Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[John Iacoletti]

No, whatever the police do is not by definition warranted. But in this case, the police response was warranted. Nice try though.

Says you.  But you can't actually demonstrate probable cause here.  Nice try though.

You know what kind of person I am ?  I'm the kind of person that enjoys exposing fools like you.

You don't expose anything.  You're a one-trick pony who thinks that insults and sarcasm make your unsubstantiated conclusions true.

You keep insisting that Brewer had no reason to be suspicious of your client and I'll keep clowning you.

Except I never "insisted" that.  Are you joining "Richard's" Lying Society now?

It's fun watching Saint Patsy's wannabe self-appointed defense attorney squirm.

Dream on.  We're all watching Saint Howard, the wannabe prosecuting attorney, try to make every conversation about anything except the actual evidence.

Don't like the Saint Patsy moniker ?  Too bad. 

Too bad that you're so delusional you think that your "monikers" mean something.

[John Iacoletti]

1 - It is claimed that Brewer notices a man, presumably LHO, at his shoe store window who appears to act "funny" when police cars with sirens go by.

As for "acting funny", even that is a stretch.

Mr. BELIN - Did you notice any of his actions when he was standing in your lobby there?
Mr. BREWER - No; he just stood there and stared.

[John Iacoletti]

I've some knowledge but not an expert. Never claimed to be. The evidence of a conspiracy is not convincing to me but if there is some then I'd be happy to see it. There are clearly errors in the WC report and attempts to cover up mistakes, for various reasons. Witness reports are at times confused and confusing, but perhaps this is not surprising. But clear evidence of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK? Don't see it.

Nicholas, I'd be curious to know what clear evidence convinces you that Oswald killed JFK.  The LNers on this board either avoid that question like the plague or they rattle off a list of things that are not actually evidence (like "Oswald didn't seem interested in finding out what happened") or unsubstantiated or misrepresented conclusions about the evidence (like "Oswald owned the murder weapon").

[Steve Logan]

A Law Enforcement Officer is shot dead in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas.

An ARMED suspect flees

Law Enforcement was DISPATCHED to the Texas Theater, in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas, prompted by a call that the ARMED SUSPECT was in the theater.

They were met at the backdoor by Brewer who then identified the ARMED SUSPECT
(Brewer) "And I said, yes, I just seen him. And he asked me if I would point him out.
And I and two or three other officers walked out on the stage and I pointed him out"

Postal never used the word ARMED
Brewer never used the word ARMED
HOWEVER THE SUSPECT THAT SHOT TIPPIT WAS REPORTED AS ARMED
Do the math.

The Oswald Defense Team claims that the Law Enforcement Officers dispatched to the theater had no probable cause to detain and question said SUSPECT identified by Brewer

Mr. BELIN - Then what did you see?
Mr. BREWER - Well, I saw this policeman approach Oswald, and Oswald stood up and I heard some hollering. I don't know exactly what he said, and this man hit Patrolman McDonald.
Mr. BELIN - You say this man hit Patrolman McDonald. Did you know it was Patrolman McDonald?
Mr. BREWER - I didn't know his name, but I had seen him quite a few times around Oak Cliff. But I didn't know his name.
Mr. BELIN - Then you later found out this was Patrolman McDonald?
Mr. BREWER - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - Did you say this man was the same man?
Mr. BREWER - The same man that had stood in my lobby that I followed to the show.
Mr. BELIN - Who hit who first?
Mr. BREWER - Oswald hit McDonald first, and he knocked him to the seat.
Mr. BELIN - Who knocked who?
Mr. BREWER - He knocked McDonald down. McDonald fell against one of the seats. And then real quick he was back up.
Mr. BELIN - When you say he was----
Mr. BREWER - McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.
Mr. BELIN - Did you see from where the gun came?
Mr. BREWER - No.
Mr. BELIN - You saw the gun up in the air?
Mr. BREWER - And somebody hollered "He's got a gun."
And there were a couple of officers fighting him and taking the gun away from him, and they took the gun from him, and he was fighting, still fighting, and I heard some of the police holier, I don't know who it was, "Kill the President, will you." And I saw fists flying and they were hitting him.
Mr. BELIN - Was he fighting back at that time?
Mr. BREWER - Yes; he was fighting back.
Mr. BELIN - Then what happened?
Mr. BREWER - Well, just in a short time they put the handcuffs on him and they took him out.

