Time for Truth

[Alan Ford]

   

'Yes, I'd like to report a suspicious man in the Texas Theatre.'
'Well, can you give me a description so we can see if he fits our suspect description?'
'Suspect description for what?'
'For the shooting of an officer'
'I won't know about that until you guys arrive, but he has on a brown shirt'
'He's wearing a SHIRT?! We'll be right there....................'

[Alan Ford]

In this post I list multiple witnesses who confirm that Brewer was telling his story of the suspicious looking man who ducked into his store and who he followed into the Texas Theater. And that he was telling this story before Oswald was arrested. So, Brewer was either telling the truth  or he had fabricated this story before he interacted with Postal, which would put Brewer at the heart of a conspiracy to frame Oswald. A conspiracy that would have Brewer having foreknowledge of the Tippit murder

Complete non sequitur 

[Mitch Todd]

Brewer’s words, not mine.

Mr. BELIN - Why did you happen to watch this particular man?
Mr. BREWER - He just looked funny to me. Well, in the first place, I had seen him some place before. I think he had been in my store before. And when you wait on somebody, you recognize them, and he just seemed funny. His hair was sort of messed up and looked like he had been running, and he looked scared, and he looked funny.

I didn't say that Brewer didn't say "funny." I even quoted him saying it.

What I did say was that you "would have everyone believe that the only reason that Brewer took notice of Oswald was that Oswald looked 'funny' to Brewer, but there's more to it than that." I went on to say

"From Brewer's account, Oswald not only "looked funny," he also looked scared, appeared disheveled (as if "he had been running"). More importantly, what's implied in this account is that Oswald was acting as if he was trying to avoid being identified by the approaching police cars. As they approach, he ducks into the vestibule of Brewer's store putting his back to the street. He doesn't appears to be interested in anything in the store. And after the police cruisers pass, he pops back out and continues up the street. Somehow, John can't seem to understand why someone would think this might be seen as suspicious."

Not only did you fail respond to the point, you deleted what I wrote from your reply, as if you thought it would go away if you simply avoided engaging with it.

Condensed. LOL.

Condensed, yes. Apparently, you can't find anything wrong with the condensed version.

What John understands is that this doesn’t constitute probable cause for the police to conduct a search or a murder arrest.

You don't understand that at all. Oswald was arrested because he pulled a gun on McDonald. And we've been
over the so-called "illegal search" thing before. See the thread "Why did Oswald go to the movies?" Reply #874 to be exact.

Specifically, follow this link:

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/when-can-the-police-stop-and-frisk-you-on-the-street

[Martin Weidmann]

I didn't say that Brewer didn't say "funny." I even quoted him saying it.

What I did say was that you "would have everyone believe that the only reason that Brewer took notice of Oswald was that Oswald looked 'funny' to Brewer, but there's more to it than that." I went on to say

"From Brewer's account, Oswald not only "looked funny," he also looked scared, appeared disheveled (as if "he had been running"). More importantly, what's implied in this account is that Oswald was acting as if he was trying to avoid being identified by the approaching police cars. As they approach, he ducks into the vestibule of Brewer's store putting his back to the street. He doesn't appears to be interested in anything in the store. And after the police cruisers pass, he pops back out and continues up the street. Somehow, John can't seem to understand why someone would think this might be seen as suspicious."

Not only did you fail respond to the point, you deleted what I wrote from your reply, as if you thought it would go away if you simply avoided engaging with it.

Condensed, yes. Apparently, you can't find anything wrong with the condensed version.

You don't understand that at all. Oswald was arrested because he pulled a gun on McDonald. And we've been
over the so-called "illegal search" thing before. See the thread "Why did Oswald go to the movies?" Reply #874 to be exact.

Specifically, follow this link:

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/when-can-the-police-stop-and-frisk-you-on-the-street

More arguments for argument's sake.

John actually quoted Brewer's testimony. No need for "condensed" versions.

As per usual, you are just looking for something to argue ad nauseam about. And no doubt you will continue to do so.

[John Iacoletti]

I didn't say that Brewer didn't say "funny." I even quoted him saying it.

