Time for Truth

[Alan Ford]

Lt. E. L. Cunningham's report to Chief Curry, also 3 Dec:



Again, who was this young man? Why was he singled out for questioning? Who was the manager who--------on this telling--------didn't so much vouch for him as tell them the real suspect was downstairs?

[Alan Ford]

And there's this from Sgt. H. H. Stringer (also report to Chief Curry, same date):



Was the 'questioning' of the young man on the stairs in the balcony section in fact an arrest-in-progress that was disappointingly interrupted by the manager's intervention ('He's been here since 12:05' AND/OR 'The suspect's not here, he's downstairs')?

[John Iacoletti]

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'.

Mitch’s attempt to obfuscate this by quoting a partial sentence out of context is sadly all too typical of his dishonest tactics.

[John Iacoletti]

There is no requirement that anyone explicitly use the word "suspicious" to describe suspicious behavior. Nor does the failure to use the word "duck" somehow negate the idea that the man was acting suspiciously. Nor does Brewer have to use the word "avoid" to describe a man trying to avoid. These are just artificial constraints you baselessly assert in an attempt to bullsh-- your way through. Of course, if such stipulations actually existed, then maybe you could enlighten the rest of us as to which ancient stone tablets these commandments are carved into.

Maybe instead you should just stop rewriting what witnesses said to make it be what you want.

No. Whatever they might have intended to do, the actual physical arrest was because Oswald pulled a gun on McDonald as McDonald attempted to frisk Oswald.

What orifice did you pull that out of? The arrest report says murder.

Your fact is, in fact, not a fact. What's disappointing is that we've been here before. From the same post that the "stop and frisk" discussion came from:

The only thing that’s disappointing is that you double down on failed arguments. No matter how many verbal gymnastics you undertake, if the gun didn’t leave his waistband, he didn’t pull it out.

"Brewer, John Gibson, and George Applin all saw a pistol in Oswald's hand during the melee with the cops. How did it get there if he didn't draw it himself?

Really? That’s your evidence that he drew a gun — an argument from ignorance? How did a gun get into Bob Carroll’s hand? He must have drawn it.

By the way, Applin said the arm holding the gun he saw had short sleeves.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. The weapon was found during a "stop and frisk" search when Terry and a couple of friend ignited the spider-sense of a nearby police officer. Terry sued Ohio hoping to have the search declared illegal. This would resulted in the evidence from the search being thrown out of court under the exclusionary rule. The Supremes ruled against Terry, with Chief Justice Diana Ross going so far as to say, "so sorry, sucker" in her affirming opinion. BTW, Terry lost at every level of the judiciary. That is to say, the Supreme Court ratified as legal something that was already common practice. Had you done something as simple as read the Wikipedia article on Terry v Ohio, you would know this.

No. Stop and frisk on reasonable suspicion as an exception to the fourth amendment was invented by Terry v Ohio. Not that they even had reasonable suspicion in this case. No behavior was directly witnessed by police, and nothing was witnessed by anybody involved at the time that would constitute suspicion of murder. Even if it was “common practice” (a claim which you have provided no evidence for), that wouldn’t make it legal or constitutional. That’s why it had to be adjudicated. You don’t get to use 1968 case law to justify 1963 conduct.

[John Iacoletti]

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.

That’s absurd nonsense. Possibilities don’t require evidence — that’s why they’re called possibilities.

And what’s your evidence that Oswald brought CE143 into the theater? That’s actually the point.

[Mitch Todd]

Mitch’s attempt to obfuscate this by quoting a partial sentence out of context is sadly all too typical of his dishonest tactics.

You keep missing the point. Probably intentionally, but you miss it just the same. You've been in the habit of responding to other posters by quoting a phrase or sentence of theirs and adding your own "LOL." When pressed, you defend it with up the old saw, "that which is posited without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Good enough, I guess. Anyway, I figured it would be entertaining to see how you'd react when someone pulled the same thing on you.

It seems that you don't like to be held to the same standard that you impose on others.

And so you wasted little time in falling back on one of your old shibboleths by hurling a baseless accusation of dishonesty, because you lack anything substantial to respond with. 

[Mitch Todd]

That’s absurd nonsense. Possibilities don’t require evidence — that’s why they’re called possibilities.

A possibility needs evidence to be taken seriously as a possibility. Otherwise, it's just a pipe dream.
 

And what’s your evidence that Oswald brought CE143 into the theater? That’s actually the point.

This is just your attempt to shift the burden of proof.

