Dusting Of Prints On Tippit's Vehicle
curtjester1
fingerprint kit and began dusting the top side of the passenger door
on Tippit's patrol car for fingerprints (where Helen Markham and Jimmy
Burt saw Tippit's assailant place his hands.)
Barnes told the Commission, "I was told that the suspect (who) shot
Tippit had come up to the right side of the car, and there was a
possibility that he might have placed his hands on there." After
Barnes dusted the top of the car door and right front fender Detective
Paul Bentley, Sergeant Bud Owens, and Captain George M. Doughty of the
Identification Bureau inspected the area and can be seen on Reiland's
WFAA-TV film.
Barnes removed "smudged fingerprints" from the right passenger window
and "fairly good prints" from the right fender of Tippit's patrol
car. Both sets of fingerprints were turned over to the identification
bureau and now located at the Dallas Municipal Archives and Records
Center in Dallas. Neither set of fingerprints was examined by the
Warren Commission to see if they matched Oswald prints taken at DPD
headquarters.
Sergeant Barnes told the Commission, "There were several smear
prints. None of value." But Detective Paul Bentley told the HSCA in
1978, "He (Doughty) lifted good prints from the exterior section of
that door immediately below that rolled-down window." (The "smudged"
prints taken by Barnes were shown to the Commission, while the good
set of prints by Doughty was not.)
(Researcher Dale Myers sought to answer the question of whether or not
the fingerprints found by Sergeant Barnes belonged to Oswald
(Harvey). He obtained crime lab photos of the prints found by Barnes
on Tippit's car and Oswald's fingerprint card taken when he was
arrested. Myers then asked the senior crime scene technician for
Wayne County, Michigan, Herbert Lutz, to compare the two set of
prints.)
(Myers wrote in his book "With Malice" that Lutz reported the furrows
of the fingerprints taken from Tippit's car were wide, while Oswald's
fingerprint furrows were much narrower. In addition, the number of
ridges and the location of the bifurcations in the patterns were
different. Lutz concluded the fingerprints taken by the Dallas Police
from Tippit's patrol car were not those of Lee HARVEY Oswald. These
fingerprint cards were never entered into evidence in the 26 Volumes.)
Tippit's Car Window Was Rolled
Down
Paul Bentley noticed the passenger side front window of Tippit's
patrol car was rolled down (as reported by witnesses Helen Markham,
Jimmy Burt, and Jack Tatum) and the vent window was open. With the
passenger window open, LEE Oswald could have handed Tippit his wallet
if he asked for identification. FBI agent Robert Barrett said,
"Somebody told me that they saw (Oswald) reach in and hand something
to Tippit through the window."
(The Warren Commission concluded the passenger-side window on Tippit's
car was rolled up based on a photograph of Tippit's car taken by
Sergeant Pete Barnes 30 minutes after the shooting.)
(-A rolled up car window fit the Commission's conclusion that Oswald
and Tippit did not know each other and therefore were not talking to
each other in a friendly, casual manner.)
(-A rolled down car window did not fit the Commission's conclusion and
meant that Oswald and Tippit could have been talking to each in a
friendly, casual manner. A rolled down window would also allow Oswald
to "reach in and hand something to Tippit," such as the wallet
described by FBI Agent Bob Barrett.)
Harvey and Lee. pg. 861-62
CJ
Bud
curtjester1 wrote:
> At Captain Westbrook's direction Sargeant Pete Barnes retrieved a
> fingerprint kit and began dusting the top side of the passenger door
> on Tippit's patrol car for fingerprints (where Helen Markham and Jimmy
> Burt saw Tippit's assailant place his hands.)
Where do either say they saw Oz`s hands on Tippit`s car?
The fingerprint might not have had anything to do with the murder.
> Tippit's Car Window Was Rolled
> Down
>
>
> Paul Bentley noticed the passenger side front window of Tippit's
> patrol car was rolled down (as reported by witnesses Helen Markham,
> Jimmy Burt, and Jack Tatum) and the vent window was open. With the
> passenger window open, LEE Oswald could have handed Tippit his wallet
> if he asked for identification. FBI agent Robert Barrett said,
> "Somebody told me that they saw (Oswald) reach in and hand something
> to Tippit through the window."
>
> (The Warren Commission concluded the passenger-side window on Tippit's
> car was rolled up based on a photograph of Tippit's car taken by
> Sergeant Pete Barnes 30 minutes after the shooting.)
>
> (-A rolled up car window fit the Commission's conclusion that Oswald
> and Tippit did not know each other and therefore were not talking to
> each other in a friendly, casual manner.)
>
> (-A rolled down car window did not fit the Commission's conclusion and
> meant that Oswald and Tippit could have been talking to each in a
> friendly, casual manner. A rolled down window would also allow Oswald
> to "reach in and hand something to Tippit," such as the wallet
> described by FBI Agent Bob Barrett.)
Possible the window was down during the encounter, and was rolled up
at some point previous to th photo being taken.
Walt
Somebody told me that you're way too gullible......Should I believe
him??
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, who told you, and maybe you should stand up for yourself? If
you have something to disagree on, spit it ol' boy.
CJ
curtjester1
high traffic area....forgive me.
CJ
>
>
>
> > Tippit's Car Window Was Rolled
> > Down
>
> > Paul Bentley noticed the passenger side front window of Tippit's
> > patrol car was rolled down (as reported by witnesses Helen Markham,
> > Jimmy Burt, and Jack Tatum) and the vent window was open. With the
> > passenger window open, LEE Oswald could have handed Tippit his wallet
> > if he asked for identification. FBI agent Robert Barrett said,
> > "Somebody told me that they saw (Oswald) reach in and hand something
> > to Tippit through the window."
>
> > (The Warren Commission concluded the passenger-side window on Tippit's
> > car was rolled up based on a photograph of Tippit's car taken by
> > Sergeant Pete Barnes 30 minutes after the shooting.)
>
> > (-A rolled up car window fit the Commission's conclusion that Oswald
> > and Tippit did not know each other and therefore were not talking to
> > each other in a friendly, casual manner.)
>
> > (-A rolled down car window did not fit the Commission's conclusion and
> > meant that Oswald and Tippit could have been talking to each in a
> > friendly, casual manner. A rolled down window would also allow Oswald
> > to "reach in and hand something to Tippit," such as the wallet
> > described by FBI Agent Bob Barrett.)
>
> Possible the window was down during the encounter, and was rolled up
> at some point previous to th photo being taken.
>
>
>
> > Harvey and Lee. pg. 861-62
>
Bud
Why would you assume that any prints on Tippit`s car must be a
result of that brief encounter. Of course, with the boxes in the SN,
it`s decided by the kooks that they were placed at times other than
the shooting. Again, kooks aren`t interested in determining what
actually occurred, they are only interested in getting their precious
patsy off.
curtjester1
I would only assume that it would be a high probability. Of course
you're not interested in Mac Wallace's print in the TSBD just as
you're not interested in the potential prints here. Why wouldn't one
think that there would be prints when they were having a normal
conversation? People like to get close and comfortable.
CJ
Bud
Based on your deep understanding of the science involved?
> Of course
> you're not interested in Mac Wallace's print in the TSBD
I`d be interested if there was one. I`m not interested in
pretending there was one.
> just as
> you're not interested in the potential prints here.
There is no potential for prints. The police found no usable
prints.
> Why wouldn't one
> think that there would be prints when they were having a normal
> conversation?
You expectations are meaningless.
> People like to get close and comfortable.
As would anyone else Tippit had a conversation through the
passenger window of his patrol car that day. You don`t know if
Tippit`s shooter (Oswald, BTW) touched the car with his fingerprints,
and you don`t how many other people touched Tippit`s car. As usual,
what you don`t know far exceeds what you do.
> CJ
curtjester1
Get a life, Bud. The prints can be used to get a suspect. All one
would have to do is go to one of the places in the military where one
of the LHO's went and the other didn't or even get a print at the
Motor Vehicles where 'Oswald' would have had a print on file, like
they did for his returned license.
CJ
Bud
In this case, Oswald took one.
> The prints can be used to get a suspect.
Is that what you think I was arguing against, dense one? You assume
any prints on the car were the result of that event. I don`t think
that is so, I think prints can be left can be left on cars even when
no one is being shot.
> All one
> would have to do is go to one of the places in the military where one
> of the LHO's went and the other didn't
<snicker> This is just the kind of thing Occam warned against.
>or even get a print at the
> Motor Vehicles where 'Oswald' would have had a print on file, like
> they did for his returned license.
They took Oz`s prints when he was arrested. You don`t think he was
wearing someone else`s fingers, do you?
> CJ
curtjester1
Yeah, and Butch Burrough's served him Chicken Fingers with the
Popcorn.
CJ
Bud
You`d think that would have been something he would have mentioned
to the WC.
> CJ
Walt
Well OK.... I can't believe that you'd believe anybody who would
say ..."I don't know who but "SOMEBODY" told me that they saw the
killer hand his wallet through the open window to Tippit."...
In the first place there isn't a single witness who was close enough
to observe any action like that...
And secondly ...anybody who would try to pull off a lie like that is
nothing less that a gossip. It's one of the oldest lines that liars
use when they don't want to be caught in a lie.....
If you haven't heard that line before....you're either very young or
very gullible.
curtjester1
One would think but there were clues. First Postal when Butch first
said "he saw him come in". That could never do. So Postal and Butch
"had a little talk". So it was all coercion and getting the story
together before they were to go to the big WC interview. Of couse
that interview was to go real quick and not go into any details. Then
we know Postal lied because of her pre-WC interviews with a journalist
and the FBI where one could tell she was lying about the ticket she
sold to Oswald. Then, of course Brewer exposes her in another lie,
when he came up to her...and she said, "who, what, nothing here" to a
whole Oswald drama when she testified before the WC.
CJ
curtjester1
believe Sgt. Croy when "somebody" handed him the wallet? These
people showed up to a murder scene Walt, they didn't know these
people, or work with them! Second of all there were witnesses there
who did say, the car window was rolled down (4), and who said the
suspect was talking to the officer in a familiar, conversational way.
So, if you have an open window, and an officer asking something of the
suspect, would one find it HARD to believe that an officer might have
asked for some ID?
> In the first place there isn't a single witness who was close enough
> to observe any action like that...
Wrong!!!!!! And yet you have some theory that a coat and wallet WERE
found together, and there was noone who observed this??!!
> And secondly ...anybody who would try to pull off a lie like that is
> nothing less that a gossip. It's one of the oldest lines that liars
> use when they don't want to be caught in a lie.....
>
ROFLMAO! Why would anyone want to lie about that? Are people
suddenly liars, only when they don't support your theories?
> If you haven't heard that line before....you're either very young or
> very gullible.
>
No, but I am sure it might apply if one were to do a little self-
examination here. The wallet is found at the murder site,
corroborated by two (more with those on film), Barrett and Croy. Four
witneses see a rolled down window. How would one NOT think that there
would be fingerprints possible from someone leaning up against the
vehicle??
CJ
Bud
<snicker> Just everyone is out to get your poor patsy, eh Curt?
Easier to just admit he did it, isn`t it?
> CJ
Walt
No....You are wrong... There was NOBODY close enough AT THE TIME of
the shooting to see the pedestrian hand anything to Tippit. Helen
Markham was the closest witness AT THE TIME that the pedestrian was
talking to Tippit. ....and she was 150 feet away and on the opposite
side ( left side) of the car.
You probably don't believe Sgt. Croy when "somebody" handed him the
wallet?
I believe my own eyes....And the WFAA fim footage shows that the film
of the wallet was taken behind a 61 Chevrolet. That Chevy was parked
behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station. The footage of the wallet was
NOT filmed at the shooting scene.
These
> people showed up to a murder scene Walt, they didn't know these
> people, or work with them! Second of all there were witnesses there
> who did say, the car window was rolled down
Photos taken of Tippit's squad car shows the window CLOSED.
(4), and who said the
> suspect was talking to the officer in a familiar, conversational way.
And you believe the window had to be down for Tippit to talk to the
pedestrian??? Do you think it would have been impossible for Tippit
to have talked to the man through the VENT window???
> So, if you have an open window, and an officer asking something of the
> suspect, would one find it HARD to believe that an officer might have
> asked for some ID?
Ask any cop....One of the cardinal rules for a police officer is: DO
NOT handle a person's wallet. When a cop asks for ID he should
always ask the person to remove it from his wallet.... Handling a
Wallet le4aves the officer open to the charge of theft... because a
person could claim that he had $500.00 in his wallet when he gave it
to the officer and it was empty when he got it back.
>
> > In the first place there isn't a single witness who was close enough
> > to observe any action like that...
>
> Wrong!!!!!!
Please list the witnesses who were close enough and in the right
position AT THE TIME that Tippit was talking to the pedestrian, who
could have seen any detail like a wallet being handed to
Tippit........
And yet you have some theory that a coat and wallet WERE
> found together, and there was noone who observed this??!!
Nobody ADMITTED that the wallet came from the jacket pocket....
Why do you suppose the the identity of the officer who found the
jacket was never revealed by the DPD???
>
> > And secondly ...anybody who would try to pull off a lie like that is
> > nothing less that a gossip. It's one of the oldest lines that liars
> > use when they don't want to be caught in a lie.....
>
> ROFLMAO! Why would anyone want to lie about that?
Yer kiddin...Right? Surely you have studied this case long enough to
know that the DPD was lying like a rug....... to cover up their
ineptness, bungling, and illegal actions.
Why would they lie???
The ONLY piece of evidence they had that was a slight connection
between Oswald and the Tippit shooting was that Jacket.... If they
had revealed that the cop had snacked it off the seat of the
Oldsmobile and they had found a wallet in the pocket Identifing the
jacket as belong to Joe Smith they would have had NOTHING to tie
Oswald to the Tippit shooting. Even then they were very secretive
about that jacket..... and they had to change the color from GRAY
( which 98% of the witnesses said was the color of the killer's
jacket) to WHITE (which was the color of the jacket that was "found".
curtjester1
supports that a pedestrian could have. She has the pedestrian coming
up to the car window and putting his hands there...and "leaning
over". And there was the Ford that Benavides saw passing him going
through the shooting. When I was on the tour of the area, there was
one lady who the guide said he interviewed saw the whole thing from
her window and didn't want to become involved. But this isn't about
somebody seeing that, it's about the opportunity that it could have
happened. Four people saw the window down. The wallet could have
been asked for by Tippit.
> You probably don't believe Sgt. Croy when "somebody" handed him the
> wallet?
>
> I believe my own eyes....And the WFAA fim footage shows that the film
> of the wallet was taken behind a 61 Chevrolet. That Chevy was parked
> behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station. The footage of the wallet was
> NOT filmed at the shooting scene.
>
Yes it WAS. If you had been following me, I wouldn't have to repeat
this. Sgt. Croy was handed the wallet by somebody at that scene. He
was the first to arrive, and he didn't leave that scene. He handed
the wallet to Owens. The only 'out' you may have is if Owens, walked
from that scene over to the Texaco. But that's not likely going to be
the case when the second officer on the scene Roy Summers got the
description of the shooter from the returning Scoggins and Callaway,
and gave the description to the dispatcher. Since they were known to
be filming :Tippit's vehicle when they were dusting for prints, I am
afraid you're a little short on the evidence that would support your
scenario.
> These
>
> > people showed up to a murder scene Walt, they didn't know these
> > people, or work with them! Second of all there were witnesses there
> > who did say, the car window was rolled down
>
> Photos taken of Tippit's squad car shows the window CLOSED.
>
30 minutes after the shooting! Markham, Bentley, Tatum, and Burt say
different. Markham and Burt saw him put his hands there.
> (4), and who said the
>
> > suspect was talking to the officer in a familiar, conversational way.
>
> And you believe the window had to be down for Tippit to talk to the
> pedestrian??? Do you think it would have been impossible for Tippit
> to have talked to the man through the VENT window???
>
It wouldn't support the posture of the pedestrian, and no.
> > So, if you have an open window, and an officer asking something of the
> > suspect, would one find it HARD to believe that an officer might have
> > asked for some ID?
>
> Ask any cop....One of the cardinal rules for a police officer is: DO
> NOT handle a person's wallet. When a cop asks for ID he should
> always ask the person to remove it from his wallet.... Handling a
> Wallet le4aves the officer open to the charge of theft... because a
> person could claim that he had $500.00 in his wallet when he gave it
> to the officer and it was empty when he got it back.
Tippit already didn't do two things right. He didn't phone that he
was leaving a vehicle, and he didn't phone his spot. The wallet
really becomes insignificant when it was just there, whether Tippit
had it or it was dropped, or even brought there by an accomplice.
>
>
>
> > > In the first place there isn't a single witness who was close enough
> > > to observe any action like that...
>
> > Wrong!!!!!!
>
> Please list the witnesses who were close enough and in the right
> position AT THE TIME that Tippit was talking to the pedestrian, who
> could have seen any detail like a wallet being handed to
> Tippit........
>
> And yet you have some theory that a coat and wallet WERE
>
> > found together, and there was noone who observed this??!!
>
> Nobody ADMITTED that the wallet came from the jacket pocket....
>
Because it most probably wasn't there.
> Why do you suppose the the identity of the officer who found the
> jacket was never revealed by the DPD???
>
An officer? How do you know it was an officer?
>
>
> > > And secondly ...anybody who would try to pull off a lie like that is
> > > nothing less that a gossip. It's one of the oldest lines that liars
> > > use when they don't want to be caught in a lie.....
>
> > ROFLMAO! Why would anyone want to lie about that?
>
> Yer kiddin...Right? Surely you have studied this case long enough to
> know that the DPD was lying like a rug....... to cover up their
> ineptness, bungling, and illegal actions.
>
Were not talking about DPD, were talking about Barrett years later.
HIs 'lying' according to you is somehow what you think the DPD is
doing. Barrett is problematic, just for coming forward about the
wallet. The others were silenced. Croy, probably came forward late
in his life (2002), like a lot of people do, because they feel they
don't have nothing to lose.
> Why would they lie???
> The ONLY piece of evidence they had that was a slight connection
> between Oswald and the Tippit shooting was that Jacket.... If they
> had revealed that the cop had snacked it off the seat of the
> Oldsmobile and they had found a wallet in the pocket Identifing the
> jacket as belong to Joe Smith they would have had NOTHING to tie
> Oswald to the Tippit shooting. Even then they were very secretive
> about that jacket..... and they had to change the color from GRAY
> ( which 98% of the witnesses said was the color of the killer's
> jacket) to WHITE (which was the color of the jacket that was "found".
>
Oswald was already at the theater. They always will have problem with
the jacket. Benavides had it beige, along with Markham, and Wright
had it long. I am sure the killer was in on the JFK murder and knew
what he was doing with a wallet, cartridges, and a jacket.
CJ
curtjester1
>
> > One would think but there were clues. First Postal when Butch first
> > said "he saw him come in". That could never do. So Postal and Butch
> > "had a little talk". So it was all coercion and getting the story
> > together before they were to go to the big WC interview. Of couse
> > that interview was to go real quick and not go into any details. Then
> > we know Postal lied because of her pre-WC interviews with a journalist
> > and the FBI where one could tell she was lying about the ticket she
> > sold to Oswald. Then, of course Brewer exposes her in another lie,
> > when he came up to her...and she said, "who, what, nothing here" to a
> > whole Oswald drama when she testified before the WC.
>
> <snicker> Just everyone is out to get your poor patsy, eh Curt?
> Easier to just admit he did it, isn`t it?> CJ
He's not my patsy, he's the conspirators, Bud. I do think there was
complicity by TSBD Oswald. You just can't figure the difference.
CJ
Bud
No, I can`t follow all the plot twists you are inserting into this
fairly simple event. Just what you you think the ticket lady at the
Texas Theater had against any of the Oswalds you have running around
Dallas?
> CJ
Walt
Curt ...Helen Markham was THE ONLY person who within a block of
Tippit's cruiser AT THE TIME he talked to the killer....And she was on
the opposite side of the car and about 150 feet away. She could NOT
have seen any activity between Tippit and the killer, nor could she
have seen if the window was up or down.
She has the pedestrian coming
> up to the car window and putting his hands there...and "leaning
> over".
If you use your head ....you'll realize that she could NOT have seen
that.
And there was the Ford that Benavides saw passing him going
> through the shooting.
So what..... Who ever that was they are NOT on record.....
When I was on the tour of the area, there was
> one lady who the guide said he interviewed saw the whole thing from
> her window and didn't want to become involved.
