The Bus Stop Farce

[Martin Weidmann]

She testified under oath that LHO was wearing a jacket.

Roberts’ TV response was to Ball asking about the color of the shirt that LHO was wearing when he came in. (Not when he was leaving.) So what is your claim?

She testified under oath that LHO was wearing a jacket.

Yes, but she said - also under oath - that the jacket was dark and she failed to identify the grey jacket now in evidence as CE 162. So, if you want to play the "under oath" game we can take it to the bank that Oswald, if he left with a jacket, did not leave with the one now in evidence as CE 162.

Roberts’ TV response was to Ball asking about the color of the shirt that LHO was wearing when he came in. (Not when he was leaving.) So what is your claim?

No claim. Just uncertainty, but either location works for me. If you want her to be on the couch, it's fine with me. That probably means she could have had a slightly better look at him, but regardless she still was unable to identify the grey jacket, so it still isn't getting you anywhere.

We've got a woman with a blind eye, concentrating on the television, who thought Oswald left wearing a jacket because of a zipping movement, who said the jacket was dark colored and who failed to identify the jacket that Oswald was supposed to have been wearing.

If that isn't reasonable doubt, then what is?

[Gerry Down]

Here is Vincent Bugliosis (Reclaiming History) response to this claim:



Was this Oswald?

Does anyone have a 1963 map of the streets of Oak Cliff? It would be useful to see if Elcan Elliot could have seen Oswald approach Lancaster Road and still make it to the Tippit murder site.

Does anyone know if there is any full-length interview of Elcan Elliot that can be viewed online? Would be good to find out exactly what he said he saw.

[Charles Collins]

She testified under oath that LHO was wearing a jacket.

Yes, but she said - also under oath - that the jacket was dark and she failed to identify the grey jacket now in evidence as CE 162. So, if you want to play the "under oath" we can take it to the bank that Oswald, if he left with a jacket, did not leave with the one now in evidence as CE 162.

Roberts’ TV response was to Ball asking about the color of the shirt that LHO was wearing when he came in. (Not when he was leaving.) So what is your claim?

No claim. Just uncertainty, but either location works for me. If you want her to be on the couch, it's fine with me. That probably means she could have had a slightly better look at him, but regardless she still was unable to identify the grey jacket, so it still isn't getting you anywhere.

We've got a woman with a blind eye, concentrating on the television, who thought Oswald left wearing a jacket because of a zipping movement, who said the jacket was dark colored and who failed to identify the jacket that Oswald was supposed to have been wearing.

If that isn't reasonable doubt, then what is?

No claim???  Typical!!!

People pay attention to different things. I rarely pay attention to what other people are wearing hence I probably wouldn’t even try to guess. My wife does pay attention to those things and can usually remember correctly. Who knows what Roberts really remembered. She was concerned with the news of the President being shot and trying to get more information about it. It is understandable to me that she got some details wrong and wouldn’t positively identify the jacket.

Reasonable doubt when weighed against the other witness accounts that said they saw LHO wearing a jacket. And a jacket found along the escape route these witnesses said they saw LHO take???  I think not.

[Gerry Down]

Is this map accurate? I can't make out some of the streets.

Bit odd that Oswald was heading towards Lancaster Road (according to Elcan Elliot) and that is exactly where Tippit gave his position as just minutes before he was killed?

Seems like Oswald and Tippit were on a collision course.

When Elcan Elliot says Oswald was somewhere around the 700 Block, does that mean Oswald was on North Beckley avenue or could he have been on one of the streets running parallel to North Beckley?

Like North Crawford street for example?

[John Mytton]

On the 22nd when Roberts was trying to watch TV, were the curtains fully opened as this video shows 50 years later(cite?) and how would this extra light in any way stop Roberts seeing Oswald zipping up his jacket? Also an important consideration is that the camera in this video was in a completely different position to where Roberts was on the 22nd.

Roberts says the zipper jacket "seemed" to be darker and then she also clarified "Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know", yeah that's absolutely conclusive evidence. LMAO!

Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?

Colour and shade will always be influenced by a number of different parameters, such as lighting and contrasting backgrounds and comparing a lit courtroom with the inside of the rooming house and then desperately trying to reach a solid conclusion is absurd. In the following comparison we see the same jacket which "seems" to appear darker and lighter precisely because of the above factors.



Here "A" seems to be darker but actually "A" and "B" are the EXACT same shade! Ouch!



JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

No claim???  Typical!!!

People pay attention to different things. I rarely pay attention to what other people are wearing hence I probably wouldn’t even try to guess. My wife does pay attention to those things and can usually remember correctly. Who knows what Roberts really remembered. She was concerned with the news of the President being shot and trying to get more information about it. It is understandable to me that she got some details wrong and wouldn’t positively identify the jacket.

Reasonable doubt when weighed against the other witness accounts that said they saw LHO wearing a jacket. And a jacket found along the escape route these witnesses said they saw LHO take???  I think not.

Who knows what Roberts really remembered. She was concerned with the news of the President being shot and trying to get more information about it. It is understandable to me that she got some details wrong and wouldn’t positively identify the jacket.

But it is inconceivable to you that she may not really have seen a jacket at all, right? Nice double standard.


Reasonable doubt when weighed against the other witness accounts that said they saw LHO wearing a jacket. And a jacket found along the escape route these witnesses said they saw LHO take???  I think not.

And there is the circular logic fallacy again;

"A witness saw a man wearing a jacket kill Tippit and we know this man was Oswald, so Oswald must have been wearing a jacket when he left the rooming house....

We know Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket because witnesses saw him wearing a jacket when he shot Tippit"

Not for a second do you consider it possible that Oswald did not leave the rooming house without a jacket and thus the witness must be wrong when she identified the man who killed Tippit as Oswald.

[Martin Weidmann]

On the 22nd when Roberts was trying to watch TV, were the curtains fully opened as this video shows 50 years later(cite?) and how would this extra light in any way stop Roberts seeing Oswald zipping up his jacket? Also an important consideration is that the camera in this video was in a completely different position to where Roberts was on the 22nd.

Roberts says the zipper jacket "seemed" to be darker and then she also clarified "Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know", yeah that's absolutely conclusive evidence. LMAO!

Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?

Colour and shade will always be influenced by a number of different parameters, such as lighting and contrasting backgrounds and comparing a lit courtroom with the inside of the rooming house and then desperately trying to reach a solid conclusion is absurd. In the following comparison we see the same jacket which "seems" to appear darker and lighter precisely because of the above factors.



Here "A" seems to be darker but actually "A" and "B" are the EXACT same shade! Ouch!



JohnM

You're little color game is getting old and really is irrelevant, because Roberts saw Oswald only at one location, i.e. the rooming house and as the video of the guided tour shows, it's clearly visible from the back of the room that, for instance, the tall man standing near the door is wearing a light colored shirt. If Roberts was closer to Oswald that view would only have improved, yet she saw a dark color.

Beyond that nothing new in your post, John, except this...

On the 22nd when Roberts was trying to watch TV, were the curtains fully opened as this video shows 50 years later(cite?)

I have no idea, but as it was 1 pm what do you think? Just how likely is it that they were not open?

Also an important consideration is that the camera in this video was in a completely different position to where Roberts was on the 22nd.

So, where was Roberts exactly, John.... Do tell

[Charles Collins]

Who knows what Roberts really remembered. She was concerned with the news of the President being shot and trying to get more information about it. It is understandable to me that she got some details wrong and wouldn’t positively identify the jacket.

But it is inconceivable to you that she may not really have seen a jacket at all, right? Nice double standard.


Reasonable doubt when weighed against the other witness accounts that said they saw LHO wearing a jacket. And a jacket found along the escape route these witnesses said they saw LHO take???  I think not.

And there is the circular logic fallacy again;

"A witness saw a man wearing a jacket kill Tippit and we know this man was Oswald, so Oswald must have been wearing a jacket when he left the rooming house....

We know Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket because witnesses saw him wearing a jacket when he shot Tippit"

Not for a second do you consider it possible that Oswald did not leave the rooming house without a jacket and thus the witness must be wrong when she identified the man who killed Tippit as Oswald.

Your question was: If that isn’t reasonable doubt, what is it?


“Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not involve proof to an absolute certainty. It is not proof beyond any doubt, nor is it an imaginary or frivolous doubt.”


Your idea that LHO left the rooming house without a jacket is in my opinion imaginary and frivolous. Therefore in my opinion, there is no reasonable doubt.

You can disagree with my opinion. But the Tippit murder witnesses did not use the jacket to identify LHO. They identified LHO and said he was wearing a jacket. Your argument for circular logic is false.