Mr. BALL. A witness testified yesterday that as the police brought Oswald from the theater to the car, that two men were standing beside him, were walking beside him, and that another officer had his arm around his neck and under his chin so as to close his mouth —- did you see anything like that ?

Mr. HAWKINS. I don’t recall anyone having him around the neck at that time. ( 7 H 95 )

A fleeing Oswald

Nothing makes less sense than the official version of Oswald’s movements after the killing of J.D. Tippit. The Warren Commission concluded that Oswald took 14 minutes to travel from his rooming house to the Tippit murder scene, a total of 1.1 miles. It also concluded that it took him 24 minutes to travel from the Tippit murder scene to the Texas Theater, a distance of only .6 miles and measured by author Barry Ernest to be a 10 minute walk.

But the timing and distance of Oswald’s flight from Tenth and Patton is not the only problem in the official scenario. The Commission’s own witnesses’ descriptions of the events raises questions as to the identity of the man they saw.

To understand what went on here and to provide you with an alternative scenario that fills in the blanks in what officialdom has accepted as history, it is necessary to first look at the official version as published in the Warren Report.

The official version

One of the persons who heard the sirens was Johnny Calvin Brewer, manager of Hardy’s Shoe Store, a few doors east of the Texas Theater. Brewer knew from radio broadcasts that the President had been shot and that a patrolman had also been shot in Oak Cliff. When he heard police sirens, “he looked up and saw the man enter the lobby”, a recessed area extending about 15 feet between the sidewalk and the front door of his store.

A police car made a U-turn, and as the sirens grew fainter, the man in the lobby “looked over his shoulder and turned around and walked up West Jefferson toward the theater.” The man wore a T-shirt beneath his outer shirt and he had no jacket. Brewer said, “He just looked funny to me *** . His hair was sort of messed up and looked like he had been running and he looked scared and he looked funny.”

Mrs. Julia Postal, selling tickets at the box office of the Texas Theater, heard police sirens and then saw a man as he “ducked into” the outer lobby space of the theater near the ticket office. Attracted by the sound of the sirens, Mrs. Postal stepped out of the box office and walked to the curb.

Shortly thereafter, Johnny Brewer, who had come from the nearby shoestore, asked Mrs. Postal whether the fellow who had ducked in had bought a ticket. She said, “No; by golly he didn’t,” and turned around but the man was nowhere in sight. Brewer told Mrs. Postal that he had seen the man ducking into his place of business and that he had followed him to the theater. She sent Brewer into the theater to find the man and check the exits, told him about the assassination, and said, “I don’t know if this is the man they want *** but he is running from them for some reason.” She then called the police. ( Report pgs. 176, 178 )

The Report then goes on to say that “Brewer met McDonald and the other policemen at the alley exit door, stepped out onto the stage with them, and pointed out the man who had come into the theater without paying. The man was Oswald. ( pg. 178 )

This is the only mention in the Report of Brewer and Postal. Almost unbelievable is the complete omission in the Report of witness Warren “Butch” Burroughs, the theater concession man and ticket taker who helped Brewer search the theater and guarded the front exit until police arrived.

The theater layout

Burroughs testified that he was stocking the concession area at the time Brewer said the man he was following entered the theater. He told the Commission that no one passed him during that time.
But there were two stairways between the first and second set of doors to the theater leading to the balcony and it was possible for someone to go up to the balcony without passing the concession area.

A third set of stairs led to the projection room.

Another thing the Report fails to mention is that Brewer and Burroughs checked the balcony and the theater floor and could not find the man Brewer was looking for. That’s when they came outside and told Postal that they couldn’t find the man but the exits had not been breached.

He had to be in there someplace. So she called police.

The closer one looks at Brewer’s “man in the lobby” and examines his behavior, the more convinced one is that this man was NOT Oswald.

The “man in the lobby”

The Commission presented the behavior of the man Brewer allegedly saw in the window based on Brewer’s suspicion that the man was trying to avoid police because he had committed a crime.

But the Commission never considered that the man was not trying to avoid capture from police, but rather trying to avoid the sound of the sirens.

PTSD was not diagnosed until 1980, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist before then. Sirens are a known trigger for PTSD and both times the man “ducked into” the “lobby” area of the shoe store and the Texas Theater, the sirens were the loudest.

https://themighty.com/topic/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd/ptsd-triggered-by-sirens

When the man heard the sirens, he ducked into the shoe store lobby area.

