Time for Truth

[Alan Ford]

You posted:


"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."

-------------there is a very real possibility that Mr. Brewer, as he looked out from the curtains with the house lights up, did NOT see the white-shirted man he'd seen at the shoe store but DID believe that man was hiding under one of the seats (just as Mr. Brewer believed he'd done up in the balcony). So Mr. Brewer indicated as much to the officer(s).

I've asked what evidence you have for any of this "theorizing"
It's true McDonald doesn't go directly to Oswald but, as he explains in his testimony, he knows exactly who the suspect pointed out by Brewer is.
The rest is unsupported nonsense.

'What evidence is there Oswald had been changing seats from patron to patron?'
'What evidence is there Brewer heard a seat popping but saw no one?'
'What evidence is there DPD were after a man in a white shirt?'
'What evidence is there Brewer hadn't been able to find the man in his own searches of the cinema interior and had told Postal he just wasn't in there?'
'What evidence is there the man was reported to police as being up in the balcony, hiding?'

Are you really asking me these questions, Mr. O'Meara?

[Mitch Todd]

So..................... if Mr. Oswald had managed to get rid of the gun and had behaved calmly, he wouldn't have been arrested?

Actually, that's an interesting question. He might have been detained and questioned (legally "detain" are "arrest" not the same thing). Most likely, the conflict between the Hidell and Oswald ID's would have piqued further interest, and at some point it was going to come out that there was a "Lee Oswald" missing from his workplace at the TSBD. So probably, Oswald still gets arrested, but it just takes longer.

[Alan Ford]

Now, let's go back and look at what you wrote. First there is:

"a throw-down gun that McDonald brought"

This is a positive statement that you provided no supporting evidence. That is to say, an assertion.

Nope. What Mr. Iacoletti wrote, in response to a suggested scenario from Mr. Zeon Mason, was:

".or Oswald didn’t have a revolver at all and the gun that was struggled over was a throw-down gun that McDonald brought."

He was offering an alternative possibility, not a 'positive statement'. By leaving out the 'or' you have distorted the sense. I guess you'd call this 'compression'.

[Alan Ford]

Actually, that's an interesting question. He might have been detained and questioned (legally "detain" are "arrest" not the same thing). Most likely, the conflict between the Hidell and Oswald ID's would have piqued further interest, and at some point it was going to come out that there was a "Lee Oswald" missing from his workplace at the TSBD. So probably, Oswald still gets arrested, but it just takes longer.

So there would have been nothing prima facie to support the notion that he was their Tippit suspect?

[Mitch Todd]

Nope. What Mr. Iacoletti wrote, in response to a suggested scenario from Mr. Zeon Mason, was:

".or Oswald didn’t have a revolver at all and the gun that was struggled over was a throw-down gun that McDonald brought."

He was offering an alternative possibility, not a 'positive statement'. By leaving out the 'or' you have distorted the sense. I guess you'd call this 'compression'.

Iacoletti offers his "alternative possibility" without actually providing any evidence for it. That's the point. And an "alternative possibility" without evidence isn't really a possibility in the first place.

[Alan Ford]

Iacoletti offers his "alternative possibility" without actually providing any evidence for it. That's the point. And an "alternative possibility" without evidence isn't really a possibility in the first place.

So it wasn't a 'positive statement'. Thank you.

And you're right-------------Officer McDonald didn't give a positive statement saying 'I'm a dirty cop and I brought a throw-down gun with me'; nor did any of his fellow officers give a positive statement saying 'McDonald is a dirty cop and he brought a throw-down gun with him'; therefore it's impossible that he could have brought a throw-down gun with him.

[Alan Ford]

??
How so?

Two men connected to the JFK shooting end up in the Texas Theatre: no coincidence.

[Alan Ford]

Now!

The police have been called to the Texas Theatre, where the suspect in the killing of Officer Tippit is supposed to be hiding in the balcony.

From Det. John B. Toney's 3 Dec report to Chief Curry:



Mr. BALL. On November 22, Friday, November 22, 1963, what time did your box office open?
Mrs. POSTAL. We open daily at 12:45, sometimes may be 5, 4 minutes later or something, but that is our regular hours.
Mr. BALL. On this day you opened on 12:45, November 22?
Mrs. POSTAL. Uh-huh.

Who was the young man? How did he come to have been in the theater since 12:05, some forty minutes before opening time? And who was the "manager on duty" who vouched for him?