Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[Steve Howsley]

Julia Postal said that Oswald had a panicked look on his face "Mrs. POSTAL. Yes; and when the sirens went by he had a panicked look on his face, and he ducked in" as he passed her yet  she didn't see him go past her.
"Mr. BALL. And you didn't see him actually enter the theatre then?
Mrs. POSTAL. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You hadn't seen him go by you?
Mrs. POSTAL. I knew he didn't go by me, because I was facing west, and Johnny, he had come up from east which meant he didn't go back that way. He had come from east going west. "

If she didn't see him go past her, how could she see he had a panicked look on his face?

Was she simply repeating what Brewer had said to her?
For example PERSON 1 might be at an early morning session at the racetrack and witness a horse called Patsy pull up sore. PERSON 1 mentions it to PERSON 2 who wasn't at the track that day at all. Later that day PERSON 2 in turn tells others that Patsy pulled up sore at the track. It would be easy for others to assume incorrectly that PERSON 2 had witnessed the track session. In that scenario PERSON 2 is not being deceptive. They simply weren't using precise language to describe the event.
Postal was present as Oswald slipped into the theater. She did catch a glimpse of him and Brewer no doubt provided details of his observations back at the shoe store. It does make sense.

[Rob Caprio]

So we can agree that Postal was the source of the balcony report before moving on to something that has been discussed a million times already?  Postal knew the president had been assassinated a short distance away.  Police cars are flying up and down the road right in front of her.  A man is observed by her and Brewer appearing to hide from the police by ducking away from the street whenever a police car goes by.  He enters her theatre without buying a ticket (a crime).  She simply reports a person acting suspiciously under the totality of circumstances.  She has no idea whether this is the person the police are looking for or not.  Just that he is behaving like someone trying to hide from the police.  Which, of course, was exactly what he was doing.  There is no great mystery here.

No, we can't. The dispatcher logs EVERY call, thus, it should be easy to show who did call, but you can't. Why is that?

4 miles is NOT a short distance. Neither one of them were trained or qualified to judge what was suspicious behavior. Furthermore, as we have seen in this thread there is serious doubt that either of them even saw the man as claimed.

[Steve Howsley]

4 miles is NOT a short distance.

It is in a country the size of the USA. It's all relative.

Neither one of them were trained or qualified to judge what was suspicious behavior.

So only those with formal training in body language and psychology should be called as eye witnesses? Madness.

Furthermore , as we have seen in this thread there is serious doubt that either of them even saw the man as claimed.

There is absolutely no doubt that Oswald was seen at the shoe store and in the theater.

[Richard Smith]

False premise.

Postal did not interact with Burroughs, she sent in Brewer. You don't know what she inferred based on Brewer's feedback.

What we know is, based on the evidence, that the WC failed to establish the source for "hiding in balcony" by dispatch.

Nonsense.  She sent Brewer in to search with Burroughs.  When Brewer came back he told Postal that neither of them had seen Oswald.  As a result, Postal knew that Burroughs had not seen Oswald enter the theatre.  She didn't have to "interact" with Burroughs.   Her assumption, based upon prior experience as confirmed in her testimony, is that the man avoided Burroughs only by heading straight up to the balcony.  She then called the police.  She believed the man had gone to the balcony.  She is the source of that report.  2+2=4 

[Richard Smith]

No, we can't. The dispatcher logs EVERY call, thus, it should be easy to show who did call, but you can't. Why is that?

4 miles is NOT a short distance. Neither one of them were trained or qualified to judge what was suspicious behavior. Furthermore , as we have seen in this thread there is serious doubt that either of them even saw the man as claimed.

Does the log still exist?  Have you seen it to confirm that it does not contain Postal's call?  If it is simply not available to check, that is not evidence of anything.  Regardless, you would allege it was forged or that there was no "corroborating" witness to information recorded therein etc.  What we have is Postal's sworn testimony and affidavit that she made the call.  And the police responded to that call.  I'm not aware of any other CTer that questions whether Postal made the call to the DPD.  It is absurd and highlights an outlandish struggle against reality.

[Howard Gee]

Carpio, I'll probably regret asking this, but why do you think Saint Patsy went to the movies ? 

[Richard Smith]

Next false assumption.

Mrs. POSTAL. No, sir; I told Johnny this, don't tell him, because he is an excitable person, and just have him, you know, go with you and examine the exits and check real good, so, he came back and said he hadn't seen anything although, he had heard a seat pop up like somebody getting out, but there was nobody around that area....

Brewer does not report back what Burroughs might have told him. Suspect is currently not to be seen.

LOL.  This is not complex.  What Postal knows: 1) A man has entered the theatre without buying a ticket; 2) Burroughs is the ticket taker; 3) The man has gotten past Burroughs without being seen because he is in the theatre somewhere; 4) Brewer confirms after conducting a search with Burroughs that they hadn't seen him; 5) that it is possible to avoid Burroughs by heading up to the balcony upon entry.   As a result, Postal concludes - again per her testimony - that the man has gone up to the balcony.   There is no ambiguity on that point.  Both she and Burroughs reached the same conclusion.  She makes the call to the police.  She has cause to believe the man is in the balcony.  Thus, she is the obvious source of that report.