Mr. Belin. When did he go in now? What did you hear at the time that he stepped into this lobby area?
Mr. Brewer. I heard the police cars coming up Jefferson, and he stepped in, and the police made a U-turn and went back down East Jefferson.
Mr. Belin. Where did he make the U-turn?
Mr. Brewer. At Zangs.
Mr. Belin. Do you remember the sirens going away?
Mr. Brewer. Yes; the sirens were going away. I presume back to where the officer had been shot, because it was back down that way. And when they turned and left, Oswald looked over his shoulder and turned around and walked up West Jefferson towards the theatre. ( 7 H 2 )

A medical reason ?

Many sufferers of PTSD deal with the trauma triggered by going into a disassociative trance.

“Trance-like states and states of possession are categorised as disassociative disorders, where there is a temporary loss of the sense of personal identity with full awareness of the surroundings. Disassociation is a common feature of PTSD, and involves detachment from the overwhelming emotional content of the experience during and in the immediate aftermath of the trauma. Chronic psychological, sexual, and physical trauma, as well as emotional neglect, has been linked to disassociation, while acute traumatic events can also lead to disassociation.”

https://www.themorning.lk/ptsd-can-manifest-itself-in-trance-like-states

There is evidence that the man in the window was in some sort of trance-like state.

Mr. Belin. Did you notice any of his actions when he was standing in your lobby there ?
Mr. Brewer. No; he just stood there and stared.
Mr. Belin. He stared ?
Mr. Brewer. Yes.
Mr. Belin. Was he looking at the merchandise ?
Mr. Brewer. Not anything in particular. He was just standing there staring. ( 7 H 4 )

The sound of the sirens caused the man to panic again in front of the Texas Theater.

Postal testifies on the man’s reaction to the sound of the sirens

Mrs. Postal. Yes; and when the sirens went by he had a panicked look on his face, and he ducked in.
Mr. Ball. Now, as the car went by, you say the man ducked in, had you seen him before the car went by, the police went by?
Mrs. Postal. No, sir; I was looking up, as I say, when the cars passed, as you know, they make a tremendous noise, and he ducked in as my boss went that way to get in his car. ( 7 H 10 )

To the untrained eye of the witnesses, the man’s actions were suspicious and seemed like he was running from police. But there may have been another reason why he was acting that way: he was trying to deal with the trauma triggered by the sound of the sirens due to PTSD or phonophobia.
And if that’s true, the man in the window was not Oswald and there’s evidence that Brewer wasn’t the one who saw him.

Brewer tells tall tales

Johnny Calvin Brewer testified that the man he saw “in the lobby” matched a description of the man wanted by police he heard on the radio, a description the press could only have gotten from police. But the description broadcast by police did not match the description of the man Brewer said he saw in his lobby.

Brewer’s “man in the window” didn’t match any broadcast description of the suspect in the Tippit killing. And there is doubt whether or not Brewer saw the man at all.

Evidence Brewer never saw the man enter the theater

Brewer said the “man in the lobby” entered the Texas Theater when it was physically impossible for him to have seen that from his vantage point standing out on the sidewalk in front of his store some 50-60 yards away because the doors to the theater were recessed.

Three times Brewer said that the “man in the window” went into the theater, saying the man
“went into the theater” ( Affidavit of 12/6/63 located in Dallas Police Box 2, pg 73 )
“walked into the entrance of the theater” ( CD 735, pg. 266 )
“walked into the Texas Theater” ( testimony at 7 H 4 )

Further evidence that he never saw the man is that he had to ask Julia Postal if she sold him a ticket. The ticket booth was positioned in such a way that anyone buying a ticket could be seen down the walkway. If he was out on the sidewalk, he would have been able to see if the man had bought a ticket.

When Brewer got to the box office and saw that the man was no longer in the lobby, he told Mrs. Postal that the man had gone by her. ( 7 H 11 )
This evidence indicates that Brewer never saw the man walking towards the theater, never saw him enter the theater and really didn’t know which way he went.

It completely blows away his version of what happened up to the point where he confronts Mrs. Postal. The description of the man he gave Postal and Burroughs ( 7 H 4 ) , was based solely on the color of the man’s shirt, a far less description one would expect from a witness who was “very observant”.

The “very observant’ witness

If it was Brewer who saw the man in the window, walked out to the sidewalk and watched him walk west on Jefferson for 50 or 60 yards, then turn right into the lobby of the theater, he should have been able to see what color pants the man was wearing.

