Lee Oswald’s Departure from the TSBD

[Antti Hynonen]

J. Raymond Carroll Posted Yesterday, 04:12 PM

QUOTE(Ed LeDoux @ Oct 20 2008, 07:09 AM)

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.

QUOTE

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

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

Mr. BELIN - Why did you happen to watch this particular man?

Mr. BREWER - He just looked funny to me. Well, in the first place, I had seen him some place before. I think he had been in my store before.

The details of where and how he had encountered Oswald came to him at a different time apparently.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Mr. BELIN - Why did you happen to watch this particular man?

Mr. BREWER - He just looked funny to me. Well, in the first place, I had seen him some place before. I think he had been in my store before.

The details of where and how he had encountered Oswald came to him at a different time apparently.

Yes, as the years went by his memory got better and better, which is kinda funny because repeated experiments have demonstrated that people's memories actually grow more and more inaccurate and fanciful as the years go by.

If Brewer's recollections actually grew more accurate over the years, then he is a completely unique specimen of homo sapiens.

[Antti Hynonen]

Yes. Brewer may have been confused about the shoes. However, the actions of Brewer led to the arrest of Oswald in the Texas theater, as the behavior of Oswald attracted Brewer's attention.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Yes. Brewer may have been confused about the shoes. However, the actions of Brewer led to the arrest of Oswald in the Texas theater, as the behavior of Oswald attracted Brewer's attention.

Or maybe it went like this: Somebody intentionally attracted Brewer's attention, leading a small army of police to descend on the Texas theatre.

According to McDonald's signed report in Associated Press next day, the person who directed him to Oswald, and McDonald wrote that he didn't know who it was, was sitting in one of the first rows. Brewer was not sitting in one of the first rows, so it wasn't Brewer who pointed out Oswald to McDonald, if we can believe the story that McDonald wrote --and signed his name to- in Associated Press.

Bear in mind that we are dealing with a highly sophisticated murder plot that involved deception, including a plot to deceive police.

I'm sorry that I cannot find the Associated Press report online. It was first mentioned by Sylvia Meagher in Accessories, and is quoted in more detail in Crossfire by Jim Marrs.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I'm sorry that I cannot find the Associated Press report online. It was first mentioned by Sylvia Meagher in Accessories, and is quoted in more detail in Crossfire by Jim Marrs.

Thanks to Gary Mack for this email:

Ray,

McDonald did not write the Associated Press account. Please refer to Myers' With Malice for the real story, as explained by McDonald and the man who did write it. The person who pointed out the suspicious man to McDonald was Brewer.

Gary Mack

I must be getting old, because I seem to have forgotten about Myers' discussion in WITH MALICE. I promise to check Myers' book this evening and report back, unless someone beats me to the punch.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

McDonald did not write the Associated Press account. Please refer to Myers' With Malice for the real story, as explained by McDonald and the man who did write it. The person who pointed out the suspicious man to McDonald was Brewer.

Gary Mack

Myers, P. 623 points out that in 1996 McDOnald denied writing the story, although it seems that back in 1963 he went along with the Associated Press byline "By M.N. McDonald, Dallas patrolman, written for the Associated Press."

Myers cites former Dallas AP bureau chief Robert H. Johnson (unknown whether he was related to Lyndon, for all you conspiratorialists out there) ) who directed assignments at AP that weekend . Johnson feels "nearly certain" that the article was written by Oklahoma bureau chief Wilbur Martin, who was drafted into the Dallas bureau.

Wilbur Martin, the presumed author of the story that went out under the name M. N. McDonald, was deceased before Myers could question him, and there the matter rests, as I read Myers.

So the question is, would a reporter like WIlbur Martin be incapable of quoting his source accurately?

So either we have Nick McdoNALD himself writing these words or Wilbur Martin acting as recorder.

I have never seen the actual article so I am relying on Myers P. 623 for the accuracy of the quote:

"A man SITTING NEAR THE FRONT .....tipped me the man I wanted was sitting on (sic) the third row from the rear......"

It is all very well for Myers to say that Mcdonald did not know Brewer's name, but Brewer was not sitting anywhere, and according to this first detailed report the man who tipped off McDonald was seated.

I guess it all boils down to what skills you think an AP bureau chief would have and what you make of McDonald's credibility.

[Duke Lane]

It often amazes me what is cited as "the real story" when it is anything but. If it's in print and it suits our purposes, then it must be a drop-dead fact, right? Or is it simply that seniority and position engender authority? I ain't often right, but I've never been wrong?

