Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Time for Truth  (Read 45782 times)

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10815
Re: Time for Truth
« Reply #352 on: September 12, 2023, 05:40:35 PM »
Advertisement
"It’s no less plausible than the evidence-less official claim about the revolver"

LOL

Another assertion delivered without any supporting evidence.

You don't know how to play by your own rules, do you?

Obviously you don’t know what an assertion is.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Time for Truth
« Reply #352 on: September 12, 2023, 05:40:35 PM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10815
Re: Time for Truth
« Reply #353 on: September 12, 2023, 06:08:20 PM »
"I had seen him some place before" - what's vague about that?

You don’t think “some place before” is vague?

Quote
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.

Except there’s no evidence that this announcement ever happened.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10815
Re: Time for Truth
« Reply #354 on: September 12, 2023, 06:14:54 PM »
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 wasn’t any. Therein lies the problem. What they were doing required a warrant or probable cause. Being on a “manhunt for a cop killer” doesn’t change that.

Quote
There was no probable cause, but this doesn't mean the treatment Oswald got was any different from what other people were getting.

So what? Is that supposed to justify what the cops did?

Quote
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.

Which of course she would have no way of knowing.

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

Police who don’t worry about following rules are going to worry about whether evidence is legitimate either. You can’t just say you can otherwise trust them not to be an illegal mob in every other aspect.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2023, 06:16:41 PM by John Iacoletti »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Time for Truth
« Reply #354 on: September 12, 2023, 06:14:54 PM »


Offline Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3163
Re: Time for Truth
« Reply #355 on: September 12, 2023, 07:49:55 PM »
You don’t think “some place before” is vague?

What is not vague is that fact he recognised the man.
That's what's important here.
Not where he recognised him from or when it was.
He recognised the man outside his store and he recognised the man in the cinema as the same man.
That man was Lee Harvey Oswald.
Brewer's recognition of Oswald [not that he knew him as Oswald at the time], his recognition of him outside his store and his recognition of him inside the cinema is incredibly strong evidence that the man who ducked into Brewer's store was Oswald.
It is Brewer's recognition of this man that is important and that Brewer did recognise this man is not vague at all.
Where it was he recognised him from is irrelevant.
That said, Brewer did finally recognise him as a past customer which was then confirmed by the discovery of a pair of shoes from that very shop in Oswald's possession.

Quote
Except there’s no evidence that this announcement ever happened.

Is there evidence it didn't happen?

Offline Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3163
Re: Time for Truth
« Reply #356 on: September 12, 2023, 08:10:52 PM »
There wasn’t any. Therein lies the problem. What they were doing required a warrant or probable cause. Being on a “manhunt for a cop killer” doesn’t change that.

So what? Is that supposed to justify what the cops did?

Which of course she would have no way of knowing.

Police who don’t worry about following rules are going to worry about whether evidence is legitimate either. You can’t just say you can otherwise trust them not to be an illegal mob in every other aspect.

There has been no justification of any police actions in anything I written.
I totally agree the police were acting unlawfully and it would have been interesting to see how that would have played out in a trial.
The point I was making is that the way the police acted had nothing to do with Oswald. Some researchers like to make a big deal about how the police descended on the Texas Theater en masse, as if it suggests something suspicious.
But it doesn't.
Oswald was not the only person being treated unlawfully that day.

Which of course she would have no way of knowing.

Brewer told her about this suspicious acting man who was ducking into doorways avoiding the police.
That's how she knew about it.
But it doesn't matter if that's the case or not, the point I was making was that, whether she actually saw it or not, Postal was convinced this man was avoiding the police and she made that clear when she called them.
The dispatcher didn't know where she was getting her information from. All the dispatcher heard was this women repeating that a man who was conspicuously avoiding the police had entered the Texas Theater. There was a man-hunt for a cop killer going on at that exact moment. That the dispatcher put the call out for a suspect in the Texas Theater is in no way suspicious.
And that the posse of officers marauding Oak Cliff reacted like they did is, unfortunately, not surprising.

Police who don’t worry about following rules are going to worry about whether evidence is legitimate either.

