Oswald, Brewer, And Burroughs

[David Von Pein]

Were there two Oswalds in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63? ....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1326.html

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 9:20:50 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> Were there two Oswalds in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63? ....
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1326.html

I think everyone above, including you, is missing the boat on this
supposed back door arrest.

This story first surfaced about 25 years after the assassination, in the
writings of Jim Marrs.

Marrs notes some recollections of Bernard Haire as his source for the
conjecture - and that's all it is, conjecture - that there was a second
arrest at the back of the theatre. An arrest that most likely never
happened that you're now straining to explain. Somehow this conjecture has
become fact to the conspiracy theorist crowd.

Since Haire's statements are the original source of this story, let's
examine Haire's statements as related by Marrs in detail.

(1) In Marrs words: "Haire was opposite the rear door when police brought
a young white man out. He said the man...appeared to be flushed as if
having been in a struggle...Haire watched police put the man in a police
car and drive off."

(2) To quote Marrs: "For nearly twenty five years Haire believed he had
witnessed the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald."

(3) Per Marrs: "Haire was captured in at least one photograph taken at
the time Oswald was brought from the theatre by police."

(4) Marrs wrote: "On November 22, 1963, Haire...saw the street in front
of his business fill up with police cars. He went outside and saw a crowd
gathered at the Texas Theatre but could not see what was happening."
Marrs at no point mentions two separate arrest incidents witnessed by
Haire.

(5) Marrs' book was published in 1989. Presumably the interview took
place sometime in the period 1987 to 1989, based on the following
descriptions of Haire's account in Marrs' book: "For nearly twenty five
years Haire believed he had witnessed the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald" and
"Recently he [Haire] commented: 'I don't know who I saw arrested.'" By
deduction from the "For nearly twenty five years" and "Recently", the
interview (or interviews) must have taken place in the time period of 1987
1989, making the Marrs / Haire interview approximately 25 years after the
1963 Oswald arrest

(6) Marrs wrote, "Haire was opposite the rear door when police brought a
young man out...he was certainly under the impression that the man was
under arrest."

From the above, we can see that Marrs puts Haire - from the first day
photographic evidence - in the front of the theatre at the time Oswald is
brought out of the theatre. He also stresses that Haire always thought he
witnessed the arrest of Oswald. He says the man Haire saw appeared to have
been in a struggle and was put into a police car and driven off. Marrs
never mentions that Burroughs ever thought he saw two arrests of two
different men, one of the Oswald. In fact, that he witnessed only one
arrest is clear by the statement that Burroughs always thought he
witnessed the arrest of Oswald- not separate arrests of Oswald in the back
and another arrest of some other man in the front.

Clearly there's a conflict between Haire's 25-year-later recollection and
the known facts of the case. We known Oswald was brought out the front of
the theatre. We know Oswald was in a struggle in the theatre. We know he
was put into a police car and driven off. We know Haire was in the front
of the theatre when Oswald was brought out.

All that says Haire saw Oswald brought out the front of the theatre.

Twenty-file years later, he simply remembered it differently, and
remembered it being in the back of the theatre. If this was anything else,
like a baseball player relating hitting three home runs in a baseball game
he played on 1963 against the Phillies that the documented evidence didn't
support, but there was a record of him hitting three homers against the
Cubs, we'd chalk it up to a false memory and move on. It wouldn't become a
centerpiece of an attempt to claim a conspiracy. Nobody would suspect the
memory is true and the evidence is false. Or that it happened two
different ways, once in Philadelphia and once in Chicago, and the Philly
home runs were covered up.

But this is the Kennedy assassination, and we're dealing with what used to
be called the lunatic fringe, so all bets are off. And somehow it becomes
our responsibility to disprove every theory - no matter how bizarre - they
can come up with.

It also doesn't make sense that Haire would leave the front of the theatre
to go around the back. His claim is he couldn't see the arrest so that was
his motivation to move. But did he think he could see the arrest better
with the theatre intervening? I suspect he simply remembered his actions
in reverse order. He looked down the alley and saw the police and walked
down there. But nothing was happening and he therefore went to the front
and saw the arrest of Oswald, and what he describes of the arrest he
witnessed certainly matches with the historical record of Oswald's arrest.

