Flight of Lee Oswald - Brewer and McDonald testimonies on CBS 1964

[Martin Weidmann]

Tell us why they would have to know that.

Because Ross claimed they did... dumbass...

Read the thread before you jump into the conversation with another stupid question.

[John Iacoletti]

Tell us why they would have to know that.

Because Ross made the silly claim that the testimonies of Brewer and McDonald were evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Officer J.D. Tippit.

[John Iacoletti]

Regarding somebody as a suspect is proof of . . . what, exactly?

Initially a suspect is the potential perpetrator. Later: Other information (and evidence) suggests the suspect is likely to be the actual perpetrator.

We're not talking about "later".  We're talking about what Brewer and McDonald were witnesses to.

Ever heard of the word "probative".

Yes I have.  Explain how that applies.

Why would I need to?

To establish credibility and prove that you are not just a "contrarian".

You're wanting me to claim that McDonald and Brewer are liars even though their interviews aren't evidence of who shot Tippit, even if they are completely truthful?

Why, just for fun?

[Ross Lidell]

No it isn't. It's a comparison of witnesses who made statements on video.

Holland could not identify a shooter. He had no interaction with a second assassin.

Brewer and McDonald also could not identify a shooter. Neither man saw Tippit being killed.

Brewer identified Oswald as the man who acted suspiciously in the foyer of his shoe-store... when police cars drove by with sirens wailing.

McDonald interacted physically with Oswald.

So what? They still had no way of knowing that Oswald killed Tippit, because they never saw the shooting

There's an enormous difference between Sam Holland's video testimony and that of Brewer's and McDonald's.

No there isn't... It's witnesses making statements on video. Same rules for everybody... But what difference would that be? Pray tell....

Why don't you discern that. You don't want to.

You just want there to be a difference, so you can dismiss what Holland said

And what's Holland (in Dealey Plaza) got to do with Brewer and McDonald in Oak Cliff?

What have Brewer and McDonald, on Jefferson, to do with a shooting at 10th/Patton?

Is that a non sequitur?

You really love using that term... Is it something you learned the meaning of recently and now you want to use it as often as you can?

It's all very simple; if you take the position that Brewer and McDonald were truthfull because they said something on video than the same must apply to Holland.
Idiotic comparison.

As always you demonstrate an inability to stick to the point. Nothing more than contrarian "opposing" and "dodging".

I use "non sequitur" when it's appropriate: Lately more often due to your (and John's) persistent unjustified assertions.

So what? They still had no way of knowing that Oswald killed Tippit, because they never saw the shooting.

Your most idiotic comment yet. So (in your opinion) police must witness every crime that is committed or no prosecution can ever proceed to court.

Empty the jails: Everybody is innocent!!!

[Martin Weidmann]

Police chase suspects all the time. You claimed that Brewer and McDonald knew that Oswald killed Tippit. John's question was spot on and your reply was pathetic.

Brewer and McDonald "suspected" the man (Lee Oswald) was the killer of Officer Tippit.

Oswald's "punching McDonald and pulling a revolver from his (Oswald's) waistband and attempting to fire it" was (in their minds) "confirmation".

McDonald experienced Oswald's violent, illegal actions and Brewer witnessed them.

Incidentally: Oswald carrying that revolver was a felony, was it not?

Regarding Johnny "I". Spot-on to what? Those cliche replies are meaningless.

Brewer and McDonald "suspected" the man (Lee Oswald) was the killer of Officer Tippit.

Earlier you said they knew he was the killer of Tippit.... Moving the goalposts?

Secondly, Brewer could not have suspected that because there was no way he could have known that Tippit had been shot when he saw Oswald at his store. The whole radio story is BS... There never was a broadcast so early on about a police officer being killed. If there was, the tape would have surfaced long ago.

Oswald's "punching McDonald and pulling a revolver from his (Oswald's) waistband and attempting to fire it" was (in their minds) "confirmation".

McDonald experienced Oswald's violent, illegal actions and Brewer witnessed them.

So, even if it did happen that Oswald punched McDonald, if a suspect that punches a police man is confirmation that the person is a killer, there would a lot more people in jail than there are right now.

McDonald experienced Oswald's violent, illegal actions and Brewer witnessed them.

Are you sure about that?

Incidentally: Oswald carrying that revolver was a felony, was it not?

Was it? Back then, and even now, a lot of people in Texas carry firearms... But what does it matter? Oswald was not booked for carrying a revolver. Your question is pointless.

Regarding Johnny "I". Spot-on to what? Those cliche replies are meaningless.

But a reply like "It's selfevident" isn't, right?... Stop making a fool of yourself. I mean, you are really good at it, but it's getting a bit boring.

[John Iacoletti]

Brewer and McDonald "suspected" the man (Lee Oswald) was the killer of Officer Tippit.

Based on what evidence?  He looked funny?

Oswald's "punching McDonald and pulling a revolver from his (Oswald's) waistband and attempting to fire it" was (in their minds) "confirmation".

"Confirmation" that he shot a cop 30 minutes earlier, 7 blocks away?

P.S. McDonald didn't say in his WC testimony, in his report to Curry, or in his WFAA interview the next day that Oswald pulled a revolver from his waistband.

Incidentally: Oswald carrying that revolver was a felony, was it not?

Not sure what the Texas laws were at the time, but it doesn't matter because he wasn't arrested or charged with that.  And that wouldn't be evidence that he shot a cop anyway.

[John Iacoletti]

Your most idiotic comment yet. So (in your opinion) police must witness every crime that is committed or no prosecution can ever proceed to court.

No, the idiotic comment was that the McDonald and Brewer interviews you posted somehow constitute evidence that Oswald shot Tippit.

[Martin Weidmann]

As always you demonstrate an inability to stick to the point. Nothing more than contrarian "opposing" and "dodging".

I have been sticking to the point. You just don't like it....


I use "non sequitur" when it's appropriate: Lately more often due to your (and John's) persistent unjustified assertions.

First of all, you frequently use it incorrectly and secondly you never get beyond claiming that John and I make "unjustified assertions". You just can't explain what is unjustified about them other than that you don't like them.

So what? They still had no way of knowing that Oswald killed Tippit, because they never saw the shooting.

Your most idiotic comment yet. So (in your opinion) police must witness every crime that is committed or no prosecution can ever proceed to court.

Empty the jails: Everybody is innocent!!!

Brewer isn't and never was police. And as far as McDonald is concerned he was one of many officers directed to the Texas Theater to arrest a suspect.

Neither Brewer or McDonald knew at that time that Oswald had killed Tippit.

police must witness every crime that is committed or no prosecution can ever proceed to court.

Another pathetic strawman. I never said anything of the kind. Stop making stuff up.