Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Martin Weidmann]

At no point have I put this analysis forward as an explanation of why CE 163 was found in the TSBD.
The only way it relates to that aspect of the case is that Frazier is unequivocal that CE 163 is not the jacket Oswald was wearing that morning. He couldn't be any clearer. Frazier is completely unfamiliar with this jacket, as far as he is concerned he's never even seen Oswald wearing it before, let alone on the morning of the assassination.

To dismiss Frazier's testimony on this point just because it doesn't agree with your explanation of how CE 163 ended up in the TSBD is unwarranted.

If Frazier's testimony regarding CE 163 means anything, it means there has to be another explanation as to how CE 163 ended up there. No other reasonable conclusion can be drawn if Frazier's testimony is accepted.

The conundrum is that CE 162 is never introduced into the hearing. It is never mentioned. Frazier is never asked to look at it so he never gets a chance to dismiss it. CE 163 is introduced, this is in the transcript of the hearing, and Frazier dismisses it out of hand as the jacket wore that morning.
We can assume and speculate all we want - maybe Ball misspoke - but the fact remains, at no point is CE 162 mentioned during Frazier's questioning. That is a fact.

You've taken this out of context.
It is clearly referring to Frazier's testimony, which is unequivocal - Oswald wore a light gray, long-sleeved zipper jacket to work that morning. This cannot be denied. Frazier's testimony is emphatic on this point. To sweep away all of his testimony, his multiple references to knowing this jacket, is tantamount to saying he is perjuring himself. He could not be any clearer. There is no ambiguity, no ambivalence, no doubt. His testimony is clear.

Is that the sound of metallic headgear being donned I hear.
What are you saying? You have some kind of proof the jacket was found at the Paine house? Oh, you don't? You're suggesting the evidence was (drum roll) planted?
Here's why it's not an assumption - Frazier testifies that Oswald was wearing the same jacket on Friday morning that he was wearing on Thursday when he dropped him off. He is certain of it. He qualifies it by saying, for the third time, how familiar he is with the jacket.
Unless Frazier was part of the (drum roll) conspiracy to frame Oswald's jacket 

Your inability to accept straight-forward testimony in favour of Tinfoil  speaks volumes.

I've heard you say this before. What is it about the initials you find so objective?
It is something I'm genuinely interested in.

Again, you're taking things out of context.
When I say "this jacket" I am clearly referring to the light gray, long-sleeved, zippered jacket Frazier identified, this was never found in the TSBD.
It's a really desperate move on your behalf.

"You have Oswald going to the TSBD on Friday morning wearing a grey jacket..."

Frazier has Oswald going into work wearing a light grey jacket. He is emphatic about it. There can be no doubt about it.

"...you then have him leaving the TSBD wearing the same jacket, despite witness testimony that he wasn't wearing a jacket..."

Please cite the witness who saw Oswald leaving the TSBD without a jacket.

Does it make sense to you that Frazier emphatically denies Oswald was wearing CE 163 that morning, that he emphatically identifies a light grey, long-sleeved, zippered jacket, that he identifies this same  light grey, long-sleeved, zippered jacket as the one Oswald was wearing on Thursday night and that this is the jacket found in the TSBD??

Does Frazier lying about it make sense? That the authorities discovered it at the Paine's then planted it, does that make sense?

At no point have I put this analysis forward as an explanation of why CE 163 was found in the TSBD.

You seem confused. I never said that your "analysis" offered such an explanation. My point is that your "analysis" simply ignored CE 163 being found at the TSBD as if it is of no importance.

The only way it relates to that aspect of the case is that Frazier is unequivocal that CE 163 is not the jacket Oswald was wearing that morning. He couldn't be any clearer. Frazier is completely unfamiliar with this jacket, as far as he is concerned he's never even seen Oswald wearing it before, let alone on the morning of the assassination.

Regardless of Frazier saying this, Oswald only had two jackets. How likely is it that he never wore CE 163 to work. What are the odds?

To dismiss Frazier's testimony on this point just because it doesn't agree with your explanation of how CE 163 ended up in the TSBD is unwarranted.

I don't dismiss Frazier's testimony at all.

If Frazier's testimony regarding CE 163 means anything, it means there has to be another explanation as to how CE 163 ended up there. No other reasonable conclusion can be drawn if Frazier's testimony is accepted.

That's a "reasonable conclusion" to you? Really? The only way that the presence of CE 163 in the TSBD can be explained is that Oswald wore it at least once to work, don't you think? Or do you think it's normal for a jacket to just show up at a place of work?. What other "reasonable" explanation, than Oswald wearing that jacket to work, can there be? Perhaps that Marina or Ruth Paine put it there? Give me a break. 

