Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[John Iacoletti]

There is nothing circular about this Inspector Ding-a-Ling except your IQ.  What is the best evidence of an object's size?  Someone's estimate or measuring the object itself?

Uh, Inspector Imbecile, you haven't established that it is the object itself.  You just assumed it is.

So what needs to be explained if this is not Oswald's bag:  1) bad luck by Old Lee to have touched and left his prints on this particular bag (the only TSBD employee to have done so); 2) its location near the SN; 3) no bag matching Frazier's estimate ever being found; 4) Oswald himself denying he carried any bag along the size estimated by Frazier; 5) multiple DPD officers confirming the bag was found on the 6th floor; 6) no apparent work-related purpose for such a bag to be in the TSBD; 7) no one else ever coming forward who worked in the building to indicate it was their bag or who could explain its presence (50 plus years and counting).

You're like a broken record.  You haven't established that any of these claims are true.  You're just assuming them as well:

"(the only TSBD employee to have done so)"
"Oswald himself denying he carried any bag along the size estimated by Frazier"
"its location near the SN"
"no apparent work-related purpose for such a bag to be in the TSBD"

And these are all still stupid "absence of evidence equals evidence of absence" arguments that you keep trotting out over and over again:

"no bag matching Frazier's estimate ever being found"
"no one else ever coming forward who worked in the building to indicate it was their bag or who could explain its presence"

This has been refuted over and over and over again.  No bag ever matching Harold Norman's lunch bag was ever found either.  So by Richard Smith twisted logic, that never existed either.

You can't prove with any actual evidence that CE142 was in the SN when it was first discovered (the first 5-6 officers on the scene did not see it, and Studebaker didn't photograph it even though he was standing right there with a camera).

You can't prove with any actual evidence that CE142 was the bag that Frazier and Randle saw.  They both said it was not.

You can't prove with any actual evidence that there was ever a rifle inside CE142.

Deal with it.

[John Iacoletti]

It's no use Richard. If Oswald were alive today and said "I did it", most of the people on here would jump up and down with their hair on fire and call him a liar and ask him, "do you have any evidence to prove it!" Truly fascinating.

The only "evidence" Wesley can come up with is his imagined response to some fantasy confession that never actually happened.  Brilliant.

[Wesley Johnson]

The only "evidence" Wesley can come up with is his imagined response to some fantasy confession that never actually happened.  Brilliant.

his imagined response to some fantasy confession

Do you have any evidence that I ever claimed to have made an imagined response to some fantasy confession? 

[John Iacoletti]

Do you have any evidence that I ever claimed to have made an imagined response to some fantasy confession? 

[Bill Brown]

He went to the movies because he  had  no plans and was aimlessly walking around and the movie theater was there and cops were around.  I know even come LNs disagree with me but I don't think there is any chance that Oswald thought he was getting out of the TSBD and didn't plan on what do do if he did. He had no plans and no place to go.

If he had plans to get away he would have brought his pistol with him and would not have needed to go back to the rooming house. How did he know the cops were not going to bust him at the rooming house? I don't think there is any way someone could shoot a President in front of all of those people and cops and think they are going to just walk out of that building. Plus if he had any real plans he would have kept more money.

[Bill Brown]

How can you be sure that Oswald even knew that the president was shot?

Why else would he leave work early? He wasn't curious as to why a police officer was 1) in the building and 2) pointing a gun at him?

He did not believe that there was going to be any more work that day?

This is a classic example of Iacoletti, using shady defense lawyer tactics, showing that he is willing to jump through any hoop to get a double murderer off the hook.

One minute, we cannot be sure that Oswald was even aware that the President had been shot at... and then, in the next minute, Oswald possibly left work early because he didn't believe there was going to be any more work that day because the President had been shot at.

Nice work, Sean Kneringer.

[Bill Brown]

Bill,

when are you going to finally stop playing your childish word games?

The most critical observation was that on the night of 22/11/1963 - in front of Law Enforcement Officers - neither LMR nor BWF recognized an unstained CE 142 as being in the possession of Lee Harvey Oswald that very morning.

When is it going to finally sink into your head?

The FBI expert made it absolutely clear - CE 142 was an oblong shaped home made paper bag that was 38 inches in length, with an open untapered and untaped end. In addition, there was NO evidence that any weapon was inside it.

when are you going to finally stop playing your childish word games?

Iacoletti stated that Randle and Frazier stated that the bag was too short to carry the alleged murder weapon.  This is an incorrect statement by Iacoletti.

This is about the ability of the witness (in this case, Randle) to be able to properly estimate the length of an object in terms of feet and/or inches versus being able to simply compare the length of one object (the bag) to the length of another object (the alleged murder weapon).

If Linnie Mae Randle had been shown the broken down rifle and said that it was too long to have been in the bag that she saw Oswald carry that morning, then Iacoletti would have a point.  But, I haven't been able to find anything showing where she ever said such a thing or that she was ever shown the alleged murder weapon.

Linnie Mae Randle never says what Iacoletti falsely attributes to her.

You can call it word games all you want, it doesn't change the fact that Iacoletti misspoke.  A newbie, after reading Iacoletti's false statement, could be left with false knowledge that Linnie Mae Randle told the authorities that the rifle was too long for the bag.

Do you have any evidence of her ever saying such a thing?

Perhaps Randle believed the bag measured about twenty-seven inches and she also would have estimated the length of the broken down Carcano to be... say... twenty-five inches , for example.  This would prove that she had the inability to correctly estimate the length of an object (since the broken down Carcano was indeed longer than twenty-five inches).

Iacoletti's falsehood is only valid if Randle was shown the broken down rifle and then stated that it was too long for the bag she saw that morning.