Going postal on Mrs. Postal

[Charles Blackmon]

Maybe its me but in trying to understand why LHO went into the theater IF he was this double cold-blooded killer that is alleged, why would he not think it better to get the heck out of Dodge while the getting is good? The longer he waits the more likely somebody on the streets (police or citizenry) would recognize him from his image splashed on everybody's T.V.

The guy that I tend to believe really killed Tippit (Larry Craford) did exactly that- he beat it out of town and went somewhere up north.

 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Charles Blackmon
sic

[Ron Ege]

Seems Bill supposition could be easily viewed as implication by Gil and others, no?

[Gil Jesus]

16 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Maybe its me but in trying to understand why LHO went into the theater IF he was this double cold-blooded killer that is alleged, why would he not think it better to get the heck out of Dodge while the getting is good? The longer he waits the more likely somebody on the streets (police or citizenry) would recognize him from his image splashed on everybody's T.V.

The guy that I tend to believe really killed Tippett (Larry Craford) did exactly that- he beat it out of town and went somewhere up north.

 

Agreed. This is the official story :

Oswald discarded his jacket, but kept the very weapon that tied him to the Tippit murder.

Oswald went from escaping the Walker shooting by bus, escaping the assassination scene via bus and taxi, to escaping the Tippit murder on foot. He fled down one of the busiest streets in Oak Cliff walking at time when the police were looking for a cop-killer on foot. He had money in his pocket but decided that rather than take the bus or taxi, which were his ( successful ) methods of escape previously, he'd risk drawing attention to himself by trying to beat the Texas Theater out of 90 cents.

One thing I learned about criminals is that they stick to what works. That's what they call Modus Operandi, or M.O..

His "flight" from the Tippit murder is not only a change of M.O., it makes no sense at all.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Gil Jesus

[Charles Blackmon]

The other thing about LHO behavior at the theater is why would he sit next to multiple strangers if he was so concerned about being identified and possibly apprehended? The only way sitting next to multiple strangers makes sense to me is if he was attempting to make contact with someone he did not know personally i.e. a handler (recall he had half of a dollar bill in his pocket. What was that for?)

[Guest]

There's also Burrough's interview with James Douglas (JFK and the Unspeakable), stating that Oswald bought popcorn from the former's concession stand at 1.15. I haven't seen any other interviews with Burroughs stating this (not saying they aren't in existence); it certainly didn't make it into his Warren Commission testimony. Regarding the purchase or non-purchase of a cinema ticket, given Oswald was allegedly in possession of a bus transfer, shouldn't he have also had a ticket stub for the Texas Theatre in one of his pockets? I don't know whether the practice was to hand in the whole ticket, have it punched, or perhaps partially ripped to indicate it had been checked. Certainly, Burroughs stated he was the one who checked the tickets, and didn't check Oswald's. And having not done so, it never occurred to him to ask for it when handing over the popcorn.

Mr. BURROUGHS. During the week I worked behind the concession. On weekends I usher. Mr. BALL. On weekends you usher? Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. During the week? Mr. BURROUGHS. I am behind the concession. Mr. BALL. During the afternoon of the week-do you take tickets too? Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes-I take tickets every day. Mr. BALL. You do? Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes. Mr. BALL. And, run the concession? Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes. Mr. BALL. If anybody comes in there without a ticket, what do you do, run them off? Mr. BURROUGHS. I make it a point to stop them and ask them to go out and get a ticket. I just failed to see him when he slipped in.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Burroughs.pdf

[Karl Hilliard]

4 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

 The guy that I tend to believe really killed Tippit (Larry Craford) ....

 

 

What could his motive have been?

The shoe store guy [Johnny Brewer] stated that he saw Oswald ducking in near his store front window AFTER hearing on his transistor radio that a policeman had been shot only blocks away. A description followed [so he said] ---Oswald---matched the description and had lurked seemingly nervous and suspicious acting he claimed.... That is just total BS!... There was no such report broadcast until after Oswald was arrested. At 1:30 CST...all attention was devoted to the condition of the president. His death was announced 7-8 minutes later. I spent hours trying to isolate this phantom breaking news..that a cop was shot in Oak Cliff. Not until almost 2 PM was it ever mentioned.

