Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Thanks David. I’m looking forward to checking it out. It seems like a pretty interesting compilation record. It’s probably worth downloading too in case that SoundCloud page ever goes down. 

Yes. I did exactly that just after you posted it earlier today. And I've already added it to my sites and my YouTube channel. (It's labeled as a Public Domain program there at SoundCloud, btw.)

It has some interviews I had not heard previously, such as the one with Earlene Roberts and one with Ruby's sister, Eva Grant, plus a Jim Chaney interview and one with John Connally upon his release from Parkland. Good stuff.

 

Edited July 25, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

 

What's that?

Oh, it's a white jacket.

Oh, it's a tan jacket.

Oh, it's a gray jacket.

 

(I couldn't find a jacket that was a bit more gray. From memory I might think that the off-white jacket I saw was gray.)

 

Edited July 26, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Bill Brown]

 

Earlene Roberts:  "He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket. -- It was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door."

 

================================

 

Johnny Brewer:  "I saw a man standing in the lobby of the shoe store. This man was wearing a brown sport shirt. -- He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out."

 

David Belin:  "Any jacket?"

 

Johnny Brewer:  "No."

 

================================

 

So I ask again... Why would Oswald ditch his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?

 

[Charles Blackmon]

9 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Earlene Roberts:  "He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket. -- It was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door."

 

================================

 

Johnny Brewer:  "I saw a man standing in the lobby of the shoe store. This man was wearing a brown sport shirt. -- He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out."

 

David Belin:  "Any jacket?"

 

Johnny Brewer:  "No."

 

================================

 

So I ask again... Why would Oswald ditch his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?

 

Because it likely wasn't Oswald spotted outside the shoe store, it was the guy who was tasked with killing Oswald in the theatre.  Read again what Greg Doudna wrote earlier in this post. 

 

[Greg Doudna]

13 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

So I ask again... Why would Oswald ditch his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?

The killer of Tippit, not Oswald, ditched his jacket between the Tippit crime scene, and the Texas Theatre.

The killer of Tippit was in front of Brewer's store, seen by Brewer, and then went into the Texas Theatre and into the balcony.

Oswald, who was witnessed by credible testimony of patron Jack Davis as sitting next to persons in a nearly-empty theatre suggesting trying to find someone, and may be further corroborated by the later testimony of Butch Burroughs concerning also seeing Oswald sit directly next to a patron (Burroughs' pregnant lady), was arrested on the ground level of the theatre.

Oswald did not have on a jacket in the theatre because in a warm theatre people take off their coats. And the coat Oswald wore leaving the rooming house was his heavier dark blue jacket, with some color confusion due to Earlene Roberts at the rooming house being color-blind. That blue jacket of Oswald would have been taken off by Oswald inside the theatre, after he paid his ticket and entered the theatre on the ground level, because of the warmth inside the theatre. That is why he was not wearing a jacket when arrested. 

There is an unexplained patron encountered by police in the balcony of the theatre (he was not wearing a jacket either), exactly where the killer ran (up into the balcony), where Oswald is never attested to have been (in the balcony). This patron was a young man who was a smoker.

Curtis Craford, who was independently identified by completely sincere witnesses, but wrongly (mistakenly), as Oswald in multiple instances unrelated to the Tippit case, is the obvious suspect in the Tippit killing other than Oswald. (Craford had self-confessed hitman experience; he fled Dallas precipitously within hours of the Tippit killing; he is attested in the approximate location of the paper-bag revolver of the same kind used in the Tippit killing, being ditched after use in a recent murder, some ca. 1-2 hours before that paper-bag revolver's discovery by a citizen on a street in downtown Dallas, only hours if not minutes before Craford's flight from Dallas; he was employed by and living in the business premises of the successful Mob-connected killer of Oswald two days later, following his own failure to kill Oswald in the Texas Theatre on Friday interrupted by the police arrest of Oswald saving Oswald's life from Craford intent upon killing again, at that time, immediately following the killing of Tippit.)

The only witness at the theatre who identified the Tippit killer who went into the theatre and who went into the balcony, as Oswald arrested on the main level, was Brewer. 

