Lee Oswald’s Departure from the TSBD

[Steve Mcdonagh]

Thank you Dennis - Steve

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

[Duke Lane]

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?

By "generally accepted facts," I presume you mean things that nobody is going to argue about or has any disputes over, i.e., that which might be stipulated in court? In that case, I don't think any of these fit the bill. Nevertheless, my responses in contrast to your questions in bold:

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? It is likely and almost positive that someone fitting Oswald's description, if not Oswald himself, entered the vestibule of Brewer's store. Brewer believed that he'd seen Oswald before, possibly as a customer ... or, just as possibly, Brewer might've encountered him as a fellow patron of the theater at another time.

2) If so, is it probable that Johnny Brewer saw him do this? Brewer saw someone. If it was Oswald in the vestibule, then that's who Brewer saw.

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

4) Can we accept that Ms. Postal 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 entered the theatre as she states? Or maybe a breeze she felt as he passed, or a cloud passing before the sun that she thought was really a person? To this, the answer is no, despite the fact that she claimed to have noticed - or thought she had noticed, or maybe just figured it must've happened - that her boss and Oswald passed each other at the doorway. If she noticed someone near the theater door or the box office, why didn't she - the conscientious several-year employee that she was - turn around and help the guy? She only "noticed" him because afterward, the figured she "must" have to whatever limited extent. Even she didn't make as broad a range of possibilities of what she claimed to have seen.

5) Did Oswald buy a ticket to the movie? Don't know. He did not apparently have one on his person after he was arrested, but he may not have felt the need to hold onto it since he'd have no apparent reason to leave the theater before the end of the movie: even if he smoked - which he didn't - you could smoke in theaters in those days; and since there was only one screen, there was no danger in his sneaking into another movie he hadn't paid to watch. Were there any extra ticket stubs found on the theater floor or in the seats? Since the theater had presumably been swept or cleaned before opening, there were, at maximum, 24 tickets to account for, most of them presumably in the possession of or nearby the other patrons.

6) Can we also agree that Mr. Burroughs did not take a ticket from Oswald when he entered the theatre? "Also agree?!" Whatever. We can agree that Butch didn't remember taking a ticket from Oswald. Until after his arrest, what reason would Burroughs have had to remember or pay any attention to him? If he did take a ticket from Oswld - if he actually took tickets from anyone as opposed to just verifying their having one - then it was probably well before the cops showed up.

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? No. The information that someone had just entered the theater was broadcast at just before the 1:46 radio time check, which most likely would have been after Brewer had arrived there.

2) What time the police arrived at the theatre? The first patrol to acknowledge being "out" at that location (out of only a few who did) radioed in only about 30-40 seconds later.

3) What time Oswald was taken from the theatre? Sgt. Jerry Hill radioed in from the middle of the front seat of the patrol car he was in shortly after 1:52, so it could only have been before that when he was taken out of the theater.

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? I think there may be one in the Volumes.

[Steve Mcdonagh]

Thank you Duke - Steve

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?

By "generally accepted facts," I presume you mean things that nobody is going to argue about or has any disputes over, i.e., that which might be stipulated in court? In that case, I don't think any of these fit the bill. Nevertheless, my responses in contrast to your questions in bold:

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? It is likely and almost positive that someone fitting Oswald's description, if not Oswald himself, entered the vestibule of Brewer's store. Brewer believed that he'd seen Oswald before, possibly as a customer ... or, just as possibly, Brewer might've encountered him as a fellow patron of the theater at another time.

2) If so, is it probable that Johnny Brewer saw him do this? Brewer saw someone. If it was Oswald in the vestibule, then that's who Brewer saw.

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

4) Can we accept that Ms. Postal 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 entered the theatre as she states? Or maybe a breeze she felt as he passed, or a cloud passing before the sun that she thought was really a person? To this, the answer is no, despite the fact that she claimed to have noticed - or thought she had noticed, or maybe just figured it must've happened - that her boss and Oswald passed each other at the doorway. If she noticed someone near the theater door or the box office, why didn't she - the conscientious several-year employee that she was - turn around and help the guy? She only "noticed" him because afterward, the figured she "must" have to whatever limited extent. Even she didn't make as broad a range of possibilities of what she claimed to have seen.

