Lee Oswald’s Departure from the TSBD

[Denis Pointing]

Maybe Mr. Pointing will prove that he was lying when he said "I can't" and was really just waiting for a better opportunity to start shooting people.

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.

Edited October 11, 2008 by Denis Pointing

[Denis Pointing]

Duke,

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.

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.

Edited October 11, 2008 by Denis Pointing

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Maybe Mr. Pointing will prove that he was lying when he said "I can't" and was really just waiting for a better opportunity to start shooting people.

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

Sorry, Denis, but I don't read the arresting officers' testimony to say that Oswald pulled a gun.

in front of so many independent eyewitness i.e. Gibson. Brewer and Applin to name just a few.

Yes, so many and yet so few. Why is that?

Or like so many other members here are you in the habit of just ignoring the "bits you dont like"?

Well we do ignore comments like that, for obvious reasons.

It seems you're of the opinion that every person in the theater that day was either a xxxx, unreliable or corrupt.

It may seem to you that it seems that way to me, but if so you are mistaken.

[Duke Lane]

... 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.

Well, since you mention it, maybe you can name some of the other witnesses in the theater? Or perhaps explain why, when ordered by Captain Westbrook to take down witnesses' names, officers did not do so? In truth, at least one other officer testified that, in particular, he and his partner did take down patrons' names, addresses, etc. Yet, unless he was lying, there is no evidence that any such names were, in fact, recorded.

Given that there were 17 patrons in the orchestra alone (plus another several in the balcony) and only two were asked to give any sort of statements, and that the list of the remaining witnesses was apparently either lost or destroyed, does the mere possibility that the others' statements were not wanted for one reason or another? As many as 22 names of witnesses were cast to oblivion, and we are to think that this is in order that DPD have as complete and accurate a record as possible?

Perhaps these were the only two whose testimonies were considered "reliable" in the eyes of DPD, i.e., the only two whose recollections wouldn't upset the apple cart; how else to explain the disappearance of the list(s) of witnesses? As we would later find, there probably wouldn't have been much that anyone could've said anything counter to DPD's story inasmuch as when George Applin put a kink in the message with his testimony about Oswald getting hit with the butt of a shotgun, all it took was for a couple of cops to say "gee, I didn't see anything like that" for Applin to have been mistaken. The fact that such a claim was not in his earliest recorded statements (coincidentally taken by DPD) was cause for casting further doubt on the veracity of his claim.

... 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. ...

That is a common human failing, hearing or reading what you like and ignoring the rest. CTers are no more guilty of it, IMO, than the LNers ... and the latter arguably more so than the former. After all, the WC's case was built on the possibility that Oswald could have done something more than upon the grounds that he did do anything.

In this case, you seem to feel that the statements made by two of the 20+ witnesses is somehow a "consensus" or the "best evidence" available, and find nothing at all odd about only two of the 20+ witnesses even being identified despite a superior's order to get names and an officer's statement that names were taken. I'd challenge you to prove that names weren't taken and, failing that, to provide a reasonable explanation why no such record exists.

It's very difficult to suggest that "every person in the theater that day was either a xxxx, unreliable or corrupt" when we don't know who the vast majority of "every person in the theater" were. If one were to assert that the DPD participants were liars or corrupt, how might someone disprove that other than to show that they all said the same things, essentially, in their reports and testimony? Odd as it may seem, all of those involved in the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church bombings in Birmingham (September 1963) all told the same story and avoided prosecution for more than 20 years, some more than 30.

Do corroborating stories demark innocence, any more than diverse ones proclaim guilt?

Even Warren Commissioner John McCloy was more than a little skeptical at the outset: consider his concern that

This commission is going to be criticized ... no matter what we do, but I think it would be more criticized if we were simply posed before the world as something that is evaluating government agencies’ reports,

who themselves may be culpable

.

The same skepticism ought extend to local as well as national governmental agencies ... or at least DPD cannot be exonerated simply on account of their being the police.

Edited October 12, 2008 by Duke Lane

[Denis Pointing]

Well, since you mention it, maybe you can name some of the other witnesses in the theater?.......... and that the list of the remaining witnesses was apparently either lost or destroyed, does the mere possibility that the others' statements were not wanted for one reason or another? As many as 22 names of witnesses were cast to oblivion, and we are to think that this is in order that DPD have as complete and accurate a record as possible?

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.

Edited October 12, 2008 by Denis Pointing

[Duke Lane]

... 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. ...