But Brewer told the Commission that he “could not remember” the color of the man’s trousers. In fact, he “could not remember” if they were light colored or dark. ( 7 H 3 ) This is in spite of his having seen the man in the window and walking down the street for about 60 yards.

He “could not remember” because he never saw the man walking down the sidewalk. The description he gave of the “man in the window” was not a man he saw, but rather of Oswald in the theater. And the reason why he could not see Oswald’s pants in the theater was because Oswald’s untucked shirt covered the top part of the pants and the backs of the seats blocked the lower part. When the struggle began with police, Oswald was swarmed with police and Brewer never even got a look at what pants he was wearing.

In short, it wasn’t because he “couldn’t remember”, it was because he never got to see them on the man who was in them.

There is evidence that someone else saw the man, walked out onto the sidewalk and saw him “duck” into the lobby area of the theater. Then that person told Brewer about it and described the man as having a brown shirt because that’s the only description Brewer gave when he talked to Julia Postal and Burroughs. ( 7 H 4 )

More on that later.

Brewer’s three versions of his confrontation with ticket vendor Julia Postal

Brewer told three different stories to the Dallas PD, the FBI and the Warren Commission when it came to Julia Postal’s response to his asking her if she saw and sold a ticket to the man in the brown shirt.

In the first version, Brewer told the Dallas Police that Postal “did not think so” and “did not remember”:
I asked the girl in the box office if she sold the man a ticket and she replied that she did not think so, that she had been listening to the radio and did not remember. ( Brewer affidavit to the Dallas Police dated December 6, 1963, Dallas Box 2, pg 73 )
This is a strange response because it would have taken the man 40-49 seconds walking at a normal pace to walk the 50 or 60 yards from the shoe store to the theater. She couldn’t remember if she sold a ticket in the last minute or so ?

Brewer’s other versions

In the second version, Brewer was interviewed by the FBI on March 2, 1964. He told the FBI that he asked Julia Postal, “if she saw this person who was wearing a brown sport shirt worn loose, not tucked in his trousers, when he entered the theater. She replied to him that she did not see this man.” ( CD 735, pg, 266 )

In the third version, Brewer was deposed by Commission Counsel David Belin and gave his testimony on April 2, 1964. In this version, he testifies for the record that he “asked Mrs. Postal if she sold a ticket to a man who was wearing a brown shirt and she said no, she hadn’t.” ( 7 H 4 )

So these are the three versions of Mrs. Postal’s response according to Brewer:
First one, she doesn’t remember.
Second one, she never even saw the man.
Third one she responds with a definite no.

Only the last version made it into the Commission’s Report.

Postal’s version of the encounter with Brewer

As Brewer had done, Mrs. Postal gave three different versions of what happened.

In the first version, the affidavit she gave Dallas Police dated December 4, 1963, Mrs. Postal makes no mention of a man wearing a brown shirt, only states that she saw a man duck into the ‘lobby area” outside the doors as police cars were going by.

She further states that her boss, John A. Callahan, got into his car and drove down the street to see where the cruisers were going. At that time, she came out of her ticket box and looked west to see if she could see anything.

In this version, as she turned around, “Johnny Brewer, manager of Hardy’s Shoe Store was standing there. As I started back in the box office, Johnny asked me if I sold ‘that man’ a ticket. I asked him what man ? He said the man who just ducked in here. I told him no I didn’t, but I had noticed him as he ducked in here.” ( 24 H 221 )

Postal’s other versions

The second version comes from her FBI interview dated February 27, 1964. In this version, she tells the FBI that she is “unable to recall whether or not he bought a ticket”. The report goes on to say that Brewer came to her and “asked if she observed a man run into the theater. She said she had…“ ( Oswald 201 file, Vol. 29, Item 28 , pg. 7 )

The third version comes from her deposition given to Joseph Ball dated April 2, 1964. In this version, she again says that she told Brewer that she did not sell a ticket to the man who ducked into the lobby. ( 7 H 11 )
What she says next is revealing:
“Mr. Brewer said that he had been ducking in at his place of business and that he had gone by me because I was facing west.” ( ibid. )

This is evidence that Brewer never saw the man and didn’t know where he went.

Another explanation

Another explanantion is that Brewer was told the man was wearing a brown shirt and went into the theater. He never saw the man. By the time he got to the box office, the man was gone. That’s why he asked Mrs. Postal if she sold a ticket to a man wearing a brown shirt. That’s why he thought the man went by her.