McDonald did not write the Associated Press account. Please refer to Myers' With Malice for the real story, as explained by McDonald and the man who did write it. The person who pointed out the suspicious man to McDonald was Brewer.

Here we have the spin, broken down bit-by-bit:

• "The record," Myers intones, "shows that McDonald didn't write the article." What constitutes "the record?" The "record" is generally that which is indisputable in its accuracy, even if not its actual veracity (e.g., the "record" might record someone's perjury, but that perjury is not the truth). According to Black's Law Dictionary, it is "permanent evidence of the matters to which it relates." What, then, is the "permanent evidence" which shows that McDonald didn't write the article? Myers cites that:
  
• The byline on the article reads: "By M.N. McDonald, Dallas Patrolman, Written for the Associated Press." The word "by," among its several definitions, means "from the hand, mind, invention, or creativity of," as in "a book written by Dale Myers;" it may also mean "through the agency, efficacy, work, participation, or authority of," as in "this book was published by Random House." Clearly, there is a difference between the words and actions of "written" and "published," even though in this example we may be referring to the same book (if With Malice had been published by Random House): the publisher, per se, does not bring the book into being by virtue of its "hand, mind, invention, or creativity," even while it does bring the book into being by virtue of its "agency, efficacy, work, participation, or authority" (even though in this case the author and the publisher were the same, they needn't have been).
  I hardly think that Dale would call his book "written by" Random House or even by The Oak Cliff Press, the actual publisher, even though the OCP also happens to be Dale. "Written by" is very specific: the person it was "by" actually wrote it. The "permanent evidence" thus far is that M.N. McDonald wrote the article, but to prove that that's not necessarily the case, Myers cites another article's byline, also attributed to a Dallas police officer entitled:'
  
• "I Yelled But Couldn't Get to Him," by Detective B.H. Combest As Told to the Associated Press. Here there is a huge difference in the attribution: while Combest's story was "by" him, it was "as told to" the Associated Press, meaning that Combest told the story, AP wrote it down and published it. McDonald's article says it was "written by" him "for" the Associated Press. There are very specific rules of attribution followed by journalists so as not to give or claim attribution improperly. If it's terribly important or if anyone's having serious problems understanding this, I will ask editorial folks from the Dallas Morning News, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, or even the Detroit Free Press (I know people at all of them who might well indulge me) to provide a professional opinion devoid of any kind of agenda.
  In support of the "permanent evidence" being something other than what it actually is, Myers goes on to offer a third party's speculation and opinion:
  
• After reviewing the article attributed to McDonald, [former Dallas AP Bureau Chief Robert] Johnson stated that he was "almost certain" that the writer was Oklahoma AP Bureau Chief Wilbur Martin, now deceased ... [because] Martin had a unique writing-style which Johnson recognized (quotes around "almost certain" in the original). Folks, "almost certain" is a far cry from certain knowledge: had Johnson said that he'd watched Martin write the story from simple notes, then he'd have had certain knowledge; he did not. Furthermore, it is based on a non-comparative analysis: Johnson (supposedly) felt that the writing style was the same or similar to Martin's, but he did not know what McDonald's writing style was like. Not too long ago, I had made a complaint against someone which was investigated by someone who is and was very familiar with my own writing style. A written statement was made by someone else, with no coaching from me (although I admittedly offered it!), and because of the investigator's "familiarity" with my writing style, he determined that the letter was actually written by me; he did not even ask the other party if she had written it. "Nobody," he said, "writes like Duke." To whatever extent it may have resembled my own writing style, it's now clear that somebody does. As further "proof" that McDonald didn't write it, we are given nothing more than an excuse coupled with more speculation:
  
• Regarding the paragraph about the unknown tipster, Johnson pointed out that the interview would have been conducted on November 23 and that McDonald may knot have known Brewer's name at the time and that, in his testimony, McDonald pointed out that he "... learned his name later." (emphases mine) It's entirely correct that McDonald may not have known Brewer's name at the time he wrote the article (despite Brewer having known his, which is not unusual inasmuch as there are fewer cops in a patrol area than there are citizens, and McDonald was normally assigned in a nearby district), it is not known either exactly when the article was written, or at what point "later" McDonald learned Brewer's name. It is possible that McDonald wrote the article on Friday evening and he learned Brewer's name on Saturday or Sunday or the next time he bought a pair of shoes. But rather than credit the "permanent evidence" that McDonald wrote the article, Johnson assumes that Martin did and therefore Martin must've "interviewed" McDonald so he (Martin) could write it. He likewise assumes that such an interview took place on the 23rd and that it did not take place on the 22nd, even if only because it wasn't published on the 23rd. Finally and ultimately, this version of events is true because
  
• McDonald denied writing the article in a 1996 interview. QED ... even without any context provided, such as with even an excerpt from the interview. Is it possible that McDonald said "I didn't put it in the paper"? We'll never known ... nor will we know why he might've denied writing if he did (write it or deny it).
  