The conundrum is that CE 162 is never introduced into the hearing. It is never mentioned. Frazier is never asked to look at it so he never gets a chance to dismiss it. CE 163 is introduced, this is in the transcript of the hearing, and Frazier dismisses it out of hand as the jacket wore that morning. We can assume and speculate all we want - maybe Ball misspoke - but the fact remains, at no point is CE 162 mentioned during Frazier's questioning. That is a fact.

It is true that CE 162 is not mentioned by it's evidence number (which is somewhat strange, if you ask me. Why show one jacket and not the other?) but that doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Frazier is never asked to look at it

Really? So when Ball asks him about the two jackets "we have shown", he's talking about CE 163 and what other jacket?

Mr. FRAZIER - It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning.
Mr. BALL - Did it have a zipper on it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it was one of the zipper types.
Mr. BALL - It isn't one of these two zipper jackets we have shown?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.

maybe Ball misspoke

Yeah right. And maybe he didn't!

You've taken this out of context.
It is clearly referring to Frazier's testimony, which is unequivocal - Oswald wore a light gray, long-sleeved zipper jacket to work that morning. This cannot be denied. Frazier's testimony is emphatic on this point. To sweep away all of his testimony, his multiple references to knowing this jacket, is tantamount to saying he is perjuring himself. He could not be any clearer. There is no ambiguity, no ambivalence, no doubt. His testimony is clear.

How can it be taken out of context when I just quoted you verbatim. I don't sweep away all of his testimony. I just don't cherry-pick like you do. Yes, Frazier said that he had never seen CE 163 before and yes, he said that Oswald was wearing a light gray jacket on Friday morning, but he also said that it was woolen (which CE 162 isn't) and when Ball asked him "It isn't one of these two zipper jackets we have shown?" Frazier answered "No Sir". Your willingness to overlook parts of Frazier's testimony that do not fit with your little theory is amazing.

Is that the sound of metallic headgear being donned I hear.

Another insult, just because you don't like what I write? Really....

What are you saying? You have some kind of proof the jacket was found at the Paine house? Oh, you don't? You're suggesting the evidence was (drum roll) planted?

I'm not saying anything more than I find it somewhat remarkable how DPD collected and handled the physical pieces of evidence. It is a fact that Micheal Paine was shown a BY photo on Friday evening, yet the DPD claimed to have found them on Saturday afternoon. It is a fact that the officer who called in they had  found a jacket under a car described it as white. It is a fact that there is no chain of custody for the jacket and the initials on it are from officers who were not present when the jacket was found. It is a fact that Detective Hill did not put his initial on the revolver until about 4 PM when he walked into the personnel room and told the other men there this was Oswald's revolver. In his testimony he added that he explained that Carroll told him it was Oswald's revolver, which means Hill had no first hand knowledge. It is a fact that Detective Bentley said on television that he took Oswald's wallet from him in the car after leaving the Texas Theater and that it contained a creditcard and a drivers license. No word about a second ID in the name of Hidell, yet the wallet given to Detective Rose at the police station (again by an unknown officer) did not contain a credit card or a drivers license, but it did contain a second ID in the name of Hidell. No report about the wallet exists and there is no chain of custody for the wallet. I could go on and on. To ignore all that and dismiss it as simple errors is ignoring the fact that pratically all rules of evidence were being violated.

Here's why it's not an assumption - Frazier testifies that Oswald was wearing the same jacket on Friday morning that he was wearing on Thursday when he dropped him off. He is certain of it. He qualifies it by saying, for the third time, how familiar he is with the jacket.

No. Frazier does not testify that Oswald was wearing the same jacket on Friday that he was wearing on Thursday. You are making that up. The fact is that Ball asked him if it was one of the two jackets they had shown him and Frazier said NO.

Unless Frazier was part of the (drum roll) conspiracy to frame Oswald's jacket 
Your inability to accept straight-forward testimony in favour of Tinfoil  speaks volumes.

And there is the classic LN ridicule. Do you really think you can win an argument by being condescending?

I've heard you say this before. What is it about the initials you find so objective?
It is something I'm genuinely interested in.

What I have written is self-evident. At least two officers handled the jacket and thus were in the chain of custody, yet they never initialed the jacket. The initials that are there of those of men who were not present when the jacket was found. As they are not in the chain of custody, what are their initials doing on the jacket?

Again, you're taking things out of context.
When I say "this jacket" I am clearly referring to the light gray, long-sleeved, zippered jacket Frazier identified, this was never found in the TSBD.
It's a really desperate move on your behalf.

BS. The only one taking things out of context is you. CE 162 was never found at the TSBD simply because it wasn't there. Instead CE 163 was there. Your the desperate one who argues that Oswald wore CE 162 to work on Friday and CE 163 just magically appeared there. Talk about tinfoil!

"You have Oswald going to the TSBD on Friday morning wearing a grey jacket..."

Frazier has Oswald going into work wearing a light grey jacket. He is emphatic about it. There can be no doubt about it.