Postal saw the man duck into the lobby, but then was distracted by the police cars. Curious as to what was going on, she stepped out of the ticket box to look down the street. She never saw which way the man went. She had to admit under oath that she “didn’t see him actually enter the theater.” ( ibid. )
Convinced by Brewer that the man had entered the theater, she sent Burroughs and Brewer into the theater to locate the man. When they couldn’t, rather than accept that the man had not entered the theater, she called the police.

John Callahan: another witness not interviewed

Postal testified that she saw the man duck into the lobby at the same time her boss, John Callahan came out of the theater to drive down to see what the cops were up to. She said that they passed each other, one going into the lobby and one coming out. ( ibid. )

Callahan may or may not have gotten a look at the man who passed him coming into the lobby as he left. He was there to take tickets that day ( 7 H 10 ) and whether he could identify the man who passed him or whether he took a ticket from that man will never be known.

Because Mr. Callahan was never interviewed by the Dallas Police, the Sheriff’s Department or the FBI.
Why not ?

During her testimony, Mrs. Postal was shown Commission Exhibit 150, the brown shirt Oswald was arrested in and asked if it was the same shirt worn by the man she saw duck into the theater lobby.

“Yes, it was something like this shirt. I couldn’t say it is the same but it was brown and it was hanging out. ( 7 H 14 )

If you can’t identify the clothing, you can’t identify the suspect. Unless he changed his clothes in the theater—which he didn’t.

This may be the reason why Mrs. Postal was never asked straight up by the Dallas Police, the FBI or Commission Counsel if the man they had taken out of the Texas Theater ( Oswald ) was the same man she saw duck into the lobby as her boss left. In addition, Mrs. Postal was never asked if she had sold a ticket to that same man.

After searching the theater and reporting they were unable to find the man they were looking for, Brewer and Burroughs went back into the theater and watched the exits until police arrived. Brewer was located behind the curtain near the rear exit door to the alley when the police came in the front door and the house lights went on. He noticed a man get up from his seat, head for the aisle, then return to sit down. he noticed that this man was wearing a brown shirt and was convinced this was the man who was described to him as being the man in the window.

Brewer heard a commotion outside the emergency exit door so he went to open it and was grabbed by police. They thought he was the suspect trying to escape. He explained that the man was still in the theater and proceeded to point out Oswald as that man.

The Warren Report lied when it stated that “Johnny Brewer testified he saw Oswald pull the revolver….. ” ( Report, pg. 179 )
He said no such thing.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see from where the gun came ?
Mr. BREWER. No. ( 7 H 6 )

Evidence Brewer was TOLD about the “man in the lobby”

In a memo dated September 15, 1967, Garrison investigator Bill Boxley listed the contact information of witnesses in the Dallas area, in the event Garrsion wanted to question them.

One of those witnesses was a man named Tommy Rowe. In Rowe’s listing, Boxley says that Rowe “allegedly told shoe store manager Oswald had gone into theater”.

If Rowe was the man who saw “Oswald go ino the theater”, was he the one who saw him in the shoe store lobby ? Was he the one who walked out to the street to see him turn right and assumed he went into the Texas Theater. Did he then go back inside the store and describe him to his manager ( Brewer ) as having a brown shirt and entering the theater ?

More explanations

By the time Rowe described the man he saw and Brewer walked down to the ticket box, the man was gone. Brewer then asked Postal if she’d sold the man in a brown shirt a ticket. When she said no, he went inside and asked Burroughs if he had seen a man walk by wearing a brown shirt. He said no. They assumed the man had gone up the stairway between the double sets of doors to the balcony. Brewer and Burroughs then checked the balcony and the first floor and could not tell if anyone was wearing a brown shirt.

They checked the exits, made sure they hadn’t been breached and went back outside and told Postal that they couldn’t find him. Convinced by Brewer the man had entered the theater, Postal assumed that he was still in the building. So she called police.

Just before the police came through the back door, the house lights went on and Brewer saw Oswald moving from the seat to the aisle and back again. He noticed that Oswald was wearing a brown shirt and assumed he was the man who was at his store. When the police entered the building, he pointed Oswald out as the man “he saw”.

The police arrive

The Commission’s version of the arrest of Oswald was based entirely on the sensational account of Dallas Patrolman M.N. McDonald, who claimed that during the struggle with Oswald, the webbing of his hand between his thumb and index finger got in between the hammer’s firing pin and the primer of the cartridge causing a misfire when Oswald tried to shoot him.
Even Hollywood couldn’t dream this one up.

A nick

In support of this fantasy, the Dallas Police produced an unfired .38 Special round with a mark on it they claimed had been made by the weapon’s firing pin.

