Denis Pointing

"Busybody Brewer" didn't follow Oswald because he was "sweating a dollar ticket fee" that's nonsense, Brewer's testimony makes it perfectly clear as to why he became suspicious of Oswald and subsequently followed him: Mr. BELIN - Do you remember hearing anything else over the radio concerning anything that happened that afternoon? Mr. BREWER - Well, they kept reconstructing what had happened and what they had heard, and they talked about it in general. There wasn't too much to talk about. They didn't have all the facts, and just repeated them mostly. And they said a patrolman had been shot in Oak Cliff. Mr. BELIN - Is Oak Cliff the area in which your shoe store was located? Mr. BREWER - Yes, sir. Mr. BELIN - All right, would you describe what happened after you heard on the radio that an officer had been shot? Mr. BREWER - Well, there was heard a siren coming down East Jefferson headed toward West Jefferson. Mr. BELIN - What is the dividing street between East and West Jefferson? Mr. BREWER - Beckley. Mr. BELIN - How far is Beckley from your store? Mr. BREWER - Two blocks. Mr. BELIN - Two blocks to the east or to the west? Mr. BREWER - There is Zangs to the east. The first street is Zangs and the next street is Beckley. Mr. BELIN - The first street east is Zangs Boulevard and the next street is Beckley? Mr. BREWER - Yes, right. Mr. BELIN - Is your store located to the north or south side of Jefferson? Mr. BREWER - On the north. Mr. BELIN - All right. Mr. BREWER - I looked up and out towards the street and the police cars---- Mr. BELIN - When you looked up, did you step out of the store at all? Mr. BREWER - No; I was Still in the store behind the counter, and I looked up and saw the man enter the lobby. Mr. BELIN - When you say the lobby of your store, first let me ask you to describe how is----how wide is your store, approximately? Mr. BREWER - About 20 feet. Mr. BELIN - All right, is the entrance to your store right on the sidewalk? Mr. BREWER - The entrance to the store is about 15 feet from the sidewalk, front doors. Mr. BELIN - The front doors? Mr. BREWER - Yes; they are recessed, and then there is windows, show windows on each side. Mr. BELIN - This would be, if we were if we would take a look at the letter "U," or see the letter "V," your doorway would be at the bottom part of the letter and the show cases would be at the sides of the letter, is that correct? Mr. BREWER - Yes. Mr. BELIN - What you call this lobby, that is the area between the sidewalk and your front door, is that correct? Mr. BREWER - Yes, sir. Mr. BELIN - All right, you saw a man going into what you referred to as this lobby area? Mr. BREWER - Yes; and he stood there with his back to the street. Mr. BELIN - When did he go in now? What did you hear at the time that he stepped into this lobby area? Mr. BREWER - I heard the police cars coming up Jefferson, and he stepped in, and the police made a U-turn and went back down East Jefferson. Mr. BELIN - Where did he make the U-turn? Mr. BREWER - At Zangs. Mr. BELIN - Do you remember the sirens going away? Mr. BREWER - Yes; 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, Oswald looked over his shoulder and turned around and walked up West Jefferson towards the theatre. Mr. BELIN - Let me hold you a minute. You used the word Oswald. Did you know who the man was at the time you saw him? Mr. BREWER - No. Mr. BELIN - So at the time, you didn't know what his name was? Mr. BREWER - No. Mr. BELIN - Will you describe the man you saw? Mr. BREWER - He was a little man, about 5'9", and weighed about 150 pounds is all. Mr. BELIN - How tall are you, by the way? Mr. BREWER - Six three. Mr. BELIN - So you say he was about 5'9"? Mr. BREWER - About 5'9". Mr. BELIN - And about 150? Mr. BREWER - And had brown hair. He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out. Mr. BELIN - Any jacket? Mr. BREWER - 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. Mr. BELIN - Light complexioned or dark? Mr. BREWER - Light complexioned. Mr. BELIN - All right. After you saw him in the lobby of your store there, what you call a lobby area, which is really kind of an extension of the sidewalk, then you saw him leave? Mr. BREWER - Yes, he turned and walked up toward---- Mr. BELIN - Had the police sirens subsided at the time he turned, or not? Mr. BREWER - No; you could still hear sirens. Mr. BELIN - Did they sound like they were coming toward you or going away? Mr. BREWER - They were going away at that time. Mr. BELIN - Going the other way? Mr. BREWER - Yes. Mr. BELIN - How could you tell? Mr. BREWER - They were getting further in the distance. Mr. BELIN - Then what did you see this man do? Mr. BREWER - 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. Mr. BELIN - What theatre is that? Mr. BREWER - Texas Theatre. 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 seared, and he looked funny. Mr. BELIN - Did you notice any of his actions when he was standing in your lobby there? Mr. BREWER - No; he just stood there and stared. Mr. BELIN - He stared? Mr. BREWER - Yes. Mr. BELIN - Was he looking at the merchandise? Mr. BREWER - Not anything in particular. He was just standing there staring. Mr. BELIN - Well, would you state then what happened? You said that you saw him walk into the Texas Theatre? Mr. BREWER - He walked into the Texas Theatre and 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. She was listening to the radio herself. And I said that a man walked in there, and I was going to go inside and ask the usher if he had seen him. ................................................................................ .................................................... So there's really nothing at all surprising concerning Brewer's actions, any sensible, alert person would have acted the same way. As to why Oswald never attempted "getting the heck out of Dodge" Oswald may have been trying to do exactly that before he got "side tracked" into killing Tippit. I attempted to postulate Oswald's escape from Dallas in a earlier post, to which you made a rather sarcastic and nonsensical reply about Oswald stealing an elephant from the zoo and charging out of town! So maybe we can now hear your suggestion. And Ray, if your reading this, I gotta say the mental picture of an Oswald lookalike dodging in and out of every shop doorway on the block, deliberately trying to attract attention made me physically laugh (and that ain't easy). How do you think this stuff up?