Try to remember it's not our responsibility to explain away their
theories. The burden of proof still lies with the ones advancing the
bizarre claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The
burden of proof still rests with the conspiracy nuts. Not with you. Or
me.

You're trying to explain an apparent false memory by Haire that he saw the
arrest in the rear of the theatre, when the evidence puts him in the front
at the right time, and everything he relates agrees with the historical
record except the location. You're buying into a false memory as recalled
by one witness and an add-on piece of BS by Butch Burroughs that he's now
telling four or five decades after the fact? A supposed fact that he never
got around to mentioning before?

Note the double standard in how the witnesses are treated by conspiracy
theorists. Johnny Brewer's statements are questioned because "Brewer's
first statement was made on 12/6/63, two weeks after the assassination,
not the same day or the day after, which would have been preferable for an
important witness."

But conspiracy witnesses are treated differently. Haire didn't relate his
story not for two weeks, but for over two DECADES. Burroughs didn't add
the popcorn at 1:15 story for at least as long, and he took another two
decades or so to expand on that to say he saw the second arrested man
taken out the back. But those and others (like Jack Davis and Tommy Rowe)
are mentioned in the thread with no one questioning how come they took
years or decades to come forward with their stories.

In his Warren Commission testimony, when asked what he saw or heard, he
only describes the arrested man brought out the front. Here's the
exchange:
== quote ==

Mr. BALL. Did you hear or see any trouble between this man and the police?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Well, I heard a struggle from outside, but I really couldn't
tell.
Mr. BALL. What did you hear?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Well, I couldn't hear anything on the inside, but when they
brought him out, he was hollering and raising, "I demand my rights," and
all that.
== unquote ==

If he saw a second man brought out the back door, shouldn't he have at
least asked, "Which man are you talking about? I saw two!" or something
similar?

On a separate note, I see at least one CT attempting to explain that there
were two Oswalds, the real one and a double, both in the theatre at the
same time. As he tells it, Brewer saw the fake one, but even though both
were still in the theatre, he picks out the Oswald he didn't see, as that
one was supposedly in theatre at least a half-hour earlier. Could the
conspirators count on Brewer picking out the wrong guy?

And another issue: Which Oswald showed up at the rooming house at about
one o'clock? Mrs. Roberts certainly knew the real Oswald better than Butch
Burroughs, and with both of them claiming to see Oswald at about the same
time, the doubt has to be resolved in Mrs. Roberts favor in any reasonable
reconstruction, not least because she came forward the same day versus
Burroughs waiting decades to relate his popcorn story, and Oswald in
custody claimed he went back to the rooming house before going to the
theatre. That helps confirm Roberts account.

Haire saw the arrest in the front of the theatre and simply remembered it
in a different location about 25 years later. Burroughs made up a couple
of stories decades after the fact that fits into that so he continue to
get interviews from the fringe and can feel important.

Hank

[David Von Pein]

Good post, Hank. Thanks very much.

[David Von Pein]

Also See:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kxQRgzj7CRA/XTcWbCpWAcI/AAAAAAABSQU/1gvVDaqjTgQmCcLFahCuT7XQ3WWGpfcaACLcBGAs/s1600-h/Reclaiming-History-Book-Excerpt-Regarding-Butch-Burroughs.png

[Ace Kefford]

On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 9:20:50 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

> Were there two Oswalds in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63? ....
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1326.html

Hey, recently they were getting all hot and bothered about this "issue" on
the ED Forum.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Yeah, the link to that discussion is buried within the above blog by DVP.

If you click on the above link and find this reference "JIM HARGROVE SAID
THIS." Click on the "THIS" in blue and it takes you to the ED forum.
That's how I found that discussion.

When I said everyone is missing the boat on this, I was particularly
referencing the posters on the ED forum.

Hank