Did she testify. or give a written affidavit?? If she didn't the
story means ...NOTHING.
But this isn't about
> somebody seeing that, it's about the opportunity that it could have
> happened. Four people saw the window down.
Do you honsetyly believe that somebody rolled the window up after the
shooting?? The photos taken about 1:30 show that the window is up.
I believe that it's highly unlikely that anybody closed that window.
The wallet could have
> been asked for by Tippit.
"could have"???
>
> > You probably don't believe Sgt. Croy when "somebody" handed him the
> > wallet?
>
> > I believe my own eyes....And the WFAA fim footage shows that the film
> > of the wallet was taken behind a 61 Chevrolet. That Chevy was parked
> > behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station. The footage of the wallet was
> > NOT filmed at the shooting scene.
>
> Yes it WAS. If you had been following me, I wouldn't have to repeat
> this. Sgt. Croy was handed the wallet by somebody at that scene. He
> was the first to arrive, and he didn't leave that scene. He handed
> the wallet to Owens. The only 'out' you may have is if Owens, walked
> from that scene over to the Texaco.
HUH??? Are you aware that the scene with the wallet in the cops hand
is BEHIND that Texaco Station??
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
The bottom line is that your using all sorts of circular reasoning to
make a theory that a wallet and jacket were discovered in one spot,
and that Barrett is a liar.
What you need to get over is that Barrett was there. There were three
spots where a bunch of those guys were in a very short period of time,
the library, the Tippit murder scene, and the Texaco. The library was
only about 3 blocks from the Tippit murder scene and the Texaco
station was about one block. The best evidence is that the wallet was
discovered at the Tippit murder scene, as Sgt. Croy said he went there
and was there as the ambulance for Tippit was there. Barrett went to
the Texas Theater with Westbrook, and came out from Dealey with
Westbrook. So, Barrett saying what he said, seems right on about the
contents of the wallet. It really doesn't matter where the thing was
filmed, because the important issue is that there was a wallet and
there was something said about the contents in it. All the other
stuff is way secondary: The filming, you don't know what was edited
and who took what when. From the only picture I have seen there is
nothing to say where that film or photo of that film was shot. All
there is, is a car between two cops, with the wallet. There is no
Texaco star or anything in the background that suggests it was there.
The only way that wallet again could have got there is by Croy to
Owens and then walked. Westbrook and Croy both talked with Markham,
and I don't think she was over there.
As far as fingerprints, all that can come out of that is if they prove
someone other than Oswald's prints were there and can be
identifiable. That still is a possibility as far as I am concerned.
As far as them disproving it was Oswald I can say that I think they
were holding something back with the disparity betweeen Doughty and
Barnes with me thinking Barnes is lying and they did have good
prints. Markham was across the street and Tippit's vehicle was at the
second house. That is not that far to see someone having a
conversation and putting their hands on the vehicle. How the wallet
got their is only a curiosity but is still inconsequential. The most
odd thing, though is that there are two accounts of a civilian handing
both items to officers, the jacket and the wallet. I believe they
handed it to two different people.
CJ
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>Walt,
>
>The bottom line is that your using all sorts of circular reasoning to
>make a theory that a wallet and jacket were discovered in one spot,
>and that Barrett is a liar.
>
>What you need to get over is that Barrett was there. There were three
>spots where a bunch of those guys were in a very short period of time,
>the library, the Tippit murder scene, and the Texaco. The library was
>only about 3 blocks from the Tippit murder scene and the Texaco
>station was about one block. The best evidence is that the wallet was
>discovered at the Tippit murder scene, as Sgt. Croy said he went there
>and was there as the ambulance for Tippit was there. Barrett went to
>the Texas Theater with Westbrook, and came out from Dealey with
>Westbrook. So, Barrett saying what he said, seems right on about the
>contents of the wallet. It really doesn't matter where the thing was
>filmed, because the important issue is that there was a wallet and
>there was something said about the contents in it. All the other
>stuff is way secondary: The filming, you don't know what was edited
>and who took what when. From the only picture I have seen there is
>nothing to say where that film or photo of that film was shot. All
>there is, is a car between two cops, with the wallet. There is no
>Texaco star or anything in the background that suggests it was there.
I was watching a movie the other day, and I saw the White House in the
background, and although Hollywood may have been employing special effects, *I*
certainly thought instantly that I was viewing Washington D.C.
When Walt points out the distinctive taillight in the film, and points to
another photo SHOWING THAT SAME TAILLIGHT, and it can't be seen at all at the
Tippit scene - Walt has a case that is fairly ironclad.
So no, there was no "Texaco star," but you're going to be in the same boat as
LNT'ers if you try to locate the background of that film - and match it to
anything at the Tippit murder scene. Bereft of evidence...
robcap...@netscape.com
Yet she testified to the fact that the window was down:
Mrs. MARKHAM. The man stopped.
Mr. BALL. Then what did you see the man do?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I saw the man come over to the car very slow, leaned and
put his arms just like this, he leaned over in this window and looked
in this window.
Mr. BALL. He put his arms on the window ledge?
Mrs. MARKHAM. **The window was down.
Mr. BALL. It was?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.**
curtjester1
> In article <d82f2081-9c2b-4cec-b290-9ab347ea6...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're not trying to say that the wallet was found at the Texaco are
you? And the taillight, is it excluded from the Tippit vehicle? And
is the tailight supported by another photo of a tailight from the
Texaco station?
CJ
curtjester1
simple is Brewer came up, and asked if she had seen a man sneak in?
She said, "what man" or to the effect. Her answer was no. Now later,
she has all sorts of stuff she saw. One way or the other she is
lying.
CJ
Bud
<snicker> This is why this place is like crack to me. I was
fascinated following these two retards exchanging idiotic ideas, and
then Ben chimes in and trumps them both. Just for his information,
there is only one White House, and hundreds of thousands of car tail
lights.
> So no, there was no "Texaco star," but you're going to be in the same boat as
> LNT'ers if you try to locate the background of that film - and match it to
> anything at the Tippit murder scene. Bereft of evidence...
There is plenty of evidence. Kooks discard the best information,
embrace the worst. That is what makes them kooks, and what has caused
them to become confounded.
Bud
What is the source for this?
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
And Bud just prattles, yet doesn't have a side or an issue. He just
prattles without evidence, without direction....Like A Rolling Stone
CJ
curtjester1
that LNT'ers don't rely on evidence, won't look it up, and adapt
themselves to complicity in the murder of a President.
First it's google, then it's witness testimony JFK, almost like going
to the fridge, popping a beer tab.
Mr. BALL. Now, did you see anybody go in the theatre well, did you see
any activity on the street?
Mrs. POSTAL. Now, yes, sir; just about the time we opened, my employer
had stayed and took the tickets because we change pictures on Thursday
and want to do anything, he----and about this time I heard the
sirens----police was racing back and forth.
Mr. BALL. On Jefferson?
Mrs. POSTAL. On Jefferson Boulevard, and then we made the remark,
"Some thing is about to bust," or "pop," or something to that effect,
so, it was just about----some sirens were going west, and my employer
got in his car. He was parked in front, to go up to see where they
were going. He, perhaps I said, he passed Oswald. At that time I
didn't know it was Oswald. Had to bypass him, because as he went
through this way, Oswald went through this way and ducked into the
theatre there.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. Had you ever seen this man before then at that
particular theatre?
Mrs. POSTAL. Not that I know of, huh-uh.
Mr. BALL. A police car had gone by just before this?
Mrs. POSTAL. Yes, sir; going west.
Mr. BALL. Its siren on?
Mrs. POSTAL. Yes; full blast.
Mr. BALL. And after you saw the police car go west with its siren on,
why at the time the police car went west with its siren on, did you
see the man that ducked? This man that you were----
Mrs. POSTAL. This man, yes; he ducked into the box office and----I
don't know if you are familiar with the theatre.
Mr. BALL. Yes; I have seen the theatre.
Mrs. POSTAL. You have? Well, he was coming from east going west. In
other words, he ducked right in.
Mr. BALL. Ducked in, what do you mean? He had come around the
corner----
Mrs. POSTAL. Yes; and when the sirens went by he had a panicked look
on his face, and he ducked in.
Johnny Brewer Deposition 12/6/63
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brewer1.htm
CJ
Now one would have to ask the question, if he came up and did the
fancy dance and ducked in....Why didn't she react and yell or follow
him?
CJ
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...>> In article <d82f2081-9c2b-4cec-b290-9ab347ea6...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> curtjester1 says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Walt,
>>
>> >The bottom line is that your using all sorts of circular reasoning to
>> >make a theory that a wallet and jacket were discovered in one spot,
>> >and that Barrett is a liar.
>>
>> >spots where a bunch of those guys were in a very short period of time,
>> >only about 3 blocks from the Tippit murder scene and the Texaco
>> >discovered at the Tippit murder scene, as Sgt. Croy said he went there
>> >the Texas Theater with Westbrook, and came out from Dealey with
>> >contents of the wallet. =A0It really doesn't matter where the thing was
>> >filmed, because the important issue is that there was a wallet and
>> >stuff is way secondary: =A0The filming, you don't know what was edited
>> >and who took what when. =A0From the only picture I have seen there is
>> >nothing to say where that film or photo of that film was shot. =A0All
>> >there is, is a car between two cops, with the wallet. =A0There is no
>> >Texaco star or anything in the background that suggests it was there.
>>
>> I was watching a movie the other day, and I saw the White House in the
>, *I*
>> certainly thought instantly that I was viewing Washington D.C.
>>
>> When Walt points out the distinctive taillight in the film, and points to
>the
>> Tippit scene - Walt has a case that is fairly ironclad.
>>
> as
>> LNT'ers if you try to locate the background of that film - and match it to=
>
>> anything at the Tippit murder scene. =A0Bereft of evidence...
>>
>>
>>
>> >The only way that wallet again could have got there is by Croy to
>> >Owens and then walked. Westbrook and Croy both talked with Markham,
>> >and I don't think she was over there.
>>
>> >As far as fingerprints, all that can come out of that is if they prove
>> >someone other than Oswald's prints were there and can be
>> >As far as them disproving it was Oswald I can say that I think they
>> >were holding something back with the disparity betweeen Doughty and
>> >Barnes with me thinking Barnes is lying and they did have good
>> >second house. =A0That is not that far to see someone having a
>> >conversation and putting their hands on the vehicle. =A0How the wallet
>> >got their is only a curiosity but is still inconsequential. =A0The most
>> >odd thing, though is that there are two accounts of a civilian handing
>> >handed it to two different people.
>>
>> >CJ- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>You're not trying to say that the wallet was found at the Texaco are
>you?
It was certainly *filmed* there. It's a reasonable assumption that it was also
found there.
>And the taillight, is it excluded from the Tippit vehicle?
Of course... but *you* do the research. Take a look yourself. Don't trust Walt
or me, *LOOK FOR YOURSELF*.
>And is the tailight supported by another photo of a tailight from the
>Texaco station?
Yes. That *is* how I can be so certain Walt is correct in this. If you can't
find it, let me know and either Walt will lead you to it, or I'll look it up
again.
>CJ
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...>> > In article <d82f2081-9c2b-4cec-b290-9ab347ea6...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroup=
>s.com>,
>> > curtjester1 says...
>>
>> > >Walt,
>>
>> > >The bottom line is that your using all sorts of circular reasoning to
>> > >make a theory that a wallet and jacket were discovered in one spot,
>> > >and that Barrett is a liar.
>>
>e
>> > >spots where a bunch of those guys were in a very short period of time,
>s
>> > >only about 3 blocks from the Tippit murder scene and the Texaco
>s
>> > >discovered at the Tippit murder scene, as Sgt. Croy said he went there
>
>> > >the Texas Theater with Westbrook, and came out from Dealey with
>
>> > >contents of the wallet. =A0It really doesn't matter where the thing was=
>
>> > >filmed, because the important issue is that there was a wallet and
>> > >stuff is way secondary: =A0The filming, you don't know what was edited
>> > >and who took what when. =A0From the only picture I have seen there is
>> > >nothing to say where that film or photo of that film was shot. =A0All
>> > >there is, is a car between two cops, with the wallet. =A0There is no
>> > >Texaco star or anything in the background that suggests it was there.
>>
>> > I was watching a movie the other day, and I saw the White House in the
>ts, *I*
>> > certainly thought instantly that I was viewing Washington D.C.
>>
>o
>> > another photo SHOWING THAT SAME TAILLIGHT, and it can't be seen at all a=
>t the
>> > Tippit scene - Walt has a case that is fairly ironclad.
>>
>> fascinated following these two retards exchanging idiotic ideas, and
>> then Ben chimes in and trumps them both. Just for his information,
>> there is only one White House, and hundreds of thousands of car tail
>> lights.
>>
>at as
>> > LNT'ers if you try to locate the background of that film - and match it =
>to
>> > anything at the Tippit murder scene. =A0Bereft of evidence...
>>
>> =A0 =A0There is plenty of evidence. Kooks discard the best information,
>> embrace the worst. That is what makes them kooks, and what has caused
>> them to become confounded.
>>
>>
>>
>> > >The only way that wallet again could have got there is by Croy to
>> > >Owens and then walked. Westbrook and Croy both talked with Markham,
>> > >and I don't think she was over there.
>>
>> > >As far as fingerprints, all that can come out of that is if they prove
>> > >someone other than Oswald's prints were there and can be
>> > >As far as them disproving it was Oswald I can say that I think they
>> > >were holding something back with the disparity betweeen Doughty and
>> > >Barnes with me thinking Barnes is lying and they did have good
>e
>> > >second house. =A0That is not that far to see someone having a
>> > >conversation and putting their hands on the vehicle. =A0How the wallet
>> > >got their is only a curiosity but is still inconsequential. =A0The most=
>
>> > >odd thing, though is that there are two accounts of a civilian handing
>> > >handed it to two different people.
>>
>> > >CJ- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>And Bud just prattles, yet doesn't have a side or an issue. He just
>prattles without evidence, without direction....Like A Rolling Stone
>
>CJ
That's why he belongs in a killfile. You merely waste time with people like
that. Life is too short as it is ...
aeffects
> In article <5530b644-f38b-48ef-a203-2fc33e78a...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
sometimes I can't help myself..... that tinfoil beanie is just too
much to pass up....
curtjester1
> In article <c62ad256-d505-4313-b557-3ba14dedc...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
was also other places filmed from that filmaker. I have presented my
case where I don't believe the wallet was found there. There is
evidence of all that were on that footage, were at the Tippit murder
scene at one time during the afternoon. There is no evidence that the
early handling of the wallet was by one who ever was at the Texaco,
Sgt. Kenneth Croy.
> >And the taillight, is it excluded from the Tippit vehicle?
>
> Of course... but *you* do the research. Take a look yourself. Don't trust Walt
> or me, *LOOK FOR YOURSELF*.
>
Exactly what research are you trusting? How would you know it is not
Barrett's and Westbrook's vehicle, which they could have filmed there
and walked over to the Texaco?
> >And is the tailight supported by another photo of a tailight from the
> >Texaco station?
>
> Yes. That *is* how I can be so certain Walt is correct in this. If you can't
> find it, let me know and either Walt will lead you to it, or I'll look it up
> again.
>
Please let me know, and tell me if you think it to be the exclusion of
all other tailights.
CJ
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <c62ad256-d505-4313-b557-3ba14dedc...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Ben, do you know what the make and year of the patrol car Tippit was
in? Here is a picture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tippitsquadcar.jpg
I'm just curious as I can't find it anywhere on line.
Thanks!
Bud
"the truth" is my side.
>or an issue.
"kooks" are my issue.
> He just
> prattles without evidence, without direction....Like A Rolling Stone
This is your thead, idjit. I just comment on what idiots say.
> CJ
Bud
What the fuck in all of that was here saying "what man?" like she
didn`t see Oz? You`re a retard, Curt, you shouldn`t be looking into
this. You`re like Walt, you read something and your mind turns it into
something else.
And while you are at it, where is you support for your "markham and
Burt saw the assailant`s hands on Tippit`s patrol car" claim you made
to start this thread?
Bud
Ben seems to have plenty of time to interject comments into a
discussion, no time to back up what he says.
curtjester1
for free?
> And while you are at it, where is you support for your "markham and
> Burt saw the assailant`s hands on Tippit`s patrol car" claim you made
> to start this thread?
>
Bud uses Markham to ID Oz, but can't seem to figure that hands on a
vehicle need not a sharp eye, only the body going through those
actions, which were only the amount of crossing a street, plus a house
and a half.
CJ
robcap...@netscape.com
CJ, the squad car of Tippit is a Plymouth (Fury I think) and it has
two large round tailights on the end of each side. Here is a photo of
the Chevy they allegedly found the jacket in at the Texaco station.
You will notice it does match the tailights in the film still.
curtjester1
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Is this a Chevy, or THE Chevy? Anyway, Rob, still looking for these
secretive photos from Reiland. I am sure there are many after looking
up a menu on the Bradford site.
418 T R. Reiland, 48 1 (WFAA-TV ABC) Frame Bldg. in
Oak
Cliff - where assassin
thought to be -
Men sneaking upon it- Could
be library
or temple
419 T " 2 Two police cars speeding
along
residential street in Oak
Cliff-
police go into old frame
building
420 T " 3 Cop holding up light grey
jacket- near
parking lot
421 T " 4 Man in shirt sleeves talking
near used
car lot
422 T " 5 Several police cars & cops
near Tippitt
shooting site - cop runs
toward police
car holding gun butt
423 T " 6 Group gathered around
Tippitt's car.
Piece of paper or poster
lying on
dashboard - no detail
424 T " 7 Cops examine Tippitt;s
billfold
(according to Reiland who is
narrat-
ing) - Note pad inside - Cops
point
to it-Cop holding Tippitt's
pistol
beside his car
425 T " 8 Group around Tippitt shooting
site
(overexpoesd)
426 T " 9 Crowd around police car in
business
section-it drives away with
someone in
back seat
427 T " 10 Police cars driving up to
TexasTheatre
428 T " 11 Texas Theatre looking up at
tower
429 T " 12 Texas Theatre - Cops going in
- car
pulls away
430 T " 13 Inside Texas Theatre- very
dark-lights
blinking - cops hustle Oswald
toward
inside doorway
431 T " 14 Crowd gathered around police
car
outside Texas Theatre -
Oswald inside
in back seat - it drives away
CJ
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
I thought this was interesting too. Inside the click on, there is a
piece about the Reiland film missing.
CJ
Bud
By saying she saw him. But somehow, you read her saying she saw him
to mean she didn`t see him. I took this to mean you were an idiot who
shouldn`t be looking into this case.
> she would have been letting in someone
> for free?
You think people who sneak into theaters are invisible? Or she
didn`t do what you think she should have done, therefore you get to
rewrite the episode? This is what dw does, finds some difficulty in
the testimony, trashs everything and writes the event to his own
satisfaction. The kooks use these things as creative writing
exercises, they aren`t the least bit interested in what occurred, they
only want to write the story with a happy ending... Oz innocent,
Kennedy done in by shadowy right-wing types.
> > And while you are at it, where is you support for your "markham and
> > Burt saw the assailant`s hands on Tippit`s patrol car" claim you made
> > to start this thread?
> >
> Bud uses Markham to ID Oz,
No, idjit, Markham IDied Oz over 40 years ago. I wasn`t there.
> but can't seem to figure that hands on a
> vehicle need not a sharp eye, only the body going through those
> actions, which were only the amount of crossing a street, plus a house
> and a half.
Heres what you wrote... "where Helen Markham and Jimmy Burt saw
Tippit`s assailant put his hands". Show that they each said this, or
admit you were just saying things to make your premise seem stronger
than it was.
curtjester1
was a block and a half down the street. I can't deal with these folks
that don't deal in evidence. Bud, you just get something in your head
and go incoherently forward. Take the blinders off.
> > > And while you are at it, where is you support for your "markham and
> > > Burt saw the assailant`s hands on Tippit`s patrol car" claim you made
> > > to start this thread?
>
> > Bud uses Markham to ID Oz,
>
> No, idjit, Markham IDied Oz over 40 years ago. I wasn`t there.
>
> > but can't seem to figure that hands on a
> > vehicle need not a sharp eye, only the body going through those
> > actions, which were only the amount of crossing a street, plus a house
> > and a half.
>
> Heres what you wrote... "where Helen Markham and Jimmy Burt saw
> Tippit`s assailant put his hands". Show that they each said this, or
> admit you were just saying things to make your premise seem stronger
> than it was.