5) Did Oswald buy a ticket to the movie? Don't know. He did not apparently have one on his person after he was arrested, but he may not have felt the need to hold onto it since he'd have no apparent reason to leave the theater before the end of the movie: even if he smoked - which he didn't - you could smoke in theaters in those days; and since there was only one screen, there was no danger in his sneaking into another movie he hadn't paid to watch. Were there any extra ticket stubs found on the theater floor or in the seats? Since the theater had presumably been swept or cleaned before opening, there were, at maximum, 24 tickets to account for, most of them presumably in the possession of or nearby the other patrons.

6) Can we also agree that Mr. Burroughs did not take a ticket from Oswald when he entered the theatre? "Also agree?!" Whatever. We can agree that Butch didn't remember taking a ticket from Oswald. Until after his arrest, what reason would Burroughs have had to remember or pay any attention to him? If he did take a ticket from Oswld - if he actually took tickets from anyone as opposed to just verifying their having one - then it was probably well before the cops showed up.

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? No. The information that someone had just entered the theater was broadcast at just before the 1:46 radio time check, which most likely would have been after Brewer had arrived there.

2) What time the police arrived at the theatre? The first patrol to acknowledge being "out" at that location (out of only a few who did) radioed in only about 30-40 seconds later.

3) What time Oswald was taken from the theatre? Sgt. Jerry Hill radioed in from the middle of the front seat of the patrol car he was in shortly after 1:52, so it could only have been before that when he was taken out of the theater.

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? I think there may be one in the Volumes.

[Duke Lane]

Denis,

Still awaiting a response:

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?)

There's more, of course, but these are chief among those things that supposedly make Oswald "suspect." I'm merely trying to ascertain what those "many, many other things" are that did so, and since you brought them up, what are they?

Earlier in this thread, we discussed the bus ride, the transfer, and Mary Bledsoe's supposed identification of her purported former tenant. We've also discussed, here or elsewhere, about William Whaley's description of Oswald, which popular mythology has Whaley effectively claiming that Oswald wore two jackets. Two questions that immediately arise directly and indirectly related to this evidence are these:

• Did DPD focus on Oswald's riding the bus as a result of his having the transfer; of Bledsoe's phone call and subsequent visit to police headquarters; a combination of the two, or something completely different? We will recall that Cecil McWatters was approached and removed from his bus in the early evening hours as he drove up to City Hall to identify either or both Lee Oswald and/or the transfer (certainly the former, maybe the latter). I recall that this occurred at some time around 6:00 p.m. Was Oswald's simply having the transfer sufficient cause for the search for and subsequent detention of the bus driver who issued it? Was it perhaps to validate Bledsoe's claim that she had seen Oswald on the bus (even though she was not asked to identify Oswald himself)? In either case, what could these two individuals' identification of Oswald and/or the ticket, or anything else related to the bus ride, have to do with the criminal investigation of Oswald the purported murderer? All they did was see him board and disembark from a bus (which didn't kill anybody) in the downtown area, so what was the big deal here?
  
• Was Oswald's supposed visit to his room really to change his shirt and trousers, or was that the best rationale DPD could come up with to explain why he went there and how he presumably got his pistol? This may be a bigger problem than it seems at first glance. Once again we have the conundrum of both McWatters and Jones saying that the man who'd entered the bus was wearing a short jacket (Jones was interviewed by the FBI, but not deposed or shown either of Oswald's jackets), while Bledsoe described him wearing a shirt similar to that he'd been arrested in (and identified the "arrest shirt" as being the same as she'd seen him wearing on the bus). We then find Whaley testifying to the "short jacket" wardrobe once again. So one question - which I've posed along with others - is how Bledsoe could have seen him wearing a shirt he hadn't yet gone home to get; another is how it came to pass that, if he had gone home to change and wasn't wearing the "arrest shirt" when he got the transfer from McWatters, how did the transfer end up in the pocket of that shirt?
  

The unseen problem in all of this is that, apparently, Oswald did not go back to his room to change his clothes: Whaley's initial statement on November 23 indicates that he was wearing the "arrest shirt" while riding in Whaley's cab, sitting right next to him. If Oswald didn't change his shirt - much simpler to do than trousers since one doesn't have to remove and replace shoes or boots to do so - it explains why the bus transfer would have remained in his shirt pocket ... or been "transferred" into "another" shirt pocket, which was in reality the same shirt.

Add this to Whaley's statement - again, on November 23 - that the last he'd seen Oswald, Oswald was walking south on Beckley, away from his room. The indication, then, is that Oswald was not returning to his room to change his clothes - and he apparently did not change his clothes - so why would he have told the police that he did? Is it a reasonable question to ask if he did, in fact, tell that to the police? They are the only ones who made that claim during their unrecorded interviews with him. Could it have been an attempt at humoring them, as in "okay, if you say I went home to change my clothes, then I went home to change my clothes. There's no crime in that?" Or was this claim merely to account for how he'd come to have a pistol with him?

