Why did Lee Oswald ditch his jacket?
You mean LHO's "alleged jacket".
Domingo Benavides description of Tippit's killer compared to a photo taken of Ozzie on 11/22/63 while in DPD custody.
Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
~snip~
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.
Uh, you haven't actually demonstrated that CE-162 was Oswald's jacket or was even ever on Oswald.
Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. "Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that
Mr. BALL. Does it look like, anything like, the jacket the man had on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It is short, open down the front. but that jacket it is a darker jacket than that, I know it was.
Mr. BALL. You don't think it was as light a jacket as that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, it was darker than that, I know it was.....
Mr. BELIN - I am handing you a jacket which has been marked as "Commission's Exhibit 163," and ask you to state whether this bears any similarity to the jacket you saw this man with the gun wearing?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say this looks just like it. <--- Note that CE163 was the dark blue jacket found in the Domino room
Mr. BALL. I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. How is it different?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.
Mr. BALL. I have a jacket here Commission's Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that you saw across the street with a gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes; it sure does. Yes, that is the same type jacket. Actually, I thought it had a little more tan to it.
Police radio dictabelt:
279: We believe we've got this suspect on shooting this officer out here. Got his white jacket.
Uh, you haven't actually demonstrated that CE-162 was Oswald's jacket or was even ever on Oswald.
Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. "Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that
Mr. BALL. Does it look like, anything like, the jacket the man had on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It is short, open down the front. but that jacket it is a darker jacket than that, I know it was.
Mr. BALL. You don't think it was as light a jacket as that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, it was darker than that, I know it was.....
Mr. BELIN - I am handing you a jacket which has been marked as "Commission's Exhibit 163," and ask you to state whether this bears any similarity to the jacket you saw this man with the gun wearing?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say this looks just like it. <--- Note that CE163 was the dark blue jacket found in the Domino room
Mr. BALL. I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. How is it different?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.
Mr. BALL. I have a jacket here Commission's Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that you saw across the street with a gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes; it sure does. Yes, that is the same type jacket. Actually, I thought it had a little more tan to it.
Police radio dictabelt:
279: We believe we've got this suspect on shooting this officer out here. Got his white jacket.
Uh, you haven't actually demonstrated that CE-162 was Oswald's jacket or was even ever on Oswald.
Actually, and even worse, the entire claim that Oswald left the roominghouse wearing a jacket is based completely on the statements of one woman, who by her own admission was paying more attention to getting the TV to work and who her employer warned the WC about as she was known for "making up tales".
There is no corroboration for the claim that Oswald left the roominghouse wearing a jacket.
Running south on Patton on both sides of the street...
Running south on Patton on both sides of the street...
If Oswald did not leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket, then who did those Tippit witnesses see running wearing a jacket?
When you explain how LHO left the TSBD with no jacket but then suddenly had one when Whaley allegedly saw him then we can move onto your point.
You've missed the point.
Regardless of whether CE-162 is Oswald's jacket or not (it is), the fact remains that he was seen by a multitude of witnesses (near the scene of the Tippit slaying) wearing a jacket.
Why did he have no jacket on when he was seen by Brewer?
Benevide's description of Tippit's killer doesn't match a photo taken of Oswald while in custody on
11/22/63.
Benevides was across the street from Tippit, 15 feet away, when he was shot and got a better look at the
murderer than any other witness.
Legally, one piece of exculpatory evidence, or in this case witness, can nullify any number of witnesses or
pieces of evidence.
If Tippit's murderer ditched his jacket and Oswald was arrested without a jacket that doesn't make him
the killer.
The found jacket was too big for Ozzie and it contained laundry tags from being commercially cleaned.
Marina did his laundry.
etc. etc. etc.
Benevide's description of Tippit's killer doesn't match a photo taken of Oswald while in custody on 11/22/63.
Benevides was across the street from Tippit, 15 feet away, when he was shot and got a better look at the murderer than any other witness.
Legally, one piece of exculpatory evidence, or in this case witness, can nullify any number of witnesses or pieces of evidence.
If Tippit's murderer ditched his jacket and Oswald was arrested without a jacket that doesn't make him the killer.
The found jacket was too big for Ozzie and it contained laundry tags from being commercially cleaned.
Of course you have since your points require absolutely NO supporting evidence at all.
The jacket found was WHITE. Live with it.
Yes, I know... based on his "tapered hairline". Right? LOL
Markham got just as good a look at the murderer as did Bneavides.
Scoggins, Callaway and Guinyard got just as good a look at the man running from the scene with a gun in his hands as did Benavides.
Benavides never said that the murderer was not Oswald.
But, there is not even one piece of exculpatory evidence in the case of Tippit's murder by Oswald.
If you choose, name any evidence which you feel is exculpatory and we can discuss it.
True. Simply ditching a jacket doesn't automatically mean one is guilty of killing a police officer.
Oswald was seen by at least eight witnesses running from the scene with a gun in his hands and wearing a jacket. Can you explain why Oswald would ditch his jacket?
This argument is almost almost as lame as the tapered hairline argument.
The jacket was a size medium. Oswald was a size small. God forbid (with apologies to John Iacoletti) a small man should ever wear a medium sized jacket.
"The jacket was a size medium. Oswald was a size small. God forbid (with apologies to John Iacoletti) a small man should ever wear a medium sized jacket."
So which of the witnesses described Tippit"s murderer wearing an oversized jacket?
Oversized? From small to medium? LOL
I'll take that as none.
Not one alleged witness described Ozzie wearing a jacket that was too big.
Mr. BELIN - What did you see then?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I then pulled on up and I seen this officer standing by the door. The door was open to the car, and I was pretty close to him, and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the other side of the car.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. V DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in that room?
Mrs. B DAVIS. Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.
Mr. CALLAWAY. No. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." So they brought four men in.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.
Mr. BALL. You mean he looked like the same man?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Then what did you do?
Mr. GUINYARD. I was looking--trying to see and after I heard the third shot, then Oswald came through on Patton running---came right through the yard in front of the big white house---there's a big two-story white house---there's two of them there and he come through the one right on the corner of Patton.
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Four? Did any one of the people look anything like strike that. Did you identify anyone in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I identified him.
RUSSELL positively identified a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans Police Department # 112723, taken August 9, 1963, as being identical with the individual he had observed at the scene of the shooting of Dallas Police Officer J.D. TIPPIT on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas.
Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
JohnM
Of course you have since your points require absolutely NO supporting evidence at all.
The jacket found was WHITE. Live with it.
from
"VINNIE IT IS ROUND"
by Mark Lane
"The Commission claimed that Mrs. Markham identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man who shot
the policeman at a line up on November 22 and that in testimony before the Commission, Mrs. Markham confirmed her
positive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man she saw kill Officer Tippit. Captain Fritz - who needed that
identification real quickly -- testified that the lineup was hurriedly arranged at 4:30 that afternoon, less than three
and a half hours after Tippit's death and less than that after Oswald's arrest. Mrs Markham was "quite hysterical"
when she arrived at police headquarters. Her state and the atmosphere in the lineup room are best described by the
record of her testimony."
Q: Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
Markham: Yes , sir.
Q: Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Markham: No, sir
Q: You did not? Did you see anybody-I have asked you that question before-did you recognize anybody from their face?
"Counsel wished to remind Mrs. Markham that when he had prepared her for her testimony, before
a record of her answers was made, the matter had been discussed. To prepare a witness for testimony may
be acceptable where adversary and hostile cross-examination is expected, and it is also a legitimate way of
preventing repetition and irrelevant conjecture. The record of the Warren Commission, however, reveals no
such cross-examination and was burdened to such a degree by repetition and irrelevance that the initial
preparation seems to have been for the purpose of leading the witness to give an appropiate answer."
Markham: From their face, no.
Q: Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Markham: I didn't know nobody.
Q: I know you didn't know nobody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Markham: No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Q: No one of the four?
Markham: No one of them.
Q: No one of the four?
Markham: No, sir.
"At this point counsel, a teacher of criminal law and procedure at the University of Southern California and
a member of the U.S. Judical Conference Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, asked a
rather leading question. Mrs. Markham said that she recognized no one at the lineup; counsel tried five times for a
more acceptable answer. Then, departing a little from the legal procedure he teaches, he next asked his friendly but
disconcerting witness, "Was there a number two man in there?" Mrs. Markham replied, "Number two is the one I
picked." Counsel began another question:"I thought you just told me that you hadn't, but Mrs. Markham interrupted
to answer inexplicably, "I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing."
Counsel then inquired:
Q: You recognized him from his appearance?
Markham: I asked-I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.
"A mystical identification at best. However, the Commission was satisfied that its lawyer had at last
obtained the right answer: "Addressing itself solely to the probative value of Mrs. Markham's contemporaneous
discription of the gunman and her identification of Oswald at a police lineup, the Commission considers her
testimony reliable."
Domingo Benavides description of Tippit's killer compared to a photo taken of Ozzie on 11/22/63 while in DPD custody.
Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
~snip~
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3.jpg)
So she didn't understand 1 clearly ambiguous question, WOW, is that all you got?
And as for the identification it wasn't the exact same Oswald, this future Oswald was bruised, cut and had a huge welt over his left eye, so a little trepidation is not only accepted but is welcome with open arms because her slight hesitation can only further reinforce her positive identification.
Try again!
JohnM
"So she didn't understand 1 clearly ambiguous question"
::)
You might want to look up "ambiguous" in a non LNer Dictionary.
Q: Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Markham: No, sir
Exactly, you do realize that Iacoletti argued for weeks, at which point someone was known and unknown and by whom, and you expect Markham to act how you want and if not you throw her under a bus for what is perfectly explainable, you Oswald fanatics are beyond reason.
JohnM
Could you translate your response into adult english.
I don't understand gibberish.
Up until now you've shown a clear lack of comprehending anything that convicts Oswald, so further clarifying a fact that you have no desire in accepting would be futile.
JohnM
Here's where you knuckle heads don't get it.
Oswald wasn't convicted of anything. He never went to trial. He never even got to talk to a lawyer before
being lynched.
The WCR is the uncontested prosecution case against him.
Comprehending it isn't a problem.
It's veracity is though.
Scoggins, Callaway and Guinyard got just as good a look at the man running from the scene with a gun in his hands as did Benavides.
The same man on both sides of the street passing Callaway's lot ... seriuosly?
from
"VINNIE IT IS ROUND"
by Mark Lane
"The Commission claimed that Mrs. Markham identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man who shot the policeman at a line up on November 22 and that in testimony before the Commission, Mrs. Markham confirmed herpositive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man she saw kill Officer Tippit. Captain Fritz - who needed that identification real quickly -- testified that the lineup was hurriedly arranged at 4:30 that afternoon, less than three and a half hours after Tippit's death and less than that after Oswald's arrest. Mrs Markham was "quite hysterical"when she arrived at police headquarters. Her state and the atmosphere in the lineup room are best described by therecord of her testimony."
Q: Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
Markham: Yes , sir.
Q: Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Markham: No, sir
Q: You did not? Did you see anybody-I have asked you that question before-did you recognize anybody from their face?
"Counsel wished to remind Mrs. Markham that when he had prepared her for her testimony, before
a record of her answers was made, the matter had been discussed. To prepare a witness for testimony may
be acceptable where adversary and hostile cross-examination is expected, and it is also a legitimate way of
preventing repetition and irrelevant conjecture. The record of the Warren Commission, however, reveals no
such cross-examination and was burdened to such a degree by repetition and irrelevance that the initial
preparation seems to have been for the purpose of leading the witness to give an appropiate answer."
Markham: From their face, no.
Q: Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Markham: I didn't know nobody.
Q: I know you didn't know nobody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Markham: No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Q: No one of the four?
Markham: No one of them.
Q: No one of the four?
Markham: No, sir.
"At this point counsel, a teacher of criminal law and procedure at the University of Southern California anda member of the U.S. Judical Conference Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, asked arather leading question. Mrs. Markham said that she recognized no one at the lineup; counsel tried five times for amore acceptable answer. Then, departing a little from the legal procedure he teaches, he next asked his friendly but disconcerting witness, "Was there a number two man in there?" Mrs. Markham replied, "Number two is the one I picked." Counsel began another question:"I thought you just told me that you hadn't, but Mrs. Markham interrupted to answer inexplicably, "I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing."