Brewer's identification of Craford in front of his store as Oswald arrested on the ground level of the theatre could be as mistaken as any of the other known witness mistaken identifications of Craford as Oswald.

If the killer of Tippit who went into the balcony was Craford, that would mean there were two persons among ca. 14 patrons in that theatre who are known to have been identified positively by witnesses as Oswald (although one class of those identifications was mistaken): Oswald, and Craford, both in that theatre at the same time. 

Several police told of a man in the balcony who was not Oswald on the ground level, who was not otherwise identified in any police or FBI report, and who never came forth voluntarily in all the years since to identify himself, unidentified to the present day.

One officer told of this man sitting at the top of the stairs to the balcony smoking.

Oswald was not a smoker.

Craford was a smoker.

(That is known from Craford's WC testimony in which he refers to Ruby paying him for his work in the form of what Craford referred to as "his cigarettes".)

Who was that unidentified man in the theatre balcony--exactly where the killer had gone, exactly where in the theatre Julia Postal told arriving police to look for the killer--who was smoking?

Deputy sheriff Courson walked by this man and said later he thought it had been Oswald (who Courson said he let walk by him coming from the balcony as Courson went to the balcony looking for the killer). Just like other witnesses unrelated to the Tippit case thought Craford was Oswald.

The smoker in the balcony, this man who was mistaken for Oswald, was the killer of Tippit--not Oswald in the main seating area below.

There were not "two Oswalds" in the theatre, there was only one Oswald. There was no Oswald impersonator in the theatre.

But there were two in that theatre among the ca. 14 who some witnesses thought looked like, and thought was, Oswald, even though only one of those two was Oswald.

Craford, the killer of Tippit, was the other of those two in that theatre.

Brewer's identification of Oswald as: the man he saw go by his store (= the killer of Tippit minus his jacket, who then went into the theatre balcony) was a mistaken identification, falling into a known range of mistaken identifications of this same Craford as Oswald by witnesses who believed they were being truthful, just as Brewer.

Human error in a witness's identification, on the part of Brewer.

This is the alternative explanation you keep denying exists.  

Edited April 5, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Charles Blackmon]

[Bill Brown]

 

"An officer approached him and he hit the officer and knocked him back. Several other officers then joined the fight and the man was taken out of the theater. This was the same man I had seen in front of the shoe store where I work." -- Johnny Brewer

 

[Charles Blackmon]

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

 Johnny Brewer

 

The "unimpeachable" witness who claimed to have heard on a radio something about a cop killing in Oak Cliff at least half an hour before anything about it was actually announced on local radio. 

[Greg Doudna]

17 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"An officer approached him and he hit the officer and knocked him back. Several other officers then joined the fight and the man was taken out of the theater. This was the same man I had seen in front of the shoe store where I work." -- Johnny Brewer

I do not question the sincerity of Brewer, but are you aware of how many people have been falsely convicted on the basis of mistaken eyewitness identifications, in cases of brief sightings at distances? Brewer saw the arrested Oswald well enough in the theatre and many times thereafter in photos, and I believe him that he sold shoes to Oswald in the past, but how certain is it the man Brewer saw acting furtively in front of his store windows (=tippit killer) was the same person (if one was not influenced by other information on the Tippit case)?

In this case what do you make of a different witness, Jack Davis, inside the theatre, who told of Oswald movements not easily compatible with Oswald having been the killer who ran into the balcony? Have you seen Jack Davis’s Sixth Floor Museum oral history interview? He looks no less credible than Brewer to me, and less likely to be mistaken in telling of the strange movements of Oswald inside the theatre than Brewer could be mistaken in seeing someone stand and sit down in the back of a semi darkened theatre from the stage and point him out to police, “that’s him”.

The fact is Craford was identified as Oswald by other witnesses on other occasions, and Courson’s story in itself confirms there were two persons in the theatre who people were identifying as Oswald, which does not mean there were two Oswalds, but does mean there is some room for witness error in Brewer’s identification by analogy. Can it be excluded that Brewer saw Craford, not Oswald, acting furtively in front of his store windows for a few moments before continuing on? And then, failing to see him in the balcony in the theatre (even though he actually was up there somewhere), mistakenly identified Oswald below to police as the man he knew had run into the theatre? 

