Texas Theatre Theatrics

Tue 15 May 2018, 11:34 am

First topic message reminder :

Ed Ledoux wrote:

When police were called to the Texas Theater the description was of a man sneaking into the theater with a shotgun.
This was broadcast by the Dallas Police Department dispatcher.
Why else would police descend upon the TT in such force? Dozens of armed cops for a kid sneaking into the balcony?
So,,,Whom gave Julia Postal this description? Since she claims not to have actually seen the individual whom Brewer asked her about.
Brewer claims he is responsible for that description since he followed the person from down the street. Wouldn't Julia tell police this?
Surely she did not tell them she saw the person, so she had to rely on Brewer for this. Yet where did a shotgun get introduced if not by Postal.

Tue 22 Mar 2022, 10:40 am

What are you saying Mick?

Are you somehow claiming the DPD avoided Lee's Alibi.

AGAIN!?!?

Come on man. what are the odds the cops do that twice for two murders?

I'd say highly likely but what do I know...
Cheers

Tue 22 Mar 2022, 10:55 am

Ed.Ledoux wrote:What are you saying Mick?

Are you somehow claiming the DPD avoided Lee's Alibi.

AGAIN!?!?

Come on man. what are the odds the cops do that twice for two murders?

I'd say highly likely but what do I know...
Cheers

Macca couldn't bring himself to file the charge of attempted murder....he let that one slip.

They say timing's everything - the Dallas cops were onto that. Their false reports and the police radio logs tell us that.
Shame they couldn't keep some of the eye witnesses in line. Ossie in the theater at 1:07pm doesn't work for them so they fiddle the books and forget to interview witnesses.

You know a lot Ed, you know more than most. I'd say you're bang on target!

Tue 22 Mar 2022, 11:50 am

Mick_Purdy wrote:If Oswald did have a gun - which is most likely what happened

How so?

Good question. I guess my "standard" thinking on this has always been: if you're going to fabricate an interrogation report where Oswald admits carrying a pistol, why not have him admit to owning a rifle too? Clearly they messed with Oswald's statements on several key issues - like his alibi and changing his shirt - but it's seems a bit of a stretch to twist a hard denial, or even an accusation of planted evidence into an admission.

Then again, if a random gun really was stuck in Oswald's pocket to instigate a scenario, he would have immediately known he was being railroaded and could have just been indignant and making snarky comments to play along.

Mick_Purdy wrote:If the Texas Theater story held any water Lee would have been charged with attempted murder of McDonald.
And McDonald could testify to that effect.
But that never happened.

Because these stories are fabrications of the truth.

If a charge wasn’t leveled at Oswald for resisting and for attempting murder of McDonald then one must discount the theatrics.

Totally agree. I said basically the same thing in the other thread:

"One thought I’ve had a few times is if Oswald really pulled a gun on a cop and even pulled the trigger, why wouldn’t they charge him for it? At that point their case was entirely based on a generic description broadcast of the average American white guy."

Do you think the gun was planted? Or entirely fabricated after the fact?

Tue 22 Mar 2022, 12:11 pm

if you're going to fabricate an interrogation report where Oswald admits carrying a pistol, why not have him admit to owning a rifle too?

They slapped down a couple of B&W prints on the table in front of Oswald showing him allegedly holding the murder weapon - I don't think they needed much else.

It's the Police or other agents who tell us what Oswald has allegedly said. The only words we have of Oswald that we can be sure of are the ones recorded by the media on their cameras at the DPD.

Tue 22 Mar 2022, 12:17 pm

To my mind there are only three scenarios for the gun in the theater which ends up in evidence and used against Oswald.

Oswald carried a gun and McDonald wrestled this away from him.

Police carried the gun and tried planting it on Oswald but in doing so caused Oswald to resist aggressively.

Police (McDonald) tried to shoot Oswald with a throw down gun from police stolen property department but the firing pin failed.

There may be variations to the above but I can't see how there's much wriggle room here.