Whaley's initial statement was problematic: it both eliminated the likelihood that Oswald had changed his clothes, and it both depicted him both passing the rooming house as well as walking away from it after having done so. Could the selection of where to exit the cab been a function of Oswald's legendary stinginess, of going as far as he could on a single dollar and still be able to give Whaley some tip, however niggardly? Whaley himself testified to the fact that, if he'd gone another block or two, the meter would've clicked over to the next rate, forcing Oswald to break another dollar bill and having entirely too much available to not give a more generous tip, as opposed to "here's [supposedly] my last dollar, keep the change" from a 95¢ fare.

So - humor me here - if Oswald did exactly as Whaley said he did on the very next day and was wearing the same clothes that he was arrested in, why would he or the Dallas Police make the claim that he'd gone home to change? The only options that I can discern are either that Oswald was a pathological xxxx (for which there's no evidence but his denials of killing anyone that day) or that it explained how he'd have come into possession of a gun that he did not have - and probably couldn't have had without being undetected by someone during the course of the morning - when he'd left the Depository or entered either McWatters' bus or Whaley's cab.

The evidence of the bus transfer is a puzzlement. Presuming that it was found on Oswald's person exactly as described, why was it ever an issue? It was clear that he'd left the TSBD downtown, ending up in Oak Cliff: why would his having a bus transfer from a bus that went from downtown into Oak Cliff have caused any alarm, such that DPD felt the immediate need to track down the bus driver and have him identify a man who'd merely been on his bus (which he did not do)?

We know from Mary Bledsoe's confused and confusing testimony that when she'd related having seen Oswald on a bus to her son, he called the police to relate the incident some time, perhaps about an hour or maybe two, after Oswald had been arrested, roughly 3:00 or 4:00, maybe even a little later depending upon when Oswald's arrest (and his name) were first broadcast.

Mr. Ball

. When did you first notify the police that you believe you'd seen Oswald?

Mrs. Bledsoe

. When I got home, first thing I did I went next door and told them the President had been shot, and he said, "Why, he has got killed." Well, I turned on the radio - television - and we heard ambulances and going around and there was a little boy came in that room in the back and he turned it on, and we listened and hear about the President, only one I was interested in, so, he went on back to work and they kept talking about this boy Oswald and had on a brown shirt, and all of a sudden, well, I declare, I believe that this was this boy, and his name was Oswald - that is - give me his right name, you know, and so, about

an hour my son came home, and I told him and he immediately called the police and told them

, because we wanted to do all we could, and so,

I went down the next night

. He took me down, and I made a statement to them, what kind of - Secret Service man or something down there.

Mr. Ball

. Where?

Mrs. Bledsoe

. At the police station. (6H412)

This could have been what had triggered the discovery of and interest in the transfer and the bus driver, although the significance the police attached to it still escapes me: at best, it could only demonstrate how Oswald got from one place to the next; that he'd gotten from one to the other seemed fairly self-evident at the time, and he did nothing criminal either on the bus or by taking the bus, all the statements and IDs in the world from people who'd seen him on the bus could not have done anything to tie him to the crimes of which he was suspected.

Of course, perhaps it was simply that nobody could have known that at the time: maybe they'd have given statements of his brandishing a weapon or at least of his acting furtively, even though nothing they'd obtained at that point accomplished that. McWatters testified later that he'd thought the cops wanted to know about the passenger - Milton Jones - who'd made comments about the shooting to another elderly passenger (Mrs Bledsoe was 67; the other woman was described as elderly by McWatters himself) and told the WC that he didn't know Mary Bledsoe, and as best as can be discerned, Mary Bledsoe didn't make any comments to police the next day about Oswald's being disheveled or looking like "a maniac."

What is the signficance?

[Denis Pointing]

Denis,

Still awaiting a response:

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?)

There's more, of course, but these are chief among those things that supposedly make Oswald "suspect." I'm merely trying to ascertain what those "many, many other things" are that did so, and since you brought them up, what are they?

Edited December 20, 2009 by Denis Pointing

[David G. Healy]

Denis,

Still awaiting a response:

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?)

There's more, of course, but these are chief among those things that supposedly make Oswald "suspect." I'm merely trying to ascertain what those "many, many other things" are that did so, and since you brought them up, what are they?