I realize Oswald had a .38 revolver on him. But Craford was in proximity to and a plausible explanation for what looks like the real abandoned murder weapon from the Tippit killing (because it has not been otherwise explained), the tossed paper-bag .38 revolver on a downtown city street, only hours later. The one which nobody knew about until decades later fbi documents told of it, because the Dallas Police disappeared it and that was hardly an innocent disappearance.

And Craford was housed by and employed by the killer of Oswald two days later on Sunday morning. And Craford was an experienced hit man, unlike Oswald, and the Tippit killing looks like the work of a professional who reloaded prepared to kill again, then went into the theatre…

And somebody had helpfully left a vehicle, a truck, with the key in it and engine running and no driver or human in sight, helpfully out the back door of the theatre, a getaway vehicle. (And Craford although he owned no car there is no issue that he could not drive.) 

And the fingerprints on the Tippit cruiser which are 99% likely from the killer (it’s just obvious), are excluded as from Oswald. Plus there never has been any sense at all to why Oswald would walk to the tippit crime scene location in the first place, whereas the killer was seen walking to the crime scene from proximity of Ruby’s nearby apartment. And witness Benavides saw up close the killer had a block cut hairline in the back of his head but Oswald had a taper cut not block cut. And that is not all…

[Bill Brown]

On 4/6/2023 at 1:52 PM, Greg Doudna said:

I do not question the sincerity of Brewer, but are you aware of how many people have been falsely convicted on the basis of mistaken eyewitness identifications, in cases of brief sightings at distances? Brewer saw the arrested Oswald well enough in the theatre and many times thereafter in photos, and I believe him that he sold shoes to Oswald in the past, but how certain is it the man Brewer saw acting furtively in front of his store windows (=tippit killer) was the same person (if one was not influenced by other information on the Tippit case)?

In this case what do you make of a different witness, Jack Davis, inside the theatre, who told of Oswald movements not easily compatible with Oswald having been the killer who ran into the balcony? Have you seen Jack Davis’s Sixth Floor Museum oral history interview? He looks no less credible than Brewer to me, and less likely to be mistaken in telling of the strange movements of Oswald inside the theatre than Brewer could be mistaken in seeing someone stand and sit down in the back of a semi darkened theatre from the stage and point him out to police, “that’s him”.

The fact is Craford was identified as Oswald by other witnesses on other occasions, and Courson’s story in itself confirms there were two persons in the theatre who people were identifying as Oswald, which does not mean there were two Oswalds, but does mean there is some room for witness error in Brewer’s identification by analogy. Can it be excluded that Brewer saw Craford, not Oswald, acting furtively in front of his store windows for a few moments before continuing on? And then, failing to see him in the balcony in the theatre (even though he actually was up there somewhere), mistakenly identified Oswald below to police as the man he knew had run into the theatre? 

I realize Oswald had a .38 revolver on him. But Craford was in proximity to and a plausible explanation for what looks like the real abandoned murder weapon from the Tippit killing (because it has not been otherwise explained), the tossed paper-bag .38 revolver on a downtown city street, only hours later. The one which nobody knew about until decades later fbi documents told of it, because the Dallas Police disappeared it and that was hardly an innocent disappearance.

And Craford was housed by and employed by the killer of Oswald two days later on Sunday morning. And Craford was an experienced hit man, unlike Oswald, and the Tippit killing looks like the work of a professional who reloaded prepared to kill again, then went into the theatre…

And somebody had helpfully left a vehicle, a truck, with the key in it and engine running and no driver or human in sight, helpfully out the back door of the theatre, a getaway vehicle. (And Craford although he owned no car there is no issue that he could not drive.) 

