Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Martin Weidmann]

This is the reason I believe she was certain about Oswald wearing a zip-up jacket as he left the house.

Mrs. ROBERTS. He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket.

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?
Mr. BALL. Yes---it has a zipper down the front.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe it was.
Mr. BALL. It was a zippered jacket, was it?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
Mr. BALL. He was zipping it up as he went out the door?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. ROBERTS. Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes-just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it.

"...All I remember-he was zipping up a coat and I was trying to find out about President Kennedy..."

Mr. BALL. And when he was zipping up his jacket, his belt was covered?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Was it covered---well--- I don't know. I just couldn't answer you---I don't know---I don't remember it. I couldn't any more tell you than the man in the moon whether or not the man's belt was covered or uncovered. All I know he was zipping his coat.

Roberts is absolutely certain Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he left. She could not be any clearer. There is no room for doubt. Anyone questioning the certainty of this testimony on this specific aspect, cannot be taking the testimony as a whole seriously.

This is the reason I doubt the accuracy of Roberts' time estimate:

Mrs. ROBERTS. Now, it must have been around 1 o'clock, or maybe a little after, because it was after President Kennedy had been shot-what time I wouldn't want to say because

The reason given for the time estimate is "because it was after President Kennedy was shot". This is simply not good enough. I cannot accept this as an accurate estimation of the time. She even states "what time I wouldn't want to say", indicating her vagueness about the time in question.
So I hoped for something a bit more solid in the video you posted:

"It must have been after one o'clock because...he come in, and you know how (unintelligible)...I tried to clear it up and he come in..."

I have listened over and over again to the unintelligible part, maybe someone can help out. I can hear the word "blink" and that's about it. Judging from the phrase "I tried to clear it up", the best sense I can make so far of what Roberts is saying seems to be that it must be after one o'clock because she was trying to fix the TV!

There is nothing to verify Roberts time assessment so far. At the moment, it appears to me, she is just guessing.
In stark contrast to her testimony regarding Oswald's zip-up jacket.

Roberts is absolutely certain Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he left. She could not be any clearer. There is no room for doubt. Anyone questioning the certainty of this testimony on this specific aspect, cannot be taking the testimony as a whole seriously.

Now, that's just you deciding what it is.

The fact remains that it's just one person saying the same thing over and over again.

I have listened over and over again to the unintelligible part, maybe someone can help out. I can hear the word "blink" and that's about it. Judging from the phrase "I tried to clear it up", the best sense I can make so far of what Roberts is saying seems to be that it must be after one o'clock because she was trying to fix the TV!

Roberts wanted to watch the 1 PM news. Let me put it to you that she had the television on prior to 1 PM but only had sound and a very blurred picture. I recall her saying that somewhere. Now obviously (IMO) as soon as the news came on she also wanted to see pictures, don't you think? So, that's what she meant by saying "I tried to clear it up". That is my reason for accepting the 1 PM entry time as reasonable.

There is nothing to verify Roberts time assessment so far. At the moment, it appears to me, she is just guessing.

There is also nothing that speaks against her being right when she says 1 PM, so I wonder what motivates you to question her on that and on not on other things.

In stark contrast to her testimony regarding Oswald's zip-up jacket.

Her testimony about the jacket is, just like her 1 PM comment, a single statement, for which there is no corroboration, but in this case there is evidence that speaks against it. It's not conclusive, I'll gladly conceed that, but it is contrary evidence nevertheless.

I'm finding it somewhat difficult to understand why you would so readily dismiss or disbelieve the time estimate of 1 PM, yet go out of your way to question Frazier's testimony about the jacket to such an extent that you contrive a story about Oswald leaving the TSBD wearing a jacket.

The only way for me to perhaps understand it is by looking to the common denominator which seems to be that in both cases Oswald is kept in play as Tippit's killer. Or am I missing something?

[Martin Weidmann]

If the shoe fits:

Pedantic - a word used to describe someone who annoys others by correcting small errors, caring too much about minor details, or emphasizing their own expertise especially in some narrow or boring subject matter.

This from the guy who constantly complains about "strawman."  I have not argued that it "doesn't matter that the defendant couldn't have been at that location at that time."  To the contrary, what I have argued is that the evidence is conclusive that Oswald was at that location at the relevant time.  Numerous witnesses and the evidence confirm that conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt.  What you have been going on and and on about here for weeks in long rambling posts is ignoring that evidence and suggesting that a timeline that is vague and incomplete somehow creates doubt of a confirmed fact.  It doesn't.  It can't.  Because Oswald's presence is confirmed at the Tippit scene, at best (even accepting your dubious subjective claims as true) all your pedantic nitpicking about an ambiguous timeline can do is indicate that perhaps he didn't walk there.  Maybe he ran, maybe someone gave him a ride, maybe he found a jet pack and flew there like Superman.  However he did it doesn't matter except as a matter of some minor historical interest to fill in all the details on the movements of an assassin.  He was there because the evidence confirms that as a fact.  Thus we know that he had sufficient time to be there.

Pedantic - a word used to describe someone who annoys others by correcting small errors, caring too much about minor details, or emphasizing their own expertise especially in some narrow or boring subject matter.

Am I annoying you? Really?   

