Bill Brown

On 4/4/2024 at 3:32 PM, Gerry Down said:

The radio timestamp is hard to argue with. 

I think that's a perfect statement to wrap up this thread.

3 hours ago, Johnny Cairns said:

If everyone else is well dressed but you are in a t-shirt and you’re name and place of work, which you had to tell to the ‘witnesses’ viewing the line-up, was highly disseminated to the public, when everyone else was giving false names and places of work, would you think the line-ups were fair??
 

Again, what about the Calloway quote? Any comments on that?
 

As Dr Buckout stated: the line-ups were utterly worthless. 
 

 

 

Nonsense.

There is nothing which proves that Oswald gave his name and place of employment during the lineups.

18 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Curtis Craford is my main suspect, yes. Ticks most of the major boxes. The sticking point is of course the match of the shell hulls to the revolver, and the mix of two brands of bullets used by the Tippit killer and the mix of the same two brands of bullets reported in Oswald's revolver. 

I don't consider the witnesses a particularly decisive sticking point in themselves, since all are weak with the possible exception of Scoggins. There are quite a number of them, true, but a multiple of weak witnesses does not add up to a strong witness. And the arguably single strongest Tippit gunman witness, Benavides, gave several specifics which disagree with Oswald and weigh in favor of exoneration. Benavides in weight is equal to about the combined weight of all the other witnesses put together. Maybe that's a slight overstatement, but I don't think by much. 

And Scoggins has recently been shown, I believe, to be a compromised witness because of the recent report of his grandson's credible story of his grandfather (Scoggins) having been asked by a Ruby associate that day to have his cab parked there at a certain time, which is why Scoggins was eating lunch in his cab that day when the killing of Tippit happened. That does not mean Scoggins had anything to do with, or foreknowledge, of the killing, only that somebody mob-related wanted an escape vehicle on standby.

Then it goes back to the shell hulls and the bullets, which can only be explained, if Oswald was innocent of Tippit, as involving substitutions in both cases. The argument for substitutions suffers from no direct positive evidence (i.e. confession) of substitutions, but on the other hand an argument can be made that there was overwhelming motive (LBJ himself: "you have your man"), and a possible argument for plausibility involving something internal to the Dallas office of the FBI. I used to suspect possibly Dallas Police malfeaseance in physical evidence manipulation but have more recently come to consider that maybe there was not significant overt physical evidence cooking on the part of DPD, that the focus of scrutiny might better be focused on the Dallas FBI office, and not everyone in it, but maybe two or even only one in that office and a witting supervisor, something like that. We know Hoover was thick with LBJ and we know the FBI was capable of lying (e.g. the coverup and destruction of the Oswald note to Hosty). And persuasive to me have been some of the points made in Pat Speer's deep-dives of evidence analyses; some of his hits land home on the Dallas office of the FBI. And if the FBI was cooking evidence in one instance, there could be more. By cooking evidence the hypothesis would be in the conduit of conveyance between Dallas and arrival in D.C. to the FBI lab. The FBI Lab in D.C. I assume for several reasons is clean, i.e. they accurately analyzed what they were given, but it is what they were given--sent from Dallas--which is the weak link. 

And the agent in the Dallas FBI office associated with handling and conveyance of physical evidence of most interest, Drain, ironically was known for publicly accusing the Dallas Police Crime Lab of fabricating physical evidence, so much so that the Warren Commission itself suspected the Dallas Police Department of fabricating physical evidence. How ironic would it be if the Dallas Police were actually clean of Drain's accusation, and Drain was accusing others of what he himself was doing.

On the mix of the bullet brands. The killer of Tippit used the two brands (R and W, Remington-Peters and Winchester-Western), verified by the bullets taken from Tippit's body in the autopsy. But only one brand, W's only, were found among 5 bullets taken from Oswald's pocket. Perhaps W's only is the true original state of the Oswald bullet evidence, pockets and revolver both. All that needs to be supposed is a substitution of 3 R's replacing 3 W's live bullets from the revolver. Since 1+1 (R and W) were given to the Secret Service on I think Sun afternoon, Nov 24, this would be the terminus ad quem, latest possible, for the substitutions of that to have happened, with the odd conveyance of those two bullets to the Secret Service (no good reason for that I have ever heard explained) being for the actual purpose (possibly) of establishing evidence of mixed-brands for Oswald that early. 

By late Friday night Nov 22 there was overwhelming motive to fix the case around Oswald's guilt, considered nothing less than a national security imperative, from the direct order of LBJ on down.