Wed 23 Mar 2022, 12:23 am

It’s not unusual for charges to be added later to the initial indictment. It’s also possible that McDonald struck the first blow and they knew they were on legal thin ice but didn’t let this stop them from poisoning the well with public statements.

The passage from the book cited suggests that Oswald was attempting to make a pre-arranged clandestine contact in the theater. But there is a good reason to be very skeptical of this account. I’m not a spy or writer of spy novels but I would surmise that such contacts are intended to facilitate safe, reliable contact between two parties who may not know each other without arousing suspicion. I would think that at least one of the parties would be told to do something to distinguish themselves to the other party such as sit in a particular location, wear a particular colored shirt etc. that would make him recognizable but inconspicuous to anyone else present. This is to prevent trying to contact a non-involved bystander. That Oswald was reported to have sat next to two men and a pregnant woman itself aroused suspicion and suggests he had no idea who he was supposed to meet. I could understand one mistaken attempt at contact until the eyes are adapted to the darkness. But three? Doesn’t sound like great planning. Sounds like a gag frequently used in spy comedies.

Either Oswald was cruising the theater for sex or, more likely, the account is at least an embellishment if not false.

For the sake of argument, if Oswald WAS making a clandestine contact in the theater, would he have looked in to the shoe store to see if Marina and Ruth were there? If they were, how would he break away to make his rendezvous at the theater?

If Oswald arrived at the theater as early as 1:00 PM, wouldn’t he have waited in a queue outside the theater to buy his ticket and wouldn’t he have been spotted by other people? Did Burrows ever mention collecting Oswald’s ticket stub?

Wed 23 Mar 2022, 1:19 am

It's important to keep in mind that Oswald admitted he had the pistol with him. He also denied ever being in Mexico and he also denied owning a rifle. The surrounding evidence with these three pieces make sense - further research shows that he was never in Mexico nor owned the rifle he was accused of using to kill Kennedy. Equally important is he admitted he had a pistol at the theater, which dovetails with the false story that he shot Tippit with it then fled to the theater to hide out.

In other words, someone probably told him to bring the pistol to the theater. He said he didn't think there'd be any more work that day so he left. It makes no logical sense for him to decide to bring his gun with him like a casual movie goer would also throw change and his wallet in his pockets.

I do believe he was playing coy with the DPD when he said, "you know how boys are..." but he was obviously NOT playing coy when he blurted out he was a patsy because he had been in Russia. Even he was smart enough to put two and two together to see what was slowing shaping up for him.

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340577/m1/3/

I think it's important to read State Secret by Bill Simpich. Yes, we know that it's speculation but cops speculate all of the time on cases. This one is no different and IMO, Simpich did a really good job of making sense of the how and where things took place leading up to 11/22, especially how DPD was so quick to suddenly point the finger at LHO mere minutes after JFK's murder.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret.html

Wed 23 Mar 2022, 4:46 am

As I pointed out earlier, a non-sinister explanation for Oswald bringing a pistol to the theater was that Oak Cliff was a rough section of Dallas. On a normal day.

However, going out front to watch the parade where he could not possibly be unaware that the president was shot at and possibly wounded/killed, discussing it with no one, making no further inquiries but just leaving work to go to the movies is just a little bit strange. Either he feared arrest, feared for his personal safety or left to bring attention to himself as a red herring.

The nexus between Tippit, Oswald and the theater is Johnny Brewer. Did he see anything? Did he he something that was later spun to conveniently fit a story (that would explain the two-week delay in his affidavit) or did he have a pre-planned role to bring attention to the theater?

Wed 23 Mar 2022, 5:48 am

As I pointed out earlier, a non-sinister explanation for Oswald bringing a pistol to the theater was that Oak Cliff was a rough section of Dallas. On a normal day.

Uhhh....no. Don't think so. This was 60 years ago and it looks like a decent neighborhood per photos from that error.

However, going out front to watch the parade where he could not possibly be unaware that the president was shot at and possibly wounded/killed, discussing it with no one, making no further inquiries but just leaving work to go to the movies is just a little bit strange. Either he feared arrest, feared for his personal safety or left to bring attention to himself as a red herring.

