Time for Truth

[Richard Smith]

Exactly--now you've got it

[Zeon Mason]

I agree that the swarm of DPD patrol cars to converge on the Texas theater just because there was report of someone wearing a brown shirt whom a witness saw not stop at the ticket booth before going into a theater seems not quite enough of an event / probable cause to warrant such a swarm of DPD to converge to the theater.

However once a revolver was observed in the hand of a man, (or his pants) and the man did not give PRIOR warning to police officers in proximity , (and raise both hands in the air ) , that he was armed As one is supposed to do when conceal carrying , then the NEXT response of several officers acting nearly simultaneously (because they are trained to react quickly) ,  is to subdue the person seen with revolver in hand until it’s determined if the person is criminal or just a conceal carrying regular citizen.

In other words: the cops have NO IDEA on first contact with a citizen if that citizen is an innocent person or is a criminal.

And so ANY kind of movement such as merely exposing the revolver WITHOUT having verbally warned the officers ( with hands in air also) could be easily mistaken as a threat by the officers, who would then immediately act to the perceived threat ( whether actual or not) by subduing the person and that would of course probably be grabbing for  the gun first.

So it might have been simply a mistake by Oswald remaining silent instead of  first INFORMING officer McDonald that he, Oswald , was armed while McDonald was searching other persons not far from Oswald and then as McDonald approached Oswald.

So there is possibility that as McDonald got near to Oswald, that McDonald got a glimpse of the revolver under Oswald’s loose shirt and because Oswald had said nothing, that McDonald actually made the1st move by grabbing for the gun instinctively, and then Oswald reacted to that the wrong way by trying to stop McDonalds hand and then there was either or both men hitting each other or wrestling which was joined in with other officers.

This would explain why Oswald was heard saying he was not resisting arrest.

But there seems to be some continuation of “struggle “ by Oswald outside the theatre and a coincidental photo taken of that , which doesn’t really make much sense for  some one who has already declared he’s not resisting arrest.

So this  where the suspicion of a post event set up of Oswald starts to begin, with this amazingly timed coincidental photo and the police guy is even posing with his cigar in his mouth.

[Dan O'meara]

No--------"I had seen him some place before" is much vaguer than "I had seen him in my store before".

From Mr. Brewer's 1996 interview with Mr. Ian Griggs:



As he looked at the man in the lobby of his shoe store, Mr. Brewer did NOT recognize him as a past customer.

"I had seen him some place before"

This is not a vague statement. Brewer is saying he recognised the man who was acting suspiciously outside his store and he recognised the man in the cinema as being the same man he saw outside his store and who he followed out of his store and who he was convinced went into the Texas Theater.
"I had seen him some place before" - what's vague about that?
It may be later that he specifically remembered where he knew Oswald from, but that in no way alters the fact that Brewer recognised the man.
It seems to get lost how powerful it is that Brewer pointed out Oswald in the cinema as the man he felt was acting suspiciously outside his store.
Brewer is listening to the radio about the shooting of JFK. There is an announcement that there has been a shooting in Oak Cliff, in the very area Brewer is located. Suddenly police sirens are blaring up and down the street and, as he is looking out onto the street, a guy approaches from the left who ducks into the front of his store, pretending to look at the merchandise, with his back to the street instead of showing interest in what's going on.
Brewer is convinced that the man is avoiding the police.
This man's behavior is so suspicious it compels Brewer to follow him. Brewer enters the cinema looking for this man. When the lights go up Brewer sees the man and points him out to the police. The man is Oswald.
It is very strong evidence that the man Brewer sees outside his store is Lee Harvey Oswald, particularly as Brewer had "seen him some place before".
To imply Brewer is anything other than the manager of a shoe store who did his civic duty is preposterous.
Your fantasyland  take on every aspect of this case is tiresome.

[Dan O'meara]

Fair enough. But nobody is suggesting that Brewer fabricated the story about seeing a guy in front of his shop. That however doesn’t necessarily make the man Oswald.

Not really. There was nothing that made him “the prime suspect” at the time. Some would say still to this day.

My bad. It went from “I think he had been in my store before” in his testimony to certainty about it and the exact shoes he brought by the time Brewer talked to Griggs. Speaking of cases of improved memory…

I’m certainly not claiming that the police decided to frame Oswald before Postal’s call.

There’s nothing at all obvious about that. All we know about this call is what she said in her testimony and what went out over the police radio, neither of which mention “Oswald ducking into Brewer’s store to avoid the police”.

 

But a search required probable cause too.

Exactly. Based on what? They didn’t even know who he was, supposedly.

Agreed, there was none. The misconduct was rampant that day. I would argue that it wasn’t just that day or with that event, and that this sort of thing was business as usual for the Dallas PD. And for the DA’s office.