>
So, look it up. Buy some books. Learn what an index is. You forgot
Bentley.
CJ
tomnln
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:03b1adbd-4fa2-43ac...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
curtjester1
> GREAT POINT CURT;
>
Thank you, thank you very much. Ummm...what was my point?! (I make
so many of them!..:))
CJ
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/41/4164-001.gif-Hidequoted text -
> http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:D-PliqPc9vsJ:members.tripod.com/...
Bud
Then that his her natural reaction in that situation. Perhaps she
didn`t know that decades later, idiots would second guess her.
> She should have yelled if she did.
Based on your intimate knowledge of Postal? Who`s job was it to
make sure th people coming in had paid or tickets?
> Brewer
> was a block and a half down the street. I can't deal with these folks
> that don't deal in evidence.
Your expectations of what Postal should or shouldn`t do isn`t
evidence, idjit. You said she didn`t see Oz sneak in. Now, it becomes
your idiot assumption because she didn`t follow your script.
> Bud, you just get something in your head
> and go incoherently forward.
This is your thread, Curt, I`m following you. If, when a witness
says they saw someone you can say they didn`t, then you can drive
these events in any direction you want. Meandering all over creation
hasn`t got you kooks anywhere, but you seem to enjoy the scenery.
> Take the blinders off.
These people didn`t say what you claim they did. I`d need blinders
not to notice that.
> > > > And while you are at it, where is you support for your "markham and
> > > > Burt saw the assailant`s hands on Tippit`s patrol car" claim you made
> > > > to start this thread?
> >
> > > Bud uses Markham to ID Oz,
> >
> > No, idjit, Markham IDied Oz over 40 years ago. I wasn`t there.
> >
> > > but can't seem to figure that hands on a
> > > vehicle need not a sharp eye, only the body going through those
> > > actions, which were only the amount of crossing a street, plus a house
> > > and a half.
> >
> > Heres what you wrote... "where Helen Markham and Jimmy Burt saw
> > Tippit`s assailant put his hands". Show that they each said this, or
> > admit you were just saying things to make your premise seem stronger
> > than it was.
> >
> So, look it up.
Great. Oswald confessed, look it up.
> Buy some books. Learn what an index is. You forgot
> Bentley.
Retard.
curtjester1
since the stupid WC lawyer couldn't get three sentences together.
> > She should have yelled if she did.
>
> Based on your intimate knowledge of Postal? Who`s job was it to
> make sure th people coming in had paid or tickets?
>
Based on our intimate knowledge we know she lied about selling Oswald
a ticket (the FBI interview, and the Jones Harris interview). She
obviously is there to make money for the theater and at least take
money from the potential customers. If you see someone coming in, and
doesn't pay, any normal person would even if afraid of confrontation,
at least go to the ticket taker and get him to do something. She
didn't even move, nor yell. Why couldn't she just admit she didn't
see him?
> > Brewer
> > was a block and a half down the street. I can't deal with these folks
> > that don't deal in evidence.
>
> Your expectations of what Postal should or shouldn`t do isn`t
> evidence, idjit. You said she didn`t see Oz sneak in. Now, it becomes
> your idiot assumption because she didn`t follow your script.
>
If she did see him she didn't follow a logical course. You have to
get your script going sideways to make her look normal.
> > Bud, you just get something in your head
> > and go incoherently forward.
>
> This is your thread, Curt, I`m following you. If, when a witness
> says they saw someone you can say they didn`t, then you can drive
> these events in any direction you want. Meandering all over creation
> hasn`t got you kooks anywhere, but you seem to enjoy the scenery.
>
This is just basic detective work. The little facts have to build and
make the whole premise fit. This Postal thing is just the beginning
of the iceberg of the facts that were presented that don't fit. How
come nobody saw Oswald come in?
> > Take the blinders off.
>
> These people didn`t say what you claim they did. I`d need blinders
> not to notice that.
>
>
Postal sold Oswald a ticket earlier. Two people account for his
prescence and actions well before the ducker came. The ducker could
have only gone to the balcony. The man was seen on the stairs who fit
the description over the police radio and was being questioned. They
let him go after Oz was arrested.
>
>
>
> > > > > And while you are at it, where is you support for your "markham and
> > > > > Burt saw the assailant`s hands on Tippit`s patrol car" claim you made
> > > > > to start this thread?
>
> > > > Bud uses Markham to ID Oz,
>
> > > No, idjit, Markham IDied Oz over 40 years ago. I wasn`t there.
>
> > > > but can't seem to figure that hands on a
> > > > vehicle need not a sharp eye, only the body going through those
> > > > actions, which were only the amount of crossing a street, plus a house
> > > > and a half.
>
> > > Heres what you wrote... "where Helen Markham and Jimmy Burt saw
> > > Tippit`s assailant put his hands". Show that they each said this, or
> > > admit you were just saying things to make your premise seem stronger
> > > than it was.
>
> > So, look it up.
>
> Great. Oswald confessed, look it up.
>
> > Buy some books. Learn what an index is. You forgot
> > Bentley.
>
> Retard.
>
Budinkski.
CJ
David Von Pein
There's enough "Oswald Killed Tippit" evidence to make any prosecutor
salivate at the thought of it....but Curt Jester seems to be more
concerned about whether or not ticket-taker Julia Postal physically
saw Lee Oswald enter the movie theater (which is a totally-moot point,
of course, because we don't need Julia Postal's testimony to confirm
this fact, because Oswald was caught within that same theater WITH THE
TIPPIT MURDER WEAPON ON HIM).
One of the main CT mottos again rears its idiotic head --- i.e.,
I'LL KEEP SCARFING DOWN THE CHAFF, WHILE LETTING THE WHEAT PASS ME BY.
curtjester1
Bud, take the crack pipe away from your roommate.
CJ
Bud
I do it whenever I can.
> We have to look for the motive
> since the stupid WC lawyer couldn't get three sentences together.
Luckily you came riding to the rescue. Retard.
> > > She should have yelled if she did.
> >
> > Based on your intimate knowledge of Postal? Who`s job was it to
> > make sure th people coming in had paid or tickets?
> >
> Based on our intimate knowledge we know she lied about selling Oswald
> a ticket (the FBI interview, and the Jones Harris interview). She
> obviously is there to make money for the theater and at least take
> money from the potential customers. If you see someone coming in, and
> doesn't pay, any normal person would even if afraid of confrontation,
> at least go to the ticket taker and get him to do something. She
> didn't even move, nor yell. Why couldn't she just admit she didn't
> see him?
Because she was in on the massive plot to make your beloved patsy
look guilty. Good thing you are clever enough to see that it wasn`t
Oz, it was everybody else.
> > > Brewer
> > > was a block and a half down the street. I can't deal with these folks
> > > that don't deal in evidence.
> >
> > Your expectations of what Postal should or shouldn`t do isn`t
> > evidence, idjit. You said she didn`t see Oz sneak in. Now, it becomes
> > your idiot assumption because she didn`t follow your script.
> >
> If she did see him she didn't follow a logical course. You have to
> get your script going sideways to make her look normal.
As always, when the reality of the event conflicts with a kook`s
expectations, it`s reality that is considered suspect.
> > > Bud, you just get something in your head
> > > and go incoherently forward.
> >
> > This is your thread, Curt, I`m following you. If, when a witness
> > says they saw someone you can say they didn`t, then you can drive
> > these events in any direction you want. Meandering all over creation
> > hasn`t got you kooks anywhere, but you seem to enjoy the scenery.
> >
> This is just basic detective work.
Best left to detectives, not retards like you and Walt. And Ben.
And Gil.
> The little facts have to build and
> make the whole premise fit.
The real fact is, people don`t log their second by second actions.
Most of what was said, done, thought, ect, does not appear in the
record. Any normal person looking at things like these would approach
it from the perspective that by far, the most reasonable thing to
assume is that these were ordinary people going about their ordinary
days. Since this doesn`t work for you kooks, you try to portray these
people as suspicious liars because what they related is harmful to
what you desire to believe.
> This Postal thing is just the beginning
> of the iceberg of the facts that were presented that don't fit. How
> come nobody saw Oswald come in?
People did, idiot. That is how the cops came to find Tippit`s
murderer.
> > > Take the blinders off.
> >
> > These people didn`t say what you claim they did. I`d need blinders
> > not to notice that.
> >
> >
> Postal sold Oswald a ticket earlier.
Why didn`t he have a ticket stub when he was arrested?
> Two people account for his
> prescence and actions well before the ducker came.
They said they saw person duck in and knew Oswald was there
before?
Who were these people, and what time did they say they saw Oz.
> The ducker could
> have only gone to the balcony. The man was seen on the stairs who fit
> the description over the police radio and was being questioned. They
> let him go after Oz was arrested.
Brewer pointed Oz out as the man he saw. Oswald attacked the cops
who confronted them. Do you think they should have kept searching for
the man who shot Oswald even after Ruby was tackled?
curtjester1
> > Natural reaction...to do "nothing"?
>
> I do it whenever I can.
>
> > We have to look for the motive
> > since the stupid WC lawyer couldn't get three sentences together.
>
> Luckily you came riding to the rescue. Retard.
>
So, you think they did a good job,and Postal explained herself well?
<Bud, comes up with the sleaze one-liners in hopes that people will
think he is slick>
> > > > She should have yelled if she did.
>
> > > Based on your intimate knowledge of Postal? Who`s job was it to
> > > make sure th people coming in had paid or tickets?
>
> > Based on our intimate knowledge we know she lied about selling Oswald
> > a ticket (the FBI interview, and the Jones Harris interview). She
> > obviously is there to make money for the theater and at least take
> > money from the potential customers. If you see someone coming in, and
> > doesn't pay, any normal person would even if afraid of confrontation,
> > at least go to the ticket taker and get him to do something. She
> > didn't even move, nor yell. Why couldn't she just admit she didn't
> > see him?
>
> Because she was in on the massive plot to make your beloved patsy
> look guilty. Good thing you are clever enough to see that it wasn`t
> Oz, it was everybody else.
>
You seem to have to make a clear cut psychological profile of those
who want to question her intellect and motives. Did she lie for
notoriety? Did she lie because of threats? Did she lie because of
the Dallas community pressure to convict? You can play God, but I and
most people want to know that she did lie, only, for the getting to
the bottom of the whole case. I don't need to take like you, that
each action Oz took is of a guilty, madman, commie, like the FBI
wanted everyone to believe unconditionally. That's why your
killified, or ignored, because you don't argue from a independent
perspective. But, have solace, you are not alone. It's fairly easy
to expose this reasoning line you have built up....even to the point
of entertainment and your embarrassment for some.
>
> > If she did see him she didn't follow a logical course. You have to
> > get your script going sideways to make her look normal.
>
> As always, when the reality of the event conflicts with a kook`s
> expectations, it`s reality that is considered suspect.
>
Don't let facts get in your way....Just like the ol' Dragnet series.
> > This is just basic detective work.
>
> Best left to detectives, not retards like you and Walt. And Ben.
> And Gil.
>
And yet Bud invents himself as SuperDetective in finding the correct
path? It's obvious that the Feds and the WC weren't good detectives.
And the DPD? Nah...Who Bud, are the true detectives?
> > The little facts have to build and
> > make the whole premise fit.
>
> The real fact is, people don`t log their second by second actions.
> Most of what was said, done, thought, ect, does not appear in the
> record. Any normal person looking at things like these would approach
> it from the perspective that by far, the most reasonable thing to
> assume is that these were ordinary people going about their ordinary
> days. Since this doesn`t work for you kooks, you try to portray these
> people as suspicious liars because what they related is harmful to
> what you desire to believe.
>
What? False timelines. A Cop out of control. Changed times from
DPD. No calls investigated from early callers. Suspect IDings that
don't match Oswald. People in the theater timestamping movements and
timelines while the Tippit murder is taking place. A revolver that
doesn't match. Two wallets. It's endless Bud, and you apologize
like a begging puppet for some weird political ideology imbedded in
you, and or are just getting a paycheck to support some special
interest group. Of course many people had to confront issues, and
pound on doors, because Bud's paramours wouldn't.
> > This Postal thing is just the beginning
> > of the iceberg of the facts that were presented that don't fit. How
> > come nobody saw Oswald come in?
>
> People did, idiot. That is how the cops came to find Tippit`s
> murderer.
>
Name one person that saw LHO, with the brown shirt enter that theater,
and you can't use Postal or Brewer?
> > > > Take the blinders off.
>
> > > These people didn`t say what you claim they did. I`d need blinders
> > > not to notice that.
>
> > Postal sold Oswald a ticket earlier.
>
> Why didn`t he have a ticket stub when he was arrested?
>
Because he was probably like everybody else who dumps their's on the
floor or puts it in the trash can.
> > Two people account for his
> > prescence and actions well before the ducker came.
>
> They said they saw person duck in and knew Oswald was there
> before?
>
Correct. Jack Davis and Butch Burroughs, elaborated on with
interviews with Jim Marrs and Nigel Turner. Of course the cops lost
the list of the 24 that were supposedly interviewed behind locked
doors after the arrest. Any of those would have solved the case.
Actually George Applin did...but then you would have to do
research...and research doesn't do any good, because you go off on Oz
fantasy land.
> Who were these people, and what time did they say they saw Oz.
>
Burroughs - 1Pm - 1:07 arrival time. 1:15 sold popcorn. Jack Davis,
He sat next to me before the movie started which was a 1:20 start.
Pre-move stuff came on at 1:P.M. Of course they could have got the
Projectionist and any patron to spill, but they dodged that one. Even
after the list was lost, they didn't go out and try to get those
people to come in for interviews, why?
> > The ducker could
> > have only gone to the balcony. The man was seen on the stairs who fit
> > the description over the police radio and was being questioned. They
> > let him go after Oz was arrested.
>
> Brewer pointed Oz out as the man he saw. Oswald attacked the cops
> who confronted them. Do you think they should have kept searching for
> the man who shot Oswald even after Ruby was tackled?
>
Brewer was a block and a half behind, pointed out a man, that the cops
wanted a legal right to capture. Brewer took the bait to get the cops
there, along with dropped shells, dropped wallet, dropped jacket...The
real killer was on the stairs of the balcony getting interviewed. You
remember the balcony, the place where Julia Postal said the killer
must have gone? The place where he had to go, since nobody saw Oz
enter the main lower portion of the theater?
CJ
robcap...@netscape.com
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
"Is this a Chevy, or THE Chevy? Anyway, Rob, still looking for these
secretive photos from Reiland. I am sure there are many after looking
up a menu on the Bradford site."
Good question CJ. I am really split on this one, and quite frankly
the wallet is not really that important as there were many other as
you know. The only think that bothers me about them supposedly
finding this wallet is it did allegedly contain Hidell ID and the
authorities never attached this alias to LHO until after the supposed
rifle check by the FBI at Kleins on Saturday afternoon. Up to that
point they said his only alias was O.H. Lee, but if they had found
this wallet why would they not know about Hidell? Or possibly the
other ID in the wallet pointed to someone who was NOT LHO, and they
hid this which is very possible. This is a very interesting topic and
you are doing a very good job with it.
robcap...@netscape.com
Bud, Postal would say initially she couldn't remember if she sold the
man who came in at 1:35 PM a ticket or not as she was listening to the
radio, yet she could recall months later at her WC testimony that she
sold 24 tickets that day!!!! What was her reluctance to say she sold
him a ticket or not? Possibly because the official theory would
ascribe a sneaking in part so she had to lie and was uncomfortable
with it. I can't imagine the man would not pay $.75 for a ticket as
this would certainly draw attention to oneself.
She also allegedly called the police when alerted to the fact that a
man has snuck in and says "we have your man", whereby the police
officerf on the other end says "Why do you think it is our man?". Her
alleged great reasoning is "Every time the sirens go by *he ducks*."
Amazing police work by a movie theater cashier.
> > she would have been letting in someone
> > for free?
>
"You think people who sneak into theaters are invisible? Or she didn`t
do what you think she should have done, therefore you get to rewrite
the episode? This is what dw does, finds some difficulty in the
testimony, trashs everything and writes the event to his own
satisfaction. The kooks use these things as creative writing
exercises, they aren`t the least bit interested in what occurred, they
only want to write the story with a happy ending... Oz innocent,
Kennedy done in by shadowy right-wing types."
The first police, that is right there were police before the famous
ones (some of whom had been at the TSBD, the Tippit scene and now the
theater), went to the balcony and were questioning a young man based
off of a radio dispatch that said "Have information a suspect just
went into the Texas Theater...supposed to be hiding in the
BALCONY" (emphasis mine - the time is 1:45 PM) and when they arrive a
"young female" (presumed to be Postal) tells them the man is in the
balcony. Once they begin questioning this man in the balcony then
McDonald, Walker and Hutson come in via the rear of the theater (the
other officers came in the front). Therefore, Postal did not even
point out the LHO we all know as he was sitting in the lower level,
NOT the balcony.
robcap...@netscape.com
"There's enough "Oswald Killed Tippit" evidence to make any prosecutor
salivate at the thought of it....but Curt Jester seems to be more
concerned about whether or not ticket-taker Julia Postal physically
saw Lee Oswald enter the movie theater (which is a totally-moot point,
of course, because we don't need Julia Postal's testimony to confirm
this fact, because Oswald was caught within that same theater WITH THE
TIPPIT MURDER WEAPON ON HIM)."
Dave is in fantasyland again. There is NO evidence of the physical
kind, the eyewitness kind or any other kind that links LHO to shooting
JDT. You are working around glue too much I suppose.
"One of the main CT mottos again rears its idiotic head --- i.e.,
I'LL KEEP SCARFING DOWN THE CHAFF, WHILE LETTING THE WHEAT PASS ME
BY."
Sure, throw out some goofy saying instead of providing REAL PROOF OR
EVIDENCE!
curtjester1
> > > "You're not trying to say that the wallet was found at the Texaco are
> > > you? And the taillight, is it excluded from the Tippit vehicle? And
> > > is the tailight supported by another photo of a tailight from the
> > > Texaco station?"
>
> > > CJ, the squad car of Tippit is a Plymouth (Fury I think) and it has
> > > two large round tailights on the end of each side. Here is a photo of
> > > the Chevy they allegedly found the jacket in at the Texaco station.
> > > You will notice it does match the tailights in the film still.
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> "Is this a Chevy, or THE Chevy? Anyway, Rob, still looking for these
> secretive photos from Reiland. I am sure there are many after looking
> up a menu on the Bradford site."
>
> Good question CJ. I am really split on this one, and quite frankly
> the wallet is not really that important as there were many other as
> you know. The only think that bothers me about them supposedly
> finding this wallet is it did allegedly contain Hidell ID and the
> authorities never attached this alias to LHO until after the supposed
> rifle check by the FBI at Kleins on Saturday afternoon. Up to that
> point they said his only alias was O.H. Lee, but if they had found
> this wallet why would they not know about Hidell? Or possibly the
> other ID in the wallet pointed to someone who was NOT LHO, and they
> hid this which is very possible. This is a very interesting topic and
> you are doing a very good job with it.
>
>
>
Hidell in it. It also has been suggested that the name "Oswald" was
used during the detaining of Oswald at the theater. Enter Barrett and
Westbrook who have purported to have obtained this wallet near or at
the Tippit murder scene. From there, they are in the lobby of the
Texas Theater at 1:50 P.M. They would be the only ones that would
have known that name that quickly. Of course it also gives rise to
why the suspect or someone close to the crime scene would leave that
wallet there? And why would that wallet which seems so vital with
information be not discussed in future testimony by those officers, or
even the events surrounding the day of the assassination? What I have
found so far, to break this code of silence is the fact that Agent
Barrett did comment years after the fact about the wallet and the
names "Hidell" and "Oswald" at the scene of the Tippit murder. Walt
says, Barrett is lying because of the wallet being filmed at the
Texaco station site. I find it, not so important, that it was just
found. I also have found someone else who came forward about the
wallet, and that was a reserve Deputy, Sgt. Croy. He said, he was
given the wallet by a civilian, and he was the first one at the Tippit
murder scene, and eventually gave the wallet to Sgt. Calvin Owens. I
don't have any thing to go on with Croy other than there is nothing to
suggest he went to the Texaco station, because all there is about him
is the fact he went home after staying on and interviewing Mrs.