There is no solid evidence that shows us he was the triggerman. So if he wasn't, and if there's no evidence showing he was, why would you expect an innocent man to fear for his life?

The nexus between Tippit, Oswald and the theater is Johnny Brewer. Did he see anything? Did he he something that was later spun to conveniently fit a story (that would explain the two-week delay in his affidavit) or did he have a pre-planned role to bring attention to the theater?

You should read State Secret. Johnny Brewer with some kind of pre-planned role? It's starting to sound like every Tom. Dick and Harry who looked at Oswald that day had "something to do with it."

Wed 23 Mar 2022, 7:03 am

It's important to keep in mind that Oswald admitted he had the pistol with him.

No, that's what the reports say he said - there is a chasm of difference between what was recorded of him in the hallways of the DPD on camera and what the authorities had claimed he'd said after the fact. Especially anything written up after he was murdered on the Sunday - I'd suggest it was open slather by then.

Wed 23 Mar 2022, 7:54 am

OK so the report says he said he had a pistol, didn't go to Mexico, and didn't own a rifle. So why in the world would they fake it here and fake that he did have a pistol, but not fake that he didn't go to Mexico and didn't have the rifle? Faking these would have helped their case, yet they left those alone.

Your logic, Mick, makes no sense.

Wed 23 Mar 2022, 8:44 am

I never said Oswald was the triggerman. He was likely out front just as he said (Prayer-Man) or on the first floor. His role in the assassination could have been just as a lookout to allow others access to the TSBD.

This reference says the Dallas murder rate in 1963 was 0.15/1000 residents or 15 per 100,000 residents.

https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/january/dallas-crime-rates-through-the-decades/

Nationally, the murder rate in 1963 was 4.6 per 100,000 according to this reference:

https://www.infoplease.com/us/crime/homicide-rate-1950-2014

So Dallas was significantly more violent than the country and it is my understanding based on Greg’s article and the Dale Myers citation of someone who lived there at the time that Oak Cliff was pretty rough.

Thanks for the “State Secret” link.

Wed 23 Mar 2022, 10:49 am

Lee only needed to own a pistol to be questioned about it... It's found it in his possessions at Ruth's or at his "house"

DId Lee lie about busses and cab... or did the cops?
The transfer and bullets supposedly in his pockets are lies by police. Proven so beyond a shadow of a doubt. No Oswald fingerprints on the bus pass, I guarantee. I would not be surprised if McWatters were lacking too.

So Lee doesn't think Buell will swear about curtain rods story?
So Lee doesn't think the authorities can trace a weapons serial number to a purchase?
So Lee doesn't think the authorities can check border crossings to Mexico?

Of course he is truthful about them.
what benefit is it to lie about truthful things.
what benefits come from agreement of untrue things.

Pistol purchase was not from Seaport but some place in Ft Worth months ago per Lee, per notes etc. Did they make that up.
Of course they aren't showing Lee any Pistol especially one from Tippit murder.
So Lee is not aware of the switch out.

Lee might have gotten it from Robert for all we know and Lee is protecting him from being charged as accessory to a crime.

I'm not aware of any fingerprints or fiber or residue connections to Lee regarding Pistol or bullets.
If there were none that's HUGE!

Wed 23 Mar 2022, 12:18 pm

A summary report of the WFAA interview with Lardarse Macca and Paul "Who put the bent in" Bentley.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11358#relPageId=75

The McDonald-WFAA interview.

www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140#relPageId=830

Oswald was "cool" according to Lardarse Macca because he had time after committing the crime, to get hinself under control.

Lardarse should have handed that memo over to Roy Truly. Because Roy had him as "cool as a cucumber" during the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter - less than 2 minutes after the assassination.

www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=104398#relPageId=443

As for the pistol... why do the cops have Oswald admitting having it and not also the rifle?

Because even though they insisted the rifle belonged to Oswald, they had no witnesses to him having it in hand that day. And only belatedly through Marina and fakearse photos did they have it in his hands at any time whatsoever.

