Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[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.

[Richard Smith]

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?

We know Postal called the police.  We know she thought the man was in the balcony because he had not been seen by Burroughs in the lobby and she knew from past experience that a way to avoid Burroughs was to head directly up the stairs upon entering the TT to the balcony.  She made a logical inference that may or may not have been correct.  Oswald very well could have gone up to the balcony and cut across to avoid the lobby and Burroughs.  So Postal is the obvious source of the balcony report.   

[Rob Caprio]

Brewer said he "couldn't see anything upstairs."  That can mean it was too dark to tell whether Oswald was there or not.  All it means is that they didn't see Oswald anywhere - upstairs or down in a dark theater.  But they knew he had gone in and somehow got past Burroughs without being noticed. Postal knew from experience that it was possible to elude Burroughs in the foyer by heading up the balcony stairs upon entering the theatre because some kids had apparently done that in the past.  It seems entirely reasonable that this became the basis of the balcony report.   

If only you had evidence for your story.

[Richard Smith]

If only you had evidence for your story.

It's in her testimony.  Clear as day.  She thought the man had gone to the balcony because Burroughs did not see him pass through the lobby.  Burroughs came to the same conclusion as he confirmed in his testimony.  Postal called the police.  The police received a report that the man was in the balcony.  2+2=4.