Markham. It's interesting you bring up the Bradford site, because on
that menu for Reiland, there is something about the filming at the
murder scene of 'the wallet', only he supposedly narrates this as
'Tippit's Wallet'. Tippit's wallet was finally removed at Methodist
Hospital. Unless someone went into Tippit's pocket and brought out
his wallet, and later put it back in, I am sure that the wallet that
was on film, either at the Texaco station or at the Tippit crime
scene, was in fact the dropped wallet which had "Oswald, and Hidell"
as ID inside of it. I do believe in some of John Armstrong's
investigation he did have two wallets that were put in evidence by the
FBI, and DPD. And where those wallets are now, I believe might be
'missing'.
CJ
curtjester1
wrote:
didn't see him?", or "how could I when I saw him and panicked and let
the guy in?" What it gets down to is Postal can't even contrive of a
good scenario much less give one or waffle on a few. Of course what
is probably got her on the Waffle Wagon here, is that she did sell a
ticket to the earlier Oswald, and knew that, but knew the importance
of the ducker and subequent arrest of Oswald. Perhaps she was visited
quite often before her testimony before the WC? Obviously for not
being able to stop this ducker, sight or unseen, she didn't do
anything about it; and yet was compelled to somehow get Burroughs to
change his story when he mentioned that he thought he saw Oswald. All
I see is pressure in coming up with a storyline that would be
'acceptable'. We know now that it's quite 'unacceptable'.
I would like to mention too, Rob, about the importance of the
fingerprints on Tippit's vehicle. If they knew that Oswald was being
impersonated even as far as a CIA cover, they could have unfolded this
mystery if it were a Double Agency, that was being employed, (a real
Oswald, and a one who took on his Idenity). I believe this to be the
case, with both going in the Marines at around the same time and being
at different posts, as well as many other life situtions, with one to
going to Russia and one staying stateside. Those prints could have
been matched potentially with DMV and military or arrest records that
required a fingerprint be taken.
CJ
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>>
>> > > "You're not trying to say that the wallet was found at the Texaco are
>And
>> > > is the tailight supported by another photo of a tailight from the
>> > > Texaco station?"
>>
>> > > CJ, the squad car of Tippit is a Plymouth (Fury I think) and it has
>of
>> > > the Chevy they allegedly found the jacket in at the Texaco station.
>> > > You will notice it does match the tailights in the film still.
>>
>> > >http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/41/4164-001.gif
Or if you have With Malice, see page 123 for an excellent view of this photo.
>> "Is this a Chevy, or THE Chevy? =A0Anyway, Rob, still looking for these
>> secretive photos from Reiland. =A0I am sure there are many after looking
>> up a menu on the Bradford site."
>>
>> Good question CJ. =A0I am really split on this one, and quite frankly
>> the wallet is not really that important as there were many other as
>> you know. =A0The only think that bothers me about them supposedly
>> finding this wallet is it did allegedly contain Hidell ID and the
>> authorities never attached this alias to LHO until after the supposed
>> rifle check by the FBI at Kleins on Saturday afternoon. =A0Up to that
>> point they said his only alias was O.H. Lee, but if they had found
>> this wallet why would they not know about Hidell? =A0Or possibly the
>> other ID in the wallet pointed to someone who was NOT LHO, and they
>> hid this which is very possible. =A0This is a very interesting topic and
robcap...@netscape.com
> > > > "You're not trying to say that the wallet was found at the Texaco are
> > > > you? And the taillight, is it excluded from the Tippit vehicle? And
> > > > is the tailight supported by another photo of a tailight from the
> > > > Texaco station?"
>
> > > > CJ, the squad car of Tippit is a Plymouth (Fury I think) and it has
> > > > two large round tailights on the end of each side. Here is a photo of
> > > > the Chevy they allegedly found the jacket in at the Texaco station.
> > > > You will notice it does match the tailights in the film still.
>
Agent Barrett said the wallet was found near the body of Tippitt by
Capt. Westbrook of the DPD, and that Westbrook asked him if he had
ever heard of a "Lee Harvey Oswald" or an "Alek Hidell". Barrett felt
the wallet had to pertain to the case in some way or he felt Capt.
Westbrook would not have asked him about the names. So if it was found
near the body, and this is a big if, then it had to have been taken
over to the Texaco station to be shown to the officers there, and it
was caught on film a this point.
Bud
curtjester1 wrote:
> >
> > > Natural reaction...to do "nothing"?
> >
> > � � I do it whenever I can.
> >
> What...apologize for abnormal behavior?
What I responded to is still right there, Curt. I see no big words
to cause you trouble.
> > > �We have to look for the motive
> > > since the stupid WC lawyer couldn't get three sentences together.
> >
> > � �Luckily you came riding to the rescue. Retard.
> >
> So, you think they did a good job,and Postal explained herself well?
> <Bud, comes up with the sleaze one-liners in hopes that people will
> think he is slick>
I see Postal saying she saw Oz sneak into the theater. I see a kook
taking this information and trying to make it into something more to
his liking. Not unusual for kooks to do this in this case.
> > > > > She should have yelled if she did.
> >
> > > > � �Based on your intimate knowledge of Postal? Who`s job was it to
> > > > make sure th people coming in had paid or tickets?
> >
> > > Based on our intimate knowledge we know she lied about selling Oswald
> > > a ticket (the FBI interview, and the Jones Harris interview). �She
> > > obviously is there to make money for the theater and at least take
> > > money from the potential customers. �If you see someone coming in, and
> > > doesn't pay, any normal person would even if afraid of confrontation,
> > > at least go to the ticket taker and get him to do something. �She
> > > didn't even move, nor yell. �Why couldn't she just admit she didn't
> > > see him?
> >
> > � �Because she was in on the massive plot to make your beloved patsy
> > look guilty. Good thing you are clever enough to see that it wasn`t
> > Oz, it was everybody else.
> >
> You seem to have to make a clear cut psychological profile of those
> who want to question her intellect and motives.
Retards. Like I explained to you, far and away the most likely an
ordinary person with no sinister motivations.
> Did she lie for
> notoriety? Did she lie because of threats? Did she lie because of
> the Dallas community pressure to convict?
Why blame Postal because you are an idiot? You want to believe
stupid shit, and you want her to be a bad person, to help justify the
stupid shit you want to believe.
> You can play God, but I and
> most people want to know that she did lie, only, for the getting to
> the bottom of the whole case.
You aren`t the least bit interested in determining the truth. You
want to play sill games with this case because you are an idiot.
> I don't need to take like you, that
> each action Oz took is of a guilty, madman, commie, like the FBI
> wanted everyone to believe unconditionally.
You want to belive everyone was out to get him. You identify with
him, think what hppened to Oz could happen to you if those sinister
powers ever got their sights on you. It bears repeating that you are
an idiot.
> That's why your
> killified, or ignored, because you don't argue from a independent
> perspective.
I don`y give a fuck what you nuts do. The fault isn`t with the WC,
the fault lies in faulty kook thinking. If you want to broadcast your
stupidity here, I will point it out.
> But, have solace, you are not alone. It's fairly easy
> to expose this reasoning line you have built up....even to the point
> of entertainment and your embarrassment for some.
Curt, you started this thread. You claimed Markham and Burt saw the
assailant`s hands on Tippit`s car. You said Postal said "what man?"
when asked about Oswald sneaking in, and then produced testimony from
here where she clearly says she saw him. You have everyone who
happened to come in contact with Oz working against him for reasons
you can`t even begin to articulate.You need to leave thi case alone
and find yourself a nice coloring book.
> > > If she did see him she didn't follow a logical course. �You have to
> > > get your script going sideways to make her look normal.
> >
> > � �As always, when the reality of the event conflicts with a kook`s
> > expectations, it`s reality that is considered suspect.
> >
> Don't let facts get in your way....Just like the ol' Dragnet series.
Television is to blame for most of the kook creativity exhibited in
this case. It blurs the line of rational thinking for way too many
people. If the Mission Impossible team can overthrow a small banana
republic in one hour minus commercials, what else is possible?
Television captured Oz`s imagination also, wih him it was spy shows.
You and he have a "comic book" mentality, both weakminded idiots
overly influenced by network television.
> > > This is just basic detective work.
> >
> > � �Best left to detectives, not retards like you and Walt. And Ben.
> > And Gil.
> >
> And yet Bud invents himself as SuperDetective in finding the correct
> path?
It`s not a goat path, idiot, it`s a six lane highway. Once you ned
more than a handful of people lying to make your version work, you`re
off the road and into the brush.
> It's obvious that the Feds and the WC weren't good detectives.
> And the DPD? Nah...Who Bud, are the true detectives?
All the people you named should have known who the guilty party was
with a few indicators. Just Oz attacking the arresting police should
tell any detective worth spit that they had the right man. Had Postal
attacked the cops then you might have some actual, justifiable reason
to be suspicious of her, and I would admit she was worth a long hard
look. And if you ask a detective how to tell a guilty person, and
they`ll say that they lie. Ask Truly who he had lunch with, and they
just say. Ask WB Frazier if he owns a rifle, and he says sure, you
want me to get it? Oswald lied about these things, and many others,
and just because you kooks throw this information out on a whim
doesn`t mean the real investigators in the FBI and DPD would do so.
> > > The little facts have to build and
> > > make the whole premise fit.
> >
> > � The real fact is, people don`t log their second by second actions.
> > Most of what was said, done, thought, ect, does not appear in the
> > record. Any normal person looking at things like these would approach
> > it from the perspective that by far, the most reasonable thing to
> > assume is that these were ordinary people going about their ordinary
> > days. Since this doesn`t work for you kooks, you try to portray these
> > people as suspicious liars because what they related is harmful to
> > what you desire to believe.
> >
> What? False timelines.
Kook mythology.
> A Cop out of control.
Blame the cop doing his job. Disgusting.
> Changed times from
> DPD.
Don`t know what you are talking about.
> No calls investigated from early callers.
Have you ever heard of a case where they track down all the people
who call in a crime? That there was a crime was corroborated at the
scene.
> Suspect IDings that
> don't match Oswald.
All the people who made an identification said it was Oz they saw.
> People in the theater timestamping movements and
> timelines while the Tippit murder is taking place.
They timestamp nothing.
> A revolver that
> doesn't match.
Actually it does. The same rare type of weapon that doesn`t leave
clear markings on bullets as was used to kill Tippit.
> Two wallets.
I think only one in evidence.
> It's endless Bud, and you apologize
> like a begging puppet for some weird political ideology imbedded in
> you, and or are just getting a paycheck to support some special
> interest group.
If there was reason to believe a conspiracy killed JFK, I wouldn`t
have a problem accepting it. "It`s what I want to believe" isn`t a
good reason.
> Of course many people had to confront issues, and
> pound on doors, because Bud's paramours wouldn't.
Did pounding on doors show why Oz puched the cop? Did it uncover
the motivation for the lies you say Postal told. Can you establish
anyone being made to give false evidence against your hero. By who
were they forced, how? After all these decades, all this door knocking
for have nothing but imagination. People do things, person "A" gets
person "B" to do something shady. That gives you two potential leads,
plus anyone who was privy to th shady deed. You kooks have thousands
of these acts of conspiracy going on, big and small, and you can`t
expose any of them, you just claim to "know" they occurred.
> > > This Postal thing is just the beginning
> > > of the iceberg of the facts that were presented that don't fit. �How
> > > come nobody saw Oswald come in?
> >
> > � �People did, idiot. That is how the cops came to find Tippit`s
> > murderer.
> >
> Name one person that saw LHO, with the brown shirt enter that theater,
> and you can't use Postal or Brewer?
<snicker> I can`t use the witnesses?
> > > > > Take the blinders off.
> >
> > > > � �These people didn`t say what you claim they did. I`d need blinders
> > > > not to notice that.
> >
> > > Postal sold Oswald a ticket earlier.
> >
> > � �Why didn`t he have a ticket stub when he was arrested?
> >
> Because he was probably like everybody else who dumps their's on the
> floor or puts it in the trash can.
Shame, if he had a stub, you might actually have something.
> > > �Two people account for his
> > > prescence and actions well before the ducker came.
> >
> > � � They said they saw person duck in and knew Oswald was there
> > before?
> >
> Correct. Jack Davis and Butch Burroughs, elaborated on with
> interviews with Jim Marrs and Nigel Turner.
Funny how people remember these thi astounding information when they
talk with conspiracy book authors.
Jack Davis didn`t giv a time, but reported Oz moving around the
theater strangely. Looking for an inconspicous place to avoid
detection, no doubt. Bouroughs said nothing about seeing Oz to the WC.
Interesting that the one important bit of information he had and he
couldn`t get it on record. I think I would have worked it in
somewhere. And what time was given for this, around one, right? The
same time Roberts saw him at the boardinghouse?
> Of course the cops lost
> the list of the 24 that were supposedly interviewed behind locked
> doors after the arrest.
Always the information you don`t have that is best, eh?
> Any of those would have solved the case.
> Actually George Applin did...but then you would have to do
> research...and research doesn't do any good, because you go off on Oz
> fantasy land.
"I saw the officer shake two men down and then asked a man sitting
by himself to stand up. As the officers started to shake him down, and
when he did, this boy took a swing at the officers and the next thing
I could see was this boy had his hand around the officer`s left
shoulder and had a pistol in his hand."-George Jefferson Applin Jr`s
11-22 deposition. To Curt, this is a good witness for Oz.
> > � � Who were these people, and what time did they say they saw Oz.
> >
> Burroughs - 1Pm - 1:07 arrival time. 1:15 sold popcorn.
Isn`t he at the boardinghouse at one?
> Jack Davis,
> He sat next to me before the movie started which was a 1:20 start.
Quote Davis saying Oz sat next to him at 1:20.
> Pre-move stuff came on at 1:P.M. Of course they could have got the
> Projectionist and any patron to spill, but they dodged that one. Even
> after the list was lost, they didn't go out and try to get those
> people to come in for interviews, why?
Because they weren`t idiots, they were real professionals. It was
actual cops that arrested Oz, they were there, they didn`t need
memebers of the audience to corroborate that they arrested Oz.
> > > �The ducker could
> > > have only gone to the balcony. �The man was seen on the stairs who fit
> > > the description over the police radio and was being questioned. �They
> > > let him go after Oz was arrested.
> >
> > � �Brewer pointed Oz out as the man he saw. Oswald attacked the cops
> > who confronted them. Do you think they should have kept searching for
> > the man who shot Oswald even after Ruby was tackled?
> >
> Brewer was a block and a half behind, pointed out a man, that the cops
> wanted a legal right to capture.
Cops are suspect. Brewer is suspect. Everybody but Oz.
> Brewer took the bait to get the cops
> there, along with dropped shells, dropped wallet, dropped jacket...
Yah, everybody know criminals never leave evidence. They knew Oz
would be there, so they made sure they brought shells and jackets and
such to drop. Stupid shit, Curt,. Who brought the jacket, Curt, who
put it down, who told thm to put it down? Nobody seems to ever come
forward and admit the roles they playd, even decades later. With all
these hundreds of conspiracy things going on, shouldn`t someone be
coming forward, leaving deathbed confessions, or letters to be read
after their deaths, something?
>The
> real killer was on the stairs of the balcony getting interviewed.
If not him, then somebody else did it. Anybody but Oz.
> You
> remember the balcony, the place where Julia Postal said the killer
> must have gone?
Just a guess. She knew Oz went in, because he saw him. Where he went
from there she didn`t see firsthand.
> The place where he had to go, since nobody saw Oz
> enter the main lower portion of the theater?
You mean where he was arrested?
> CJ
curtjester1
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's not quite the way I read it. And that's what Hosty said in his
book, of which couldn't be a direct source. I have Barrett saying, "I
went over there and Captain Westbrook was there with several of his
officers....it hadn't been very long when Westbrook looked up and saw
me and called me over. He had this wallet in his hand. Now, I don't
know where he found it, but he had the wallet in his hand. I presumed
they found it on or near Tippit. Westbrook asked me, 'Do yuo know who
Lee Harvey Oswald is?' And 'Do you now who Alek Hidell is?' And I
said, 'No, I never heard of them.'" ...."The wallet was there.
There's no getting around that. Westbrook had the wallet in his
hand....."
Barrett and Westbrook drove out together and parked across from
Scoggin's car on Patton.
The first person police officer to arrive at the scene of the Tippit
murder was reserve Sgt. Kenneth H. Croy. He was driving west on
Colorado Blvd. when he reached Zang (near Oswald's roominghouse), and
heard the call an officer had been shot. Croy drove a half mile south
and arrived as Tippit's body was being loaded in the ambulance. A
civilian, *who has never been identified*, approached Croy, and handed
him a wallet which (Croy) later gave to Sgt. Calvin Owens. (Jones
Harris interview of Croy 11/02/02)
Now, the author where I am reading stated that when Barrett arrived at
the scene he "walked toward Tippit's car." I don't see proof of this,
even though it would seem the most plausible thing to do. I don't
know if that's in 'With Malice' or not. With Westbrook, Owens, and
Doughty at both scenes and on camera, I am sure makes things hard to
be exact. The Texaco is about a block away from where Barrett and
Westbrook parked their vehicle. Like you said, it could have been
surely walked over or just kept by Westbrook, and brought out
whenever.
To make things even more interesting, Barrett was said to said that
someone (again unidentified) had come up to him sometime during these
proceedings and said that the pedestrian Tippit pulled up to was
reaching in and seemingly handing something to Tippit from the
passenger window.
And too, there seems to be a film made of a wallet on the menu at the
Tippit murder scene by Reiland. Of course, Reiland was at the Tippit
scene, as well as the Texaco, as well as many other localite in Oak
Cliff filming.
CJ
Bud
Strange, usually you display an overactive imagination.
> She also allegedly called the police when alerted to the fact that a
> man has snuck in and says "we have your man", whereby the police
> officerf on the other end says "Why do you think it is our man?". Her
> alleged great reasoning is "Every time the sirens go by *he ducks*."
> Amazing police work by a movie theater cashier.
Yah, cops zooming around, obviosly looking for someone, and someone
ducking down when they come past. Who could make a connection between
those two things? Certainly not you idiots, showing Postal capable of
figuring out in seconds what you kooks haven`t been able to grasp in
decades.
> > > she would have been letting in someone
> > > for free?
> >
>
> "You think people who sneak into theaters are invisible? Or she didn`t
> do what you think she should have done, therefore you get to rewrite
> the episode? This is what dw does, finds some difficulty in the
> testimony, trashs everything and writes the event to his own
> satisfaction. The kooks use these things as creative writing
> exercises, they aren`t the least bit interested in what occurred, they
> only want to write the story with a happy ending... Oz innocent,
> Kennedy done in by shadowy right-wing types."
>
> The first police, that is right there were police before the famous
> ones (some of whom had been at the TSBD, the Tippit scene and now the
> theater), went to the balcony and were questioning a young man based
> off of a radio dispatch that said "Have information a suspect just
> went into the Texas Theater...supposed to be hiding in the
> BALCONY" (emphasis mine - the time is 1:45 PM) and when they arrive a
> "young female" (presumed to be Postal) tells them the man is in the
> balcony.
Yah, that is where she thought it likely he went.
> Once they begin questioning this man in the balcony then
> McDonald, Walker and Hutson come in via the rear of the theater (the
> other officers came in the front). Therefore, Postal did not even
> point out the LHO we all know as he was sitting in the lower level,
Brewer did.
> NOT the balcony.
So? They searched people on both levels until the found the right
person. Why do you kooks have such difficulty with these things?
curtjester1
> > That's why your
> > killified, or ignored, because you don't argue from a independent
> > perspective.
>
> I don`y give a fuck what you nuts do. The fault isn`t with the WC,
> the fault lies in faulty kook thinking. If you want to broadcast your
> stupidity here, I will point it out.
>
agreement with you, and you can go to the next step and provide some
food to feed the starving. When you come back next month, you can
fill us in, and give your two cents, again.
CJ
Bud
curtjester1 wrote:
> > > �That's why your
> > > killified, or ignored, because you don't argue from a independent
> > > perspective.
> >
> > � �I don`y give a fuck what you nuts do. The fault isn`t with the WC,
> > the fault lies in faulty kook thinking. If you want to broadcast your
> > stupidity here, I will point it out.
> >
> Thanks, Bud. Now you can take your followers who are in total
> agreement with you, and you can go to the next step and provide some
> food to feed the starving.
They only get hungry again.
> When you come back next month, you can
> fill us in, and give your two cents, again.
Might I suggest you take your head out of your ass and take a
breath?