[Gil Jesus]

4 hours ago, Mike Kiely said:

There's also Burrough's interview with James Douglas (JFK and the Unspeakable), stating that Oswald bought popcorn from the former's concession stand at 1.15. I haven't seen any other interviews with Burroughs stating this (not saying they aren't in existence); it certainly didn't make it into his Warren Commission testimony. Regarding the purchase or non-purchase of a cinema ticket, given Oswald was allegedly in possession of a bus transfer, shouldn't he have also had a ticket stub for the Texas Theatre in one of his pockets? I don't know whether the practice was to hand in the whole ticket, have it punched, or perhaps partially ripped to indicate it had been checked. Certainly, Burroughs stated he was the one who checked the tickets, and didn't check Oswald's. And having not done so, it never occurred to him to ask for it when handing over the popcorn.

Mr. BURROUGHS. During the week I worked behind the concession. On weekends I usher. Mr. BALL. On weekends you usher? Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. During the week? Mr. BURROUGHS. I am behind the concession. Mr. BALL. During the afternoon of the week-do you take tickets too? Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes-I take tickets every day. Mr. BALL. You do? Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes. Mr. BALL. And, run the concession? Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes. Mr. BALL. If anybody comes in there without a ticket, what do you do, run them off? Mr. BURROUGHS. I make it a point to stop them and ask them to go out and get a ticket. I just failed to see him when he slipped in.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Burroughs.pdf

In this interview, Burroughs says Oswald came into the theater between 1:00 and 1:07 pm.

 

The man Brewer and Postal said they saw at 1:30 may have had a brown shirt, but he was NOT Oswald.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Gil Jesus

[David Von Pein]

15 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

That's BS. He had $ 13.87 cash. He could have taken a taxi or one of the three busses that travelled west on Jefferson between 1:22 and 1:42 ( FBI # 62-109060, Sec. 54, pg 134 ). Any guilty party who just killed a cop would have sought to flee the scene as soon as possible. But this guy decided to WALK down one of the busiest streets in Oak Cliff in spite of the fact that the police were looking for someone on foot.

Gimme a break.

Boy, talk about taking something OUT OF CONTEXT. Geez, this takes the cake, Gil!

When I said "He had nowhere else to go but into the theater", I was (of course!) talking about what Brewer was observing with Oswald's movements when we add up my #1 thru #4 items on my previous list. I certainly wasn't talking about what LHO's options were PRIOR to the time when Oswald was seen walking in front of the theater.

Gil, you knew  you were taking my "nowhere else to go" comment completely out of context, right?

Edited August 3, 2022 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

3 hours ago, Karl Hilliard said:

The shoe store guy [Johnny Brewer] stated that he saw Oswald ducking in near his store front window AFTER hearing on his transistor radio that a policeman had been shot only blocks away. A description followed [so he said] ---Oswald---matched the description and had lurked seemingly nervous and suspicious acting he claimed.... That is just total BS!... There was no such report broadcast until after Oswald was arrested. At 1:30 CST...all attention was devoted to the condition of the president. His death was announced 7-8 minutes later. I spent hours trying to isolate this phantom breaking news..that a cop was shot in Oak Cliff. Not until almost 2 PM was it ever mentioned.

I, too, spent hours trying to solve that mystery:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Johnny Brewer & The Tippit Shooting

 

Edited August 2, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Guest]

 

3 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

In this interview, Burroughs says Oswald came into the theater between 1:00 and 1:07 pm.

 

The man Brewer and Postal said they saw at 1:30 may have had a brown shirt, but he was NOT Oswald.

 

And yet Burroughs told Joseph Ball on April 8, 1964 that he didn't see Oswald come in

Mr. BALL. Did you see that man come in the theatre? Mr. BURROUGHS. No, sir; I didn’t. Mr. BALL. Do you have any idea what you were doing when he came in?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Well, I was-I had a lot of stock candy to count and put in the candy case for the coming night, and if he had came around in front of the concession out there, I would have seen him, even though I was bent down, I would have seen him, but otherwise. I think he sneaked up the stairs real fast.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Burroughs.pdf

[Gil Jesus]

1 hour ago, Mike Kiely said:

 

 

And yet Burroughs told Joseph Ball on April 8, 1964 that he didn't see Oswald come in

Mr. BALL. Did you see that man come in the theatre? Mr. BURROUGHS. No, sir; I didn’t. Mr. BALL. Do you have any idea what you were doing when he came in?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Well, I was-I had a lot of stock candy to count and put in the candy case for the coming night, and if he had came around in front of the concession out there, I would have seen him, even though I was bent down, I would have seen him, but otherwise. I think he sneaked up the stairs real fast.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Burroughs.pdf

So I guess Burroughs lied. Then the question is did Burroughs lie originally or did he lie in later years ? And why did his story change ?

