Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[Rob Caprio]

Please point out where I insulted you.
>>> Don't worry, I'm used to it

What "state of mind" do you propose would cause crime scene investigators not to notice a large object out in the open in the middle of a crime scene?
>>> This has been covered, both in other threads regarding the gun bag, and IB science.

You're ignoring an important detail.  The ones who noticed the bag were the ones who were in the SN later, and the ones who didn't see a bag there were the ones who were in the SN when it was first discovered.


The Long Brown Bag
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm

[EXCERPT]

It might seem suspicious that six police officers did not see the bag, until we look at the details of their testimony. None of the six could reasonably have been expected to see it. (1)

1.  Conspiracy theorists claim that these six officers show the bag was not in the depository and that the bag was forged. A little research into why these officers never saw the bag leads to a different conclusion. One such officer is Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney, and while he is correctly credited with finding the sniper's nest, he is wrongly assumed to have searched for anything else in the depository. When he found the sniper's nest, he simply called to Lieutenant Day and made sure no one touched anything until Day arrived. When Day did arrive, Mooney stayed in the Depository for only 15-20 minutes longer, but the bag was not discovered until sometime later. He himself states that he did not look for it (3H287-9). Mooney, like most of the officers, was only concerned with finding the weapon and not other evidence at the time.

Officer J. B. Hicks was also questioned. He testified that he had not seen the sack, but he also testified he had not arrived at the depository until 3 pm while the long bag had been photographed leaving at 2:19 (7H287-9).
Captain J. W. Fritz also stated that he did not see the bag but that the bag was found later when he was not there,
Sergeant Gerald Hill states he "left the Book Depository prior to the finding of the gun (7H65)."
Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig left immediately after the rifle was found and photographed (6H268-70).
Detective Elmer L. Boyd did not see the bag because he left once he heard about the shooting of Officer J.D. Tippit (7H120-2). The rifle bag was not found until after the shooting of Tippit which Boyd and several officers left to help investigate.

What is with the ">>>>" stuff? This reminds me of ACJ where one particular LNer used this all the time.

[Howard Gee]

You don't understand what "why" means, and I'm the one who's dense?

Yes....what does that have to do with Brewer?

Yes.  WHY?  What did he see that indicated murderer?  And you don't know that it was "rightly", that's just more posturing.

What's hard to understand is why you think restating a claim somehow substantiates that claim.  Again, we all know what Brewer (said he) concluded.  The question is why?

The real question is why you're incapable of understanding or accepting that Brewer thought Saint Patsy looked scared and became suspicious of your hero.

It's not a 'claim' that Brewer thought your hero looked scared, it's a fact that's substantiated by his actions.

It's also a fact that Brewer didn't think a manhunt was on for a jaywalker.

Why do you think Brewer got involved ?

Did he have a vendetta against your hero ?

Had nothing better to do ?

After pages and pages of this, you actually ask 'what does this have to do with Brewer ?'

Unreal.

[Steve Howsley]

What part of that is supposed to explain WHY this person should be considered a murder suspect?

Why not is a better question. What do you think Brewer should have done?

[John Iacoletti]

The real question is why you're incapable of understanding or accepting that Brewer thought Saint Patsy looked scared and became suspicious of your hero.

The fact that you can't make a coherent argument without the "Saint Patsy" and "your hero" rhetoric speaks volumes.

It's not a 'claim' that Brewer thought your hero looked scared, it's a fact that's substantiated by his actions.

Speaking of dense....the claim in this case is that Brewer had a valid reason to think that the man he saw had just murdered a cop.  Not that Brewer thought he looked scared.  We all know what Brewer said.

It's also a fact that Brewer didn't think a manhunt was on for a jaywalker.

Do you have some reason to think that Brewer knew a manhunt was on for anybody?

Why do you think Brewer got involved ?

Did he have a vendetta against your hero ?

Had nothing better to do ?

Do you always answer questions with other questions?  Or just when you can't answer them?

After pages and pages of this, you actually ask 'what does this have to do with Brewer ?'
Unreal.

Well, that would be denseness again.  I asked what the fact that the the cops were looking for a murderer had to do with Brewer (who was not a cop).  Got an answer?  Or is "unreal" supposed to suffice?

[John Iacoletti]

Why not is a better question.

Well, Steve, go to an amusement park and watch the people get off the roller coaster. Do some of them look "scared"?  Do you suspect them of murder?

Why not?

[Steve Howsley]

Do you always answer questions with other questions?  Or just when you can't answer them?

Too funny. You are a laugh a minute.

[Steve Howsley]

Well, Steve, go to an amusement park and watch the people get off the roller coaster. Do some of them look "scared"?  Do you suspect them of murder?

Was there an amusement park outside the shoe store? Where's your source for that?

[John Iacoletti]

Was there an amusement park outside the shoe store? Where's your source for that?

I thought we were talking about "looking scared" making somebody a murder suspect.