owner as a Carl Mather.

3. In one of the more high profile books on the assassination, (the name escapes me) there is even an allegation that Jack Ruby was inside the Texas Theatre at the time Oswald was arrested.

Thats all for now.

[Thomas Graves]

3. In one of the more high profile books on the assassination, (the name escapes me) there is even an allegation that Jack Ruby was inside the Texas Theatre at the time Oswald was arrested.

_____________________________________

I remember reading somewhere that LHO and Ruby were not only the theatre at the same time but were actually sitting in close proximity to each other.

FWIW, Thomas

_____________________________________

[John Dolva]

3. In one of the more high profile books on the assassination, (the name escapes me) there is even an allegation that Jack Ruby was inside the Texas Theatre at the time Oswald was arrested.

_____________________________________

I remember reading somewhere that LHO and Ruby were not only the theatre at the same time but were actually sitting in close proximity to each other.

FWIW, Thomas

_____________________________________

No wrath here.

Just looking at the evidence as presented and the alternative stuff to see what gels largely from a 'does it make sense' point of view.

There seems to me to be gaps in the WC scenario. Whether those gaps are to cover conspiracy connected things, leave out irrelevancies or to cover for brutality or some other reason or a combination of resons can perhaps be seen by gathering the lot together and eliminating the chaff.

I find the Ruby that seems to pop up everywhere at first glance stretching credulity. I'd like to see a suggestion for why he might have been at the theatre as well as a history of the claim. The report about a FBI informant reporting that Ruby had invited him to come to the corner of the Post Office (presumably at street level) to 'watch the fireworks' needs to be factored in as far as a timeline goes.

One thing about Ruby as mentioned by Duke in another thread is the question of his mental state. I think while not actually certifiable he was emotionally disturbed and his use of drugs such as slimming medication (which often contains things such as ephedrines (speed) which while lessening hunger pangs also flatten out other mind states and induces a false kind of clarity that is not sustainable, and it produces wakefulness while the body really needs rest. All this goes to severely distort mental states. So a normally emotional person might have those things suppressed by medication rebound in double measure at the end of drug taking.

Ruby 'buzzed' around the plaze for a couple of days, ending up at the basement (the question of the disappearing 'little bottle with a brown liquid' needs answering: a plant to reward hoping to induce suicide?? speculation) . His testimony before Justice Warren when he appeals for transfer has a chilling momernt when he is about to start elaborating on his conversation with Kay, Jimmy, and patrolman Olsen and it's neatly and alnost unnoticed sidestepped by an innuendo re mental stability, a conflict with Belin, people entering/leaving the room, and presto the convo is elsewhere and not returned to. (I've always wondered what he was about to say about this conversation).

Anyway, Ruby did get about. KLIF, police station, Post office, here and there...so why not to the theatre as well?

[Mark Knight]

John, I was a kid in the 1960's, and in the American media the undercover spy image was everywhere. Besides the popular James Bond movies, there was TV...The Man From UNCLE, I Spy, The Saint, Secret Agent, Mission: Impossible, and a host of other programs left their imprint on impressionable young minds.

One of the constants was the "standard" places for a "spy" to meet his/her "contact"...usually a secluded place, and often in a library or a theater.

So guess which two places police were sent to apprehend Oswald? Yep, first to a library ["wrong guy"], and then to a theater. While a bit cliche'd nowadays, it still fit with what kids all across America were seeing on the tube later in the '60's. And yet the "official' explanation on LHO was that he wasn't connected to any conspiracy, or any government operation.

And broccoli isn't connected to farming, either. Riiiiiiight.

Edited December 26, 2005 by Mark Knight

[J. Raymond Carroll]

In case anyone missed it, Attached below is Steve Thomas's piece on this subject which first appeared on Lancer. I would like to thank Mr. Thomas for his many excwellent posts on this and other forums, and especially for setting the record straight on the snap that never was.

"Here's a 2003 piece I wrote in the Lancer Forum called, "The Snap That Never Was."