> CJ
robcap...@netscape.com
I don't think our two versions are too far off, and I'm NOT saying NO
wallet was found near Tippit either. I'm just saying I'm not 100%
sure if one was found or not. The thing that makes me wonder is why
Barrett was there at all, I mean the killing of a cop was not a
federal crime, neither was killing a president in 1963, so why was the
FBI on the scene so fast?
robcap...@netscape.com
Please, like the average person is this observant. We just had
footage of a poor older man run over and left for dead in the street,
and all who went up to him just walked or drove away. She was
listening to the radio, the person who really claimed he was (LHO)
suspicious was Brewer, and this guy couldn't even say he was wearing a
brown shirt for 2 weeks!! Sure, a girl who mans a ticket booth in a
theater, and midday no less, is so observant according to you. I
don't know what movies you go to but the ones I go to lately you can
barely get them to wait on you let alone worry about what you are
doing.
> > > > she would have been letting in someone
> > > > for free?
>
> > "You think people who sneak into theaters are invisible? Or she didn`t
> > do what you think she should have done, therefore you get to rewrite
> > the episode? This is what dw does, finds some difficulty in the
> > testimony, trashs everything and writes the event to his own
> > satisfaction. The kooks use these things as creative writing
> > exercises, they aren`t the least bit interested in what occurred, they
> > only want to write the story with a happy ending... Oz innocent,
> > Kennedy done in by shadowy right-wing types."
>
> > The first police, that is right there were police before the famous
> > ones (some of whom had been at the TSBD, the Tippit scene and now the
> > theater), went to the balcony and were questioning a young man based
> > off of a radio dispatch that said "Have information a suspect just
> > went into the Texas Theater...supposed to be hiding in the
> > BALCONY" (emphasis mine - the time is 1:45 PM) and when they arrive a
> > "young female" (presumed to be Postal) tells them the man is in the
> > balcony.
>
"Yah, that is where she thought it likely he went."
Why? What made her think he went to the balcony?
>
> > Once they begin questioning this man in the balcony then
> > McDonald, Walker and Hutson come in via the rear of the theater (the
> > other officers came in the front). Therefore, Postal did not even
> > point out the LHO we all know as he was sitting in the lower level,
>
"Brewer did."
Who mas manning the store while this nosey guy is at the theater?
None of this makes a lick of sense. Who was the man in the balcony
who was seen brought out the back by Bernard Haire and who looked
remarkably like LHO?
>
> > NOT the balcony.
>
"So? They searched people on both levels until the found the right
person. Why do you kooks have such difficulty with these things?"
No they didn't Bud, the first police on the scene went straight to the
balcony. They did NOT hem and haw, they knew where they were going,
and they did remove this man out the back. Haire said he looked
flushed like he had just been in a struggle (or had just run there
after shooting JDT?). Why is there no official record of this
detention?
curtjester1
> curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > �That's why your
> > > > killified, or ignored, because you don't argue from a independent
> > > > perspective.
>
> > > � �I don`y give a fuck what you nuts do. The fault isn`t with the WC,
> > > the fault lies in faulty kook thinking. If you want to broadcast your
> > > stupidity here, I will point it out.
>
> > Thanks, Bud. Now you can take your followers who are in total
> > agreement with you, and you can go to the next step and provide some
> > food to feed the starving.
>
> They only get hungry again.
>
communists, and shorten their problems with a quick exit, and then you
can donate your agent fee to the Mars Project to see if they can find
some water of fancy rocks.
> > When you come back next month, you can
> > fill us in, and give your two cents, again.
>
> Might I suggest you take your head out of your ass and take a
> breath?
>
>
Gee, Bud, I was brief. I thought you would be pleased?!
David Von Pein
>>> "Dave is in fantasyland again. There is NO evidence of the physical kind, the eyewitness kind or any other kind that links LHO to shooting JDT." <<<
When a kook doesn't like the evidence, he simply mangles it or, better
still, does what Robby does--totally ignores it and denies its very
existence.
Lovely policy--if you're an idiot.
>>> "You are working around glue too much I suppose." <<<
You must bathe in the stuff to have gotten as loopy as you currently
are.
Bud
The cops were flying around the vicintity with sirens and lights
going. She leaves her both to see what the commotion was. She sees O
ducking down whenever a cop goes by. She makes a connect between the
two things. She is not an idiot, you are.
> We just had
> footage of a poor older man run over and left for dead in the street,
> and all who went up to him just walked or drove away.
Was Postal one of them? How mant cell calls did they get in
reporting this accident? What should they do, pick him up? How did you
get as old as you are with no sense what-so-ever?
> She was
> listening to the radio, the person who really claimed he was (LHO)
> suspicious was Brewer, and this guy couldn't even say he was wearing a
> brown shirt for 2 weeks!!
He said he saw Oz. Why was he out of his shoe store, idiot?
> Sure, a girl who mans a ticket booth in a
> theater, and midday no less, is so observant according to you.
Your right, she was obviously waiting for Oz so she could help
frame him. Everybody was out to get Oz that day. You folks are idiots.
> I
> don't know what movies you go to but the ones I go to lately you can
> barely get them to wait on you let alone worry about what you are
> doing.
Has what to do with the Texas Theater midday in 1963, your fucking
idiot? I don`t think you`ve been to many movies lately, I don`t think
leave your house.
> > > > > she would have been letting in someone
> > > > > for free?
> >
> > > "You think people who sneak into theaters are invisible? Or she didn`t
> > > do what you think she should have done, therefore you get to rewrite
> > > the episode? This is what dw does, finds some difficulty in the
> > > testimony, trashs everything and writes the event to his own
> > > satisfaction. The kooks use these things as creative writing
> > > exercises, they aren`t the least bit interested in what occurred, they
> > > only want to write the story with a happy ending... Oz innocent,
> > > Kennedy done in by shadowy right-wing types."
> >
> > > The first police, that is right there were police before the famous
> > > ones (some of whom had been at the TSBD, the Tippit scene and now the
> > > theater), went to the balcony and were questioning a young man based
> > > off of a radio dispatch that said "Have information a suspect just
> > > went into the Texas Theater...supposed to be hiding in the
> > > BALCONY" (emphasis mine - the time is 1:45 PM) and when they arrive a
> > > "young female" (presumed to be Postal) tells them the man is in the
> > > balcony.
> >
>
> "Yah, that is where she thought it likely he went."
>
> Why? What made her think he went to the balcony?
Likely because Burroughs didn`t see him. But, what difference does
it make why she thought he went up into the balcony, it`s obvious she
didn`t personally see him go up there. You idiots just want to make
hay over these things, to justify the stupid things you want to
believe.
> > > Once they begin questioning this man in the balcony then
> > > McDonald, Walker and Hutson come in via the rear of the theater (the
> > > other officers came in the front). Therefore, Postal did not even
> > > point out the LHO we all know as he was sitting in the lower level,
> >
>
> "Brewer did."
>
> Who mas manning the store while this nosey guy is at the theater?
His involvement lead to the arrest of a cop killer. Good thing he
didn`t mind his own business, who knows how many more people Oz would
have killed that day.
> None of this makes a lick of sense.
<snicker> It makes perfect sense, you are just an idiot.
> Who was the man in the balcony
> who was seen brought out the back by Bernard Haire and who looked
> remarkably like LHO?
Where does unknown information take you?
> > > NOT the balcony.
> >
>
> "So? They searched people on both levels until the found the right
> person. Why do you kooks have such difficulty with these things?"
>
> No they didn't Bud, the first police on the scene went straight to the
> balcony.
So? That is where Postal indicated.
> They did NOT hem and haw, they knew where they were going,
> and they did remove this man out the back. Haire said he looked
> flushed like he had just been in a struggle (or had just run there
> after shooting JDT?). Why is there no official record of this
> detention?
The cops may have stopped and questioned dozens of people before
finding Oz. Do you think they always grab the right person right away
or look in the right place only during a manhunt? Every lead is
golden except the ones that lead to the violent man with the gun. You
folks are idiots.
Bud
curtjester1 wrote:
> On 7 Jun, 18:01, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > > �That's why your
> > > > > killified, or ignored, because you don't argue from a independent
> > > > > perspective.
> >
> > > > � �I don`y give a fuck what you nuts do. The fault isn`t with the WC,
> > > > the fault lies in faulty kook thinking. If you want to broadcast your
> > > > stupidity here, I will point it out.
> >
> > > Thanks, Bud. Now you can take your followers who are in total
> > > agreement with you, and you can go to the next step and provide some
> > > food to feed the starving.
> >
> > They only get hungry again.
> >
> Well, pretend you work for the CIA and tell the people they are
> communists, and shorten their problems with a quick exit, and then you
> can donate your agent fee to the Mars Project to see if they can find
> some water of fancy rocks.
OK.
> > > When you come back next month, you can
> > > fill us in, and give your two cents, again.
> >
> > Might I suggest you take your head out of your ass and take a
> > breath?
> >
> >
> Gee, Bud, I was brief. I thought you would be pleased?!
I see you put it back in.
curtjester1
Brewer says, "she doesn't remember", and has no answer for "did you
see the man duck in here."? You have got to be kidding! And don't
forget Brewer is 200 feet behind. You would think Postal would have a
lot of bearings by the time Brewer shows up. But, no, she by Brewer's
comments from observation hasn't even seen what he is proposing.
> > We just had
> > footage of a poor older man run over and left for dead in the street,
> > and all who went up to him just walked or drove away.
>
> Was Postal one of them? How mant cell calls did they get in
> reporting this accident? What should they do, pick him up? How did you
> get as old as you are with no sense what-so-ever?
>
Notice inane strategy. Tie Postal to another street scene so his
Apology for Postal will seem intact and logical.
> > She was
> > listening to the radio, the person who really claimed he was (LHO)
> > suspicious was Brewer, and this guy couldn't even say he was wearing a
> > brown shirt for 2 weeks!!
>
> He said he saw Oz. Why was he out of his shoe store, idiot?
>
Avoiding crucial part of what could make Brewer credible, an ID of the
clothing by changing subject matter.
> > Sure, a girl who mans a ticket booth in a
> > theater, and midday no less, is so observant according to you.
>
> Your right, she was obviously waiting for Oz so she could help
> frame him. Everybody was out to get Oz that day. You folks are idiots.
>
But she is not observant, according to Brewer (see deposition above in
thread. She is so unobservant, she can't even recall that if she sold
Oswald a ticket or not in subsequent interviews. Maybe it's more than
a memory issue, maybe they can use schizophrenia? And of course bring
in the 'get Oz theory'....when we have a billfold with his name and
alias already in their possesion for their picking him up at their
convenience now. Way to go Oz....start to leave the scene, come back
and put one in his head....and forget that wallet nearby. Of course,
the evidence Apologists will have a nice, profile and 'out' for that.
> > I
> > don't know what movies you go to but the ones I go to lately you can
> > barely get them to wait on you let alone worry about what you are
> > doing.
>
> Has what to do with the Texas Theater midday in 1963, your fucking
> idiot? I don`t think you`ve been to many movies lately, I don`t think
> leave your house.
>
Yeah, Postal was really on the spot, listening to her radio, while she
is oblivious to what this shoe salesman is trying to get acrossed to
her.
.
>
> > "Yah, that is where she thought it likely he went."
>
> > Why? What made her think he went to the balcony?
>
> Likely because Burroughs didn`t see him. But, what difference does
> it make why she thought he went up into the balcony, it`s obvious she
> didn`t personally see him go up there. You idiots just want to make
> hay over these things, to justify the stupid things you want to
> believe.
>
Why would she think Burroughs didn't see him? Brewer is the one that
went up to Burrough's, not her. She even in her testimony alluded to
all that snuck by Burroughs. And if she did see him ducking, why
didn't she tell Brewer which way to go?
> > > > Once they begin questioning this man in the balcony then
> > > > McDonald, Walker and Hutson come in via the rear of the theater (the
> > > > other officers came in the front). Therefore, Postal did not even
> > > > point out the LHO we all know as he was sitting in the lower level,
>
> > "Brewer did."
>
> > Who mas manning the store while this nosey guy is at the theater?
>
> His involvement lead to the arrest of a cop killer. Good thing he
> didn`t mind his own business, who knows how many more people Oz would
> have killed that day.
>
But he is pointing out in a place where Postal said by sight or sleuth
deduction where the suspect went? Bill Courson followed that lead and
went up the stairs to the balcony, "reasonbly satisfied in his own
mind" that he met Lee Harvey Oswald coming down the stairs.(Sneed, pg.
485). And when other officers came through the front said, "the
young man is up the stairs." Anybody can see here, there is something
terribly wrong with everything she is doing, seeing, or saying.
> > None of this makes a lick of sense.
>
> <snicker> It makes perfect sense, you are just an idiot.
>
> > Who was the man in the balcony
> > who was seen brought out the back by Bernard Haire and who looked
> > remarkably like LHO?
>
> Where does unknown information take you?
>
Glad you asked. Two reports of an arrest in the balcony which were
first based on the description broadcast over police radio which led
to a detainment in the alleyway by the side theater exits.
> > > > NOT the balcony.
>
> > "So? They searched people on both levels until the found the right
> > person. Why do you kooks have such difficulty with these things?"
>
> > No they didn't Bud, the first police on the scene went straight to the
> > balcony.
>
> So? That is where Postal indicated.
>
> > They did NOT hem and haw, they knew where they were going,
> > and they did remove this man out the back. Haire said he looked
> > flushed like he had just been in a struggle (or had just run there
> > after shooting JDT?). Why is there no official record of this
> > detention?
>
> The cops may have stopped and questioned dozens of people before
> finding Oz. Do you think they always grab the right person right away
> or look in the right place only during a manhunt? Every lead is
> golden except the ones that lead to the violent man with the gun. You
> folks are idiots
No, but they grabbed a man, who was positively ID'd in that theater
being there between 1 and 1:15 P.M, with actions observed and
corroborated by two that swore he was there a good twenty minutes
before Brewer arrived, Jack Davis and Butch Burroughs.
CJ
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, they were by the TSBD when the Tippit call came in. They had no
capture for the JFK crime. I am sure that Barrett could smell a
potential link between the two. It seems the whole police force did
too with so many converging out there, leaving Dealey.
As far as a wallet, you have Reiland, Croy, and Barrett
unconditionally firm. Then you have seemingly complicit denyers in
Doughty, Owens, and Westbrook. The film trumps them, and the fact
that further film has a wallet at the murder scene. I would have to
ask, what more would one need?
CJ
Bud
In what way do you think you are impeaching the information these
people provided. You seem desperate not to accept that they saw Oz
sneak into the theater. Because you are.
> > > We just had
> > > footage of a poor older man run over and left for dead in the street,
> > > and all who went up to him just walked or drove away.
> >
> > Was Postal one of them? How mant cell calls did they get in
> > reporting this accident? What should they do, pick him up? How did you
> > get as old as you are with no sense what-so-ever?
> >
> Notice inane strategy. Tie Postal to another street scene so his
> Apology for Postal will seem intact and logical.
Nobody saw Postal shoot anyone, you are suspicious of the wrong
person.
> > > She was
> > > listening to the radio, the person who really claimed he was (LHO)
> > > suspicious was Brewer, and this guy couldn't even say he was wearing a
> > > brown shirt for 2 weeks!!
> >
> > He said he saw Oz. Why was he out of his shoe store, idiot?
> >
> Avoiding crucial part of what could make Brewer credible, an ID of the
> clothing by changing subject matter.
"The man was wearing a brown sports shirt" - Brewer`s affidavit. I
guess that makes him credible to you then, right Curt?
> > > Sure, a girl who mans a ticket booth in a
> > > theater, and midday no less, is so observant according to you.
> >
> > Your right, she was obviously waiting for Oz so she could help
> > frame him. Everybody was out to get Oz that day. You folks are idiots.
> >
> But she is not observant, according to Brewer (see deposition above in
> thread. She is so unobservant, she can't even recall that if she sold
> Oswald a ticket or not in subsequent interviews. Maybe it's more than
> a memory issue, maybe they can use schizophrenia? And of course bring
> in the 'get Oz theory'....when we have a billfold with his name and
> alias already in their possesion for their picking him up at their
> convenience now. Way to go Oz....start to leave the scene, come back
> and put one in his head....and forget that wallet nearby. Of course,
> the evidence Apologists will have a nice, profile and 'out' for that.
Don`t need one. If Oz did a handstand, would I need to explain that
before determining his guilt?
> > > I
> > > don't know what movies you go to but the ones I go to lately you can
> > > barely get them to wait on you let alone worry about what you are
> > > doing.
> >
> > Has what to do with the Texas Theater midday in 1963, your fucking
> > idiot? I don`t think you`ve been to many movies lately, I don`t think
> > leave your house.
> >
> Yeah, Postal was really on the spot, listening to her radio, while she
> is oblivious to what this shoe salesman is trying to get acrossed to
> her.
Everybody was out to get poor Oz. Idiot. .
> > > "Yah, that is where she thought it likely he went."
> >
> > > Why? What made her think he went to the balcony?
> >
> > Likely because Burroughs didn`t see him. But, what difference does
> > it make why she thought he went up into the balcony, it`s obvious she
> > didn`t personally see him go up there. You idiots just want to make
> > hay over these things, to justify the stupid things you want to
> > believe.
> >
>
> Why would she think Burroughs didn't see him?
Because he didn`t stop the guy who snuck in without paying. She
assumed that meant the man (Oswald) took the balcony stairs. She was
wrong.
> Brewer is the one that
> went up to Burrough's, not her. She even in her testimony alluded to
> all that snuck by Burroughs. And if she did see him ducking, why
> didn't she tell Brewer which way to go?
Why do you ask all these questions when it is apparent you have no
real interest in determing what happened, and are only looking for
justification to believe the tupid shit you want to believe?
> > > > > Once they begin questioning this man in the balcony then
> > > > > McDonald, Walker and Hutson come in via the rear of the theater (the
> > > > > other officers came in the front). Therefore, Postal did not even
> > > > > point out the LHO we all know as he was sitting in the lower level,
> >
> > > "Brewer did."
> >
> > > Who mas manning the store while this nosey guy is at the theater?
> >
> > His involvement lead to the arrest of a cop killer. Good thing he
> > didn`t mind his own business, who knows how many more people Oz would
> > have killed that day.
> >
> But he is pointing out in a place where Postal said by sight or sleuth
> deduction where the suspect went? Bill Courson followed that lead and
> went up the stairs to the balcony, "reasonbly satisfied in his own
> mind" that he met Lee Harvey Oswald coming down the stairs.(Sneed, pg.
> 485). And when other officers came through the front said, "the
> young man is up the stairs." Anybody can see here, there is something
> terribly wrong with everything she is doing, seeing, or saying.
She didn`t follow him idiot, she called the cops. How could she know
for sure where he went.
> > > None of this makes a lick of sense.
> >
> > <snicker> It makes perfect sense, you are just an idiot.
> >
> > > Who was the man in the balcony
> > > who was seen brought out the back by Bernard Haire and who looked
> > > remarkably like LHO?
> >
> > Where does unknown information take you?
> >
> Glad you asked. Two reports of an arrest in the balcony which were
> first based on the description broadcast over police radio which led
> to a detainment in the alleyway by the side theater exits.
Nobody was arrested but Oz.
> > > > > NOT the balcony.
> >
> > > "So? They searched people on both levels until the found the right
> > > person. Why do you kooks have such difficulty with these things?"
> >
> > > No they didn't Bud, the first police on the scene went straight to the
> > > balcony.
> >
> > So? That is where Postal indicated.
> >
> > > They did NOT hem and haw, they knew where they were going,
> > > and they did remove this man out the back. Haire said he looked
> > > flushed like he had just been in a struggle (or had just run there
> > > after shooting JDT?). Why is there no official record of this
> > > detention?
> >
> > The cops may have stopped and questioned dozens of people before
> > finding Oz. Do you think they always grab the right person right away
> > or look in the right place only during a manhunt? Every lead is
> > golden except the ones that lead to the violent man with the gun. You
> > folks are idiots
>
> No, but they grabbed a man,
Who attacked them and pulled a gun.
> who was positively ID'd in that theater
> being there between 1 and 1:15 P.M,
By who?
> with actions observed and
> corroborated by two that swore he was there a good twenty minutes
> before Brewer arrived, Jack Davis and Butch Burroughs.
Show that either told the cops that Oswald was in the theater 20
minutes before he was arrested. For extra credit, show Davis saying
how long it was between when Oz sat next to him, and the house lights
went on.