You finally got one right, Mr. Pointing, and the Duke also knows that, if you cast a cold eye at this "so-called evidence" it is not so persuasive. You can't even prove that he entered the cinema without a ticket, so what else ya got -- Jaywalking? A totally irrelevant response, lets turn it around. YOU can't even prove that he entered the cinema WITH a ticket, whilst I have a witness (Brewer) that says Oswald never purchased one, a second witness ( Postal) who says she never sold him one and a third (Burroughs) who never tore Oswald's ticket in halve, you have nothing but an obstinate belive in Oswald's total innocents. Why is that Mr Carroll, is it because Oswald said he "was a patsy"? That makes it so does it? To coin your phrase, "what else ya got"

Purported actions. Let's review some of the "many, many other actions" outside the theater that suggest he was guilty: Being in the second floor lunch room Buying a coke Leaving work Getting on a bus Getting off a bus Getting a transfer Taking a cab ride Walking south instead of north Going into his room Putting on a jacket Lying(?) about changing his clothes Standing by a bus stop Not using his transfer Going to a movie house Sneaking into the theater Am I missing anything? You're going to be hard-pressed to have me add "killing a cop" to that list because Oswald plainly wasn't Olympics material. As for getting a gun out of his room, I'd be more inclined to go along with that if Earlene Roberts had seen such a thing (with her good eye, mind you!), but that is merely implied under presumption of his guilt in shotting Tippit. But meanwhile, we're stuck on defining those "many, many other actions" that seem to make him guilty. (Did he even do "many, many" things that day, much less "many, many" apparently incriminating things?) There's more, of course, but these are chief among those things that supposedly make Oswald "suspect." I'm merely trying to ascertain what those "many, many other things" are that did so, and since you brought them up, what are they?

I actually agree with most of your reasoning Duke. Or to put it another way, I dont disagree with most of it. I am certainly not of the "lone nutter" species. As perhaps you belive. But I am also not one of the "Oswald was just a patsy" species either. Of course Oswald wasn't acting alone, of course there was a conspiracy. But rightly or wrongly I belive Oswald was a very guilty part of that conspiracy. Whether or not Oswald pulled the weapon or, as your post would seem to imply, he was handed the weapon by an accomplice doesn't change the fact that Oswald seemed more than prepared to use it. The thread seemed to be going in the direction that Oswald was just a totally innocent guy, who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Where as I belive Oswald's actions in the theater that day, along with many, many other actions, show that not to be the case. To move on slightly, I have often wondered if Oswald may have been trying to get away, I wont use the term escape, via Redbird airport. I belive you told me once that the airport is a just a few miles from 10th and Patton. Any thoughts?

