Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Again, our dishonest contrarian who responds to every post has neglected to answer the basic question.  If dishonest John is not implying that Brewer was part of some plot relating to Oswald, why does it matter whether Brewer found Oswald suspicious?  If the allegation is simply that Brewer had no reasonable basis to conclude that Oswald was acting suspiciously, but was just overly paranoid, then so what?  It doesn't appear to have any relevance whatsoever.   It's only in the "strawman" context that Brewer's motivation has any significance.  Just one of an increasing number of dishonest lines of arguments.  Suggesting that Brewer had no legitimate basis to find Oswald suspicious, but then denying that any nefarious intent is implied.  How about just spelling it out?  Is there any reason to believe that Brewer's actions were motivated by any other reason than that he found Oswald's conduct suspicious -whether that suspicion was reasonable or not in your subjective opinion?  Are you suggesting that Brewer's motivation was based on something other than finding Oswald suspicious?

And to again point to the obvious: this questioning of motive on Brewer's part comes from the very same person who insists we can only look at Oswald's behavior in isolation, stripped of any context and that to ascribe criminal motive or intent to them is not only wrong but rejected with the child like "LOL" response.

Oswald's acts are judged in isolation - "He just left Marina money", "He just took a bus", "He just took a cab", "He just went to a movie" - while Brewer's (and other's ) every move is questioned as having nefarious purposes or motive.

[Rob Caprio]

And to again point to the obvious: this questioning of motive on Brewer's part comes from the very same person who insists we can only look at Oswald's behavior in isolation, stripped of any context and that to ascribe criminal motive or intent to them is not only wrong but rejected with the child like "LOL" response.

Oswald's acts are judged in isolation - "He just left Marina money", "He just took a bus", "He just took a cab", "He just went to a movie" - while Brewer's (and other's ) every move is viewed as having nefarious purposes or motive.

Why not show that Brewer mattered? When and where did he call the police? Be specific and use the evidence.

[Richard Smith]

Good grief. When and where did he call the police? Be specific and use the evidence.

LOL. No one ever said Brewer called the police.  I said the police received a call reporting a suspicious person.  The record confirms that Postal called the DPD to report a suspicious person.  Now that your lame distraction has failed, are you alleging that Brewer's actions were motivated by his being a conspirator in a plot to frame Oswald?  That appears to be what you are clearly implying, but if not just say that you believe Brewer was just acting unreasonably in your kooky subjective opinion but there is no sinister conclusion to be drawn from this.  I don't see why it is so difficult to own your claim.

[Richard Smith]

And to again point to the obvious: this questioning of motive on Brewer's part comes from the very same person who insists we can only look at Oswald's behavior in isolation, stripped of any context and that to ascribe criminal motive or intent to them is not only wrong but rejected with the child like "LOL" response.

Oswald's acts are judged in isolation - "He just left Marina money", "He just took a bus", "He just took a cab", "He just went to a movie" - while Brewer's (and other's ) every move is viewed as having nefarious purposes or motive.

Yes, it's the same old broken, dishonest tune.  Dishonest John wants to eat his cake and have it too.  Going on and on suggesting that Brewer had no legitimate basis to find Oswald's conduct suspicious, but then denying that he is implying that there is something nefarious about this.  It's laughable. 

[Rob Caprio]

LOL. No one ever said Brewer called the police.  I said the police received a call reporting a suspicious person.  The record confirms that Postal called the DPD to report a suspicious person.  Now that your lame distraction has failed, are you alleging that Brewer's actions were motivated by his being a conspirator in a plot to frame Oswald?  That appears to be what you are clearly implying, but if not just say that you believe Brewer was just acting unreasonably in your kooky subjective opinion but there is no sinister conclusion to be drawn from this.  I don't see why it is so difficult to own your claim.

Who made the call? Be specific and use the evidence.

[Howard Gee]

And to again point to the obvious: this questioning of motive on Brewer's part comes from the very same person who insists we can only look at Oswald's behavior in isolation, stripped of any context and that to ascribe criminal motive or intent to them is not only wrong but rejected with the child like "LOL" response.

Oswald's acts are judged in isolation - "He just left Marina money", "He just took a bus", "He just took a cab", "He just went to a movie" - while Brewer's (and other's ) every move is questioned as having nefarious purposes or motive.

Yep, just like he left work because he figured 'there'd be no more work today', based on the commotion going on outside.

Seems kind of odd that Saint Patsy isn't even slightly interested in what happened, but maybe that's just me.

No time to waste, so why hang around for even a moment ?   There was shoe shopping to be done.  And then Gummy Bears and buttered popcorn.

Saint Patsy just got an early start to the weekend. It's just not fair to read anything else into it.

[Richard Smith]

Who made the call? Be specific and use the evidence.

LOL.  We are going down the usual Caprio rabbit hole.  Are you now claiming the DPD did not receive a call?  Is Postal involved in the plot as well and lying about calling the police?  I have to be "specific and use evidence" for a point that is a matter of record?  While you will not answer a simple question as to whether you are claiming Brewer was part of a plot.

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338516/m1/1/

[Nicholas Turner]

So, you're admitting that you are not familiar with the evidence. Good of you to do that.

Why not just say what evidence you were referring too? As I've said I don't claim to be an expert and have come back to this topic some tears after my initial interest. I had hoped to have some sensible discussions here but everyone seems to be locked into their positions and into having a go at each other.