> CJ
curtjester1
>
> > > > > > > > > > Johnny Brewer Deposition 12/6/63
>
> > > > > > > > > >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brewer1.htm
>
> > And Postal somehow manages to have all this drama going on, and yet
> > Brewer says, "she doesn't remember", and has no answer for "did you
> > see the man duck in here."? You have got to be kidding! And don't
> > forget Brewer is 200 feet behind. You would think Postal would have a
> > lot of bearings by the time Brewer shows up. But, no, she by Brewer's
> > comments from observation hasn't even seen what he is proposing.
>
> In what way do you think you are impeaching the information these
> people provided. You seem desperate not to accept that they saw Oz
> sneak into the theater. Because you are.
>
no idea what Brewer was doing until he came and clued her in. You
aren't reading his account. She couldn't have even seen anyone going
up the balcony stairs as they were behind the outer set of doors. To
reach Burroughs (who was there) and into the lobby, they would have
had to gone through the second set of doors, which Brewer did to even
get the idea that the suspect wasn't going to get past someone already
there. Hence, he went back to Postal where she got the balcony
idea.
> > > > We just had
> > > > footage of a poor older man run over and left for dead in the street,
> > > > and all who went up to him just walked or drove away.
>
> > > Was Postal one of them? How mant cell calls did they get in
> > > reporting this accident? What should they do, pick him up? How did you
> > > get as old as you are with no sense what-so-ever?
>
> > Notice inane strategy. Tie Postal to another street scene so his
> > Apology for Postal will seem intact and logical.
>
> Nobody saw Postal shoot anyone, you are suspicious of the wrong
> person.
>
This is why people killifile you. You act like a teen punk.
> > > > She was
> > > > listening to the radio, the person who really claimed he was (LHO)
> > > > suspicious was Brewer, and this guy couldn't even say he was wearing a
> > > > brown shirt for 2 weeks!!
>
> > > He said he saw Oz. Why was he out of his shoe store, idiot?
>
> > Avoiding crucial part of what could make Brewer credible, an ID of the
> > clothing by changing subject matter.
>
> "The man was wearing a brown sports shirt" - Brewer`s affidavit. I
> guess that makes him credible to you then, right Curt?
>
Huh? It's not on record that he said that to anyone at the theater.
How can it be credible?
> > > > Sure, a girl who mans a ticket booth in a
> > > > theater, and midday no less, is so observant according to you.
>
> > > Your right, she was obviously waiting for Oz so she could help
> > > frame him. Everybody was out to get Oz that day. You folks are idiots.
>
> > But she is not observant, according to Brewer (see deposition above in
> > thread. She is so unobservant, she can't even recall that if she sold
> > Oswald a ticket or not in subsequent interviews. Maybe it's more than
> > a memory issue, maybe they can use schizophrenia? And of course bring
> > in the 'get Oz theory'....when we have a billfold with his name and
> > alias already in their possesion for their picking him up at their
> > convenience now. Way to go Oz....start to leave the scene, come back
> > and put one in his head....and forget that wallet nearby. Of course,
> > the evidence Apologists will have a nice, profile and 'out' for that.
>
> Don`t need one. If Oz did a handstand, would I need to explain that
> before determining his guilt?
>
You could ask the Wizard of Oz for a brain.. it's been asked before.
You need to get Oz at the Tippit murder scene first, then you need him
going in this lower level. Looking bleak here, Bud.
> > > > I
> > > > don't know what movies you go to but the ones I go to lately you can
> > > > barely get them to wait on you let alone worry about what you are
> > > > doing.
>
> > > Has what to do with the Texas Theater midday in 1963, your fucking
> > > idiot? I don`t think you`ve been to many movies lately, I don`t think
> > > leave your house.
>
> > Yeah, Postal was really on the spot, listening to her radio, while she
> > is oblivious to what this shoe salesman is trying to get acrossed to
> > her.
>
> Everybody was out to get poor Oz. Idiot. .
>
Looks like you are. You don't have even a good scenario for either
Postal or Oz.
> > > > "Yah, that is where she thought it likely he went."
>
> > > > Why? What made her think he went to the balcony?
>
> > > Likely because Burroughs didn`t see him. But, what difference does
> > > it make why she thought he went up into the balcony, it`s obvious she
> > > didn`t personally see him go up there. You idiots just want to make
> > > hay over these things, to justify the stupid things you want to
> > > believe.
>
> > Why would she think Burroughs didn't see him?
>
> Because he didn`t stop the guy who snuck in without paying. She
> assumed that meant the man (Oswald) took the balcony stairs. She was
> wrong.
>
Bud is his own screen writer here. You have no reason or ability to
show that Oswald would have snuck past Burroughs. Up to the balcony,
yes, because he was still hidden by a set of doors. If the suspect
went into the lobby, he would have swung the door open, noisily, and
been visible for Burroughs.
> > Brewer is the one that
> > went up to Burrough's, not her. She even in her testimony alluded to
> > all that snuck by Burroughs. And if she did see him ducking, why
> > didn't she tell Brewer which way to go?
>
> Why do you ask all these questions when it is apparent you have no
> real interest in determing what happened, and are only looking for
> justification to believe the tupid shit you want to believe?
>
I still ask these, questions, and you come off like the hind end of a
donkey, because you can't answer the most basic of questions any
detective would have.
> > > > > > Once they begin questioning this man in the balcony then
> > > > > > McDonald, Walker and Hutson come in via the rear of the theater (the
> > > > > > other officers came in the front). Therefore, Postal did not even
> > > > > > point out the LHO we all know as he was sitting in the lower level,
>
> > > > "Brewer did."
>
> > > > Who mas manning the store while this nosey guy is at the theater?
>
> > > His involvement lead to the arrest of a cop killer. Good thing he
> > > didn`t mind his own business, who knows how many more people Oz would
> > > have killed that day.
>
> > But he is pointing out in a place where Postal said by sight or sleuth
> > deduction where the suspect went? Bill Courson followed that lead and
> > went up the stairs to the balcony, "reasonbly satisfied in his own
> > mind" that he met Lee Harvey Oswald coming down the stairs.(Sneed, pg.
> > 485). And when other officers came through the front said, "the
> > young man is up the stairs." Anybody can see here, there is something
> > terribly wrong with everything she is doing, seeing, or saying.
>
> She didn`t follow him idiot, she called the cops. How could she know
> for sure where he went.
>
She was firm he went there, and she saw everything according to you.
And she called when? When she was listening to the radio? Waiting
for Brewer to come along, over a city block behind? Yet, the officer
was sure he had who? Oh, one, "Lee Harvey Oswald". Was Mr. Courson,
on drugs, Bud?
> > > > None of this makes a lick of sense.
>
> > > <snicker> It makes perfect sense, you are just an idiot.
>
> > > > Who was the man in the balcony
> > > > who was seen brought out the back by Bernard Haire and who looked
> > > > remarkably like LHO?
>
> > > Where does unknown information take you?
>
> > Glad you asked. Two reports of an arrest in the balcony which were
> > first based on the description broadcast over police radio which led
> > to a detainment in the alleyway by the side theater exits.
>
> Nobody was arrested but Oz.
>
According to one police report, and to one office report, THE arrest
was in the balcony. Why is this, Bud?
> > > > > > NOT the balcony.
>
> > > > "So? They searched people on both levels until the found the right
> > > > person. Why do you kooks have such difficulty with these things?"
>
> > > > No they didn't Bud, the first police on the scene went straight to the
> > > > balcony.
>
> > > So? That is where Postal indicated.
>
> > > > They did NOT hem and haw, they knew where they were going,
> > > > and they did remove this man out the back. Haire said he looked
> > > > flushed like he had just been in a struggle (or had just run there
> > > > after shooting JDT?). Why is there no official record of this
> > > > detention?
>
> > > The cops may have stopped and questioned dozens of people before
> > > finding Oz. Do you think they always grab the right person right away
> > > or look in the right place only during a manhunt? Every lead is
> > > golden except the ones that lead to the violent man with the gun. You
> > > folks are idiots
>
> > No, but they grabbed a man,
>
> Who attacked them and pulled a gun.
>
> > who was positively ID'd in that theater
> > being there between 1 and 1:15 P.M,
>
> By who?
>
By Burroughs and Davis, Bud.
> > with actions observed and
> > corroborated by two that swore he was there a good twenty minutes
> > before Brewer arrived, Jack Davis and Butch Burroughs.
>
> Show that either told the cops that Oswald was in the theater 20
> minutes before he was arrested. For extra credit, show Davis saying
> how long it was between when Oz sat next to him, and the house lights
> went on.> CJ
It's already been shown, Bud. Davis said Oz, who sat next to him
during pre-movie ads, went to the concession area, and he came back to
the center section. After THIS, "after twenty minutes or so", "the
house lights came on". When he (Oz) came back, too, the feature was
already going (1:22 from the 1:20 start?) Now for extra credit, Bud
can tell us when Postal called the police, or when Brewer came to the
theater. I do know some of the later arriving police got there prior
to 1:50. And for extra extra, credit, what was said to let them
forget about the guy on the stairs to accede what was going on at the
lower level?
CJ
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Dave is in fantasyland again. There is NO evidence of the physical kind, the eyewitness kind or any other kind that links LHO to shooting JDT." <<<
"When a kook doesn't like the evidence, he simply mangles it or,
better still, does what Robby does--totally ignores it and denies its
very existence."
This is NOT the case Dave, rather the fact you have NO evidence
showing LHO did the crime is the truth. We should be focusing on who
did murder JFK and JDT since the evidence shows it was NOT LHO.
"Lovely policy--if you're an idiot."
Good thing I'm not, and unfortunately for all of us the DPD, the FBI
and the WC got it all wrong, so a murderer or murderers got away with
the death of two men on 11/22/63.
> >>> "You are working around glue too much I suppose." <<<
"You must bathe in the stuff to have gotten as loopy as you currently
are."
The only thing "loopy" is the WC's ridiculous theory that LHO did all
of this by himself.
robcap...@netscape.com
She wasn't even sure of the number of tickets she sold prior to 1:15
PM as she testified to either 14 or 24. That is a big difference. She
also would say the man came in the same her boss, John Callahan, was
leaving to follow the police cars. The man had to know he was seen
yet he still just "ducked into the theater without paying" according
to her. Sounds fishy to me.
> > We just had
> > footage of a poor older man run over and left for dead in the street,
> > and all who went up to him just walked or drove away.
>
"Was Postal one of them? How mant cell calls did they get in reporting
this accident? What should they do, pick him up? How did you get as
old as you are with no sense what-so-ever?"
That was the whole ruckus over the incident idjit, as no one called
for quite some time. They looked and left and didn't bother to call
the police or 911. Another priceless question from a man who believes
in magic bullets and fairy tales.
> > She was
> > listening to the radio, the person who really claimed he was (LHO)
> > suspicious was Brewer, and this guy couldn't even say he was wearing a
> > brown shirt for 2 weeks!!
>
"He said he saw Oz. Why was he out of his shoe store, idiot?"
Good question, I want to know what made this guy leave his place of
work, possibly unattended as well, to follow some guy who looks into
his shoe store window. The whole official theory is made up.
> > Sure, a girl who mans a ticket booth in a
> > theater, and midday no less, is so observant according to you.
>
"Your right, she was obviously waiting for Oz so she could help frame
him. Everybody was out to get Oz that day. You folks are idiots."
You miss even this simple one, no one is claiming foreknowledge on her
part, but rather her having to go along with a ridiculous made up
story to try and show LHO was guilty.
> > I
> > don't know what movies you go to but the ones I go to lately you can
> > barely get them to wait on you let alone worry about what you are
> > doing.
>
"Has what to do with the Texas Theater midday in 1963, your fucking
idiot? I don`t think you`ve been to many movies lately, I don`t think
leave your house."
You can always tell when these no-nothings are feeling inadequate
about their lack of proof, they start cursing.
> > > > > > she would have been letting in someone
> > > > > > for free?
>
> > > > "You think people who sneak into theaters are invisible? Or she didn`t
> > > > do what you think she should have done, therefore you get to rewrite
> > > > the episode? This is what dw does, finds some difficulty in the
> > > > testimony, trashs everything and writes the event to his own
> > > > satisfaction. The kooks use these things as creative writing
> > > > exercises, they aren`t the least bit interested in what occurred, they
> > > > only want to write the story with a happy ending... Oz innocent,
> > > > Kennedy done in by shadowy right-wing types."
>
> > > > The first police, that is right there were police before the famous
> > > > ones (some of whom had been at the TSBD, the Tippit scene and now the
> > > > theater), went to the balcony and were questioning a young man based
> > > > off of a radio dispatch that said "Have information a suspect just
> > > > went into the Texas Theater...supposed to be hiding in the
> > > > BALCONY" (emphasis mine - the time is 1:45 PM) and when they arrive a
> > > > "young female" (presumed to be Postal) tells them the man is in the
> > > > balcony.
>
> > "Yah, that is where she thought it likely he went."
>
> > Why? What made her think he went to the balcony?
>
"Likely because Burroughs didn`t see him. But, what difference does it
make why she thought he went up into the balcony, ..."
It makes all the difference since you are claiming she is so observant
and the LHO the world knows was on the lower level of the theater the
WHOLE TIME!!!! Based on your assumption that she is so observant and
she saw the man "duck into the theater", then one has to assume the
man she saw was the man in the balcony that was lead out the BACK of
the theater, not the front! Thus, this man was NOT LHO.
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
From what I have read Westbrook does NOT deny finding the wallet, in
fact he told Barrett he found it near the body. Perhaps JDT was to
give it to the man who shot him as this was supposed to be left
somewhere else to frame LHO, but the plans changed and JDT became
expendable. I still think Roscoe White is a likely suspect in
shooting JDT as he fits the description of "short, heavy-set, and
bushy hair" (he wore a bushy hairpiece) and there was an extra police
uniform top in the back of JDT's cruiser. I think they stopped by
LHO's boarding room, honked, and then left, but White left the car to
look on foot for LHO, and then came back to JDT's car, said something
that made him get out, and pow, he shot him. The general clothing
description of the shooter was white t-shirt and black pants. This is
what a cop would look like minus his uniform top. This is what I
think happened. I think they were out that way as they were to escort
the shooters to the Red Bird Airport. This is the only reason it
makes sense for his cruiser to be out that far when every other
cruiser (save one) was downtown. Something happened to change plans
and make JDT expendable.
Bud
People killfile me because I expose their poor thinking. They don`t
like it much whn I do this. I do, though.
> > > > > �She was
> > > > > listening to the radio, the person who really claimed he was (LHO)
> > > > > suspicious was Brewer, and this guy couldn't even say he was wearing a
> > > > > brown shirt for 2 weeks!!
> >
> > > > � �He said he saw Oz. Why was he out of his shoe store, idiot?
> >
> > > Avoiding crucial part of what could make Brewer credible, an ID of the
> > > clothing by changing subject matter.
> >
> > � �"The man was wearing a brown sports shirt" - Brewer`s affidavit. I
> > guess that makes him credible to you then, right Curt?
> >
> Huh? It's not on record that he said that to anyone at the theater.
> How can it be credible?
He didn`t need to describe Oswald at the theater, he could point.
> > > > > Sure, a girl who mans a ticket booth in a
> > > > > theater, and midday no less, is so observant according to you.
> >
> > > > � �Your right, she was obviously waiting for Oz so she could help
> > > > frame him. Everybody was out to get Oz that day. You folks are idiots.
> >
> > > But she is not observant, according to Brewer (see deposition above in
> > > thread. �She is so unobservant, she can't even recall that if she sold
> > > Oswald a ticket or not in subsequent interviews. �Maybe it's more than
> > > a memory issue, maybe they can use schizophrenia? �And of course bring
> > > in the 'get Oz theory'....when we have a billfold with his name and
> > > alias already in their possesion for their picking him up at their
> > > convenience now. �Way to go Oz....start to leave the scene, come back
> > > and put one in his head....and forget that wallet nearby. � Of course,
> > > the evidence Apologists will have a nice, profile and 'out' for that.
> >
> > � �Don`t need one. If Oz did a handstand, would I need to explain that
> > before determining his guilt?
> >
> You could ask the Wizard of Oz for a brain.. it's been asked before.
> You need to get Oz at the Tippit murder scene first,
Where he was seen.
> then you need him
> going in this lower level.
Where he was captured.
> Looking bleak here, Bud.
You need a new hobby, kookjester.
> > > > > �I
> > > > > don't know what movies you go to but the ones I go to lately you can
> > > > > barely get them to wait on you let alone worry about what you are
> > > > > doing.
> >
> > > > � � Has what to do with the Texas Theater midday in 1963, your fucking
> > > > idiot? I don`t think you`ve been to many movies lately, I don`t think
> > > > leave your house.
> >
> > > Yeah, Postal was really on the spot, listening to her radio, while she
> > > is oblivious to what this shoe salesman is trying to get acrossed to
> > > her.
> >
> > � �Everybody was out to get poor Oz. Idiot. .
> >
> Looks like you are. You don't have even a good scenario for either
> Postal or Oz.
You don`t seem to know what you are talking about.
> > > > > "Yah, that is where she thought it likely he went."
> >
> > > > > Why? �What made her think he went to the balcony?
> >
> > > > � �Likely because Burroughs didn`t see him. But, what difference does
> > > > it make why she thought he went up into the balcony, it`s obvious she
> > > > didn`t personally see him go up there. You idiots just want to make
> > > > hay over these things, to justify the stupid things you want to
> > > > believe.
> >
> > > Why would she think Burroughs didn't see him?
> >
> > � Because he didn`t stop the guy who snuck in without paying. She
> > assumed that meant the man (Oswald) took the balcony stairs. She was
> > wrong.
> >
> Bud is his own screen writer here. You have no reason or ability to
> show that Oswald would have snuck past Burroughs.
Other than two people seeing Oz go in, and Burroughs not seeing him.
> Up to the balcony,
> yes, because he was still hidden by a set of doors. If the suspect
> went into the lobby, he would have swung the door open, noisily, and
> been visible for Burroughs.
He was seen going into the building, idjit. Nobody saw what
specific part of the building he went to, idjit. He was captured in
the building, idjit.
> > > �Brewer is the one that
> > > went up to Burrough's, not her. � She even in her testimony alluded to
> > > all that snuck by Burroughs. �And if she did see him ducking, why
> > > didn't she tell Brewer which way to go?
> >
> > � �Why do you ask all these questions when it is apparent you have no
> > real interest in determing what happened, and are only looking for
> > justification to believe the tupid shit you want to believe?
> >
> I still ask these, questions, and you come off like the hind end of a
> donkey, because you can't answer the most basic of questions any
> detective would have.
Like why was Oz ducking down every time a Dallas police car went by
if he hadn`t killled Tippit? Perhaps he just happened to see a quarter
on the strret every time, and bent down to pick it up. Idiots.
> > > > > > > Once they begin questioning this man in the balcony then
> > > > > > > McDonald, Walker and Hutson come in via the rear of the theater (the
> > > > > > > other officers came in the front). �Therefore, Postal did not even
> > > > > > > point out the LHO we all know as he was sitting in the lower level,
> >
> > > > > "Brewer did."
> >
> > > > > Who mas manning the store while this nosey guy is at the theater?
> >
> > > > � �His involvement lead to the arrest of a cop killer. Good thing he
> > > > didn`t mind his own business, who knows how many more people Oz would
> > > > have killed that day.
> >
> > > But he is pointing out in a place where Postal said by sight or sleuth
> > > deduction where the suspect went? �Bill Courson followed that lead and
> > > went up the stairs to the balcony, "reasonbly satisfied in his own
> > > mind" that he met Lee Harvey Oswald coming down the stairs.(Sneed, pg.
> > > 485). � And when other officers came through the front said, "the
> > > young man is up the stairs." �Anybody can see here, there is something
> > > terribly wrong with everything she is doing, seeing, or saying.
> >
> > � She didn`t follow him idiot, she called the cops. How could she know
> > for sure where he went.
> >
> She was firm he went there, and she saw everything according to you.
> And she called when? When she was listening to the radio? Waiting
> for Brewer to come along, over a city block behind? Yet, the officer
> was sure he had who? Oh, one, "Lee Harvey Oswald". Was Mr. Courson,
> on drugs, Bud?
