Gil Jesus Posted Tuesday at 10:29 AM Share Posted Tuesday at 10:29 AM On what charge was Oswald arrested in the Texas Theater ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Morrow Posted Wednesday at 02:58 AM Share Posted Wednesday at 02:58 AM My guess is supposedly "not paying for his movie ticket." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Cummings Posted Wednesday at 12:39 PM Share Posted Wednesday at 12:39 PM He ordered popcorn with no butter. Red flag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Rice Posted Wednesday at 01:12 PM Share Posted Wednesday at 01:12 PM I'm only guessing, but I always thought it was related to the Tippit shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Doudna Posted Wednesday at 10:25 PM Share Posted Wednesday at 10:25 PM There’s something odd. He’s taken in for Tippit. That evening he’s charged on Tippit. Yet in all the interrogation reports there is no record of him being asked how he got from the rooming house to the theatre, to tell the route he took getting there, did he go on foot or by bus, what did he see on the way, what street names, etc. No record he was asked whether he was at the scene of the crime. If denied, where was he. Ask how he entered the theater, did he buy a ticket. Show a photo of Tippit, ask him if he knew him or recognized him. Were such basic questions never asked, or asked but not reported? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted Thursday at 12:17 AM Share Posted Thursday at 12:17 AM (edited) If it was the TIppit case, what was the probable cause? Or did you not need that then in Texas? Edited Thursday at 12:17 AM by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted Thursday at 12:25 AM Share Posted Thursday at 12:25 AM 1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said: There’s something odd. He’s taken in for Tippit. That evening he’s charged on Tippit. Yet in all the interrogation reports there is no record of him being asked how he got from the rooming house to the theatre, to tell the route he took getting there, did he go on foot or by bus, what did he see on the way, what street names, etc. No record he was asked whether he was at the scene of the crime. If denied, where was he. Ask how he entered the theater, did he buy a ticket. Show a photo of Tippit, ask him if he knew him or recognized him. Were such basic questions never asked, or asked but not reported? It seems far more likely the questions were asked but never reported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted Thursday at 12:26 AM Share Posted Thursday at 12:26 AM (edited) 32 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: If it was the Tippit case, what was the probable cause? I guess slugging a police officer in the face and pulling a gun on him wasn't nearly enough of a reason to arrest the guy, huh? And the slugging and the gun-pulling was occurring, of course, very soon after Officer Tippit had been shot nearby. But some people (for some odd reason) seem to think the cops just decided to arrest Oswald AND charge him with a policeman's murder based on no evidence or "probable cause" whatsoever. Perhaps Mr. DiEugenio is one of those people. I'm guessing he is. Edited Thursday at 12:50 AM by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted Thursday at 03:17 AM Share Posted Thursday at 03:17 AM 59 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: If it was the TIppit case, what was the probable cause? Or did you not need that then in Texas? Nope, not with Henry Wade as DA. Didn't you or someone else at K & K write an article about him? I know we've discussed him and The Thin Blue Line on here before. And the Black teenager wrongly convicted for murdering a White woman on the way home from work in the 1950's. Then executed because Wade ignored contrary evidence. This thread in a way touches on something I've wondered about before. Why was he arrested in the way he was. I know it was an extreme never before circumstance but was it normal or proper police procedure? I've read a good bit about this but don't remember the officer approaching him closest first saying anything to him before he was in close enough range to get hit in the face and have Oswald pull a gun he didn't own. On the word of an unknown to them informant who said he looked suspicious and entered the theater without buying a ticket, then pointing him out. If the police are looking for a possible armed and dangerous cop killer, potential Presidental Assassin is that the thing to do? Or maybe approach with your gun in hand, stop 4-5-6' away and say Sir, please stand up with your hands in the air, we want to talk to you. If Oswald stands up drawing a gun he shoots him and becomes a national hero. Case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Doudna Posted Thursday at 04:33 AM Share Posted Thursday at 04:33 AM (edited) (Sorry Gil.) Edited Thursday at 01:50 PM by Greg