Jump to content
The Education Forum

Two Oswalds in the Texas Theater


Recommended Posts

Unsurprisingly, Jim seems to have run out of answers to the criticism of his Oswald-doppelganger-in-the-Texas-Theater fantasy.

So let's recap and provide an overview. Anyone, now or in the future, who is at all tempted to take seriously the 'Harvey and Lee' version of the Texas Theater incident the next time Jim brings it up, can be pointed to this page. And bring it up again he most certainly will (as I will explain further on).

Everyone will be able to see how Jim has ignored arguments that he doesn't have an answer for, and how he has made false statements to bolster his case.

The 'Harvey and Lee' argument

We know that an Oswald doppelganger, someone who looked exactly like the real-life, historical, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald, was arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater because:

(1) Two police reports mentioned it:
    (a) C.E. Talbert, in his report about the murder of Officer Tippit, which was typed at 5pm on 22 November, wrote that "Suspect was later arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theatre".
    (b) L.D. Stringfellow, in a memo to W.P. Gannaway on 23 November, wrote that "Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater".

(2) Warren 'Butch' Burroughs, who ran the concession stand at the back of the auditorium, saw the arrest and saw someone hustled down stairs:
    (a) He claimed to have seen someone who looked like Oswald arrested and taken out through the rear door. We know this from two sources:
        (i) Jim Glover wrote a letter to the FBI in 1993 stating that "Burroughs also saw Oswald's double being arrested and taken out the back door of the theatre at about the same time that Oswald was being taken out the front door."
        (ii) James Douglass, who interviewed Burroughs in 2007, wrote that "he saw a second arrest occur in the Texas Theater ... Burroughs saw the second Oswald placed under arrest and handcuffed. The Oswald look-alike, however, was taken by police not out the front but out the back of the theater" (JFK and the Unspeakable, pp.292-3).
    (b) Burroughs' claim was corroborated by Bernard Haire, who was standing in the alley behind the Texas Theater. Haire saw a young white man escorted by the police out of the rear door and into the alley, and then driven away in a police car which had been parked in the alley (Jim Marrs, Crossfire, p.354).
    (c) Burroughs claimed for decades that he had seen an arrest in the balcony.
    (d) He told more than one interviewer that the man he had seen was handcuffed.

Reasons to think the balcony location was mistaken

(1) Neither of the authors of the police reports is known to have witnessed Oswald's arrest on the ground floor or to have visited the balcony. Talbert was in the alley at the back of the building for at least some of the time, and Stringfellow probably wasn't at the Texas Theater at all.

(2) The precise location of Oswald's arrest was of no significance. Its inclusion in the reports was an unimportant detail that the report writers would not have bothered to check.

(3) The alert which told the police to go to the Texas Theater mentioned that the suspect may have been in the balcony. When writing their reports, the authors would surely have been aware of this fact and could easily have assumed that that was actually where Oswald was arrested.

Reasons to think that no doppelganger calling himself Oswald was arrested

(1) No doppelganger in his right mind would have blurted out that his name was Oswald, thereby giving away the top-secret, decade-long multi-Oswald, multi-Marguerite, fake mastoidectomy operated-upon, Russian-speaking Hungarian refugee doppelganger project.

(2) It would have become common knowledge within the Dallas police department that two men with the same name and the same physical features were arrested in the same building on the same day. It is inconceiveable that no-one ever mentioned this outrageously unlikely coincidence, especially since one of the men with the name 'Oswald' was central to a world-wide news story, the biggest Dallas had ever seen.

Reasons to doubt Burroughs' story

(1) There is a perfectly credible candidate for the incident Burroughs saw:
    (a) George Applin, like Oswald, was a young (21-year-old versus 24-year-old) white man.
    (b) Applin spoke to the police on the ground floor and was escorted by them out of the building.
    (c) He probably left by the rear door, for several reasons: the police who spoke to him had entered by the rear door; their cars were parked in the alley by the rear door; they would almost certainly have taken Applin away in the cars they had arrived in; and none of the many witnesses at the front of the building reported that anyone other than Oswald was taken out through the front door.
    (d) Over the decades, Burroughs' memory of seeing Applin being taken away by the police could easily have changed into a memory of an arrest.

