Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket

[John Iacoletti]

You left out the part where all of the witnesses saw Oswald with a gun in his hands.  Honest mistake on your part to leave that out, right?

...in biased and unfair lineups or from a single photo months later.

But is this supposed to prove who shot Tippit?

[John Iacoletti]

This is wrong, pure and simple.

Burroughs never said anything of the sort on November 22, 1963.

Burroughs made that claim for The Men Who Killed Kennedy (1988).

===============

Warren Commission testimony, April 8, 1964:

Mr. BALL. Did you see that man come in the theatre?
Mr. BURROUGHS. No, sir; I didn't.

Highly dishonest.  Burroughs never claimed even in 1988 to have seen Oswald come in the theater.  There's no contradiction here.

[Howard Gee]

Brewer didn't see the person he was watching from behind way down the street even enter the theater.

That's right, from his vantage Brewer couldn't see the person enter the theater.

But he could see the person he identified as none other than Saint Oz stop in front of the theater and disappear from his view.

At which point the cops were notified that their suspect was probably in the theater and lo and behold, there's Saint Oz.

What an amazing coincidence !

[John Iacoletti]

That's right, from his vantage Brewer couldn't see the person enter the theater.

But he could see the person he identified as none other than Saint Oz stop in front of the theater and disappear from his view.

If that's not evidence of murder then I don't know what is.

 

[Tim Nickerson]

Good, then show Griffin acknowledging this transmission and stating that he was heading there.

What for?

Then explain why the DPD transcript says 279 found the jacket. You are running around in circles.

The DPD transcript doesn't say 279 found the jacket.

[Tim Nickerson]

He is as close as anyone. He sent the transmission and he didn't say anyone else found it.

He didn't say that he found it either.

 

Explain why he said the jacket is white.

He said the jacket was white for the same reason that people would say the the jacket seen in the pics below is white.

[Martin Weidmann]

You're right again, Johnboi.

By itself, Brewer witnessing someone acting suspiciously and taking action which led to your hero being apprehended isn't evidence of murder.

However, it does destroy your narrative that Brewer just saw 'a person' walking towards the theater. There's no doubt that the person Brewer saw, entered the theater, and that person's name was Lee Harvey Oswald, AKA Saint Oz.

The same Saint Oz who wasn't wearing a jacket when arrested but whose shirt fibers were found in the jacket ditched under a car in a lot through which JDT's assailent fled.

Poor Saint Oz was having a really, really bad day.


Next up: Hairless goofball says Oswald's shirt fibers in a jacket aren't evidence of murder.

whose shirt fibers were found in the jacket ditched under a car in a lot

So you can actually prove conclusively that the grey jacket now in evidence as CE 162 is the jacket found under a car in a lot?

Care to amaze us all?