By Sun mid-day Nov 24 with Oswald dead and in no position to fight back (and no harm to a living defendant), all restraints could be off in the drive to wrap up Oswald good, by fair means or foul. Again, nothing less than perceived as a national security imperative. Also, it is a mistake to think that evidence cooking is done only by people who know someone is innocent. I believe the majority, not all but the majority, of evidence cooking that does happen in police and crime lab circles is done in cases of people the evidence-cookers believe are guilty, or bad people. Sometimes prosecutors just need that little extra boost of evidence to show in court to put somebody bad away, I believe is the operable logic. Just trying to be helpful in the public interest.

The FBI was tasked with total control of the investigation, was the investigating arm of the Warren Commission. The Dallas Police were ordered to turn everything over to the FBI. The FBI was centrally controlled, local offices essentially micromanaged from headquarters, Hoover and crew in hands-on management. 

On the shell hulls from 10th and Patton match to Oswald's revolver, the hypothesis would be substitutions and forged replication of officers' marks on those hulls prior to conveyance to the FBI lab in D.C. The FBI lab (verified later by the HSCA ballistics panel) would accurately find that the hulls were fired from Oswald's revolver because they were. They just weren't the same hulls found at the Tippit crime scene, would be the hypothesis.

And then I go to the paper-bag revolver found tossed in a downtown Dallas street in the early morning hours of Sat Nov 23 of the same caliber that killed Tippit, as my suspected actual murder weapon of Tippit, not Oswald's revolver, and I correlate the disappearance of that revolver (FBI Dallas office suspected involvement), Craford being in a car driving in that area of town in the same early morning hours of Sat Nov 23, and Craford's sudden hightailing out of Dallas a few hours later for Michigan.    

 

Thanks for the reply, Greg.

Here's the thing...

Brewer said that the man who he saw in front of his store was about 5'9", about 150 pounds (what was Crafard's height/weight?) and wearing a brown outer shirt and a T-shirt underneath.

Oswald's autopsy report stated he was 5'9", 150 pounds.  And we know he was wearing a brown shirt with a T-shirt underneath.

I'm saying that if the man seen by Brewer was Crafard, then it's one hell of a coincidence that the clothing this man was wearing happened to match the clothes Oswald was wearing.

5 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

That is a fair argument Bill. I respond:

You started by saying forget Oswald as killer of Tippit or JFK on your jacket question. Now here it comes back in to establish to you the correctness of Brewer’s identification of Oswald as the man in front of his shoe store. 

Just to take up one point. Given that deputy sheriff Bill Courson mistakenly thought a man inside the theater coming down from the balcony at about 1:40 was Oswald, who was not Oswald (Courson in Sneed on that), do you think it is unreasonable that another witness, Brewer, could mistakenly pick out Oswald as the man who passed Brewers store and went into the balcony of the theater at 1:35 (the same man Courson saw)?

If Roger Craig could be mistaken on his “Oswald” fleeing the TSBD in a station wagon, maybe Brewer could be mistaken in his “Oswald” in front of his store through the glass doors?

And no it wasn’t coincidence that if Brewer fingered by mistake the wrong one of two similar men in the theater that day, incorrectly Oswald on the main level instead of the correct man who went from the shoe store into the balcony at 1:35, that Brewers mistake fingered the suspected assassin of JFK.

You are arguing from the improbability of that coincidence. I will agree (I think with you on this) that it was indeed coincidence that there was a sufficiently roughly resembling man to Oswald in the theater, to have fooled Courson. 

But it would not be coincidence that the man at Brewers shoe store went into the balcony of that theater, because the reason would be to kill Oswald who was in that theater. And the reason to kill Oswald would be related to what happened at the TSBD with JFK and Oswald. 

If the man who went into the balcony at 1:35 (who was the man in front of Brewers store) is interpreted as a professional killer in a failed intended execution attempt of Oswald at the theater that succeeded two days later from Ruby on Sunday morning, some of what seems so incongruous could begin to make sense. 

Let me ask you... is it your belief that the man seen by Brewer in front of the shoe store was Larry Crafard?

1 hour ago, Neale Safaty said:

Greg/Tom,

I am a researcher, forum lurker and secretary of Dealey Plaza UK. I do not post opinions, comments or assassination theories on the basis that I do not wish to be dragged into discussions that can be aggressive, adversarial and at times personal. However, I do feel compelled to make a statement on this thread and it will be my only one.