(2) We know for a fact that George Applin was taken away by the police, in order to give a signed and witnessed statement (see his affidavit). But no-one in the Texas Theater who would have witnessed the event Burroughs described -- not Burroughs, not Jack Davis, not George Applin himself, not any of the police officers -- reported seeing more than one such incident, apart from the arrest of Oswald.

(3) No witnesses claimed that anyone was "hustled down stairs". Jim made that bit up.

(4) Burroughs had failed to mention his story when he was interviewed by Jim Marrs in 1987. Marrs was keen to learn whether anything even vaguely conspiratorial had occurred in the Texas Theater. He would certainly have questioned Burroughs closely, and would certainly have reported Burroughs' story if it existed in 1987, but he didn't.

(5) Burroughs' story didn't emerge until 1993, three decades after the event.

(6) Burroughs' story evolved and expanded over time:
    (a) 1964, Warren Commission: no arrest.
    (b) 1987, Jim Marrs interview: no arrest.
    (c) 1993, Jim Glover: arrest and taken out the back.
    (d) 2007, James Douglass interview: arrest, placed in handcuffs, and taken out the back.

(7) There is no reason to connect Burroughs' story with any arrest in the balcony:
    (a) He did not explicitly mention to any of his interviewers over the years that he had seen anyone, let alone a suspect under arrest in handcuffs and accompanied by police officers, come down the stairs from the balcony.
    (b) He would certainly have seen such an event, if it had happened, because we know from his Warren Commission testimony (Hearings, vol.7, pp.14-17) that he was at his concession stand, which was close to the stairs (see a plan of the building), and he had earlier seen and reported a much less noticeable incident, a woman walking up the stairs by herself (Marrs, Crossfire, p.353).

(8) Burroughs did not claim for decades that he had seen an arrest in the balcony. Jim made that bit up. The phrase in Douglass's JFK and the Unspeakable (p.293) which Jim claimed referred to an arrest in the balcony ("saw the second Oswald placed under arrest and handcuffed") in fact implies that the event he saw took place on the ground floor.

(9) Burroughs did not see an arrest take place in the balcony at all:
    (a) Burroughs did not tell anyone, ever, that he had seen an arrest take place in the balcony.
    (b) He never claimed to have gone up to the balcony.
    (c) He implied, according to Marrs' and Douglass's accounts, that he stayed on the ground floor and never went up to the balcony while the police were in the building.
    (d) He would not have been able to see into the balcony from his position on the ground floor at the back of the auditorium.

(10) Burroughs did not tell more than one interviewer that the man he saw was in handcuffs. Jim made that bit up. The only mention of handcuffs is in Douglass's account, from an interview in 2007, 44 years after the event.

(11) It is an uncontroversial fact that when people recall past events, especially events from several decades earlier as in Burroughs' case, they forget some details and unwittingly add others. There is no reason to assume that Burroughs' memory was less fallible than anyone else's.

Conclusions

The police reports each contained the same easily understandable mistake, and Warren 'Butch' Burroughs had a normal, fallible memory.

The real-life, historical, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested on the ground floor and taken out of the front entrance. Just one other person was taken out of the Texas Theater by the police: George Jefferson Applin, Jr.

Consequence

Now that there is no reason to suppose that a fictional Oswald doppelganger got arrested in the Texas Theater, there's a big hole in the 'Harvey and Lee' narrative. The 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy is in even worse shape now than it was before Jim used this thread to try and support it.

It will be interesting to see whether Jim (or his revered master) compiles a revised narrative of events, omitting the Texas Theater incident, or whether he simply pretends that his interpretation of the incident hasn't been debunked. We all know the answer to that one: he'll bring it up again and pretend that this thread never happened.

Why should anyone care?

The 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy is just one of many examples of the tin-foil hat speculation that the JFK assassination, like other unsolved mysteries, tends to attract. Most non-paranoid people would probably just shrug their shoulders and laugh about it, but the danger with all of this stuff is that it is liable to give genuine critics of the lone-nut theory a bad name. If the public at large starts to think that the only criticism that's on offer is paranoid speculation, the subject will never attract much active public support.