Counsel then inquired:
Q: You recognized him from his appearance?
Markham: I asked-I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.
"A mystical identification at best. However, the Commission was satisfied that its lawyer had at last
obtained the right answer: "Addressing itself solely to the probative value of Mrs. Markham's contemporaneous discription of the gunman and her identification of Oswald at a police lineup, the Commission considers her testimony reliable."
You've missed the point.
Regardless of whether CE-162 is Oswald's jacket or not (it is), the fact remains that he was seen by a multitude of witnesses (near the scene of the Tippit slaying) wearing a jacket.
Why did he have no jacket on when he was seen by Brewer?
Dark blue, gray-black and orange-yellow cotton fibers were removed from one of the sleeves of the jacket that was found on the ground in the lot behind the Texaco station.
These fibers removed from the sleeve of the jacket (CE-162) match the microscopic characteristics of the dark blue, gray-black and orange-yellow cotton fibers which composed the Oswald arrest shirt.
Uh, you haven't actually demonstrated that CE-162 was Oswald's jacket or was even ever on Oswald.
Actually, and even worse, the entire claim that Oswald left the roominghouse wearing a jacket is based completely on the statements of one woman, who by her own admission was paying more attention to getting the TV to work and who her employer warned the WC about as she was known for "making up tales".
There is no corroboration for the claim that Oswald left the roominghouse wearing a jacket.
Somebody was wearing a jacket. There's no good reason to think that it was the same guy Brewer saw.
Yet, none of them say that there were two assailants.
Can you prove that those fibers came from that shirt to the exclusion of any other shirt?
Somebody was wearing a jacket. There's no good reason to think that it was the same guy Brewer saw.
The jacket was a size medium. Oswald was a size small. God forbid (with apologies to John Iacoletti) a small man should ever wear a medium sized jacket.
But John, the jacket was a Medium, not a Small. LOL
Acquilla Clemons did. So did Frank Wright.
And besides all that, the Jacket was initialed and is official evidence.
Is this supposed to somehow prove that CE162 was Oswald's jacket?
They couldn't even figure out who found it.
So she didn't understand 1 clearly ambiguous question, WOW, is that all you got?
And as for the identification it wasn't the exact same Oswald, this future Oswald was bruised, cut and had a huge welt over his left eye, so a little trepidation is not only accepted but is welcome with open arms because her slight hesitation can only further reinforce her positive identification.
So obviously Oswald's Jacket itself was creating a squared off edge. Just like in the following photo.
Exactly, you do realize that Iacoletti argued for weeks, at which point someone was known and unknown and by whom, and you expect Markham to act how you want and if not you throw her under a bus for what is perfectly explainable, you Oswald fanatics are beyond reason.
"Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman"
Iacoletti, you've been told, the prohibitive probability is that those fibers came from the shirt Oswald was wearing.
Many witnesses positively identified Oswald in the vicinity of Tenth and Patton, running with a gun in his hands and wearing a jacket.
Each of us can, on our own, choose to determine how much credibility to give these witnesses. Some can accept the obvious, that the witnesses near Tenth and Patton saw the same man that Brewer saw. Others can jump through any hoop that they have to in order to place guilt on anyone other than the actual cop-killer.
"Clearly ambiguous". LOL. "Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?"
Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's--an old shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Sort of a jacket?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Why is your opinion always the "obvious" one?
Is this supposed to somehow prove that CE162 was Oswald's jacket?
Can you prove that those fibers came from that shirt to the exclusion of any other shirt?
Nice cherry-pick. Keep in mind, this is the same "utter screwball" who claimed
- Tippit tried to talk to her and knew she was there, even though he was killed instantly.
- She was there all by herself screaming for help for 5-10 minutes but nobody responded.
- She tried to save Tippit's life.
- She tried to use Tippit's police radio to call for help.
- That the man talked to Tippit through the passenger side window, but it was rolled up.
- That Benavides was a policeman.
- Tippit tried to talk to her and knew she was there, even though he was killed instantly.
- She was there all by herself screaming for help for 5-10 minutes but nobody responded.
- She tried to save Tippit's life.
- She tried to use Tippit's police radio to call for help.
- That the man talked to Tippit through the passenger side window, but it was rolled up.
- That Benavides was a policeman.
Yet, none of them say that there were two assailants.
Acquilla Clemons did. So did Frank Wright.
Is this supposed to somehow prove that CE162 was Oswald's jacket?
I was referring to real witnesses, people who actually saw something.
How did real witnesses like Benavides, Markham and Scoggins manage to not notice this second assailant?
In October of 1964, Wright told George and Patricia Nash that he saw the assailant get into his car and drive away, heading west on Tenth Street. Acquilla Clemmons told Mark Lane that the two men both left on foot. Which one of them do you want to rely on?
This doesn't even take into account the fact that Wright changed his story later. He told reporter Earl Golz that the assailant didn't get into his car after all, saying that the man ran alongside the car yelling at the driver as the driver sped off (supposedly straight towards Clemmons, by the way).
In October of 1964, Wright told George and Patricia Nash that he saw the assailant get into his car and drive away, heading west on Tenth Street. Acquilla Clemmons told Mark Lane that the two men both left on foot. Which one of them do you want to rely on?
The actual (something that you ignore) shows that the jacket found was WHITE. Live with it.
Duh, chain of custody.
So was it a shirt or "sort of a jacket?"
I was referring to real witnesses, people who actually saw something.
How did real witnesses like Benavides, Markham and Scoggins manage to not notice this second assailant?
In October of 1964, Wright told George and Patricia Nash that he saw the assailant get into his car and drive away, heading west on Tenth Street. Acquilla Clemmons told Mark Lane that the two men both left on foot. Which one of them do you want to rely on?
This doesn't even take into account the fact that Wright changed his story later. He told reporter Earl Golz that the assailant didn't get into his car after all, saying that the man ran alongside the car yelling at the driver as the driver sped off (supposedly straight towards Clemmons, by the way).
Ouch!
That's the difference, this happens time and time again, our eyewitnesses are all corroborated because their recollections are based on reality whereas the conspiracy eyewitnesses are totally inconsistent because they don't have a foundation in truth. That's why Iacoletti never supports his claims with evidence because upon scrutiny they all fall apart.
JohnM
Name the many witnesses.
(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/post-5639-024448100%201315611845.gif)
The chain of custody is clear, what's your problem this time?
JohnM
Oswald's garment was in front of Marina and she knew it as Oswald's.
JohnM
Why would I believe that when Markham said he ran west on 10th across Patton taking the alley going west?
Notice board on dash...
Mr. BARNES. That is a board, a clipboard that is installed on the dash of all squad cars for the officers to take notes on and to keep their wanted persons.
Should be interesting reading...
Mr. BELIN. It appears to be there is a picture of some man on the clipboard. Did you notice whether or not there was any handwriting or any memorandum paper on the board?
Mr. BARNES. I couldn't tell you what was on the clipboard.
Could BARNES be lying?
Mr. BARNES. I couldn't tell you what was on the clipboard.
Not at all. it was a direct reply to Gary Craig's dumb ass post that the jacket was not Oswald's since it was a size Medium. Did I really have to explain this to you?
-sigh-
Why is this a problem, she clearly was under the impression if she knew any of the men before 1:15 on the 22nd and she said no, Ball should have seen the problem immediately and rephrased the question.
Because Benavides positively identified Oswald.
Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
Of course, the fibers from the jacket sleeve could have come from other shirts which consisted of dark blue, gray-black and orange-yellow cotton fibers.
Before I start, Markham was raising a family and held a steady job, some screwball?
The officer moved slightly and groaned but never said anything that he could understand.
Frank Cimino
From when it happened till an ambulance response was 5-10 minutes.
She was holding Tippit's head up and talked to him to keep him awake but Tippit's agonal gasps were just involuntary.
She may have at some point.
The right front passenger door air vent window was open.
Even if true how that make someone a screwball?
I was referring to real witnesses, people who actually saw something.
How did real witnesses like Benavides, Markham and Scoggins manage to not notice this second assailant?
Not at all. it was a direct reply to Gary Craig's dumb ass post that the jacket was not Oswald's since it was a size Medium. Did I really have to explain this to you?
Ouch!
That's the difference, this happens time and time again, our eyewitnesses are all corroborated because their recollections are based on reality whereas the conspiracy eyewitnesses are totally inconsistent because they don't have a foundation in truth. That's why Iacoletti never supports his claims with evidence because upon scrutiny they all fall apart.
Stop trying to change the law of physics, it's scientifically demonstrable that Oswald's jacket under strong sunlight looks white.
"Oswald's jacket". LOL.
Who scientifically demonstrated this, Walt Junior?
Mr. BARNES. I couldn't tell you what was on the clipboard.
Exactly. Which is why you can't prove they came from that specific shirt.
Well, let's see...Markham was covering her eyes and Scoggins was hiding behind his cab...
Well, let's see...Markham was covering her eyes and Scoggins was hiding behind his cab...
This is your so called American Justice, I can murder someone in broad daylight in front of eyewitnesses and then get seen running away by almost a dozen people, most of which see me with the same type of gun that killed the man, drop shells that match my revolver, whack the Police Officer that tries to search me, then I try and kill him too and all I need is Iacoletti Inc. to misrepresent the eyewitnesses and I'm magically innocent. Holy WOW Batman!
JohnM
Obviously if you could it explain it you would have by now.
Instead you respond with the standard Bill Brown insult.
Somehow you think repeating the case put together by the DPD and FBI for the WC (prosecution) convicts
Oswald of a crime.
Let me ask the dumb ass question again and see if I get another dumb ass response.
The jacket in evidence is a size too large for the accused.
He wore a size small the alleged jacket is a medium.
Please show me testimony from any of those witnesses who claimed to have seen the accused
wearing this jacket that describes a man wearing an oversized jacket.
When you make a dumb ass statement, it is not an insult when another calls your statement a dumb ass statement.
So, you're saying that a small man, in the history of the world, has never worn a medium sized jacket.
You made a dumb ass statement.
"So, you're saying that a small man, in the history of the world, has never worn a medium sized jacket."
???
No that's not what I'm saying.
You claim a dozen witnesses allegedly saw Ozzie wearing an oversized jacket.
LHO's size was small. The jacket in evidence is medium.
I'm asking you to provide an affidavit, testimony, anything, showing one of those witnesses describing
Ozzie or anyone else wearing a jacket that was too large for their size.
Mr. BELIN. Were there any notes on there that you saw that had been made on this clipboard?
Mr. BARNES. Yes; we never read his clipboard.
Any chance those notes were related to the killing?
Prove that a man who normally wears a size small jacket would appear to others to be wearing a jacket too large for his size if he was wearing a jacket sized medium.
This is your so called American Justice, I can murder someone in broad daylight in front of eyewitnesses and then get seen running away by almost a dozen people, most of which see me with the same type of gun that killed the man, drop shells that match my revolver, whack the Police Officer that tries to search me, then I try and kill him too and all I need is Iacoletti Inc. to misrepresent the eyewitnesses and I'm magically innocent. Holy WOW Batman!
JohnM
Presumption of innocence applies to a jury not presuming the defendant is guilty just because he's on trial. Otherwise the judge can't claim it's a fair trial.
Jury members can presume the defendant is guilty, innocent or be neutral about it. There's no way to perceive or enforce what human beings on a jury are thinking.
Which is why there is the process of jury selection...
One can only ask what a potential juror thinks, and hope for an honest response. One can't perceive or enforce a juror's impartiality because they can't see what's in their mind.
LOL, the goofy Bill Brown diversion question - classic.
Ozzie's accusers (look in the mirror) are the ones claiming he was wearing a jacket a size too big.
Why do I need to prove it?
I'm asking for validation in the form of a affidavit, testimony or anything else from one of the dozen
witnesses who allegedly saw him wearing the jacket.