And the fingerprints on the Tippit cruiser which are 99% likely from the killer (it’s just obvious), are excluded as from Oswald. Plus there never has been any sense at all to why Oswald would walk to the tippit crime scene location in the first place, whereas the killer was seen walking to the crime scene from proximity of Ruby’s nearby apartment. And witness Benavides saw up close the killer had a block cut hairline in the back of his head but Oswald had a taper cut not block cut. And that is not all…

 

I do not question the sincerity of Brewer, but are you aware of how many people have been falsely convicted on the basis of mistaken eyewitness identifications, in cases of brief sightings at distances? Brewer saw the arrested Oswald well enough in the theatre and many times thereafter in photos, and I believe him that he sold shoes to Oswald in the past, but how certain is it the man Brewer saw acting furtively in front of his store windows (=tippit killer) was the same person (if one was not influenced by other information on the Tippit case)?

 

Brewer said he was ten feet from Oswald.  Brewer also said that the man taken from the theater (Oswald) was the same man he saw standing ten feet from him in the shoe store entrance.

[Bill Brown]

On 4/6/2023 at 1:52 PM, Greg Doudna said:

I do not question the sincerity of Brewer, but are you aware of how many people have been falsely convicted on the basis of mistaken eyewitness identifications, in cases of brief sightings at distances? Brewer saw the arrested Oswald well enough in the theatre and many times thereafter in photos, and I believe him that he sold shoes to Oswald in the past, but how certain is it the man Brewer saw acting furtively in front of his store windows (=tippit killer) was the same person (if one was not influenced by other information on the Tippit case)?

In this case what do you make of a different witness, Jack Davis, inside the theatre, who told of Oswald movements not easily compatible with Oswald having been the killer who ran into the balcony? Have you seen Jack Davis’s Sixth Floor Museum oral history interview? He looks no less credible than Brewer to me, and less likely to be mistaken in telling of the strange movements of Oswald inside the theatre than Brewer could be mistaken in seeing someone stand and sit down in the back of a semi darkened theatre from the stage and point him out to police, “that’s him”.

The fact is Craford was identified as Oswald by other witnesses on other occasions, and Courson’s story in itself confirms there were two persons in the theatre who people were identifying as Oswald, which does not mean there were two Oswalds, but does mean there is some room for witness error in Brewer’s identification by analogy. Can it be excluded that Brewer saw Craford, not Oswald, acting furtively in front of his store windows for a few moments before continuing on? And then, failing to see him in the balcony in the theatre (even though he actually was up there somewhere), mistakenly identified Oswald below to police as the man he knew had run into the theatre? 

I realize Oswald had a .38 revolver on him. But Craford was in proximity to and a plausible explanation for what looks like the real abandoned murder weapon from the Tippit killing (because it has not been otherwise explained), the tossed paper-bag .38 revolver on a downtown city street, only hours later. The one which nobody knew about until decades later fbi documents told of it, because the Dallas Police disappeared it and that was hardly an innocent disappearance.

And Craford was housed by and employed by the killer of Oswald two days later on Sunday morning. And Craford was an experienced hit man, unlike Oswald, and the Tippit killing looks like the work of a professional who reloaded prepared to kill again, then went into the theatre…

And somebody had helpfully left a vehicle, a truck, with the key in it and engine running and no driver or human in sight, helpfully out the back door of the theatre, a getaway vehicle. (And Craford although he owned no car there is no issue that he could not drive.) 

And the fingerprints on the Tippit cruiser which are 99% likely from the killer (it’s just obvious), are excluded as from Oswald. Plus there never has been any sense at all to why Oswald would walk to the tippit crime scene location in the first place, whereas the killer was seen walking to the crime scene from proximity of Ruby’s nearby apartment. And witness Benavides saw up close the killer had a block cut hairline in the back of his head but Oswald had a taper cut not block cut. And that is not all…

 

In this case what do you make of a different witness, Jack Davis, inside the theatre, who told of Oswald movements not easily compatible with Oswald having been the killer who ran into the balcony? Have you seen Jack Davis’s Sixth Floor Museum oral history interview? He looks no less credible than Brewer to me, and less likely to be mistaken in telling of the strange movements of Oswald inside the theatre than Brewer could be mistaken in seeing someone stand and sit down in the back of a semi darkened theatre from the stage and point him out to police, “that’s him”.

