The Tippit Shooting At 1:15-1:16, FACT

[Martin Weidmann]

Earlene Roberts isn't important because we have much more compelling evidence than her recollection, namely that the witnesses to the shooting saw him wearing a jacket and HIS jacket was found under a car a short distance away.
Right. Maybe Oswald's jacket ended up under the car by PFM.
Right. Maybe it is just a coincidence that the jacket that was found under the car had fibers that matched the shirt Oswald was wearing. The same matching fibers were also found on the butt plate of the assassination rifle. But I guess that is all just an amazing coincidence and that Oswald was just the unluckiest SOB that ever lived.

And those are the words of an extremely confused person;

Earlene Roberts isn't important because we have much more compelling evidence than her recollection, namely that the witnesses to the shooting saw him wearing a jacket and HIS jacket was found under a car a short distance away.

Roberts is important, because if Oswald left the rooming house without a jacket, nobody could have seen him "wearing a jacket" while shooting Tippit. And no, there is not a shred of evidence that the (white) jacket found under a car is the same one (the grey one) that's now in evidence as CE 162. Once again the master of assumptions strikes again!

Right. Maybe Oswald's jacket ended up under the car by PFM.

So, now he believes in magic when he needs it! 

Right. Maybe it is just a coincidence that the jacket that was found under the car had fibers that matched the shirt Oswald was wearing. The same matching fibers were also found on the butt plate of the assassination rifle.

Oh boy, here he goes again with the fibers BS! But never mind, it doesn't matter as it is of course probable that fibers of Oswald's shirt were found in the grey jacket that's now in evidence. What you still can't figure out is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the white jacket found under the car is the same as Oswald's grey jacket that's now in evidence. I guess it must all be just a little too difficult for you to understand this.

But I guess that is all just an amazing coincidence and that Oswald was just the unluckiest SOB that ever lived.

So, being an unlucky SOB makes a murderer in your mind?

[Martin Weidmann]

"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

Nice try

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.

Now, can you bridge the gap between Westbrook giving the white jacket to "onė of the officers" and Westbrook submitting a grey jacket to the evidence room some 2 hours later?

[Bill Brown]

1964 CHAIN OF CUSTODY

Had Oswald went to trial in '64, in preparing for that trial, ADA Bill Alexander would have gone to the DPD and asked them, for example, who found the jacket. He would have been told that Capt. Westbrook found the jacket. Alexander then would have gone to Westbrook and asked Westbrook about the jacket. Westbrook would have told Alexander that he picked up the jacket from under one of the cars behind the Texaco station and then handed it to officer X. Then Alexander would have gone to officer X, who would have told Alexander that he received the jacket from Westbrook and then turned it in to Y at the crime lab.

These names would have been worked out had there been a trial. Alexander would have gotten a statement from officer X and Y. Then, officer X and Y, at an evidentiary hearing, would have been shown the jacket. X would have said he got that jacket from Westbrook. Y would have said he got the jacket from X. Had there been a trial, these names would have been put in place to show a chain of custody of the jacket.

Since there was no trial, Alexander, or anyone else, never saw fit to work it out. This is how it would have occurred in 1964. Then, while researching the case today and with Oswald having been put to death by the state of Texas, there would be no lack of a chain of custody for the jacket because one would have been presented at the evidentiary hearing. And at trial... the Defense would NOT bother with challenging a chain of custody of the jacket because one has already been established and the Defense also does not want the jury wondering why the Defense wants so badly to discount the jacket.

[Martin Weidmann]

1964 CHAIN OF CUSTODY

Had Oswald went to trial in '64, in preparing for that trial, ADA Bill Alexander would have gone to the DPD and asked them, for example, who found the jacket. He would have been told that Capt. Westbrook found the jacket. Alexander then would have gone to Westbrook and asked Westbrook about the jacket. Westbrook would have told Alexander that he picked up the jacket from under one of the cars behind the Texaco station and then handed it to officer X. Then Alexander would have gone to officer X, who would have told Alexander that he received the jacket from Westbrook and then turned it in to Y at the crime lab.