But for the arrest story to hold and the Tippit shooting to hold, they needed him to admit to having the pistol. The whole Oak Cliff phase of the narrative relied upon him having that pistol. They did not need to put the admission in his mouth about the rifle. And that goes back the first rule of "verballing" - putting incriminating words in the mouth of a suspect - you do it to the extent you need to and definitely no more than that because the more shit you put in the suspects mouth, the more easily that shit will all be spat out, hit the fan and fly back at you.

Was the pistol a throwdown? Of course it was.

The two rules of throwdowns. They can't be traced back to the cops or anyone associated with cops - and they are disabled so no little accidents can happen.

My best guess is that it was purchased as part of the mail order weapons investigation and when it's usefulness in that was accomplished, it was given to police who disabled it and added it to the collection of throwdowns they keep. It may have been a similar story with the rifle. In any event, someone knew to use the two weapons purchased by the ficticious Hidell in the frame.

The fact that Hill identified the shells at the scene as from an automatic, exonerates him as being involved in any existing plot, though he does seem to have participated in the cover-up.

The Church has been mentioned in the search for the Tippit killer -- but it was NOT searched.

The officers who went to the door were met there by two females who assured them that there were no strangers in the building. They took the word of the ladies and no search was conducted.

Wed 23 Mar 2022, 12:59 pm

Possible TT scenario.

The tippoff about the TT did not come from Postal. If she phoned the cops at all, it was about one or more kids sneaking in and going up to the balcony. The tipoff could be from a handful of peeps we know and love. Or someone we don't know at all.

Brewer did not follow anyone to the TT.

He did go up there when the cops arrived to see what was going on. He possibly tells one of the arresting officers as he sees Oswald being led out, that he had seen the suspect earlier, looking in his shop window. The cops keep that in the back pocket.

No statements are taken from the two key witnesses Brewer and Postal, for a over a week. That gives cops tiime to hammer out all the kinks in their growing fakearse narrative.

Postal is vulnerable to police leverage due to her background (abortion, mob connections per the work of John Manning). Brewer is simply ambitious, and a promotion is organized for his cooperation.

Wed 23 Mar 2022, 1:54 pm

For your scenario to be true Greg, it had to be known that Oswald was inside the theater, right? Either he was driven there, took bus/taxi/walked and was followed or was supposed to be there at a pre-arranged time.

Do you think the “fight” was a deliberate provocation to provide an opportunity to plant the pistol on Oswald?

It was TWO WEEKS before Brewer gave a statement!

Do you think Oak Cliff was dangerous enough for it to be reasonable for Oswald to cary a pistol for his own protection?

Wed 23 Mar 2022, 2:58 pm

JFK_Case wrote:OK so the report says he said he had a pistol, didn't go to Mexico, and didn't own a rifle. So why in the world would they fake it here and fake that he did have a pistol, but not fake that he didn't go to Mexico and didn't have the rifle? Faking these would have helped their case, yet they left those alone.

Your logic, Mick, makes no sense.

No, you're wrong -read what I've said. I said the report states he had a pistol. End of story faking this and faking that has nothing to do with it.
It's you who has stated that Oswald said he carried a pistol - I say that's what they wrote down in a report - it does not make it true. They wrote many things which didn't add up or make sense.
We don't know what Oswald said period! Except for those fleeting moments when he was caught on camera in the hallways and at the media gathering.

Wed 23 Mar 2022, 7:31 pm

If what Greg has argued about the Tippit murder is true (that this was a fortuitously-timed unrelated murder pinned on Oswald by the cops), the general consensus about the Walker shooting is also true (that it was either a self-promotional stunt or sour grapes from one of Walker's associates, with nothing to do with Oswald, tied to the case unconvincingly by neo-nazis), and the attempt on Nixon was a belated utter fabrication by Marina, one is faced with a clear pattern of the authorities hanging crimes on Oswald that either were fabricated or unrelated. Piling crimes on his rap sheet. There was little Oswald could do to protest.