There is little if any question in my mind that there was a gun in Oswald's hand, never has been. Whether anyone lied about that has nothing to do with whether they lied at all; because they saw the gun in Oswald's hand doesn't mean they watched him pull it from anywhere. There is ample evidence based on prior activities to suggest that it didn't come from his waist, but won't develop that here since it's much too lengthy.

More significant is the credulity that the department was inept and had no idea how to conduct a proper murder investigation and the concept that once a bird is in hand, those remaining in the bush are no longer significant. While I recognize that Henry Wade may have been an arrogant XXXXX who won more murder trials than not, he was not infallible. Ending a wife's murder investigation the moment the husband is in custody - even if he'd been arrested at the scene and had been the one to call it in - is neither acceptable police work or prosecutorial conduct now or then.

It's also true that Oswald's denials of having shot anybody don't exonerate him, any more than those denials implicate anyone else. But that gives rise to the corollary that his denials of shooting anyone don't absolve anybody, either. The only investigation that took place following the arrest at Texas Theater was that to gather evidence against the sole accused. Police were dismissed from their emergency duties involving both murders as soon as Oswald was in custody, and the next shift came on duty and few stayed over; the search for another killer, or other killers, or any cohorts Oswald may have had, ended by shift-change.

Oswald's death likewise didn't either exonerate anyone he'd denied conspiring with, or mean that there was nobody else out there who was "part of the plot." That it can be so glibly accepted that none of the theater patrons could possibly have had any connection to Oswald because they weren't together or didn't confess the association right away (the only chance they got), is to likewise accept the fact that the police knew they "had their man on both counts" the moment they'd left the theater, and knew that there was no more trail to follow or reason to do so.

That smacks of more than just superior police work, and makes more legitimate the question of what DPD collectively - and some police officers individually - lied about to cover its collective ass for more than just being inept.

AT THAT TIME, the list would seem to have especial importance when Oswald's lack connection to anyone else in the theater could not be proved, and therefore nobody in the theater could be excluded from having anything to do with either his, Tippit's or Kennedy's deaths. But hey, we think he did it and trust that DA Wade could've proved it, so there's nothing left to investigate, who needs those names anyway? If they didn't reactivate that list of people for investigation, it suggests that, if it ever existed, it was destroyed long before it would ever have been needed in court.

It proves no further investigation was made, which in turn proves that DPD was 100% convinced, beyond any doubt whatsoever, of Oswald's sole guilt.

That kind of absolute certainty - beginning especially as early as it did - far from suggests ineptitude (DPD is still proud of the fact that it "solved the assassination within 90 minutes"), requires more than just a little luck (and the arrogance to believe it shone on them), and crosses well into the territory of suspicious behavior. To dismiss it so off-handedly is to accept that there could not have been - never could have been - any scenario other than that which the WC painted with absolute accuracy, and that no doubt about Oswald's sole guilt could ever have possibly existed under any circumstances.

No police force is that good! And if they're not that good ... think maybe there was a little lyin' goin' on anywhere?

Edited by moderator due to language.

Edited October 13, 2008 by Antti Hynonen

[Denis Pointing]

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?

Edited October 12, 2008 by Denis Pointing

[David G. Healy]

... doesn't change the fact that Oswald seemed more than prepared to use it. ...

excuse me, what fact?

Edited October 13, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Duke Lane]

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. ...

Your response falls oppositely in line with what I've been espousing for some time, that being that while people might try to mitigate against LHO having been the lone shooter, the argument always comes back to a variation on the theme "but since he did it ...." Example: descriptions of "Oswald" at the Tippit scene being so disparate, maybe it wasn't him - and it certainly wasn't provably him - but why do you think he left his jacket behind the Texaco? But wait! If he wasn't there, then what does his motivation for leaving a potentially incriminating jacket behind have anything to do with anything? He wasn't there, remember?

I've pointed out that Oswald didn't take on the usual "innocent man" stance of "I don't know what you're talking about ... you've got the wrong guy;" he never acted as if he didn't know something about it, regardless of whether he held any active role in what had occurred during the course of the day. His declaration of being "just a patsy" implies some sort of knowledge about what was going on, and possibly why he was the only one being accused of the crime. Knowledge of a crime is not necessarily "guilty knowledge," especially if that knowledge came lately (say, as a result of being grabbed by someone either as he started walking from Whaley's cab or after coming out of 1026, or some other way of realizing he'd been set up).