As we saw with the formation of the House Select Committee and the Assassination Records Review Board, it is pressure by the general public that gets things moving. Without public support, the issue will continue to be reported and discussed unfairly in the media, evidence will remain withheld, and the case won't get resolved.

Each time a piece of tin-foil hattery is debunked, the less likely it is that the JFK assassination debate will be misunderstood by the general public, and the more likely it is that something might actually get done.

Why go to all this bother?

It may seem that methodically trashing one small element of the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy is excessive and unnecessary. After all, hardly anyone takes seriously the idea that two unrelated boys from different parts of the world magically turned out to look identical when they grew up more than a decade later, not to mention the fake Marguerite who just happened to vanish into thin air immediately after the assassination, the wrong doppelganger getting buried in the grave (whoops!), and all the rest of it. As Bernie Laverick pointed out, the 'Harvey and Lee' cult has been around for more than two decades and it has still acquired fewer converts than the idea that the Queen of England is a lizard.

Not only that, but debunking this particular element of the fairy tale surely won't stop Jim Hargrove repeating his revered master's claim that a top-secret long-term Oswald doppelganger was arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater. As Jim's friend Greg Parker has pointed out (see my previous post), Jim has made on average around two posts a day since he has been a member of this forum, and almost all of those posts have been repeating the same few 'Harvey and Lee' talking points over and over and over again, copying and pasting the same poorly thought-out rubbish from his holy book, while ignoring all the evidence and arguments that contradict what he's saying.

But the next time Jim does it, people will at least be more aware of his methods. I've noticed that just in the last few days, since Jim in effect threw in the towel, views of this thread have gone from around 15,000 to 17,000 (it's up to 17,030 at the time of writing), so there are a lot of people who are now aware of how weak the whole 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense is.

For those who are interested, there's further criticism of the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy here:

- http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f13-the-harvey-lee-evidence

- http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/search/label/Harvey %26 Lee

Edited by Jeremy Bojczuk
Added some links; sorted out some Javascript-induced formatting problems
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 560
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

11 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

But the next time Jim does it, people will at least be more aware of his methods.

I, a mere dilettante, have personally exposed at least five and probably more H&L factoids with half my brain tied behind my back.  The H&L folks never miss a beat, never acknowledge even the most blatant errors.  Anyone who takes H&L seriously would not be dissuaded even if John Armstrong were to admit the whole thing had been a hoax to sell books from the get-go.  This has been proven in many other fields of weirdness - when the perpetrator of a hoax finally fesses up and even demonstrates how it was done, many of those who have been intellectually and emotionally invested simply reject the confession and insist the confession itself is the hoax.  (I'm not suggesting H&L is a hoax - merely making the point that when any theory hardens into a fundamentalist religion, as H&L has, any attempt at reasoned debate is futile.)

Like Tracy I have come to realize that it is almost pointless to attempt to deal with all species of whacked-out conspiracy theorists on their own turf - as the saying goes, when you wrestle with a pig you both end up covered with mud but the pig enjoys it. Debating H&L just keeps H&L alive.  And, to an extent, gives it credence:  If it's so obviously silly, why are so many people spending so much time on it?  (The humor is how many of those who ridicule H&L themselves hold to theories that are nearly as absurd - likewise a common phenomenon across the full spectrum of weirdness.)

I don't believe you can dent a theory like H&L by attacking the evidence or methodology.  You're just playing Whac-a-Mole (as I have admittedly done in the past).  The correct way to deal with all species of whacked-out goofiness, I believe, is to just keep posing challenges such as "Explain to me how that makes any sense at all.  How would that have worked?  Why would they have done that?"  For someone new to H&L, this is more likely to resonate than attempting to expose flaws in evidence or methodology (for which the H&L folks always have some sort of answer anyway).

