Robert Newell

Bill.. Thank-you for posting the message from Dylan to the e.c.l.c. It was great...Robert

um.......never mind I just cant do it LOL I think we can all relax now- we finally have found the second head shot...

The Beatles second LP 'With the Beatles' WAS released on Nov. 22, 1963..mmmm. Maybe the walrus was Ozzie....

Hi all...Sorry for my mess up with my previous attempts at posting. This is a great thread. I would just like to throw a thought out for consideration. Sometimes questions, even somewhat silly ones, should be asked if for no other reason than to throw them in the out basket. This is not a theory of mine but a thought. a 'what if' question. What if Oswald's 'job' that day was to get himself arrested as a person of interest in the killing of the President? He would just be the best little leftist he could and send the investigating hounds and public opinion in that direction. As he sat in the theater waiting to be picked up things changed. The arresting officers were now a cop killer posse. Oswald's demeanor changed from a lousy 'b' actor, "It's all over now", to one of defending himself from being killed. He may have been reassued while in custody, until his own death while in the hands of the same group who arrested him. Oswald's actions after 12:30 are enough of an enigma anyway, that I thought I would throw this into the mix. I have other thoughts on this but then it would be to much like a theory and as I've said it is not---really! Robert

Ray, sure, I can add their testimonies to my post, but anyone can read them online so I don't think that is necessary. If you like I can send you links to them via PM. I find the mentioned testimonies reliable, because Brewer did observe a suspicous man (one he thought looked "funny") and whom he was able to identify in the theater. The fellow who entered the shoestore was suspicious enough that Brewer decided to see where he went from his shoe store. Brewer sees the man walk into the nearby movie theater, and quite apparently Ms. Postal didn't sell this man a ticket. Brewer stays until the cops arrive, and helps the cops identify the man he had observed earlier, this is the man he thought was "funny" and whom he had observed enter the theater. It turns out that the man, arrested at the theater will later be known as Lee Harvey Oswald, aka Alek Hidell. That is, according to Brewer, the person that was in his shoe store and as the person that entered the movie theater (without paying as per their testimony). Julia Postal's testimony basically confirms what Brewer disclosed with regards to observing a man on the street (Jefferson Blvd), a man whom she saw out of the corner of her eye, did not see walk past her, nor did she see the man turn back to walk in the direction that he came from, followed by Johnny Brewer. She concluded that the man must have entered the theater, after talking to Brewer. Basically from their testimonies, it sounds like they observed someone who was trying to avoid law enforcement, as this "suspicious" person seemed to enter two places of business on Jefferson mainly to hide as police cars where driving by. I'm sure if we nitpick testimonies, we will find something wrong with quite a few of them (if not all). However, to me these witness testimonies seemed quite believable as well as logical. As to whether Lee was anywhere near 10th and Patton on 11/22/63, I don't know, and do not see any strong evidence putting him at the scene. As a contrast, the witness testimony and evidence is rather weak&contradictory regarding Lee as a suspect in the Tippit murder case. Particularly the timing of events does not do too well to support his guilt imo. Of course there is some evidence supporting that Lee was at the Tippit scene. As I recall in addition to some 38 shells the suspect left behind a wallet. Also a jacket or sweater of some sort was located in a nearby parking lot. From what I recall it has been argued that this piece of garment belonged to Lee. I don't know if all this physical evidence actually holds up and can be tied to Lee. This is an area I'd like to investigate and discuss further. One item that bothers me in particular, is that one of the officers at the scene recalled that he had inscribed his initials onto the 38 shells found at the scene before they were turned in as evidence. Later examinations show that no initials can be seen on these shells (this is how I recall this). Of course in official hearings this officer said something like he "thought he had marked the shells".... rather annoying.

