Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[Richard Smith]

Next false assumption.

Mrs. POSTAL. No, sir; I told Johnny this, don't tell him, because he is an excitable person, and just have him, you know, go with you and examine the exits and check real good, so, he came back and said he hadn't seen anything although, he had heard a seat pop up like somebody getting out, but there was nobody around that area....

Brewer does not report back what Burroughs might have told him. Suspect is currently not to be seen.

LOL.  This is not complex.  What Postal knows: 1) A man has entered the theatre without buying a ticket; 2) Burroughs is the ticket taker; 3) The man has gotten past Burroughs without being seen because he is in the theatre somewhere; 4) Brewer confirms after conducting a search with Burroughs that they hadn't seen him; 5) that it is possible to avoid Burroughs by heading up to the balcony upon entry.   As a result, Postal concludes - again per her testimony - that the man has gone up to the balcony.   There is no ambiguity on that point.  Both she and Burroughs reached the same conclusion.  She makes the call to the police.  She has cause to believe the man is in the balcony.  Thus, she is the obvious source of that report.

[Richard Smith]

Correct, it real simple.

You have no clue what Burroughs saw and what conclusions he reached. Neither did Postal since she didn't talk to Burroughs.

As per her testimony.

Mr. BALL. I was trying to say the third row. How could he get from the balcony down there?
Mrs. POSTAL. Oh, that is very easy. You can go up in the balcony and fight straight down, those steps come back down, and that would bring you into it. He wouldn't have to go by Butch at all.

The suspect could be anywhere in that theater.

As per her testimony.

We know exactly what Burroughs saw or rather didn't see.  He testified about it.  He didn't see the man enter the theatre.  He was the ticket taker.  If a person entered the theatre, the ticket taker would ask for his ticket.  He couldn't get past Burroughs without a ticket.  But the man who entered the theatre without a ticket had somehow gained access to the theatre because he hadn't come back out.  He didn't disappear in thin air.  Postal knows that to avoid Burroughs - the ticket taker - that he could have gone directly to the balcony.  Burroughs reached the same conclusion.  There is no ambiguity from Postal or Burroughs testimony that they believed Oswald had gone to the balcony for that reason.  The testimony you cited confirms that point.  Postal indicated that Oswald could have gone up the stairs to the balcony and then come down avoiding the lobby where Burroughs was located.

[Richard Smith]

No, your Von Pein style LN spin doesn't cut it.

Totally irrelevant what Burroughs testified since he was not in the loop, Postal cut him out and did not know what he saw or didn't see.

The suspect had free rein to move around once past Burroughs.

As per Postals testimony.

You're bust on this one.

How can Burroughs be irrelevant in this scenario?  He is the ticket taker.  Oswald doesn't have a ticket.  If Burroughs had encountered him, Oswald would not have gained access to the theatre without a ticket.  Postal is trying to reconcile how a person without a ticket gets past Burroughs in the lobby.  She knows from prior experience that this can be done by going to the balcony.  That doesn't seem like an outlandish conclusion under the circumstances known to her - again as confirmed in her testimony.  We don't know her exact words to the police.  Maybe she indicated he might be in the balcony because of that.  It certainly is a more straightforward conclusion than everyone is lying and Oswald doubles are roaming all over the place.  And the police are being sent to the balcony where Oswald is not sitting in an effort to frame him.   

[Richard Smith]

Known bypass is via balcony but not confined to balcony as per testimony.

Once past Burroughs suspect can be anywhere in the theater, ticket or no ticket.

Burroughs' observations are unknown to Postal and thus irrelevant for her call.

Brutal.  Postal knows that a man has entered without a ticket.  She knows Burroughs is the ticket taker working in the lobby.  She knows the man cannot get past Burroughs without a ticket.  The man has also not come out of the theatre.  Therefore he has gained access to the theatre without encountering Burroughs.  Postal reconciles these facts with the conclusion that the man has gone to the balcony to explain how he has avoided Burroughs.   If he has gone to the balcony area, then that is the most likely place for him to be a couple minutes later when she calls the police.  What is so difficult to understand about that obvious point? As confirmed in her testimony.  You don't accept this explanation but you will entertain an outlandish and baseless counternarrative in which all these people are lying for some unknown reason and that there was an Oswald double.  Unreal.

[John Iacoletti]

Brewer isn't standing directly in front of the theater so I guess it's accurate that 55 years later a troll could state Brewer didn't see Saint Patsy enter the theater.

It's just a fact -- Brewer didn't see the guy he was looking at from behind and 50 yards away enter the theater.

There's nothing you won't misrepresent, including what a "troll" is.  Repeatedly kicking the crap out of your lame arguments does not make somebody a troll.

[John Iacoletti]

It's in her testimony.  Clear as day.  She thought the man had gone to the balcony because Burroughs did not see him pass through the lobby.

Utter  .  This is just another one of "Richard Smith's" legendary dishonest misrepresentations.

Postal doesn't say in her testimony that she thought the man had gone to the balcony at the time she called the police.  She said that she talked about it with Burroughs and that's what they surmised.  But she didn't talk to Burroughs before calling the police -- just Brewer.

[John Iacoletti]

A man is observed by her and Brewer appearing to hide from the police by ducking away from the street whenever a police car goes by.

More  .  Postal didn't see anybody "appearing to hide from the police by ducking away from the street whenever a police car goes by".  Neither did Brewer, for that matter.

[John Iacoletti]

The  continues...

Brutal.  Postal knows that a man has entered without a ticket.

No, she didn't know that.  She said "what man?" and she told Brewer she wasn't sure if he bought a ticket or not.

  She knows Burroughs is the ticket taker working in the lobby.  She knows the man cannot get past Burroughs without a ticket.

If she knows the man cannot get past Burroughs without a ticket, then why would she assume that somebody did?

The man has also not come out of the theatre.

How would she know that?  Did you forget about the exit door to the alley?

  Therefore he has gained access to the theatre without encountering Burroughs.

She assumes that a guy that nobody saw enter the theater, and that nobody saw in the theater is now in the theater because ....why?