It's reminiscent of the way that serial killers such as the Zodiac killer have reputedly had multiple unsolved homicides falsely blamed on them. When the suspect is nowhere to be found, unreliable, or dead, who's to say he didn't commit any number of other unsolved crimes? Cops can unload some cold cases and the public can lazily tally a few more seconds on to the two minutes hate of the accused.

What Mick wrote about Oswald not being officially liable for his supposed attempt on a cop's life in the Texas Theatre is very enlightening. I'd say that's one of those negative templates Peter Dale Scott talks about.

I think the DPD didn't have confidence in their muddled account of Oswald's arrest. They'd state it but they weren't going anywhere near a courtroom with it even after Oswald was dead.

Wed 23 Mar 2022, 8:03 pm

"'m not aware of any fingerprints or fiber or residue connections to Lee regarding Pistol or bullets.
If there were none that's HUGE!"

Roe will not agree.....

Wed 23 Mar 2022, 8:12 pm

Gus Rose took no notes during Oswald’s chat, but in this article in 1998 for D Magazine he said the following about what Oswald said.
"The suspect had suffered a small red abrasion over his right eye while scuffling with officers at the Texas Theatre in Oak Cliff. But the young man didn’t seem dazed or confused at all. He was angry and arrogant. "I don’t know what I’m doing here," he said.
A homicide detective for only three years. Rose would later gain renown as a skilled interrogator. Blocking out the hubbub, he turned his attention to the hostile suspect.
"I don’t own a gun," the man said. "I didn’t have that gun. They planted that on me when they arrested me."
"Have you ever owned a gun of your own?" Rose asked evenly.
"No," he retorted. "I never owned one."

From my paper Anatomy of Lee Harvey Oswald's Interrogations.

Thu 24 Mar 2022, 12:48 am

barto wrote:Gus Rose took no notes during Oswald’s chat, but in this article in 1998 for D Magazine he said the following about what Oswald said.
"The suspect had suffered a small red abrasion over his right eye while scuffling with officers at the Texas Theatre in Oak Cliff. But the young man didn’t seem dazed or confused at all. He was angry and arrogant. "I don’t know what I’m doing here," he said.
A homicide detective for only three years. Rose would later gain renown as a skilled interrogator. Blocking out the hubbub, he turned his attention to the hostile suspect.
"I don’t own a gun," the man said. "I didn’t have that gun. They planted that on me when they arrested me."
"Have you ever owned a gun of your own?" Rose asked evenly.
"No," he retorted. "I never owned one."

From my paper Anatomy of Lee Harvey Oswald's Interrogations.

If his manifesto can be taken at face value (and I think it can be), he was against private citizens having pistols. He also thought everyone who wanted a shotgun should be issued on free. Can't recall his take on rifles... but dealing strictly with the arrest and whether or not a throwdown was used, I think his manifesto becomes very relavent.

His manifesto, as it petained to pistol ownership, may be relavent to any involvement he had in ordering it.

Thu 24 Mar 2022, 1:06 am

barto wrote:Gus Rose took no notes during Oswald’s chat, but in this article in 1998 for D Magazine he said the following about what Oswald said.
"The suspect had suffered a small red abrasion over his right eye while scuffling with officers at the Texas Theatre in Oak Cliff. But the young man didn’t seem dazed or confused at all. He was angry and arrogant. "I don’t know what I’m doing here," he said.
A homicide detective for only three years. Rose would later gain renown as a skilled interrogator. Blocking out the hubbub, he turned his attention to the hostile suspect.
"I don’t own a gun," the man said. "I didn’t have that gun. They planted that on me when they arrested me."
"Have you ever owned a gun of your own?" Rose asked evenly.
"No," he retorted. "I never owned one."

From my paper Anatomy of Lee Harvey Oswald's Interrogations.

I don’t think the article helps the case for the gun being planted on Oswald. Rose suspects Oswald was lying. And according to the article, Oswald said he had no family and worked at a printing company which we know are false. So that doesn’t help the credibility of Oswald’s claim that the gun was planted on him.