Your responses to Bill Brown's childish posts are on the money. Nothing that he has said is additive to the discussion, it seems that he has a personal agenda against Johnny Cairns. I was at the Ruth Paine talk in Irving that evening and I would like to set the record straight as Bill Brown's claims are inaccurate:

1) Johnny requested that Ruth Paine sign his copy of the WC volume that she appeared in, as a matter of historical record and for posterity given that she is a very important figure in this case.

2) Johnny had no interest in Thomas Mallon or his book.

3) Johnny did not wait 45 minutes in the queue to speak to Ruth Paine.

Best,

Neale

 

 

Cairns certainly did stand in line for 45 minutes (my rough estimate, no exaggeration).  I talked to him for a minute or two while he was in this line.

I had no problem with Cairns standing in line to meet Ruth until I later learn he ran back home only to post an article bashing her.

It's hypocritical, no matter how you slice it.

It tells me that he doesn't really believe in the backbone of his Ruth-bashing article.

In the article, Cairns implies that Ruth Paine is "delusional" (his word).  Once, when a photo of Ruth, Michael and Priscilla Johnson McMillan was up on the screen, Cairns and his cohorts had a good laugh saying the three must have been at a CIA BBQ.

14 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

So James Files = Ruth Paine now? Brilliant logic Bill. 

I didn't say anything close to that.  Are you just trolling?  You must be.  I thought you were smarter.

My point, which should have been clear to those really interested in understanding, is that I hold James Files in the same low regard which Johnny Cairns apparently holds Ruth Paine.  Yet, I did not act like a complete hypocrite and run across the street to talk to Files, much less stand in line for 45 minutes to get his autograph and then run back home to write a shitty article about him.

20 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Davis said he thought it happened just before the movie started, that is just before the 1:20 main feature started. I have already quoted that twice and gave the exact second on the Sixth Floor video to find it. Did you not check that? Why are you asking then? 

Maybe your question should be why did Davis think ca 1:20 was when Oswald sat down near him. Why do you suppose Davis thought that? 

Of course it is possible witnesses can be mistaken.

Such as possibly Brewer’s identification of Oswald as the man in front of the glass doors of his store at 1:35? 

I believe the man Davis saw was indeed Oswald.  However, Davis' description of the scenario doesn't have Oswald in the theater for over 20 minutes.  In other words, I believe Davis is describing Oswald, just not as early as he is describing.  Hell, his memory was not clear on pretty much everything, quite frankly (and why would it be?).

As for the man seen by Brewer, of course any eyewitness can be wrong.  Only a fool would say otherwise.  But, all we have to go on in this "man in front of the shoe store ducking police cars" scenario are the words and descriptions of Johnny Brewer and he (Brewer) was very adamant that the man he saw ducking into the store front was the same man he saw taken out by police.

I guess you actually believe that Brewer saw one man out in front of his store and pointed out a completely different man inside the theater and this man inside the theater just happens to be the same guy seen by multiple eyewitnesses fleeing the Tippit scene and is the same guy who worked inside the Depository building and was no longer there.

You do agree, don't you, that Brewer, when he pointed out the guy inside the theater, had no idea that this guy was an employee of the Depository and would later be positively identified by multiple eyewitness as the man fleeing the Tippit scene with a gun in his hand.  Right?

If so, then it's just pretty damn bad luck for Oswald that Brewer picked him out over other men inside the theater at that moment (though admittedly there weren't many patrons).  It seems that you would have us believe that Brewer simply pointed out the man who most resembled the man he saw out in front of his store versus pointing out the man he claims he actually did see.

It's only your wishful thinking, in order to get Oswald off the hook for killing a cop.  You have no reason whatsoever to believe that the man seen by Brewer out in front of his shoe store was someone other than Oswald.  

5 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

You are better than this Bill. This is about the third or fourth time you have raised this entirely irrelevant point. I do not agree with everything Cairns says in his piece, I continue to think Ruth Paine has been mistreated by this community. But in fairness, Cairns standing in line for a signature or to meet for a moment his person of interest does not strike me as hypocritical or comical, and I do not know what you are on about on that. 

Better to stick to being responsive to the substance of what Cairns writes, not these ad hominem attempts and name-callings. 

"Better to stick to being responsive to the substance of what Cairns writes..."

By the way, it's coming soon.

