Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket

[John Iacoletti]

Since Julia Postal left the ticket booth to walk out towards the sidewalk to see the police cars, who do you suppose would have sold a ticket to Oswald before he entered?  I can't wait to hear this one.

You don't even know when Oswald entered the theater.

[Bill Brown]

You mean the pictures the esteemed Tim Nickerson just posted are of a grey jacket ?

Looks white to me.

Can you prove the jacket now in evidence was substituted for the one found and Saint Oz's shirt fibers were planted in it ?

You were doing better when you were contesting whether the half blind woman could see if Saint Oz was wearing a jacket.

BTW, Marty, got a huge kick out of you pointing out that the half blind woman might have been watching a TV that she didn't own.

That would make a world of difference !

Pathetic.

It really is pathetic.

Arguing that Oswald was not wearing a jacket as he left the house is akin to arguing that Oswald was out on the front steps of the Depository and appears in Billy Lovelady's position in Altgens 6.  Each "theory" is as kooky as the other.  I'd be embarrassed to be linked to Ralph Cinque's insanity.

[Bill Brown]

You don't even know when Oswald entered the theater.

Unrelated.

I'll ask again (since you avoided answering it the first time), Julia Postal left the booth and went out to the sidewalk.  Who do you suppose could have sold a ticket to Oswald? 

[John Iacoletti]

What's your point?  Markham saw Oswald wearing a jacket, regardless of what color she believed it to be.  It doesn't matter if Markham believed the jacket was bright red.

..and that's supposed to prove that CE162 is Oswald's Jacket...how exactly?

She saw the same man seen by Ted Callaway, who said Oswald was wearing a light Eisenhower-type jacket.

Couldn't be.  They had on different jackets.

Regardless of what color Markham believed the jacket to be, why wasn't Oswald wearing that jacket when seen by Brewer and when he was arrested inside the theater?

And you're assuming that the guy Markham saw and the guy Brewer saw were the same guy, because . . . ?

[John Iacoletti]

You mean the pictures the esteemed Tim Nickerson just posted are of a grey jacket ?

Looks white to me.

Can you prove the jacket now in evidence was substituted for the one found and Saint Oz's shirt fibers were planted in it ?

You were doing better when you were contesting whether the half blind woman could see if Saint Oz was wearing a jacket.

BTW, Marty, got a huge kick out of you pointing out that the half blind woman might have been watching a TV that she didn't own.

That would make a world of difference !

Pathetic.

Isn't it funny how this star witness becomes half-blind and crazy again when she starts talking about the police car that went toot-toot?

[Bill Brown]

..and that's supposed to prove that CE162 is Oswald's Jacket...how exactly?

Couldn't be.  They had on different jackets.

And you're assuming that the guy Markham saw and the guy Brewer saw were the same guy, because . . . ?

..and that's supposed to prove that CE162 is Oswald's Jacket...how exactly?

Yet one more straw man.  What is it with you and all of these straw man arguments?

Markham saw Oswald wearing a jacket.  What this is "supposed to prove" is that Oswald ditched his jacket at some point.  Why would he do that?

Couldn't be.  They had on different jackets.

Nah.

It's far more likely that one witness is wrong about the color of a killer's jacket than it is that the two witnesses saw different men flee, each saying that the man had a gun in his hands.  You do realize that Ted Callaway was only a half block away from Markham, right?  Reading your silly posts would lead one to believe that you thought maybe Callaway was miles away from the scene by the time he saw Oswald wearing a jacket while running with a gun.

And you're assuming that the guy Markham saw and the guy Brewer saw were the same guy, because . . . ?

"Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman." - Helen Markham

Lee Oswald was the #2 man in the lineup.


Brewer pointed Oswald out to McDonald from the stage of the theater.

[John Iacoletti]

All of the witnesses saw a gun in Oswald's hands.  You made the ill-advised attempt to imply that these witnesses saw nothing more than Oswald as being "a person near or some distance away from the scene of the shooting".  You conveniently left out the part where each witness stated he was running with a gun.

No, they saw a gun in the hands of a person who they identified in an unfair, biased, and unreliable lineup or from a single photo months later.

But since when does having a gun in one's hands prove that the person just murdered somebody?  I guess Callaway was guilty of murder too.  He had a gun in his hands at the scene of the crime.