But when the FBI examined the round with the mark, it concluded that, “There was no indication, from examination, that that nick was caused by a firing pin. First of all, it is in the wrong position, it is not in the center of the primer. And, also, a microscopic examination of that nick gave no indication that it was made by a firing pin.” ( Testimony of FBI firearms expert Cortlandt Cunningham, in 3 H 460 )

In fact, Cunningham examined all eleven of the cartridges allegedly taken from Oswald, the two he received from the Secret Service and the four he had received from the Dallas Police and the five police had allegedly taken from Oswald’s pants pocket.

MR. EISENBERG. Now, Officer McDonald’s statement that the primer of one round was dented on misfire: as far as you can tell, could this statement be confirmed ?
MR.CUNNINGHAM. No sir; we found nothing to indicate that this weapon’s firing pin had struck the primer of any of these cartridges. ( 3 H 463 )

FBI makes no effort to find out how the “nick” got on the shell

The FBI knew that the “nick” on the cartridge was not made by the firing pin of the weapon but made no effort to find out how it got on the cartridge. The fact that the Dallas Police were promoting this as a “misfire” makes one suspect that the nick was man-made and that the man who made it had a Dallas Police badge.

Not only was the nick not made by the firing pin of the weapon, the whole “misfire” story was debunked when the FBI test fired it. Cunningham testified:

“I personally have fired this weapon numerous times, as well as special agents Robert Frazier and Charles Killion. At no time did we ever attempt to fire this weapon that it misfired. It operated excellently and every time we tried to fire it, it fired.” ( ibid. )

So the evidence indicates that the weapon did not misfire and that the “nick” on the one cartridge was made by other means. Knowing that, one would expect that the FBI would look into what caused the nick and why the Dallas Police were claiming it was caused by the firing pin.
But they didn’t.
And then, during the struggle between Oswald and McDonald, there was a “click” reportedly heard by police and several witnesses.

A click

Cunningham testified that the handgun, designated Commission Exhibit 143, was both a single and double action trigger.
This means that the hammer could be pulled back manually to the cocked position and all that was need was to pull the trigger (single action ), or by pulling the trigger the hammer would come back and then spring forward. ( double action )

During his testimony, Cunningham demonstrated how a “snapping noise” could be detected by holding the cylinder of the handgun and pulling the hammer back less than half an inch and having the weapon suddenly jerked out of one’s hand. ( 3 H 461 )

If the hammer came backwards any more than a half inch, the rebound block would allow the firing pin to emerge from the hole in the hammer far enough to strike the primer on the shell and fire the cartridge when the hammer came forward. ( ibid. )

“Click” was not from gun misfiring

But witnesses on the scene testified that the noise they heard WAS NOT at the time the weapon was jerked from Oswald’s hand, but rather during the struggle.

Dallas Officer Thomas Hutson was the original source of the “snap” sound. He testified that the sound he heard was during the struggle when “the gun waving around towards the back of the seat, up and down, and I heard a snapping sound at one time.” ( 7 H 32 )

Hutson’s testimony is confirmed by that of Dallas Officer C.T. Walker, who told the Commission that “I turned around and I was holding Oswald, trying to get his arm up behind him in a hammerlock, and I heard it click. I turned around and the gun was still pointing at approximately a 45 degree angle. Be pointed slightly toward the screen what I recall.” ( 7 H 39 )

Even the first officer who challenged Oswald, M.N. McDonald, testified that the “click” he heard was during their struggle in the seats, well before the weapon was jerked from Oswald’s hand. ( 3 H 300 )

These witness testimonies indicate that the “click” or “snap” heard by witnesses was not made in the manner FBI expert Cunningham had described. In fact, the evidence indicates that it may not have been made by the weapon at all.

Another source for the “click”

Theater seats in those days were spring loaded. The bottom of the seat would fold up when no one was sitting in it, giving access to anyone walking across the row. When it folded up, the seat would made a “click”. This fact was addressed in the testimony of Dallas Officer Ray Hawkins:

“I heard something I thought was a snap. I didn’t know if it was a snap of a pistol—I later learned that they were sure it was. He went on to say, “I didn’t know if it was a snap of the gun or if it was in the seats, someone making the noise.”
Mr. BALL. There was some noise you heard ?
Mr. HAWKINS. Yes sir, there was.
Mr. BALL. You couldn’t identify it ?
Mr. HAWKINS. No sir; I don’t think so– I don’t think I could say for sure. ( 7 H 94 )

Officer assumes click was from revolver

During his testimony, Officer Walker was asked if the click he heard could have come from the seat:

Mr. BELIN. You heard a click, what kind of click was it ?
Mr. WALKER. A real light click. Real light.
Mr. BELIN. Was it a click of the seat ?
Mr. WALKER. Well, I assume it was a click of the revolver on the shell, and that was when the gun was doing the most moving around.” ( 7 H 39-40 )

These witness testimonies indicate that either they were unsure of the source of the sound they heard or they assumed the source was the revolver. The circumstances at the time they heard the “click” were not consistent with the scenario put forth by Agent Cunningham that the click was possibly made at the time Oswald was disarmed.