Again, I totally agree.
The treatment of evidence in this case is appalling.
The profound incompetence on display is jaw-dropping.
That corrupt practices were rife can hardly be doubted.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2023, 08:11:54 PM by Dan O'meara »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Time for Truth
« Reply #356 on: September 12, 2023, 08:10:52 PM »


Offline Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3163
Re: Time for Truth
« Reply #357 on: September 12, 2023, 08:16:42 PM »
~Grin~

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

Yes, well done Alan, you win a lollipop.
I was wrong to say Brewer recognised Oswald as a past customer when he saw him duck into the lobby of the shoe store.
But I was not wrong to say Brewer recognised him - you are wrong about.
Brewer did recognise him although he didn't immediately recall from where.
He recognised outside his store and he recognised in the cinema.
Logic dictates that the man Brewer saw outside his store was Lee Harvey Oswald.

Offline Alan Ford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4820
Re: Time for Truth
« Reply #358 on: September 12, 2023, 10:24:40 PM »
Yes, well done Alan, you win a lollipop.
I was wrong to say Brewer recognised Oswald as a past customer when he saw him duck into the lobby of the shoe store.

You certainly were---------one of quite a few authoritative statements you've made on the Brewer thing that have not held up to scrutiny. You just can't help yourself from wading in before having done your homework, can you?

Quote
But I was not wrong to say Brewer recognised him - you are wrong about.
Brewer did recognise him although he didn't immediately recall from where.
He recognised outside his store and he recognised in the cinema.
Logic dictates that the man Brewer saw outside his store was Lee Harvey Oswald.

No, logic dictates that Mr. Brewer's claims aren't all true just by virtue of his having made them.

His story that he thought the man at the shoe store might be the suspect in the officer shooting doesn't hold up. Even if by some miracle there was an extremely early local radio broadcast describing the Tippit suspect, then Mr. Brewer would have seen that the man's clothing did NOT match the description. And the fact that he said never a word to Mrs. Postal about the possible connection of the man to the Tippit suspect (she didn't hear about that shooting until the cops arrived!) speaks volumes.

The fact that the two 'IBM men' who he says were in the shoe store with him at the time were never identified, let alone questioned, is telling. Zero corroboration for Mr. Brewer's claim that the suspicious-acting man was Mr. Oswald in his brown shirt.

His claim that the box office was flush with the other buildings on the street was an outright-----------and rather telling----------misrepresentation.

The idea that he got Mrs. Postal to ring police and tell them about a brown-shirted man, and that this led them to believe that the white-shirted suspect they were on the hunt for was in the Texas Theatre is, well, hard to credit.

As for Mr. Brewer's 'recognition' of Mr. Oswald in the Texas Theatre, the evidence is that Officer McDonald did NOT go straight to Mr. Oswald after Mr. Brewer supposedly pointed him out. It's very possible that word having reached the ears of Mr. Brewer & co. that a man on the main floor kept changing seats and sitting beside patrons at random may have been what had led Mr. Brewer to believe that the man he had seen was now on the main floor. And then Mr. Oswald's reaction to being approached may have led Mr. Brewer to assume this guy must be guilty----of something. Or maybe Mr. Brewer was just confused, and convinced himself this must have been the guy at the shoe store. The fact that Mr. Oswald's face looked familiar may have helped with this confusion.

Like many others, I believe there is strong evidence pointing to the scenario that, subsequent to Mr. Oswald's arrest, a second man was arrested, up in the balcony, who was taken out by the rear exit------------and that he was positively identified on the spot by Mr. Brewer as the white-shirted man he'd seen at the shoe store.

Once Mr. Oswald was identified as a TSBD employee, and once word came down from on high that 'No Conspiracy' was the only acceptable solution to the JFK & Tippit killings, DPD wrote the second arrest out of history. And the fact that Mr. Oswald had bought a ticket and entered the cinema many minutes before Mr. Brewer's shoe store sighting was suppressed also. And Mr. Brewer, who was only too happy to revel in the glory of being The Man Who Led The Cops To Oswald, played along. As, initially at least, did Mrs. Postal and Mr. Burroughs. But they both helped clarify matters later on.

The pathetic lack of follow up with Texas Theatre patron-witnesses speaks very large volumes here: things almost certainly did NOT go down as the official version of events would have us believe.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2023, 10:39:00 PM by Alan Ford »

Offline Alan Ford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4820
Re: Time for Truth
« Reply #359 on: September 12, 2023, 11:01:18 PM »
Has it been firmly established that Mr. Tommy Rowe really did work at Hardy's Shoe Store?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Time for Truth
« Reply #359 on: September 12, 2023, 11:01:18 PM »