We are nevertheless left with the fact that DPD was who accused him, DPD who were gathering the evidence against him - right down to every bit of what he owned absent a single paperclip (incredible stuff! I wonder how many other murder suspects had ever been so thoroughly acted against vice police merely gathering incriminating evidence) - and DPD who called off all further searching for the Presidential assassin(s) immediately after "capturing" Oswald whom DPD "did not connect" to both murders for several hours*; DPD who gave no consideration to any confederates he may have had even after his capture and denials, and it was in DPD's custody Oswald was killed less than 48 hours later, with all cases - Kennedy assassination, wounding of Connally, and murders of both Tippit and Oswald - having immediately been "closed" thereafter.

(* - Contrary to the proposition put forth by some people that "any cop" would "naturally presume" that the Kennedy and Tippit murders were connected, however tenuously, it ignores the testimony of several cops to the contrary, including homicide detective Jim Leavelle.)

Yet, converse to the Oswald conundrum, we say that no matter how odd it looks, no matter how strangely they handled the investigation(s), or how they might have tainted or withheld evidence that they were in charge of, why would the police lie, what would they have to cover up, and how could they have done it in front of so many witnesses? Why is it that DPD's role is automatically deemed "inept" when it could have been something completely different? "Inept" would be a much better moniker to be saddled with than "complicit" or, worse, "guilty."

Warren Commissioner John J. McCloy, oddly enough (some might say), seemed to be cognizant of this conundrum: "This commission is going to be criticized ... no matter what we do, but I think it would be more criticized if we were simply posed before the world as something that is evaluating government agencies' reports, who themselves may be culpable." For the sake of consideration, "government agencies" can include local agencies as well. That DPD - or more properly, members of DPD - could have themselves been culpable, seems to have escaped consideration.

... Of course Oswald wasn't acting alone, of course there was a conspiracy. But rightly or wrongly I believe Oswald was a very guilty part of that conspiracy. ...

Fine, then: who were his accomplices, or of whom was he an accomplice? What role did they play? How are you going to identify them? How do you know they weren't police? Mere belief in "a conspiracy" does nothing to prove its existence if you can't postulate who he was working with, what they did, who could've manipulated the evidence - presuming it was manipulated - or at least curtailed the investigation to point to Oswald's sole guilt and ensure that nobody followed up on anything once his capture was a fait accompli.

It's fine to presume that LHO was "a very guilty part of that conspiracy," but shouldn't "that conspiracy" be more closely defined if only to determine with whom he was guilty?

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.

I never said anything even remotely resembling that he was handed a gun by an accomplice. Quite the opposite in fact. What do you think wouldn've happened if that "snap" that so many people heard - and the resulting dent from which was seen by several experienced police officers and at least one FBI agent - had resulted in a loud bang, whether or not (but especially if) the bullet had connected with Nick McDonald? I'd suggest that, at least, there would have been no embarrassing press conferences where the assassin could deny shooting anybody, ask for legal help, or claim that he was just a patsy: he'd have been carried out of the theater in a body bag and the case closed that much sooner.

As to anything changing "the fact that Oswald seemed more than prepared to use" the gun, what seems to be does not establish what is, even IF it is a fact that something "seemed" a particular way. Ask any little kid who's been or almost been shot for pointing a cap-gun at a cop, which we all know has happened.

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.

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?)

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?

Yes: everything is "(just a few) miles" from somewhere or anywhere, and Redbird (now Executive) Airport is, indeed "just a few miles" from 10&P ... but if Oswald was doing as has been purported, he was going away from it ... tho' he was still "just a few miles away."

If his hope was merely to escape or get away, then the Greyhound depot may well have been his best bet, although several factors argue against that being his intent (can you imagine someone premeditating the murder of a US President and suddenly realizing he'd have to run home to get his pistol before he could get away? Oops! What, they don't have pawn shops in Juarez?). One can more easily get onto ground transportation than air transport, and someone without a driver's license seems an unlikely candidate to boost a private plane.

If he was meeting someone there - take your pick of Ferrie, Hemming, Plumlee or any of the cast of other usual suspects - it seems highly unlikely that they'd tarry at a local airport to get "their man" out without having some form of insurance that he'd get to the airport in the first place: all they might have needed to do was make sure someone was sitting at the Greyhound station (for example) who could've done exactly what Whaley did in getting out of downtown and, instead of leaving him off somewhere to totally screw up the schedule of his getting there. Were they going to wait umpteen hours till Ozzie was able to walk to the airport?