Ray, sure, I can add their testimonies to my post, but anyone can read them online so I don't think that is necessary. If you like I can send you links to them via PM. I find the mentioned testimonies reliable, because Brewer did observe a suspicous man (one he thought looked "funny") and whom he was able to identify in the theater. The fellow who entered the shoestore was suspicious enough that Brewer decided to see where he went from his shoe store. Brewer sees the man walk into the nearby movie theater, and quite apparently Ms. Postal didn't sell this man a ticket. Brewer stays until the cops arrive, and helps the cops identify the man he had observed earlier, this is the man he thought was "funny" and whom he had observed enter the theater. It turns out that the man, arrested at the theater will later be known as Lee Harvey Oswald, aka Alek Hidell. That is, according to Brewer, the person that was in his shoe store and as the person that entered the movie theater (without paying as per their testimony). Julia Postal's testimony basically confirms what Brewer disclosed with regards to observing a man on the street (Jefferson Blvd), a man whom she saw out of the corner of her eye, did not see walk past her, nor did she see the man turn back to walk in the direction that he came from, followed by Johnny Brewer. She concluded that the man must have entered the theater, after talking to Brewer. Basically from their testimonies, it sounds like they observed someone who was trying to avoid law enforcement, as this "suspicious" person seemed to enter two places of business on Jefferson mainly to hide as police cars where driving by. I'm sure if we nitpick testimonies, we will find something wrong with quite a few of them (if not all). However, to me these witness testimonies seemed quite believable as well as logical. As to whether Lee was anywhere near 10th and Patton on 11/22/63, I don't know, and do not see any strong evidence putting him at the scene. As a contrast, the witness testimony and evidence is rather weak&contradictory regarding Lee as a suspect in the Tippit murder case. Particularly the timing of events does not do too well to support his guilt imo. Of course there is some evidence supporting that Lee was at the Tippit scene. As I recall in addition to some 38 shells the suspect left behind a wallet. Also a jacket or sweater of some sort was located in a nearby parking lot. From what I recall it has been argued that this piece of garment belonged to Lee. I don't know if all this physical evidence actually holds up and can be tied to Lee. This is an area I'd like to investigate and discuss further. One item that bothers me in particular, is that one of the officers at the scene recalled that he had inscribed his initials onto the 38 shells found at the scene before they were turned in as evidence. Later examinations show that no initials can be seen on these shells (this is how I recall this). Of course in official hearings this officer said something like he "thought he had marked the shells".... rather annoying.

Hey guys...Let me tag along! I'm a major league lurker but promise to try and contribute, even if only questions.. Really appreciate your postings Steve.............Robert

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi all...First post, so I hope I'm doing this right! This topic concerning the wallets has interested me for a while now and it is great to have a forum to gain the information all of you are sharing. The thoughts about the wallets are about as direct evidence or manipulation of the evidence one can find. I must admit that I am intrigued with Fritz and the idea of the transfer of Hiddel ID to the Oswald arrest wallet. I thought that Robert's post hit upon a scenerio that has always made sense to me. Just to add a thought that I hope is not off topic, I think it helps explain that the conspiritors were not really concerned about the need of a shot from the front. As long as Oswald was framed he soldified the 'commies did it' idea. It may have even have been nice in their minds to have the American public think that another assassin was on the beach in Havana sipping palm wine."Let's go git em'" IMO the lone nut theroy was more of the coverup and not as much concern to the shooting aspect of the assassination. Thanks for the great posts and I hope I get the hang of this!.....Robert

I live in Cranston, Rhode Island, U.S.A. I spend my working hours as a food service manager in a nursing home. I have been very interested in the JFK assassination since the early 1970's. I devoured book after book in those pre internet days and became convinced that the evidence when seen as it really existed led to the fact that LHO did not fire a shot on Nov 22. In the seventies I drove from my central Massachusetts home to the A.I.B. in Cambridge and for twenty dollars purchased a super 8 millimetre copy of the Zapruder film, (10,000th generation-I think!!). After putting up a white bed sheet in my living room I put on demonstrations to all those who would listen and became somewhat of the local assassination guru. Throughout the years I've learned that not all of the 'facts' that helped turn me into a CT'er are any more legit than the lone nut line, but the journey of learning has been one that brings me through your learned group. I believe that the overwhelming evidence proves Oswald did not kill the President. I look forward to being an active member, as I've been a visitor for quite a few months now! I am also a member of JFK Lancer and am excited at the prospect of interacting with the members here and picking up more knowledge, which the folks here have in abundance.