We are thus left with very few facts to support the contention that the "real story" is as surmised, that McDonald - despite the very specific byline - did not "write" the article in question, those being:

• McDonald denied it
  
• Johnson's "almost certainty" that Martin wrote it
  
• Martin's "unique writing style," recognized by Johnson
  

Meanwhile, the "permanent evidence" remains what it is: despite Myers' trying to tell us otherwise, "the record" shows that McDonald did write the article. His denial of doing so is not part of "the record." Whether or not McDonald actually wrote it - as "the record" tells us he did - is a separate issue.

Yes. Brewer may have been confused about the shoes. However, the actions of Brewer led to the arrest of Oswald in the Texas theater, as the behavior of Oswald attracted Brewer's attention.

Or maybe it went like this: Somebody intentionally attracted Brewer's attention, leading a small army of police to descend on the Texas theatre. ... Bear in mind that we are dealing with a highly sophisticated murder plot that involved deception, including a plot to deceive police....

While I don't disagree in theory, the problem lies in the ability not only to be able to predict Brewer's actions, but moreover to pre-ordain them: a "highly sophisticated murder plot" would not rely upon mere luck to carry off the plan. What if Brewer been in the back getting stock when Oswald (presuming that it was Oswald, as it probably was)came into the vestibule? Fitting shoes on someone? Or the two IBM guys had engaged him in some deep conversation? Or if he'd been simply been looking away from the door, or was just one of those people who "minded their own business" and ignored the guy on the street?

If it wasn't merely luck that Brewer decided to follow the guy, then we'd have to conjecture that he was "part of the plot," which hardly makes sense at all. What assassins are going to recruit a shoe salesman, with his "just reward" being only a lateral promotion to manager of the downtown Hardy's store?

In reality, Oswald ducking into the theater might've been a smart move on his part ... except for the bad luck of Busybody Brewer sweating a dollar's ticket fee that he got no part of and ratting him out to Julia Postal; it was only a "bad move" from the standpoint of his getting caught there and having no avenue of escape. However, chances seem to be that, unless Oswald knew or suspected the cops were looking for him in particular, that walking - anywhere! - would've been better than ducking into the theater; getting the heck out of Dodge would've been even better, and riding a bus - even back into downtown! - would've been an unobtrusive way to do that.

Which, of course, leads us to the question of why didn't he, doesn't it?

[Bernice Moore]

Raymond & Duke:

Here are a couple later newspaper reports...That may be of

some help...

Quoting whereby Nick MacDonald does state

it was Brewer who informed him of where LHO was situated....

within theTheatre.

Quote:

"There was this guy, I think he was a shoe salesman,

and he told us the suspect was sitting at the back of the lower floor by himself.

I peeped through the curtain and spotted Oswald.."

B........

Edited October 23, 2008 by Bernice Moore

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Duke: Some very astute observations re the McDonald article. As I recall, this article did not make it into the Warren Commission record and became known with publication of Sylvia Meagher's book in 1967. The article would have been a dynamite piece of evidence in the hands of Lee Oswald's defense lawyer if he stood trial and claimed he had been in the cinema from the beginning of the movie.

I don't disagree in theory, the problem lies in the ability not only to be able to predict Brewer's actions, but moreover to pre-ordain them: a "highly sophisticated murder plot" would not rely upon mere luck to carry off the plan. What if Brewer been in the back getting stock

The plotters did not have to depend on Brewer. If Brewer had not been there or had not reacted, there were plenty of stores nearby the theatre. Johnny Brewer happened to react as the plotters hoped, and for all we know the guy may have failed at other stores before he got to Brewer's.

presuming that it was Oswald, as it probably was came into the vestibule?

Not sure why this is probable. The guy Brewer saw did not behave even the tiniest bit like the guy Marion Baker met in the 2nd Floor TSBD, remember?

Or the two IBM guys had engaged him in some deep conversation?

WHo are the IBM guys?

Bernice, thank you for the articles. I look forward to studying them over the weekend. Do you know the dates and the newspapers where they appeared?