I started posing such questions on page 11 of this very thread and returned to ask them even more pointedly (in purple ink, no less) on page 15.  I never received any substantive responses, of course, which is why I bowed out.  And now I see we're on page 33 and the pigs are loving it.  (By the time a thread reaches 33 pages, those 17,000 views are probably 99% participants on the thread, not lurkers - of which I have come to believe there are very few on this site.  If there were lurkers, they surely wouldn't wade through 33 pages of the mind-numbing "discussion" and document dumps that characterize every H&L thread.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/22/2019 at 7:11 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

That doesn't match at all what Butch Burroughs and Bernard Haire witnessed.  From James Douglass's JFK and the Unspeakable:

Butch Burroughs, who witnessed Oswald’s arrest, startled me in his interview by saying he saw a second arrest occur in the Texas Theater only “three or four minutes later.”[444] He said the Dallas Police then arrested “an Oswald lookalike.” Burroughs said the second man “looked almost like Oswald, like he was his brother or something.”[445] When I questioned the comparison by asking, “Could you see the second man as well as you could see Oswald?” he said, “Yes, I could see both of them. They looked alike.”[446] After the officers half-carried and half-dragged Oswald to the police car in front of the theater, within a space of three or four minutes, Burroughs saw the second Oswald placed under arrest and handcuffed. The Oswald look-alike, however, was taken by police not out the front but out the back of the theater.[447]

What happened next we can learn from another neglected witness, Bernard Haire.[448]

Bernard J. Haire was the owner of Bernie’s Hobby House, just two doors east of the Texas Theater. Haire went outside his store when he saw police cars congregating in front of the theater.[449] When he couldn’t see what was happening because of the crowd, he went back through his store into the alley out back. It, too, was full of police cars, but there were fewer spectators. Haire walked up the alley. When he stopped opposite the rear door of the theater, he witnessed what he would think for decades was the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald.

“Police brought a young white man out,” Haire told an interviewer. “The man was dressed in a pullover shirt and slacks. He seemed to be flushed, as if he’d been in a struggle. Police put the man in a police car and drove off.”[450]

When Haire was told in 1987 that Lee Harvey Oswald had been brought out the front of the theater by police, he was shocked.

“I don’t know who I saw arrested,” he said in bewilderment.[451]

Butch Burroughs and Bernard Haire are complementary witnesses. From their perspectives both inside and outside the Texas Theater, they saw an Oswald double arrested and taken to a police car in the back alley only minutes after the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald. Burroughs’s and Haire’s independent, converging testimonies provide critical insight into the mechanics of the plot. In a comprehensive intelligence scenario for Kennedy’s and Tippit’s murders, the plan culminated in Oswald’s Friday arrest and Sunday murder (probably a fallback from his being set up to be killed in the Texas Theater by the police).

There is a hint of the second Oswald’s arrest in the Dallas police records. According to the Dallas Police Department’s official Homicide Report on J. D. Tippit, “Suspect was later arrested in the balcony of the Texas theatre at 231 W. Jefferson.”[452]

Dallas Police detective L. D. Stringfellow also reported to Captain W. P. Gannaway, “Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater.”[453]

NOTES:

444. Author’s interview of Burroughs, July 16, 2007. Butch Burroughs is a man of few words. When asked a question, he answers exactly what he is asked. Burroughs told me no one had ever asked him before about a second arrest in the Texas Theater. In response to my question, “Now you didn’t see anybody else [besides Oswald] get arrested that day, did you?” he answered, “Yes, there was a lookalike—an Oswald lookalike.” In response to further questions, he described the second arrest, that of the “Oswald lookalike.” Ibid. Because Butch Burroughs saw neither Oswald nor his lookalike enter the Texas Theater, each must have gone directly up the balcony stairs on entering. Oswald crossed the balcony and came down the stairs on the far side of the lobby. There he entered the orchestra seats and began his seat-hopping, in apparent search of a contact. His lookalike sneaked into the theater at 1:45 P.M. and, like Oswald, went immediately up the balcony stairs. By the time Burroughs witnessed the Oswald double’s arrest, he had also come down the balcony stairs on the far side of the lobby, either on his own or already accompanied by police who had been checking the balcony. 

445. §
Ibid. 

446. §
Ibid. 