In fact, it’s typical of police in general. Once they decide who did it, they figure out a way to make the evidence “fit”. Even if they have to bring their own.

But a search required probable cause too.

I'm not sure why you keep going on about probable cause.
It was a manhunt for a cop-killer. A posse marauding around Oak Cliff intent on catching him.
Probable cause was out of the window. It had nothing to do with the search that preceded Oswald's arrest.
Where was the probable cause for marching the people out of the library with their hands in the air at the end of a shotgun?
Where was the probable cause for pulling a gun on Brewer when he opened the door?
Where was the probable cause for searching the two people at the front of the cinema?

There was no probable cause, but this doesn't mean the treatment Oswald got was any different from what other people were getting.
It's not like police procedure was being followed elsewhere but when it came to Oswald all bets were off.
And it must be remembered that when Postal called the police she kept reiterating her belief that the man who had ducked into the cinema was on the run from the police. At that specific moment in time, the report of an individual avoiding the police - during a police manhunt - was going to get the full treatment. And if that would have been a false lead, doubtless the posse would have continued marauding the streets of Oak Cliff.

As over-the-top and illegal as the police response was, there is actually nothing suspicious about it. It was a mob with badges.

[Alan Ford]

It may be later that he specifically remembered where he knew Oswald from, but that in no way alters the fact that Brewer recognised the man.

~Grin~

So I was right: your claim that "Brewer recognised Oswald as a past customer" was without foundation

[Alan Ford]

I agree that the swarm of DPD patrol cars to converge on the Texas theater just because there was report of someone wearing a brown shirt whom a witness saw not stop at the ticket booth before going into a theater seems not quite enough of an event / probable cause to warrant such a swarm of DPD to converge to the theater.

However once a revolver was observed in the hand of a man, (or his pants) and the man did not give PRIOR warning to police officers in proximity , (and raise both hands in the air ) , that he was armed As one is supposed to do when conceal carrying , then the NEXT response of several officers acting nearly simultaneously (because they are trained to react quickly) ,  is to subdue the person seen with revolver in hand until it’s determined if the person is criminal or just a conceal carrying regular citizen.

In other words: the cops have NO IDEA on first contact with a citizen if that citizen is an innocent person or is a criminal.

This. We have good reason to believe Mr. Oswald was identified as the suspect not by Mr. Brewer but by Mr. Oswald's own actions.

Mr. Oswald had come here to meet a contact. No show from the contact. Show from the police. Mr. Oswald draws the conclusion: 'I've been set up'

[Alan Ford]

At the heart of Mr. Brewer's story is his claim that his suspicions about this man, and his sense of urgency about how serious this situation might be, are centered on a radio broadcast he has heard giving a description of the man who had shot an officer in Oak Cliff.

OK, let's take a huge leap of faith and pretend he can have actually heard such a broadcast by ~1:30pm.

So he goes down to the Texas Theatre and speaks with Mrs. Postal and Mr. Burroughs. He refuses to let up. He prevails upon Mrs. Postal to call the police, impressing upon her the potential importance of this man he believes is in the cinema: 'There's been an officer shot in Oak Cliff. That's what all the police activity must be about. I think this guy might be the one they're looking for. He fits the description.'

Except........... I made that last bit up. Mr. Brewer doesn't say anything like that. At all. In fact, in all his time down at the Texas Theatre, right up to the arrival of the police, he never even mentions the shooting of the policeman he's heard about. Mrs. Postal doesn't learn about that shooting until the police arrive--------and is greatly shocked when a police officer informs her.

Bizarre!

[Richard Smith]

At the heart of Mr. Brewer's story is his claim that his suspicions about this man, and his sense of urgency about how serious this situation might be, are centered on a radio broadcast he has heard giving a description of the man who had shot an officer in Oak Cliff.

OK, let's take a huge leap of faith and pretend he can have actually heard such a broadcast by ~1:30pm.

So he goes down to the Texas Theatre and speaks with Mrs. Postal and Mr. Burroughs. He refuses to let up. He prevails upon Mrs. Postal to call the police, impressing upon her the potential importance of this man he believes is in the cinema: 'There's been an officer shot in Oak Cliff. That's what all the police activity must be about. I think this guy might be the one they're looking for. He fits the description.'

Except........... I made that last bit up. Mr. Brewer doesn't say anything like that. At all. In fact, in all his time down at the Texas Theatre, right up to the arrival of the police, he never even mentions the shooting of the policeman he's heard about. Mrs. Postal doesn't learn about that shooting until the police arrive--------and is greatly shocked when a police officer informs her.

Bizarre!

Are you claiming that Brewer was part of a plot to frame Oswald?  If not, why do his motivations matter?