Okay, so Oswald's landlady's saying she saw him wearing a light-colored jacket when he left the rooming house, and a jacket's being found under a car close to where Tippit's murderer was seen fleeing, and the fact that Oswald wasn't wearing a jacket when he was arrested a few minutes later in the Texas Theater is all fabricated and planted evidence against him, right?
Oswald's landlady didn't say she saw him wearing a light-colored jacket. In her affidavit of December 5, 1963 she described the jacket as having a dark color. And in her WC testimony she was shown the grey jacket and she couldn't recognize it because the jacket "he put on was darker".
It would be nice if you at least try to get your facts correct before asking me this question.
The remainder of your question assumes up front that Oswald killed Tippit, ran from the scene and dumped his jacket (which somehow had turned white) and then was arrested without a jacket.
All this rests on the testimony of Earlene Roberts who claimed Oswald left zipping up a jacket, whilst at the same time saying she wasn't paying much attention as you was trying to get the TV working. Ever considered the possibility that Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket and went straight to the Texas Theater?
As for the grey jacket, there is an interesting tale about that as well, as there is evidence that actually suggests that jacket was in Irving on Friday morning and not in Oak Cliff.
Have I confused you enough? Perhaps you should try to look beyond the BS that the WC has told you.
Btw, when Frazier says he wasn't paying much attention to the package Oswald was carrying, that means for the LNs he must be wrong about what he saw, but when Roberts says she wasn't paying much attention to the jacket, whatever she said is written in stone by the LNs. You see the double standard? Probably not, I suppose.
