LHO's shirt

[Richard Smith]

It's not my story.

Yes it is... You made out of "fibers that are similar to those of Oswald's (arrest) shirt", which is a rather meaningless observation since most shirts are made from similar fibers, into "fibers from Oswald's shirt", which is simply a lie

It is their story that the FBI needed to coerce a witness into confirming that Oswald wore the arrest shirt because of the fibers found on the rifle.

You mean Bledsoe?.... Name me one other witness in any case where that FBI actually brought a piece of evidence to their home prior to their testimony?

Of course that FBI had a problem. They had only tested Oswald's arrest shirt (and no other) and had claimed that the fibers found on the rifle were similar, only to then find out that Oswald possibly wasn't even wearing the arrest shirt in the morning after all.

If those fibers don't have evidentiary value or link Oswald to the shirt, it begs the question why that evidence would need to be faked.

What evidence was faked?

Form a coherent narrative from this contrarian morass.  You suggest the shirt fibers have no evidentiary value because they can't be linked to Oswald's arrest shirt or any specific shirt.  But for some inexplicable reason the FBI must coerce a witness to confirm that Oswald was wearing the arrest shirt from which fibers found on the rifle can't be linked?  Why?  Of course, even if the fibers could be linked to Oswald's arrest shirt, it wouldn't be necessary that they got on the rifle on the day of the assassination.  They could have gotten on the rifle on some prior occasion.  So what problem did the FBI have with this evidence?  You are going around in endless circles. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Form a coherent narrative from this contrarian morass.  You suggest the shirt fibers have no evidentiary value because they can't be linked to Oswald's arrest shirt or any specific shirt.  But for some inexplicable reason the FBI must coerce a witness to confirm that Oswald was wearing the arrest shirt from which fibers found on the rifle can't be linked?  Why?  Of course, even if the fibers could be linked to Oswald's arrest shirt, it wouldn't be necessary that they got on the rifle on the day of the assassination.  They could have gotten on the rifle on some prior occasion.  So what problem did the FBI have with this evidence?  You are going around in endless circles.

You suggest the shirt fibers have no evidentiary value because they can't be linked to Oswald's arrest shirt or any specific shirt.  But for some inexplicable reason the FBI must coerce a witness to confirm that Oswald was wearing the arrest shirt from which fibers found on the rifle can't be linked?  Why?

I'll tell you as soon as you tell me why the FBI needed to take the arrest shirt to Bledsoe's house prior to her testimony.

Of course, even if the fibers could be linked to Oswald's arrest shirt, it wouldn't be necessary that they got on the rifle on the day of the assassination.  They could have gotten on the rifle on some prior occasion.

True, but that would render the fibers meaningless and the WC clearly didn't want them to be meaningless. 

So what problem did the FBI have with this evidence?

It has already been explained to you. I'm sorry you don't understand it, but it's not really my problem.

Now, explain to me why the FBI needed to take the arrest shirt to Bledsoe before her testimony. I bet you won't because it's one of those questions you normally run away from, but I'm asking nevertheless.

[Jerry Freeman]

...for some inexplicable reason the FBI must coerce a witness to confirm that Oswald was wearing the arrest shirt from which fibers found on the rifle can't be linked?  Why? I'll tell you as soon as you tell me why the FBI needed to take the arrest shirt to Bledsoe's house prior to her testimony. Now, explain to me why the FBI needed to take the arrest shirt to Bledsoe before her testimony. I bet you won't because it's one of those questions you normally run away from, but I'm asking nevertheless.

Ask till you're blue in the face....Because it's all...an incoherent narrative from this contrarian morass. Whatever the hell that means.

After the assassination, the FBI submitted 25,000 investigative reports. It went so far as to describe the dreams of some of the witnesses. 

Superfluous filler [like stuffing in the Thanksgiving turkey] to give the impression of a totally thorough investigation 

[Martin Weidmann]

Ask till you're blue in the face....Because it's all...an incoherent narrative from this contrarian morass. Whatever the hell that means.

Superfluous filler [like stuffing in the Thanksgiving turkey] to give the impression of a totally thorough investigation 

Ask till you're blue in the face....

Yeah, I know.... the list of questions not answered by the LN crowd is a long one...

[Walt Cakebread]

It's not my story.

Yes it is... You made out of "fibers that are similar to those of Oswald's (arrest) shirt", which is a rather meaningless observation since most shirts are made from similar fibers, into "fibers from Oswald's shirt", which is simply a lie

It is their story that the FBI needed to coerce a witness into confirming that Oswald wore the arrest shirt because of the fibers found on the rifle.

You mean Bledsoe?.... Name me one other witness in any case where that FBI actually brought a piece of evidence to their home prior to their testimony?

Of course that FBI had a problem. They had only tested Oswald's arrest shirt (and no other) and had claimed that the fibers found on the rifle were similar, only to then find out that Oswald possibly wasn't even wearing the arrest shirt in the morning after all.

If those fibers don't have evidentiary value or link Oswald to the shirt, it begs the question why that evidence would need to be faked.

What evidence was faked?

Here's the story that Hoover was propagating....   ( a damned lie )....

