Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[Bill Chapman]

That's the whole problem.  The prosecution "constructs a narrative" first, and then desperately tries to shoehorn the evidence into that narrative.  There's nothing logical about it.

Where does this false bravado that all LNs seem to possess come from?  Do you really think that makes your argument more compelling?

Actually, it's sceptics that come with their preconceptions, find that those preconceptions don't fit the facts, and then declare the facts faked.

[John Iacoletti]

Actually, it's sceptics that come with their preconceptions, find that those preconceptions don't fit the facts, and then declare the facts faked.

Who would that be, pray tell?  "You lot", again?

[Howard Gee]

Hurts that Brewer's alert and swift reaction resulted in Saint Patsy's apprehension, eh Johnny ?

Has you spinning like a top trying to explain why Brewer suspected your client.

Sucks being you.

[Rob Caprio]

scared     
fearful, frightened, panicky, panic-stricken, petrified, scared sh*tless, shaken, sh*t scared   

1. funny haha

2. funny strange, odd, unusual, especially in such a way as to arouse suspicion.
eg: ?there was something funny going on'

So even if this is true, and I doubt it, he could have been reacting to bad news he received at work, from family or his doctor. Only Brewer, a very early LNer, associated everything that LHO did to him murdering someone.

[Rob Caprio]

The record is clear that Brewer found Oswald suspicious and that led to his arrest.  It is hard to understand the relevance of calling into question Brewer's motives for finding Oswald suspicious.   Even if some contrarian believes that Brewer's explanation for doing so isn't satisfactory, why does that matter unless they are implying that Brewer was a conspirator playing a role in the plot to lead the police to Oswald?  If not and the implication of a conspiracy in questioning Brewer's motives is a "strawman", then Brewer's reasons - whether reasonable or unreasonable - for concluding that Oswald was acting suspiciously doesn't seem to matter.  At best, all you are claiming is that Brewer acted differently than you would expect under the circumstances.  So what?

Hard to understand? What made Brewer competent to judge what makes someone suspicious in regards to murder?

Even you must realize that this would have been brought up at trial had there been one.

[Nicholas Turner]

My comment was based on the actual evidence.

What evidence do you mean?

[Richard Smith]

Hard to understand? What made Brewer competent to judge what makes someone suspicious in regards to murder?

Even you must realize that this would have been brought up at trial had there been one.

How about you explain it?  Even if Brewer's suspicion was unfounded in your subjective opinion, what possible difference would it make as to Oswald's guilt in a trial or otherwise?  Brewer's suspicion only led to his arrest.  The only relevance that discussion has is if you or your contrarian sidekick are alleging that Brewer's suspicion was a product of a conspiracy (i.e. Brewer was part of the plot to frame Oswald and somehow your fantasy conspirators conveniently ensured that Oswald walked down his street and recruited Brewer to point him out).  An absurd premise.

[Steve Howsley]

Actually, it's sceptics that come with their preconceptions, find that those preconceptions don't fit the facts, and then declare the facts faked.

That's right.

Iacoletti is becoming an even bigger idiot as the days go by. Whatever it takes, no matter how preposterous Iacoletti is is prepared to say it if in his alternate universe he thinks he can muddy the waters.
He has no shame.