Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[Walt Cakebread]

It's somewhat like the deconstructionist fad of the 1980s where one would render a text indecipherable - words have open and no fixed meanings and therefore they can have no true meaning - thus making the author disappear.

As in: what did Brewer mean by suspicious? Or frightened? So we have to drill down forever into what he meant by those terms. Since there is no fully agreed upon definition - at least to the Oswald defender - the words have no meaning. The evidence is made to disappear.

Meanwhile, the fact that Oswald - the only person to have left the building where shots were fired - is several miles away carrying a loaded revolver with extra bullets in his pocket - is lost in the exercise.

Meanwhile, the fact that Oswald - the only person to have left the building where shots were fired - is several miles away carrying a loaded revolver with extra bullets in his pocket - is lost in the exercise.

Sorry, Mr G.     You're trying to build a house with no solid foundation directly on a sand beach ....   

the fact that Oswald - the only person to have left the building where shots were fired - is several miles away carrying a loaded revolver with extra bullets in his pocket - is lost in the exercise.   

Lee was NOT the only person who left the building..... That is a FACT that you've ignored.

And It what way does the information that Lee Oswald was "several miles away carrying a loaded revolver"  Establish that he's committed any crime???

[Mitch Todd]

You have a problem with Holmes' grammar or specific words?

Neither. The problem is, Holmes' words don't explain why you think they are important. Apparently, you don't know, either.

[Mitch Todd]

Neither. The problem is, Holmes' words don't explain why you think they are important. Apparently, you don't know, either.

You don't trust Holmes?

Didn't say that. Never had a reason not to trust him. You, on the other hand, are in a completely different spot. Are you ever going to explain what you think is important about what Holmes said, or are you going to continue acting like an asinine child?
 

[John Mytton]

*) Since they stayed behind anyway the act of closing up the shop also made no sense.

Were they going to stay behind, keep the shop open and sell shoes?

JohnM

[Rob Caprio]

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, I now hand you an item consisting of a U.S. postal money order in the amount of $21.45, payable to Klein's Sporting Goods, from "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas." For the record I will state that this money order was included with the purchase order in Exhibit 773 which has just been identified, and was intended and used as payment for the weapon shipped in response to the purchase order, 773. I ask you, Mr. Cole, whether you have examined this money order for the purpose of determining whether it was prepared by the author of the standards?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. It is my conclusion that the handwriting on this money order is in the hand of the person who executed the standard writing.

Cole's deposition goes into more detail as to what the "standard writing"
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cole1.htm

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 788, and ask you if you have examined that exhibit?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, that is the money order which was included with the purchase order to Klein's. Have you prepared a photograph of that exhibit, Mr. Cadigan?
Mr. CADIGAN. I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be Cadigan Exhibit No. 11.
(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 11.)
Mr. EISENBERG. And this was taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And is it an accurate photograph of the money order, Exhibit No. 788?
Mr. CADIGAN. It is.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you compare Exhibit No. 788 with the standards to determine whether Exhibit No. 788 had been written by Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. CADIGAN. That the postal money order, Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, had been prepared by Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. The postal money order is Commission Exhibit No. 788 and your picture is Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, is that correct?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is correct.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cadigan2.htm

And yet, the money order number wasn't in circulation at the time of purchase. How do you explain that?

Also, quote me the handwriting experts for the defense and what they found. Oh, that's right, he was provided any legal representation. Experts for the prosecution are going to agree with the prosecution. That is a simple fact.

[John Mytton]

And yet, the money order number wasn't in circulation at the time of purchase. How do you explain that?

Again no supporting evidence?

And if you want to compare money order numbers over any length of time then we need to see a few examples because this is way before money order numbers were stamped in chronological order with networked computers, in 1963 money orders were sent out pre stamped all over the country in boxes.

JohnM

[Mitch Todd]

Unlike you I want to get to the bottom of things.

You sure coulda fooled me. I think that Brewer is still around, so I guess you could ask him.

Primary reason: his account (movements) involving the IBM boys does not match his WC testimony.

Secondly, locking themselves up inside the shop, behind his back, makes no sense unless he intended to continue towards TT. [...] Since they stayed behind anyway the act of closing up the shop also made no sense.

Chapman obviously didn't understand it, so where did you get the 5-10 seconds from?

By timing myself walking 15 feet to a locked door, pulling on the door twice to make sure it was locked, then walking 15 back to where I started from. Took a bit under seven seconds.

[Mitch Todd]

And yet, the money order number wasn't in circulation at the time of purchase. How do you explain that?

First you need to explain what your assertion really is. I'll bet it's less than what you want us to think.

Also, quote me the handwriting experts for the defense and what they found. Oh, that's right, he was provided any legal representation. Experts for the prosecution are going to agree with the prosecution. That is a simple fact.

And this is just sour grapes.