Stop offering your opinion as if it is fact. It isn't and you are wrong. Frazier has Oswald wearing a grey woolen jacket which was neither of the two jackets shown to him by Ball.

"...you then have him leaving the TSBD wearing the same jacket, despite witness testimony that he wasn't wearing a jacket..."

Please cite the witness who saw Oswald leaving the TSBD without a jacket.

Where did I say anything about witnesses seeing Oswald leave the TSBD? No such witness exists.

There are however witnesses that said he wasn't wearing a jacket, during the trip to the rooming house. Mrs Reid, who was the last person to see him in the TSBD, just before he left (if the WC is to be believed) said he was not wearing a jacket. Mrs Bledsoe said she saw a hole in the sleeve of his shirt, which she couldn't have done if he was wearing a jacket, and Mrs Roberts said that when Oswald entered the rooming house he was wearing a shirt.

Does it make sense to you that Frazier emphatically denies Oswald was wearing CE 163 that morning, that he emphatically identifies a light grey, long-sleeved, zippered jacket, that he identifies this same  light grey, long-sleeved, zippered jacket as the one Oswald was wearing on Thursday night and that this is the jacket found in the TSBD??

Does it make sense to you that CE 163 was found at the TSBD if Oswald didn't wear it? And why do you keep on ignoring that fact that Ball asked Frazier if it was one of the two jackets (we know he owned) and he said no. This alone tells us that you can not reasonably conclude that Oswald was wearing CD 162 on Friday morning, because that means you also have to conclude that Frazier must have been wrong when he answered Ball's question. And once you conclude that he must have been wrong, he could just as easily have been wrong about CE 163. You don't get to pick the parts of his testimony you like and ignore the rest.

Does Frazier lying about it make sense? That the authorities discovered it at the Paine's then planted it, does that make sense?

Who says Frazier was lying? Perhaps he was simply mistaken. And there isn't much in this case that makes sense, which is why I am looking at all the possibilities, which seems to be something you are not willing to do.

[Martin Weidmann]

I wonder what happened to the jacket she saw Oswald wearing when he shot Tippit.
Because she identified Oswald as the shooter:

Mr. BALL. When you identified Oswald--it was the number 2 man--were you told the number 2 man whom you identified in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, I was not.
Mr. BALL. Were you ever told his name?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No.
Mr. BALL. Ever told his name later?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Nobody, nobody told me nothing.
Mr. BALL. Well, the man that you identified as the number 2 man in the lineup in the police station, you identified him as the man you had seen shoot Officer Tippit?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, I did.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify him because of his clothing that he had on at that time in the lineup.
Mrs. MARKHAM. Just like I told you. I mostly looked at his face, his eyes, and his clothing, too.

And she is definite he had a light, short jacket on:

Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light short jacket, dark trousers. I looked at his clothing, but I looked at his face, too.
Mr. BALL. Did he have the same clothing on that the man had that you saw shoot the officer?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had, these dark trousers on.
Mr. BALL. Did he have a jacket or a shirt? The man that you saw shoot Officer Tippit and run away, did you notice if he had a jacket on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had a jacket on when he done it.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a jacket, what general color of jacket?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It was a short jacket open in the front, kind of a grayish tan.

I wonder what happened to that jacket?
Because Oswald wasn't wearing it in the Texas Theater..
I wonder where it went.
Just like I wonder where the jacket went that Earlene Roberts is absolutely certain Oswald was wearing when he left the rooming house.
Where do you think that jacket went Otto?
Because Oswald didn't have it with him in the Theater.

Or did he?

Because Oswald didn't have it with him in the Theater.

How do you know this? Was the Texas Theater searched? Or do you just assume that he didn't have a jacket with him?

[Richard Smith]

This is the Alamo position of the contrarian.

No it's asking for evidence. I can't help it if that's a foreign concept to you.

When all else fails and the evidence proves some point they don't want to accept, we learn it "might" be planted.

What "all the evidence" might that be?

There is no valid basis to discuss the case or evidence if at the end of the day it can be dismissed upon no basis whatsoever by contending the evidence "might" or "possibly" be planted.

Asking for evidence that shows the revolver now in the National Archives is the one taken from Oswald is completely different than contending the evidence "might" or "possibly" be planted.
The way to avoid having to deal with such a possible claim is simply by providing the evidence.

That is not even allowed in a criminal trial context.  There must be at least some basis to argue the evidence is planted.  Not just that it could have happened.

Who is saying that? You are the one who is turning a straightforward request for evidence being presented into a silly "it could be planted" claim.

He just ignores all evidence of Oswald's guilt and makes arguments like this one.

Huh.. asking for evidence to be presented is "ignoring all the evidence" in your book? Oh boy.... 

