Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[Richard Smith]

Down the rabbit hole we go again. Why would they check the theatre for him if they did not have cause to believe Oswald had gone in?  LOL.  Postal explains it in her testimony.  She sees a man approach from the east.  He doesn't go by her on the west.  Brewer is following him.  If he doesn't go forward down the street and doesn't go backward toward Brewer, there is only one thing he could have done.  Go into the theatre.  How do we know this for certain?  Wait for it - because Oswald was found in the theatre.  Ergo he had to enter the theatre.   

Mrs. POSTAL. Well, I didn't actually----because I stepped out of the box office and went to the front and was facing west. I was right at the box office facing west, because I thought the police were stopping up quite a ways. Well, just as I turned around then Johnny Brewer was standing there and he asked me if the fellow that ducked in bought a ticket, and I said, "No; by golly, he didn't," and turned around expecting to see him.

[Howard Gee]

How did they know that he had gone in?  Neither Brewer, Postal, or Burroughs saw anyone go in at that time, and Brewer and Burroughs did not see him when they checked the balcony and the theater area.

Brewer sees Saint Patsy acting suspiciously. Brewer decides to keep an eye on Saint Patsy. Brewer watches Saint Patsy walk in the direction of the TT. Brewer sees Saint Patsy reach the front of the theater and disappear.

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 also accurate for the troll to state Brewer doesn't initially see Saint Patsy in the balcony or ground floor seating of the darkened theater.

Unfortunately for the troll, once the lights in the theater go on, Brewer most definitely does see the man that was acting strangely in front of his store - the same man that he trailed and watched walk to the front of the theater and disappear.

That man's name was Lee Harvey Oswald, AKA Saint Patsy.

Trolletti will continue to ask 'how do we know he entered the theater', not because the answer isn't obvious, but because that's what TROLLS do.

[Bill Chapman]

The buddies were two unidentified "IBM men" who weren't customers but apparently just liked lounging around his shoe store  (as IBM men do) and I guess he wasn't too worried about abandoning his store with them in there.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16235#relPageId=9&tab=page

'(as IBM men do)'

(as IBM men did)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16235#relPageId=10&tab=page

[EXCERPT]:

[Bill Chapman]

LNers love this particular strawman.

I don't have any evidence, but if I did you wouldn't believe it anyway.  Therefore I'm right.

Where did I say I was right about anything here...

[Nicholas Turner]

I don't care what somebody in the thread was guessing.

Focus: Who told dispatch the suspect was hiding in the balcony?

That's the interesting question. If not Postal somebody else called in or furnished that info.

Police reports confirm arriving officers (front) were directed, possibly by Postal, to the balcony.

BALL, in his continued line of failures, failed to settle that issue leaving the possibility open that Oswald was set up at the TT.

You've read this one by Detective Toney?

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark%3A/67531/metapth337070/

Who was the manager on duty?

Who was the young man on top of stairs?

Did suspect pass man on stairs and if so when?

Have you seen any of those (or similar) questions asked by the WC?

I'm sure if we could watch a film recording of all this it would all make sense but no such thing exists so we care relying on human recollections and statements in circumstances where they were on edge, where there was uncertainty and confusion and where communications were imperfect. I am not surprised that details don't always match and not everything is explained. This is true in most such situations in life and doesn't necessarily indicate anything suspicious, rather it demonstrates our human weaknesses and frailties.

[Nicholas Turner]

Nice essay --- I understand why you suddenly lost interest.

Lost interest in over analysing the minutiae without any feeling for how people act in difficult situations, searching for something which can be presented as suspicious, yes. Though actually, that's wrong as I never was particularly interested in that.

[Nicholas Turner]

Cases are solved by collecting and analyzing (repeatedly) minutiae so you're headed down the wrong track if you have an ambition of understanding what happened.

Cases are solved by professional investigators trained to recognise significant details but also to consider how people react and behave and not to get lost in minutiae, not by online amateur sleuths looking for things which they think supports their beliefs.

Looking at the minutiae is not on its own an issue but each detail should not be viewed in isolation but should be viewed with an over view and feeling for the bigger picture and how people act in difficult situations.

[Nicholas Turner]

Ian Griggs certainly proved your point by outperforming the million dollar Warren Commission 30 years after the fact.

The more skilled online amateurs continue to expose the lies of the WC is that why you stay online?

The WC was flawed and there were clearly attempts to cover things up. That doesn't mean necessarily that there was a conspiracy before the event, nor that the overall conclusion of the WC, that LHO acted alone, is wrong.

Tired Nutter straw man. Who claimed minutia should be viewed in isolation?

I judge from what I see and read on here and elsewhere.