Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Bill Brown]

Ballistic testing can determine whether or not an empty shell casing was fired from a specific weapon to the exclusion of every other weapon in the entire world.  Before shooting, the shell casing is placed against the breech face and the firing pin.  When the pin strikes the primer, the bullet is fired off and the shell casing is thrust against the breech face of the weapon.  This causes a permanent mark on the base of the empty shell, i.e. the distinctive fine lines etched onto the breech face put their "fingerprint" on the base of the empty shell.

Joseph Nicol (Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for the State of Illinois) along with Cortlandt Cunningham, Robert Frazier and Charles Killion (of the Firearms Identification Unit of the FBI Laboratory in Washington D.C.) each examined the shells found at the Tippit scene and Oswald's revolver, which he ordered from Seaport Traders, Inc.  Each of these experts determined that the shells were linked (through ballistics) to Oswald's revolver, to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world.

[Martin Weidmann]

From Dale Myers:

"The death certificate "discrepancy" - as I noted in "With Malice" - was explained during a 1983 interview I conducted with the late Dr. Paul Moellenhoff, who attended Tippit at Methodist. He told me that the clocks within the emergency area at Methodist showed different times - neither of them accurate as it turns out.

He used the 1:15 p.m. time shown on one of the clocks. The time reported to the FBI by Dr. Liquori (With Malice [WM], 2013 [edition], p.557) - 1:24 pm - is probably the accurate one based on the recorded timing of Bowley's call, the recorded departure of the ambulance from 10th and Patton, and the known drive time from 10th and Patton to Methodist Hospital.

DPD Officer Davenport noted that Moellenhoff removed one slug from Tippit's body at 1:30 pm (WM 2013 p.536). That same time (1:30 pm) made its way into Leavelle's homicide report (WM 2013 p.519) as the time Tippit was pronounced DOA (which couldn't possibly be true, right? You don't pull a slug from a body until after he's pronounced dead). This matches up with Moellenhoff's 1983 recollection that he removed a slug from the body within ten minutes of declaring Tippit DOA.

My caption under the death certificate (WM 2013 p.506) seeks to clarify the discrepancy between the Time of Injury (1:18 pm) and the time Death Occurred (1:15 pm). Again, it stems from my conversation with Dr. Moellenhoff. The 1:18 pm time, of course, probably refers to the time that Bowley's radio call was received - not the actual time Tippit was shot.

The 1:15 p.m. notation (although close in time to the actual moment of the shooting, as far as I can calculate) probably stems from Dr. Moellenhoff's use of an inaccurate Methodist emergency room clock.

Interesting, huh? All this fuss because no one at Methodist bothered to synchronize the clocks to actual time (some running fast, some running slow).

Can you imagine how many other death certificates were marked with times that were off by a few minutes? But what does it matter in those cases? Not one whit."

More Bs

a 1983 interview I conducted with the late Dr. Paul Moellenhoff,

How convinient that the dead can not speak for themselves.

The classic LN "everybody was wrong expect the guy I like" argument.

DPD detective Davenport was wrong when he wrote Tippit's DOA time a 1:15 in not one but two different documents
Dr. Liquori was wrong when he communicated the time of death at 1:15 to the Justice of the Peace
The Justice of the Peace was wrong when he wrote in his Authorisation for Autopsy that the time of death was 1:15 and that Tippit arrive DOA at the Methodist Hospital.

He used the 1:15 p.m. time shown on one of the clocks. The time reported to the FBI by Dr. Liquori (With Malice [WM], 2013 [edition], p.557) - 1:24 pm - is probably the accurate one based on the recorded timing of Bowley's call, the recorded departure of the ambulance from 10th and Patton, and the known drive time from 10th and Patton to Methodist Hospital.

Translation; this is what the time line would be if the DPD radio recordings are correct. Too bad they are not!

The 1:15 p.m. notation (although close in time to the actual moment of the shooting, as far as I can calculate) probably stems from Dr. Moellenhoff's use of an inaccurate Methodist emergency room clock.

No it doesn't. It stems from a desire to keep the official narrative alive.

Interesting, huh? All this fuss because no one at Methodist bothered to synchronize the clocks to actual time (some running fast, some running slow).

BS... who determined that the clock used by Dr. Liquori was wrong?

Can you imagine how many other death certificates were marked with times that were off by a few minutes? But what does it matter in those cases? Not one whit."

True, but this isn't one of those cases.