A least one of them should have noticed.
LNers would be wise to refer to the 'killer' or 'prime suspect' rather than Oswald. Otherwise all these arguments go nowhere. CTers have a point-of-view as well.
'We don't see things as they are; we see things as WE are'--- Anais Nin
So CE 162 had tan in it?
| (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/oswald/oswald-jacket-national-archives.jpg) | (https://wtop.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/284291.jpg) |
Don't be stupid how can you accept the above!!! because Brewer even lied by saying he never met Oswald before 22.11.63 when in fact he had previously sold Oswald the very shoes that he was wearing on the day
What are you talking about? Ted Callaway, just for quick reference, positively identified the jacket (CE-162) as being the one that Oswald had on as he ran down Patton.
Mr. BALL. Was he dressed the same in the lineup as he was when you saw him running across the lawn?
Mrs. DAVIS. All except he didn't have a black coat on when I saw him in the lineup.
Oswald wore a size small.
The jacket in evidence is a medium.
Still no witness describing the suspect wearing an over sized jacket?
The jacket in evidence was laundered at a commercial laundry per the marking(s)/tag(s) on it.
Marina laundered all of Ozzie's clothes.
Ted Callaway may have seen Tippit's killer wearing CE-162 but it wasn't LHO.
Oswald wore a size small.
The jacket in evidence is a medium.
Still no witness describing the suspect wearing an over sized jacket?
The jacket in evidence was laundered at a commercial laundry per the marking(s)/tag(s) on it.
Marina laundered all of Ozzie's clothes.
Ted Callaway may have seen Tippit's killer wearing CE-162 but it wasn't LHO.
If he wore a jacket. That's your job to prove and you have been at it for how many years now?
Another quick reference:
Mr. BALL. I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
Roberts was blind as a bat.
Mrs Roberts testimony continued.
"Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen him wear that jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I can't say I did---if I did, I don't remember it.
Mr. BALL. When he came in he was in a shirt?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He was in his shirt sleeves.
Mr. BALL. What color was his shirt? Do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember. I didn't pay that much attention for I was interested in the television trying to get it fixed.
Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen that shirt before or seen him wear it---the shirt, or do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember---I don't know.
Mr. BALL. You say he put on a separate jacket?
Mrs. ROBERTS. A jacket.
Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
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.
"When he came in he was in his shirt sleeves."
What happened to the two jackets, Whaley, the taxi driver said he was wearing?
Mr. WHALEY. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt.
Mr. BALL. Wait a minute, we have got the shirt which you have identified as the rust brown shirt with the gold stripe in it.
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You said that a jacket--
Mr. WHALEY. That jacket now it might have been clean, but the jacket he had on looked more the color, you know like a uniform set, but he had this coat here on over that other jacket, I am sure, sir.
Mr. BALL. This is the blue-gray jacket, heavy blue-gray jacket.
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
Mrs Roberts testimony continued.
"When he came in he was in his shirt sleeves."
What happened to the two jackets, Whaley, the taxi driver said he was wearing?
Crikey, with each post your desperation grows and grows, Earlene Roberts was the supervisor and housekeeper for a rooming house with multiple occupants, that's some awesome accomplishment for someone that's blind.
JohnM
Correct, she was only half blind.
So what you have is an uncorroborated half eye witness...
Correct, she was only half blind.
So what you have is an uncorroborated half eye witness...
She also testified: We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to the side door at Patton Street.
That's about the stupidest comment I've ever seen, how can someone be half blind??? Either you're blind or you are not blind and Earlene was not blind.
Again with the stupidity or you simply don't know the evidence, the majority of the eyewitnesses who positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald said he was wearing a light coloured jacket.
JohnM
Oh...well...how about uncorroborated impaired eye witness?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, you know, I can't see too good how to read. I'm completely blind in my right eye.
Oh...well...how about uncorroborated impaired eye witness?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, you know, I can't see too good how to read. I'm completely blind in my right eye.
sniff sniff, the air is thick with the stench of fear and desperation.
Btw if Earlene was blind why was she bothering trying to get better reception on her television?
JohnM
the majority of the eyewitnesses who positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald said he was wearing a light coloured jacket.
As usual, that's another Mytton lie
Btw if Earlene was blind why was she bothering trying to get better reception on her television?
So, you agree that she was paying more attention to the television? Well, that's at least something!
So, you agree that she was paying more attention to the television? Well, that's at least something!
This is why I usually don't respond to your insanity, you simply don't know the evidence and now that I've proven that the vast majority of the Tippit eyewitnesses describe a light coloured jacket, your next predictable step will be to ignore this powerful corroborated evidence and focus on another insignificant nothing.
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light?colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light?colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs. DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.
Mr. BALL. How was this man dressed that had the pistol in his hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. He had on a pair of black britches and a brown shirt and a lithe sort of light-gray-looking jacket.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket.
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; a light gray jacket and a white T-shirt.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize him from his clothing?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light short jacket, dark trousers. I looked at his clothing, but I looked at his face, too.
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this now. When you first saw this man, had the police car stopped or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on.
Mr. BALL. This is Commission's Exhibit 162, a grey, zippered jacket. Have you ever seen this before?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that looks like what he had on. A jacket.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket he had on?
Mr. SMITH. Yes.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/22/fd/f0/22fdf0b4e7a3d42c0aa377bff8bccc59.jpg)
JohnM
now that I've proven that the vast majority of the Tippit eyewitnesses describe a light coloured jacket,
That isn't a "vast majority of Tippit eyewitnesses".
DUH! Of course before Oswald came in her focus was on trying to see the television and find out about the shooting of her President but where do you get the idea that while Oswald was at the Rooming house, Earlene was paying more attention to the television because she seems to go into some detail describing Oswald's movements as he hurried in and how he was zippering up on the way out?
JohnM
You're right, why bother?
I have produced a list of Eight eyewitnesses who all identified a light coloured jacket, give me your alternate list of eyewitnesses who identified a differently described jacket.
Here I'll give you a start;
Mr. BALL. How is it different?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.
Now give me some more eyewitnesses so that you can support your above post???? Waiting.... Yawn!!!!.....
JohnM
Exactly, you got nothing, Earlene held down a steady job that required her to see and she was trying to get her television working.
JohnM
Wasn't that supposed to be CE 162?
Mr. BALL. I have here an exhibit, Commission Exhibit 162, a jacket. Did you ever see this before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No; I did not.
She did not witness the shooting and was no Tippit eyewitness.
Also, she decribes the so-called "light coloured jacket" as dark and fails to identify CE 162 as the jacket she had seen.
Mr. BALL. I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. How is it different?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.
Wanna give it another try?
Wait, you didn't actually leave?
As usual you short change someones testimony to suit your endless quest to discover a conspiracy.
Let's read the full testimony, Markham describes the same style of jacket but she saw the jacket outside in the sunlight as opposed to seeing the jacket inside which has an obvious effect on ones perception of shading.
Mr. BALL. I have here an exhibit, Commission Exhibit 162, a jacket. Did you ever see this before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No; I did not.
Mr. BALL. Does it look like, anything like, the jacket the man had on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It is short, open down the front. But that jacket it is a darker jacket than that, I know it was.
(https://s17.postimg.org/wl9kmif67/optical_illusion.jpg)
JohnM
You were wrong Martin, the vast majority of eyewitnesses described a light coloured jacket.
JohnM
Whaaaat? That post wasn't directed to you, next time you better check which account you are responding
JohnM
Earlene Roberts actually knew Oswald and confirmed that Oswald was zipping up his jacket as he was leaving.
Mrs. ROBERTS. He just walked in---he didn't look around at me---he didn't say nothing and went on to his room.
Mr. BALL. Did he run?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He wasn't running, but he was walking pretty fast---he was all but running.
Mr. BALL. Then, what happened after that?
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.
And what do you know, the jacket recovered had fibers in the sleeve that matched Oswald's shirt and the jacket was had a zipper.
(http://harveyandlee.net/November/Jacket%20CE%20162.jpg)
JohnM
Speaking of short change....Markham continued:
Mr. BALL. You don't think it was as light a jacket as that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, it was darker than that, I know it was. At that moment I was so excited--
As pointed out by Martin, it was darker that CE 162 that she was shown.
Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
Again with the stupidity or you simply don't know the evidence, the majority of the eyewitnesses who positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald said he was wearing a light coloured jacket.
JohnM
This is why I usually don't respond to your insanity, you simply don't know the evidence and now that I've proven that the vast majority of the Tippit eyewitnesses describe a light coloured jacket, your next predictable step will be to ignore this powerful corroborated evidence and focus on another insignificant nothing.
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light?colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light?colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs. DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.
Mr. BALL. How was this man dressed that had the pistol in his hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. He had on a pair of black britches and a brown shirt and a lithe sort of light-gray-looking jacket.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket.
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; a light gray jacket and a white T-shirt.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize him from his clothing?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light short jacket, dark trousers. I looked at his clothing, but I looked at his face, too.
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this now. When you first saw this man, had the police car stopped or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/22/fd/f0/22fdf0b4e7a3d42c0aa377bff8bccc59.jpg)
JohnM
The sleeves seem bulky. In fact Buell confirmed those bulky sleeves in testimony. Pretty good choice of jacket for someone intent on concealing the size of a certain package.
sniff sniff, the air is thick with the stench of fear and desperation.
Btw if Earlene was blind why was she bothering trying to get better reception on her television?
JohnM
What drugs are you on today?
I made a statement....
....and backed it up with evidence of seven eyewitnesses who all positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald and all describe a light coloured jacket, your job was to refute me with eyewitnesses and so far as always you fail miserably.
EDIT here's another eyewitness who describes the man with a light coloured jacket.
JIMMY EARL BURT, He described this man as a white male, approximately 5'8". He was wearing a light colored short jacket.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/burt.htm
And another;
Mr. BALL. This is Commission's Exhibit 162, a grey, zippered jacket. Have you ever seen this before?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that looks like what he had on. A jacket.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket he had on?
Mr. SMITH. Yes.
JohnM
John, please stop beating Sorensen and Weidmann over the head with common sense and logic. This is getting painful to watch.
Thanks Bill, but really even both of them combined couldn't argue their way out of a wet paper bag, what with Weidmann who can't support his theories with facts and just repeats the same aggressive nonsense again and again and Sorenson who thinks belittling one eyed Earlene Roberts helps his argument, they're just one and the same.
JohnM
You keep avoiding the most important piece of evidence, Markham who positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald described the same style of jacket but her description of the shade was logically influenced by vastly different lighting conditions and different contrasting backgrounds.
Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
In the following comparison we see the same man from multiple directions under different outside lighting and the shirt appears lighter and relatively darker accordingly then extrapolate this with the inside lighting at the commission and we have some eyewitnesses who see different shades, WOW! But the simple fact remains the majority of eyewitnesses at the Tippit crime scene all see Oswald with a light coloured jacket.
(https://s17.postimg.org/c19c1f99r/Oswaldsjacketlighterdarkerz_zpsb85ca9ed.jpg)
JohnM
Thanks Bill, but really even both of them combined couldn't argue their way out of a wet paper bag, what with Weidmann who can't support his theories with facts and just repeats the same aggressive nonsense again and again and Sorenson who thinks belittling one eyed Earlene Roberts helps his argument, they're just one and the same.
JohnM
Only some medication that prevents me from breaking out in a rash whenever I am dealing with you.
No you didn't.... You just cherry-picked some quotes that do not hold water upon closer examination.
No, because you don't know the evidence, that same evidence that ironically you are trying to debate, you've been here for years and years and debated the same topics again and again yet you still don't learn, it's tragic!
Anyway I presented the majority of eyewitnesses who described a light coloured jacket whereas as you've admitted, you're drugged up to the eyeballs! I rest my case.
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light?colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light?colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs. DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.
Mr. BALL. How was this man dressed that had the pistol in his hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. He had on a pair of black britches and a brown shirt and a lithe sort of light-gray-looking jacket.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket.