I've made my position plain, I belive Oswald was as guilty as hell. Although others were involved thus forming a conspiracy. I'm convinced Oswald was a major player. Therefore my "list" would be:

* Taking a rifle to work

*Fleeing the murder scene.

* Killing Tippit.

* Sneaking into the theater to escape patrol cars.

* Trying to avoid capture by pulling a revolver and attempting to shoot a police officer.

A slightly differant list than yours Duke, I make no apology for that. Don't ask me to produce evidence for my convictions, I haven't the time nor inclination to "copy & paste" endless links, eyewitness testimony, police documents etc etc. Besides, I'm sure you know the evidence against Oswald better than I do. This may be a shock to you Duke, but the fact that you dont accept that evidence does not make it invalid. How about cutting to the chase and YOU telling ME you're reasons for not accepting that evidence.

my-my more Lone Nut sensitivity .... must be a Bill Miller acolyte, carry on.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I'm sure you know the evidence against Oswald better than I do.

You finally got one right, Mr. Pointing, and the Duke also knows that, if you cast a cold eye at this "so-called evidence" it is not so persuasive. You can't even prove that he entered the cinema without a ticket, so what else ya got -- Jaywalking?

[Denis Pointing]

I'm sure you know the evidence against Oswald better than I do.

You finally got one right, Mr. Pointing, and the Duke also knows that, if you cast a cold eye at this "so-called evidence" it is not so persuasive. You can't even prove that he entered the cinema without a ticket, so what else ya got -- Jaywalking?

A totally irrelevant response, lets turn it around. YOU can't even prove that he entered the cinema WITH a ticket, whilst I have a witness (Brewer) that says Oswald never purchased one, a second witness ( Postal) who says she never sold him one and a third (Burroughs) who never tore Oswald's ticket in halve, you have nothing but an obstinate belive in Oswald's total innocents. Why is that Mr Carroll, is it because Oswald said he "was a patsy"? That makes it so does it? To coin your phrase, "what else ya got"

Edited October 19, 2008 by Denis Pointing

[J. Raymond Carroll]

YOU can't even prove that he entered the cinema WITH a ticket, whilst I have a witness (Brewer) that says Oswald never purchased one, a second witness ( Postal) who says she never sold him one and a third (Burroughs) who never tore Oswald's ticket in halve,

Burroughs was not the person taking tickets that day, as you know from Postal's testimony. You don't have testimony from the ESSENTIAL witness, John Callahan, so you have only half the makings of a case.

Since the prosecution never produced the essential witness, we are entitled to infer that he was not called because his testimony would not support the prosecution case. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, while the accused doesn't have to prove anything.

Maybe you can save the day by proving that he shot JFK, and while you're at it, maybe you can tell us what his motive was.

Edited October 19, 2008 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Duke Lane]

I've made my position plain, I belive Oswald was as guilty as hell. Although others were involved thus forming a conspiracy.

That outlook fits in well with your previous post:

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 here's the difficulty with it:

I'm convinced Oswald was a major player. Therefore my "list" would be:

* Taking a rifle to work

* Fleeing the murder scene.

* Killing Tippit.

* Sneaking into the theater to escape patrol cars.

* Trying to avoid capture by pulling a revolver and attempting to shoot a police officer.

You've pretty well forgotten to leave any role for anyone else! What exactly did his co-conspirator(s) do other than potentially taking a single shot from the knoll that missed? And where did he or they go? Was there someone who helped this guy or those guys escape, leaving Oswald in the lurch? Since you didn't include in your list that he also "killed JFK," then I'm going to presume that you allow for the possibility that another unidentified and unidentifiable co-conspirator was who was pulling the trigger on the sixth floor.

If that's true, then it looks like by your own estimation that Oswald was, in fact, left to be the designated patsy. Or else, disclaimers to the contrary notwithstanding, you do believe Oswald did all that attributed to him all by his own lonesome.

This may be a shock to you Duke, but the fact that you dont accept that evidence does not make it invalid. How about cutting to the chase and YOU telling ME you're reasons for not accepting that evidence.

You're obviously not familiar with the rest of the quote that the bottom one in my signature line comes from. Another part is "I ain't often right, but I've never been wrong!"

The reasons I don't accept the evidence is that it hasn't been proven beyond even an unreasonable doubt.