What does any of this have to do with whether Oz shot a cop and
ducked into the Texas Theater? What are we to replace this with, Curt,
spell it out. Postal didn`t see Oz sneak in, Brewer never saw Oz,
either, somehow they were enlisted, dozens of cops descended on the
theater because they were told to go there and grab Oz by the
Conspiracy, Oz is just sitting there with his popcorn and gun, even
though Oswald gives them a golden opportunity to kill him by hitting a
cop, they show restraint, allowing Oz to live and risk him telling
what he knows, and our hero is whisked away where a bunch of other
people will say they saw Oz kill a cop, how they were enlisted is
unknown, all told maybe 4 dozen people, cutting across all walks of
life, involved and working in unison and perfect coordination against
Oz (in the Tippit aspect of this case alone) for no known reason only
one hour after Kennedy is killed. Whew, you most have some pretty
extraordinary evidence to support that fantastic story, right?
When?
> > > with actions observed and
> > > corroborated by two that swore he was there a good twenty minutes
> > > before Brewer arrived, Jack Davis and Butch Burroughs.
> >
> > � Show that either told the cops that Oswald was in the theater 20
> > minutes before he was arrested. For extra credit, show Davis saying
> > how long it was between when Oz sat next to him, and the house lights
> > went on.> CJ
>
> It's already been shown, Bud. Davis said Oz, who sat next to him
> during pre-movie ads, went to the concession area,
How did Davis know where he went?
> and he came back to
> the center section. After THIS, "after twenty minutes or so", "the
> house lights came on".
Why did you break it up into two different quotes? What do these
quotes look like in context, without your editting?
> When he (Oz) came back, too, the feature was
> already going (1:22 from the 1:20 start?)
Where can I find this?
> Now for extra credit, Bud
> can tell us when Postal called the police,
After Brewer made a quick check of the theater.
> or when Brewer came to the
> theater.
Shortly after Oz.
> I do know some of the later arriving police got there prior
> to 1:50. And for extra extra, credit, what was said to let them
> forget about the guy on the stairs to accede what was going on at the
> lower level?
Possibly when the real suspect started punching cops.
> CJ
Bud
It would, you`re an idiot. In a case with so mny cler indications
of Oz`s guilt, you focus on how well Postal could rememeber ticket
sales.
> > > We just had
> > > footage of a poor older man run over and left for dead in the street,
> > > and all who went up to him just walked or drove away.
> >
>
> "Was Postal one of them? How mant cell calls did they get in reporting
> this accident? What should they do, pick him up? How did you get as
> old as you are with no sense what-so-ever?"
>
> That was the whole ruckus over the incident idjit, as no one called
> for quite some time.
You`ve investigated this, and reviewed a copy of the incoming calls
and coordinated it with the video. Wow, you are talented, I thought
you were just an idiot.
> They looked and left and didn't bother to call
> the police or 911. Another priceless question from a man who believes
> in magic bullets and fairy tales.
I saw a pretty bad accident a few months back. Car hit a van
broadside, car jumped up, all 4 tires off the road, all air bags
deployed. City intersection, about 7AM, a couple dozen people came
out, I`d say the cops got maybe ten calls in less than a minute, almot
everyone on their steps had a cell phone calling. They probably would
not be seen by a helicopter zoomed in on the accident, though.
> > > She was
> > > listening to the radio, the person who really claimed he was (LHO)
> > > suspicious was Brewer, and this guy couldn't even say he was wearing a
> > > brown shirt for 2 weeks!!
> >
>
> "He said he saw Oz. Why was he out of his shoe store, idiot?"
>
> Good question, I want to know what made this guy leave his place of
> work, possibly unattended as well, to follow some guy who looks into
> his shoe store window. The whole official theory is made up.
Yah, he probably got a call from the conspiracy telling him he
needed to get out and frame someon. Idiot.
> > > Sure, a girl who mans a ticket booth in a
> > > theater, and midday no less, is so observant according to you.
> >
>
> "Your right, she was obviously waiting for Oz so she could help frame
> him. Everybody was out to get Oz that day. You folks are idiots."
>
> You miss even this simple one, no one is claiming foreknowledge on her
> part, but rather her having to go along with a ridiculous made up
> story to try and show LHO was guilty.
Ah, OK, THEY said to her after they arrested Oz (how they knew Oz
was there isn`t important, THEY know everything), to say she saw Oz
sneak into the theater, and got her to dummy a phone call to the
police after the fact, and the cops just inserted that in with the
police dispatchers (who are all in on it). How THEY got Postal to play
ball is unknown, but you know they can do it because you know if you
were in her position you would play ball and help to frame an innocent
man. Is that about it?
> > > I
> > > don't know what movies you go to but the ones I go to lately you can
> > > barely get them to wait on you let alone worry about what you are
> > > doing.
> >
>
> "Has what to do with the Texas Theater midday in 1963, your fucking
> idiot? I don`t think you`ve been to many movies lately, I don`t think
> leave your house."
>
> You can always tell when these no-nothings are feeling inadequate
> about their lack of proof, they start cursing.
Your proof seems to be that one time your mommy paid your way into
the movies. Since there was a long line then, you took that to mean
that theaters always have long lines. Like i said, you are a fucking
idiot.
One doesn`t have to assume that, I assure you one does not have to
be an idiot, it is a choice. Postal saw Oz enter the building, thats
it. She did not follow him. Therefore what part of the building he
went to upon entering the building was unknown to her. She assumed
that when Brewer confered with Burroughs, and Burroughs said he hadn`t
seen the man, that the reason Burroughs had missed him is because the
man went into the balcony.
Something else I`ve read recently over on the moderated board is
that there was another stairway that went down from the balcony to the
lower level. I haven`t checked this.
> Thus, this man was NOT LHO.
They said the man captured was the man they saw sneak in. Oswald.
robcap...@netscape.com
Since you don't understand our judicial system in the least, I'll have
to explain this to you. It is called credibility, every witness has
to be credible to be believed. The more things they can remember
correctly the more believable they will be. Since her whole purpose to
be where she was to see what she allegedly saw was to sell tickets.
Now, based on this fact, how believable is someone when they can't
remember how many tickets they sold? By her testimony she certainly
could have gone back and looked, and if not exact, it could have been
closer than a 10 ticket difference. Her inablility to do this brings
up a lot of questions that make her very unreliable for the
prosecution. Questions like, was the man she claimed to see duck in
the only one who did NOT pay? Was she selling tickets and pocketing
money so they did not show up on the tally sheet? If you have one
main duty, and hers was to sell tickets, and you can't even get the
amount right, how credible are you in terms of other things you
claimed to see and/or hear?
> > > > We just had
> > > > footage of a poor older man run over and left for dead in the street,
> > > > and all who went up to him just walked or drove away.
>
> > "Was Postal one of them? How mant cell calls did they get in reporting
> > this accident? What should they do, pick him up? How did you get as
> > old as you are with no sense what-so-ever?"
>
> > That was the whole ruckus over the incident idjit, as no one called
> > for quite some time.
>
"You`ve investigated this, and reviewed a copy of the incoming calls
and coordinated it with the video. Wow, you are talented, I thought
you were just an idiot."
Who's paranoid now idjit? I took the media's word for it when they
said it was quite some time before anyone called 911. Paranoid aren't
you?
>
> > They looked and left and didn't bother to call
> > the police or 911. Another priceless question from a man who believes
> > in magic bullets and fairy tales.
>
> I saw a pretty bad accident a few months back. Car hit a van
> broadside, car jumped up, all 4 tires off the road, all air bags
> deployed. City intersection, about 7AM, a couple dozen people came
> out, I`d say the cops got maybe ten calls in less than a minute, almot
> everyone on their steps had a cell phone calling. They probably would
> not be seen by a helicopter zoomed in on the accident, though.
>
>
>
> > > > She was
> > > > listening to the radio, the person who really claimed he was (LHO)
> > > > suspicious was Brewer, and this guy couldn't even say he was wearing a
> > > > brown shirt for 2 weeks!!
>
> > "He said he saw Oz. Why was he out of his shoe store, idiot?"
>
> > Good question, I want to know what made this
>
> ...
Bud
Ah, since she wasn`t sure how many tickets she sold she could not
have seen oswald sneak into the theater. Stellar thinking, kook.
> The more things they can remember
> correctly the more believable they will be. Since her whole purpose to
> be where she was to see what she allegedly saw was to sell tickets.
> Now, based on this fact, how believable is someone when they can't
> remember how many tickets they sold?
You think the case is about ticket theft?
> By her testimony she certainly
> could have gone back and looked, and if not exact, it could have been
> closer than a 10 ticket difference.
It is as germane to this case as her ability to remember what color
underwear she was wearing. These are the critics of the WC, folks,
these are the people who want their opinions to supplant the WC`s
conclusions. Wackos and idiots.
> Her inablility to do this brings
> up a lot of questions that make her very unreliable for the
> prosecution.
Tell me this isn`t just an idiot looking for excuses to ignore hat a
witness said.
> Questions like, was the man she claimed to see duck in
> the only one who did NOT pay? Was she selling tickets and pocketing
> money so they did not show up on the tally sheet? If you have one
> main duty, and hers was to sell tickets, and you can't even get the
> amount right, how credible are you in terms of other things you
> claimed to see and/or hear?
How much credibility does a child who thinks up endless questions
have?
> > > > > We just had
> > > > > footage of a poor older man run over and left for dead in the street,
> > > > > and all who went up to him just walked or drove away.
> >
> > > "Was Postal one of them? How mant cell calls did they get in reporting
> > > this accident? What should they do, pick him up? How did you get as
> > > old as you are with no sense what-so-ever?"
> >
> > > That was the whole ruckus over the incident idjit, as no one called
> > > for quite some time.
> >
>
> "You`ve investigated this, and reviewed a copy of the incoming calls
> and coordinated it with the video. Wow, you are talented, I thought
> you were just an idiot."
>
> Who's paranoid now idjit? I took the media's word for it when they
> said it was quite some time before anyone called 911. Paranoid aren't
> you?
Do you know the basics? When did the accident occur, and when did
the first call come in? How long exactly is "quite some time"?
Speaking of the media, here is a local headline... "Tips Increase
Amongst A Sluggish Economy." It was a story about how he police are
getting an increase in tips in cases where rewards are offered. No
science was offered making a connection between the economy and the
increase in snitching, it was just considered a given that the economy
was the cause, as if people didn`t need money last year.
> > > They looked and left and didn't bother to call
> > > the police or 911. Another priceless question from a man who believes
> > > in magic bullets and fairy tales.
> >
> > I saw a pretty bad accident a few months back. Car hit a van
> > broadside, car jumped up, all 4 tires off the road, all air bags
> > deployed. City intersection, about 7AM, a couple dozen people came
> > out, I`d say the cops got maybe ten calls in less than a minute, almost
robcap...@netscape.com
This is NOT what I said and you are distorting again. I said if she
can't keep track of her job (i.e. how many tickets she sold) how
reliable is she on other things? Besides, she said the man went to
the balcony and we all know LHO was in the lower level, so obviously
the man that "ducked in" was NOT LHO.
>
> > The more things they can remember
> > correctly the more believable they will be. Since her whole purpose to
> > be where she was to see what she allegedly saw was to sell tickets.
> > Now, based on this fact, how believable is someone when they can't
> > remember how many tickets they sold?
>
"You think the case is about ticket theft?"
No, I think the case is about lying and fabrication (in terms of the
WC), but she is certainly not presented to be believable since she
couldn't even get the amount of tickets she sold correct.
>
> > By her testimony she certainly
> > could have gone back and looked, and if not exact, it could have been
> > closer than a 10 ticket difference.
>
"It is as germane to this case as her ability to remember what color
underwear she was wearing. These are the critics of ..."
Sure, when all LNers can't compete with evidence and CS&L they resort
to juvenile comments.
Walt
> Walt,
>
> The bottom line is that your using all sorts of circular reasoning to
> make a theory that a wallet and jacket were discovered in one spot,
> and that Barrett is a liar.
Curt, If you can't see ( or refuse to see) that Barrett is a liar,
there's not much sense in dicussing this with you. There's
absolutely no doubt in my mind that Barrett was lying through his
teeth 30 years after the murder of Tippit when he told Hosty that he
saw a wallet in Westbrooks hands AT THE SCENE nera the FRONT of
Tippit's patrol car. At that point in time it shouldn't even have
been considered evidence..... I don't know if it was an officially
sanctioned lie, which was created to help blunt the impact of Oliver
Stone's movie ot not, but it is a lie.
If you want to see a good exa,ple of Barrett's making up stuff long
afterward just read the tale he told about seeing a little man with a
big shotgun who Barrett said he saw headed into the Texas theater to
apprend or shoot Oswald. According to Barrett he said he told the
little guy to stand outside the theater with that big shotgun and make
sure the suspect didn't get away out of the front of the theater, and
not to leave until he told him to. Barrett said..... "As far as I
know that little guy is still standing there"
Anybody who would believe Barrett's nonsense has to very gullible....
>
> What you need to get over is that Barrett was there. There were three
> spots where a bunch of those guys were in a very short period of time,
> the library, theTippitmurder scene, and the Texaco. The library was
> only about 3 blocks from theTippitmurder scene and the Texaco
> station was about one block. The best evidence is that the wallet was
> discovered at theTippitmurder scene, as Sgt. Croy said he went there
> and was there as the ambulance forTippitwas there. Barrett went to
> the Texas Theater with Westbrook, and came out from Dealey with
> Westbrook. So, Barrett saying what he said, seems right on about the
> contents of the wallet. It really doesn't matter where the thing was
> filmed, because the important issue is that there was a wallet and
> there was something said about the contents in it. All the other
> stuff is way secondary: The filming, you don't know what was edited
> and who took what when. From the only picture I have seen there is
> nothing to say where that film or photo of that film was shot. All
> there is, is acarbetween two cops, with the wallet. There is no
> Texaco star or anything in the background that suggests it was there.
> The only way that wallet again could have got there is by Croy to
> Owens and then walked. Westbrook and Croy both talked with Markham,
> and I don't think she was over there.
>
> As far as fingerprints, all that can come out of that is if they prove
> someone other than Oswald'sprintswere there and can be
> identifiable. That still is a possibility as far as I am concerned.
> As far as them disproving it was Oswald I can say that I think they
> were holding something back with the disparity betweeen Doughty and
> Barnes with me thinking Barnes is lying and they did have goodprints. Markham was across the street andTippit'svehicle was at the
> second house. That is not that far to see someone having a
> conversation and putting their hands on the vehicle. How the wallet
> got their is only a curiosity but is still inconsequential. The most
> odd thing, though is that there are two accounts of a civilian handing
> both items to officers, the jacket and the wallet. I believe they
> handed it to two different people.
>
> CJ
Walt
I'm sure that the wallet that was filmed by Rieland in the hands of a
cop in uniform was NOT filmed at the scene of Tippit's murder, and I'm
equally sure that the ID cards in that wallet were NOT for either
Oswald or Hidell....
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Bud
You were pretending one thing led to the other. You were doing this
because you were scrtching for a reason to disregard the information
she povided.
> I said if she
> can't keep track of her job (i.e. how many tickets she sold) how
> reliable is she on other things? Besides, she said the man went to
> the balcony
Did she follow him in, idiot?
> and we all know LHO was in the lower level, so obviously
> the man that "ducked in" was NOT LHO.
Who said they saw Oz go into the balcony?
> > > The more things they can remember
> > > correctly the more believable they will be. Since her whole purpose to
> > > be where she was to see what she allegedly saw was to sell tickets.
> > > Now, based on this fact, how believable is someone when they can't
> > > remember how many tickets they sold?
> >
>
> "You think the case is about ticket theft?"
>
> No, I think the case is about lying and fabrication (in terms of the
> WC), but she is certainly not presented to be believable since she
> couldn't even get the amount of tickets she sold correct.
How do you know one of the two numbers she gave wasn`t correct?
Markham said it was likely she left her house at 6 or seven minutes
after one. Both these numbers can be wrong, but they both can`t be
right. Since she can`t state as fact when she left her house, she is
not a credible witness, according to your logic. In fact, we can`t be
sure she ever left her house at all. You kooks seem to think arriving
at the truth requires disregarding as much information as possible.
> > > By her testimony she certainly
> > > could have gone back and looked, and if not exact, it could have been
> > > closer than a 10 ticket difference.
> >
>
> "It is as germane to this case as her ability to remember what color
> underwear she was wearing. These are the critics of ..."
>
> Sure, when all LNers can't compete with evidence and CS&L they resort
> to juvenile comments.
Using your reasoning, if Postal could not correctly say what color
underwear she was wearing that day, she is not a credible witness. She
must be able to relate all details, great and small, including the
number of tickets she sold, in order to be credible.
curtjester1
curtjester1
>
> > Walt,
>
> > The bottom line is that your using all sorts of circular reasoning to
> > make a theory that a wallet and jacket were discovered in one spot,
> > and that Barrett is a liar.
>
> Curt, If you can't see ( or refuse to see) that Barrett is a liar,
> there's not much sense in dicussing this with you. There's
> absolutely no doubt in my mind that Barrett was lying through his
> teeth 30 years after the murder of Tippit when he told Hosty that he
> saw a wallet in Westbrooks hands AT THE SCENE nera the FRONT of
> Tippit's patrol car. At that point in time it shouldn't even have
> been considered evidence..... I don't know if it was an officially
> sanctioned lie, which was created to help blunt the impact of Oliver
> Stone's movie ot not, but it is a lie.
>
thread, or it's over your head. Barrett is inconsequential to there
being a wallet. You don't know what and when the wallet(s) were
filmed. Westbrook, and all the parties were at both scenes, the
Texaco, and the Tippit murder/car scene. You're making Barrett to
being a liar when he is supporting that the important wallet is there,
and the other's in their testimony seem to have amnesia about it.
Only Sgt. Croy is able to show Barrett wasn't lying in respect's a
wallet.
> If you want to see a good exa,ple of Barrett's making up stuff long
> afterward just read the tale he told about seeing a little man with a
> big shotgun who Barrett said he saw headed into the Texas theater to
> apprend or shoot Oswald. According to Barrett he said he told the
> little guy to stand outside the theater with that big shotgun and make
> sure the suspect didn't get away out of the front of the theater, and
> not to leave until he told him to. Barrett said..... "As far as I
> know that little guy is still standing there"
>
Are you for real? Who cares about this? And it surely could have
happened, especially in Dallas.
CJ
Bud
Top Post:
<snicker> Walt and Curt are arguing over who`s kookshit smells
better.
curtjester1
> > Well, they were by the TSBD when the Tippit call came in. They had no
> > capture for the JFK crime. I am sure that Barrett could smell a
> > potential link between the two. It seems the whole police force did
> > too with so many converging out there, leaving Dealey.
>
assigned for the motorcade in general? Obviously, Hosty was doing
some disinfoing there.
> "As far as a wallet, you have Reiland, Croy, and Barrett
> unconditionally firm. Then you have seemingly complicit denyers in
> Doughty, Owens, and Westbrook. The film trumps them, and the fact
> that further film has a wallet at the murder scene. I would have to
> ask, what more would one need?"
>
> From what I have read Westbrook does NOT deny finding the wallet, in
> fact he told Barrett he found it near the body. Perhaps JDT was to
I don't see anything in Westbrook's WC testimony about that. In fact
he avoids the whole Texaco thing until they make him go over that in
the end. Is this in another interview?
> give it to the man who shot him as this was supposed to be left
> somewhere else to frame LHO, but the plans changed and JDT became
> expendable. I still think Roscoe White is a likely suspect in
> shooting JDT as he fits the description of "short, heavy-set, and
> bushy hair" (he wore a bushy hairpiece) and there was an extra police
> uniform top in the back of JDT's cruiser. I think they stopped by
Well, it 'could be'. Roscoe was seen on the or by the GK after the
shooting, and no accountability during the shooting of JFK. Tippit
doesn't have an alibi for the time of the shooting, either. LHO (Lee
not Harvey) were in the same unit at one time in the Marines.....
> LHO's boarding room, honked, and then left, but White left the car to
> look on foot for LHO, and then came back to JDT's car, said something
> that made him get out, and pow, he shot him. The general clothing
> description of the shooter was white t-shirt and black pants. This is
> what a cop would look like minus his uniform top. This is what I
> think happened. I think they were out that way as they were to escort
> the shooters to the Red Bird Airport. This is the only reason it
> makes sense for his cruiser to be out that far when every other
> cruiser (save one) was downtown. Something happened to change plans
> and make JDT expendable.
That's a lot of scenarioizing. The case is ripe for that at this
point though. I do think Tippit, gave a ride to the TSBD Oswald to
the Texas Theater. He was there even before the Tippit shooting.