Edited October 24, 2008 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Bernice Moore]

Raymond :

All I have is, Dallas News, 1964..Jim Ewell.....

I have no idea whose comments ,have been added on the left of the

first article..?

B....

Edited October 24, 2008 by Bernice Moore

[Don Jeffries]

Duke,

Once again, I commend you on your excellent analytic skills. Thanks!

Raymond,

I actually agree with you again here. I don't necessarily trust any part of the official story of Oswald's post assassination movements. Your hypothesis about the fleeing "Oswald" perhaps ducking into other doorways first, without getting the desired reaction, is thought provoking. Maybe indeed Brewer became an important witness because he responded the way the conspirators wanted someone to. Who knows?

This continues to be a very productive discussion.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

walking - anywhere! - would've been better than ducking into the theater; getting the heck out of Dodge would've been even better, and riding a bus - even back into downtown! - would've been an unobtrusive way to do that.

Which, of course, leads us to the question of why didn't he, doesn't it?

All very, very true, and further reason to doubt that Lee Oswald was the man who baited Brewer.

[Duke Lane]

walking - anywhere! - would've been better than ducking into the theater; getting the heck out of Dodge would've been even better, and riding a bus - even back into downtown! - would've been an unobtrusive way to do that.

Which, of course, leads us to the question of why didn't he, doesn't it?

All very, very true, and further reason to doubt that Lee Oswald was the man who baited Brewer.

Why's that? There's no question that he was in the theater, he had to get there somehow, and someone else would have had to have known he was in there in order to set someone up to "act" as Oswald to attract Brewer's attention - which there was no guarantee of his doing unless, as I'd said, Brewer was "part of the plot," for which there's no evidence - so he'd follow Oswald (again, with no guarantee that he would) into the self-same theater wherein Oswald sat, right?

So if Oswald had moseyed down to the theater to catch a flick after getting out of Whaley's cab, since nobody apparently knew that he'd left the TSBD and nobody apparently knew that he lived weekdays on Beckley, and nobody was apparently watching either busses or cabs or following them - or Oswald - around, how did someone else know that Oswald was in the theater 30 minutes or so after he'd gone in there? By all accounts, up to that point he was an innocuous, unremarkable citizen simply going about his business or lack thereof; why or how would anyone have known he'd gone in there at all?

If Oswald was indeed set up to take the fall for the two murders - and especially the later one - it's apparent that someone would have had to have known that he lived in Oak Cliff rather than Irving (the address on his employment application). The most likely ways that knowledge came about would seem to be that he had told someone where he'd lived (we have no way of knowing if he'd struck up any acquaintences, say, riding a bus back and forth to and from work during the week, or through some other venue) or someone had tagged him and followed him there, a relatively simple task. I'd think the latter to be more likely than the former, wouldn't you?

How did he end up on the radar in the first place? Once again, if he was being set up as the patsy, it may have been simply a stroke of luck, say for example his being spotted as a new guy at the ACLU meeting he'd gone to with Michael Paine: DPD Intelligence certainly considered the ACLU a "subversive" organization and undoubtedly kept their eyes on it, and probably infiltrated its meetings. Lo, when this guy with the big mouth shows up, they look into his background and - ouala! - they find he's a "Communist" who'd actually lived in the Soviet Union in the not-too-distant past. Who could ask for a better patsy?

How that all squares with his being hired at a building overlooking the ideal ambush location, I don't know: it may have been just another stroke of luck. If not him, there were other potential targets for the role of patsy in the building, not least among them being Joe Molina, another "subversive" who was a member of the "suspect" organization, the American GI Forum, essentially a "Mexican VFW" whose biggest sin was probably giving former soldiers of Latino extraction the ridiculous idea that they deserved recognition and benefits by dint of their service in the white man's army, similar to the ACLU's support of the voting and other rights of the black man. (I mean, what were they thinking?!?)

That's all speculation, of course, but in any case we come back to the fact that, in order to set Oswald up for capture in the theater, someone had to know he was in there, or else it was in fact Oswald whom Brewer saw. I'd opt for the latter because the former is much too sketchy a proposition.

We don't hear from Brewer that he followed the guy to the theater, but when he saw him inside, he'd "looked a little different," such as wearing a different shirt. Thus if it wasn't Oswald who'd passed in front of Hardy's Shoe Store, it was someone who knew to wear an almost-identical shirt as the one "the real Oswald" had on. And since you're so keen on his having gone into 1026, what did he do with his jacket in between home and the theater? Leave it in the gutter somewhere? Donate it to a homeless person?