I have always taken it on faith that during his arrest at the Texas Theater, Lee Harvey Oswald took out his gun and attempted to shoot arresting Officer M.N. McDonald. This is based on accounts of an audible "snap" that was heard. Later, we read accounts that the only reason Oswald's attempted murder of McDonald didn't succeed because of a bent primer or a "misfire"

I would like to contend that perhaps the "snap" that was heard was either the sound of something else, or was accidently caused by the officers seeing the gun and immediately reacting to take it away from Oswald and that Oswald did not attempt to shoot Officer McDonald.

I say this for the following three reasons:

1)

Here are the accounts of the arresting officers filed with Police Chief Curry on Decembers 2 - 5, 1963.

They can be found in the DAllas Police Archives, Box 2, Folder# 7

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box2.htm

E.L. Cunningham: "When I reached the seating area on the main floor, several officers were in the process of disarming and handcuffing the suspect. ...I did not see anything that indicated that any more force was used than was absolutely necessary to effect the arrest".

Paul Bentley: "Just as I entered the lower floor, I saw Patrolman McDonald fighting with this suspect. I saw this suspect pull a pistol from his shirt, so I went to Patrolman McDonald's aid immediately"

Bob Carroll: "When I arrived at the lower floor, Lee Harvey Oswald was resisting vigorously"...At this time I observed a pistol with the muzzle pointed in my direction. I grabbed the pistol and stuck it in my belt..."

Ray Hawkins: "The subject stood up and as Officer McDonald started to search him, he struck Officer McDonald in the face. The subject and Offcier McDonald began to fight and both fell down in the seats. Officer Walker and I ran toward the subject and grabbed him by his left arm. The subject had reached in his belt for a gun and Officer McDoanld was holding his right hand with the gun in it".

T.A. Hutson: "As I entered the row of seats behind the suspect he jumped up and hit Officer McDonald in the face with his fist, Officer McDonald was in the seat next to the one in which the suspect was originally sitting, and the suspect was up out of his seat struggling with Officer McDonald. I reached over the back of the seats and placed my right arm around the suspect's neck and pulled him up on back of the seat. Officer C.T. WAlker came up and was struggling with the suspect's left hand, and as Officer McDonald struggled with with the suspect's right hand, he moved it to his waist and drew a pistol and as Officer McDonald tried to disarm the suspect, I heard the pistol snap".

K.E. Lyon: "Enroute to the City Hall, Oswald refused to answer all questions. and he kept repeating, "Why am I being arrested? I know I was carrying a gun, but why else am I being arrested"?

M.N. McDonald: "When I got within a foot of him, I told the suspect to get to his feet. He stood up immediately, bringing his hands up about shoulder high and saying, "Well it's over now". I was reaching for his waist and he struck me on the nose with his left hand. With his right hand, he reached for his waist and both our hands were on a pistol that was stuck in his belt under his shirt. We both fell into the seats struggling for the pistol. ... I managed to get my right hadn 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".

As you can see from reading these reports, at no time in the first 10 to 12 days following the assassination, did any of the arresting officers on the scene claim that Oswald tried to shoot M.N. McDonald. If the pistol did go off and cause a "snap" of the hammer falling into place, it was because McDonald jerked it out of Oswald's pants.

2)

When questioned by Captain Fritz on the afternoon of November 22nd, Fritz did not accuse Oswald of trying to shoot Officer McDonald.

Fritz (4H214)

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.

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him if he killed Tippit?

Mr. FRITZ. Sir?

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him if he shot Tippit?

Mr. FRITZ. Oh, yes.

Mr. BALL. What did he say.

Mr. FRITZ. He denied it---that he did not. The only thing he said he had done wrong, "The only law I violated was in the show; I hit the officer in the show; he hit me in the eye and I guess I deserved it." He said, "That is the only law I violated." He said, "That is the only thing I have done wrong."

3)

If Oswald had attempted to shoot Officer McDonald, why were no charges of attempted murder filed as they were in the case of Governor Connally?

I believe that the account of Oswald trying to shoot McDonald was invented after the fact.

Steve Thomas"

[Steve Thomas]

Ray,

In case anyone missed it, Attached below is Steve Thomas's piece on this subject which first appeared on Lancer. I would like to thank Mr. Thomas for his many excwellent posts on this and other forums, and especially for setting the record straight on the snap that never was.

Thank you.