 

It's foolish (in my opinion) to really believe that the best system the killer and the handler could come up with was to randomly have the killer begin to sit next to people inside the theater in the hopes that he would eventually sit beside the right person.  It's nonsense and laughable.

 

Edited April 8, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Bill Brown]

On 4/6/2023 at 1:52 PM, Greg Doudna said:

I do not question the sincerity of Brewer, but are you aware of how many people have been falsely convicted on the basis of mistaken eyewitness identifications, in cases of brief sightings at distances? Brewer saw the arrested Oswald well enough in the theatre and many times thereafter in photos, and I believe him that he sold shoes to Oswald in the past, but how certain is it the man Brewer saw acting furtively in front of his store windows (=tippit killer) was the same person (if one was not influenced by other information on the Tippit case)?

In this case what do you make of a different witness, Jack Davis, inside the theatre, who told of Oswald movements not easily compatible with Oswald having been the killer who ran into the balcony? Have you seen Jack Davis’s Sixth Floor Museum oral history interview? He looks no less credible than Brewer to me, and less likely to be mistaken in telling of the strange movements of Oswald inside the theatre than Brewer could be mistaken in seeing someone stand and sit down in the back of a semi darkened theatre from the stage and point him out to police, “that’s him”.

The fact is Craford was identified as Oswald by other witnesses on other occasions, and Courson’s story in itself confirms there were two persons in the theatre who people were identifying as Oswald, which does not mean there were two Oswalds, but does mean there is some room for witness error in Brewer’s identification by analogy. Can it be excluded that Brewer saw Craford, not Oswald, acting furtively in front of his store windows for a few moments before continuing on? And then, failing to see him in the balcony in the theatre (even though he actually was up there somewhere), mistakenly identified Oswald below to police as the man he knew had run into the theatre? 

I realize Oswald had a .38 revolver on him. But Craford was in proximity to and a plausible explanation for what looks like the real abandoned murder weapon from the Tippit killing (because it has not been otherwise explained), the tossed paper-bag .38 revolver on a downtown city street, only hours later. The one which nobody knew about until decades later fbi documents told of it, because the Dallas Police disappeared it and that was hardly an innocent disappearance.

And Craford was housed by and employed by the killer of Oswald two days later on Sunday morning. And Craford was an experienced hit man, unlike Oswald, and the Tippit killing looks like the work of a professional who reloaded prepared to kill again, then went into the theatre…

And somebody had helpfully left a vehicle, a truck, with the key in it and engine running and no driver or human in sight, helpfully out the back door of the theatre, a getaway vehicle. (And Craford although he owned no car there is no issue that he could not drive.) 

And the fingerprints on the Tippit cruiser which are 99% likely from the killer (it’s just obvious), are excluded as from Oswald. Plus there never has been any sense at all to why Oswald would walk to the tippit crime scene location in the first place, whereas the killer was seen walking to the crime scene from proximity of Ruby’s nearby apartment. And witness Benavides saw up close the killer had a block cut hairline in the back of his head but Oswald had a taper cut not block cut. And that is not all…

 

The fact is Craford was identified as Oswald by other witnesses on other occasions, and Courson’s story in itself confirms there were two persons in the theatre who people were identifying as Oswald, which does not mean there were two Oswalds, but does mean there is some room for witness error in Brewer’s identification by analogy. Can it be excluded that Brewer saw Craford, not Oswald, acting furtively in front of his store windows for a few moments before continuing on? And then, failing to see him in the balcony in the theatre (even though he actually was up there somewhere), mistakenly identified Oswald below to police as the man he knew had run into the theatre? 

 

You keep bringing up Crafard as if there's even a tiny shred of evidence that he has anything to do with anything at all in Oak Cliff.  There is nothing, nada, zilch.  Why do you keep mentioning him trying to tie him into Oak Cliff?  I don't get it.  You're taking a blind leap.

 

As for Brewer, he said the man in front of his shoe store was Lee Oswald, not Larry Crafard.  That's it.  Period.  Regarding Brewer, that is what we have to go on.

 

I realize this doesn't seem like much of a response from me but that's only because you're not making much of a case.