[Mitch Todd]

MT: There is no requirement that anyone explicitly use the word "suspicious" to describe suspicious behavior. Nor does the failure to use the word "duck" somehow negate the idea that the man was acting suspiciously. Nor does Brewer have to use the word "avoid" to describe a man trying to avoid. These are just artificial constraints you baselessly assert in an attempt to bullsh-- your way through. Of course, if such stipulations actually existed, then maybe you could enlighten the rest of us as to which ancient stone tablets these commandments are carved into.

Maybe instead you should just stop rewriting what witnesses said to make it be what you want.

I didn't rewrite what Brewer said. It's all verbatim from his testimony. Could you at least try to accuse me of something related so something I've actually done, instead of just making it up as you go along?

As I said --and you failed to respond to-- "I've embellished nothing. You certainly haven't come up with an example of it. The 'condensed version' of Brewer's testimony is composed of Brewer's own statements. Yes, there are a pair of parenthetical additions, but all they do it preserve context that already exists in the testimony. "

What orifice did you pull that out of? The arrest report says murder.

The arrest report was written after the fact, and is therefore cannot be guaranteed to represent the DPDs exact intentions before Oswald's little scuffle with McDonald.

JI: "In fact no testimony of a single person in the theater says that Oswald 'pulled a gun'"

MT: Your fact is, in fact, not a fact. What's disappointing is that we've been here before. From the same post that the "stop and frisk" discussion came from:

The only thing that’s disappointing is that you double down on failed arguments. No matter how many verbal gymnastics you undertake, if the gun didn’t leave his waistband, he didn’t pull it out.

Who said that the gun didn't leave Oswald's waistband?

MT: "Brewer, John Gibson, and George Applin all saw a pistol in Oswald's hand during the melee with the cops. How did it get there if he didn't draw it himself?

Really? That’s your evidence that he drew a gun — an argument from ignorance? How did a gun get into Bob Carroll’s hand? He must have drawn it.

You forgot the other part. Well, no, actually you deleted it from your reply. Once again, it's here:

Mr. McDONALD - Well, whenever he knocked my hat off, any normal reaction was for me to go at him with this hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes. I went at him with this hand, and I believe I struck him on the face, but I don't know where. And with my hand, that was on his hand over the pistol.
Mr. BALL - Did you feel the pistol?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Which hand was--was his right hand or his left hand on the pistol?
Mr. McDONALD - His right hand was on the pistol.
Mr. BALL - And which of your hands?
Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir."

further down:

Mr. BALL - Was the pistol out of his waist at that time?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.

So McDonald says Oswald was pulling a gun from his waistband during the first exchange of blows, and said Oswald did indeed manage to pull it out of the waistband during the kerfluffle. Brewer, John Gibson, and Applin saw Oswald holding a pistol in his hand during the fight.

By the way, Applin said the arm holding the gun he saw had short sleeves.

Look at the photos take at the scene and tell me how many of the DPD officers were wearing short sleeves that day. So far, I count....zero. Oswald was wearing a shirt that looked to be a size or two too large for him, which could allow the cuff to be pulled back up the arm. Plus it had a big hole in the right elbow. Either could account for Applin seeing what appeared to him to be a short sleeve.

No. Stop and frisk on reasonable suspicion as an exception to the fourth amendment was invented by Terry v Ohio. Not that they even had reasonable suspicion in this case. No behavior was directly witnessed by police, and nothing was witnessed by anybody involved at the time that would constitute suspicion of murder. Even if it was “common practice” (a claim which you have provided no evidence for), that wouldn’t make it legal or constitutional. That’s why it had to be adjudicated. You don’t get to use 1968 case law to justify 1963 conduct.

Nope. You still don't understand.

The Federal exclusionary rule was codified by Supreme Court in the the Weeks decision of 1914. Initially, it only applied to the Federal courts, while state and local courts retained exclusive purview over exclusion within their own jurisdictions. This included stop-and-frisk, which was generally allowed. In 1961, this all changed when the Supremes decided in Mapp v Ohio that the Federal exclusionary rule extended into the state and local jurisdictions via the 14th amendment. This led to a flood of exclusionary rule cases entering the federal appellate courts that would have previously stopped at the state supreme court level. The Miranda case was the most famous of these. Terry v Ohio was another. In the Terry case, the Supreme Court essentially left the bar where the state courts had it. Stop and frisk had been acceptable and admissible under the jurisdiction of the state courts, and it remained admissible and acceptable under the Supreme Court post Terry. McDonald's attempt to frisk Oswald was legal then, and would be legal now.