Warren Burroughs, the Popcorn Man

[Bill Brown]

8 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Actually, nobody is saying that. What we're saying is that "torn" can clearly have more than one meaning. And in the absence of clarification, no one can definitively say whether the bill was torn in two or just simply torn but intact.

 

Jonathan, you're using way too much logic and common sense for some.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

I've discussed this before on this forum.  I even created a thread around it.  There is nothing about that piece of paper which makes it "relevant" to Oswald or the Kennedy assassination.

 

So you think Armstrong found that document in some random file, and is lying about the bills being found in Oswald's wallet?

That seems a stretch. I've seen Armstrong make some mistakes, but I've never seen him outright lie.

 

[Greg Doudna]

I appreciate Miles’ comment, that a notation that the bill was torn signifies more than a minor or seemingly accidental small tear. Someone noticed that bill was “torn” in some way notable, and had “300” written on it. “Torn” could mean anything, a portion torn off, or a particularly deep or unusual looking tear in a whole dollar bill. 

What can be concluded is that though that could be nothing and therefore is no positive evidence or indication in itself that it’s use was for Oswald to meet someone, at the same time if Oswald were meeting someone unknown to him that is an extremely plausible mechanism for how it would be done in a theater (matching tear and number on a dollar bill). 

And the independent positive grounds suggesting Oswald could be meeting someone are his behavior in sitting in the seat immediately next to Davis, then getting up after a few moments and moving to repeat the same with another patron again, then getting up after a few moments and going out into the popcorn concession area, told by Davis who witnessed that.

Can’t take the evidence beyond that I don’t think.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Joe Bauer]

On 12/14/2023 at 8:39 AM, Joe Bauer said:

Mr. BALL. Were you ever in the Army?
Mr. BURROUGHS. No, sir----they tried to get me, but I couldn't pass----I passed the physical part, but the mental part----I didn't make enough points on the score, so the board sent me a card back and classifying me differently. "

 

I don't know if the entrance exam for acceptance into the basic enlisted man's army was much different in Burroughs time versus the one I took in 1969, but I remember thinking to myself that the general intelligence exam I was presented with was on a 5th or 6th grade level of competency.

What is 81 divided by 9? 12 X 12 equals...? How many inches in a yard? How many days in a year? In which state is the city of New York in? Who was president of the United States during the Civil War? Etc. etc,.

It seemed to me that the only persons who could fail a test like that were mentally handicapped. 

The general joke back then was that if you failed the Air Force and Navy enlisted man entrance exams...no worry. The Army will always take you.

Shouldn't researchers consider this Burroughs young man and his Oswald theater recollection with at least some reservation considering his admitted army rejection limitations in the mental capacity department?

And can someone please enlighten me as to the importance of whether or not Oswald bought and ate some popcorn in his time in the Texas Theater?

Edited December 16, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Jonathan Cohen]

39 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Shouldn't researchers consider this Burroughs young man and his Oswald theater recollection with at least some reservation considering his admitted army rejection limitations in the mental capacity department?

Excellent point, and yes, they absolutely should.

[Greg Doudna]

6 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Shouldn't researchers consider this Burroughs young man and his Oswald theater recollection with at least some reservation considering his admitted army rejection limitations in the mental capacity department?

Yes but that cuts both ways. It could be argued Burroughs was not up to catching how manipulative the questioning was to him in his WC testimony that makes it sound like he was identifying the man who went into the balcony, without him noticing, was Oswald. 

Burroughs forever after said that’s not what he meant, and that was not what happened.

But, he failed an Army mental test, so what would Burroughs know about saying later what he meant.

Burroughs said Oswald, as distinguished from the man who went into the balcony, was in the theatre earlier, during the time of the opening credits. The movie itself didn’t start until about 1:20. If Oswald was there during the opening credits that’s Oswald’s alibi, he couldn’t have shot Tippit. 

But why believe Burroughs in what he later kept insisting about that? He wasn’t the sharpest pencil in the drawer according to the Army.

Well, how about this. Jack Davis who is credible and is a sharp pencil also said the same thing about the timing of Oswald there. He said Oswald sat down next to him during the opening credits before sitting next to Gibson and then out into the popcorn concession area where the WC version is Burroughs never saw him there as Burroughs later claimed.

And no other of the theater witnesses inside the theater that day said otherwise as to seeing Oswald, as distinguished from the man who ran into the balcony, arrive later.

Because nobody bothered to ask the other theater staff or patrons that, or if they did, did not report what was answered. 

Except there was one more asked, theater patron Applin. Reporter Earl Golz had among his papers an unpublished interview with Applin.

According to that, a draft of an article Golz had prepared no record ever published, Applin described to Golz seeing Oswald already there when Applin arrived into the main level seating area, and Applin was there during the opening credits.

There’s Oswald’s alibi again, a third witness to it. Three out of three of the only three inside the theater who gave information concerning Oswald’s time of arrival into the main seating area on the ground level.

But apart from that, nothing to see there. Because Burroughs wasn’t too bright. And because Brewer (outside the theater) identified Oswald as the man he saw through the glass of the door of his store who then went into the theater balcony around 1:35, fresh from killing Tippit at around 1:15.

Just like deputy sheriff Courson later said he thought a young man who walked by him coming down from the balcony at around 1:40 pm, after police had arrived, had been Oswald (even though that cannot be correct). 

Did Brewer and Courson get their identifications of Oswald right without being mistaken? Or were the 100 percent of the theater staff and patrons inside the theater correct who when asked gave information, and all said Oswald was there before 1:20, and therefore a different person than the man who ran into the balcony at 1:35? 

Maybe Burroughs wasn’t bright enough to be a match for experienced WC counsel questioning him, tricking Burroughs into indirectly (if parsing his syllables and syntax literally according to the published stenographic record) identifying the balcony man as Oswald, the identification the skilled WC counsel wanted from him.

If everything was on the up and up, is it not a little odd that others inside that theater, staff and patrons, were not asked what they saw bearing on the Oswald alibi question? Apart from the two others who with the later Burroughs were asked, and all three did support, the exculpatory alibi. Apart from them I mean.

That is how it stands in terms of the Theatre witnesses, about 18 total that day (14 patron tickets sold that afternoon at the window plus 4 staff, Callahan, Postal, Burroughs, and the projectionist, estimated 18 total persons).

But one of those three (out of three who gave information all of whom supported Oswald’s alibi) failed his Army Intelligence test.

He was smart enough under early trick questioning to indirectly implicate Oswald accurately—that can be relied upon—but he was not smart enough when later speaking in his own voice to be believed when he said differently, just as the other two who had nothing wrong with their intelligence. 

The three theater witnesses who claimed that alibi timing for Oswald in that theater became known only years later. Their testimony can be interpreted as mistaken and dismissed for that reason. That is not to be denied. But just saying what the situation is, in terms of known information from the 18 inside the theater that day. 

***

References, pages 2-20, 107-110 at https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/T-Jackets-112.pdf .

Edited December 16, 2023 by Greg Doudna