Unreal.  You were given evidence.  The documentation posted confirms that a pistol with a specific serial number was sent to Oswald/Hidell.  That is the same pistol in his possession upon arrest.  I'm not sure how there could be much more evidence than the fact that the pistol sent to Oswald is the same one he has in his possession.  As usual, you just ignore the actual evidence and go down another pedantic rabbit hole suggesting any evidence of Oswald's guilt is the product of fakery.  Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim.  And think of the narrative behind it.  The DPD would frame Oswald for a crime they know he did not commit.  They would allow Tippit's murderer to go free but only after acquiring his pistol to plant on Oswald as the murder weapon.  Why they would do this is left unexplained.  They would then need to somehow manipulate all the documentation in the hands of external sources to link Oswald to the pistol.  They manage to somehow do all this within hours of his arrest. 

[Bill Chapman]

Because Oswald didn't have it with him in the Theater.

How do you know this? Was the Texas Theater searched? Or do you just assume that he didn't have a jacket with him?

Mr Belin: Any jacket?
Mr Brewer: No.

[Gerry Down]

Unreal.  You were given evidence.  The documentation posted confirms that a pistol with a specific serial number was sent to Oswald/Hidell.  That is the same pistol in his possession upon arrest.  I'm not sure how there could be much more evidence than the fact that the pistol sent to Oswald is the same one he has in his possession.  As usual, you just ignore the actual evidence and go down another pedantic rabbit hole suggesting any evidence of Oswald's guilt is the product of fakery.  Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim.  And think of the narrative behind it.  The DPD would frame Oswald for a crime they know he did not commit.  They would allow Tippit's murderer to go free but only after acquiring his pistol to plant on Oswald as the murder weapon.  Why they would do this is left unexplained.  They would then need to somehow manipulate all the documentation in the hands of external sources to link Oswald to the pistol.  They manage to somehow do all this within hours of his arrest.

This is a very good point. The DPD of all people would want to make sure they got the right person. They would not be framing an innocent person for Tippits death.

[Bill Chapman]

BILL CHAPMAN

[Dan O'meara]

BILL CHAPMAN

It makes sense Bill but Frazier is emphatic about the jacket.
Linnie is all "maybe" "I don't really know" I wasn't paying attention" sort of thing.
What you propose is the simplest and most efficient solution except for the insistence of Frazier who not only drove to work with him that morning but walked behind him as he tried to tuck his package under his arm.
McWatters and some kid whose name I forget have the man who is eventually ID'd as Oswald wearing a jacket as does Whaley,
Bledose ID's Oswald's shirt after the arrest.
And he may have taken it off by the time Roberts saw him as he was in full flight and looking for a quick change (perhaps)

I would like to go there for convenience's sake but my stupid brain won't allow it.
And just when I thought I was on to something  a lot of the witnesses seem to be describing a jacket darker than CE 162.

I'll be down this rabbit hole if you need me for anything

[Martin Weidmann]

Unreal.  You were given evidence.  The documentation posted confirms that a pistol with a specific serial number was sent to Oswald/Hidell.  That is the same pistol in his possession upon arrest.  I'm not sure how there could be much more evidence than the fact that the pistol sent to Oswald is the same one he has in his possession.  As usual, you just ignore the actual evidence and go down another pedantic rabbit hole suggesting any evidence of Oswald's guilt is the product of fakery.  Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim.  And think of the narrative behind it.  The DPD would frame Oswald for a crime they know he did not commit.  They would allow Tippit's murderer to go free but only after acquiring his pistol to plant on Oswald as the murder weapon.  Why they would do this is left unexplained.  They would then need to somehow manipulate all the documentation in the hands of external sources to link Oswald to the pistol.  They manage to somehow do all this within hours of his arrest.

The documentation posted confirms that a pistol with a specific serial number was sent to Oswald/Hidell.

No it doesn't.

That is the same pistol in his possession upon arrest.

Just because Carroll (who did not see who was holding the revolver when he grabbed it) told Hill and Hill told everybody else that this was Oswald's revolver? Wow

I'm not sure how there could be much more evidence than the fact that the pistol sent to Oswald is the same one he has in his possession.

That's no big surprise, as you are usually clueless about just about everything.

As usual, you just ignore the actual evidence and go down another pedantic rabbit hole suggesting any evidence of Oswald's guilt is the product of fakery.

You constantly talk about the "actual evidence" yet you never provide it or point towards it. Why is that?

Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim.

To support what claim?

The DPD would frame Oswald for a crime they know he did not commit.  They would allow Tippit's murderer to go free but only after acquiring his pistol to plant on Oswald as the murder weapon.  Why they would do this is left unexplained.  They would then need to somehow manipulate all the documentation in the hands of external sources to link Oswald to the pistol.  They manage to somehow do all this within hours of his arrest.

Who said anything about framing Oswald within hours of his arrest? Stop making things up, will ya?