Another witness George Applin
Mr. APPLIN - He started off, the officer said, "Will you stand up, please?" And he stood up.
Mr. BALL - How close were you to the officer and this man when you heard the officer say, "Stand up"?
Mr. APPLIN - I guess it was about--it was not over four seats down from the back, rear.
Mr. BALL - Were you at the rear?
Mr. APPLIN - Yes, sir; I was at the rear of the show.

Here's another point where the Oswald Defense Team "thinks" they know the protocol when searching an ARMED SUSPECT


Mr. BALL - Did he stand up?
Mr. APPLIN - Yes, sir; he did.
Mr. BALL - Then did he put his hand some place on Oswald?
Mr. APPLIN - Yes, sir; along about
Mr. BALL - Where?
Mr. APPLIN - I guess about his hips.
Mr. BALL - Then what did Oswald do?
Mr. APPLIN - He took a right-hand swing at him.
Mr. BALL - What did the officer do?
Mr. APPLIN - The officer grabbed him then.
Mr. BALL - Had you seen the pistol up to that time?
Mr. APPLIN - No, sir; there was not one in view then.
Mr. BALL - How soon after that did you see the pistol?
Mr. APPLIN - I guess it was about--I guess it was about 2 or 3 seconds.
Mr. BALL - Who pulled the pistol?
Mr. APPLIN - I guess it was Oswald, because--for one reason, that he had on a short sleeve shirt, and I seen a man's arm that was connected to the gun.
Mr. BALL - What did the officer do?
Mr. APPLIN - Well, the officer was scuffling with him there, and----
Mr. BALL - Did you hear anything?
Mr. APPLIN - Well, about the only thing I heard was the snap of the gun and the officer saying, "Here he is."

THE OSWALD DEFENSE TEAM CLAIMS THAT IT WAS A VIOLATION OF OSWALD'S CIVIL RIGHTS TO SEARCH OSWALD (THE ARMED SUSPECT)


A. Protect oneself from ARMED SUSPECT
B. Protect patrons in the proximity from ARMED SUSPECT
C. Verify that the SUSPECT that was identified by the witness (Brewer) is either ARMED or not by searching the SUSPECT.

[Nicholas Turner]

Nicholas, I'd be curious to know what clear evidence convinces you that Oswald killed JFK.  The LNers on this board either avoid that question like the plague or they rattle off a list of things that are not actually evidence (like "Oswald didn't seem interested in finding out what happened") or unsubstantiated or misrepresented conclusions about the evidence (like "Oswald owned the murder weapon").

I don't claim certainty but on balance think that LHO fire the shots which killed JFK. My view is ......The evidence put together by the Warren Commission, though flawed in places, indicates that three shots were fired from the Sixth floor of the TSBD. The ballistics evidence I have seen supports this and does not support shots from other locations. The behaviour of LHO before and after the assassination indicates he,was involved in some way. There is no evidence that clearly links LHO to any conspiracy and I fail to see how a conspiracy could have manipulated the events and forged all the evidence, such as the Zapruder film, the autopsy photographs, the back yard photographs, the links to the rifle and so on as seems to be claimed by many CTists. For LHO to be a knowing part of a conspiracy makes little sense to me due to his profile and personality. For him to have been an unknowing patsy makes more sense but I don't see how this could have been achieved.

I guess overall I have a tendency to see events to be more the product of individuals, mistakes, miscalculations and accidents than controlled by powerful organisations, and in the absence of strong evidence for a successful conspiracy I tend to favour the former rather than the latter.

I am sure you will be able to go through and point out where all this is wrong but on balance I think LHO as an angry, frustrated young man who saw a moment to finally be someone and took it is the most likely explanation for the tragic events in Dealey Plazza.