This would seem to be a totally unrelated case. I can see no mention of Tippit. Or even that this shooting (no indication here if the officer died or survied) was even on the same day. Only that the guy from Fort Worth was arrested on the same day. ................................................................................ ........................... Soon after President Kennedy was assassinated today in Dallas, a white man in his mid 20s was arrested in the Riverside section of Fort Worth in the shooting of a Dallas policeman. The man, wno has black curly hair and who wore a red shirt, denied that he was connected with the assassination of the President. His hands were handcuffed and he was taken to the Fort Worth City jail.

The witnesses weren't just patrons Duke, there was also some reporters, Hugh Aynesworth & Jim Ewell/Dallas Morning News, Vic Robertson/WFAA radio, Ron Reiland/WFAA-TV. Aynesworth and Ewell wrote their accounts in early 1964. Vic Robertson spoke about the arrest in an interview in 1964 . Please dont patronise me Duke, of course I'm aware of the "mere possibility that the others' statements were not wanted for one reason or another?" Its also quite possible that the other patrons names and statements weren't taken simply because they didn't see anything of real significance. Or perhaps (if its not too heretical to belive) the police were actually telling the truth and the list was genuinely lost or destroyed? Why would that be at all surprising? Just a few hours later Oswald would be charged with the murder of a policeman and a president. A short time later still Oswald himself was murdered. Surely AT THE TIME, the list would have seemed very unimportant. Human error Duke, or proof that Oswald was just a poor sap simply trying to watch a film? I concede the DPD was inept, some/many even corrupt. But I dont agree that they lied about Oswald pulling that gun. IN FRONT OF SO MANY WITNESES. Perhaps its time to agree to disagree on this one. Denis.

As in certain shadow conditions plus bad camera and angle obscuring the holes detail? Sure sounds reasonable to me Kathy...what do you think Chris?

Yes Chris, as you can see I altered my post when I realized that. O.K. the indentations, "fake holes" if you like, are on both sides of the left/right sections. IF I'm right and they are indentations perhaps from a certain angle and/or a bad camera the detail doesn't always show up. Do you think this is possible? Anyway, there's no need to guess, someone here must be familiar with that wall. I'm sure they will post soon. Denis.

Chris, may well be wrong here but it looks to me that only the middle section of wall has "holes" whilst the left and right sections have decorative indentations giving the appearance of holes from a distance or a certain angle. As I say, I could well be wrong, this should be easy enough to check out though. But Chris, the obvious question must be, why would anyone want to alter THAT? Denis.

I posted this some time ago under a thread enetitled, "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 after action reports 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 Officer 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 McDonald 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 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 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". 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 Yes, I see your point Steve, what Officer McDonald should have done after being punched in the face and seeing Oswald going for his gun was to....give the guy the benefit of the doubt and at least wait and see if Oswald actually intended to shoot him. That cowardly Dallas policeman certainly overreacted that day, didn't he. I apologize for the sarcastic tone Steve but I think it's the easiest way to make the point that if a guy punches you in the face and then pulls a gun, run like hell pal, because his gonna shoot yer.

Maybe we can address one point at a time Ray, I'm still waiting for a response to my argument that it would seem extremely unlikely the arresting officers would lie about Oswald PULLING a gun in front of so many independent eyewitness i.e. Gibson. Brewer and Applin to name just a few. Or like so many other members here are you in the habit of just ignoring the "bits you dont like"? It seems you're of the opinion that every person in the theater that day was either a xxxx, unreliable or corrupt. Every person excepting Oswald that is, who was just a totally innocent patron who liked to watch movies with a revolver tucked in his pants. Perhaps he was scared of getting mugged by the ice cream girl.

Four of the arresting officers McDonald, Hutson, Walker and Bentley signed the arrest report, that report was of course written on the actual day of arrest, NOT after the weekend when Oswald was no longer around to contradict the report. They all state that Oswald pulled a gun. Three independent witnesses Gibson, Brewer and Applin all corroborate that Oswald pulled a gun. Its those independent witnesses, more so than the police officers, that convince me Oswald did exactly that and probably attempted to fire the weapon as well. http://www.jfk-online.com/mcdonald.html http://www.autographsmovieposters.com/Oswald_arrest.htm

On this we agree. In the report you attach it is ALLEGED that "the suspect pulled the trigger once and the gun snapped." The arresting officers here claim that the gun misfired, But I am sure you are aware that this claim is FLATLY CONTRADICTED by FBI firearms experts who say an examination of the weapon and the unfired cartridges shows NO SIGN WHATSOEVER that the gun misfired. In other words, the FBI experts are saying that the arresting cops are falsely claiming the mantle of heroes. Is it your argument that the arresting officers are more believable than the FBI firearms experts? O.K. Ray, I have no problem accepting that the officers exaggerated/lied about Oswald actually firing the gun. I do however have trouble accepting they lied about Oswald PULLING the gun, at least with so many witness present. And if I may repeat myself this is NOT the action of an innocent man, especially if Oswald acted before the officers actually approached him.

