Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[John Iacoletti]

Oh, please. Give it up already. Do we really need to go over this again ?

Who are you trying to fool?  "Again"?  How about for the first time?

The evidence you claim doesn't exist is presented to you, then you try to dispute the evidence, then you go back to claiming it doesn't exist.

You haven't presented FA as evidence that Oswald owned C2766, other than some vague reference to similar order forms that actually don't prove anything.

Is there a single piece of evidence in the case that you accept ?

The evidence is the evidence.  I don't accept your handwaving, speculative, conclusions about what the evidence means.

There's no evidence you accept, you spend your entire time here insinuating that every piece of evidence is tainted or fabricated, yet at the same time claim you're not suggesting a conspiracy to frame Oswald.

Or do I have that wrong ?

You never get anything right.

What little physical evidence there is in this case that actually implicates Oswald is questionable, arguable, impeachable, or tainted in some way.  We spend a lot of time in this forum discussing why this is the case.  Your solution to this quandry is to insult people and insist that you are correct nonetheless.

What evidence against Oswald do you accept ?

Why don't you try naming some first.  Evidence that actually shows that Oswald shot JFK.  Howard Brennan's belated identification, and ....what else?

Do you think there was a conspiracy to frame Oswald ?  If so, name some names already.

A conspiracy to frame Oswald before the fact?  No, I haven't seen any compelling reason to believe that.

Does that somehow prove that Oswald did it?

Should we start with Johnny Brewer ?

I've never accused Brewer of conspiring to frame Oswald.

[John Iacoletti]

Brewer saw someone who was avoiding the Police then the Police find the same someone who has a gun and then tries to kill them with it, thank god for Brewer.

"Tries to kill them with it".  Oh my, you are full of unsubstantiated accusations aren't you?

Thanks for reinforcing that Oswald must have snuck into the theater.

Sorry, still unproven.

Well John, when you kill people you get arrested.

Get a grip.  There was ZERO evidence of him killing anybody at the time they arrested him and you know it.  Even by your bogus evidentiary standards.

[Bill Chapman]

Initially Crapman was all excited about the Griggs interview --- that faded quickly.

Here's another one from Brewer, but first a few numbers from the WC:

"About six or seven people were seated on the theatre's main floor and an equal number in the balcony."

Postal (WC):

Mrs. POSTAL. Fourteen or twenty-four. I believe it was 24. Everything was happening so fast.

Brewer (WC):

Mr. BELIN - How many patrons were in the theatre at that time?
Mr. BREWER - I couldn't really tell. There weren't many, but it was dark and we couldn't see how many people were in there. There were 15 or 20, I would say, at the most, upstairs and downstairs.
Mr. BELIN - Together, 15 or 20?
Mr. BREWER - Yes.
//
Mr. BREWER - When we first went down to the exit by the stage, we heard a seat pop up, but couldn't see anybody. And we never did see him. But we went back and upstairs and checked, and we came down and went back to the box office and told Julia that we hadn't seen him.

Brewer (Griggs):

JCB - [...] And I said 'Butch come on with me' and we went up into the balcony. And using the screen as a backlight we could see there were no heads up there.
ILG - So the balcony was totally empty?
JCB - Yeah.

Oops....

But is it Brewer or the Commission?

Brewer said the balcony was empty, therefore his estimated 15-20 were all downstairs. His estimate included the empty balcony.

Not that you're desperate for attention, Tom. To a 24/7/365/CTerGetALife, I suppose having more pressing matters to attend to away from this forum is considered 'fading' by you lot...

Regarding Brewer's reasoning for finding Oswald suspicious-looking to him, I provided a link to that on MF Page 6 in his interview.

[John Iacoletti]

This is the Markham testimony that "honest" JohnI uses and this explains why he never likes to support his ideas with the actual evidence.

Markham was clearly saying that she saw nobody around until she was at Tippit's side. Naughty naughty.

Nice try.  20 minutes before anyone came out.  I underestimated.

And here's the Markham-Tippit "conversation". Frank Cimino's FBI report said basically the same "but never said anything that he could understand." Naughty naughty, again.

Nice try again.  It's not "basically the same".  Cimino said he groaned.  Markham said he tried to talk to her and that he knew she was there.

[John Iacoletti]

He doesn't enter, but just stands there just outside the door and keeps his back turned to the street. Brewer notices that TM is staring (as you like to point out), but he's not staring at the merchandise in the store or the display cases on either side of the vestibule.

How would Brewer know what the man was looking at?

The police cars make a U-turn at Zang, half a block short of reaching the shoe store, and head back to the East. TM looks over his shoulder, then proceeds in a Westerly direction, away from where the police cars came from.

"Avoiding the police" is just injecting a biased assumption based on what you already believe.  Maybe he was looking over his shoulder to avoid knocking down another pedestrian who might be walking by.  If the police cars turned around at Zang, why would he need to look for police cars?

TM continues on until he reaches the Texas Theatre, when Brewer sees TM disappear into the recess at the front of the theater. Brewer walks to the theater, doesn't see the guy reappear, and notices TM isn't in front of the theater when Brewer gets there.

You forgot the part where he went back to the shoe store first.

Brewer realizes that TM had to have entered the theater, and asks the ticket clerk whether she'd sold TM a ticket. He gets a negative response;

No, she said she wasn't sure whether he did or not.

the guy snuck in. You might be the only sucker alive who couldn't see that as suspicious and evasive behavior.

Be honest -- you consider it suspicious behavior because you already believe it was Oswald and he was avoiding the police.

He was arrested after he struck a policeman and pulled a gun.  Let me guess: you don't consider that suspicious behavior, either.

Actually I consider that a false statement.  McDonald didn't say he pulled a gun.  Besides, he was arrested for murder, not for striking a policeman or pulling a gun.

The criminal trespass thing would in itself have created probable cause to arrest and search Oswald once Brewer pointed him out.

No, actually it would not have been.  They had no probable cause for criminal trespass either.  And they tried to search him before they arrested him.  No go.

[John Iacoletti]

This perfectly sums up our differing approaches to this case, you deceitfully present an image with no context and no explanation, whereas I present it all and let the Jury decide.

 

If posting an image with no context or explanation is "deceitful" then your picture is "deceitful" too.

[John Iacoletti]

Those, you look at the signature on them. They have to be signed by the purchaser, you know. And the one I'll bet you're trying to change the subject to has a signature that has been conclusively determined to be Oswald's

There's nothing conclusive about handwriting "analysis".

[John Iacoletti]

Ok, that's your honest experience and I respect that but if we never needed the stub then why do they tear the ticket in half and give us back the stub?

Do you have some evidence that the Texas Theater tore the tickets in half and gave back the stub?