Doudna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted Thursday at 05:30 AM Share Posted Thursday at 05:30 AM (edited) Thanks Greg. But did you not need probable cause in Texas at the time? What connected Oswald to the TIppit scene? Can you really arrest someone for not paying his way into a theater? Edited Thursday at 09:07 PM by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Doudna Posted Thursday at 06:36 AM Share Posted Thursday at 06:36 AM (edited) 7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Thanks Greg. But did you not need probably cause in Texas at the time? What connected Oswald to the TIppit scene? Can you really arrest someone for not paying his way into a theater? It sounds like the reasons they had for connecting him to Tippit became clear to them after the arrest, but they wrote up the report that he was arrested for Tippit even though it was only later after the arrest that they learned the reasons that justified the arrest. I see the problem there... They didn't charge him on the theater charge probably because it never got to the point of even starting to question him about that. More puzzling is they didn't charge him for throwing the punch at MacDonald, which might have been a legal reason to have arrested him on the spot, then charge him for that. On why they did not charge him on the punch or the fight, maybe there was an issue of police brutality being covered up, that would have risked being opened up if they had charged him for the punch or the fight. The commanding officer at the arrest, Westbrook, in Sneed appears to say it wasn't just Oswald rhetoric. "Some have made claims about police brutality in the arrest. I think police brutality had a place in that particular incident. Of course, it wouldn't be in front of witnesses. There had just been a President of the United States shot down and then an officer killed in cold blood without even getting his gun out. I don't think there could be any such thing as police brutality to a mad dog like that." (Sneed, 316) Edited Thursday at 01:07 PM by Greg Doudna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Ulrik Posted Thursday at 09:09 AM Share Posted Thursday at 09:09 AM On 10/15/2024 at 12:29 PM, Gil Jesus said: On what charge was Oswald arrested in the Texas Theater ? What's your point? It would be surprising if throwing punches and drawing your gun at police wasn't enough to get you arrested. Also: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gil Jesus Posted Thursday at 10:27 AM Author Share Posted Thursday at 10:27 AM (edited) 10 hours ago, David Von Pein said: I guess slugging a police officer in the face and pulling a gun on him wasn't nearly enough of a reason to arrest the guy, huh? Was that what he was arrested for ? If so, why weren't those charges listed on McDonald's arrest report of 11/22 ? If the arrest was legitimate, Oswald should have been arrested for assault and battery on a police officer. That charge should have been the reason why he was arrested. It should be on the arrest report. Not only is it not on the arrest report, he was never charged with that. Why not ? If the charge were carrying a gun illegally, why isn't it listed on the arrest report ? Why wasn't he ever charged with that ? Likewise, the arrest card they filed shows no such charges. The arrest report should state the facts as known at the time of the arrest. Why does the report state in "other details of the arrest" that, "this man shot and killed President Kennedy and Police Officer J.D. Tippit. He also shot and wounded Governor John Connally." ? How did McDonald know that at the time of Oswald's arrest ( 1:40 pm on Friday, the 22nd ) ? Edited Thursday at 10:35 AM by Gil Jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Coleman Posted Thursday at 11:57 AM Share Posted Thursday at 11:57 AM 1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said: Was that what he was arrested for ? If so, why weren't those charges listed on McDonald's arrest report of 11/22 ? If the arrest was legitimate, Oswald should have been arrested for assault and battery on a police officer. That charge should have been the reason why he was arrested. It should be on the arrest report. Not only is it not on the arrest report, he was never charged with that. Why not ? If the charge were carrying a gun illegally, why isn't it listed on the arrest report ? Why wasn't he ever charged with that ? Likewise, the arrest card they filed shows no such charges. The arrest report should state the facts as known at the time of the arrest. Why does the report state in "other details of the arrest" that, "this man shot and killed President Kennedy and Police Officer J.D. Tippit. He also shot and wounded Governor John Connally." ? How did McDonald know that at the time of Oswald's arrest ( 1:40 pm on Friday, the 22nd ) ? What’s ‘INV. MURDER?’ Inv(volved in) murder? A bit vague… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now