447. §
Ibid. 

448. §
In the data base of the JFK Records Act at the National Archives, there is no record of Bernard Haire. Archivist Martin F. McGann to James Douglass, July 20, 2007. 

449. §
In a photo taken about 1:50 P.M., November 22, 1963, that shows people gathering around the police cars in front of the Texas Theater, Bernard Haire can be seen at the edge of the crowd, leaning on a parking meter and trying to see. Photo by Stuart L. Reed; on p. 68, Myers, With Malice. 

450. §
Bernard J. Haire interview by Jim Marrs, summer 1987. Crossfire, p. 354. 

451. §
Ibid. 

452. §
Dallas Police Department Homicide Report on J. D. Tippit, November 22, 1963. Reproduced in With Malice, p. 447 (emphasis added). 

453. §
Letter from Detective L. D. Stringfellow to Captain W. P. Gannaway, November 23, 1963, Dallas City Archives. Cited in Harvey & Lee, p. 871 (emphasis added). 

 

Isn't it amazing how two H&L critics declare victory and then write on and on and on about how wrong we are about the arrest of two Oswalds in the Texas Theater?  Mr. Haire tells us that the second Oswald appeared to have been in a struggle when he saw him.  Mr. Burroughs saw the second Oswald in handcuffs.  Yet Mr. B wants us to believe that handcuffed man was a mere witness.

They go on and on about where the second Oswald was actually arrested, in the balcony or downstairs, as if that made any freakin' difference!  My guess is that it was a balcony arrest simply because two Dallas Police reports said so.  But it really doesn't matter in the least.  

There is a trainload of evidence for two Oswalds, who on assassination day had two different wallets, who entered the theater at different times, with one impersonating and setting up the other in the weeks prior to the hit.  No matter how many long-winded posts they make, the evidence does not go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2019 at 10:26 PM, Ron Bulman said:

There's a lot of good information, that should be pursued, on a few others here, e.g. Beckham and Brewer.  But reviewing the thread I thought of the topic, Two Oswald's in the Texas Theater and wondered about what I'd learned.  Please correct me but I think the following can now be said.

1.  Between 1:00 and 1:07 concessionaire Butch Burroughs is convinced someone came in the theater front doors but not on through the doors into his concession area behind the floor/orchestra seats.  He was never fully questioned about how he concluded such, (heard them shut?) but he seemed convinced of this, repeating it over time.  If he is correct such person would have to go up the stairs he also couldn't see to the balcony.  No other choice.

2.  During opening credits for the movie, after the advertisements for coming attractions and popcorn, customer Jack Davis has a stranger sit down beside him in the 900 seat theater with about 20 people in it.  After a minute the stranger gets up and goes and sits by another of the few patrons.  Then another.  Then he gets up and goes out to the concession area behind them. 

3.  Butch Burroughs sells popcorn to a man at 1:15 he later sees arrested and taken out the front door of the theater.  He later learns this man is named Oswald.  The Warren Omission claims Tippit was shot at 1:15 (it was earlier, closer to 1:05).

4.  Burroughs sees the man go back into the floor seats and sit by a pregnant woman.  The woman gets up and heads toward the bathrooms.

5.  Davis is "fairly certain(?)" he sees the man who sat by him earlier and went to the concession area come back in down the opposite aisle from the one close to him and sit down by another of the few customers.  

6.  Around 1:35  three doors down from the Texas Theater shoe store manager Johnny Brewer sees someone suspicious at the front of his store.  He follows him to the Texas Theater, but doesn't see him go in, yet tells ticket seller Julia Postal in the booth separate from but in front of the frond doors to call the police.

7.  Per author Leo Sauvage to author John Armstrong the Dallas Police Department receives up to a half dozen anonymous calls advising of a suspicious man entering the Texas Theater.  But the dispatch tapes for this period disappear.

8.  DPD dispatch does say at 1:46 a suspect is hiding in the balcony of the Texas Theater.

9.  Live (on tape) from the scene of the Tippit murder reporter Reiland says police were taking off because of a report of a man with a shotgun going into a local theater.

