Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[Paul May]

This speculation about LHO?s movements after the shooting has (sigh) been discussed 55 years with no definitive resolution. It will be raised for another 50 years....with no resolution.  So the point AGAIN discussing it is what?  To hear the very same opinions and speculations over and over again?  What am I missing here?

[Bill Chapman]

I would think, given that Brewer had heard about  the assassination and the murder of Tippit, that if someone stepped into the lobby of his shop when there were police sirens in the area, stared ahead with his back to the street, then left when the sirens were moving away, that being a bit suspicious of that man would be quite understandable.

Not only that, I saw an announcement by the DPD (Fritz I think, on YouTube a few months ago) at the onset of the manhunt, encouraging the genpop to be alert to people that might appear nervous, suspicious, etc to them. A kind of 1963 version of the present-day Homeland Security's 'see/say' recommendation.

[Bill Chapman]

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

Show us where Brewer attached anything but (what he perceived as) suspicious behaviour to the guy he saw looking in his window.

[Bill Chapman]

   It's a case of the cold willies.  Once you git'm n'you can just tell.

The Divine Miss M said something similar

[Richard Smith]

So again you attack the eyewitnesses who were actually there and saw the events with their own eyes and then attempt to insert your own narrative. WOW!

JohnM

And for what purpose?  If there is no allegation being made that Brewer was involved in the conspiracy (i.e. that is a "strawman"), then what difference does it make whether Brewer's suspicion of Oswald was reasonable or not?  This is more Alice-in-Wonderland logic from someone who knows the evidence is against their client.  Arguing that Brewer was acting unreasonably, but then denying that he is making any claim that Brewer was doing so for a nefarious purpose.  Thereby rendering the entire discussion pointless.  Clearly what Dishonest John I. is doing is trying to imply that Brewer was acting in some nefarious manner but without acknowledging that because of the obvious absurdity of that position.  An intellectually dishonest approach.  Not unlike knowing someone posted in a certain thread but then claiming they did not because the thread had been deleted and they believed no one could "prove" otherwise. 

[Bill Chapman]

Ever useful as always.

Another non-answer as always

[Bill Chapman]

Those who can't argue the facts and evidence just insult the opposition and hope that nobody else notices.

Those who can only make fun of an alert citizen who deemed that the 'guy' looking in his window was acting strange are only here to insult reasonable people... and hope that newbies don't notice.

[Jerry Freeman]

.. an alert citizen ...

Another ounce of luck? ...to add to the tons of great fortune which had already transpired.
A hole in one with every stroke and they got their man!