I would like to hear strong evidence of a conspiracy if there is any, and a clear picture of what that conspiracy actually involved, rather than speculation and general thoughts about mistrusting the powers that be though.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I don't claim certainty but on balance think that LHO fire the shots which killed JFK. My view is ......The evidence put together by the Warren Commission, though flawed in places, indicates that three shots were fired from the Sixth floor of the TSBD. The ballistics evidence I have seen supports this and does not support shots from other locations. The behaviour of LHO before and after the assassination indicates he,was involved in some way. There is no evidence that clearly links LHO to any conspiracy and I fail to see how a conspiracy could have manipulated the events and forged all the evidence, such as the Zapruder film, the autopsy photographs, the back yard photographs, the links to the rifle and so on as seems to be claimed by many CTists. For LHO to be a knowing part of a conspiracy makes little sense to me due to his profile and personality. For him to have been an unknowing patsy makes more sense but I don't see how this could have been achieved.

I guess overall I have a tendency to see events to be more the product of individuals, mistakes, miscalculations and accidents than controlled by powerful organisations, and in the absence of strong evidence for a successful conspiracy I tend to favour the former rather than the latter.

I am sure you will be able to go through and point out where all this is wrong but on balance I think LHO as an angry, frustrated young man who saw a moment to finally be someone and took it is the most likely explanation for the tragic events in Dealey Plazza.

I would like to hear strong evidence of a conspiracy if there is any, and a clear picture of what that conspiracy actually involved, rather than speculation and general thoughts about mistrusting the powers that be though.

Good post. Well argued.

[John Iacoletti]

Law Enforcement was DISPATCHED to the Texas Theater, in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas, prompted by a call that the ARMED SUSPECT was in the theater.

Hold the phone here.  Somebody called the police and said there was an armed suspect in the theater?  Who?

Postal never used the word ARMED
Brewer never used the word ARMED

Of course they didn't.  Neither one of them saw a weapon of any kind.

HOWEVER THE SUSPECT THAT SHOT TIPPIT WAS REPORTED AS ARMED
Do the math.

The math says that there was no connection between the suspect that shot Tippit and the guy Brennan saw in front of his store.

The Oswald Defense Team claims that the Law Enforcement Officers dispatched to the theater had no probable cause to detain and question said SUSPECT identified by Brewer

They didn't need to have probable cause to question him.  They did need to have probable cause to search him and to arrest him for murder.  Too bad they didn't just question him.

The standards for probable cause are quite clear, even if cops don't want to follow them.  There has to be information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual has committed a crime.  There was none.  Brewer witnessed no crime.  Brewer didn't even see a weapon.  Brewer (via Postal) described a person who didn't even match the description that went out over the police radio.

A hunch is not enough.  "Women's intuition" is not enough.  The search and the arrest for murder were definitely illegal.  You might claim that the ends justify the means because "they got their man", but that's just the usual circular argument.

[John Iacoletti]

I don't claim certainty but on balance think that LHO fire the shots which killed JFK. My view is ......The evidence put together by the Warren Commission, though flawed in places, indicates that three shots were fired from the Sixth floor of the TSBD.

Arguable, but ok so far.

The ballistics evidence I have seen supports this and does not support shots from other locations.

Depending on what wound locations you want to go with and what assumptions you make about them, but ok so far.

The behaviour of LHO before and after the assassination indicates he,was involved in some way.

Here's where you go off the rails.  What behavior, and how does it unambiguously indicate that he was involved ?

There is no evidence that clearly links LHO to any conspiracy and I fail to see how a conspiracy could have manipulated the events and forged all the evidence, such as the Zapruder film, the autopsy photographs, the back yard photographs, the links to the rifle and so on as seems to be claimed by many CTists.

So what you're doing here is that you're just pre-assuming that LHO was involved as a given, and just turning your attention solely to whether anyone else was involved rather than actually examining the evidence for Oswald being involved.

I am sure you will be able to go through and point out where all this is wrong but on balance I think LHO as an angry, frustrated young man who saw a moment to finally be someone and took it is the most likely explanation for the tragic events in Dealey Plazza.

Lots of people speculate on lots of possible narratives, but I'm only interested in what actually can be demonstrated with evidence.

I would like to hear strong evidence of a conspiracy if there is any, and a clear picture of what that conspiracy actually involved, rather than speculation and general thoughts about mistrusting the powers that be though.

Sure.  Just as I would like to hear strong evidence that LHO did it, if there is any, rather than speculation and assumptions based on a little bit of questionable evidence.  I don't believe in a pre-assassination conspiracy either -- for the same reasons.  That doesn't tell you anything about whether Oswald did it or not.