So the evidence shows that: a.) the “nick” was not made by a firing pin, b.) the revolver never misfired and c.) the revolver as the source of the “click” was in question.

There was one more possibility: that the click was indeed made by the revolver as it completed the firing cycle, but the weapon was empty.

Planting an empty weapon ?

The evidence proves that the “nick” was not made by a firing pin, the weapon never misfired and that the “click” was heard during the struggle and not when Oswald was disarmed. It may have been made by other means, i.e. one of the theater seats.

Not only does the evidence “debunk” the Dallas Police’s version of the gun misfiring, it also calls into question the entire Dallas Police version of what happened in the Texas Theater.

There was at least one theater patron who cast doubt on Oswald being the source of the weapon. George Applin, told the FBI that “one of the two ( either Oswald or McDonald ) had a pistol in his right hand.” ( CD 87, pg. 558 )
The Commission avoided mentioning this FBI interview of Applin. It didn’t make it into the 26 volumes.

Years later in an interview with reporter Earl Golz, Applin went one step further, telling Golz that he believed “the revolver Oswald came up with came out of the officer’s holster”.

McDonald’s movements: evidence of planting

Support of Applin’s belief that the weapon came from McDonald and not Oswald comes in the form of McDonald’s movement when confronting Oswald.

The proper procedure for frisking an individual is to start at the shoulders and work your way down the body. This is why Oswald raised his arms when McDonald approached. he expected to be searched from the shoulders down. But McDonald didn’t do that. Instead, he went right for Oswald’s waist. McDonald testified:

“It was just natural that my hand went to his waist for a weapon, which was my intent anyway, whether he raised his hands or not.” ( 3 H 303 )
Natural ? No, that’s not the way it’s done.

More evidence of a planting of the handgun ?

Combine this with what George Applin told Earl Golz that he believed the revolver came from McDonald, and the evidence seems to support a planting of the revolver.
Is this why Oswald threw a punch at McDonald, because he stuffed a revolver in his waistband ?

McDonald testified that Oswald drew the weapon as he put his hand on Oswald’s waist. ( 3 H 300 ) But Officer C.T. Walker testified that Oswald did not immediately pull the revolver when he knocked McDonald back against the seats.

“..it stayed there for a second or two. He didn’t get it out. ” ( Testimony of C.T. Walker, 7 H 39 )
Why not ? Why did he not display an intent to use it ? And why did McDonald lie ?

Who would have handed McDonald an empty weapon to plant on Oswald ?
Capt. W.R Westbrook.
McDonald and Capt. Westbrook knew each other. In fact, Westbrook was previously McDonald’s commanding officer in another division. ( 7 H 112 ) So they were well acquainted with each other.

Because the police version contains discrepancy after discrepancy, one would think that the truth might be found in the statements of the 20-24 theater patrons who witnessed the arrest of Oswald and were allegedly interviewed by Dallas Police.

The missing interviews

Mr. ELY. …Captain, you had mentioned that you had left orders for someone to take the names of everybody in the theater, and you also stated you do not have this list; do you know who has it ?
Mr. WESTBROOK. No; possibly Lt. Cunningham will know, but I don’t know who has the list. ( 7 H 118 )

Lt. Cunningham was never called to testify. But the evidence indicates that police were ordered to “keep the theater closed for the purpose of interviewing the witnesses inside the theater”.

Those patrons’ names and anything they may have told police cannot be found in the official record. That’s too many witnesses for it to have been an honest mistake. What could they have told the police that the police would not want in the public record ?

If the police were going to plant a weapon on Oswald, it would have made a lot more sense and been a lot safer for their officers to plant an empty revolver on him.

An Empty Weapon ?

The official version has Det. Bob Carroll yanking the weapon out of an ocean of humanity and sticking it in his waistband. Then, when they got outside and get into the cruiser to take Oswald to police headquarters, he handed the gun to Sgt. Gerald Hill.

