Podcast On Tippit

[Bill Brown]

Dear Martin,

There's a big difference between passively misremembering the shade of a jacket and actively remembering the actions of a person who is not only in an unusual hurry but has just put on said jacket and is in the process of zipping it up as he rushes out the door.

-- Tom

Bingo!

[Bill Brown]

So who actually found the jacket under the car?

"And he said look, there's a jacket under the car. He pointed this jacket out to me and it was laying slightly under the rear of one of the cars. I think it was an old Pontiac sitting there, if I remember right. So I walked over and reached under and picked up the jacket." -- Capt. Westbrook

[Bill Brown]

Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.

Approximately five minutes later two individuals from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, appeared at Ballew's Texaco Service Station, making inquiry as to whether she had noticed the young white man come by the station. She indicated she had, at which time they informed her that this individual had in all probability shot a Dallas police officer. She advised she informed them that the individual proceeded north behind the Texaco station and she last observed him in the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station.

Mrs. BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans PD 9 112723, dated August 9, 1963, which she identified as being the same person she observed on November 22, 1963, at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.

Mrs. BROCK advised at the time she saw OSWALD on November 22, 1963, she was unaware of the fact that President JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY had been assassinated, and she was unaware that Dallas Police Officer J. D. TIPPIT had been shot.

on 1/21/64 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 100-10461

By Special Agents JOHN T. KESLER and VERNON MITCHEM - LAC Date dictated 1/22/64

[John Mytton]

Very near the Tippit crime scene, Oswald was seen entering a carpark and his jacket was found under a car, the jacket was initialled by various law officers and the FBI forensic examiner, to maintain a chain of custody.

Lie # 1 and 2

There was no chain of custody;

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.

<>

Mr. WESTBROOK. Now, I did, when I left this scene, I turned this jacket over to one of the officers and I went by that church, I think, and I think that would be on 10th Street.

<>

Mr. BALL. And you turned it over to whom?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Now, it was to this officer--that got the name.
Mr. BALL. Does your report show the name of the officer?
Mr. WESTBROOK. No, sir; it doesn't. When things like this happen--it was happening so fast you don't remember those things.

And unknown and never identified officer finds a jacket and shows it to Westbrook who gives it to another unnamed officer isn't a chain of custody.

The people who marked the grey jacket did so at the police station and were never part of the chain of custody.

The jacket was filmed at the scene and this jacket was positively identified by his wife

Lie # 3

Marina identified the grey jacket that did indeed belong to Oswald. There is no evidence that the jacket found at the car park, described as white by several officers, was ever shown to Marina,

At the end of the day it would be up to a judge and jury to determine if the jacket was actually at the crime scene.

1. Westbrook testified that the jacket that he found was the same one in evidence. And that's that!

Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket you found?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir.

2. The jacket was initialled by Stombaug, meaning he looked at the jacket and according to a FBI report, the jacket in evidence had Oswald's shirt fibers in one of the sleaves. Slam Dunk!

3. Marina positively identified the jacket in evidence. Home run!

Mrs. OSWALD. This is a pullover sweater. This is his pullover sweater.
Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's--an old shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Sort of a jacket?

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.

Approximately five minutes later two individuals from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, appeared at Ballew's Texaco Service Station, making inquiry as to whether she had noticed the young white man come by the station. She indicated she had, at which time they informed her that this individual had in all probability shot a Dallas police officer. She advised she informed them that the individual proceeded north behind the Texaco station and she last observed him in the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station.

Mrs. BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans PD 9 112723, dated August 9, 1963, which she identified as being the same person she observed on November 22, 1963, at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.

Mrs. BROCK advised at the time she saw OSWALD on November 22, 1963, she was unaware of the fact that President JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY had been assassinated, and she was unaware that Dallas Police Officer J. D. TIPPIT had been shot.

on 1/21/64 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 100-10461

By Special Agents JOHN T. KESLER and VERNON MITCHEM - LAC Date dictated 1/22/64

That's one hell of a memory. Identifying a person who walked past her at a fast pace, some two months earlier, from a photograph.

Or could the two months of massive media exposure and finger pointing at Oswald have something to do with it?

Scoggings, who identified Oswald in a line up couldn't identify him from a photo the next day...... Something wrong in paradise methinks!

[Martin Weidmann]

At the end of the day it would be up to a judge and jury to determine if the jacket was actually at the crime scene.

1. Westbrook testified that the jacket that he found was the same one in evidence. And that's that!

Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket you found?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir.

2. The jacket was initialled by Stombaug, meaning he looked at the jacket and according to a FBI report, the jacket in evidence had Oswald's shirt fibers in one of the sleaves. Slam Dunk!

3. Marina positively identified the jacket in evidence. Home run!

Mrs. OSWALD. This is a pullover sweater. This is his pullover sweater.
Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's--an old shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Sort of a jacket?

JohnM

1. Westbrook testified that the jacket that he found was the same one in evidence. And that's that!

Because cop said so..... HAHAHAHAHAHA... What else did you expect him to say?

A chain of custody is required to avoid exactly this kind of pathetic testimony. In Henry Wade's Dallas a large number of innocent people were found guilty on flawed and manipulated evidence.
A great number of this convictions were later nullified as being unsafe.

But by all means, let's just take the Personnel officer's word for it.   

2. The jacket was initialled by Stombaug [sic], meaning he looked at the jacket and according to a FBI report, the jacket in evidence had Oswald's shirt fibers in one of the sleaves. Slam Dunk!

Of course the jacket was marked by Stombaugh. He did so in Washington after the white jacket had already morphed into the grey one that actually belonged to Oswald. If there were fibers in that jacket there is nothing remarkable about that.

3. Marina positively identified the jacket in evidence. Home run!

Of course she did, as the grey jacket belonged to Oswald. The question is when exactly was that jacket placed in evidence? And with that we're back at square one.... COP SAID SO 

[John Mytton]

Conspiracy theorists like to claim that much of the evidence for the Oswald trial would have been inadmissible because the officers lost exclusive custody. As this brief from the O. J. Simpson Civil Trial makes clear, the law is not nearly so rigid.

To establish a proper chain of custody for the physical evidence at
issue, rendering that evidence (and the various tests thereon) admissible,
Goldman need only "show to the satisfaction of the trial court that, taking
all the circumstances into account including the ease or difficulty with
which the particular evidence could have been altered, it is reasonably
certain that there was no alteration." People v. Riser. 47 Cal. 2d 566, 580
(1956) (emphasis added). Where there is only "the barest speculation that
there was tampering, it is proper to admit the evidence and let what doubt
remains go to its weight." Id. at 581; accord People v. Lozano, 57 Cal.
App. 3d 490, 493-96 (1976).

[Martin Weidmann]

Conspiracy theorists like to claim that much of the evidence for the Oswald trial would have been inadmissible because the officers lost exclusive custody. As this brief from the O. J. Simpson Civil Trial makes clear, the law is not nearly so rigid.

To establish a proper chain of custody for the physical evidence at
issue, rendering that evidence (and the various tests thereon) admissible,
Goldman need only "show to the satisfaction of the trial court that, taking
all the circumstances into account including the ease or difficulty with
which the particular evidence could have been altered, it is reasonably
certain that there was no alteration." People v. Riser. 47 Cal. 2d 566, 580
(1956) (emphasis added). Where there is only "the barest speculation that
there was tampering, it is proper to admit the evidence and let what doubt
remains go to its weight." Id. at 581; accord People v. Lozano, 57 Cal.
App. 3d 490, 493-96 (1976).

The clown quotes a rule of evidence for a civil trial, to make a point about a criminal case. No need to say anything more.