You know the drill on the rifle, to illustrate only your first point: Linnie Mae saw him with a package; Buell saw it on the back seat of his car and estimated it at about two feet long, said Oswald tucked it under his armpit while holding the end in his hand, with no part of it showing above his shoulder; Jack Daugherty, the only person who saw Oswald enter the building, didn't see any package of any sort in Oswald's hands. The rifle, even disassembled, was longer than That is the sum total of the evidence of him bringing a package - or not - into the building.

Furthermore, the package he purportedly brought was not photographed at the scene and there is no chain of its possession; it was determined to have come from a roll of paper used in the TSBD for wrapping outbound books for shipping, which required the use of tape that needed to be moistened that was run through a moistener and had to be applied immediately. The tape could not taken through that machine without getting it wet, and there was no evidence that any had been taken from another roll of tape not yet used.

There is likewise no indication that Oswald had taken the paper to Irving with him on Thursday night, or that he'd spent any time in the garage wrapping the rifle in said paper, fashioning it into a sack. Troy West, the man who operated the machine and who testified that he "never" left his station during the day except to make coffee and, presumably, to commune with nature, said that Oswald had no access to the tape, the machine or the paper rolls, and that he, West, did not give any of those items to Oswald at any time. The FBI determined that the paper was from a roll still in use on the Friday, and that the tape had come through and been cut by West's machine, so its origin isn't in doubt.

HOWEVER, the rifle was in the building, the sack had been fashioned from TSBD shipping paper, ergo - despite all of the foregoing - Oswald "must" have done what nobody saw him do, the proof being that someone must have done it and that "someone" could only have been him. QED, right?

If Oswald didn't have access to the paper and tape and didn't take a rifle wrapped in it into the building, then the only logical conclusion is that someone else did. That someone did have access to the materials, and was able to bring it into the building unseen by others. There was opportunity to accomplish the latter (while most if not all of the TSBD employees were watching the parade, for example), as well as the former (e.g., before people arrived for work, after they'd left, while the cleaning crew was cleaning the building on nights and weekends).

Since we don't know who that "someone else" might've been, it does NOT mean that someone other than Oswald couldn't have done it.

The bottom line is that there was opportunity for someone other than Oswald to have fashioned the sack and gotten it into the TSBD, and there is no evidence to show that Oswald was the person who did either of those, and much to show that he didn't.

Ergo, there's no question in my mind - or yours - that Oswald did in fact do what he couldn't have done ... and nobody else could have done what it was alleged Oswald did simply because we don't know who that might have been.

Similar objections can easily be raised on all of the other points you raise, especially regarding motive. You can presume all you want about those things, but you cannot prove them "beyond a reasonable doubt." The WC could do so only because it had no adversary.

So, even if you claim not to be a "lone-nutter," your beliefs portray you otherwise, and while you state that there were "other conspirators" and that Oswald wasn't "a patsy," you have assigned the others no role and leave Oswald guilty of everything.

Do you have the time and inclination to delineate just what role these "co-conspirators" had other than to remain nebulous and lend you a basis to say that there was a conspiracy?

[Ed LeDoux]

An interview with Johnny Calvin Brewer (JCB):

Johnny Calvin Brewer had sold a pair of shoes to Oswald on one occasion maybe "a month before" in fact he remembered them as a "two-eyelet, crepe-soled shoe, model 8110, black, size eight and a half."

(pictured and identified in CE147)

He said Lee paid cash, five dollars and seventy cents.

On the 22nd JCB was listening to KLIF (?) and "a live broadcast about the motorcade, then commotion and something about shots being fired."

He then heard about a "shooting in the Oak Cliff area."

JCB does not recall any mention of a policeman down, but was interested because of the close proximity and then the sound of police cars converging at or towards Zangs and Jefferson.

Only description he recalls hearing over the radio was of "a male five feet nine, medium size build, no clothing description."

Brewer was about to exit the store to see "what was going on, when someone entered from Zangs Boulevard direction into the recessed area and stood-and we were looking at each other."

Johnny said "I was a little annoyed because I thought it was someone coming in as I was fixing to go out.

And when the police had gone by he (Oswald) looked over his shoulder and then walked out onto the sidewalk again, looked, and then walked quickly but calmly-and I stood there, it couldn't have been more than five seconds."

After Brewer said something to the two IBM men who were hanging out in the store he went outside and saw him by Thomsen's furniture store and he entered the Texas Theater, "I saw him go in."

Johnny stated that "I didn't know whether he bought a ticket or not." He checked his store and one of the IBM guys had locked the door so he decided he better check and went down there to the TT.