 

[Bill Brown]

On 4/6/2023 at 1:52 PM, Greg Doudna said:

I do not question the sincerity of Brewer, but are you aware of how many people have been falsely convicted on the basis of mistaken eyewitness identifications, in cases of brief sightings at distances? Brewer saw the arrested Oswald well enough in the theatre and many times thereafter in photos, and I believe him that he sold shoes to Oswald in the past, but how certain is it the man Brewer saw acting furtively in front of his store windows (=tippit killer) was the same person (if one was not influenced by other information on the Tippit case)?

In this case what do you make of a different witness, Jack Davis, inside the theatre, who told of Oswald movements not easily compatible with Oswald having been the killer who ran into the balcony? Have you seen Jack Davis’s Sixth Floor Museum oral history interview? He looks no less credible than Brewer to me, and less likely to be mistaken in telling of the strange movements of Oswald inside the theatre than Brewer could be mistaken in seeing someone stand and sit down in the back of a semi darkened theatre from the stage and point him out to police, “that’s him”.

The fact is Craford was identified as Oswald by other witnesses on other occasions, and Courson’s story in itself confirms there were two persons in the theatre who people were identifying as Oswald, which does not mean there were two Oswalds, but does mean there is some room for witness error in Brewer’s identification by analogy. Can it be excluded that Brewer saw Craford, not Oswald, acting furtively in front of his store windows for a few moments before continuing on? And then, failing to see him in the balcony in the theatre (even though he actually was up there somewhere), mistakenly identified Oswald below to police as the man he knew had run into the theatre? 

I realize Oswald had a .38 revolver on him. But Craford was in proximity to and a plausible explanation for what looks like the real abandoned murder weapon from the Tippit killing (because it has not been otherwise explained), the tossed paper-bag .38 revolver on a downtown city street, only hours later. The one which nobody knew about until decades later fbi documents told of it, because the Dallas Police disappeared it and that was hardly an innocent disappearance.

And Craford was housed by and employed by the killer of Oswald two days later on Sunday morning. And Craford was an experienced hit man, unlike Oswald, and the Tippit killing looks like the work of a professional who reloaded prepared to kill again, then went into the theatre…

And somebody had helpfully left a vehicle, a truck, with the key in it and engine running and no driver or human in sight, helpfully out the back door of the theatre, a getaway vehicle. (And Craford although he owned no car there is no issue that he could not drive.) 

And the fingerprints on the Tippit cruiser which are 99% likely from the killer (it’s just obvious), are excluded as from Oswald. Plus there never has been any sense at all to why Oswald would walk to the tippit crime scene location in the first place, whereas the killer was seen walking to the crime scene from proximity of Ruby’s nearby apartment. And witness Benavides saw up close the killer had a block cut hairline in the back of his head but Oswald had a taper cut not block cut. And that is not all…

 

I realize Oswald had a .38 revolver on him. But Craford was in proximity to and a plausible explanation for what looks like the real abandoned murder weapon from the Tippit killing (because it has not been otherwise explained), the tossed paper-bag .38 revolver on a downtown city street, only hours later. The one which nobody knew about until decades later fbi documents told of it, because the Dallas Police disappeared it and that was hardly an innocent disappearance.

 

Wait.

 

How does a revolver found in a paper bag lying on the ground near the curb in downtown Dallas automatically mean that it "looks like the real abandoned murder weapon from the Tippit killing"?

 

The revolver taken from Oswald is the weapon linked to the shell casings found at the scene (Nicol, Killion, Cunningham, Frazier), to the exclusion of any other weapon in the world.  Therefore, a revolver found in a paper bag lying in the street in a big city nowhere near Tenth and Patton could not be the weapon responsible for those shell casings.

 

Edited April 8, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Bill Brown]

On 4/6/2023 at 1:52 PM, Greg Doudna said:

I do not question the sincerity of Brewer, but are you aware of how many people have been falsely convicted on the basis of mistaken eyewitness identifications, in cases of brief sightings at distances? Brewer saw the arrested Oswald well enough in the theatre and many times thereafter in photos, and I believe him that he sold shoes to Oswald in the past, but how certain is it the man Brewer saw acting furtively in front of his store windows (=tippit killer) was the same person (if one was not influenced by other information on the Tippit case)?