15 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Greg is right. Paine is very old, a key witness and a historical figure in the JFK case. Cairns is from the UK and obviously interested in the assassination. It may be the only chance he ever gets to meet her. Hell I’m pretty critical of Paine on certain issues and would’ve done the same thing. 

This is one of the dumbest and most irrelevant things I’ve seen anyone write on this forum, which is saying a lot. 

This past November 22nd, for the 60th, I was in Dealey Plaza (with Ruth) and I saw James Files across the street (he was standing on the infield between Elm and Main).  I didn't make it a point to go talk to him.  If the guy is telling the truth, he's a murderer.  If he's not telling the truth, then he's simply a liar.  Either way, I don't hold him in high regard and had no desire to go meet him.  On top of that, there was no line at all; I could have walked right up to him.

Johnny Cairns is being hypocritical.

Just now, Greg Doudna said:

I would assume around the time of first police arrival, maybe around 1:40 or so, unless you know better. Why? 

I think it was even a little later than 1:40, but okay.

In the interview Jack Davis gave to Gary Mack, what gives you the impression that the scenario where the man tried to sit beside Davis (and eventually sat briefly a couple seats away) took place over 20 minutes before the lights came on?

22 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Bill, do you have a comment on whether Oswald removed his jacket before or after he entered the theater and sat down three seats away from Davis just before the movie came on (at 1:20 pm), as Davis thought the timing was? 

On Brewer 15 minutes later, do you think it is possible Brewer could have misidentified Oswald in the theater as the man he saw through the glass door out front of his store? 

Or do you exclude that as beyond the realm of reasonable possibility—that a witness intending to be truthful could possibly misidentify a person as Oswald who wasn’t? 

First, let me ask you a question.

What time do you think the house lights came on?

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

You are better than this Bill. This is about the third or fourth time you have raised this entirely irrelevant point. I do not agree with everything Cairns says in his piece, I continue to think Ruth Paine has been mistreated by this community. But in fairness, Cairns standing in line for a signature or to meet for a moment his person of interest does not strike me as hypocritical or comical, and I do not know what you are on about on that. 

Better to stick to being responsive to the substance of what Cairns writes, not these ad hominem attempts and name-callings. 

It shows the hypocrisy of Cairns.  The fact that he stood in a line for 45 minutes to meet Ruth Paine tells me that he doesn't really believe the nonsense he posts about her in his poor article and that he's simply seeking attention.

My opinion.

(And I didn't call anyone any name)

4 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Bill, 

As Stu says, Davis says at 8:00, "he set down by me--close to me", before he got up and moved to sit by someone else.

The "opening credits" is in either the Marrs or Burroughs interview of Davis. In this Sixth Museum video he says at 7:18 concerning the timing that he thought Oswald had sat near him when the movie was just about to come on: "the movie had already come on--had--just about to come on I think it was--and this person came in, and almost sat down behind me ... he was like going down in a sitting motion, changed his mind and moved two seats over ... to my right ... he set down by me--close to me"

"Davis says at 8:00, "he set down by me--close to me", before he got up and moved to sit by someone else."

Correct.

But, that isn't what you stated a few posts back.  You stated that Oswald sat next to Davis.  But Davis didn't say that; he says Oswald sat down a couple seats away from him.  Just watch the interview, for crying out loud.

"The "opening credits" is in either the Marrs or Burroughs interview of Davis. In this Sixth Museum video he says at 7:18 concerning the timing that he thought Oswald had sat near him when the movie was just about to come on: "the movie had already come on--had--just about to come on I think it was..."

Again, Davis says nothing AT ALL about Oswald sitting next to him during the film's opening credits.  I'm not sure how many times I'm going to have to repeat myself for you guys to get it.  When trying to determine a timeline for Oswald arriving inside the theater, this stuff matters.

6 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

You really don’t know, Bill? It’s in Marrs citing direct interview, Douglass citing another direct interview, and Davis himself videotaped in his oral history for the Sixth Floor Museum.  

I watched Jack Davis' Oral History interview with Gary Mack for the Sixth Floor Museum long ago.  He certainly didn't say that Oswald was sitting next to him during the opening credits.  In fact, he never said that Oswald sat next to him at all.  He said Oswald started to sit right next to him but then ended up sitting a couple seats away.  Also, Davis says nothing about Oswald sitting next to him during the "film's opening credits".  I'm not sure where you got that from.

As for Crossfire and Jim Marrs (I read the book over 30 years ago), when you consider the Sixth Floor Museum interview with Jack Davis where Davis never says Oswald sat right next to him, it becomes obvious that Marrs is misquoting Davis a bit (or Davis changed his story by the time he sat down with Gary Mack for the Museum interview).