He saw Julie (Julia Postal) and asked "Julie, did you sell a ticket...?" and gave a description.

She said no and had been out on the street watching. Brewer then decided to go in to see if he could spot him as "there's something funny."

Inside he talked to Butch Burroughs and asked him if he had seen anybody, but Butch said no as he was down behind the counter stocking concessions. He and Butch went up in the balcony and using the screen as a backlight (sic) could see there were no heads up there. (the balcony was empty)

Brewer then checked the fire exit (which has to be reset if someone exited) to the left of the stage and it was still "locked."

He then went and told Julie to call the police about the "suspicious person."

JCB is now back at the fire exit waiting for the police to arrive when the house lights turn on but the movie is still running and he can see police up in the balcony (plain clothes and uniformed).

Then Brewer spots him (Oswald) and Lee gets up from the center section downstairs and walks to the aisle on his right.

He took a couple steps towards the aisle but then sat down again.

Johnny hears knocking on the fire exit and opens it. "They grabbed me and pulled me out into the alley and I explained to them that I had seen this man acting suspiciously."

He then showed the police (McDonald whom he knew for a few months) the man by pointing him out from the stage.

McDonald first and another officer "jumped off the stage and they were tapping patrons on the shoulder-some down front-and telling them to get up and move. So they were actually clearing it."

McDonald "walked over to Oswald and tapped him and told him to get up and there's a lot of blur and think I hear Oswald say 'Its over now' or something."

..Anyway he got up and he's trying to hit McDonald and he's knocked him back.....

About this time "he reaches under his shirt and pulls out a pistol. McDonald is getting back up and lunging for him and Oswald's got the gun. McDonald says he pulled the trigger but I feel I saw the hammer-um, McDonald, I believe, says that the hammer hit the fleshy part of his hand between the firing pin and the hammer. I know he had the gun out there."

He is trying to shoot Nick in the head. After that he got real excited.

There was Oswald and the police falling over the chairs, etc. and more police with with their guns out came in, Brewer got down. As they wrestled the gun from him, Brewer looked up...there were several fists thrown in Oswald's direction and he was handcuffed and led out the front.

Brewer states: "And as I was going to leave I was stopped by two FBI or plain clothes and they took my name and address."

(No Case To Answer- Ian Griggs, 2005. chapter 8, pages 55-65) Interview of 11-25-1996

!An interesting note, JCB lived in the same apartment block as Carousel Club stripper Kathy Kay, who he had known along with her two daughters Susan and Sheri.

This interview still leaves many unanswered questions while shedding light on some.

Such as: were there people in the balcony...No, not according to Brewer.

Did someone take down the names...Yes, according to Brewer.

Did Oswald pull out the gun...according to Brewer, Yes.

Of the unanswered ones they are too numerous to list....

Ed

[Don Jeffries]

Duke, good job again of condensing things so well.

I am curious about Brewer's vivid memory of Oswald buying a pair of shoes from him a month before. Would it be common for a shoe salesman to remember such detail; exact make, exact price, from a single sale a month previously? Especially from an individual who was usually described as being quiet and aloof? What would be so memorable about Oswald?

One other question concerning the identities of the other movie patrions in the theater that day; has anyone ever come forth to publicize their being in attendance there, using their ticket stubs as proof? I would think that such a ticket stub would be very valuable to collectors, if not to any participants in a real investigation. Have any such stubs ever appeared, on Ebay or elsewhere?

I would also agree with Raymond that the accused need not prove anything. It is up to the state to prove its case, and critics have been showing how absurd that proof is for several decades now. This discussion has been informative and enjoyable.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

An interview with Johnny Calvin Brewer (JCB):

Johnny Calvin Brewer had sold a pair of shoes to Oswald on one occasion maybe "a month before" in fact he remembered them as a "two-eyelet, crepe-soled shoe, model 8110, black, size eight and a half."

(pictured and identified in CE147)

He said Lee paid cash, five dollars and seventy cents.

Ed

Isn't it funny that Johnny Brewer decided to conceal such a vivid and precise memory from the Warren Commission, despite the oath he took to "tell the whole truth"?

Maybe our Johnny is one of those especially talented people whose memory improves with the passage of time.

Mr. BELIN - We want to thank you for all of your cooperation on this. I might ask one other question. We chatted for a few minutes when we first met before we started taking this deposition, did we not?

Mr. BREWER - Yes.

Mr. BELIN - Is there anything we talked there about that isn't recorded in this written testimony?

Mr. BREWER - No.