Sgt. Hill testified that when Carroll handed him the weapon, he opened it in the car, verified it was loaded, saw the cartridge with the “indentation”, assumed it had misfired and that he didn’t unload the weapon until they got to the police station. ( 7 H 55 )

Why on earth wouldn’t he immediately unload the weapon if he suspected it had misfired or was defective ? How could he be so sure that the gun would not go off accidently on the way to the station ?

Sgt. Hill’s credibility was less than stellar. He testified that the revolver and cartridges were in his possession from the time Bob Carroll handed him the weapon until he transferred possession of both to Lt. Baker. ( 7 H 56 ) But Officer C.T. Walker testified that when he put Oswald in the interrogation room, HE had possession of the handgun:

Mr. WALKER. We took him up the Homicide and Robbery Buireau, and we went back there and one of the detectives said, put him in this room. I put him in the room, and he ( the detective ) said, “Let the uniformed officers stay with him .” And I went inside, and Oswald sat down, and he was handcuffed with his hands behind him. I sat down there, and I had his pistol, and he had a card in there with a picture of him and the name A.J.Hidell on it. ( 7 H 41 )

A character of questionable integrity

The only witness to corroborate Sgt. Hill’s testimony that he unloaded the revolver, Detective Bob Carroll, who at first testified that Hill had unloaded the weapon in the police car on the way to the station. ( 7 H 22 )
In fact, the Commission never established exactly WHEN or WHERE Carroll saw Hill unload the weapon, only that it was unloaded in his presence. ( 7 H 22-23 )
Detective Carroll is a character of questionable integrity as well. On the one hand he testified that he didn’t see anyone hit Oswald ( 7 H 20 ), on the other he admits to hitting Oswald himself.

In addition, the other officers in the car, Bentley and Lyons, were never called to testify and Walker was never asked if Hill unloaded the weapon in the car. Why not ?

Sgt. Hill testified that when they brought Oswald into the Homicide office, he asked Lt. Baker if he wanted the weapon:
“I asked Baker at this time, who was Detective T. L. Baker, if he wanted the pistol, and he said, ‘No; hold on to it until later.'” ( 7 H 59 )
So here you have the alleged murder weapon, a weapon that may have been used to kill one of your own officers, and you’re not receiving it into evidence ?
Why on earth would you not receive the alleged murder weapon into evidence ?
Because it was empty. That’s why Baker told Hill to “hold on to it”.
Hold on to it until we find some cartridges.

Westbrook testifies

Hill claims to have taken the revolver to Capt. Westbrook’s office where it was marked by himself, Det, Carroll and Officer McDonald. Westbrook was present when they brought the weapon in and testified that he never saw the gun unloaded and the weapon was empty when he saw it.

Mr. BALL. Were you in the personnel office at a time that a gun was brought in?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir; it was brought to my office when it shouldn’t have been.
Mr. BALL. But it was brought to your office?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes; it was. ( 7 H 118 )

Mr. BALL. Did you see the gun unloaded?
Mr. WESTBROOK. No, sir; I didn’t see it unloaded. When I saw it, the gun was laying on Mr. McGee’s desk and the shells were out of it. ( ibid. )

So Westbrook’s testimony is that he was present when they brought the weapon into his office, he never saw them unload it, but it was empty when he saw it.

More evidence the weapon was empty before it was brought to Westbrook’s office

Dallas Officer Ray Hawkins testified that he was present in the personnel office and observed McDonald mark the weapon and the weapon was empty at that time.

Mr. BALL. Did you see the pistol at the personnel bureau?
Mr. HAWKINS. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. BALL. Did you see McDonald mark it?
Mr. HAWKINS. Did I see McDonald mark it?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mr. HAWKINS. Yes, sir; McDonald, and I believe Sergeant Hill marked it or possibly Bob Carroll. There were, I believe, two people who marked it.
Mr. BALL. Did you see anybody unload the gun?
Mr. HAWKINS. No, sir; not unload it. I believe the gun was unloaded whenever I got there….. ( 7 H 95 )

If Capt. Westbrook was present when the weapon was brought into his office, never saw them unload it, observed Sgt. Hill and others mark it and Hawkins observed the same marking and testified that the weapon was empty when they marked it, then the revolver was empty when they brought it into Westbrook’s office.

When Oswald was arrested, police allegedly found 11 unfired .38 cal. rounds. Six in the revolver and five in his pants pocket. If the weapon was empty and was planted on Oswald, where did the police get the 11 unfired cartridges from ?