10.  Deputy Sheriff Bill Courson wrote "I started up the stairs to the balcony because that' where the call said he was hiding."

11.  Lt. Cunningham said the lady cashier said there's a young man upstairs, he just went up there.

12. Officer Paul Bentley's report says he as told by detective Toney the suspect is in the balcony.

13.  Oswald is arrested on the first floor, taken out the front door. Witnessed by Burroughs, Davis and others.

14.  3-4 minutes after this Burroughs sees a man who looked like he could have been Oswald's brother taken out the back door.

15.  Hobby shop (next to the shoe store managed by Brewer) owner Bernard Haire sees police bring a man out the back door of the Texas Theater, put him in a police car and drive him off.

16.  Tippit's autopsy report states the suspect was later arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater.

17.  DPD officer Stringfellow, the day After the assassination and arrest, stated in writing and signed to his superior, Oswald was arrested in the balcony.

Ron Bulman, who originated this thread, had a nice summary back in August.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Postal's early testimony makes Burrough's testimony suspect.

She stated:

because some people do then get by him. 
Mr. BALL. What did he say? 
Mrs. POSTAL. Ah, he said at first that he had seen him, and I says, "Now, Butch, if you saw him come in----" says, "Well, I saw him going out." But he didn't really see him. So, he just summarized that he ran up in the balcony, because if he had come through the foyer, Butch would have seen him. 

 

That right there makes his story, along with waiting 30 plus years  suspect.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cory,

Julia Postal may be hiding something.  Early researcher Jones Harris interviewed her in the office of the manager of the Texas Theater. Harris asked Postal if she sold a ticket to the man arrested in the theater by the Dallas Police. Postal immediately burst into tears. Harris walked out of the office and returned a short time later. When Harris asked Postal again if she sold Oswald a ticket she again burst into tears.

I think the Oswald killed by Jack Ruby arrived at the theater right around 1 pm or a couple of minutes later.  He bought a ticket and Julia Postal may have realized it.  The second Oswald, Tippit's killer, arrived as late as 1:40 pm and didn't buy a ticket simply to attract attention and lead the police to the theater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Cory,

Julia Postal may be hiding something.  Early researcher Jones Harris interviewed her in the office of the manager of the Texas Theater. Harris asked Postal if she sold a ticket to the man arrested in the theater by the Dallas Police. Postal immediately burst into tears. Harris walked out of the office and returned a short time later. When Harris asked Postal again if she sold Oswald a ticket she again burst into tears.

I think the Oswald killed by Jack Ruby arrived at the theater right around 1 pm or a couple of minutes later.  He bought a ticket and Julia Postal may have realized it.  The second Oswald, Tippit's killer, arrived as late as 1:40 pm and didn't buy a ticket simply to attract attention and lead the police to the theater.

Respectfully, so she cried.  That proves nothing.  She was asked of she sold LHO a ticket by WC and did not cry.  Did she see a second arrest?  An arrest in the balcony?   A look alike? Did she see a man marched out the back?  Did she say she sold LHO a ticket between opening and 1:30?  Crying is not evidence.  Where is this interview so I can watch it or read the transcript?  I did a quick look and could not find it.

Edited by Cory Santos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cory,

The interview was the day after the assassination.  There are many references to it.  See, for example, Bill Simpich’s State Secret, chapter 6.  (It’s a lengthy online page comprising the entire chapter, but just search for “Harris” and the first hit is it.)

Or see The Fourth Decade, v4, #5, p. 6.

John A. described it this way on one of our website pages:

Jones Harris, a long time assassination investigator, arrived in Dallas the day after the assassination. Harris interviewed Julia Postal in the office of the manager of the Texas Theater. Harris asked Postal if she sold a ticket to the man arrested in the theater by the Dallas Police. Postal immediately burst into tears. Harris walked out of the office and returned a short time later. When Harris asked Postal again if she sold (HARVEY) Oswald a ticket she again burst into tears. Harris was convinced that Postal knew that she sold Harvey Oswald a ticket to the theater. Butch Burroughs told Texas researcher Jim Marrs that Postal knows that she sold (HARVEY) Oswald a ticket.