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; a light gray jacket and a white T-shirt.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize him from his clothing?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light short jacket, dark trousers. I looked at his clothing, but I looked at his face, too.
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this now. When you first saw this man, had the police car stopped or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on.
Btw don't forget the eyewitnesses who identified the light coloured jacket and you know what besides one of the Davis sisters I can't find any other description that varies, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
JIMMY EARL BURT, He described this man as a white male, approximately 5'8". He was wearing a light colored short jacket.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/burt.htm
Mr. BALL. This is Commission's Exhibit 162, a grey, zippered jacket. Have you ever seen this before?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that looks like what he had on. A jacket.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket he had on?
Mr. SMITH. Yes.
JohnM
what with Weidmann who can't support his theories with facts
What theories would that be, Johnny?
You wouldn't be making stuff up again, would you now?
No, because you don't know the evidence, that same evidence that ironically you are trying to debate, you've been here for years and years
Says the guy who has lived on boards like this for decades and has already written double the number of posts than I have.
and debated the same topics again and again yet you still don't learn, it's tragic!
No, what is really tragic is that in all the time I have been on this board, you have never ever said anything worthwhile for me to learn.
On occassion I do pick up something useful from guys like Jerry Organ and even Bill Brown, but from you.... zilch!
All you do is copy/paste the same old crap time after time...
Huh? Your theory is clearly that the majority of eyewitnesses didn't see Oswald with a light coloured jacket, otherwise why would you bother arguing with me?
Anyway here's the list that I claimed and in response you have nothing.
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light?colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light?colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs. DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.
Mr. BALL. How was this man dressed that had the pistol in his hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. He had on a pair of black britches and a brown shirt and a lithe sort of light-gray-looking jacket.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket.
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; a light gray jacket and a white T-shirt.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize him from his clothing?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light short jacket, dark trousers. I looked at his clothing, but I looked at his face, too.
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this now. When you first saw this man, had the police car stopped or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on.
Btw don't forget the eyewitnesses who identified the light coloured jacket and you know what besides one of the Davis sisters I can't find any other description that varies, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
JIMMY EARL BURT, He described this man as a white male, approximately 5'8". He was wearing a light colored short jacket.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/burt.htm
Mr. BALL. This is Commission's Exhibit 162, a grey, zippered jacket. Have you ever seen this before?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that looks like what he had on. A jacket.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket he had on?
Mr. SMITH. Yes.
JohnM
Maybe if you had some evidence to refute me then you would post it, but so far we see the typical Weidmann response of attacking the messenger. You are truly not very good at this.
JohnM
Huh? Your theory is clearly that the majority of eyewitnesses didn't see Oswald with a light coloured jacket, otherwise why would you bother arguing with me?
Thank you for demonstrating so clearly that you haven't got a clue about what you call "my theory".
And I am not arguing with you. I am simply telling you that your statement is simply not correct.
You should have been paying better attention to the discussion. Perhaps than you would have understood what I was really saying instead of just making something up.
Thank you for demonstrating so clearly that you haven't got a clue about what you call "my theory".
And I am not arguing with you.
I am simply telling you that your statement is simply not correct.
OK, your shade thing didn't really work with Markham so now you're down to style?
As for the "positively identified", how does that work when she didn't recognize Oswald in the lineup?
OK, your shade thing didn't really work with Markham
As for the "positively identified", how does that work when she didn't recognize Oswald in the lineup?
Are you sure you want to add Burt to the list?
At the intersection of 10th and Patton Streets the man ran south on Patton Street. BURT said he ran to the intersection of 10th and Patton and when he was close enough to Patton Street to see to the south he saw the man running into an alley located between 10th and Jefferson Avenue on Patton Street. The man ran in the alley to the right and would be running west at this point.
Did I avoid Markham?
OK, your shade thing didn't really work with Markham so now you're down to style?
As for the "positively identified", how does that work when she didn't recognize Oswald in the lineup?
Picked up on him again. It was "the man".
You added Burt to the list, but now you question his observations?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, let me tell you. I said the second man, and they kept asking me which one, which one. I said, number two. When I said number two, I just got weak.
If she said number two why did they keep asking her which one, which one until she got weak?
Evidence of?
You're referring to your list of witnesses seeing a light colored jacket or some other mountain?
You're referring to your list of witnesses seeing a light colored jacket
or some other mountain?
You really don't understand do you?, you put your theory on the table as your first response.
Exactly, because you have no argument.
Your theory that I'm incorrect requires evidence! Well?
I've had enough, you haven't even come close to refuting my original statement and presenting any relevant evidence is obviously beyond you, anyway Martin your continual downer comments are a real sad reflection on who you are, you're just not worth it.
JohnM
Here we go again... the usual pathetic excuse to explain away why Markham did not recognize CE 162.
And she wasn't the only one.
If Markham had said she had seen a purple jacket you would probably be blaming it on the position of the moon relative to the sun as well as a thunderstorm 300 miles away...
LHO left the TSBD with NO jacket, but Whaley said that he had one on. Where did he get the jacket from?
How about quitting with the straw man and deal with what I actually did say. The fibers found inside one of the sleeves of the jacket matched the microscopic fibers from Oswald's arrest shirt.
This is your so called American Justice, I can murder someone in broad daylight in front of eyewitnesses and then get seen running away by almost a dozen people, most of which see me with the same type of gun that killed the man, drop shells that match my revolver, whack the Police Officer that tries to search me, then I try and kill him too and all I need is Iacoletti Inc. to misrepresent the eyewitnesses and I'm magically innocent. Holy WOW Batman!
And by "matched" you mean similar. So what?
The prohibitive probability is that those fibers came from Oswald's shirt.
RHVB
Whereas you prefer a system of justice that railroads a guy with bogus lineups, shells with magic disappearing initials, and a gun that a cop pulls out of his pocket 2 hours later.
Whereas you prefer a system of justice that railroads a guy with bogus lineups
shells with magic disappearing initials
and a gun that a cop pulls out of his pocket 2 hours later.
I'm surprised our resident nitwits haven't suggested that Oswald's jacket wasn't found in the theatre because there is no evidence that anyone searched for it.
What are you talking about? Ted Callaway, just for quick reference, positively identified the jacket (CE-162) as being the one that Oswald had on as he ran down Patton.
As I said, that's just Bugliosi-speak for "similar". He pulled this "probability" out of his azz.
This is why I usually don't respond to your insanity, you simply don't know the evidence and now that I've proven that the vast majority of the Tippit eyewitnesses describe a light coloured jacket,
You keep avoiding the most important piece of evidence, Markham who positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald described the same style of jacket but her description of the shade was logically influenced by vastly different lighting conditions and different contrasting backgrounds.
How do you know that he left the TSBD with no jacket?
Is this supposed to prove that Markham saw the same jacket?
This argument goes nowhere, the crime wasn't committed in some dark alley where a single identification may cause doubt, Oswald killed Tippit in broad daylight and was positively identified by multiple people.
So they had the shells in custody but forgot to initial them, silly conspirators.
I really don't get why you find this to be such a problem, he kept it on his person for safe keeping.
What's the difference if he kept Oswald's revolver for 10 seconds, 10 minutes or 10 hours?
What "Tippit eyewitnesses"?
Hahaha, I reinforced Bugliosi's professional opinion with literature directly from the FBI's website and you erase it which so typical of a CT, when evidence is produced that doesn't comply with your mindset it gets magically erased. The intellectual dishonesty on display is absolutely unbelievable.
Markham positively identified Oswald and the fact that she thought the jacket was darker under completely different lighting conditions means nothing.
Identified by "multiple people" who didn't even see a crime committed, in unfair lineups.
So you can't prove that they are the same shells then. Silly LNers.
Of course he did. ::)
Oswald's revolver. LOL. How would anybody know that the gun that Hill pulled out of his pocket 2 hours later was even ever at the theater, much less ever even touched by Oswald?
Oswald's revolver. LOL.
How would anybody know that the gun that Hill pulled out of his pocket 2 hours later was even ever at the theater, much less ever even touched by Oswald?
The fact that an utter screwball identified someone in an unfair lineup also means nothing.
You better brief your client because Oswald admitted that he was carrying a revolver at the theater! Doh!
Golly, another woman connected with this case that you just want to insult, pathetic!
That what the guy who took her testimony called her. Do you think you know her better than he did?
The way she misunderstood the questions was what frustrated the interrogator.
That what the guy who took her testimony called her.
Do you think you know her better than he did?
How about quitting with the straw man and deal with what I actually did say. The fibers found inside one of the sleeves of the jacket matched the microscopic fibers from Oswald's arrest shirt.
And by "matched" you mean similar. So what?
Or was it that she wasn't telling him what he wanted to hear?
No sign of misunderstanding whether she recognized Oswald or not.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
BALL started harassing and leading the witness when Markham didn't deliver what he wanted.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
In court BALL would have been immediately stopped as she had already answered his question; Markham fully understands "recognized":
Mr. BALL. All right. I have some pictures here that I would like to show you. I have Exhibits 521 and 522, which have been marked as Exhibits. Here is one picture, 521. Do you recognize that as the sign down?
Mrs. MARKHAM. This is the corner of Patton and 10th.
//
Mr. BALL. No, I have another picture I will show her. I have here Exhibit 522; do you recognize the white house in the picture?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.
//
Mr. BALL. Northwest corner; that is the northwest corner. Here is a picture. Do you recognize that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
//
Mr. BALL. I have some other pictures here that might illustrate. Do you recognize this?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.
Straight answers all the way. She didn't recognize Oswald in the lineup. BALL was desperate.
No sign of misunderstanding whether she recognized Oswald or not.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
BALL started harassing and leading the witness when Markham didn't deliver what he wanted.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
In court BALL would have been immediately stopped as she had already answered his question; Markham fully understands "recognized":
Mr. BALL. All right. I have some pictures here that I would like to show you. I have Exhibits 521 and 522, which have been marked as Exhibits. Here is one picture, 521. Do you recognize that as the sign down?
Mrs. MARKHAM. This is the corner of Patton and 10th.
//
Mr. BALL. No, I have another picture I will show her. I have here Exhibit 522; do you recognize the white house in the picture?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.
//
Mr. BALL. Northwest corner; that is the northwest corner. Here is a picture. Do you recognize that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
//
Mr. BALL. I have some other pictures here that might illustrate. Do you recognize this?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.
Straight answers all the way. She didn't recognize Oswald in the lineup. BALL was desperate.
It's called cross contamination.
How do you positively identify someone you don't recognize?
Transfer of fiber while handling evidence.
So now it's "pick". I get it.
Transfer of fiber while handling evidence.
If you knew you wouldn't have to ask how it's relevant.
The question is: when were the fibers transferred?
Can you answer that question?
The question is how the lineup was conducted since she testified to not recognizing the man.
So you didn't understand cross contamination.
If the transfer of fibers happened while the DPD was handling the evidence they are irrelevant to the case.
What ever case you're trying to make.
For a start you didn't reference Ball in your comment so blaming Ball for your Woman bashing insult is a gutless cop out.
Ball interacted with a plethora of witnesses and he concluded from all these witnesses that Oswald did it beyond all doubt,
Or, maybe you simply don't know the meaning of very basic words, like "similar".
He wanted her to understand the questions.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men*
*Meaning prior to that day
So the fibers jumped into the sleeves of Oswald's jacket and the same fibers lodged themselves in Oswald's rifle?
There is no solid chain of custody for the white jacket found at the carpark. The initials on the jacket were place there at the police station (just like it happened with the revolver) and (if Westbrook's testimony is to be believed) clearly do not correspond with the officers who actually found that jacket and took it to the station.
Except for Earlene Roberts saying so (and she was half blind and paying more attention to the TV) there is no evidence that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket at all and even Roberts rejected CE 162 because the jacket she claimed to have seen was darker.
That same afternoon, DPD officers took all Oswald's belongings from the rooming house and took them to the station. If the gray jacket (CE 162) was even in Oak Cliff (and not in Irving) this is how the gray jacket could have gotten to the police station.