Could you please point us to the "convincing evidence" that he tried to shoot the arresting officers. Below is a link to Oswald's arrest report. I can also supply a link to the sworn testimony of the arresting officers if you want it. But what would be the point Ray? You know whats written in those documents better than I do. Are you trying to make the point that the sworn testimony of police officers isn't necessarily "convincing evidence". If you are then that of course is valid. But dont forget that there was also members of the public in the theater at the time, all of which would/could have been called to testify had the case gone to court. So unless you're of the opinion that the arresting officers already knew the case would never make court when they made their reports etc, then its difficult to imagine the police actually lied about Oswald pulling a gun on them. http://www.autographsmovieposters.com/Oswald_arrest.htm

The most convincing piece of evidence IMO, be it technically circumstantional, is that Oswald was not only carrying a gun but tried to use it to shoot the arresting officers . Certainly not the actions of an innocent man.

He seemed suspicious because it was ALLEGED that he was a sneak-thief. I find it odd that, although his life and character have been examined in greater depth and detail than any other ordinary person in history, I cannot recall a single other instance -- from his childhood onwards -- where anyone ever called him a sneak-thief, or any other type of thief. What does not add up in the official story is this: If he really HAD shot Officer Tippit, and if he really DID hope to escape- by-not getting-out-of-the-area, there was no earthly benefit to be had in drawing attention to himself by attempting to sneak in without buying a ticket. He had twelve bucks and change in his pocket, as I recall. If he had a history of thieving behaviour I might be inclined to give more credence to the official story. Yes, but IF Oswald did shoot Tippit he would surly of been in a state of panic. As I understand it Oswald ALLEGEDLY "ducked" into the theater to avoid the police cars rushing, with sirens blaring, to the murder scene. With the pay booth being in full view of the street this doesn't sound too unbelievable. IMO.

QUOTE: It seems that the ever so thorough Dallas cops would have found a movie ticket on Oswald since they found the transfer ticket as well. I mean he had some money on him, had he planned on going to the movies, I would imagine he would have paid for the ticket. ................................................................................ ................................................... I always believed one of the reasons why Oswald seemed so suspicious was because he sneaked in without paying?

Tom, Just to clarify, you're suggesting Oswald was probably sent the 91/38 and not the 91/24 as documented. And the 91/38 carbine was the rifle found in the TSBD, right? So this being the case we are pretty much back to square one are we not? The murder weapon, the 91/38 found in the TSBD can, with at least a degree of probability, be traced directly to Oswald via Kleins. Is this what your saying?

If you need any help with that one Dave send me a PM. These modern contraptions are a bit tricky for old folk, aren't they? LOL

Kathy, I'm not sure if anyone has claimed UM was there to distract attention. The most prominent theory is that by opening and closing his umbrella UM was actually giving a signal to the shooters. Some "researchers " also claim the umbrella itself was a weapon. The "ammo" being a flechette. I belive Penn started that one. The point you make about UM sitting down in such a prominent place, rather than getting "the hell out of there" is, of course, an excellent reason for UM NOT being part of the hit team. Also Kathy, no one knows if the guy sitting next to UM was from Cuba or not, why do you assume that? Denis.

The very idea that Gordon Novel is UM completely breaks down all boundaries of common sense. If UM was an integral part of the hit team (and that's a big if) then one thing for certain is that afterwards he would have kept a very low profile. What he 100% would NOT do is get himself introduced to Jim Garrison and then start boasting how he and David Ferrie carried out a burglary together on behalf of the CIA! And that's exactly what Gordon Novel did. C'mon, think about it. Read the link to the article below. http://www.jfk-online.com/novelpost.html

Mr. Graves, it's a little sad trawling the ED forum looking for spelling mistakes and grammatical errors. Ever thought of taking up a hobby or an interest? Have you considered researching the JFK assassination for instance? P.S. Thanks for reading my posts (sometimes). I really must try to reciprocate.