Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[John Iacoletti]

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.

So it's just your conjecture that the reason they couldn't see anything was because it was too dark, but that they still thought he was up there?

[Nicholas Turner]

So it's just your conjecture that the reason they couldn't see anything was because it was too dark, but that they still thought he was up there?

Common sense, conjecture, opinion, call it what you like. Do you think they conducted a thorough search?

[Howard Gee]

Enough for what?

Why?  The resulting police response was unwarranted.

More useless rhetoric instead of evidence.  How surprising.

Enough for what ?  Saint Patsy looking scared would be enough to arouse Brewer's suspicions. That's what.

The police response was warranted. Your client's arrest is proof of that. 

That's not useless rhetoric. That's a fact.

[Richard Smith]

In which we learn that "mindreading" is a necessary skill to conclude that when the police are buzzing all around you with sirens blaring that they are looking for someone.  And on the very day the president has been assassinated only three miles away.  LOL.  You can't make that sort of thing up.  It is comedy gold.  And if there were any doubt, Postal confirms in her testimony that she and her boss mentioned that things were about to bust while observing the police activity.  It is embarrassing to see the lengths that dishonest John will go to protect Oswald. 

I still haven't got a straight answer as to why Brewer and Postal would take these actions if they did not find Oswald to be suspicious but were not acting out of any nefarious purpose.  How can their actions be explained?  Did they make a prank call to the police? It's impossible to fill that Grand Canyon-like narrative void in which Brewer and Postal have no cause to take notice of Oswald, but call the DPD to report him as acting suspiciously with no nefarious intent on their part.

[John Iacoletti]

The police response was warranted. Your client's arrest is proof of that. 

Brilliant.  Whatever the police decide to do is by definition warranted.

No.  They had no probable cause to search Oswald or arrest him for murder.

That's not useless rhetoric. That's a fact.

Your tiresome "your hero" / "your client" / "Saint Patsy" shtick is the useless rhetoric.  Along with your belligerent attitude that doesn't actually demonstrate anything but what kind of person you are.

[Richard Smith]

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.

I'll try one last time.  If you are suggesting that Brewer and Postal had no cause to take notice of Oswald and lied about that in their testimony and affidavits, then why did Postal confirm that she called the DPD to report him as acting suspiciously?   Give us a narrative that explains their actions if they had no cause to take notice of him as you suggest.  Got it?

[John Iacoletti]

In which we learn that "mindreading" is a necessary skill to conclude that when the police are buzzing all around you with sirens blaring that they are looking for someone.

Actually what we learned is that "Richard" thinks he gets to define what other people "know".

What's embarrassing is the lengths that Lying "Richard" will go to justify police misconduct.

I still haven't got a straight answer as to why Brewer and Postal would take these actions if they did not find Oswald to be suspicious but were not acting out of any nefarious purpose.

Sigh.  Brewer did find the man in front of his store to be suspicious.  Nobody said he didn't.  And Postal is irrelevant because she didn't see anybody do anything.

Everything else that leads from this misrepresentation of yours is just another strawman.  You just can't control yourself, can you?

Brewer's interpretation of the man doesn't make the man a murder suspect though.

[Rob Caprio]

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.

If you genuinely cared then you would learn the evidence, but, alas, you want me to spoon feed you instead. I am not going to waste my time.

You can draw any conclusion that you wish, but it is clear that you are a LNer. LNers are not interested in the evidence because it fails to support the claims that they so wholeheartedly endorse.

I had the evidence up in my "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series, but it was removed due to the LNers constant complaints. See, LNers are not interested in the actual evidence found in the twenty-six volumes and CD's.

If you are genuinely and sincerely interested then check out the twenty-six volumes. Good luck.