If I - or we - can think of such mundane stuff, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone planning to assassinate a President was so inept as not to. (For the record, I don't think I could put together such a conspiracy, whether or not I could analyze or hypothesize one after the fact.) It would likewise seem that anyone who was capable of planning and executing the logistics well enough to ensure having an airplane at a local (but relatively distant, especially by foot) airport would not be inclined to either /a/ include someone in the plan who was so inept as not to even remember to make sure he had his pistol before attempting his mistake (much less someone who was dependent upon an unwitting youngster for transportation to get the rifle), or /b/ who wasn't adept enough to realize that if he'd forgotten it, oh well, he'd just have to do without (or anyone even allowing him to go home to get it) and hope for the best, or /c/ sticking around after "your man" did the deed and missed meeting his transpo away from the area, skipping that little detail to go retrieve his pistol by public conveyance.

I'd think that until someone was able to fill in those kinds of gaps before they can hypothesize an "escape" via Redbird or elsewhere, that such speculation has about as much validity as the possibility that Oswald was actually headed to the Dallas Zoo (only a few blocks from where he was, in the direction he was supposedly heading, and also accessible by McWatters' Marsalis bus) to "bulldoze" his way out of Dallas on the back of an elephant.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

For the record, I don't think I could put together such a conspiracy,

Don't worry, Duke, only a few of us ever considered you a SERIOUS suspect.

Oswald was actually headed to the Dallas Zoo (only a few blocks from where he was, in the direction he was supposedly heading, and also accessible by McWatters' Marsalis bus) to "bulldoze" his way out of Dallas on the back of an elephant.

Speaking of McWatter's bus, isn't it true that said bus would also have taken him p-r-e-t-t-y close to the Texas Theater?

[Steve Mcdonagh]

Hi All,

Firstly I would like to say this is a very interesting thread and there have been some well written and informative posts.

I would like to see if I can clarify some points by way of determining if they are generally accepted facts or not. If they are not generally accepted facts in the true sense of the word, would anyone mind if we did a quick poll (by way of copying the list below and pasting them into your reply with your answers) to determine a consensus?

1) Is it likely or indeed probable that Oswald did enter the shoe store where Brewer worked in any capacity – enter includes ducking into the entrance or doorway for any period of time?

2) If so, is it probable that Johnny Brewer (shoe store salesman) saw him do this?

3) Do we accept that Brewer then followed him to the theatre as he states?

4) Can we accept that Ms. Postal (ticket seller) did see Oswald or indeed someone (in any capacity – corner of her eye, shadow passing her by etc) that may have been Oswald at any stage before he (Oswald) entered the theatre as she states?

5) Did Oswald buy a ticket to the movie?

6) Can we also agree that Mr. Burroughs (who worked behind the theatre concession stand) did not take a ticket from Oswald when he entered the theatre?

We know that Oswald was definitely in the theatre, that he was arrested in the theatre and that he was taken from the theatre (presumably) to the police station. However, do we know beyond doubt?

1) What time Oswald entered the theatre?

2) What time the police arrived at the theatre

3) What time Oswald was taken from the theatre?

Finally, does anyone have a picture of the layout of the theatre, such as a construction drawing or blueprint with the original 60’s layout?

Thanks everyone - Steve

Edited October 16, 2008 by Steve Mcdonagh

[Antti Hynonen]

Sure, I'm game.

1) Is it likely or indeed probable that Oswald did enter the shoe store where Brewer worked in any capacity – enter includes ducking into the entrance or doorway for any period of time? Yes

2) If so, is it probable that Johnny Brewer (shoe store salesman) saw him do this? Yes

3) Do we accept that Brewer then followed him to the theatre as he states? Yes

4) Can we accept that Ms. Postal (ticket seller) did see Oswald or indeed someone (in any capacity – corner of her eye, shadow passing her by etc) that may have been Oswald at any stage before he (Oswald) entered the theatre as she states? Yes

5) Did Oswald buy a ticket to the movie? I don't think so.

6) Can we also agree that Mr. Burroughs (who worked behind the theatre concession stand) did not take a ticket from Oswald when he entered the theatre?

Yes, that must follow, based on my answer to nr. 5).

We know that Oswald was definitely in the theatre, that he was arrested in the theatre and that he was taken from the theatre (presumably) to the police station. However, do we know beyond doubt?

1) What time Oswald entered the theatre? Tough one, I don't know, but some time before 1:50 p.m. or whenever the cops came.

2) What time the police arrived at the theatre? About 1:50 p.m.

