Lee Oswald’s Departure from the TSBD

[J. Raymond Carroll]

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.

If this is the sum and substance of Postal's testimony, then she is not much help to the theory that it was Lee Oswald, as opposed to some unknown person, who sneaked in to 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

So the entire theory depends on an eyewitness ID by ONE SOLITARY PERSON, Johnny Brewer. If you are not convinced by the half- dozen or so people who supposedly ID'd Lee Oswald as the Tippit shooter, why would you be so convinced by an ID from one solitary individual?

[Duke Lane]

When was the city bus transfer holder invented? Back in the 60's the bus transfers were held in a stack of 50 or so in a tear-off box next to the driver… no need to ask the driver for a transfer.

That may have been true in some cities, but not where I grew up nor, apparently, in Dallas, based on Cecil McWatters' testimony that he gave a transfer to a man and a woman, that they'd requested one from him rather than have taken it on their own. Allowing passengers to take them on their own would seem not to be a wise thing to do: what would prevent a high-school kid, say, from grabbing two or three or more of them so at the next stop, he and his friends could ride another bus after paying only one fare?

[Denis Pointing]

So the entire theory depends on an eyewitness ID by ONE SOLITARY PERSON, Johnny Brewer. If you are not convinced by the half- dozen or so people who supposedly ID'd Lee Oswald as the Tippit shooter, why would you be so convinced by an ID from one solitary individual?

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.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The most convincing piece of evidence IMO.....is that Oswald ... tried to ... shoot the arresting officers . Certainly not the actions of an innocent man.

Could you please point us to the "convincing evidence" that he tried to shoot the arresting officers.

[Denis Pointing]

The most convincing piece of evidence IMO.....is that Oswald ... tried to ... shoot the arresting officers . Certainly not the actions of an innocent man.

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

Edited October 8, 2008 by Denis Pointing

[J. Raymond Carroll]

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.

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?

[Denis Pointing]

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.

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.

[Robert Newell]

J. Raymond Carroll Posted Today, 03:01 PM

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Oct 8 2008, 08:35 AM)

Thus in my opinion, Brewer&Postal were fairly accurate in their testimonies and did in fact observe Lee.

OK Antti, how about a little elaboration? Duke has made most of the running on this thread, but whenever Duke offers an argument he supports it by posting actual testimony, etc., thus he allows us to evaluate the argument and the discussion is advanced. I would like to see you post the relevant parts of the testimonies you are relying on, and your analysis. For example, what did Postal say that convinces you that she saw Lee Oswald entering the cinema a half hour after the show began?

Bear in mind that Lee Oswald said (so far as we can determine) that he left his room and went directly to the cinema. If we assume he left his room at about 1.03 - 1.04 he would have made it to the cinema on foot by 1.24, (or earlier if he caught a southbound bus on Beckley). Bear in mind also that NO ONE has so far come up with ANY PLAUSIBLE explanation for why he would instead have headed to the vicinity of 10th & Patton.

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.

Edited October 8, 2008 by Robert Newell

[Robert Newell]

J. Raymond Carroll Posted Today, 03:01 PM

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Oct 8 2008, 08:35 AM)

Thus in my opinion, Brewer&Postal were fairly accurate in their testimonies and did in fact observe Lee.

OK Antti, how about a little elaboration? Duke has made most of the running on this thread, but whenever Duke offers an argument he supports it by posting actual testimony, etc., thus he allows us to evaluate the argument and the discussion is advanced. I would like to see you post the relevant parts of the testimonies you are relying on, and your analysis. For example, what did Postal say that convinces you that she saw Lee Oswald entering the cinema a half hour after the show began?

Bear in mind that Lee Oswald said (so far as we can determine) that he left his room and went directly to the cinema. If we assume he left his room at about 1.03 - 1.04 he would have made it to the cinema on foot by 1.24, (or earlier if he caught a southbound bus on Beckley). Bear in mind also that NO ONE has so far come up with ANY PLAUSIBLE explanation for why he would instead have headed to the vicinity of 10th & Patton.

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.

[Duke Lane]

... 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.

"If" being the operative word in the last sentence ... and it is an "if" not supported by testimony, much less common sense (after all, if you saw a cop approaching with a drawn gun - or even with his hand on the butt of it, ready to draw - would you pull yours?).