Mr. BELIN - Is there anything you said which is different insofar as stating the facts and what you have stated here on the record?

Mr. BREWER - No.

Mr. BELIN - When we first met, what is the fact as to whether or not I just asked you to tell your story, or whether or not I tried to tell you what I thought the story was?

Mr. BREWER - You asked me to tell the story first.

Mr. BELIN - Is that what you did?

Mr. BREWER - Yes.

Mr. BELIN - Anything else you can think of?

Mr. BREWER - No.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brewer_j.htm

[Duke Lane]

... One other question concerning the identities of the other movie patrions in the theater that day; has anyone ever come forth to publicize their being in attendance there, using their ticket stubs as proof? I would think that such a ticket stub would be very valuable to collectors, if not to any participants in a real investigation. Have any such stubs ever appeared, on Ebay or elsewhere?

I've never heard of such a thing, but that's hardly to say that it hasn't happened or that these folks haven't got their stubs in a frame on their mantlepiece either.

Think of the hundreds of people who were at the Trade Mart for the luncheon that never took place: occasionally, someone will trot out their invitation to it, but it's been a relative few in terms of the number of people who were there. Proportionately speaking, we might never expect anyone to come up with such an item of memorabilia, especially since it seems unlikely that it would have been dated.

Another interesting aspect of that, for the sake of saying so, is that it seems equally unlikely that anyone would believe the person who came forward with such an item (and especially if it wasn't dated!). I've spoken to a couple of people - one of them was in a lineup with Oswald, another says he was outside the theater when Oswald was brought out (and who disputes the "angry mob" several people claim to have seen or encountered) - whose own families don't believe them. In the case of the former, it's easy enough to prove just getting a copy of the Report (at least, I think the names of the other "suspects" are there; certainly in testimony); in the latter, I'm still supposed to find the guy a photo of people outside the theater since he thinks he might've been in it. He was also a school chum of Butch Burroughs.

I would also agree with Raymond that the accused need not prove anything. It is up to the state to prove its case, and critics have been showing how absurd that proof is for several decades now. This discussion has been informative and enjoyable.

It's an interesting concept that, first of all, "this is not a court of law" and we therefore should not be constrained by such things as "reasonable doubt" or technical issues of admissibility (or stoop to using such "unethical" tactics), but merely be able to "see the reality" based on the "obvious." Too and conversely, this not being a court of law, the "obvious" invariably points to Oswald as being the sole perpetrator; to suggest otherwise, however, does require "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

Nicholas Katzenbach hit the nail on the head in his famous memo to Bill Moyers, albeit in a slightly different context:

Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or ... a right-wing conspiracy to blame the Communists. Unfortunately,

the facts on Oswald seem about too pat – too obvious

(Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.) ....

Those words could as easily be applied to the case in chief rather than the single aspect of Oswald's "motivation," which naturally presumes his guilt since the innocent don't have motives! Nevertheless, the "facts" are "too pat - too obvious," and the fact that a quasi-legal body of politicians - as all were, in one form or another - would endorse them without any form of devil's advocacy, and moreover, that thinking Americans - who are trained from Day One that we are all "innocent until proven guilty" - can swallow such explanations without question is disturbing.

It is all as with the rifle: there is little if anything to factually and fully support the conclusion, but since it was there and we don't know who else might've gotten it there or how, Oswald "must" have done it even though it objectively seems like he didn't. (Unless you've got a better explanation? If so, prove it: I don't have to.)

Isn't it funny that Johnny Brewer decided to conceal such a vivid and precise memory from the Warren Commission, despite the oath he took to "tell the whole truth?"

I've often wished that I would one day witness something of great import and be called to testify, and that in the course of so doing was asked a question by one of the attorneys who, as I began to elaborate, demanded "yes or no, Mr. Lane. Did it happen that way?" whereupon I would have the opportunity to turn to the judge and say, "Your Honor, I took an oath to tell 'the whole truth,' and a simple 'yes' or 'no' would not do 'the whole truth' justice." Unfortunately - or perhaps fortunately! - I don't foresee that ever happening (but there's still time in this life!!).

While by no means intending to disparage Mr. Brewer, it might've been nice - and might well have happened if there was cross-examination - to know exactly how it was that Brewer thought he'd recognized Oswald as a former customer; as it stands, his speculation on that point tends to be "proof" of his recognition of Oswald ... as if that is any sort of indication that Brewer knew him to be the "suspicious" type, or that his customers were more likely to be sneaking around and darting off the streets when cops were around than anyone else.