[Dan O'meara]

No. Show me where I have ever claimed there was a conspiracy in the Kennedy murder. You can't, because it never happened! All there is are narrowminded shallow LNs accusing me of being conspiracy minded, but those are hollow claims.

But after nearly 40 years of experience in all sorts of areas, I have learned that reality is often stranger than fiction.
The one thing that makes me different from a guy like you is that I don't make up stories to defend a narrative.

I just look at the facts and in this particular case the facts are that;

1. Frazier has Oswald wearing the gray jacket (which can only be CE 162) to Irving on Thursday evening
2. Frazier and Randle can not say with any kind of certainty which jacket Oswald was wearing on Friday morning
3. The blue/gray jacket (CE 163) is later found at the TSBD and there is no other explanation for it to be there than that Oswald was wearing it on Friday morning
4. Bledsoe couldn't have seen a hole in Oswald's sleeve on the bus if he was wearing a jacket

This alone creates sufficient reasonable doubt (to a reasonable person) that you can not assume that Roberts saw Oswald leaving wearing a jacket, whilst at the same time advocating the absurd notion that she wasn't paying enough attention to notice only a shirt and not a jacket when Oswald came into to the rooming house.

I know LNs don't like facts but even for LN standards this is absurd.

Yes, let's have a look at the facts for this particular case and examine your case for reasonable doubt.

"1. Frazier has Oswald wearing the gray jacket (which can only be CE 162) to Irving on Thursday evening"

The first point to make is about your assumption the grey jacket Oswald wore to Irving on the Thursday night "can only be CE 162".
This is not a fact. It's an assumption you are making and, as we shall see, it is disputed by Frazier himself.
Other than that, no-one is disputing that Frazier claims Oswald is wearing a grey jacket that night. But you go on to make the assumption that Oswald has another jacket at Irving and he switches jacket. There is no evidential basis for this claim. Oswald keeps his clothes at his room, he needs the few clothes he has for work.

"2. Frazier and Randle can not say with any kind of certainty which jacket Oswald was wearing on Friday morning"

This is not a fact. While it is true Linnie Mae was focussed more on what Oswald was carrying, Frazier is certain the jacket Oswald wore to work was a light grey jacket. He is familiar with the jacket and has seen Oswald wearing it before (read his WC testimony very carefully before you dispute this)
Frazier could hardly be any clearer when he states that neither of the jackets he is shown were worn by Oswald (so, no, it's not CE 162 - that is a fact)
If you view it as a fact that Oswald wore a grey jacket to Irving based on Frazier's testimony, you must also view it as a fact that Oswald wore a light grey jacket to work.

"3. The blue/gray jacket (CE 163) is later found at the TSBD and there is no other explanation for it to be there than that Oswald was wearing it on Friday morning"

That you view this as a fact is a joke.
There's no other possible explanation for that jacket being in the TSBD?
You must be joking.

4. Bledsoe couldn't have seen a hole in Oswald's sleeve on the bus if he was wearing a jacket

This is the only fact in your list. You are quite correct that she could not have seen a hole in Oswald's sleeve if he was wearing a jacket.
That's it.
That's your case for reasonable doubt.
You call yourself reasonable?

Fact - Bledsoe identifies Oswald as the man who got off the bus mid stop.
Fact - McWatters states this man was wearing a jacket.
Fact - Milton Jones also states this man was wearing a jacket.
Fact - Whaley states Oswald was wearing a jacket.
Fact - The light grey jacket Frazier testifies to seeing was never found in the TSBD
Fact - Roberts is certain Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he left.
Fact - Johnson confirms Roberts told police about his "zip up jacket"

Any reasonable person would conclude Oswald was wearing a jacket when he left the TSBD.

[Dan O'meara]

It's a logical conclusion based on the fact that Marina said Oswald had two jackets

Oswald keeps his clothes at his room, he needs the few clothes he has for work.

Pray tell, on what evidence (other than mere assumption) is this statement based?

It's a reasonable assumption that Oswald would keep his clothes where he lived.

Of course it is a fact, because both said in their testimony that they didn't pay much attention. You must have missed that.

Mr. BALL - I have here a paper sack which is Commission's Exhibit 364. That gray jacket you mentioned, did it have any design in it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - Was it light or dark gray?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was light gray.
Mr. BALL - You mentioned it was woolen.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Long sleeves?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Buttoned sleeves at the wrist, or do you remember?
Mr. FRAZIER - To be frank with you, I didn't notice that much about the jacket, but I had seen him wear that gray woolen jacket before.