The same goes for the search without a warrant at Ruth Paine's house. If the gray jacket was actually there, DPD officers could have brought in to the station from there.
"Except for Earlene Roberts saying so (and she was half blind* and paying more attention to the TV")
Good thing she was only half blind, huh...still had the other half to watch Oswald zip up his jacket
*She was blind in one eye, so I suppose that makes her 'half blind' percentage-wise LOL
So you didn't understand cross contamination.
If the transfer of fibers happened while the DPD was handling the evidence they are irrelevant to the case.
What ever case you're trying to make.
There is no solid chain of custody for the white jacket found at the carpark. The initials on the jacket were place there at the police station (just like it happened with the revolver) and (if Westbrook's testimony is to be believed) clearly do not correspond with the officers who actually found that jacket and took it to the station.
Except for Earlene Roberts saying so (and she was half blind and paying more attention to the TV) there is no evidence that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket at all and even Roberts rejected CE 162 because the jacket she claimed to have seen was darker.
That same afternoon, DPD officers took all Oswald's belongings from the rooming house and took them to the station. If the gray jacket (CE 162) was even in Oak Cliff (and not in Irving) this is how the gray jacket could have gotten to the police station.
The same goes for the search without a warrant at Ruth Paine's house. If the gray jacket was actually there, DPD officers could have brought in to the station from there.
Or, maybe you simply don't know the meaning of very basic words, like "match". Are those fibers exclusive to one particular shirt? Yes or no?
Anything to railroad your suspect with phony rhetoric. Right?
Ah, because it was found in the TSBD 10 days later. Now, please answer my question.
You're being dumb.
The fibers were much more than "similar". They, in fact, were a match.
Bill Brown double standard alert;
"the bottom line is that Earlene Roberts stated over and over that Oswald left the house zipping up a jacket."
Ergo; Earlene Roberts is to be believed.
Frazier said from day 1 until today over and over again that the bag found at the TSBD was not the bag he saw Oswald carry
Ergo: Frazier was mistaken
Bill Brown double standard alert;
"the bottom line is that Earlene Roberts stated over and over that Oswald left the house zipping up a jacket."
Ergo; Earlene Roberts is to be believed.
Frazier said from day 1 until today over and over again that the bag found at the TSBD was not the bag he saw Oswald carry
Ergo: Frazier was mistaken
You evidently do not understand the implications of cross contamination.
You need to show the transfer of fibers was not due to cross contamination or you have no case.
As fun as it always is to play word games with you, why are you avoiding the question?
Are those fibers exclusive to one particular shirt? A simple yes or no will suffice.
As fun as it always is to play word games with you, why are you avoiding the question?
Are those fibers exclusive to one particular shirt? A simple yes or no will suffice.
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/emoji-one/104/thumbs-up-sign_1f44d.png)
Besides, so what if Oswald did leave the house zipping up A jacket?
You're being dumb.
The fibers were much more than "similar". They, in fact, were a match.
Nice try but I don't need to feel anything regarding cross contamination because, as the records state, the fibers are there.
The question is how they arrived there if you want to use those fibers to support your case.
This is the bait you dumped on page one:
Show us how clever you are; what can you prove?
Yep!
These clowns are so desperate to find their man innocent that all reality just flies out the window, the three distinctly different fibers on the rifle matched the three distinctly different fibers found on the rifle,
And the mountain of irrelevancies continues. What does a 1998 statistic have to do with a 1963 murder? And then we get this gem:
Well duh! Of course the fibers on the rifle match the fibers on the rifle.
And the mountain of irrelevancies continues. What does a 1998 statistic have to do with a 1963 murder?
Well duh! Of course the fibers on the rifle match the fibers on the rifle.
Yep!
(https://s17.postimg.org/4rkjra7bz/brownshirtfibers_zpsrgyy13mq.jpg)
These clowns are so desperate to find their man innocent that all reality just flies out the window, the three distinctly different fibers on the rifle matched the three distinctly different fibers found on the rifle, the FBI summed it up very well "in 1998 there was 100 billion pounds of fibers produced" which was made into millions of sheets, shirts, pants, socks, wigs, undies, bags, etc etc and when the three fibers found on the rifle matched the three fibers in Oswald's shirt we are left with powerful persuasive evidence that the fibers on the rifle came from Oswald's shirt.
When one considers the volume of fabric produced in the world each year, the number of garments of a particular color and fiber type is extremely small. The likelihood of two or more manufacturers duplicating all aspects of the fabric type and color exactly is extremely remote. The large number of dye types and colors that exist in the world, coupled with the unlimited number of possible dye combinations, makes any fiber association by color significant. One must also consider the lifespan of a particular fabric: Only so much of a given fabric of a particular color and fiber type is produced, and it will eventually end up being destroyed or dumped in a landfill.
More than 100 billion pounds of fiber were produced in 1998. Approximately 40 billion pounds of cotton were used to produce textile products during 1998 (Fiber Organon 1999), and although a great many of these fibers were used in the production of clothing, a large amount of cotton fiber was also used for other purposes, such as stuffing and padding material (batting), cotton swabs, and cotton balls. Much of the cotton used in clothing ends up undyed, as in white shirts, underwear, socks, and bed sheets, but often cotton is dyed many different shades of blue, red, green, and yellow. Much of the cotton fabric produced is also print-dyed, which imparts different color characteristics to the surface of the cotton fibers, and some cotton fabrics are dyed in such a way as to vary the color along the length of the fiber. The cotton fibers in fabrics can remain in a rough state or can be processed in different ways, such as by mercerization.
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2000/deedric3.htm
JohnM
You forgot to mention that cop was a proven liar.
You're being dumb.
The fibers were much more than "similar". They, in fact, were a match.
So, if Frazier was correct about the size of the package, so what? Oswald's rifle was still found inside the building. How he got the rifle in there means nothing.
You said the fibers were similar. You are wrong.
Of course not. The fibers are exclusive to shirts with the same matching microscopic fibers. Duh.
Why would Oswald ditch A jacket by the time he was seen by Brewer?
EDIT It appears that in 1963 fiber production was in excess of 10 million tons and more than enough to make a lot of problems for Oswald. Case closed.
Ah well then the verdict was fine.
They were from a shirt that wasn't being worn by the accused at the time he allegedly fired the alleged
murder weapon. A fiber match from that shirt and the TSBD Carcano confirms the frame up not Ozzie's guilt.
(http://rs1190.pbsrc.com/albums/z459/lfelle/scratching-head-smiley-emoticon_zpslaymac0t.gif?w=93&h=70&fit=crop)
Huh? Now you're saying that the fibers were not similar?
I don't know, and neither do you. You haven't even demonstrated that Oswald was wearing a jacket, just that Mrs. Roberts thought he was zipping one up when he supposedly left the rooming house. Mrs. Roberts thought a lot of things.
Why would Oswald ditch A jacket by the time he was seen by Brewer?
I don't know, and neither do you.
You said the fibers were only "similar". You were wrong. Is that better?
Denial: Anything to get a cop-killer off the hook.
Have you come up with any Tippit murder evidence which points somewhere other than Oswald, yet?
I'm not "wrong" just because you want to use a definition of "match" that doesn't exclude other sources.
And by "matched" you mean similar. So what?
No.
By "matched" I mean the fibers were more than only similar; I mean exactly what I said, that they were a match.
Pretend to know something that you don't actually know. Anything to railroad a guy you don't like.
Have you come up with any evidence against Oswald yet other than utter screwball identified him in an unfair lineup? Guilty until proven innocent?
I stated that the jacket sleeve fibers and the shirt fibers were a "match". You made the ill-advised attempt to correct me by claiming that I meant the fibers were "similar" and not a "match". You were wrong to do so. The fibers were not only similar, they were indeed a match.
You were wrong. Do you really want to argue about this for ten more pages? You've done this sort of thing before. Why not just stop now versus dragging it out? Dragging this out for pages on end will not change anything.
I have posted dozens of pages (on this forum and the old one) of evidence that would be used in court (had Oswald went to trial) that would convict Oswald for Tippit's murder.
You have never posted anything showing ANY evidence whatsoever that points to someone other than Oswald. Why is that?
Oswald wore that shirt when he was arrested. If he was not wearing that shirt while shooting from the sniper's nest window, then he removed it while he was waiting for the motorcade to arrive and then used that shirt to quickly wipe down the rifle in hopes of removing his fingerprints.
It would have taken Oswald mere seconds to wipe down the rifle and then put the shirt on as he descended the first flight of stairs.
Because you've done this sort of thing before. You just decide that your definition of a word is the "correct" one.
But rather that arguing about this, how about you just answer the question? Whether the fibers are similar or whether they "match" in a way that doesn't exclude other sources,
So What?
Because you've done this sort of thing before. You just decide that your definition of a word is the "correct" one.
But rather that arguing about this, how about you just answer the question? Whether the fibers are similar or whether they "match" in a way that doesn't exclude other sources,
So What?
Why do I need to? Guilty until proven innocent?
He changed his shirt and trousers at his room.
The shirt he was arrested in wasn't the shirt he wore to work on 11/22/63.
Officer Baker testified to the WC that he was wearing different clothes when he saw him at the police
station than when he saw him in the TSBD.
Fibers matching the arrest shirt to the TSBD Carcano point to a frame up not Ozzie's guilt.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPORT OF CAPT. J. W. FRITZ, DALLAS POLICE
DEPARTMENT
INTERROGATION OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD
~snip~
I asked him where he went to when he left
work, and he told me that he had a room on 1026 North Beckley, that he
went over there and changed his trousers.....
~snip~
How does changing one's "trousers" translate to changing one's shirt?
:o
REPORT OF CAPT. J. W. FRITZ, DALLAS POLICE
DEPARTMENT
INTERROGATION OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD
~snip~
I asked him where he went to when he left
work, and he told me that he had a room on 1026 North Beckley, that he
went over there and changed his trousers.....
~snip~
During this conversation he told me he reached his home by cab and
changed his shirt and trousers before going to the show. He said his
cab fare was 85 cents. When asked what he did with his clothing, he
took off when he got home, he said he put them in the dirty clothes.
~snip~
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
He changed his shirt and trousers at his room.
The shirt he was arrested in wasn't the shirt he wore to work on 11/22/63.
Officer Baker testified to the WC that he was wearing different clothes when he saw him at the police
station than when he saw him in the TSBD.
Fibers matching the arrest shirt to the TSBD Carcano point to a frame up not Ozzie's guilt.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338870/m1/1/high_res)
I don't believe Oswald had a place for "dirty laundry" per se. I see in the photo above (of items seized at North Beckley) what the inventory calls:
- "brown shirt"
- "pair grey trousers"
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340653/m1/1/med_res)
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340653/m1/3/med_res)
Pat Speer obtained a color photo of the North Beckley rooming-house shirt from the National Archives.
(http://www.patspeer.com/_/rsrc/1479403772493/chapter4b%3A%22theso-calledevidence%22/Screen%20Shot%202016-11-17%20at%209.28.40%20AM.png)
( Speer webpage: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence (http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence) )
Oswald's arrest shirt has been published on the web in some odd ways:
(https://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Collage-472-640x264.jpg)
(Above: Image on the left was probably taken with a modern digital camera and may be the most accurate of the three. )
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0Em7f8W5qC4/V3b69BkNLwI/AAAAAAAAw_Q/5xVm0R9o6qY2Hwina4xJLyVX3nR6U1L9wCLcB/s1600/Oswald%2Bshirt%2Bnatlgeo.jpg)
TV image that I think could be brighter.
So if Oswald did change his shirt at the rooming house (and the shirt found there is that shirt), he put on a very similar (tone and color) shirt that he apparently had on when arrested. Therefore I can see why Marina thought the arrest shirt was the one he wore when he arrived in Irving on Thursday.
Thanks for posting those comparison photos, it seems to me that some of those shirt photos have been artificially enhanced, who would do such a thing and what would they have to gain??