Mr. Harris told others that he had talked to Ms. Postal for a while before asking her the question about selling a ticket, and so it seemed to be specifically that issue that brought her to tears, twice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julia Postal was a teen age ticket taker at the stand in front of the actual entrance to the Texas Theater, separate from it.  It's virtually assured she said whatever the DPD and later Warren Omission told her to.

Brewer supposedly told her to call the Police about a suspicious person he was following.  A half dozen calls ensued.  One reporting a shotgun, others a man running in to it, and the Balcony.  Two or three cops reported on arrival being directed to the balcony, at least one by a girl at the entry.  Read back in the thread if you don't believe me.  It's documented.

Nobody ever asked her about another Oswald buying a ticket or entering around 1:00 - 1:05 to my knowledge.  Only she would have seen him if he went up the Balcony front stairs.  As Burroughs would have only heard the front door open.  As he testified.  Go back and look at Jim's diagram of the theater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron the problem is when you say she would say whatever she was told to is that you are speculating.  That is not evidence.  Moreover, if she was controlled, as you appear to allege, why did she testify in a way that discredits Burroughs?  That makes no sense.  What did she say?  She did not say there was a second Oswald or she sold him a ticket.

Edited by Cory Santos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cory,

The problem with trying to use Mrs. Postal to impeach Mr. Burroughs is that she appears to have been remarkably inconsistent about the central issue of what she observed when she told the FBI that “she was unable to recall whether or not he bought a ticket....”

Postal_FBI.jpg

Now, in this case at least, I don’t trust the FBI as far as I can throw its headquarters building, but I can fathom no reason for SA Carter or any other FBI employee to have altered her statement, can you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant to add that in her DPD Affidavit, Mrs. Postal indicated that "Oswald" did NOT buy a ticket.  If you put together her affidavit, FBI report, and testimony, there are all kinds of issues, at least as I recall.  Going through this stuff,  and thinking of a 1:05 Oswald and a 1:35 Oswald arriving at the theater, it gets interesting.

Edited by Jim Hargrove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Cory,

The problem with trying to use Mrs. Postal to impeach Mr. Burroughs is that she appears to have been remarkably inconsistent about the central issue of what she observed when she told the FBI that “she was unable to recall whether or not he bought a ticket....”

Postal_FBI.jpg

Now, in this case at least, I don’t trust the FBI as far as I can throw its headquarters building, but I can fathom no reason for SA Carter or any other FBI employee to have altered her statement, can you?

Why would anyone trust the FBI on this?  Or anything else?  They were part of the coverup by this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I meant to add that in her DPD Affidavit, Mrs. Postal indicated that "Oswald" did NOT buy a ticket.  If you put together her affidavit, FBI report, and testimony, there are all kinds of issues, at least as I recall. 

Jim,

 

My problem with Julia Postal is that she let Oswald waltz right in where they kept the money, and didn't do anything to stop him.

Mr. BALL. When you say worked in the box office, is that take tickets?
Mrs. POSTAL. Sell tickets.

Mrs. POSTAL. I was listening to KLIF, and I was down in the little box office,

Mrs. POSTAL. This man, yes; he ducked into the box office and----I don't know if you are familiar with the theatre.
Mr. BALL. Yes; I have seen the theatre.
Mrs. POSTAL. You have? Well, he was coming from east going west. In other words, he ducked right in.

 

*smile*

 

Steve Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Jim,

My problem with Julia Postal is that she let Oswald waltz right in where they kept the money, and didn't do anything to stop him.

Mr. BALL. When you say worked in the box office, is that take tickets?
Mrs. POSTAL. Sell tickets.

Mrs. POSTAL. I was listening to KLIF, and I was down in the little box office,

Mrs. POSTAL. This man, yes; he ducked into the box office and----I don't know if you are familiar with the theatre.
Mr. BALL. Yes; I have seen the theatre.
Mrs. POSTAL. You have? Well, he was coming from east going west. In other words, he ducked right in.

*smile*

Steve Thomas

 

<LAUGH!>  But she must have meant to describe something a little different, eh?

 

Julia_Postal.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...