Nick McDonald testified:

And just as I got to the row where the suspect was sitting, I stopped abruptly, and turned in and told him to get on his feet.

He rose immediately, bringing up both hands

. He got this hand about shoulder high, his left hand shoulder high, and he got his right hand about breast high. He said, "Well, it is all over now." As he said this,

I put my left hand on his waist and

then

his hand went to the waist

. And this hand struck me between the eyes on the bridge of the nose. (

3H300

)

Of course, it's true that, having just been punched in the nose in front of Oswald, he naturally could not see Oswald's back and therefore couldn't see Oswald draw a pistol. Thereafter, McDonald didn't see much of anything:

Mr. McDonald

. Well, whenever he knocked my hat off, any normal reaction was for me to go at him with (my right) hand ... and I believe I struck him on the face, but I don't know where. And with my (left) hand, that was on his hand over the pistol ... Well, whenever I hit him, we both fell into the seats. While we were struggling around there, with this hand on the gun ... somehow I managed to get this (left) hand in the action [of the gun; i.e., the hammer] also.

Mr. Ball

. Had you felt any movement of the hammer?

Mr. McDonald

. Yes, sir. When this hand – we went down into the seats.

Mr. Ball

.

When your left hand went into the seats

, what happened?

Mr. McDonald

. It felt like something had grazed across my hand. I felt movement there. And that was the only movement I felt. And I heard a snap. I didn't know what it was at the time. ... When I jerked [the gun] free,

I was down in the seats with him, with my head, some reason or other, I don't know why, and when I brought the pistol out, it grazed me across the cheek

here, and I put it all the way out to the aisle, holding it by the butt. I gave the pistol to Detective Bob Carroll at that point.

Mr. Ball

. Grazed your left cheek?

Mr. McDonald

. Yes, sir. (

3H300

-301)

Let's see if we can draw a picture of this the way McDonald told it.

He approached Oswald, who raised both of his hands, empty. As McDonald reached for his waist, Oswald punched him on the nose, whereupon McDonald hit Oswald back using his right hand, and the two of them fell into the seats. McDonald's left hand somehow ended up on the pistol when his left hand went into the seats, as did his head, further obscuring his vision.

That his head was in the seats is indicated by his statement that he "was down in the seats with him, with my head, some reason or other, I don't know why," which thought was left dangling somewhat until he said that when he pulled his left hand out from "the seats," he scratched his face.

Then, before doing anything else, he stuck the gun out "all the way out to the aisle," whereupon it was taken from him before he could have gotten up. While he says that he "gave the pistol to Detective Bob Carroll at that point," he knew this from later conversation and not from observation.

By his own testimony, he did not actually see the gun until much later: it was behind Oswald, then "down in the seats," then wrenched free while struggling with Oswald, then held "all the way out to the aisle" away from him, where it was then taken from him. Bob Carroll for his part testified that he immediately put the gun in the small of his back before joining in the effort to subdue Oswald.

How, then, did or could McDonald have first-hand knowledge of the whereabouts and description of the gun in order to be able to identify it positively as the gun he took from Oswald? Did he identify it by feel? He didn't see Carroll take it from him, or know what Carroll did with it afterward; McDonald remained in the theater, and had no knowledge of the disposition or chain of possession once it left his hand.

It is noteworthy not only that he heard a "snap," but that he saw a dent in the primer of a bullet later at HQ - as did other officers and an FBI agent who took possession of the unfired bullets from DPD later (it is in a report that I can't lay my hands on at the moment) - which was later confirmed not to be there.

(On this alone, I'd bet a half-way decent defense attorney could get the weapon and ammunition excluded from evidence, along with anything to do with it in the course of the arrest, and very possibly in the course of the shooting of JD Tippit ... and certainly so after any kind of a ballistics match between the gun and the bullets was proved to be impossible!)

But forgive me: I drone on! There is more, but I'll let it rest for a while.

Bottom line: Oswald did not draw a pistol prior to being approached by McDonald, McDonald never saw him do so (although it's a reasonable inference when someone's hand suddenly has a gun in it that he did!), and actually, nobody else in the theater did either ... or, rather, nobody who testified to or gave statements about it.