What I did say was that you "would have everyone believe that the only reason that Brewer took notice of Oswald was that Oswald looked 'funny' to Brewer, but there's more to it than that." I went on to say

"From Brewer's account, Oswald not only "looked funny," he also looked scared, appeared disheveled (as if "he had been running").

So what? That’s not probable cause for murder either. But in describing the man in front of the shop, he notably doesn’t say suspicious, he doesn’t say ducked, he doesn’t say avoid. He does say “funny” though. It is you who is embellishing what he said with your characterization and your “condensing”. I don’t need to “deal with” your interpretation of what somebody “implied”.

You don't understand that at all. Oswald was arrested because he pulled a gun on McDonald.

Bull. He was arrested for murder. The arrest report says nothing about “pulling a gun on McDonald”. In fact no testimony of a single person in the theater says that Oswald “pulled a gun”. McDonald clearly states that the gun came out after he grabbed Oswald’s hand and yanked.

And we've been over the so-called "illegal search" thing before. See the thread "Why did Oswald go to the movies?" Reply #874 to be exact.

Specifically, follow this link:

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/when-can-the-police-stop-and-frisk-you-on-the-street

Nope. I guess you missed the part that says “the current stop and frisk policy has been legal since 1968, when the Supreme Court ruled in Terry v. Ohio”.

[Alan Ford]

I didn't say that Brewer didn't say "funny." I even quoted him saying it.

What I did say was that you "would have everyone believe that the only reason that Brewer took notice of Oswald was that Oswald looked 'funny' to Brewer, but there's more to it than that." I went on to say

"From Brewer's account, Oswald not only "looked funny," he also looked scared, appeared disheveled (as if "he had been running"). More importantly, what's implied in this account is that Oswald was acting as if he was trying to avoid being identified by the approaching police cars. As they approach, he ducks into the vestibule of Brewer's store putting his back to the street. He doesn't appears to be interested in anything in the store. And after the police cruisers pass, he pops back out and continues up the street. Somehow, John can't seem to understand why someone would think this might be seen as suspicious."

The problem is not that Mr. Brewer claims he found this suspicious, but that he claims he thought the man might have been the shooter of the officer in Oak Cliff. Why? Because he 'fitted the description' just broadcast on radio. What description? What broadcast?

The further problem is that the police, who were looking for a man wearing a white shirt, got a report about a man in a brown shirt and concluded that this brown-shirted man was "the suspect" in the Tippit killing. 

[Alan Ford]

Oswald was arrested because he pulled a gun on McDonald.

You're speaking nonsense here, of course. But your remark does raise a genuinely interesting question: How would things have gone down if Mr. Oswald had divested himself of his gun and reacted to Officer McDonald as other cinema patrons had done-----------i.e. behaved in a non-guilty fashion? Would Officer McDonald & co. have proceeded on up to the balcony to look for the suspect?

[Richard Smith]

From With Malice:

"Hamby’s choice of clothing that day — a gray sweater and gray slacks — was about to propel the young student into a near fatal encounter."

And there we have it. Mr. Hamby's clothing being close enough to the suspect description was what gave Patrolman Walker due cause to think he was the man.

And boy were they sure:

Dispatcher:           221.
221 [Summers]:   Might can give you some additional information, I got an eyeball witness to the getaway man that — ah — suspect in this shooting. He’s a
                                white male, 27, 5 feet 11, 165, black wavy hair, fair complected, wearing a light gray Eisenhower-type jacket, dark trousers and a
                                white shirt. And — ah — about — last seen — ah — running on the north side of the street from — ah —
                                Patton, on Jefferson, on East Jefferson. And he was apparently armed with a 32 dark finish automatic — ah — pistol, which he had in his right
                                hand.
Dispatcher:           10-4. For your information, 221, they have the the suspect cornered in the library at Marsalis and Jefferson.
221:                     10-4. This man can positively identify him if — they need him.
Dispatcher:            Well, they do have the suspect under arrest now.

Which brings us back to the problem with Mr. Brewer's story. A man in a brown shirt was way off the suspect description ("white shirt"). And yet we're supposed to believe there was due cause for the police to conclude that "the suspect" was in the Texas Theatre.

Doesn't wash.

Wow.  So wearing a gray sweater is close enough to a white shirt to warrant a heavy police response but a brown shirt is not.  We are in the Twilight Zone.