Final Conclusion*

[John Iacoletti]

All the officers said that Oswald and McDonald were in a struggle and that Oswald's gun came out in the struggle. 

By McDonald’s account, the gun was still in the waistband when he grabbed Oswald’s hand, which he said was over the pistol. If it was still in the waistband, then Oswald didn’t pull out a gun. It’s as simple as that.

Nobody else said anything about hearing him say “this is it” or “it’s all over now” (which btw sound nothing alike).

There was evidence that Marina identified it (CE162) as Oswald's jacket (1H122):
"Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee’s-an old shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Sort of a jacket?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes."

Rankin’s blatant witness leading aside, she thought they were showing her an old shirt. Not much of an identification.

What do you want? DNA evidence?

Yes, that would be very helpful. Why not?

Not that it matters much — unless they find Tippit’s DNA on it too.

Capt. Westbrook testified that it was found under the rear bumper of a car that was parked in the parking lot but backing onto the alley:

He also said that he didn’t find it and didn’t know who did.

If I recall correctly, the assailant had a revolver that contained bullets and the shells found at the scene of the Tippit shooting were indistinguishable from the shells in Oswald's gun.

Except because of the way the crime scene and the evidence was handled, we don’t actually know that the shells in evidence were “found at the scene” or that the gun they matched was “Oswald’s gun”. Nor do we know that the shells in evidence had anything to do with Tippit’s murder.

[Richard Smith]

Just Old Lee knocking off for the day because something happened at work, getting his gun, looking just like the person who killed Tippit on the way to the movies, having the same two brands of ammo as the killer, ducking into the movie theatre without buying a ticket, acting so suspiciously that he draws the attention of random citizens, drawing his weapon on a police officer who interrupted his movie!  Nothing to see there.  Bad luck.  In fact he is victim! A violation of his rights.  LOL.  Unreal.  These contrarians have no shame.  At least they could try a bit harder.

[Bill Chapman]

No.  Something is either evidence of guilt or it is not.  A bunch of things that are not evidence at all (like a ring in a cup) do not magically combine into evidence of murder.  All they are is rhetorical padding for a weak case.

Lots of us had a laugh at Patrick's blood cannons the first time he broached the subject.  But if you think about it, it's not that much different from the narrative of the "Oswald did it" cult.  It's based on a fanciful story filled with assumptions and speculation and hardly any direct evidence.

But if you think about it, it's not that much different from the narrative of the "Anybody but Oswald" cult

Hey man, what the hell is going on?

[Andrew Mason]

By McDonald’s account, the gun was still in the waistband when he grabbed Oswald’s hand, which he said was over the pistol. If it was still in the waistband, then Oswald didn’t pull out a gun. It’s as simple as that.

So are you saying that McDonald pulled it out?  Because it came out.  And Oswald's hand was on it first.

Nobody else said anything about hearing him say “this is it” or “it’s all over now” (which btw sound nothing alike).

McDonald didn't say that Oswald shouted it.  McDonald was closest to him.  Oswald's punching McDonald in the face is certainly consistent with Oswald making one last gasp, thinking that it was all over. Sometimes actions speak for themselves.

Rankin’s blatant witness leading aside, she thought they were showing her an old shirt. Not much of an identification.

Marina's English vocabulary should be taken into account.  She certainly recognized the garment as Oswald's, without any prompting by counsel.  In any event, it IS a jacket.

Yes, that would be very helpful. Why not?

Not that it matters much — unless they find Tippit’s DNA on it too.

You weren't expecting a DNA comparison in 1964 were you?  T

Although they could do a DNA profile now but they would need a sample of Oswald's DNA to compare it to.  Not a simple task.  I am not sure that would be high on the FBI lab's list of things to do at the moment.

He also said that he didn’t find it and didn’t know who did.

He was there when an officer, whose name he could not recall, announced that they had found a jacket under a car. Of course if your premise is that all officers were in on the conspiracy to fabricate evidence, that may not impress you.  But this is what Westbrook said (7 H 115-117):
p115
"Mr. WESTBROOK. Actually, I didn’t find it-it was pointed out to me by either
some officer that-that was while we were going over the scene in the close
area where the shooting was concerned, someone pointed out a jacket to me
that was laying under a car and I got the jacket and told the officer to take
the license number. "

....
p 117
"Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes; behind the Texaco service station, and some officer, I
feel sure it was an officer, I still can’t be positive-pointed this jacket out to me
and it was laying slightly under the rear of one of the cars.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a car was it?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That, I couldn’t tell you. I told the officer to take the make
and the license number.
Mr. BALL. Did you take the number yourself?
Mr. WESTBROOK. No.
Mr. BALL. What was the name of the officer?
Mr. WESTBROOK. I couldn’t tell you that, sir. "

Except because of the way the crime scene and the evidence was handled, we don’t actually know that the shells in evidence were “found at the scene” or that the gun they matched was “Oswald’s gun”. Nor do we know that the shells in evidence had anything to do with Tippit’s murder.