[David Von Pein]

JOHN IACOLETTI SAID:

It’s just a fact. If you can’t see somebody enter the theater, then you didn’t see him enter the theater. By the way, Brewer wasn’t watching the “funny-looking” man the entire time. He said he went back into the shoe store first and talked to the two “IBM men” who were hanging out there (?), and then walked down to the theater.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, John, I suppose you could conceivably be right, but the 1996 interview that contains that information about Johnny Brewer going back into his shoe store after going out to the sidewalk to watch Oswald needs a little bit of clarification if you ask me.

Because in that '96 interview that Brewer had with Ian Griggs, Brewer seems to be saying (or at least implying) that he left the immediate area in front of his Hardy's Shoe Store before he ever "went back" inside the shoe store. What I just said is, indeed, implied when Brewer told Griggs that his store was "locked" when he "came back" to the store. And according to Brewer's own chronology in that 1996 interview, that was before he went up the street to the theater to talk to Julia Postal.

Now it stands to reason that if Brewer was merely standing a few feet outside the front door to his shoe store, why in the world would there be any need to lock the door? It seems logical to me to conclude that the only reason there would have been to lock the door would be if Brewer had gone some distance away from his store down the street.

But if Brewer was merely standing right in front of his store the whole time (before going back inside), why would there be any need for either Brewer himself or the two IBM guys (who were in the store at the time) to physically lock up the property so that no more customers could enter?

The interview excerpts seen below, therefore, are telling me that Johnny Brewer might very well have gone up to the theater entrance a total of two different times. Hence, we find Brewer telling Ian Griggs that he "went back" and "came back". And when Brewer said those words, he was referring to a point in time that was BEFORE he ever went up to the theater to talk to Julia Postal.

If you, John Iacoletti, or anyone else reading this, has a better explanation for what we find in the interview excerpt seen below, please chime in and let me know what it is. But these remarks by Mr. Brewer sure make it sound as though Brewer walked up the street (i.e., some distance away from his shoe store) twice on 11/22/63.

ILG = Ian Griggs (interviewer);
JCB = Johnny Calvin Brewer:



The complete 1996 interview:




JOHN IACOLETTI SAID:

Are you suggesting that Brewer walked all the way down to the theater, but didn’t talk to Postal, then went all the way back to his store, told the IBM men that he was going to go check, and then went back down to the theater? That makes ZERO sense.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm suggesting he went at least part way down toward the theater initially. Otherwise, the chronology that Brewer himself laid out in his 1996 interview makes ZERO sense too. The key portions that make zero sense IF he really made only one trip up to (or near) the theater entrance are these two sentences: "When I came back, the store was locked. I said I'm going to check."

Obviously those two sentences, being in the order Brewer uttered them, would mean the store was locked BEFORE he went down to the theater to "check". That makes no sense, unless he left the area of his store initially, thereby making the locking of the shoe store a necessity.

But this whole sub-topic of "Did Brewer physically see Oswald go into the front doors of the Texas Theater?" is totally ridiculous, superfluous, and downright stupid in the first place.

Why?

Because we KNOW without a shred of doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald DID go into the Texas Theater on the afternoon of 11/22/63 and was apprehended by the Dallas Police Department at approximately 1:50 PM CST on that same afternoon while inside that same theater.

To deny my last statement is to deny a fact and to deny a physical reality.

And since everybody knows—even all conspiracy believers—that Oswald was inside the movie theater between the hours of 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM CST on November 22nd, then somebody please tell me what the odds are of Johnny Brewer somehow being wrong (or lying) when he said he saw Lee Oswald go into the theater between the those same hours of 1:00 and 2:00 PM on 11/22/63?

-------------------------

Source:

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Ron Bulman]

$14 in cash to get way away from Dallas after killing the President., then hiding in a theater.  My, Oswald was stupid was he not?

How did he ever become a U-2 Radar operator with the security clearance necessary or learn Russian so proficiently at such a young age if he was so stupid?