I looked into cases where police planted evidence on people. Almost all the examples were for drugs but there were a few cases of firearms. Planted firearms were either placed in the suspect’s vehicle when the suspect was not looking or on the ground near where the suspect had been. I didn’t see any case of police planting a firearm directly on the person of someone still alive. I’m not saying it absolutely couldn’t happen but it seems like a difficult thing to do, which is probably why I couldn’t find any examples of it taking place.

If the article is correct, the Hidell identification was apparently not planted on Oswald as Oswald did not seem to contest it’s authenticity.

Thu 24 Mar 2022, 3:39 am

lanceman wrote:For your scenario to be true Greg, it had to be known that Oswald was inside the theater, right? Either he was driven there, took bus/taxi/walked and was followed or was supposed to be there at a pre-arranged time.

Do you think the “fight” was a deliberate provocation to provide an opportunity to plant the pistol on Oswald?

It was TWO WEEKS before Brewer gave a statement!

Do you think Oak Cliff was dangerous enough for it to be reasonable for Oswald to cary a pistol for his own protection?

I believe he took at least 2 buses to get directly there. That was what Inspector Kelley stated in his interrogation report before later stating that Oswald changed his tune after finding out they had different informatioon from a cab driver. That change in story though was just more police "verbaling".

Here is some testimony from Truly that may hold a clue.

Mr. McCLOY. Did he have the use of a telephone when he was in the building?
Mr. TRULY. Yes, sir. We have a telephone on the first floor that he was free to use during his lunch hour for a minute. He was supposed to ask permission to use the phone. But he could have used the phone.
Mr. DULLES. Pay telephone or office telephone?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir; it is a regular office telephone. It is a pushbutton type.
Mr. McCLOY. Did he strike you as being a frequent user of that telephone?
Mr. TRULY. I never remember ever seeing him on the telephone.
Mr. DULLES. Would you have any record or be able to find out now whether he had ever used it?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir.

So there was a phone he could use for free and that he could potentially use any time.

Shelley saw him near that phone at about 11:50.

Mr. BALL. On November 22, 1963, the day the President was shot, when is the last time you saw Oswald?
Mr. SHELLEY. It was 10 or 15 minutes before 12.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. SHELLEY. On the first floor over near the telephone.

From Mrs Paine

Mrs. PAINE - He did give her, I think, $10, just prior, or some time close to the time of the assassination, because she planned to buy some shoes.
Mr. JENNER - Shoes for herself, or her children?
Mrs. PAINE - For herself, flat s. But when he gave that to her I am not certain. I do know that we definitely planned to go out on Friday afternoon, the 22d of November, to buy those shoes. We did not go.

I suspect that shoe shops in Irving were pretty thin on the ground in 1963, but there were 3 shoes shops close to the Texas Theater.

Did he phone to find out about meeting them in Oak Cliff after work? Was he (and he alone) told prior to the motorcade that they would have the afternoon off? He was allegedly told that was the case, rgiough supposedly only in the context of the assassination. But I imagine some employees in Dallas did give time off because of the motorcade - indeed, I believe some schools closed early for it. In any case,being told they would close early that day may not have sounded far-fetched.

So... he phones and makes arrangements to meet them. He gets there, can't see them waiting in wherever they agreed to and starts looking in shoe shop windows. Not finding them, he phones again and Ruth saus they are running late and won't make it for a couple of hours and suggests he goes and watches a movie. Then she makes a call...

All very speculative and circumstantial but it addresses all of the issues. .I think a theater was where someone wanted him in order to set up a scenario that make him look like a Soviet agent meeting a contact. Someone who was very familiar with the Rosenberg trial.

Of course, 101 things could have gone wrong. It was not an essential part of the plot, but a nice touch as a bonus play if it came off.