[Duke Lane]

Ray, ... 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.

We cannot forget the point that of the 17 members of the public who were in the theater (according to either Hutson or Hawkins, who actually counted them upon entering), only two were either asked to give statement or invited to be deposed. Other than these two, none of their names - much less their contact information - were even taken down on a list, despite there being a direct order from a senior department official to do so, a point acknowledged by at least one other officer (who claimed to have taken at least some down, but which list never surfaced).

As to whether "the arresting officers already knew the case would never make court when they made their reports," there are two things to consider here: first, that most of the officers did not complete reports until after the weekend was over and the sole suspect was dead and would not be tried (ergo, at least, there'd be no cross-examinations); and second, whether anyone on DPD knew at the time of the arrest that there would not be a trial.

In support of the second question, I would ask why a sergeant of police was released from any further duty in the downtown area immediately after Oswald was taken into custody (he had been downtown before the Tippit shooting, but was not participating in the TSBD search or security; his regular base of operations was in far northeast Dallas), and further why, following Oswald's being taken into custody, there were no further radio communications relating to the assassination or murder, or the investigations into said assassination and murder.

Of the three versions of the police transcripts (Sawyer Exhibit B, CE705 and CE1974), only the last - produced in mid-August 1964, when the WC had all but shut down - carries any traffic beyond 3:00 p.m. that was considered "pertinent," and the last carried only routine transmissions on the primary police channel - Channel One - for the rest of the day or weekend other than that relating to the death of Oswald.

This despite the fact that, as far as has ever been claimed, they did not consider Oswald a suspect in the President's shooting until much later in the day, and they did "not" stop searching for other potential suspects. If there's any such proof of any further search for suspects after Oswald was arrested, I'd be interested in knowing about it.

[Jack White]

Very nice thinking, Duke.

Jack

[Duke Lane]

... and just the tip of the iceberg, Jack.

[Antti Hynonen]

Ray,

I will of course let you form/have your own opinion. I have now explained to you on what I formed mine. You can read Julia Postal's testimony (unless you already have) to form an opinion of it. My two sentence synopsis of the jist of it, should not be considered equal to studying her WC statement.

However, a couple of questions do come to mind with regards to Oswald and the events at the movie theater.

What kind of a person carries a gun to the movie theater?

What kind of a person strikes a police officer, while being searched?

These facts together with the observations as stated in the witness testimonies as discussed prior, clearly point to a man on the run from the law imo.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

You can read Julia Postal's testimony (unless you already have) to form an opinion of it. My two sentence synopsis of the jist of it, should not be considered equal to studying her WC statement.

Here is Julia's testimony. As we all know, there were no defense counsel present, so we have Mr. Ball hurrying her along to his already pre-determined conclusion.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/postal.htm

Mr. BALL. And you didn't see him actually enter the theatre then?

Mrs. POSTAL. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. You hadn't seen him go by you?

Mrs. POSTAL. I knew he didn't go by me, because I was facing west, and Johnny, he had come up from east which meant he didn't go back that way. He had come from east going west.

It sounds as though She did not see the man until he was gone, and in parts of her testimony she seems to be reporting what Johnny Brewer told her

Postal refers to her employer, John Callahan, who had taken tickets from the 24 (or 14) people who had paid to enter the cinema, so Ball called as the next witness the aforementioned Mr. Callahan ....NOT.

If this had been an honest inquiry, Mr. Callahan would have been a vital witness. But it was not an honest inquiry and Mr. Callahan was never questioned, as far as I know. He was the person who could have established whether he took a ticket from Lee Oswald at or about the time the movie began.

What kind of a person carries a gun.....

A short-barreled revolver is a weapon of self-defense, and on this particular afternoon there were assassins loose in Dallas. I bet he was not the only Dallas resident who decided to pack that afternoon.

What kind of a person strikes a police officer, while being searched?

See Duke's post above. I think McDonald said he made a grab for Oswald's body, not too far from the crotch area. I've never tried it myself, but I hear that grabbing guys in the crotch will get you a punch on the nose every time.

These facts together with the observations as stated in the witness testimonies as discussed prior, clearly point to a man on the run from the law imo.

Do you mean sinister activities like taking buses and taxis?