A 12-1 article in the Washington Star by Jerry O'Leary, a writer more than friendly with the FBI's Deke DeLoach, and someone upon whom the FBI regularly relies to get their stories before the public, declares: "PIECE OF OSWALD'S SHIRT FOUND SNAGGED IN RIFLE." It then goes on to claim "A fragment of Lee Harvey Oswald's shirt was snagged in the rifle that killed President John F. Kennedy, the FBI report of the assassination states. Disclosure of this evidence against the 24 year-old Oswald, himself slain two days after Mr. Kennedy's death, is regarded as one of the most solid pieces of evidence of his guilt. Officials said wisps of brown shirt material were caught in metal parts of the 6.5 mm Italian-made carbine found on the fifth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building a few minutes after the fatal shots were fired on November 22. When Oswald was arrested two hours later, he was wearing a brown shirt of the same material. Oswald claimed he had changed his shirt in his rooming house after leaving the assassination area, but this proved to be untrue. FBI Crime Lab technicians determined by microscopic and other scientific means that the fragment of shirt material came from the shirt the ex-Marine was wearing."

The story presented  to the trusting and grieving American public at the time (December 63) said that The FBI had found a tuft of fibers on the butt plate of the TSBD carcano.  The FBI said that the carcano belonged to Lee Oswald and it was the rifle used to kill President Kennedy.  They also said that the tuft of fibers matched the shirt that Lee Oswald was wearing at the time of the murder, and that was the same shirt that Lee was wearing at the Texas Theater.

The entire tale is a damned lie.....

[Richard Smith]

You suggest the shirt fibers have no evidentiary value because they can't be linked to Oswald's arrest shirt or any specific shirt.  But for some inexplicable reason the FBI must coerce a witness to confirm that Oswald was wearing the arrest shirt from which fibers found on the rifle can't be linked?  Why?

I'll tell you as soon as you tell me why the FBI needed to take the arrest shirt to Bledsoe's house prior to her testimony.

Of course, even if the fibers could be linked to Oswald's arrest shirt, it wouldn't be necessary that they got on the rifle on the day of the assassination.  They could have gotten on the rifle on some prior occasion.

True, but that would render the fibers meaningless and the WC clearly didn't want them to be meaningless. 

So what problem did the FBI have with this evidence?

It has already been explained to you. I'm sorry you don't understand it, but it's not really my problem.

Now, explain to me why the FBI needed to take the arrest shirt to Bledsoe before her testimony. I bet you won't because it's one of those questions you normally run away from, but I'm asking nevertheless.

You imply that there is something sinister about the FBI taking the shirt to Bledsoe while contending that the shirt has no evidentiary value.   How would I or anyone know why the FBI did this?  Maybe it was more convenient for Bledsoe.  We know that she was elderly and rode the bus as a form of transportation.  Who really cares?  Would it have made any difference if they had shown her the shirt at the FBI office? That type of pedantic open ended question about the investigative process implies a lot without any evidence whatsoever to suggest the FBI was up to something.  And again, why go through this exercise if, as you claim, the shirt has no evidentiary value?  It would be pointless.  You are just going around in endless rabbit hole circles to imply there is something afoot when there is no indication whatsoever that taking the arrest shirt to Bledsoe has any relevance.  It's all the more amazing that you constantly make these baseless suggestions about the evidence while denying that you are a conspiracy theorist.

[Martin Weidmann]

You imply that there is something sinister about the FBI taking the shirt to Bledsoe while contending that the shirt has no evidentiary value.   How would I or anyone know why the FBI did this?  Maybe it was more convenient for Bledsoe.  We know that she was elderly and rode the bus as a form of transportation.  Who really cares? 

Who cares?.. Spoken like a true contrarian

Btw; I don't need you to tell me what I imply or not. All I did was ask a question and it appears, as per usual, that you don't have an answer. It's duly noted.

Would it have made any difference if they had shown her the shirt at the FBI office?

No, the basic question would remain the same. Why show a piece of evidence to a witness prior to her testimony? Bledsoe said she saw Oswald on the bus. She didn't say a word about his shirt until after the FBI visit. Go figure!

That type of pedantic open ended question about the investigative process implies a lot without any evidence whatsoever to suggest the FBI was up to something.  And again, why go through this exercise if, as you claim, the shirt has no evidentiary value?  It would be pointless. 

Well, let's see shall we.... The FBI finds fibers on the rifle, which they compare to the fibers of Oswald's arrest shirt and they find that the fibers are similar. Then they learn that various witnesses gave different descriptions of the shirt they saw Oswald wear on Friday morning, leaving them unable to argue that Oswald was wearing the same shirt all day (which btw is exactly what the WC later claimed).

So, they need to try to restore the evidentiary value of the shirt. Enter Bledsoe.... do the math

You are just going around in endless rabbit hole circles to imply there is something afoot when there is no indication whatsoever that taking the arrest shirt to Bledsoe has any relevance. It's all the more amazing that you constantly make these baseless suggestions about the evidence while denying that you are a conspiracy theorist.

You're not making any sense. If taking the arrest shirt to Bledsoe has no relevance, as you claim, then why did they do it? There is nothing baseless about the suggestion that the FBI must have had a good reason for taking the arrest shirt all the way from Washington to Dallas to show to a witness!

while denying that you are a conspiracy theorist.

You still haven't understood that there is a difference between somebody who asks questions about the evidence and points out inconsistancies and somebody who presents a theory (which I never have) and argues in defense of that theory (which I also have never done).

But then again, for narrow minded you, anybody who doesn't instantly agree with all the BS you call evidence must be a CT, right? If fits right in with the shallow and naieve nature you display here on a daily basis