The bottom line is, in the interview Davis gives with Gary Mack for the Museum, he does not say that Oswald sat next to him and he certainly doesn't say that Oswald was sitting beside him during the film's opening credits.  Maybe YOU should go watch the interview again.

6 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Battery powered ones.

I'd imagine battery powered wrist watches were rare though in 1963, though the first was introduced in 1957:

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/the-first-battery-powered-watch#:~:text=Operating with the help of,watches that also used batteries.

Battery powered wristwatches will consistently run slow when the battery is nearing the end of it's life.

Either way, I think it comes down to which you'd choose to rely on... A police radio which tracks time all day long as a course of daily business... versus... Bowley's wristwatch, along with his later recollection.

3 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

That's some nice logic.

Do we know for sure it was a wind-up watch? 

A wind up watch as opposed to...?

I don't think digital watches existed until the early 70's.

43 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Jack Davis inside the theatre said Oswald was inside the theater on the main seating level sitting next to him during the film’s opening credits which ended about 1:20, which is 15 minutes before Brewer. Oswald was already without his jacket at 1:20 in the theater. He must have taken it off either before or after he entered the theater. Most folks take their jackets off after entering a theater. Which do you think?

First, cite for Davis saying Oswald was ever sitting next to him.

Question:  "Did you see the person who fired the weapon?"

Jean Hill:  "No.  I didn't see any person fire the weapon."

Oswald left the rooming house zipping up a jacket as he went out the door.

Oswald is seen by Johnny Brewer standing in front of the shoe store on Jefferson with no jacket.

Forget for a moment the murder of Tippit.  Forget Tenth and Patton.  Forget anything found under a car behind the Texaco station.

Why did Oswald ditch his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?

In the article, Johnny Cairns states:

"Mrs. Paine & Mr. Mallon’s narrative is a rehash of the weary, well-worn trope that the Warren Commission clung to in their attempts to explain Oswald's hypothetical motives in the assassination of President Kennedy."

I find it comical that I personally saw Cairns stand in a line that was forty-five minutes long to get their autographs.

@Johnny Cairns

On 2/28/2024 at 4:26 PM, Bill Brown said:

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "cover" but I drove Ruth to the event.

In the article, Johnny Cairns states:

"Mrs. Paine & Mr. Mallon’s narrative is a rehash of the weary, well-worn trope that the Warren Commission clung to in their attempts to explain Oswald's hypothetical motives in the assassination of President Kennedy."

I find it comical that I personally saw Cairns stand in a line that was forty-five minutes long to get their autographs.

 

Isn't anyone bothered by the hypocrisy of Johnny Cairns which I point out above?

He's simply an attention-seeker; nothing more.

On 3/7/2024 at 8:22 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

The list of suspicious deaths looks pretty lengthy to me.  For example, within a year of the JFKA, Karyn Kupcinet was murdered, Eddy Benavides was shot in the head (he was the lookalike brother to closest Tippit shooting witness Domingo Benavides), a number of people died who seemed to know Oswald associated with Jack Ruby, including Bill Chesher and Hank Killam.  I’d certainly add to the list Guy Banister, Mary Pinchot, and, just slightly later, Rose Cheramie and Dorothy Kilgallen (as well as Kilgallen’s friend Mrs. Earl Smith, who died two days later).  There are others, but I doubt direct proof of an association to the assassination will ever be made.

OTOH, the number of deaths occurring around the time the HSCA was getting organized defies easy excuses.  Six top FBI officials died within a 6-month period right around the HSCA’s creation.  John Simkin wrote about these suspicious deaths in an EF post on April 18, 2005.  Here’s what he wrote: 

When the Select Committee on Intelligence Activities and Select Committee on Assassinations began investigating Kennedy's death in the 1970s the deaths of potential witnesses increased dramatically. This included several criminals with possible links to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Those who were killed or who died in suspicious circumstances during this period included Malcolm Wallace (1971), Lucien Sarti (1972), Charles Willoughby (1972), Thomas Davis (1973), Richard Cain (1973), Dave Yarras (1974), Sam Giancana (1975), Jimmy Hoffa (1975), Roland Masferrer (1975), Johnny Roselli (1976), George De Mohrenschildt (1977), Charlie Nicoletti (1977) and Carlos Prio (1977).

