Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket

[Martin Weidmann]

Oswald committed the crime of the century in assassinating the president.  He had every reason in the world to be concerned about the police closing in on him.  He had no idea what witnesses had seen or the DPD knew.  For all he knew, he was already a suspect and they were looking for him. At the very least, he knew it wouldn't take long for a guy being watched by the FBI who was missing from the TSBD to become a person of interest.  That is why he also probably shot Tippit.  For all he knew, his name had gone out as a suspect.  He couldn't risk identifying himself to a police officer.  He either had to shoot him while he had the chance or risk arrest.

He had every reason in the world to be concerned about the police closing in on him.

Good point. He kills the President and then what does he do? Does he try to escape by getting out of town as quickly as he can, perhaps to Mexico?

No, he takes a bus (and a taxi) home (one of the first places police would look), changes his clothes and goes for a walk in Oak Cliff......

Yeah, that makes sense, right?

[John Mytton]

He had every reason in the world to be concerned about the police closing in on him.

Good point. He kills the President and then what does he do? Does he try to escape by getting out of town as quickly as he can, perhaps to Mexico?

No, he takes a bus (and a taxi) home (one of the first places police would look), changes his clothes and goes for a walk in Oak Cliff......

Yeah, that makes sense, right?

Does he try to escape by getting out of town as quickly as he can

Yes, he was out of the building within minutes and then he was out of the city 20 minutes later.

No, he takes a bus (and a taxi) home

The bus wasn't getting him out of the city quick enough so he caught a taxi.

(one of the first places police would look)

Exactly, that's why Oswald drove past his Rooming House.

changes his clothes

And don't forget along with Oswald changing his appearance, Oswald grabbed his revolver.

and goes for a walk in Oak Cliff......

Oswald walked 9/10 of a mile in about 12 minutes.

Yeah, that makes sense, right?

Oswald's entire journey from the 6th floor through to escaping the city was a classic example of flight from a scene of a crime.





JohnM

[Bill Brown]

For all he knew, he was already a suspect and they were looking for him.

Really???    So you believe the cops knew where he lived ??    Do you realize that is in direct conflict with what Fritz reported...   According to the official tale nobody knew where Lee's rooming house was located. 

So even if he had been one of the assassins and someone who knew him had gone directly to the police and told them immediately that they had seen Lee Oswald as he shot the President ( You know that nothing like this happened)  The police would have had no idea where to look for him....and yet you think they could have been waiting for him at 1026 North Beckley.
Of course they would have had to set out for the rooming house ahead of Lee Oswald, because he went directly to the rooming house and arrived there at 1:00pm.....

Only an unthinking Kook would believe this nonsense.....

Whatever "Fritz reported", it's unrelated to the thoughts going through Oswald's mind when he was on the run between the Depository and 1026 N. Beckley.

[John Mytton]

And your evidence for showing that LHO was "on the run" is?

Oswald was the only employee who was in the building at 12:30 and left immediately and never came back, WHY?



JohnM

[Tim Nickerson]

Let's get back to basics for a moment, because it seems that for some reason the LNs are ignoring it;

By even the lowest legal standard, there simply is no solid chain of custody for the white jacket found at the carpark. The initials on the jacket were placed there by officers at the police station (just like it happened with the revolver) and (if Westbrook's testimony is to be believed) clearly do not correspond with the officers who actually found that jacket and took it to the station.

Martin, If a chain a custody were required, then you might have a point. Though , I seriously doubt that an imperfect chain of custody would preclude the jacket from being admitted as evidence. Anyway, fortunately for the prosecution, they would be spared any headache of dealing with an imperfect chain of custody. The jacket being readily identifiable forgoes the need to present a chain of custody. The initials placed on it by DPD officials would have made it readily identifiable but the jacket itself was already unique and easily identifiable due to the laundry tag on it. So, it's really a rock solid piece of evidence.

Who really found the jacket, who called it in describing it as being white, who had it when Barnes arrived on the scene to take his picture and how and when it got to the police station is completely and totally unclear.

We don't know who saw it first but Westbrook was the first to handle it. Patrolman R.W. Walker(Call #85) was the first to describe it as being white. The next person to describe it as being white was motorcycle officer J.T. Griffin (Call #279).

As to why they described it as being white?......Gee, that's tough one......

[Bill Brown]

He had every reason in the world to be concerned about the police closing in on him.