JohnM
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338870/m1/1/high_res)
I don't believe Oswald had a place for "dirty laundry" per se. I see in the photo above (of items seized at North Beckley) what the inventory calls:
- "brown shirt"
- "pair grey trousers"
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340653/m1/1/med_res)
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340653/m1/3/med_res)
Pat Speer obtained a color photo of the North Beckley rooming-house shirt from the National Archives.
(http://www.patspeer.com/_/rsrc/1479403772493/chapter4b%3A%22theso-calledevidence%22/Screen%20Shot%202016-11-17%20at%209.28.40%20AM.png)
( Speer webpage: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence (http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence) )
Oswald's arrest shirt has been published on the web in some odd ways:
(https://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Collage-472-640x264.jpg)
(Above: Image on the left was probably taken with a modern digital camera and may be the most accurate of the three. )
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0Em7f8W5qC4/V3b69BkNLwI/AAAAAAAAw_Q/5xVm0R9o6qY2Hwina4xJLyVX3nR6U1L9wCLcB/s1600/Oswald%2Bshirt%2Bnatlgeo.jpg)
TV image that I think could be brighter.
So if Oswald did change his shirt at the rooming house (and the shirt found there is that shirt), he put on a very similar (tone and color) shirt that he apparently had on when arrested. Therefore I can see why Marina thought the arrest shirt was the one he wore when he arrived in Irving on Thursday.
Oswald wore that shirt when he was arrested. If he was not wearing that shirt while shooting from the sniper's nest window, then he removed it while he was waiting for the motorcade to arrive and then used that shirt to quickly wipe down the rifle in hopes of removing his fingerprints.
It would have taken Oswald mere seconds to wipe down the rifle and then put the shirt on as he descended the first flight of stairs.
My definition is the correct one. Your definition is way off base. Learn the difference between match and similar.
However, don't try to pretend for a second that the fact that the fibers were a match means nothing. The fiber match is yet another thing to present to the jury in an attempt to convince them that the jacket was Oswald's and in an attempt to change his appearance he ditched the jacket after killing a police officer only minutes ago.
Translation: I have no evidence whatsoever which points to someone other than Lee Oswald.
Again, so what? Do you think that somehow proves that Oswald did it?
You always think your opinions and definitions are the correct ones. Learn the difference between opinion and fact.
Translation (again): I have no evidence whatsoever which points to someone other than Lee Oswald.
Were the fibers found in the sleeve of the jacket and the fibers from the arrest shirt similar or a match?
Depends what you mean by "similar" and what you mean by "match". Nobody has actually cited any analysis made on the jacket fibers anyway -- just the ones in the rifle.
Consulting the index to the hearings I see no expert witness refer to fibers on CE 162, could be somewhere else.
You won't find any mention of it there. The FBI document detailing the fiber match from the jacket went unreported until the late nineties. The Warren Commission was made aware of it, but decided not to use it.
The FBI document detailing the fiber match from the jacket went unreported until the late nineties.
If a person can't understand that this fiber match from the jacket is utter BS they have to be living in la la land....Or on that North African River......
Still no cite.
Explain what makes the fiber match utter BS?
You won't find any mention of it there. The FBI document detailing the fiber match from the jacket went unreported until the late nineties. The Warren Commission was made aware of it, but decided not to use it.
Still no link to his supposed cite.https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62264&search=Rh_jevons+and+jacket#relPageId=169&tab=page
"REPORT FOLLOWS."
Continued from previous page...
You won't find any mention of it there. The FBI document detailing the fiber match from the jacket went unreported until the late nineties. The Warren Commission was made aware of it, but decided not to use it.
The FBI document detailing the fiber match from the jacket went unreported until the late nineties.
If a person can't understand that this fiber match from the jacket is utter BS they have to be living in la la land....Or on that North African River......
Explain what makes the fiber match utter BS?
If they had had evidence that verified that the jack had been in contact with Lee's shirt they would announced it from the rooftops.... The fact that the report didn't surface until thirty years later speaks for itself.
In 1998, David Belin was asked why the Commission decided to not use the report detailing the fiber match.
In a letter dated 7/30/98 to Dale Myers, Belin replied...
"There was overwhelming evidence to tie Oswald to the Tippit murder shooting in light of the positive identification of Oswald as the man with the gun by William Scoggins, Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis, Ted Callaway, Sam Guinyard and Helen Markham. Moreover, Oswald was apprehended with the murder weapon in his hand, as confirmed by the cartridge cases turned over to the police by witnesses at the Tippit murder scene. At the time of the Warren Commission investigation, experts retained by the Commission determined that individual fibers, like hairs, are not unique. Under all of the circumstances, I did not believe that the quality of the evidence compared with the ballistics identification of the cartridge cases found at the murder scene."
No trial, no cross examination of witnesses, no expert testimony for the defendant, etc. etc.
Exculpatory evidence is often ignored by prosecutors.
It's up to the defense to bring it up at trial.
If the jacket was discarded by Tippit's killer it could very well have contained evidence pointing
away from Ozzie.
-----------------------------
"the positive identification of Oswald as the man with the gun"
Domingo Benavide's description of Tippit's killer compared to a photo taken of Ozzie on 11/22/63
while in DPD custody.
He was 15 feet away from Tippit's killer.
Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
~snip~
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3.jpg)
Wonder where Benavides' flashbulb was?
Even in the hallway, under certain conditions, Oswald's nape (if the nape is what Benavides was talking about) had the appearance of being square.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/oswald/oswald-hallway-corner-nape.jpg)
This is more like fifteen feet and with some of the flash absorbed by the foreground figure. Try to imagine no flash and the figure moving.
However, it's thought the killer wore a jacket. On Oswald, a jacket would "square" off the nape.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/oswald/oswald-jacket-superimposed.jpg)
In any event, we don't know exactly what part of the head Benavides is referring to by "the hairline", or what "went square" means or of he's referring to the head profile with "his head look fiat in back".
You can spin it any way you want.
The fact remains the witness with the best look at Tippit's killer, Domingo Benavides, describes
someone not matching a photo taken of LHO on 11/22/63.
Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
~snip~
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3.jpg)
You can spin it any way you want.
The fact remains the witness with the best look at Tippit's killer, Domingo Benavides, describes
someone not matching a photo taken of LHO on 11/22/63.
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.
Statements like, "seemed", "sort of", and, "kind of", are quite vague in nature and give the impression that Benavides wasn't exactly sure about how his hairline actually appeared. And the killer (Oswald ) was wearing a jacket at the time of the Tippit shooting which leads to the question, how much of the nape of his neck was the collar of the jacket covering ?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62264&relPageId=138 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62264&relPageId=138)
and made his head look flat in back.
This is the important point.....The LNer's try to avoid Benavides' statement that the killer's head looked FLAT in the Back, by shifting the focus to the nape......
Benavides wasn't exactly sure about how his hairline actually appeared.
Benavides was not referring to the killer's "hairline"......He was referring to the killers hair style.....And the killer's hair was cut in a manner that made the back of his head LOOK FLAT.
I figured Brown had his information from Myers' book, because a google search for the file number of the memo lead me there as well. And - I might add - that was the only result that came up, which suggests there is no on line presence of the actual memo.
Belin can write to Myers whatever he wants but the fact remains that, in March 1964, the WC wasn't convinced by the available "overwhelming" evidence because they asked the FBI to investigate the dry-cleaner's label to establish a link between the jacket and Oswald.
Obviously the investigation ultimately was a dead end because, despite a massive search in the greater Dallas and New Orl?ans areas, the FBI could not locate the dry-cleaner who had attached that label to the jacket.
So, if they really had persuasive fiber evidence they did not use because they already had "overwhelming [witness] evidence to tie Oswald to the Tippit murder", then why in the world did they waste the FBI's time by asking for an investigation of the dry-cleaner's label.
Yet, they never fell back on the fibers after that... One can only wonder why.
So, if they really had persuasive fiber evidence they did not use because they already had "overwhelming [witness] evidence to tie Oswald to the Tippit murder", then why in the world did they waste the FBI's time by asking for an investigation of the dry-cleaner's label.
You can spin it any way you want.
The fact remains the witness with the best look at Tippit's killer, Domingo Benavides, describes
someone not matching a photo taken of LHO on 11/22/63.
Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
~snip~
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.
The fact remains the witness with the best look at Tippit's killer, Domingo Benavides, describes someone not matching a photo taken of LHO on 11/22/63.
That's a fact. You can even strike "officially".
That's a fact. You can even strike "officially".
I can't believe this had to be explained to you.
However, don't try to pretend for a second that the fact that the fibers were a match means nothing. The fiber match is yet another thing to present to the jury in an attempt to convince them that the jacket was Oswald's and in an attempt to change his appearance he ditched the jacket after killing a police officer only minutes ago.
"I can't believe this had to be explained to you."
Yeah, Brown is being his usual pathetic self with comments like that.
Funny thing is that in this case it seems it needs to be explained to him that it doesn't matter if the WC knew or not they would be wasting the FBI's time with their request to find the dry-cleaner. What matters is that they asked the FBI in the first place, at a time when they already knew about the matched fiber evidence.
It is ironic that Brown in past pages has been trying to make a big deal out of the significance (in his mind) of the matching fibers;
yet, the record shows that the WC actually completely ignored those matched fibres and looked (in vain) for another way to link the jacket to Oswald by having the FBI search for the dry-cleaner.
The WC clearly understood (IMO) that the matching fiber evidence is completely irrelevant as there is no solid chain of custody for the white jacket found at the carpark to begin with. The initials on the jacket were placed there by officers at the police station (just like it happened with the revolver) and (if Westbrook's testimony is to be believed) clearly do not correspond with the officers who actually found that jacket and took it to the station.
During his WC testimony, Barnes, who initialed CE 162 at the station, was asked a lot of questions about what he did at the Tippit scene of the shooting and later at the crime lab, but they hardly asked him anything about the jacket. He said he took a photo of the car under which - he had been told - the jacket had been found, but there is not a word in his testimony about him exactly seeing the jacket itself. They didn't ask him if he knew who found it, or if he had seen or handled it himself. They were not even interested enough to ask him how his initials ended up on the jacket. For George Doughty, who also initialed the jacket, it's even worse. They did not even call him to testify or give a statement at all.
Who really found the jacket, who called it in describing it as being white, who had it when Barnes arrived on the scene to take his picture and how and when it got to the police station is completely and totally unclear. Some chain of custody!
Except for Earlene Roberts saying so (and she was half blind and paying more attention to the TV) there is no evidence that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket at all and even Roberts rejected CE 162 because the jacket she claimed to have seen was darker.
Even worse, without a solid chain of custody, the DPD could actually have obtained the gray jacket CE 162 during the searches of the roominghouse and Ruth Paine's house, so who cares about matching fibers?
Funny thing is that in this case it seems it needs to be explained to him that it doesn't matter if the WC knew or not they would be wasting the FBI's time with their request to find the dry-cleaner. What matters is that they asked the FBI in the first place, at a time when they already knew about the matched fiber evidence.
The WC clearly understood (IMO) that the matching fiber evidence is completely irrelevant as there is no solid chain of custody for the white jacket found at the carpark to begin with.
Nonsense.
Ted Callaway got as good a look at the culprit as anyone.
(Cue the lame claim that Callaway didn't officially see the murder so he didn't see the killer)
...then failed to do so
Exactly, and then, without a credible chain of custody and with only inconclusive fiber evidence and the highly questionable word of Earlene Roberts to go on they just decided that CE 162 was Oswald's jacket anyway and that he was wearing it when he left the roominghouse.
After all, what other option did they have to keep their narrative alive?
Who is this "they" you keep mentioning since you deny suggesting a vast conspiracy? And "they" also have a narrative? That's a whole lot of bad luck for old Lee to constantly be connected to these events while out for a stroll to the movies. He is the only person on planet Earth to be in the TSBD at the moment shots were fired who then crosses paths with the Tippit murder (the only murder of a DPD officer in many years) less than an hour later. And he looks so much like the murderer that several witnesses ID him as the shooter. And he happens to have a pistol when arrested with the same types of ammunition as the murderer. Such constant bad luck. You nuts can't be for real. This is more like a game to see how long you can avoid acknowledging checkmate by taking absurd, wildly implausible, and often embarrassing contrarian positions to any evidence linking Oswald to this crime.