In this case what do you make of a different witness, Jack Davis, inside the theatre, who told of Oswald movements not easily compatible with Oswald having been the killer who ran into the balcony? Have you seen Jack Davis’s Sixth Floor Museum oral history interview? He looks no less credible than Brewer to me, and less likely to be mistaken in telling of the strange movements of Oswald inside the theatre than Brewer could be mistaken in seeing someone stand and sit down in the back of a semi darkened theatre from the stage and point him out to police, “that’s him”.

The fact is Craford was identified as Oswald by other witnesses on other occasions, and Courson’s story in itself confirms there were two persons in the theatre who people were identifying as Oswald, which does not mean there were two Oswalds, but does mean there is some room for witness error in Brewer’s identification by analogy. Can it be excluded that Brewer saw Craford, not Oswald, acting furtively in front of his store windows for a few moments before continuing on? And then, failing to see him in the balcony in the theatre (even though he actually was up there somewhere), mistakenly identified Oswald below to police as the man he knew had run into the theatre? 

I realize Oswald had a .38 revolver on him. But Craford was in proximity to and a plausible explanation for what looks like the real abandoned murder weapon from the Tippit killing (because it has not been otherwise explained), the tossed paper-bag .38 revolver on a downtown city street, only hours later. The one which nobody knew about until decades later fbi documents told of it, because the Dallas Police disappeared it and that was hardly an innocent disappearance.

And Craford was housed by and employed by the killer of Oswald two days later on Sunday morning. And Craford was an experienced hit man, unlike Oswald, and the Tippit killing looks like the work of a professional who reloaded prepared to kill again, then went into the theatre…

And somebody had helpfully left a vehicle, a truck, with the key in it and engine running and no driver or human in sight, helpfully out the back door of the theatre, a getaway vehicle. (And Craford although he owned no car there is no issue that he could not drive.) 

And the fingerprints on the Tippit cruiser which are 99% likely from the killer (it’s just obvious), are excluded as from Oswald. Plus there never has been any sense at all to why Oswald would walk to the tippit crime scene location in the first place, whereas the killer was seen walking to the crime scene from proximity of Ruby’s nearby apartment. And witness Benavides saw up close the killer had a block cut hairline in the back of his head but Oswald had a taper cut not block cut. And that is not all…

 

And Craford was housed by and employed by the killer of Oswald two days later on Sunday morning. And Craford was an experienced hit man, unlike Oswald, and the Tippit killing looks like the work of a professional who reloaded prepared to kill again, then went into the theatre…

 

That Crafard was staying at Ruby's club is really the ONLY reason you're trying so hard to tie him into the Tippit killing.  There's no other reason.

 

Also, there is no proof that Larry Crafard really was an "experienced hit man" and you won't be able to provide any.

 

Yes, Tippit's killer "reloaded" and "prepared to kill again".  But, that does not automatically mean that it was a professional and not Oswald, especially since (again) the revolver taken from Oswald a little over thirty minutes later was the weapon responsible for those shell casings found on the ground as the killer "reloaded" and "prepared to kill again".

 

Edited April 8, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Bill Brown]

On 4/6/2023 at 1:52 PM, Greg Doudna said:

I do not question the sincerity of Brewer, but are you aware of how many people have been falsely convicted on the basis of mistaken eyewitness identifications, in cases of brief sightings at distances? Brewer saw the arrested Oswald well enough in the theatre and many times thereafter in photos, and I believe him that he sold shoes to Oswald in the past, but how certain is it the man Brewer saw acting furtively in front of his store windows (=tippit killer) was the same person (if one was not influenced by other information on the Tippit case)?

In this case what do you make of a different witness, Jack Davis, inside the theatre, who told of Oswald movements not easily compatible with Oswald having been the killer who ran into the balcony? Have you seen Jack Davis’s Sixth Floor Museum oral history interview? He looks no less credible than Brewer to me, and less likely to be mistaken in telling of the strange movements of Oswald inside the theatre than Brewer could be mistaken in seeing someone stand and sit down in the back of a semi darkened theatre from the stage and point him out to police, “that’s him”.

