Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[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.

[Bill Brown]

It is relevant and it's something that you cannot just dismiss or wish away. It has to be dealt with. How would you do so in front of a jury? Why would Oswald deny that he carried a long package to work that morning and deny that he told Frazier that it was curtain rods?

Tim, you're talking to Tony Fratini who has a theory about the bag... and if his theory is true, then Linnie Mae Randle and Buell Frazier were flat out lying when they said they saw Oswald carrying some sort of bag that morning.

Frazier and Randle... Lying.

Oswald... Not Lying.

Pathetic, in my opinion.

[Bill Brown]

She estimated the bag to be 27 inches long, which was too short to hold the alleged murder weapon.

Now, if you would have said it this way in the first place, we wouldn't be talking about it right now.  But, that is not what you said originally.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

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.

So Oswald knows nothing about the shooting, simply walks out of the building, sees the screaming and yelling and chaos all around, and just decides, "I think I'll go to a movie."

Even shady lawyers wouldn't try to  sell that one.

Desperate conspiracy believers? Sure, but not defense lawyers.

[Martin Weidmann]

"A" bag is very different from a PARTICULAR bag as the WC claimed. Your claim that the WC's UNSUPPORTED claim of what type of bag was used is accurate is what is "pathetic."

Exactly right. Tony's theory being correct would not automatically mean that Frazier and Randle lied, as Brown falsely claims. It would just mean that Frazier and Randle saw Oswald carry a different bag, which is basically what they implicitely have been saying all along, as neither was able to identify CE 142 as the bag they had seen Oswald carry.