[Royce Bierma]

... One other question concerning the identities of the other movie patrions in the theater that day; has anyone ever come forth to publicize their being in attendance there, using their ticket stubs as proof? I would think that such a ticket stub would be very valuable to collectors, if not to any participants in a real investigation. Have any such stubs ever appeared, on Ebay or elsewhere?

I've never heard of such a thing, but that's hardly to say that it hasn't happened or that these folks haven't got their stubs in a frame on their mantlepiece either.

Think of the hundreds of people who were at the Trade Mart for the luncheon that never took place: occasionally, someone will trot out their invitation to it, but it's been a relative few in terms of the number of people who were there. Proportionately speaking, we might never expect anyone to come up with such an item of memorabilia, especially since it seems unlikely that it would have been dated.

Another interesting aspect of that, for the sake of saying so, is that it seems equally unlikely that anyone would believe the person who came forward with such an item (and especially if it wasn't dated!). I've spoken to a couple of people - one of them was in a lineup with Oswald, another says he was outside the theater when Oswald was brought out (and who disputes the "angry mob" several people claim to have seen or encountered) - whose own families don't believe them. In the case of the former, it's easy enough to prove just getting a copy of the Report (at least, I think the names of the other "suspects" are there; certainly in testimony); in the latter, I'm still supposed to find the guy a photo of people outside the theater since he thinks he might've been in it. He was also a school chum of Butch Burroughs.

I would also agree with Raymond that the accused need not prove anything. It is up to the state to prove its case, and critics have been showing how absurd that proof is for several decades now. This discussion has been informative and enjoyable.

It's an interesting concept that, first of all, "this is not a court of law" and we therefore should not be constrained by such things as "reasonable doubt" or technical issues of admissibility (or stoop to using such "unethical" tactics), but merely be able to "see the reality" based on the "obvious." Too and conversely, this not being a court of law, the "obvious" invariably points to Oswald as being the sole perpetrator; to suggest otherwise, however, does require "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

Nicholas Katzenbach hit the nail on the head in his famous memo to Bill Moyers, albeit in a slightly different context:

Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or ... a right-wing conspiracy to blame the Communists. Unfortunately,

the facts on Oswald seem about too pat – too obvious

(Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.) ....

Those words could as easily be applied to the case in chief rather than the single aspect of Oswald's "motivation," which naturally presumes his guilt since the innocent don't have motives! Nevertheless, the "facts" are "too pat - too obvious," and the fact that a quasi-legal body of politicians - as all were, in one form or another - would endorse them without any form of devil's advocacy, and moreover, that thinking Americans - who are trained from Day One that we are all "innocent until proven guilty" - can swallow such explanations without question is disturbing.

It is all as with the rifle: there is little if anything to factually and fully support the conclusion, but since it was there and we don't know who else might've gotten it there or how, Oswald "must" have done it even though it objectively seems like he didn't. (Unless you've got a better explanation? If so, prove it: I don't have to.)

Isn't it funny that Johnny Brewer decided to conceal such a vivid and precise memory from the Warren Commission, despite the oath he took to "tell the whole truth?"

I've often wished that I would one day witness something of great import and be called to testify, and that in the course of so doing was asked a question by one of the attorneys who, as I began to elaborate, demanded "yes or no, Mr. Lane. Did it happen that way?" whereupon I would have the opportunity to turn to the judge and say, "Your Honor, I took an oath to tell 'the whole truth,' and a simple 'yes' or 'no' would not do 'the whole truth' justice." Unfortunately - or perhaps fortunately! - I don't foresee that ever happening (but there's still time in this life!!).

While by no means intending to disparage Mr. Brewer, it might've been nice - and might well have happened if there was cross-examination - to know exactly how it was that Brewer thought he'd recognized Oswald as a former customer; as it stands, his speculation on that point tends to be "proof" of his recognition of Oswald ... as if that is any sort of indication that Brewer knew him to be the "suspicious" type, or that his customers were more likely to be sneaking around and darting off the streets when cops were around than anyone else.

Duke, hello. Perhaps, although he told the FBI he did not know Lee Oswald(apparently untrue) he recognized him when Oswald bought a pair of shoes from him at Hardy's Shoes. Among Oswald's possessions found the weekend of the 22nd were two new pairs of shoes, one of which was a pair of black oxfords with crepe soles, John Hardy brand.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=752247

If they were new, perhaps the encounter between Brewer and Oswald was recent.

Roy Bierma