The fact is Craford was identified as Oswald by other witnesses on other occasions, and Courson’s story in itself confirms there were two persons in the theatre who people were identifying as Oswald, which does not mean there were two Oswalds, but does mean there is some room for witness error in Brewer’s identification by analogy. Can it be excluded that Brewer saw Craford, not Oswald, acting furtively in front of his store windows for a few moments before continuing on? And then, failing to see him in the balcony in the theatre (even though he actually was up there somewhere), mistakenly identified Oswald below to police as the man he knew had run into the theatre? 

I realize Oswald had a .38 revolver on him. But Craford was in proximity to and a plausible explanation for what looks like the real abandoned murder weapon from the Tippit killing (because it has not been otherwise explained), the tossed paper-bag .38 revolver on a downtown city street, only hours later. The one which nobody knew about until decades later fbi documents told of it, because the Dallas Police disappeared it and that was hardly an innocent disappearance.

And Craford was housed by and employed by the killer of Oswald two days later on Sunday morning. And Craford was an experienced hit man, unlike Oswald, and the Tippit killing looks like the work of a professional who reloaded prepared to kill again, then went into the theatre…

And somebody had helpfully left a vehicle, a truck, with the key in it and engine running and no driver or human in sight, helpfully out the back door of the theatre, a getaway vehicle. (And Craford although he owned no car there is no issue that he could not drive.) 

And the fingerprints on the Tippit cruiser which are 99% likely from the killer (it’s just obvious), are excluded as from Oswald. Plus there never has been any sense at all to why Oswald would walk to the tippit crime scene location in the first place, whereas the killer was seen walking to the crime scene from proximity of Ruby’s nearby apartment. And witness Benavides saw up close the killer had a block cut hairline in the back of his head but Oswald had a taper cut not block cut. And that is not all…

 

And the fingerprints on the Tippit cruiser which are 99% likely from the killer (it’s just obvious), are excluded as from Oswald. Plus there never has been any sense at all to why Oswald would walk to the tippit crime scene location in the first place, whereas the killer was seen walking to the crime scene from proximity of Ruby’s nearby apartment. And witness Benavides saw up close the killer had a block cut hairline in the back of his head but Oswald had a taper cut not block cut.

 

Not one witness said Tippit's killer touched the front passenger quarter panel of the patrol car.  The prints on that quarter panel were pretty much a match with the prints left on the passenger door.  There is no evidence that Tippit's killer touched the quarter panel.  If Tippit's killer did not touch the quarter panel, then the prints on the passenger door did not belong to Tippit's killer.  To claim that it is 99% likely that the prints came from Tippit's killer is to make a claim without anything to support it; it's wishful thinking on your part, Greg.

 

As for Oswald having no reason to be walking on Tenth Street, well, there was a reason, we just don't know it.  Only Oswald, of course, would know the reason.  But one thing we know for sure, Oswald was indeed walking on Tenth Street.  We know this because multiple eyewitnesses said he was the man they saw with a gun in his hand at the scene (Markham, B. Davis, V. Davis, Scoggins., Guinyard, Callaway, Reynolds, Patterson, Russell) and also the shell casings thrown to the ground by the killer matched the revolver taken from Oswald a little over a half hour later, to the exclusion of any other weapon in the world.  Have I mentioned that part yet?  The "Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of any other weapon in the world" part?

 

You are perfectly aware that Crafard was asleep inside Ruby's club at the time of the assassination.  Right?  Hardly the state of being for him to be in if he's supposed to be in Oak Cliff walking along Tenth Street having just left Ruby's apartment on Ewing.

 

As for Benavides and the tapered collar line versus squared off collar line, the killer could have been sporting a 80's style mullet but if the mullet was tucked inside the collar of the jacket (the killer was wearing a jacket, right?) then it would appear squared off instead of tapered.  To try to make any sort of a case for the killer being someone other than Oswald because of this tapered versus squared collar line is highly ill-advised.

 

Edited April 8, 2023 by Bill Brown