Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[John Iacoletti]

Yes, it's the same old broken, dishonest tune.  Dishonest John wants to eat his cake and have it too.  Going on and on suggesting that Brewer had no legitimate basis to find Oswald's conduct suspicious, but then denying that he is implying that there is something nefarious about this.  It's laughable.

Quote me ever "implying that there is something nefarious about this", Dishonest "Richard".

[John Iacoletti]

Seems kind of odd that Saint Patsy isn't even slightly interested in what happened, but maybe that's just me.

Just you, Saint Logical Fallacy.  And your other irrational brethren who think that's evidence for murder.

No time to waste, so why hang around for even a moment ?   There was shoe shopping to be done.  And then Gummy Bears and buttered popcorn.  Saint Patsy just got an early start to the weekend. It's just not fair to read anything else into it.

Why present a logical argument with evidence when you can just be sarcastic and insulting instead?

[Bill Chapman]

Keep in mind that Postal never actually saw this person acting suspiciously and most likely never saw him at all.

Police radio description of Tippit suspect:

"I got an eye-ball witness to the get-away man. That suspect in this shooting is a white male, twenty-seven, five feet eleven, a hundred sixty-five, black wavy hair, fair complected, wearing a light grey Eisenhower-type jacket, dark trousers and a white shirt,"

Postal's description to dispatcher of the funny guy Brewer told her he saw:

"explained that he had on this brown sports shirt and I couldn't tell you what design it was, and medium height, ruddy looking to me"

Why don't you try responding to what people actually say rather than what you think they are "clearly implying"?  You have a lousy track record for mind reading.

You mean like you telling us what witnesses saw?and didn't see? in the TT? Got it.

[John Iacoletti]

LOL.  We are going down the usual Caprio rabbit hole.  Are you now claiming the DPD did not receive a call?  Is Postal involved in the plot as well and lying about calling the police?  I have to be "specific and use evidence" for a point that is a matter of record?  While you will not answer a simple question as to whether you are claiming Brewer was part of a plot.

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338516/m1/1/

"Woman's intuition".  That evidence is almost as powerful as a ring in a cup.

[Richard Smith]

LOL. We are now going down the Smith "shift the burden" path. You HAVE TO show that a call took place alerting the police to the LHO alleged sighting. Well?

Who called? Be specific and use the evidence.

Huh?  I've already answered that and you already know that Postal called the DPD.  I posted her affidavit confirming that she called the DPD to report a suspicious person had entered the TT without buying a ticket.  What exactly are you claiming?  Do you have any type of coherent point?  Maybe we could move this along if you could just tell us what it is that you are suggesting.  That Postal and Brewer were part of the conspiracy?   That no one called the DPD?  I don't understand the reluctance to state your point if you have one instead of going around in pointless circles.

[John Iacoletti]

The definition of 'looking funny' you are applying here.

Are you asking me what Brewer meant by "looked funny"?

I don't fancy myself a mind reader like your buddy "Richard".  Get on your Ouija board and ask Brewer what he meant.  Personally I don't think it matters.  I want to know what evidence made the man that Brewer thought looked funny a suspect.

[John Iacoletti]

You mean like you telling us what witnesses saw?and didn't see? in the TT? Got it.

Nope I just point out all of the contradictory accounts about what happened.  That's enough.