Steve

[John Dolva]

Ray,

In case anyone missed it, Attached below is Steve Thomas's piece on this subject which first appeared on Lancer. I would like to thank Mr. Thomas for his many excwellent posts on this and other forums, and especially for setting the record straight on the snap that never was.

Thank you.

Steve

I agree with Raymond, so I'll tack on the response I made in the other thread.

It raises some questions for me.

"QUOTE(Steve Thomas @ Dec 26 2005, 04:20 PM)

......If Oswald had attempted to shoot Officer McDonald, why were no charges of attempted murder filed as they were in the case of Governor Connally?

I believe that the account of Oswald trying to shoot McDonald was invented after the fact.

Steve Thomas

I reckon you may have the 'nub' of it there Steve.

why invent it?? (when was it invented?) The evidence for Lee as assassin was supposed to be good? Why feel there is a need to elaborate with something so convincingly disassembled?

Perhaps because the rest of the evidence, if put under rigorous scrutiny, would be shown to be shaky as well? (The directive after all was to convince the public that Lee is guilty and acted alone.)

(Another reason that comes to mind is to justify the obvious beating Lee had suffered. It seems that this is a reason often used by the police around the world to justify brutality. As pointed out previously, here was a suspect in a cop killing. Possibly the only thing regarded by the average Patroleman as more pressing on the day than the assassination of Kennedy.)

(Also to consider may be that even with 'known' serial killers, they are on occasion only charged with one murder at a time, keeping less 'important' things in reserve. After all the idea (as far as I know) is if someone is found not guilty for whatever reason on one charge then they can't be charged with it again?)

On the whole it seems that perhaps the DPD had real doubt that Lee 'did it'."

______________________

Steve, I wonder if you (or anyone can rattle off an account re the time line of Police arrivals and surrounding waiting entering etc with a view to among other things answer the question of 'when did the lights come on'?. Before or after police entering the theatre. I find the loss by McDonald of his flashlight interesting. It may mean he had it out because it was dark at first. For me it's an issue in considering Lee's choice of the theatre and staying to get arrested. If he was going to fight why not try running? If not running why fight?

[Ron Ecker]

I’m not a cop, I’ve never been to a police academy, but I’ve seen a lot of movies in which bad guys are apprehended by the police. So if I’m the screenwriter in this movie, and the scene is where a bunch of cops and deputies apprehend a man in a theater who is suspected of assassinating the president of the United States plus a fellow police officer, when the lights are turned on and the suspect is spotted in the sparsely populated theater, the procedure seems obvious. I don’t have an officer named McDonald walk toward this suspect, then stop and turn his back to the suspect and frisk two other guys, then proceed to the suspect, who has stood up and not surprisingly assaults McDonald, with a bunch of other officers then diving in to try to subdue the suspect while trying to determine whose gun is whose in the pile.

That would be a stupidly written scene that could get a scriptwriter fired and end his career, unless of course the film was a comedy. In a crime drama, when the lights go on and the suspect, who is logically considered to be armed and dangerous, is spotted, as the writer I would have the cops and deputies aim about 100 guns of all description at the suspect and have the officer in charge yell “FREEZE! GET YOUR HANDS UP!” Then the scene can end two ways, depending on the plot. The suspect obeys and is cautiously approached and disarmed while all those weapons are aimed at him, or else the suspect suicidally goes for his gun, and is then riddled with more bullets than Sonny Corleone was in "The Godfather."

I would like to ask Al Carrier or anyone else knowledgeable in standard police procedure which would be the more sensible scenario in portraying the capture of a suspected presidential assassin and cop killer: The movie scene I envision, or what actually happened (and why) at the Texas Theater.

[Steve Thomas]

Ron,

when the lights go on and the suspect, who is logically considered to be armed and dangerous, is spotted, as the writer I would have the cops and deputies aim about 100 guns of all description at the suspect and have the officer in charge yell “FREEZE! GET YOUR HANDS UP!”

I am in the minority, but I personally believe that McDonald made a serious error in judgement. When he saw the gun in Oswald's waistband, he should have yelled out, "Gun" and stepped back. Instead, (if we can believe the accounts of what happened) he made a grab for it. This could have had fatal consequences.

Steve Thomas

[Steve Thomas]

John,

Steve, I wonder if you (or anyone can rattle off an account re the time line of Police arrivals and surrounding waiting entering etc with a view to among other things answer the question of 'when did the lights come on'?.