William Sullivan, the main figure in the FBI involved in the Executive Action project, and the person in the FBI who investigated Oswald, was shot dead near his home in Sugar Hill, New Hampshire, on 9th November, 1977. Sullivan had been scheduled to testify before the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

Sullivan was one of six top FBI officials who died in a six month period in 1977. Others who were due to appear before the committee who died included Louis Nicholas, special assistant to J. Edgar Hoover and his liaison with the Warren Commission; Alan H. Belmont, special assistant to Hoover; James Cadigan, document expert with access to documents that related to death of John F. Kennedy; J. M. English, former head of FBI Forensic Sciences Laboratory where Oswald's rifle and pistol were tested and Donald Kaylor, FBI fingerprint chemist who examined prints found at the assassination scene.

Several important figures in the Central Intelligence Agency died before they could give evidence to the House Select Committee on Assassinations investigations. William Harvey, head of the ZR/RIFLE project, died as a result of complications from heart surgery in June, 1976. William Pawley, who took part in Operation Tilt, died of gunshot wounds in January, 1977. David Morales, who some believe organized the assassination, died aged 53, on 8th May, 1978.

John Paisley was deputy director of the Office of Strategic Research. On 24th September, 1978, John Paisley, took a trip on his motorized sailboat on Chesapeake Bay. Two days later his boat was found moored in Solomons, Maryland. Paisley's body was found in Maryland's Patuxent River. The body was fixed to diving weights. He had been shot in the head. Police investigators described it as "an execution-type murder". However, officially Paisley's death was recorded as a suicide.

According to the journalist, Victor Marchetti, Paisley was a close friend of Yuri Nosenko. Marchetti also claimed that Paisley knew a great deal about the assassination of John F. Kennedy and was murdered during the House Select Committee on Assassinations investigation because he was "about to blow the whistle".

"Eddy Benavides was shot in the head (he was the lookalike brother to closest Tippit shooting witness Domingo Benavides)"

Great.  Finally.

Please post the photo you have seen of Eddie Benavides.

Thanks.

🙄

On 3/3/2024 at 8:28 PM, Jamey Flanagan said:

I've never actually heard anything about the bus as far as I can remember except that she was waiting on it and it usually arrived around 1:12.

That would be great if if the bus stop was where the killer headed and the bus was on time, but you are sadly correct about losing people to the sands of time. 

I'm actually surprised we don't hear more stories come out though from children of people who witnessed something that didn't fit with the official narrative from stories their parents told!

You're assuming Markham regularly caught the 1:12 bus.  She never said anything about catching any bus at 1:12.  A bus also stopped at that same bus stop at 1:22.

On 2/26/2024 at 6:43 PM, Tom Gram said:

I know you said Baker, but the theater situation has always been puzzling.  

Oswald was surrounded by cops. If he had just killed Tippit in a desperate attempt to escape being taken into custody, why wait until the house lights were turned on and McDonald was right on top of him to attempt to pull out his gun? Why throw a punch first and not just pistol-whip McDonald at least?

Why wasn’t Oswald immediately charged with attempted murder? What really happened in the scuffle? What was the real source of the alleged “misfire” incident? {insert Paul Bentley rant here}. 

Getting back on track to Bill’s jacket deal - it’s a valid point, but only if Brewer’s initial ID of Oswald is reliable. According to Postal’s affidavit, Brewer went in and looked for the suspect, twice - once alone and once with Burroughs - then checked and guarded the exits with Burroughs while she called the police. Brewer contradicted Postal in his testimony, and said he and Burroughs checked the exits first. Either way, where was Oswald this whole time?

Brewer pointed out the guy who stood up when the lights were turned on. How sure was he, really, that it was the same guy he saw outside his store? 

Regarding Brewer‘s description: what is Brewer’s earliest recorded description of the suspect? If I recall, the DPD didn’t get around to taking affidavits from Brewer and Postal until December. Why not? 

"Oswald was surrounded by cops. If he had just killed Tippit in a desperate attempt to escape being taken into custody, why wait until the house lights were turned on and McDonald was right on top of him to attempt to pull out his gun?"

I believe that Nick McDonald, hoping to avoid an in-theater shootout, wanted to give Oswald a false sense of security, i.e. "Maybe these cops don't know exactly who they're looking for and aren't specifically looking for me.  Therefore, I'll wait it out and perhaps walk out of here later."

McDonald tells how, as he was making his way up the aisle toward Oswald, he questioned a few others in the theater all while keeping his eye on Oswald.