If it was the same jacket as he had seen Oswald the night before, why didn't he simply say that?

I told you to read his testimony carefully (and let's not forget, you only became aware of this information today)
When Frazier states "he didn't notice that much about the jacket" he is responding to the question - "Buttoned sleeves at the wrist, or do you remember?"
He's saying he didn't notice whether it had buttoned sleeves. You have mistakenly interpreted this as a general statement but this is refuted by Frazier pointing out, on two occasions, that he had seen Oswald wearing the jacket before.
Even though he was familiar with the jacket he hadn't paid enough attention to it notice if it had buttoned sleeves.
Frazier knows the jacket and he knows Oswald was wearing it that morning.
Your little theory is over. Deal with it.

Stop being a troll and provide another explanation.

You're not very intelligent are you Martin?
This is not a fact - "The blue/gray jacket (CE 163) is later found at the TSBD and there is no other explanation for it to be there than that Oswald was wearing it on Friday morning"
It's laughable that you are presenting it as such. You have no idea what the word "fact" means.
And what do you want me to do, make up an explanation as to why it's there?
Wake up.

So you are not completely lost to reality? Of course it creates a reasonable doubt when a witness says she saw a hole in a shirt sleeve when the person involved was wearing a jacket. Are you throwing Bledsoe under the bus now to salvage your narrative?

Bledsoe is all you've got.
That's it.
You are throwing all the witnesses I've presented under the bus, aren't you Mr Reasonable?

And as far as reasonable goes, do you actually know what the word means?

You have a very strange interpretation of what the word "fact" means.

Your usual, bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns empty statements. Which of the facts I've presented are you disputing? Do you actually know what a fact is?

It's been a pleasure making you look stupid.
We're done here.
Unless you have something remotely intelligent to contribute ( )

[Dan O'meara]

When his wife testified she did his washing? Please, are you for real?
 

I don't really care what you told me or not. You're wrong about just about everything you say and are a proven liar.

Frazier knows the jacket and he knows Oswald was wearing it that morning. Your little theory is over. Deal with it.

Do you want me to put you in touch with him, so he can tell you you're just as wrong as you can be?

Ah another pathetic loser who thinks he is more intelligent than everybody else. It's the definition of a fool.

Give me another plausible explanation for how Oswald's jacket (CE 163) ended up at the TSBD if he wasn't wearing it on Friday morning. You can't, hence the song and dance act.

Bledsoe is all I need to destroy your pathetic theory

I have nothing to contribute you would even remotely be able to understand. The only liar between is is you, Mr "I'm not a LN"

What a loser!

You sound like a petulant child.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you now know what they took?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. I know that I am missing my documents, that I am missing Lee's documents, Lee's wedding ring.
Mr. RANKIN. What about clothing?
Mrs. OSWALD. Robert had some of Lee's clothing. I don't know what was left of Lee's things, but I hope they will return it. No one needs it.

According to your doomed theory, Oswald switched jackets at the Paine house.
That means the grey jacket should be there.
But when a search of the house was done no such jacket was found.
Because it wasn't there.
Because Oswald wore it to work.
Just as Frazier testified.

[Bill Brown]

Fact - Bledsoe identifies Oswald as the man who got off the bus mid stop.
Fact - McWatters states this man was wearing a jacket.
Fact - Milton Jones also states this man was wearing a jacket.
Fact - Whaley states Oswald was wearing a jacket.
Fact - The light grey jacket Frazier testifies to seeing was never found in the TSBD
Fact - Roberts is certain Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he left.
Fact - Johnson confirms Roberts told police about his "zip up jacket"

Any reasonable person would conclude Oswald was wearing a jacket when he left the TSBD.

Interesting series of posts, Dan.  Great work.  A real eye opener, which is rare at this late stage in the case.

I mean it.  Great posts.

[Dan O'meara]

Interesting series of posts, Dan.  Great work.  A real eye opener, which is rare at this late stage in the case.

I mean it.  Great posts.

There's no reason why you and Martin can't do a live debate online tomorrow, Zoom or something along those lines. I'm sure it can then be posted to the group.
I'm new to this aspect of the case and would like to hear differing opinions.

[Duncan MacRae]

For anyone who may have used up their entire collection of personal insults towards fellow members in posts contained on this thread, I recommend this fine scholarly Tome.



On a serious note, all posts containing personal insults when reported or observed will be deleted.

When reported or observed, reoffenders will be suspended or banned from the Forum with their entire history of Forum content contributions deleted along with their Forum account.

Have a nice day