Here's some of the timelines based on the DPD dispatch tapes:

1:45 Dispatch reported a "suspect: just went into the Texas Theater on West Jefferson

1:46 85 reported "at the Theater"

1:46 492 reported "out at the Theater"

1:48 211 reported "There's about five squads back "here" with me now" (I'm assuming he was talking about the Theater

1:48 29 reported being two blocks away

1:49 19 reported in and said "15 and some squads are going to the Theater"

1:52 550/2 reported that the suspect was apprehended and enroute to the station

1:53 Dispatch told 91 to report "back" to the Theater and get 223's car and lock it up

85 is Patrolman R.W. Walker

492 was Detectives Carroll and Lyons

211 unknown

29 is Patrolman J.M. Williams

15 is Captian C.E. Talbert

550/2 is Sgt. Gerald Hill

91 is W.D. Mentzel and J.W. Courson

223 is Patrolamn C.T.Walker

You can go to Box 2. Folder# 7 and read the after action reports of some of these officers. You can also get some of their WC testimony. The question of whether the lights were on, off, or dimmed is kind of confusing.

Steve Thomas

[Gerry Hemming]

Ray,

In case anyone missed it, Attached below is Steve Thomas's piece on this subject which first appeared on Lancer. I would like to thank Mr. Thomas for his many excwellent posts on this and other forums, and especially for setting the record straight on the snap that never was.

Thank you.

Steve

I agree with Raymond, so I'll tack on the response I made in the other thread.

It raises some questions for me.

"QUOTE(Steve Thomas @ Dec 26 2005, 04:20 PM)

......If Oswald had attempted to shoot Officer McDonald, why were no charges of attempted murder filed as they were in the case of Governor Connally?

I believe that the account of Oswald trying to shoot McDonald was invented after the fact.

Steve Thomas

I reckon you may have the 'nub' of it there Steve.

why invent it?? (when was it invented?) The evidence for Lee as assassin was supposed to be good? Why feel there is a need to elaborate with something so convincingly disassembled?

Perhaps because the rest of the evidence, if put under rigorous scrutiny, would be shown to be shaky as well? (The directive after all was to convince the public that Lee is guilty and acted alone.)

(Another reason that comes to mind is to justify the obvious beating Lee had suffered. It seems that this is a reason often used by the police around the world to justify brutality. As pointed out previously, here was a suspect in a cop killing. Possibly the only thing regarded by the average Patroleman as more pressing on the day than the assassination of Kennedy.)

(Also to consider may be that even with 'known' serial killers, they are on occasion only charged with one murder at a time, keeping less 'important' things in reserve. After all the idea (as far as I know) is if someone is found not guilty for whatever reason on one charge then they can't be charged with it again?)

On the whole it seems that perhaps the DPD had real doubt that Lee 'did it'."

______________________

Steve, I wonder if you (or anyone can rattle off an account re the time line of Police arrivals and surrounding waiting entering etc with a view to among other things answer the question of 'when did the lights come on'?. Before or after police entering the theatre. I find the loss by McDonald of his flashlight interesting. It may mean he had it out because it was dark at first. For me it's an issue in considering Lee's choice of the theatre and staying to get arrested. If he was going to fight why not try running? If not running why fight?

--------------------------------

John:

After many days of scouting and walking the entire Oak Cliff area during the 1991 filming, Oliver Stone inquired as to "my take" on the whole matter. I made it quite plain, simple, and to the point.

[1] LHO had arrived at his Neely Street "Safe House" by means other than a taxi cab, and in accordance with proper tradecraft, had insured that he hadn't dismounted from the vehicle anywhere near that locale.