These names would have been worked out had there been a trial. Alexander would have gotten a statement from officer X and Y. Then, officer X and Y, at an evidentiary hearing, would have been shown the jacket. X would have said he got that jacket from Westbrook. Y would have said he got the jacket from X. Had there been a trial, these names would have been put in place to show a chain of custody of the jacket.

Since there was no trial, Alexander, or anyone else, never saw fit to work it out. This is how it would have occurred in 1964. Then, while researching the case today and with Oswald having been put to death by the state of Texas, there would be no lack of a chain of custody for the jacket because one would have been presented at the evidentiary hearing. And at trial... the Defense would NOT bother with challenging a chain of custody of the jacket because one has already been established and the Defense also does not want the jury wondering why the Defense wants so badly to discount the jacket.

I couldn't care less of some "explanation" of what would or possibly would not have happened at trial.

Had Oswald went to trial in '64, in preparing for that trial, ADA Bill Alexander would have gone to the DPD and asked them, for example, who found the jacket. He would have been told that Capt. Westbrook found the jacket. Alexander then would have gone to Westbrook and asked Westbrook about the jacket. Westbrook would have told Alexander that he picked up the jacket from under one of the cars behind the Texaco station and then handed it to officer X. Then Alexander would have gone to officer X, who would have told Alexander that he received the jacket from Westbrook and then turned it in to Y at the crime lab.

So, at trial they would have bothered but the WC/FBI couldn't care less, is that what you are saying?

And btw it wasn't Westbrook who found the jacket and it wasn't officer X who turned in a jacket at the crime lab

These names would have been worked out had there been a trial. Alexander would have gotten a statement from officer X and Y. Then, officer X and Y, at an evidentiary hearing, would have been shown the jacket. X would have said he got that jacket from Westbrook. Y would have said he got the jacket from X. Had there been a trial, these names would have been put in place to show a chain of custody of the jacket.

Yes, that's how a chain of custody normally works. CE2011 was the result of a request by the WC about a number of chains of custody. So, why not this one?
Which of course begs the question of how the WC could conclude that the grey jacket presented by Westbrook to the evidence room at 3:00 PM was the same as the white jackets the officers at the parking lot reported to have seen.

And that brings me back to my original question; can you bridge the gap between Westbrook giving the white jacket to "onė of the officers" and Westbrook submitting a grey jacket to the evidence room some 2 hours later?

Or is your answer simply, they just threw away all the rules of evidence because they "knew" they had their man?

[Bill Brown]

Once Oswald was murdered and there'd be no trial, there was no concern for a proper chain of custody of the jacket.

[John Mytton]

....they "knew" they had their man?

Well, DUH!
Oswald was positively identified at the scene.
Oswald was seen fumbling with his gun and removing shells.
The shells seen being discarded were a 100% match to Oswald's revolver.
The cartridges used to kill officer J.D. Tippit were a mix of Winchester-Western and Remington-Peters .38 Special rounds, the SAME mix as found in Oswald's revolver.
Oswald tried to kill more Police when arrested.
Oswald was arrested with the same revolver that was purchased by him.

This insane need to find a cop killer innocent is psychotic!

JohnM

[John Corbett]

Once Oswald was murdered and there'd be no trial, there was no concern for a proper chain of custody of the jacket.

This is what the CTs never understand. The case against Oswald never wasn't going to trial once he was pronounced dead. From a historical perspective, the only thing we should ask ourselves is whether a piece of evidence is the real deal. CTs act like they are trying to get Oswald off on technicalities. I've never understood that perspective. If you are interested in figuring out how JFK died and also Tippit, you shouldn't dismiss any evidence. You should simply be concerned with whether that piece of evidence helps to tell us what happened. On the other hand, if you are dedicated to arguing for Oswald's innocence in either murder, you just want excuses to disregard the evidence of his guilt. The problem with that approach is there is so damn much evidence you have to come up with lots of excuses. Sometimes you even have to invent excuses.