My Re-Evaluation of Johnny Brewer’s Initial Report of December 6, 1963

[John Iacoletti]

I am impervious to your verbal barbs.

You’re impervious to being coherent too.

Yeah, it’s quite a “CT nightmare” that Brewer heard a radio report that there is no evidence of. You’re mighty full of yourself.

[David Von Pein]

JOHNNY BREWER AND THE SHOOTING OF J.D. TIPPIT....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1317.html

[Bill Chapman]

MR.CHAPMAN: There you go again: Ignoring the wailing cop-cars, news of the assassination, a guy observed by Brewer to be attempting to hide, and then conclude that Brewer had no reason to suspect anything.
MR.IACOLETTI: Strawman. I made no such argument.
MR.CHAPMAN: Reply #8 July 31, 2020, 03:25:47 AM ("to justify why he was suspicious of this man")
MR.CHAPMAN: Now show us where Brewer claimed to be doubting his reasons for following Oswald. Seems to me that's nothing but Iacoletti conjecture.
MR.IACOLETTI: When did I ever ever claim he did?
Mr.CHAPMAN: Reply #8 July 31, 2020, 03:25:47 AM ("to justify why he was suspicious of this man")
MR.IACOLETTI: Brewer never said “attempting to hide'.
MR.CHAPMAN:  You and your semantics. 'Attempting to hide': Same difference as stepping into the foyer at the sudden approach of cop cars, turning his back, glancing over his shoulder, then leaving immediately after the cop cars disappear. But I guess Oswald was just shy. Btw, Brewer did not say the man was 'standing in front of his shop' as you claim (Reply #8 July 31, 2020, 03:25:47 AM) "to justify why he was suspicious of this man standing in front of his shop"

[Bill Chapman]

You’re impervious to being coherent too.

Yeah, it’s quite a “CT nightmare” that Brewer heard a radio report that there is no evidence of. You’re mighty full of yourself.

1) You lot write in a way that gives you a 'deniability' escape-hatch.
2) My feet are firmly planted on the ground, as opposed to those hanging onto the CTer other-worldly standard-of-proof bar which has long since left our solar system.

[Jerry Freeman]

JOHNNY BREWER AND THE SHOOTING OF J.D. TIPPIT....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1317.html

If..perhaps...maybe...could be...probably...might have... sorry--absolutely no certainty in that link.

In any event, even if Brewer didn't hear any pre-1:36 PM radio bulletin concerning the Tippit shooting, it's still quite clear to me from the weight of John Brewer's testimony and statements over the years that Brewer was suspicious of Lee Harvey Oswald's behavior and actions shortly after 1:30 PM on 11/22/63 (such as: Oswald turning his back to the street just as the police cars went roaring by). {so the story said}

And if some conspiracy theorists have a desire to totally discount and deem invalid all of Mr. Brewer's testimony because of this issue of whether he really did hear a radio bulletin at the time he said he heard it, then I think those conspiracists are making a big mistake.

As it turned out, Johnny Brewer was the person who was most directly responsible for setting the wheels in motion which ultimately led to the capture of President Kennedy's (accused) assassin in the Texas Theater less than 90 minutes after JFK was shot. 

IOW it was just another totally amazing coincidence. Johnny Brewer notices a guy and for some reason decides that he is suspicious and looks dangerous [puny Oswald?]... and there was never any corroboration concerning this observation.
Why is a reasonable doubt considered a " big mistake"?

[Bill Chapman]

If..perhaps...maybe...could be...probably...might have... sorry--absolutely no certainty in that link.IOW it was just another totally amazing coincidence. Johnny Brewer notices a guy and for some reason decides that he is suspicious and looks dangerous [puny Oswald?]... and there was never any corroboration concerning this observation.
Why is a reasonable doubt considered a " big mistake"?

Where did Brewer state that Oswald looked dangerous? This is not hard to figure out: The dangerous part would be following a guy who might well be armed, given his observed behaviour regarding the cop cars.

[David Von Pein]

Johnny Brewer notices a guy and for some reason decides that he is suspicious and looks dangerous [puny Oswald?]... and there was never any corroboration concerning this observation. Why is a reasonable doubt considered a "big mistake"?

Because common sense (alone) dictates it's a "big mistake" to totally discount everything Johnny Brewer had to say.

Why, you ask?

Because there must have been SOMETHING about Oswald and his demeanor on 11/22/63 that caused Brewer to leave his store and physically follow this guy (Oswald) up the street and into the Texas Theater. (And you surely don't deny that Brewer did follow Oswald into the movie theater, do you? Remember, Brewer himself was grabbed initially by the police when he opened the back door of the theater. Or do some conspiracy theorists think that incident was fabricated too?)

In short....

If Oswald really wasn't "acting funny" and looking "scared" and looking as if he had been "running" when Johnny Brewer saw him in the lobby of his shoe store, then please give me one good reason for Brewer wanting to follow this person up the street to the theater on November 22nd?

Any bright ideas? Or would you rather continue calling Johnny Calvin Brewer a big fat liar?

[Richard Smith]

What is the CTers alternative explanation for Brewer's behavior?  That he was lying or somehow involved in the conspiracy to frame Oswald?  It really doesn't add up.  If you want to believe that Brewer behaved in an unreasonable manner by finding Oswald suspicious, then knock yourself out.  It doesn't have any relevance unless you are claiming this is somehow evidence that he was involved in a conspiracy.  And it doesn't do that.