Thu 24 Mar 2022, 4:19 am

lanceman wrote:

barto wrote:Gus Rose took no notes during Oswald’s chat, but in this article in 1998 for D Magazine he said the following about what Oswald said.
"The suspect had suffered a small red abrasion over his right eye while scuffling with officers at the Texas Theatre in Oak Cliff. But the young man didn’t seem dazed or confused at all. He was angry and arrogant. "I don’t know what I’m doing here," he said.
A homicide detective for only three years. Rose would later gain renown as a skilled interrogator. Blocking out the hubbub, he turned his attention to the hostile suspect.
"I don’t own a gun," the man said. "I didn’t have that gun. They planted that on me when they arrested me."
"Have you ever owned a gun of your own?" Rose asked evenly.
"No," he retorted. "I never owned one."

From my paper Anatomy of Lee Harvey Oswald's Interrogations.

I don’t think the article helps the case for the gun being planted on Oswald. Rose suspects Oswald was lying. And according to the article, Oswald said he had no family and worked at a printing company which we know are false. So that doesn’t help the credibility of Oswald’s claim that the gun was planted on him.

I looked into cases where police planted evidence on people. Almost all the examples were for drugs but there were a few cases of firearms. Planted firearms were either placed in the suspect’s vehicle when the suspect was not looking or on the ground near where the suspect had been. I didn’t see any case of police planting a firearm directly on the person of someone still alive. I’m not saying it absolutely couldn’t happen but it seems like a difficult thing to do, which is probably why I couldn’t find any examples of it taking place.

If the article is correct, the Hidell identification was apparently not planted on Oswald as Oswald did not seem to contest it’s authenticity.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/bs-md-ci-baltimore-police-settlement-planted-gun-20211103-necn2pggcffcvodwqhm7ltqoqm-story.html

Thu 24 Mar 2022, 4:43 am

Lanceman wrote:The passage from the book cited suggests that Oswald was attempting to make a pre-arranged clandestine contact in the theater.

This was at the heart of luring him ro the TT.

He would be killed and a throwdown pistol used to justify it. On his person would be found a boxtop.

Cinemas and box tops came up in the Rosenberg trial as the place and manner of meeting Soviet contacts.

After Oswald's death, another aspect of the Rosenberg case was adapted for use against Oswald.

Aline Mosby's 1959 story on Oswald was rewritten after the assassination to now include the claim that he told her he had taken to Marxism at 15 after being given a pamphlet on the Rosenberg case in New York. This story was asapted from a letter Rosenberg wrote from prison, stating that he had come to Marxism via a pamphlet he was given in New York at the age of 15 about the imprisoned unionist Tom Mooney.

Too many witnesses in the TT who could see and hear him shouting that he was not resisting. His life was temporarily spared, but creating the pretext to kill him had already played out.

I would also venture that at this point, he was NOT a Tippit suspect.The pistol just a non-worling prop being used to justify killing the JFK assassin. When it was quickly decided back at City Hall to pin Tippit on him as well, the automatic used had to become the piece of shit they forced on him aat the theatre.

Texas Theatre Theatrics

Texas Theatre Theatrics

Re: Texas Theatre Theatrics

Re: Texas Theatre Theatrics

Re: Texas Theatre Theatrics

Re: Texas Theatre Theatrics

Re: Texas Theatre Theatrics

Re: Texas Theatre Theatrics

Re: Texas Theatre Theatrics

Re: Texas Theatre Theatrics

Re: Texas Theatre Theatrics

Re: Texas Theatre Theatrics

Re: Texas Theatre Theatrics

Re: Texas Theatre Theatrics

Re: Texas Theatre Theatrics

Re: Texas Theatre Theatrics

Re: Texas Theatre Theatrics

Re: Texas Theatre Theatrics

Re: Texas Theatre Theatrics

Re: Texas Theatre Theatrics

Re: Texas Theatre Theatrics

Re: Texas Theatre Theatrics

Re: Texas Theatre Theatrics

Re: Texas Theatre Theatrics

Re: Texas Theatre Theatrics

Re: Texas Theatre Theatrics

Re: Texas Theatre Theatrics

Re: Texas Theatre Theatrics