If you accept Earlene Roberts' observation that Oswald went into his room and came out zipping up a jacket - and you cannot accept part of it (i.e., that he came into the house) without accepting all of it - then you have no choice but to accept that he shot Tippit and did not go directly or indirectly only to the theater. Otherwise, you've got to account for that jacket he no longer had when he was arrested. The only way you can put him into the theater before Brewer saw him is to do it without his wearing a jacket, i.e., without his going home to get it.

I think it's fairly plain that it was Oswald who ducked into Brewer's store. Whether or not he'd shot Tippit, we're still left with the question of where he was from the time he got out of Whaley's cab to the time he was arrested (which is effectively the same as saying "from the time when Tippit was shot").

[Denis Pointing]

In reality, Oswald ducking into the theater might've been a smart move on his part ... except for the bad luck of Busybody Brewer sweating a dollar's ticket fee that he got no part of and ratting him out to Julia Postal; it was only a "bad move" from the standpoint of his getting caught there and having no avenue of escape. However, chances seem to be that, unless Oswald knew or suspected the cops were looking for him in particular, that walking - anywhere! - would've been better than ducking into the theater; getting the heck out of Dodge would've been even better, and riding a bus - even back into downtown! - would've been an unobtrusive way to do that.

Which, of course, leads us to the question of why didn't he, doesn't it?

"Busybody Brewer" didn't follow Oswald because he was "sweating a dollar ticket fee" that's nonsense, Brewer's testimony makes it perfectly clear as to why he became suspicious of Oswald and subsequently followed him:

Mr. BELIN - Do you remember hearing anything else over the radio concerning anything that happened that afternoon?

Mr. BREWER - Well, they kept reconstructing what had happened and what they had heard, and they talked about it in general. There wasn't too much to talk about. They didn't have all the facts, and just repeated them mostly. And they said a patrolman had been shot in Oak Cliff.

Mr. BELIN - Is Oak Cliff the area in which your shoe store was located?

Mr. BREWER - Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN - All right, would you describe what happened after you heard on the radio that an officer had been shot?

Mr. BREWER - Well, there was heard a siren coming down East Jefferson headed toward West Jefferson.

Mr. BELIN - What is the dividing street between East and West Jefferson?

Mr. BREWER - Beckley.

Mr. BELIN - How far is Beckley from your store?

Mr. BREWER - Two blocks.

Mr. BELIN - Two blocks to the east or to the west?

Mr. BREWER - There is Zangs to the east. The first street is Zangs and the next street is Beckley.

Mr. BELIN - The first street east is Zangs Boulevard and the next street is Beckley?

Mr. BREWER - Yes, right.

Mr. BELIN - Is your store located to the north or south side of Jefferson?

Mr. BREWER - On the north.

Mr. BELIN - All right.

Mr. BREWER - I looked up and out towards the street and the police cars----

Mr. BELIN - When you looked up, did you step out of the store at all?

Mr. BREWER - No; I was Still in the store behind the counter, and I looked up and saw the man enter the lobby.

Mr. BELIN - When you say the lobby of your store, first let me ask you to describe how is----how wide is your store, approximately?

Mr. BREWER - About 20 feet.

Mr. BELIN - All right, is the entrance to your store right on the sidewalk?

Mr. BREWER - The entrance to the store is about 15 feet from the sidewalk, front doors.

Mr. BELIN - The front doors?

Mr. BREWER - Yes; they are recessed, and then there is windows, show windows on each side.

Mr. BELIN - This would be, if we were if we would take a look at the letter "U," or see the letter "V," your doorway would be at the bottom part of the letter and the show cases would be at the sides of the letter, is that correct?

Mr. BREWER - Yes.

Mr. BELIN - What you call this lobby, that is the area between the sidewalk and your front door, is that correct?

Mr. BREWER - Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN - All right, you saw a man going into what you referred to as this lobby area?

Mr. BREWER - Yes; and he stood there with his back to the street.

Mr. BELIN - When did he go in now? What did you hear at the time that he stepped into this lobby area?

Mr. BREWER - I heard the police cars coming up Jefferson, and he stepped in, and the police made a U-turn and went back down East Jefferson.

Mr. BELIN - Where did he make the U-turn?

Mr. BREWER - At Zangs.

Mr. BELIN - Do you remember the sirens going away?