Exactly, and then, without a credible chain of custody and with only inconclusive fiber evidence and the highly questionable word of Earlene Roberts to go on they just decided that CE 162 was Oswald's jacket anyway and that he was wearing it when he left the roominghouse.
After all, what other option did they have to keep their narrative alive?
Talk about pathetic;
Bill Brown double standard alert;
"the bottom line is that Earlene Roberts stated over and over that Oswald left the house zipping up a jacket."
Ergo; Earlene Roberts (who was paying more attention to the TV, has bad eye sight, saw Oswald only a few seconds, claimed to have seen a jacket darker than CE 162 and who was known by her employer for making things up) is to be believed.
Frazier said from day 1 until today over and over again that the bag found at the TSBD was not the bag he saw Oswald carry
Ergo: Frazier (who has good eye sight and saw the bag up close and more than just a few seconds) was mistaken
The silver lining; just because Bill Brown says it doesn't mean it is so.
Earlene Roberts stated over and over that she watched Oswald leave the rooming house zipping up a jacket as he went out the door. Explain how any of the above is supposed to make her statement "questionable".
Bill, was Earlene Roberts a reliable witness? If so, do you believe she witnessed a police car pull up in front of her house and honk (as she claimed)? Because, if she lied about it, she is not a reliable witness. If she is not a reliable witness, than ANY statements she made are "questionable". Still churning out the same old butter eh?
Amazing that something so simple needs to be explained to Bill Brown.....
Bill, was Earlene Roberts a reliable witness? If so, do you believe she witnessed a police car pull up in front of her house and honk (as she claimed)? Because, if she lied about it, she is not a reliable witness. If she is not a reliable witness, than ANY statements she made are "questionable". Still churning out the same old butter eh?
Bill, was Earlene Roberts a reliable witness? If so, do you believe she witnessed a police car pull up in front of her house and honk (as she claimed)? Because, if she lied about it, she is not a reliable witness. If she is not a reliable witness, than ANY statements she made are "questionable". Still churning out the same old butter eh?
Oswald's rooming house was a few doors down from a 5 way intersection and cars would be constantly queueing up and occasionally beeping, so there's every chance that a car innocently beeped and under the circumstances Earlene just guessed that they were her old Cop mates.
So effectively Earlene to the best of her knowledge never lied.
https://s17.postimg.org/g5wwivecf/osroomhse.jpg
JohnM
On the day of the assassination, Frazier denied that the paper bag found at the TSBD was the same bag he had seen Oswald carry some 16 hours earlier and he has never, until today, changed his story one bit.
Not that it mattered, because he was deemed to be mistaken....
What a difference it makes when you tell a story the "investigators" (and LNs) like or not.
On the day of the assassination several people (for example Baker, Whaley) stated they saw Oswald either with or without a jacket and they were all, according to the official narrative, mistaken. But not Earlene Roberts.... The woman with bad eye sight, who was paying more attention to the TV (meaning she must have had her back towards Oswald walking from his room to the frontdoor), and who - at best - saw Oswald for a second or so when he walked out the door...
Not that Earlene Roberts! Never mind that her employer warned the WC about her as being a person who was known for making up things.... and never mind she told this crazy story about a police car in front of the house..
Earlene Roberts couldn't have been wrong about the jacket.... No way.... or could she now?
For me Earlene Roberts is one of those individuals that make me feel sad that there never was a trial.
The witness protection department at work.....
Read the following very slowly, Frazier on multiple occasions repeats that he "didn't pay much attention to the bag" and at that time Frazier had no reason to pay attention to the bag but for some reason you people like Tom, Larry and yourself all believe that witnesses associated with this case should for some unknown reason have the ability for Total Recall even people whose job is basically just to be a human conveyor belt.
Mr. BALL - All right.
When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.
Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.
Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.
Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.
Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--
How amazing, Roberts saw Oswald zipping up a jacket and witnesses said that the jacket that Oswald was wearing was a zipper type and the jacket found in the car park was a zipper type and when arrested Oswald wasn't wearing his zipper jacket, howzat!
JohnM
In order to do so she had to have her back turned to where Oswald was walking from his room to the front door!
Personally I give everyone the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise and in this case we know that Oswald put on a zipper jacket because a plethora of eyewitnesses testified that Oswald was wearing a zipper jacket.
But with the innocent beep beep it may very well have happened, do you have any evidence to the contrary?
JohnM
Sorry you don't get to write the rules, the eyewitnesses who testified to seeing Oswald wearing a zipper jacket 100% corroborate Earlene Roberts.
JohnM
You sound like a broken record, playing the same old boring song over and over again.
Read this very slowly; Earlene Roberts was paying more attention to getting the TV to work. In order to do so she had to have her back turned to where Oswald was walking from his room to the front door!
Great... now prove that;
1. Oswald did in fact leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket and Roberts wasn't wrong (like for instance Baker and Whaley were).
2. the white jacket found in the car park is the same as the gray jacket CE 162
3. the gray jacket CE 162 did indeed belong to Oswald
4. the Texas Theater was ever searched for a jacket
Great... now prove that;
4. the Texas Theater was ever searched for a jacket
Roberts mentioned the fact that Oswald was wearing a jacket as he went out the door to a radio reporter on the day of the assassination.
Despite the fact that she was bombarded by law enforcement personnel and media during the weekend of the assassination, Roberts never mentioned the police car horn honking incident until a week later, after the accused assassin was himself gunned down, which sparked whispers of a possible plot.
Oswald's rooming house was a few doors down from a 5 way intersection and cars would be constantly queueing up and occasionally beeping, so there's every chance that a car innocently beeped and under the circumstances Earlene just guessed that they were her old Cop mates.
So effectively Earlene to the best of her knowledge never lied.
(https://s17.postimg.org/g5wwivecf/osroomhse.jpg)
JohnM
Why can't any LNer explain where this jacket went?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. I didn't pay much attention to it right then. But it all came back when I really found out who I had. He was dressed in just ordinary work clothes. It wasn't khaki pants but they were khaki material, blue faded blue color, like a blue uniform made in khaki. Then he had on a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it and he had on some kind of jacket, I didn't notice very close but I think it was a work jacket that almost matched the pants.
Clearly Whaley DID NOT transport Lee Oswald to Oak Cliff...... Whoever he transported it was NOT Lee Oswald.
The very fact that Whaley and his passenger drove right past the rooming house at a time when the "spin misters" would like us to believe that he was a fleeing assassin and in a hurry to escape.....and that act would be contrary to human nature....
What utter nonsense!!...... If Lee had been Whaley's passenger and a fleeing assassin...he would have departed the taxi at the corner of Zangs and Beckley.......Then his fare would have been 85 cents ( not 95 ) and he would have gained about ten minutes on his pursuers ( there were no pursuers)
Or... Oswald wanted the cab to pass by the rooming house so he could determine if law enforcement was already there waiting for him. Taking the cab three blocks past the rooming house would accomplish this. Getting out of the cab at Zangs would not accomplish this.
Utter Nonsense!!..... On what basis would Lee Oswald have thought that there might be cops waiting for him at the rooming house just 30 minutes after the murder??
Even if he had been an assassin he would certainly have known that the cops couldn't possibly have learned his address and reached his rooming house in less than 30 minutes.....
You really should give just a little thought to your silly ideas before you post them....You make yourself look like a damned fool.
Utter Nonsense!!..... On what basis would Lee Oswald have thought that there might be cops waiting for him at the rooming house just 30 minutes after the murder??
Even if he had been an assassin he would certainly have known that the cops couldn't possibly have learned his address and reached his rooming house in less than 30 minutes.....
You really should give just a little thought to your silly ideas before you post them....You make yourself look like a damned fool.
The only thing that is utter nonsense is your belief that there is no chance in hell that Oswald couldn't know, during his thirty minute trek to Oak Cliff, what the authorities had learned about him by that point.
Taking the cab past the rooming house to see if the police were there makes perfect sense.
Mr. WHALEY. Well, I tried to get by the reporters, stepping over television cables and you couldn't hardly get by, they would grab you and wanted to know what you were doing down here, even with the detectives one in front and one behind you. Then they took me in an office there and I think Bill Alexander, the Assistant District Attorney, two or three, I was introduced to two or three who were FBI men and they wanted my deposition of what happened.
So, I told them to the best of my ability. Then they took me down in their room where they have their show-ups, and all, and me and this other taxi driver who was with me, sir, we sat in the room awhile and directly they brought in six men, young teenagers, and they all were handcuffed together. Well, they wanted me to pick out my passenger.
At that time he had on a pair of black pants and white T-shirt, that is all he had on. But you could have picked him out without identifying him by just listening to him because he was bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers and all of that and they asked me which one and I told them. It was him all right, the same man.
Mr. BALL. They had him in line with men much younger?
Mr. WHALEY. With five others.
Mr. BALL. Men much younger?
Mr. WHALEY. Not much younger, but just young kids they might have got them in jail.
Mr. BALL. Did he look older than those other boys?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And he was talking, was he?
Mr. WHALEY. He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer.
-----------------
Mr. BALL. Tell us what happened.
Mr. CALLAWAY. We first went into the room. There was Jim Leavelle, the detective, Sam Guinyard, and then this busdriver and myself. We waited down there for probably 20 or 30 minutes. And Jim told us, "When I show you these guys, be sure,. take your time, see if you can make a positive identification."
Mr. BALL. Had you known him before?
Mr. CALLAWAY. No. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." So they brought four men in.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.
Perhaps it is not all that Amazing. ;D
They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him
These are the words of a simple cabbie..... Whaley observed the unfairness of the line up and recognized that Lee was being "railroaded"......when he said...."they were trying to railroad him"
Taking the cab past the rooming house to see if the police were there makes perfect sense.
So on one hand you're saying that the arch villain Lee Harrrrrvey Osssswald decided on the spur of the moment to murder JFK....and he had no accomplices ...He was just a lone nut. Therefore nobody could have been prepared before hand to stop him from assassinating JFK or intercept him after the murder.....
But in this post you're presenting the idea that the cops did know where he lived and they were prepared to intercept him, and he was concerned that they might be waiting for him to show up at the rooming house less than thirty minutes after the murder.
Do I have that right, Billy Bob?
They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him
These are the words of a simple cabbie..... Whaley observed the unfairness of the line up and recognized that Lee was being "railroaded"......when he said...."they were trying to railroad him"
Isn't Whaley characterizing what Oswald was expressing.
"He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what
he thought about them. They knew what they were doing
and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer."
Whaley is not saying that the police were trying to railroad Oswald.
Whaley is saying that Oswald accused the police of knowing what they were doing, trying to railroad him.
No, Mr Inverted Carat ....you've got it wrong again.....
Whaley RECOGNIZED what was happening..... " they were trying to railroad him" Whaley's words....
Not at all.
So on one hand you're saying that the arch villain Lee Harrrrrvey Osssswald decided on the spur of the moment to murder JFK....and he had no accomplices ...He was just a lone nut. Therefore nobody could have been prepared before hand to stop him from assassinating JFK or intercept him after the murder.....
But in this post you're presenting the idea that the cops did know where he lived and they were prepared to intercept him, and he was concerned that they might be waiting for him to show up at the rooming house less than thirty minutes after the murder.
Do I have that right, Billy Bob?
"Not at all."
Well perhaps you can explain it for me then.......?
Oswald committed the crime of the century in assassinating the president. He had every reason in the world to be concerned about the police closing in on him. He had no idea what witnesses had seen or the DPD knew. For all he knew, he was already a suspect and they were looking for him. At the very least, he knew it wouldn't take long for a guy being watched by the FBI who was missing from the TSBD to become a person of interest. That is why he also probably shot Tippit. For all he knew, his name had gone out as a suspect. He couldn't risk identifying himself to a police officer. He either had to shoot him while he had the chance or risk arrest.