Like you say, I do think he went looking for, what I consider the real
LHO and found him. From what we can gather from the crime scene,
Tippit seemed to be the aggressor as far as demand's and pulling a
weapon. The wallet would surely be key in whatever shape or form to
pin the crime on the one sitting in the Texas Theater, if not then,
eventually. I believe LHO (the real one) was the shooter of Tippit.
I know that there was a lot of eyeballing of dark pants for the
shooter, and you have a point with White, but I believe too, that the
apprehended one in the balcony had dark pants and a white shirt too.
And Courson, said as he found this guy descending down the stairs when
he arrived, as one he thought as "Lee Harvey Oswald." I don't think
they would have White in that situation as he worked for the DPD and
would have been recognizable. After the detainment in the alley they
let the real LHO go. He got in his Red Ford Falcon, and was seen in
it six blocks north of the Texas Theater in a lot behind a sign. He
looked suspicious and was confronted, and he tore out, and the man got
his license number. The plate was not a plate to that vehicle, it was
to another vehicle owned by a Jim Mather's, who was JDT's best
friend. For interesting tie-in's, Mather's worked for Collin's, which
is CIA affiliated, and where the guy was married, suddenly divorced
his wife, and then married Marina. Also, the Red Ford Falcon has been
recently discussed by that Bolden guy (I forget his job or tie-in),
who stated that LHO had a vehicle registered with a Red Ford Falcon.
So, I think in a way, White is in all this because he helps develop
the back yard photos that are going to help fry the patsy. As far as
the JDT shooting, who knows? Maybe there were the two at the scene?
One thing is known, the real LHO, by his barber, who saw him driving
his vehicle, had much thicker hair than the one they caught in the
Texas Theater, and he had his hair blocked, and cut every two weeks.
He was not heavy-set by any stretch of the imagination, though.
CJ
Walt
The point is.... Barrett is a liar. He never encountered a guy with
a shotgun.
If the cops had seen a citizen near the theater with a shotgun they
would probably have shot him as the suspect they were pursuing.
Aside from that there isn't a photo anywhere of a man standing outside
the theater holding a shotgun. Barrett simply is a liar.... and
you're a naive fool.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
I agree with you. I'm sure there is some fascinating story attached
to that wallet, but we don't know all the details. I do find it hard
to believe it was next to the body, as who would believe someone was
dumb enough to leave it there?
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
>
>
>
> > On 6 Jun, 00:29, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Walt,
>
> > > The bottom line is that your using all sorts of circular reasoning to
> > > make a theory that a wallet and jacket were discovered in one spot,
> > > and that Barrett is a liar.
>
> > Curt, If you can't see ( or refuse to see) that Barrett is a liar,
> > there's not much sense in dicussing this with you. There's
> > absolutely no doubt in my mind that Barrett was lying through his
> > teeth 30 years after the murder of Tippit when he told Hosty that he
> > saw a wallet in Westbrooks hands AT THE SCENE nera the FRONT of
> > Tippit's patrol car. At that point in time it shouldn't even have
> > been considered evidence..... I don't know if it was an officially
> > sanctioned lie, which was created to help blunt the impact of Oliver
> > Stone's movie ot not, but it is a lie.
>
> Walt, you need to stay on the sidelines here. You're not following the
> thread, or it's over your head. Barrett is inconsequential to there
> being a wallet. You don't know what and when the wallet(s) were
> filmed.
Reiland filmed the WHITE jacket that was found near the 1961 Chevrolet
which was parked in the parking lot behind Ballew's Texaco station,
and he filmed a wallet in the hands of cop in uniform AT THAT SAME
LOCATION.
THAT'S where the photo of the wallet originated.....the taillights of
the 61 Chevy can be seen in Reiland's film clip.
JD Tippit's patrol car was a 1963 Ford four door sedan. The tail
lights on a 63 Foor are round and the size of a dinner plate. I
understand you don't want to accept these FACTS because they don't fit
with your IMAGINED scenario. Furthermore Barrett claimed that
Westbrook was standing in FRONT of Tippit's patrol car when he saw the
walet in Westbrook's hands.
There was no 1961 Chevy parked anywhere near the front of Tippit's
patrol car.
Westbrook, and all the parties were at both scenes, the
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On 9 Jun, 05:29, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> On 6 Jun, 00:29, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Walt,
>>
>> > The bottom line is that your using all sorts of circular reasoning to
>> > make a theory that a wallet and jacket were discovered in one spot,
>> > and that Barrett is a liar.
>>
>> there's not much sense in dicussing this with you. =A0 =A0There's
>> absolutely no doubt in my mind that Barrett was lying through his
>> teeth 30 years after the murder of Tippit when he told Hosty that he
>> saw a wallet in Westbrooks hands AT THE SCENE nera the FRONT of
>> been considered evidence..... I don't know if it was an officially
>> sanctioned lie, which was created to help blunt the impact of Oliver
>> Stone's movie ot not, but it is a lie.
>>
>Walt, you need to stay on the sidelines here. You're not following the
>thread, or it's over your head. Barrett is inconsequential to there
>being a wallet. You don't know what and when the wallet(s) were
>filmed.
Actually, as Walt has shown, the film *ITSELF* shows where it was filmed.
>Westbrook, and all the parties were at both scenes, the
>Texaco, and the Tippit murder/car scene. You're making Barrett to
>being a liar when he is supporting that the important wallet is there,
>and the other's in their testimony seem to have amnesia about it.
>Only Sgt. Croy is able to show Barrett wasn't lying in respect's a
>wallet.
>
>
>> If you want to see a good exa,ple of Barrett's making up stuff long
>> afterward just read the tale he told about seeing a little man with a
>> big shotgun =A0who Barrett =A0said he saw headed into the Texas theater to=
>
>> apprend or shoot Oswald. =A0According to Barrett he said he told the
>> little guy to stand outside the theater with that big shotgun and make
>> sure the suspect didn't get away out of the front of the theater, and
>> not to leave until he told him to. =A0 Barrett said..... "As far as I
>> know that little guy is still standing there"
>>
>Are you for real? Who cares about this? And it surely could have
>happened, especially in Dallas.
>
>CJ
>
>> Anybody who would believe Barrett's nonsense has to very gullible....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > What you need to get over is that Barrett was there. =A0There were three=
>
>> > spots where a bunch of those guys were in a very short period of time,
>> > the library, theTippitmurder scene, and the Texaco. =A0The library was
>> > only about 3 blocks from theTippitmurder scene and the Texaco
>> > station was about one block. =A0The best evidence is that the wallet was=
>
>> > discovered at theTippitmurder scene, as Sgt. Croy said he went there
>> > and was there as the ambulance forTippitwas there. =A0Barrett went to
>> > the Texas Theater with Westbrook, and came out from Dealey with
>> > Westbrook. =A0So, Barrett saying what he said, seems right on about the
>> > contents of the wallet. =A0It really doesn't matter where the thing was
>> > filmed, because the important issue is that there was a wallet and
>> > there was something said about the contents in it. =A0All the other
>> > stuff is way secondary: =A0The filming, you don't know what was edited
>> > and who took what when. =A0From the only picture I have seen there is
>> > nothing to say where that film or photo of that film was shot. =A0All
>> > there is, is acarbetween two cops, with the wallet. =A0There is no
>> > Texaco star or anything in the background that suggests it was there.
>> > The only way that wallet again could have got there is by Croy to
>> > Owens and then walked. Westbrook and Croy both talked with Markham,
>> > and I don't think she was over there.
>>
>> > As far as fingerprints, all that can come out of that is if they prove
>> > someone other than Oswald'sprintswere there and can be
>> > identifiable. =A0That still is a possibility as far as I am concerned.
>> > As far as them disproving it was Oswald I can say that I think they
>> > were holding something back with the disparity betweeen Doughty and
>> > Barnes with me thinking Barnes is lying and they did have goodprints. =
>=A0Markham was across the street andTippit'svehicle was at the
>> > second house. =A0That is not that far to see someone having a
>> > conversation and putting their hands on the vehicle. =A0How the wallet
>> > got their is only a curiosity but is still inconsequential. =A0The most
>> > odd thing, though is that there are two accounts of a civilian handing
>> > both items to officers, the jacket and the wallet. =A0I believe they
curtjester1
> In article <c7e0e0d0-53ee-44c2-9806-654ef7573...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> curtjester1 says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 9 Jun, 05:29, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> >> On 6 Jun, 00:29, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Walt,
>
> >> > The bottom line is that your using all sorts of circular reasoning to
> >> > make a theory that a wallet and jacket were discovered in one spot,
> >> > and that Barrett is a liar.
>
> >> Curt, If you can't see ( or refuse to see) =A0that Barrett is a liar,
> >> there's not much sense in dicussing this with you. =A0 =A0There's
> >> absolutely no doubt in my mind that Barrett was lying through his
> >> teeth 30 years after the murder of Tippit when he told Hosty that he
> >> saw a wallet in Westbrooks hands AT THE SCENE nera the FRONT of
> >> Tippit's patrol car. =A0 At that point in time it shouldn't even have
> >> been considered evidence..... I don't know if it was an officially
> >> sanctioned lie, which was created to help blunt the impact of Oliver
> >> Stone's movie ot not, but it is a lie.
>
> >Walt, you need to stay on the sidelines here. You're not following the
> >thread, or it's over your head. Barrett is inconsequential to there
> >being a wallet. You don't know what and when the wallet(s) were
> >filmed.
>
> Actually, as Walt has shown, the film *ITSELF* shows where it was filmed.
>
provide something new here. Whatever that was filmed by the Texaco
doesn't have any proof of where the wallet was found, as I have been
trying to point out.
CJ
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
was extremely likely it was found at the Tippit murder scene.
> JD Tippit's patrol car was a 1963 Ford four door sedan. The tail
> lights on a 63 Foor are round and the size of a dinner plate. I
> understand you don't want to accept these FACTS because they don't fit
> with your IMAGINED scenario. Furthermore Barrett claimed that
> Westbrook was standing in FRONT of Tippit's patrol car when he saw the
> walet in Westbrook's hands.
I don't have an imagined scenario, and all you have is a tailight, and
from THAT are making too fast of speculation without support. If you
think that my reasoning is wrong, go back in the thread and try to
argue the points. I am not going to rehash all of them because you
are too lazy to.
> There was no 1961 Chevy parked anywhere near the front of Tippit's
> patrol car.
>
Doesn't matter, they found the wallet somewhere. That's why I
introduced where Barrett and Westbrook parked. If it was their
vehicle on Patton, it still wouldn't matter. You have to go by
testimony and what was filmed that day, where, and you're not.
CJ
robcap...@netscape.com
I have read all of this too, and it is interesting. The main problem
I have with Armstrong's theory is to be viable you have to have LHO
(the famous one) do all of the things the WC said he did in terms of
the time he left the TSBD until his capture, and I just don't buy it.
As I have pointed out to LNers there is no credible proof showing LHO
took a bus, a cab and then walked at supersonic speed to the Texas
Theater. You are now saying LHO was the shooter of JDT when all the
credible evidence shows he was NOT the shooter of JDT. I believe
there were several (up to three or four) men who could pass for LHO
and they did quite a few extreme things in the weeks leading up to the
assassination to leave an impression (a bad one) on those that
witnessed them.
I'm sorry, the alleged proof I have seen asserting LHO did those
actions and shot JDT is not worth anything.
Walt
Wrong!!.... I have a film clip ( the same one that you "BELIEVE" was
taken only a few feet from where Tippit died on the street) which
shows that the photo was NOT taken near the murder scene.
If you think that my reasoning is wrong, go back in the thread and
try to
argue the points. I am not going to rehash all of them because you
are too lazy to.
Listen asshole..... I'm not the one who is lazy. It is you who read
some book and accept some goofy theory, don't bother to think for
yourself..... You are exactly the type of individual that Hoover and
Johnson counted on where they decided to hoodwink the public.
And I'm not going to go back and debate irrelevant points...... Like
your claim that Westbrook and Barrett arrived at the murder scene
together.
Westbrook went directly from downtown Dallas to the parking lot behind
Ballew's Texaco station on the corner of Jefferson and Crawford. He
went there because radio traffic indicated that the killer had ran
into one of the old houses east of the Texaco station. While he was
there he examined a WHITE jacket that he speculated to have been
discarded by the killer. While he was there the report came over the
radio that the killer was in the library, so he went to the library,
only to learn that the young man in the library (who coincidentally
looked like Oswald's twin brother) was not Oswald. Then the call came
in that the killer was in the Texas theater so he went there, and
assisted in the arrest of Oswald.
FBI agent Barrett on the other hand took his white 62 Dodge and went
directly from the TSBD to the corner of 10th and Patton and parked his
car facing north on the west side of Patton. ( across the street from
Scoggin's taxi cab)
curtjester1
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
What then is it worth, Rob? Is it getting in the way of White? I
grant you there are many things in this case that will be void of 100%
proof. I only offer the best of my research and thinking on the
matter. What I am not totally giving up on is the fact that there
might be something more substantial in a concrete way to tie in LHO to
at least the Tippit murder (not the LHO arrested in the TT or who
worked at the TSBD). I would hope possibly someday, since they have
done so much research on the two Oswalds that besides pay records, and
military bases, duties, mutual friends, and event sightings; they
might come up with a different set of prints of each one. The Tippit
vehicle still could be a go on that if those prints were preserved. I
find it interesting too, that one week after the assassination the
Motor Vehicle's (different name in Texas) had Oswald' Driver's License
mailed to them. I think the Fed's came in and took all the pertinent
stuff on that and never returned it. I wonder if there were a set of
prints there, of course?
CJ
curtjester1
I didn't read this paragraph here. I know where you are going with
the non-bus/taxi thing. I don't think you can go that way just to
have to fit him in the Rambler. It probably bugs you as well as many
that he would react they way he did when the Rambler was mentioned at
the after-arrest interrogation, but I do think that they were a paid
team, and did know each other. They would have to, to balance all the
times both were said to be involved with for Marina. (I would like to
get to the bottom more of the French magazine, that had her quoted as
saying..."I was married to two husbands..."). Anyway, it would be
easy to say they were mistaken and LHO was driven to the Texas
Theater, but I do think Whaley noticing that unusual braclet of Oswald
which he had on him at arrest would be the kicker for me. As for LHO
(the real one) being a killer of Tippit, it's not too much of a
stretch for me, when others saw him with Ruby discussing the
assassination, as well as Richard Case Nagell, Rose Chermie, and that
gal from Florida. I can't go into all the Ferrie's and Bannister's
who were tied into LHO and having suspicious behavior at and around
the assassination, but I do believe since he was involved, not only in
the assassination, he would have been involved in the setting up and
framing as well. If that is so, then, killing Tippit would not be a
stretch for me, since I believe they knew each other and Tippit was
involved too.
CJ
> I'm sorry, the alleged proof I have seen asserting LHO did those
> actions and shot JDT is not worth anything.- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
>com>,
>> curtjester1 says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 9 Jun, 05:29, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> >> On 6 Jun, 00:29, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Walt,
>>
>
>> >> > make a theory that a wallet and jacket were discovered in one spot,
>> >> > and that Barrett is a liar.
>>
>
>> >> there's not much sense in dicussing this with you. =3DA0 =3DA0There's
>> >> absolutely no doubt in my mind that Barrett was lying through his
>> >> teeth 30 years after the murder of Tippit when he told Hosty that he
>> >> saw a wallet in Westbrooks hands AT THE SCENE nera the FRONT of
>
>> >> been considered evidence..... I don't know if it was an officially
>> >> sanctioned lie, which was created to help blunt the impact of Oliver
>> >> Stone's movie ot not, but it is a lie.
>>
>> >Walt, you need to stay on the sidelines here. You're not following the
>> >thread, or it's over your head. Barrett is inconsequential to there
>> >filmed.
>>
>> Actually, as Walt has shown, the film *ITSELF* shows where it was filmed.
>>
>This is old news, Ben. You either need to read up on the thread or
>provide something new here. Whatever that was filmed by the Texaco
Do you presume that it's *NOT* the wallet under discussion here???
>doesn't have any proof of where the wallet was found, as I have been
>trying to point out.
>
>CJ
Then you must posit that the wallet was found at the Tippit murder scene, then
carried over to the Texaco Station, and then somehow made enough of a splash to
warrant the camera to focus in on their examination *there* of the wallet.
Occam's Razor comes into play here - it's simply just a tad more than I'm
willing to swallow.
If, for example, someone tried to pass off a story of the MC being found behind
the coke machine on the 2nd floor - I'd reasonably point to the photographs of
it, still covered by boxes, on the 6th floor.
When you try to assert that the wallet was found at the Tippit scene, I
reasonably point out that it WAS FILMED AT THE TEXACO STATION.
Surely you have some *reasonable* sounding explanation for that fact? One that
won't make me gag trying to accept it?
>> >Westbrook, and all the parties were at both scenes, the
>> >Texaco, and the Tippit murder/car scene. =A0You're making Barrett to
>> >being a liar when he is supporting that the important wallet is there,
>> >and the other's in their testimony seem to have amnesia about it.
>> >Only Sgt. Croy is able to show Barrett wasn't lying in respect's a
>> >wallet.
>>
>> >> If you want to see a good exa,ple of Barrett's making up stuff long
>> >> afterward just read the tale he told about seeing a little man with a
>> >> big shotgun =3DA0who Barrett =3DA0said he saw headed into the Texas the=
>ater to=3D
>>
>> >> apprend or shoot Oswald. =3DA0According to Barrett he said he told the
>> >> little guy to stand outside the theater with that big shotgun and make
>> >> sure the suspect didn't get away out of the front of the theater, and
>> >> not to leave until he told him to. =3DA0 Barrett said..... "As far as I=
>
>> >> know that little guy is still standing there"
>>
>> >Are you for real? =A0Who cares about this? =A0And it surely could have
>> >happened, especially in Dallas.
>>
>> >CJ
>>
>> >> Anybody who would believe Barrett's nonsense has to very gullible....
>>
>> >> > What you need to get over is that Barrett was there. =3DA0There were =
>three=3D
>>
>> >> > spots where a bunch of those guys were in a very short period of time=
>,
>> >> > the library, theTippitmurder scene, and the Texaco. =3DA0The library =
>was
>> >> > only about 3 blocks from theTippitmurder scene and the Texaco
>> >> > station was about one block. =3DA0The best evidence is that the walle=
>t was=3D
>>
>> >> > discovered at theTippitmurder scene, as Sgt. Croy said he went there
>> >> > and was there as the ambulance forTippitwas there. =3DA0Barrett went =
>to
>> >> > the Texas Theater with Westbrook, and came out from Dealey with
>> >> > Westbrook. =3DA0So, Barrett saying what he said, seems right on about=
> the
>> >> > contents of the wallet. =3DA0It really doesn't matter where the thing=
> was
>> >> > filmed, because the important issue is that there was a wallet and
>> >> > there was something said about the contents in it. =3DA0All the other=
>
>> >> > stuff is way secondary: =3DA0The filming, you don't know what was edi=
>ted
>> >> > and who took what when. =3DA0From the only picture I have seen there =
>is
>> >> > nothing to say where that film or photo of that film was shot. =3DA0A=
>ll
>> >> > there is, is acarbetween two cops, with the wallet. =3DA0There is no
>> >> > Texaco star or anything in the background that suggests it was there.=
>
>> >> > The only way that wallet again could have got there is by Croy to
>> >> > Owens and then walked. Westbrook and Croy both talked with Markham,
>> >> > and I don't think she was over there.
>>
>> >> > As far as fingerprints, all that can come out of that is if they prov=
>e
>> >> > someone other than Oswald'sprintswere there and can be
>> >> > identifiable. =3DA0That still is a possibility as far as I am concern=
>ed.
>> >> > As far as them disproving it was Oswald I can say that I think they
>> >> > were holding something back with the disparity betweeen Doughty and
>> >> > Barnes with me thinking Barnes is lying and they did have goodprints.=
> =3D
>> >=3DA0Markham was across the street andTippit'svehicle was at the
>> >> > second house. =3DA0That is not that far to see someone having a
>> >> > conversation and putting their hands on the vehicle. =3DA0How the wal=
>let
>> >> > got their is only a curiosity but is still inconsequential. =3DA0The =
>most
>> >> > odd thing, though is that there are two accounts of a civilian handin=
>g
>> >> > both items to officers, the jacket and the wallet. =3DA0I believe the=