Mr. BREWER - Yes; the sirens were going away. I presume back to where the officer had been shot, because it was back down that way. And when they turned and left, Oswald looked over his shoulder and turned around and walked up West Jefferson towards the theatre.

Mr. BELIN - Let me hold you a minute. You used the word Oswald. Did you know who the man was at the time you saw him?

Mr. BREWER - No.

Mr. BELIN - So at the time, you didn't know what his name was?

Mr. BREWER - No.

Mr. BELIN - Will you describe the man you saw?

Mr. BREWER - He was a little man, about 5'9", and weighed about 150 pounds is all.

Mr. BELIN - How tall are you, by the way?

Mr. BREWER - Six three.

Mr. BELIN - So you say he was about 5'9"?

Mr. BREWER - About 5'9".

Mr. BELIN - And about 150?

Mr. BREWER - And had brown hair. He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out.

Mr. BELIN - Any jacket?

Mr. BREWER - No.

Mr. BELIN - What color of trousers, do you remember?

Mr. BREWER - I don't remember.

Mr. BELIN - Light or dark?

Mr. BREWER - I don't remember that either.

Mr. BELIN - Any other clothing that you noticed?

Mr. BREWER - He had a T-shirt underneath his shirt.

Mr. BELIN - Was his shirt buttoned up all the way?

Mr. BREWER - A couple of buttons were unbuttoned at the time.

Mr. BELIN - Light complexioned or dark?

Mr. BREWER - Light complexioned.

Mr. BELIN - All right. After you saw him in the lobby of your store there, what you call a lobby area, which is really kind of an extension of the sidewalk, then you saw him leave?

Mr. BREWER - Yes, he turned and walked up toward----

Mr. BELIN - Had the police sirens subsided at the time he turned, or not?

Mr. BREWER - No; you could still hear sirens.

Mr. BELIN - Did they sound like they were coming toward you or going away?

Mr. BREWER - They were going away at that time.

Mr. BELIN - Going the other way?

Mr. BREWER - Yes.

Mr. BELIN - How could you tell?

Mr. BREWER - They were getting further in the distance.

Mr. BELIN - Then what did you see this man do?

Mr. BREWER - He turned and walked out of the lobby and went up West Jefferson toward the theatre, and I walked out the front and watched him, and he went into the theatre.

Mr. BELIN - What theatre is that?

Mr. BREWER - Texas Theatre.

Mr. BELIN - Why did you happen to watch this particular man?

Mr. BREWER - He just looked funny to me. Well, in the first place, I had seen him some place before. I think he had been in my store before. And when you wait on somebody, you recognize them, and he just seemed funny. His hair was sort of messed up and looked like he had been running, and he looked seared, and he looked funny.

Mr. BELIN - Did you notice any of his actions when he was standing in your lobby there?

Mr. BREWER - No; he just stood there and stared.

Mr. BELIN - He stared?

Mr. BREWER - Yes.

Mr. BELIN - Was he looking at the merchandise?

Mr. BREWER - Not anything in particular. He was just standing there staring.

Mr. BELIN - Well, would you state then what happened? You said that you saw him walk into the Texas Theatre?

Mr. BREWER - He walked into the Texas Theatre and I walked up to the theatre, to the box office and asked Mrs. Postal if she sold a ticket to a man who was wearing a brown shirt, and she said no, she hadn't. She was listening to the radio herself. And I said that a man walked in there, and I was going to go inside and ask the usher if he had seen him.

................................................................................

....................................................

So there's really nothing at all surprising concerning Brewer's actions, any sensible, alert person would have acted the same way. As to why Oswald never attempted "getting the heck out of Dodge" Oswald may have been trying to do exactly that before he got "side tracked" into killing Tippit. I attempted to postulate Oswald's escape from Dallas in a earlier post, to which you made a rather sarcastic and nonsensical reply about Oswald stealing an elephant from the zoo and charging out of town! So maybe we can now hear your suggestion.

And Ray, if your reading this, I gotta say the mental picture of an Oswald lookalike dodging in and out of every shop doorway on the block, deliberately trying to attract attention made me physically laugh (and that ain't easy). How do you think this stuff up?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

And Ray, if your reading this, I gotta say the mental picture of an Oswald lookalike dodging in and out of every shop doorway on the block, deliberately trying to attract attention made me physically laugh

Glad to be of service. The ability to laugh is a sign of good mental health.

(and that ain't easy).

Maybe you should get out more. It's a blast out there.

How do you think this stuff up?

Makes you want to eat your heart out, don't it?