Where did the unfired .38 rounds come from ?

The record shows that Oswald was in the Homicide office by 2:15 pm.
Hill testified that he didn’t mark the weapon and six cartridges until “approximately 4 pm”, about an hour and 45 minutes later. ( 7 H 54 )
How long does it take to mark evidence ? When you don’t have the cartridges, it takes as long as it takes to find some. And find some they did.

Thirty five minutes after eleven unfired rounds from JD Tippit were turned in to the station by Officer W.R. Bardin ( Dallas Police Box 9, pg. 8 ), Hill marked the six rounds he allegedly unloaded from the revolver and Detective Elmer Boyd “found” five unfired rounds in the pants pocket of Oswald.

11 for 11: a coincidence ?

Of course, the “Oswald-did-it” crowd will claim it all a coincidence: that 11 unfired .38 caliber rounds attributed to Oswald just happened into evidence after 11 unfired .38 caliber rounds were recovered from the possessions of JD Tippit. All of the 11 unfired rounds had the same corrosion on the shell part as the four spent shells found at the murder scene. That corrosion is consistent with having spent a considerable time in either a bullet slide or a gunbelt. Oswald owned neither.

All a coincidence. Nothing to see here, folks.

Of course, this scenario of mine could have been disproven by the testimony of Lt. Baker. Was the weapon empty when first presented to him by Sgt. Hill ? Did he bring six unfired cartridges to Westbrook’s office ? The only problem is that Baker was never called to testify. Why not ?

Lt. Baker was a link in the chain of possession of the revolver used to kill JD Tippit and the unfired cartridges proving it had been reloaded after the murder and he wasn’t even on the witness list to testify to his actions that day?
It’s unconscionable.

The uncredible Off. McDonald

Then there is the credibility of Officer McDonald, the officer who struggled with Oswald in the theater, the one who stuck the webbing of his hand between the firing pin and the primer preventing the cartridge from being fired. The one who expressed no pain from the injury he would have received from such a heroic action and an injury for which there is no record he received medical attention for.
In his report, McDonald stated that he “marked the pistol and six rounds at Central Station.” ( Dallas Police Box 2, pg. 317 )

But in his testimony, he told the Commission that he only marked one round.
Mr. BALL – I will show you four that are marked as–we will give these four an exhibit number. Do you know whether or not they were shells similar to that?
Mr. McDONALD – Yes, sir; they were .38 caliber. Now, I didn’t mark all of these shells, myself.
Mr. BALL – Did you mark any of them?
Mr. McDONALD – I recall marking one. ( 3 H 301-302 )

The Warren Commission’s case

This is the Warren Commission’s case against Oswald: the man who killed Dallas Police officer J.D. Tippit, then fled on foot down one of the busiest streets in Oak Cliff at a time when the area was crawling with police looking for a cop-killer on foot. A man who shed his jacket but kept on his person the very weapon that tied him to the murder.

Oswald, who had $13.87 in his pocket at the time of the arrest, but instead of hailing a taxi cab or taking one of the three busses scheduled to travel west on Jefferson, decided to draw attention to himself by ducking into a shoe store lobby and then beating the Texas Theater out of a 90-cent movie ticket.

When I was a young boy, my Dad once told me that “when you tell the truth, you never have to remember what you said.”
These officers not only couldn’t remember details, their versions of the arrest of Oswald contains discrepancy after discrepancy. Under those circumstances, with the police version questionable, one would expect to find corroboration or rejection for it in the statements of patrons who witnessed the arrest.

At least one patron thought the revolver came from Officer McDonald. Evidence indicates that the other theater patrons were interviewed and those interviews were discarded. What those witnesses saw will never be known. Those interviews simply do not exist in the public record.

A final thought

On that note one must assume that whatever they told police did not conform to the police version of events, for if they did, they would have been included in the evidence that Oswald entered the theater armed and attempted to pull his weapon when confronted by Officer McDonald.

But we need not depend only on the perception of witnesses when the physical evidence does not support the police version of events.

The FBI determined that the nick on the cartridge shell did not come from the firing pin of the revolver or the firing pin of any other revolver. So it had to be man-made.
They also found that the weapon did not misfire—ever.
The handling of the revolver indicates a questionable chain-of-possession.

And there is the “coincidence” that the same number and caliber of unfired cartridge shells recovered from JD Tippit were removed from “Oswald’s” weapon and his pants pocket 35 minutes later. Just one of the many “coincidences” in this case.