3) What time Oswald was taken from the theatre? A few minutes later.

[Steve Mcdonagh]

Thanks Antti.

I sincerely hope the others involved in this thread (or indeed anyone who has been reading this thread (like I was) with great interest but have not participated yet) will also be 'game' and indulge me by answering as you have.

Steve

Sure, I'm game.

1) Is it likely or indeed probable that Oswald did enter the shoe store where Brewer worked in any capacity – enter includes ducking into the entrance or doorway for any period of time? Yes

2) If so, is it probable that Johnny Brewer (shoe store salesman) saw him do this? Yes

3) Do we accept that Brewer then followed him to the theatre as he states? Yes

4) Can we accept that Ms. Postal (ticket seller) did see Oswald or indeed someone (in any capacity – corner of her eye, shadow passing her by etc) that may have been Oswald at any stage before he (Oswald) entered the theatre as she states? Yes

5) Did Oswald buy a ticket to the movie? I don't think so.

6) Can we also agree that Mr. Burroughs (who worked behind the theatre concession stand) did not take a ticket from Oswald when he entered the theatre?

Yes, that must follow, based on my answer to nr. 5).

We know that Oswald was definitely in the theatre, that he was arrested in the theatre and that he was taken from the theatre (presumably) to the police station. However, do we know beyond doubt?

1) What time Oswald entered the theatre? Tough one, I don't know, but some time before 1:50 p.m. or whenever the cops came.

2) What time the police arrived at the theatre? About 1:50 p.m.

3) What time Oswald was taken from the theatre? A few minutes later.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I sincerely hope the others involved in this thread ....will also be 'game' and indulge me by answering as you have.

Steve

Steve, my present view is that the timing of Oswald's entry to the cinema was never established.

I don't recall any of the three patrons testifying that THEY saw him enter. The ticket-taker that day, John Callahan was not questioned by the Warren Commission, and no one here has so far found a record that he was ever questioned by any other authority. It does appear that Julia Postal had no memory of selling him a ticket, but then she could not even recall how many tickets she sold, and there is no evidence that she paid particular attention to the patrons who bought tickets.

It does seem that no one here disputes that Brewer saw a man sneak into the theater not long before the cops were called, but as far as I am concerned the identity of that man has not been established. Neither Brewer nor Callahan was taken to a lineup to identify Lee Oswald.

If Lee Oswqald had been charged with theft of services for sneaking in without paying, I don't think the prosecution case would get to first base. The prosecution failed to produce the ESSENTIAL witness, John Callahan, and without him I don't see how they could make a case that could overcome the the defendant's denial.

We do not have a transcript of what Oswald said in custody, but it seems that his story was that he went straight from his rooming -house to the cinema, which would mean that he got there by about 1.24, or earlier if he caught a southbound bus on Beckley.

No one has so far proved him wrong to my satisfaction.

[Denis Pointing]

Hi All,

Firstly I would like to say this is a very interesting thread and there have been some well written and informative posts.

I would like to see if I can clarify some points by way of determining if they are generally accepted facts or not. If they are not generally accepted facts in the true sense of the word, would anyone mind if we did a quick poll (by way of copying the list below and pasting them into your reply with your answers) to determine a consensus?

1) Is it likely or indeed probable that Oswald did enter the shoe store where Brewer worked in any capacity – enter includes ducking into the entrance or doorway for any period of time? YES

2) If so, is it probable that Johnny Brewer (shoe store salesman) saw him do this? YES

3) Do we accept that Brewer then followed him to the theatre as he states? YES

4) Can we accept that Ms. Postal (ticket seller) did see Oswald or indeed someone (in any capacity – corner of her eye, shadow passing her by etc) that may have been Oswald at any stage before he (Oswald) entered the theatre as she states? NO

5) Did Oswald buy a ticket to the movie? NO

6) Can we also agree that Mr. Burroughs (who worked behind the theatre concession stand) did not take a ticket from Oswald when he entered the theatre? YES

We know that Oswald was definitely in the theatre, that he was arrested in the theatre and that he was taken from the theatre (presumably) to the police station. However, do we know beyond doubt?

1) What time Oswald entered the theatre? APPROXMATLY 1.35

2) What time the police arrived at the theatre APPROXMATLY 1.50

3) What time Oswald was taken from the theatre? 2.00

Finally, does anyone have a picture of the layout of the theatre, such as a construction drawing or blueprint with the original 60’s layout?

Thanks everyone - Steve