Edited August 3, 2022 by Ron Bulman

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

So I guess Burroughs lied. Then the question is did Burroughs lie originally or did he lie in later years ? And why did his story change ?

Pertinent questions, Gil. But, equally, at the end of the You Tube clip attached earlier, Burroughs states: "Oswald slipped in [my bold] between 1 and . . 1.7." To state that he slipped in suggests he sneaked in. Now that may be me putting words into his mouth, so my question is: given Burroughs was the man who collected the tickets, if he saw Oswald enter the theatre, why did he not recall asking him for his ticket? Again, if he sold him popcorn at 1.15, would it not have occurred to him that he didn't remember clipping/checking Oswald's ticket and asked him for it then? Instead Burrough's latter statement asks us to believe he saw Oswald enter the theatre but, rather than check his ticket or ask him to purchase one, he let him pass or, rather as he told the commission, head up to the balcony without passing the concession stand. He also told JIm Marrs that Postal had sold Oswald a ticket, but again no mention of him (Burroughs) checking it. I have no idea why his story changed. I do find the popcorn reference interesting. There was no reason for Burroughs to add this, and if he did sell Oswald popcorn it weakens the premise that Oswald was desperate to keep a low profile by avoiding any personnel employed by the theatre.

[Gil Jesus]

3 hours ago, Mike Kiely said:

Pertinent questions, Gil. But, equally, at the end of the You Tube clip attached earlier, Burroughs states: "Oswald slipped in [my bold] between 1 and . . 1.7." To state that he slipped in suggests he sneaked in. Now that may be me putting words into his mouth, so my question is: given Burroughs was the man who collected the tickets, if he saw Oswald enter the theatre, why did he not recall asking him for his ticket? Again, if he sold him popcorn at 1.15, would it not have occurred to him that he didn't remember clipping/checking Oswald's ticket and asked him for it then? Instead Burrough's latter statement asks us to believe he saw Oswald enter the theatre but, rather than check his ticket or ask him to purchase one, he let him pass or, rather as he told the commission, head up to the balcony without passing the concession stand. He also told JIm Marrs that Postal had sold Oswald a ticket, but again no mention of him (Burroughs) checking it. I have no idea why his story changed. I do find the popcorn reference interesting. There was no reason for Burroughs to add this, and if he did sell Oswald popcorn it weakens the premise that Oswald was desperate to keep a low profile by avoiding any personnel employed by the theatre.

One way police can determine the credibility of a witness is whether that witness' version of events is supported by either another witness or the physical evidence. Was there another witness who could back Burroughs' revelation that Oswald was in the theater prior to 1:15 ?

The answer to that question is yes.

Theater patron Jack Davis told Jim Marrs said that only minutes past 1:00 pm, during the opening credits of the first movie, he was startled by a man who squeezed past him and sat down in the seat next to him. This man moved around in the theater and eventually got up and walked toward the lobby. Eventually, the man came back and sat in the center section. When the house lights came on, Davis went out to the lobby to find out what was going on when he saw the police rushing in. He heard the scuffle in the theater and saw them bring out Oswald, who he said, was the man who sat next to him when the movie began. ( Marrs, Crossfire, pg. 353 )

If Davis' is an example of the type of story the Dallas Police were getting from the patrons of the theater, then it's no wonder why the list of people in the theater and what they told police has disappeared into eternity.

So then we look back at Burroughs' testimony and ask ourselves why he said what he said.

One of the things I find strange while reseaching this, is that unlike many of the witnesses in this case, I could find no evidence that Burroughs ever gave a sworn affadavit. I could find no interview of him in either the Dallas Police files or the FBI files. And the Warren Report makes no mention of his name.

A strange omission of the only witness who could prove the Commission's contention that Oswald sneaked into the theater to avoid apprehension by police. Or could he ? Did he tell them the truth or did he tell them what they wanted to hear ?

During their investigation, the FBI threatened and coerced witnesses into changing their stories for the record. An example of the tactics they used was revealed in the testimony of W.W. Litchfield who told the Commission that the FBI threats definitely had an effect on how he answered their questions.

In this example, Litchfield told the FBI that he saw Oswald in the Carousel Club but was forced on the record to sign a statement saying the man was "a close resemblance".

Mr. HUBERT. I gather that you were more positive of the identity of Oswald as being the man in the Carousel on the occasion we have been speaking about at one time than you are now?

Mr. LITCHFIELD. I was; yes.

