Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[Rob Caprio]

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/

LOL. We are now going down the Smith "shift the burden" path. You HAVE TO show that a call took place alerting the police to the LHO alleged sighting. Well?

Who called? Be specific and use the evidence.

[Rob Caprio]

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.

Why don't you state what your issue is and perhaps I can help you. Unless you are locked into your position of course.

[Nicholas Turner]

Why don't you state what your issue is and perhaps I can help you. Unless you are locked into your position of course.

I don't have an issue, other than with the fact you won't answer a simple question but would rather be confrontational and difficult. Just forget all about it and I'll make a note never to respond to one of your posts again.

[John Iacoletti]

You're the weird one:
You stated 'whatever that means' in relation to 'scared and looking funny'

Still trying to find the question you're wanting me to answer.

[John Iacoletti]

Duh.

Brewer felt Saint Patsy was trying to evade the cops.

You're just going to have to accept that your client was apprehended due to Brewer's alert and swift reaction.

Trying to imply that Brewer's actions were irrational and that the police response to Postal's call was unwarranted makes you look....uhhhh....'funny'

Hurts, doesn't it ?

How does Saint Brewer's observation make anyone a murder suspect?

The only thing that hurts is what you think passes for a logical argument.

[John Iacoletti]

Wasn't that because Burroughs had thought he must have gone up to tye balcony because he hadn't seen him go past him? Based on previous experiences of kids sneaking in to the theatre going up to the balcony seemed most likely.

But Brewer said that he and Butch went up to the balcony and didn't see anything.

[John Iacoletti]

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?

It doesn't, Mr. Strawman.

It's laughable that "Richard", who has yet to provide a single verifiable example of me ever being dishonest, and who consistently lies both about the evidence and about what other people on the forum say or do or "imply", and who isn't even honest about his own name has the gall to label anyone else dishonest just because he and his bogus arguments get humiliated on a daily basis.

The question is, on what basis did the police consider the guy Brewer saw to be a suspect in the Tippit murder?

[John Iacoletti]

The DPD responded to the guy seen running in the library in the exact same manner.  They approached him as a potential murder suspect.  He was able to explain himself, however, and was let go.

According to Detective Marvin Buhk, a "Secret Service" man was there and told them that this man was "not a suspect".

  He did not punch a police officer and attempt to shoot him.

You haven't actually demonstrated that Oswald did either.  What's your point?