[proper tradecraft involves NEVER permitting a transporter, courier, "dead-drop" vector, or support entity to discover the location of your safe house.];

[2] LHO had been instructed that: Should anything untoward occur that day, he was to proceed directly to said safe house, dispose of any "one-time" code pads, "sterilize" the area (bedroom, bathroom, etc.), don the "sterile" clothes required for travel. His orders were to then proceed to the "Treff" signal point -- which was the shoe store, and upon arrival, give the correct hand signal to a previously identified (covertly) employee inside;

[3] LHO then proceeded to walk directly south on Zangs Blvd., and upon arrival at Jefferson, turned and walked to the shoe store, where he gave the correct "high sign" to whomever was inside [it is quite possible that Brewer was not that contact person, and there was NEVER a necessity for travel to the 10th & Patton area];

[4] LHO then calmly walked to the pre-arranged "Treff" site (the Texas Theater), and not wanting to draw attention to himself, walked inside. He may well have awaited the "wickett" lady (or the manager) so that he might pay admission, but grew impatient, and went immediately to the agreed upon seat location;

[5] LHO understood that tradecraft required his "Treff" contact to approach him from the rear, and would take a seat behind him (so that neither of the two would ever recognize the other)!! LHO expected that he would be handed "The Package". Said Package would contain further instructions as to: His required tasks necessary to the execution of his pre-planned "Immediate-Action-Drill", or an "E & E" plan;

["The Package" would be a coded (or a note in secret writing), a set of travel documents, funds, amd the necessary alias identification];

[6] LHO may have thought that the person walking around with the flashlight was an usher, and probably gave him no further attention. (the flashlight user, possibly a "Stalker" or a "Closer", and armed with a variety of lethal devices, including, but not limited to: "Prussic Acid" dispenser, silenced pistol, large insulin syrette, etc.)

[7] LHO was approached by what appeared to be numerous police officers. One (under orders) may have attempted to murder him with a cheap "throw-down" revolver (of the untraceable type)!! LHO did thereupon grab the weapon, disarmed the cop, further resisted, and thereby saved his life temporarily. (LHO no doubt, also saved the real/phony cop's life, as he would have been shortly "neutered"); and,

[8] LHO, as per tradecraft, carried no identification whatsoever, and this aroused the arresting/escorting officers' suspicions that much more, unless previously ordered to remain mute with regard to LHO !!

One bit of testimony (deposition/affidavit??) had described McDonald's actions, or those of some other cop? It stated in relevant part that: What prevented LHO's revolver from firing was -- the cop having inserted the web (between thumb & index finger) of his "right hand" twixt the hammer and frame of the revolver !! However, upon examination, there was NO firing pin marking on any cop's hand, so the story was conveniently "forgotten".

I doubt that LHO ever met with Jack Ruby, much less even knew of his existence. The continual insertion of dubious "cover story" increments from the Warren Commission, HSCA, etc. only tends to nullify attempts at developing an accurate disposition of these events. This is exactly the case where, step-by-step anaysis in a rational chronological order, is of the utmost necessity.

Chairs,

GPH

___________________________________

[Robert Howard]

Ray,

In case anyone missed it, Attached below is Steve Thomas's piece on this subject which first appeared on Lancer. I would like to thank Mr. Thomas for his many excwellent posts on this and other forums, and especially for setting the record straight on the snap that never was.

Thank you.

Steve

I agree with Raymond, so I'll tack on the response I made in the other thread.

It raises some questions for me.

"QUOTE(Steve Thomas @ Dec 26 2005, 04:20 PM)

......If Oswald had attempted to shoot Officer McDonald, why were no charges of attempted murder filed as they were in the case of Governor Connally?

I believe that the account of Oswald trying to shoot McDonald was invented after the fact.

Steve Thomas

I reckon you may have the 'nub' of it there Steve.

why invent it?? (when was it invented?) The evidence for Lee as assassin was supposed to be good? Why feel there is a need to elaborate with something so convincingly disassembled?

Perhaps because the rest of the evidence, if put under rigorous scrutiny, would be shown to be shaky as well? (The directive after all was to convince the public that Lee is guilty and acted alone.)

(Another reason that comes to mind is to justify the obvious beating Lee had suffered. It seems that this is a reason often used by the police around the world to justify brutality. As pointed out previously, here was a suspect in a cop killing. Possibly the only thing regarded by the average Patroleman as more pressing on the day than the assassination of Kennedy.)

(Also to consider may be that even with 'known' serial killers, they are on occasion only charged with one murder at a time, keeping less 'important' things in reserve. After all the idea (as far as I know) is if someone is found not guilty for whatever reason on one charge then they can't be charged with it again?)

On the whole it seems that perhaps the DPD had real doubt that Lee 'did it'."