Mr. HUBERT. What has caused your opinion in the matter to weaken?

Mr. LITCHFIELD. The fact that they gave me the polygraphic test, that showed when they asked me–was it definitely him, it didn’t show up right, and the fact that I had told Don when I called him, I said, “It sure as heck looks like him,” and when the police were questioning me, they said, “Are you positive, are you positive, are you positive?” I said, “It looks like him, it looks like him, it looks like him.” And they come back, “Are you positive, are you positive?” And then the fact that when the Federal agents talked to me, they said, “You know, if you say you are positive and it wasn’t him,” it’s a Federal charge, and I said, “Well, I’m not that positive.”

Mr. HUBERT. The Federal agent told you if you gave an opinion—-

Mr. LITCHFIELD. No; they said, “If you give false information as to an exact statement–” not an opinion, but if I say I’m positive, that’s a statement.

Mr. HUBERT. Well, are you conveying to me that you really were positive, but that—-

Mr. LITCHFIELD. In my mind.

Mr. HUBERT. You were scared off of it ?

Mr. LITCHFIELD. No, sir; no, sir. I said in my mind I was positive that it looked like him, but I’m just as fallible as anybody else. I could be 100 percent wrong. I said, “In my mind, the man that I saw looked just like him,” but then again, I can’t say 100 percent.

Mr. HUBERT. And that is still your opinion?

Mr. LITCHFIELD. I said it bears a close resemblance, but not having come in contact with Oswald at all or having never met him or anything, and just seeing him for a fleeting glance, the back of his head and when he walked by me; no, I can’t be 100 percent pure positive.

Mr. HUBERT. But you knew all of that the first time you told it to Green ?

Mr. LITCHFIELD. Well, like I said, “It sure does look like him–the man I saw there sure does look like Oswald,” those are my words.

Mr. HUBERT. But, what has caused you to weaken in your opinion it was Oswald, as you tell it to me, is the fact that you got the impression that if you gave a positive identification and it proved to be false, that it would be a Federal offense, is that correct ?

Mr. LITCHFIELD. Yes; they said giving false information to the FBI, and I’m not 100 percent pure positive. I say, “It bears a close resemblance,” and this is all I can say.

Mr. HUBERT. And that’s all you did tell them ?

Mr. LITCHFIELD. Yes, sir; that’s the statement I signed. ( 14 H 107-108 )

Not only did the FBI use threats to change what the witnesses said, they used threats against witnesses who were sure of what they saw to make them appear less sure in the official record. This same tactic was used on witnesses who said they were “positive” that the man they saw was not Oswald.

This is why Federal agents were present during the questioning of witnesses at several different locations including the Tippit murder scene, the Dallas Police station and the Texas Theater, when the FBI had no legal jurisdiction in any of these crimes.

They were there to hear, question and intimidate witnesses.

These tactics seemed to work. Original stories like the one of Charles Givens, who at first said he saw Oswald on the first floor at 11:50 and then said he hadn’t seen Oswald all morning.

Or Domingo Benavides, who was 15 feet away from the Tippit killer but was afraid of not being able to identify the killer if he said he could, so he declined to view a lineup. Then, once Oswald was dead, he identified him.

But in the case of Marina Oswald, the threat was to deport her if she didn’t “cooperate” with the “investigation”. Deportation would have meant that she would have gone back to Russia without her kids, who were American citizens by birth. She’d go, they’d stay. She'd never see her daughters again. The threat of losing her children forever would have been enough to make ANY mother tell them what they wanted to hear. True or not.

Under those circumstances, anything Marina Oswald testified to was made under duress and her testimony, to put it nicely, is suspect.

 

While questioning witnesses whose statements did not fit the official version, the FBI notified them that they were making a “statement” and if they turned out to be wrong, they could be charged with making a false statement to a Federal Agent, a charge that carried with it a five year prison term.

The only way to avoid this charge, the witnesses were told, was to change or alter their statement. Of course, witnesses feared a prison term for just being wrong, so many of them went on the record stating that which they knew was not true. Others' statements, like the theater patrons, disappeared. Still others, who may not have cooperated with the FBI, had their statements altered without their knowledge.

That may be the reason why Burroughs' testimony says one thing, then years later, when he wasn't talking to a federal employee and under the threat of a prison term, he told the real story.

Edited August 3, 2022 by Gil Jesus