You don't, perhaps.  But maybe that is because you think there was this widespread conspiracy at every level of every organization involved.  According to the best available evidence, the shells were found at the scene and matched the shells still in Oswald's gun.  This was summarized by the HSCA at p. 59 of their report:

"(a) The Tippit murder

The committee investigated the murder of Officer Tippit primarily for its implications concerning the assassination of the President. The committee relied primarily on scientific evidence. The committee's firearms panel determined positively that all four cartridge cases found at the scene of the Tippit murder were fired from the pistol that was found in Lee Harvey Oswald's possession when he was apprehended in the Texas Theatre 35 minutes after the murder.13(128)

In addition, the committee's investigators interviewed witnesses present at the scene of the Tippit murder.(129) Based on Oswald's possession of the murder weapon a short time after the murder and the eyewitness identifications of Oswald as the gunman, the committee concluded that Oswald shot and killed Officer Tippit. The committee further concluded that this crime, committed while fleeing the scene of the assassination, was consistent with a finding that Oswald assassinated the President."

[John Iacoletti]

Just Old Lee knocking off for the day because something happened at work, getting his gun, looking just like the person who killed Tippit on the way to the movies, having the same two brands of ammo as the killer, ducking into the movie theatre without buying a ticket, acting so suspiciously that he draws the attention of random citizens, drawing his weapon on a police officer who interrupted his movie!  Nothing to see there.

Is that misrepresented litany of claims supposed to constitute evidence of murder?

[John Iacoletti]

So are you saying that McDonald pulled it out?  Because it came out.

Yes.  By McDonald's account, the gun came out when he grabbed Oswald's hand and pulled, causing the gun to come out.

McDonald didn't say that Oswald shouted it.  McDonald was closest to him.

What did he do, whisper it in his ear?  And which thing did he say, "this is it" or "it's all over now"?  Or both?  Or maybe the serial embellisher McDonald was embellishing.

  Oswald's punching McDonald in the face is certainly consistent with Oswald making one last gasp, thinking that it was all over.

And yet the arrest report says nothing about punching an officer.  In fact the box for "officer injured" is not even checked.  Maybe the "punch" was a cover story for why the cops beat the sh*t out of a man in a theater and arrested him for murder with no probable cause.

Sometimes actions speak for themselves.

And sometimes police make up stories to cover up their misconduct.

Marina's English vocabulary should be taken into account.

That's a fair point.

  She certainly recognized the garment as Oswald's, without any prompting by counsel.  In any event, it IS a jacket.

I don't know how certain it is.  Marina made a lot of contradictory statements about lots of things.  She couldn't explain the laundry tags either.

You weren't expecting a DNA comparison in 1964 were you?

No, but why not now?  It could only add to our understanding of the evidence, right?

Although they could do a DNA profile now but they would need a sample of Oswald's DNA to compare it to.  Not a simple task.

They could get samples from his daughters.  Hell, they could exhume his body.

  I am not sure that would be high on the FBI lab's list of things to do at the moment.

I'm sure it's not.  They wouldn't want to turn up any inconvenient results.

He was there when an officer, whose name he could not recall, announced that they had found a jacket under a car.

Like I said, "found by nobody knows who".

You don't, perhaps.  But maybe that is because you think there was this widespread conspiracy at every level of every organization involved.

Where did you get the silly idea that I "think there was this widespread conspiracy at every level of every organization involved"?  I do think that the CE162 jacket is worthless as evidence of anybody murdering anybody.  Feel free to explain what it is evidence of.

  According to the best available evidence, the shells were found at the scene and matched the shells still in Oswald's gun.

No, they didn't match fired shells with unfired shells.  How would that work?

The committee investigated the murder of Officer Tippit primarily for its implications concerning the assassination of the President. The committee relied primarily on scientific evidence. The committee's firearms panel determined positively that all four cartridge cases found at the scene of the Tippit murder were fired from the pistol that was found in Lee Harvey Oswald's possession when he was apprehended in the Texas Theatre 35 minutes after the murder.13(128)

Correction:  four cartridge cases that can't be authenticated as having come from the scene or as having been connected to Tippit's murder were fired from the revolver that can't be authenticated as having ever been in Oswald's possession.

[Patrick Jackson]

I was watching the JFK: One Day in America documentary on NatGeo the other day and most of all was fascinated by the quality of movies shown. Could not find anything like that for years on the net.
I was particularly focused on Love Field arrival and the movie showing JFK and Jackie sitting in the limo.
Jackie was given a small flower decorated pouch by the journalist Val Imm Bashour. As I believe, the pouch contained a small pyrotechnical device that simulated gun shot. There was one more identical device but could not determine who gave it to JFK or Jackie.
The footage showing JFK and Jackie entering the limo, sitting on the back seat and Jackie showing a small pouch to the JFK moving it from one hand to another. She puts it next to the JFK and as soon as the limo starts moving, JFK takes it with his left hand and puts it behind his back. If you take a look into the footage, pay special attention on JFK looking at the camera and as soon as he thinks he is behind the Jackie he grabs the pouch and puts it back.


I have no doubt JFK did not die that day in Dallas. Assassination was a staged event with aim to pull him out of the politics. I believe he died in 1967 in his Palm Beach Winter White House.