Why would you get annoyed? I don't get it. You wouldn't be able to annoy in any way, shape or form, because I couldn't care less what your opinions about this case are. We simply disagree... that's no reason for annoyance. Unless of course you are one of those people who think (incorrectly) that they are always right and can't handle it that some pedantic guy, living on an island in the sun where bullfights are banned, disagrees with him.

I have not argued that it "doesn't matter that the defendant couldn't have been at that location at that time."  To the contrary, what I have argued is that the evidence is conclusive that Oswald was at that location at the relevant time.

Same difference.

However he did it doesn't matter except as a matter of some minor historical interest to fill in all the details on the movements of an assassin.  He was there because the evidence confirms that as a fact.  Thus we know that he had sufficient time to be there. 

That's the same shallow, narrow-minded, "conclusion" as "his rifle was there, so he shot the President". You really need to start doing comedy. Thanks for the laugh.

[Gerry Down]

The shells at the Tippit scene were matched to the revolver Oswald had in his possession when he was arrested. That would be enough to convict anyone.

[Martin Weidmann]

The shells at the Tippit scene were matched to the revolver Oswald had in his possession when he was arrested. That would be enough to convict anyone.

the revolver Oswald had in his possession when he was arrested

Which revolver would that be, Gerry?

[Gerry Down]

the revolver Oswald had in his possession when he was arrested

Which revolver would that be, Gerry?

The one currently at the national archives. If you dispute it was found on him, then you are going down the road of saying any evidence you don't like was planted. If you tried that as a lawyer in court, the judge would just ignore you.

[Gerry Down]

The national archives -- LOL

First it had to be admitted into evidence by the judge.

You're going down faster than I expected.

You have a weird concept of how courts of law operate. If you start claiming all the evidence against you is planted, you are going to jail.

[Martin Weidmann]

The one currently at the national archives. If you dispute it was found on him, then you are going down the road of saying any evidence you don't like was planted. If you tried that as a lawyer in court, the judge would just ignore you.

If you tried that as a lawyer in court, the judge would just ignore you.

Are you a legal eagle, to make that determination?

If you dispute it was found on him, then you are going down the road of saying any evidence you don't like was planted.

You've got it backwards. I don't have to dispute that this was the revolver that was found on him. You need to show, as part of your prima facie case, that it was indeed the revolver and by doing so you need to explain this;

Detective Hill was given the revolver they allegedly took from Oswald in the car at the Texas Theater and did not witness first hand it being taken from Oswald. He was told it was Oswald's.

Mr. BELIN. And being that he had the keys to the car, Bob Carroll drove the vehicle.
Mr. HILL. As he started to get in the car, he handed me a pistol, which he identified as the one that had been taken from the suspect in the theatre.
Mr. BELIN. When did he identify this to you?
Mr. HILL. I asked him was this his. He said, "No, it is the suspect's."

He then kept that revolver on his person until around 4 PM when he took it to the personnel office of DPD HQ, where he put his intials on it.

Mr. BELIN. Who put that name in there?
Mr. HILL. I did.
Mr. BELIN. When did you do that?
Mr. HILL. This was done at approximately 4 p.m., the afternoon of Friday, November 22, 1963, in the personnel office of the police department.

He then told the officers that were present in the room that this was the weapon taken from Oswald and had some of them (who were not even involved in the chain of custody) initial it as well.

Only then did Detective Hill Traffic cop Davenport (huh, where did he come from? He was at Methodist Hospital with Tippit) submit the revolver to the Identification Bureau of the DPD.

Detective Carroll, who was involved in the arrest of Oswald, did not put his initials on the revolver, despite the fact that he was indeed part of the chain of custody. So, they had him "identify" the weapon some five months after the events simply by looking at it. Who needs initials, right? Now, pay attention to the last question and answer;

Mr. BELIN. Well, today is the following Thursday. At that time we didn't have some of the exhibits here, Officer Carroll, and since then they have come in. I now want to hand you one of the exhibits which has been marked as Commission Exhibit 143 and ask you to state what that is?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir. It is a .38 caliber revolver with a blue steel 2" barrel with wooden handle.
Mr. BELIN. Have you ever seen this before?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes; I have.
Mr. BELIN. Where did you first see it?
Mr. CARROLL. I first saw it in the Texas Theatre on November 22, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Would you just tell us about this weapon, when you first saw it?
Mr. CARROLL. The first time I saw the weapon, it was pointed in my direction and I reached and grabbed it and stuck it into my belt.
Mr. BELIN. What did you happen to be doing at the time?
Mr. CARROLL. At the time I was assisting in the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know whose hand was on the gun when you saw it pointed in your direction?
Mr. CARROLL. No; I do not.

Feel free to assume that the revolver now in evidence at the National Archives is the one they took from Oswald, but without a proper chain of custody (i.e. where officers do not simply tell eachother it's the weapon) all you will ever have is an assumption.

[Martin Weidmann]

You have a weird concept of how courts of law operate. If you start claiming all the evidence against you is planted, you are going to jail.

O.J. Simpson's lawyers claimed the bloody glove was planted by police and he left jail... Go figure.

Please Gerry, don't say something as silly as that comment again, because it's really really really silly.