Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[John Iacoletti]

It doesn't take Nostradamus to conclude that someone entering the theatre without buying a ticket is acting suspiciously - particularly when Brewer is following the guy - and so she reports that to the police having no idea whether this is the guy they are looking for.

No, apparently it takes "women's intuition".   

She told the police that the man in the theater was "running from you for some reason" and that when the police drove by, the man ducked in.  She didn't witness anything of the kind.  She was out on the sidewalk looking the other way.

And before you make up yet another strawman, I'm not saying that Lying Richard's Fantasy Conspirators (tm) told her to lie.  But her statements are false.

She reports it and the police respond accordingly.

The police responded illegally.

  All Oswald has to do is clear this up by explaining himself instead of punching a cop and pulling a gun.

He didn't pull a gun, Lying Richard.

When was he supposed to explain himself?  Before or after "Captor of Oswald" tried to feel him up?  And explain what?  His funny looks?

  Your hero can't do that, however, because it turns out he is the cop killer and assassin.

The fact that you can't formulate a rational argument without your "hero" and "client" rhetoric and just stating over and over again that Oswald was guilty demonstrates just how empty that rhetoric is.

[John Iacoletti]

I did.  She saw the police roaring up and down the road.  She knew they were looking for someone.

Mindreading Lying "Richard" now turns his mad mindreading skilz on Julia Postal.

Utter nonsense.  If police cars are roaring down the road they are on their way to some other destination.  If they're "looking for someone" they stop and look for someone.

  Maybe the JFK assassin, maybe for something else.  DP is all of three miles away!  The important point is that she knew something was going on in her immediate vicinity.  Brewer told her a guy had entered the theatre.  She hadn't sold him a ticket.

She told both Brewer and the FBI that she didn't know whether or not she sold him a ticket.

  She reports him to the police.  What is so perplexing about this?  How about you answer a question for once and tell us why you think she called the police if she had no basis to do so?

What perplexes me is who told the police that the man was in the balcony.  Dallas Assistant District Attorney Jim Bowie told Leo Sauvage that there were half a dozen calls to the police.  Who were these other people?

[Rob Caprio]

I did.  She saw the police roaring up and down the road.  She knew they were looking for someone.  Maybe the JFK assassin, maybe for something else.  DP is all of three miles away!  The important point is that she knew something was going on in her immediate vicinity.  Brewer told her a guy had entered the theatre.  She hadn't sold him a ticket.  She reports him to the police.  What is so perplexing about this?  How about you answer a question for once and tell us why you think she called the police if she had no basis to do so?

So you CANNOT show that she called the DPD as claimed. You also CANNOT show why she would think a man that she NEVER saw was a suspect in the JFK murder miles away. Got it.

I thought so.

[Rob Caprio]

Ok, I'll give it one more go.

You said 'This fabricated story was created to involve Brewer when the actual evidence shows that he was most likely not involved.'

I asked 'What actual evidence is that?'

Perhaps you could clarify by saying what the fabricated story is, what the true story is, and what the evidence is relating to Brewer's involvement.

I answered this question. The evidence showing that Brewer was involved in the events of November 22, 1963, does NOT exist in the twenty-six volumes outside of Brewer's claims during his testimony.

If you don't know this then you do NOT know the evidence. See, I *already* answered your question.

[Howard Gee]

What did Brewer see that was "evading the cops"?

He stood there and "looked scared".

 

Looking scared would be enough.

You really need to stop trying to portray Brewer's actions as irrational and the resulting police response as unwarranted.

Doesn't matter if it was because he thought your hero looked funny, looked scared or just had a receding hairline. 

Bottom line is Brewer thought Saint Patsy was acting suspicously and took the necessary action to get your client apprehended.

Sucks for you and your hero, but you're just going to have to accept it.

[Nicholas Turner]

Who said that?

I believe they kept the film running and only put the lights up just before the police got there. Brewer said they went up to the balcony looked around but couldn't see anything. They had looked downstairs but Brewer said it was dark and that they couldn't see how many people were in there. Then they went upstairs but couldn't see anything.

[Nicholas Turner]

I answered this question. The evidence showing that Brewer was involved in the events of November 22, 1963, does NOT exist in the twenty-six volumes outside of Brewer's claims during his testimony.

If you don't know this then you do NOT know the evidence. See, I *already* answered your question.

Why do you think I am asking you? If knew the evidence I wouldn't ask for it! Mine is a genuine question. The mind set displayed in your responses is very enlightening. I gave it one more go but that's it, you're off my Christmas card list.

[John Iacoletti]

Looking scared would be enough.

Enough for what?

You really need to stop trying to portray Brewer's actions as irrational and the resulting police response as unwarranted.

Why?  The resulting police response was unwarranted.

Doesn't matter if it was because he thought your hero looked funny, looked scared or just had a receding hairline. 

Bottom line is Brewer thought Saint Patsy was acting suspicously and took the necessary action to get your client apprehended.

Sucks for you and your hero, but you're just going to have to accept it.

More useless rhetoric instead of evidence.  How surprising.