______________________

Steve, I wonder if you (or anyone can rattle off an account re the time line of Police arrivals and surrounding waiting entering etc with a view to among other things answer the question of 'when did the lights come on'?. Before or after police entering the theatre. I find the loss by McDonald of his flashlight interesting. It may mean he had it out because it was dark at first. For me it's an issue in considering Lee's choice of the theatre and staying to get arrested. If he was going to fight why not try running? If not running why fight?

--------------------------------

John:

After many days of scouting and walking the entire Oak Cliff area during the 1991 filming, Oliver Stone inquired as to "my take" on the whole matter. I made it quite plain, simple, and to the point.

[1] LHO had arrived at his Neely Street "Safe House" by means other than a taxi cab, and in accordance with proper tradecraft, had insured that he hadn't dismounted from the vehicle anywhere near that locale.

[proper tradecraft involves NEVER permitting a transporter, courier, "dead-drop" vector, or support entity to discover the location of your safe house.];

[2] LHO had been instructed that: Should anything untoward occur that day, he was to proceed directly to said safe house, dispose of any "one-time" code pads, "sterilize" the area (bedroom, bathroom, etc.), don the "sterile" clothes required for travel. His orders were to then proceed to the "Treff" signal point -- which was the shoe store, and upon arrival, give the correct hand signal to a previously identified (covertly) employee inside;

[3] LHO then proceeded to walk directly south on Zangs Blvd., and upon arrival at Jefferson, turned and walked to the shoe store, where he gave the correct "high sign" to whomever was inside [it is quite possible that Brewer was not that contact person, and there was NEVER a necessity for travel to the 10th & Patton area];

[4] LHO then calmly walked to the pre-arranged "Treff" site (the Texas Theater), and not wanting to draw attention to himself, walked inside. He may well have awaited the "wickett" lady (or the manager) so that he might pay admission, but grew impatient, and went immediately to the agreed upon seat location;

[5] LHO understood that tradecraft required his "Treff" contact to approach him from the rear, and would take a seat behind him (so that neither of the two would ever recognize the other)!! LHO expected that he would be handed "The Package". Said Package would contain further instructions as to: His required tasks necessary to the execution of his pre-planned "Immediate-Action-Drill", or an "E & E" plan;

["The Package" would be a coded (or a note in secret writing), a set of travel documents, funds, amd the necessary alias identification];

[6] LHO may have thought that the person walking around with the flashlight was an usher, and probably gave him no further attention. (the flashlight user, possibly a "Stalker" or a "Closer", and armed with a variety of lethal devices, including, but not limited to: "Prussic Acid" dispenser, silenced pistol, large insulin syrette, etc.)

[7] LHO was approached by what appeared to be numerous police officers. One (under orders) may have attempted to murder him with a cheap "throw-down" revolver (of the untraceable type)!! LHO did thereupon grab the weapon, disarmed the cop, further resisted, and thereby saved his life temporarily. (LHO no doubt, also saved the real/phony cop's life, as he would have been shortly "neutered"); and,

[8] LHO, as per tradecraft, carried no identification whatsoever, and this aroused the arresting/escorting officers' suspicions that much more, unless previously ordered to remain mute with regard to LHO !!

One bit of testimony (deposition/affidavit??) had described McDonald's actions, or those of some other cop? It stated in relevant part that: What prevented LHO's revolver from firing was -- the cop having inserted the web (between thumb & index finger) of his "right hand" twixt the hammer and frame of the revolver !! However, upon examination, there was NO firing pin marking on any cop's hand, so the story was conveniently "forgotten".

I doubt that LHO ever met with Jack Ruby, much less even knew of his existence. The continual insertion of dubious "cover story" increments from the Warren Commission, HSCA, etc. only tends to nullify attempts at developing an accurate disposition of these events. This is exactly the case where, step-by-step anaysis in a rational chronological order, is of the utmost necessity.

Chairs,

GPH

___________________________________

Gerry,

There is an allegation, and I will leave it at that that 'a couple of months before the assassination the FBI (don't have a name) went to the TSBD and asked them to hire Lee Harvey Oswald for 'national security purposes.' Can you confirm or deny the accuracy of this allegation?

Edited December 27, 2005 by Robert Howard