Good point. He kills the President and then what does he do? Does he try to escape by getting out of town as quickly as he can, perhaps to Mexico?

No, he takes a bus (and a taxi) home (one of the first places police would look), changes his clothes and goes for a walk in Oak Cliff......

Yeah, that makes sense, right?

Fact:  Oswald was apprehended inside the theater in Oak Cliff.

Can you make sense of why he was in the theater?

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin, If a chain a custody were required, then you might have a point. Though , I seriously doubt that an imperfect chain of custody would preclude the jacket from being admitted as evidence. Anyway, fortunately for the prosecution, they would be spared any headache of dealing with an imperfect chain of custody. The jacket being readily identifiable forgoes the need to present a chain of custody. The initials placed on it by DPD officials would have made it readily identifiable but the jacket itself was already unique and easily identifiable due to the laundry tag on it. So, it's really a rock solid piece of evidence.

We don't know who saw it first but Westbrook was the first to handle it. Patrolman R.W. Walker(Call #85) was the first to describe it as being white. The next person to describe it as being white was motorcycle officer J.T. Griffin (Call #279).

As to why they described it as being white?......Gee, that's tough one......

Martin, If a chain a custody were required, then you might have a point.

You're kidding, right?

Though , I seriously doubt that an imperfect chain of custody would preclude the jacket from being admitted as evidence.

First of all, what you seriously doubt or not is irrelevant. Secondly, the "admission into evidence" argument is a non starter because (1) there is and never will be a trial and (2) something being admitted into evidence at trial does not automatically validate that piece of evidence. During trial the prosecutor would still have to prove it was Oswald's jacket and how and where it was found. The defense would then have a field day demonstrating the massive evidentiary problems with the jacket exactly because there is no credible chain of custody.

But, rather than speculating about what would happen at a trial that will never take place, let's just stick to talking about the WCR and how they reached their conclusions. They pretended to conduct a proper legal investigation but as soon as they hit a problem they simply ignored the basic principals of law and broke just about every rule in the book.

Anyway, fortunately for the prosecution, they would be spared any headache of dealing with an imperfect chain of custody. The jacket being readily identifiable forgoes the need to present a chain of custody. The initials placed on it by DPD officials would have made it readily identifiable but the jacket itself was already unique and easily identifiable due to the laundry tag on it. So, it's really a rock solid piece of evidence.

What a load of BS.... The officers who initialed the jacket did so at the police station and had nothing to do with it being found and/or transported to the station. So, how in the world did they know where it came from? It could just as easily have been brought in as the result of the searches at Ruth Paine's house and Oswald's roominghouse. You are completely delusional to make the argument that a chain of custody doesn't matter just because some officers initialed a jacket at the station. This is exactly the reason why there is a need for a solid chain of custody; to protect the evidence against manipulation!

And as for the dry-cleaners label... Yes it makes the jacket unique, but as far as I know there is no record of the officers who either found the jacket or brought it to the station confirming the jacket they found had a dry-cleaner's label attached to it. So, again... the evidentiary life of the jacket seems to have started at the police station.

And, for all the wrong reasons, even the WC itself wasn't convinced CE 162 was Oswald's jacket. Why else did they request, in March 1964, that the FBI conduct an investigation to determine which dry-cleaner attached the label to the jacket?

We don't know who saw it first but Westbrook was the first to handle it. Patrolman R.W. Walker(Call #85) was the first to describe it as being white. The next person to describe it as being white was motorcycle officer J.T. Griffin (Call #279).

We not only don't know. Even Westbrook himself did not know. That's the entire point. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the white jacket found at the carpark is the same as the gray now in evidence as CE 162. We're just being asked to believe the assumption that it is....

As to why they described it as being white?......Gee, that's tough one......

The two officers described it as white simply because it was white..... See how easy that is? No need for lame excuses about lightning, shades and/or the position of the sun. Your photos prove nothing and are at best misleading propaganda.

The photo of an officer holding the jacket came from b/w footage, so no determination of the true color of the jacket can be made. Two photos were taken of CE 162 at a recent exhibition of the jacket and shirt. Unless you can prove that the color of the jacket has not been affected by 50 years of storage you really have nothing to make a comparision.

But perhaps you have proven something else with your photos; How in the world could Earlene Roberts mistake such a light colored jacket for the darker one she claimed she had seen?