Oswald committed the crime of the century in assassinating the president. He had every reason in the world to be concerned about the police closing in on him. He had no idea what witnesses had seen or the DPD knew. For all he knew, he was already a suspect and they were looking for him. At the very least, he knew it wouldn't take long for a guy being watched by the FBI who was missing from the TSBD to become a person of interest. That is why he also probably shot Tippit. For all he knew, his name had gone out as a suspect. He couldn't risk identifying himself to a police officer. He either had to shoot him while he had the chance or risk arrest.
He had every reason in the world to be concerned about the police closing in on him.
Good point. He kills the President and then what does he do? Does he try to escape by getting out of town as quickly as he can, perhaps to Mexico?
No, he takes a bus (and a taxi) home (one of the first places police would look), changes his clothes and goes for a walk in Oak Cliff......
Yeah, that makes sense, right?
Does he try to escape by getting out of town as quickly as he can
No, he takes a bus (and a taxi) home
(one of the first places police would look)
changes his clothes
and goes for a walk in Oak Cliff......
Yeah, that makes sense, right?
For all he knew, he was already a suspect and they were looking for him.
Really??? So you believe the cops knew where he lived ?? Do you realize that is in direct conflict with what Fritz reported... According to the official tale nobody knew where Lee's rooming house was located.
So even if he had been one of the assassins and someone who knew him had gone directly to the police and told them immediately that they had seen Lee Oswald as he shot the President ( You know that nothing like this happened) The police would have had no idea where to look for him....and yet you think they could have been waiting for him at 1026 North Beckley.
Of course they would have had to set out for the rooming house ahead of Lee Oswald, because he went directly to the rooming house and arrived there at 1:00pm.....
Only an unthinking Kook would believe this nonsense.....
And your evidence for showing that LHO was "on the run" is?
Let's get back to basics for a moment, because it seems that for some reason the LNs are ignoring it;
By even the lowest legal standard, there simply is no solid chain of custody for the white jacket found at the carpark. The initials on the jacket were placed there by officers at the police station (just like it happened with the revolver) and (if Westbrook's testimony is to be believed) clearly do not correspond with the officers who actually found that jacket and took it to the station.
Who really found the jacket, who called it in describing it as being white, who had it when Barnes arrived on the scene to take his picture and how and when it got to the police station is completely and totally unclear.
He had every reason in the world to be concerned about the police closing in on him.
Good point. He kills the President and then what does he do? Does he try to escape by getting out of town as quickly as he can, perhaps to Mexico?
No, he takes a bus (and a taxi) home (one of the first places police would look), changes his clothes and goes for a walk in Oak Cliff......
Yeah, that makes sense, right?
Martin, If a chain a custody were required, then you might have a point. Though , I seriously doubt that an imperfect chain of custody would preclude the jacket from being admitted as evidence. Anyway, fortunately for the prosecution, they would be spared any headache of dealing with an imperfect chain of custody. The jacket being readily identifiable forgoes the need to present a chain of custody. The initials placed on it by DPD officials would have made it readily identifiable but the jacket itself was already unique and easily identifiable due to the laundry tag on it. So, it's really a rock solid piece of evidence.
We don't know who saw it first but Westbrook was the first to handle it. Patrolman R.W. Walker(Call #85) was the first to describe it as being white. The next person to describe it as being white was motorcycle officer J.T. Griffin (Call #279).
As to why they described it as being white?......Gee, that's tough one......
(https://i.imgur.com/eBRdfjU.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/m7yDKCi.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/FeYT84k.png)
Oswald was the only employee who was in the building at 12:30 and left immediately and never came back, WHY?
JohnM
LHO was a Marxist, married to a Russian and had just returned from the USSR. The FBI kept track of his whereabouts (he complained about them harassing his wife). He was living in a city full of right wing nut jobs. Shots were just fired at the POTUS from near where he worked, (JFK's condition wasn't known). And you wonder why he left the area? :o
And you wonder why he left the area?
Not at all, Oswald immediately left the building because he just killed the President and his rifle was on the 6th floor of his work.
JohnM
Sure, and then he hurried home (the first place police would look) for a change of clothes and a nice walk through Oak Cliff..... Yeah, that makes sense!
Sure, and then he hurried home
(the first place police would look)
for a change of clothes
and a nice walk through Oak Cliff.....
Yeah, that makes sense!
Sure, and then he hurried home (the first place police would look) for a change of clothes and a nice walk through Oak Cliff..... Yeah, that makes sense!
Martin, If a chain a custody were required, then you might have a point.
You're kidding, right?
Though , I seriously doubt that an imperfect chain of custody would preclude the jacket from being admitted as evidence.
First of all, what you seriously doubt or not is irrelevant. Secondly, the "admission into evidence" argument is a non starter because (1) there is and never will be a trial and (2) something being admitted into evidence at trial does not automatically validate that piece of evidence. During trial the prosecutor would still have to prove it was Oswald's jacket and how and where it was found. The defense would then have a field day demonstrating the massive evidentiary problems with the jacket exactly because there is no credible chain of custody.
But, rather than speculating about what would happen at a trial that will never take place, let's just stick to talking about the WCR and how they reached their conclusions. They pretended to conduct a proper legal investigation but as soon as they hit a problem they simply ignored the basic principals of law and broke just about every rule in the book.
Anyway, fortunately for the prosecution, they would be spared any headache of dealing with an imperfect chain of custody. The jacket being readily identifiable forgoes the need to present a chain of custody. The initials placed on it by DPD officials would have made it readily identifiable but the jacket itself was already unique and easily identifiable due to the laundry tag on it. So, it's really a rock solid piece of evidence.
What a load of BS.... The officers who initialed the jacket did so at the police station and had nothing to do with it being found and/or transported to the station. So, how in the world did they know where it came from? It could just as easily have been brought in as the result of the searches at Ruth Paine's house and Oswald's roominghouse. You are completely delusional to make the argument that a chain of custody doesn't matter just because some officers initialed a jacket at the station. This is exactly the reason why there is a need for a solid chain of custody; to protect the evidence against manipulation!
And as for the dry-cleaners label... Yes it makes the jacket unique, but as far as I know there is no record of the officers who either found the jacket or brought it to the station confirming the jacket they found had a dry-cleaner's label attached to it. So, again... the evidentiary life of the jacket seems to have started at the police station.
And, for all the wrong reasons, even the WC itself wasn't convinced CE 162 was Oswald's jacket. Why else did they request, in March 1964, that the FBI conduct an investigation to determine which dry-cleaner attached the label to the jacket?
We don't know who saw it first but Westbrook was the first to handle it. Patrolman R.W. Walker(Call #85) was the first to describe it as being white. The next person to describe it as being white was motorcycle officer J.T. Griffin (Call #279).
We not only don't know. Even Westbrook himself did not know. That's the entire point. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the white jacket found at the carpark is the same as the gray now in evidence as CE 162. We're just being asked to believe the assumption that it is....
As to why they described it as being white?......Gee, that's tough one......
The two officers described it as white simply because it was white..... See how easy that is? No need for lame excuses about lightning, shades and/or the position of the sun. Your photos prove nothing and are at best misleading propaganda.
The photo of an officer holding the jacket came from b/w footage, so no determination of the true color of the jacket can be made. Two photos were taken of CE 162 at a recent exhibition of the jacket and shirt. Unless you can prove that the color of the jacket has not been affected by 50 years of storage you really have nothing to make a comparision.
But perhaps you have proven something else with your photos; How in the world could Earlene Roberts mistake such a light colored jacket for the darker one she claimed she had seen?
And as for the dry-cleaners label... Yes it makes the jacket unique, but as far as I know there is no record of the officers who either found the jacket or brought it to the station confirming the jacket they found had a dry-cleaner's label attached to it.
Martin,
There is a legal maxim that I believe originated with poet Carl Sandburg: If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.
What you've just done in that post is scream and pound the table. There isn't a chance in hell that a defence team could successfully challenge the jacket being what it is or where it was found. Marina identified it as belonging to her husband. Westbrook testified as to where he picked it up from. The laundry tag number on it matches with that given over the radio by Sergeant Stringer to DPD radio Dispatch shortly after it had been picked up by Westbrook.
As I said, the jacket is a rock solid piece of evidence. If a defence team were permitted to carry on about it , all they could do would be to do just as you have done; pound the table and yell like hell.
The two officers described that jacket as being white because that is how it appeared to them. My photos prove that CE-162 can appear to be white. No amount of table pounding and hollering on your part will alter that truth.
(https://i.imgur.com/EkQVDss.jpg)
Fact:
On page 175 and 176 in their report (WCR) they repeatedly claim that Westbrook found/discovered the jacket, footnote 603.
=> 603. 7 H 116-118 (Capt. W. R. Westbrook).
While on 7 H 115 Westbrook admits to NOT finding the jacket...
Mr. WESTBROOK. Actually, I didn't find it--it was pointed out to me by either some officer that--that was while we were going over the scene in the close area where the shooting was concerned, someone pointed. out a jacket to me that was laying under a car and I got the jacket and told the officer to take the license number.
Can you handle the facts?
Fair enough you shouldn't answer for the Commission.
(nice use of euphemism inaccurate)
As I've documented, the best the Commission had to offer was misrepresented evidence (testimony ) although that jacket was supposed to be "rock solid piece of evidence."
Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.
JohnM
Who is we?
Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.
JohnM
What difference does it make?
JohnM
Whatever "Fritz reported", it's unrelated to the thoughts going through Oswald's mind when he was on the run between the Depository and 1026 N. Beckley.
What thoughts? Did he describe them to you in a s?ance?
What thoughts? Did he describe them to you in a s?ance?
How can anyone claim that what "Fritz reported" is unrelated to the thoughts going through Oswald's mind without knowing what Oswald's thoughts were?
Perhaps you should stop playing dumb and read my post again. I did not say what Oswald's thoughts may have been. I did nothing more than reply to Cakebread's nonsense about what Fritz reported.
Is this really all you have to contribute?
Obviously they were Whaley's words. Duh. It's his testimony.
But, what you can't understand, for some reason, is that he was describing what Oswald was saying about the police.
Whatever "Fritz reported", it's unrelated to the thoughts going through Oswald's mind when he was on the run between the Depository and 1026 N. Beckley.
What difference does it make?
JohnM
Show me where Lee told the police that they were trying to railroad him...
It was William Whaley who recognized that Lee was being railroaded and said..... "They were trying to railroad him"
Wrong Walt. It was Oswald who said they were trying to railroad him.
Mr. BALL. They brought you down to the Dallas police station?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you do there?
Mr. WHALEY. Well, I tried to get by the reporters, stepping over television cables and you couldn't hardly get by, they would grab you and wanted to know what you were doing down here, even with the detectives one in front and one behind you. Then they took me in an office there and I think Bill Alexander, the Assistant District Attorney, two or three, I was introduced to two or three who were FBI men and they wanted my deposition of what happened.
So, I told them to the best of my ability. Then they took me down in their room where they have their show-ups, and all, and me and this other taxi driver who was with me, sir, we sat in the room awhile and directly they brought in six men, young teenagers, and they all were handcuffed together. Well, they wanted me to pick out my passenger.
At that time he had on a pair of black pants and white T-shirt, that is all he had on. But you could have picked him out without identifying him by just listening to him because he was bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers and all of that and they asked me which one and I told them. It was him all right, the same man.
Mr. BALL. They had him in line with men much younger?
Mr. WHALEY. With five others.
Mr. BALL. Men much younger?
Mr. WHALEY. Not much younger, but just young kids they might have got them in jail.
Mr. BALL. Did he look older than those other boys?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And he was talking, was he?
Mr. WHALEY. He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer.
Show me where Lee told the police that they were trying to railroad him...
It was William Whaley who recognized that Lee was being railroaded and said..... "They were trying to railroad him"
I'm merely pointing out that the official tale tells us that the authorities are on record of saying they never learned of the 1026 North Beckley address until after 3:00pm that afternoon......And based n that information I was merely asking you to tell me why Lee would think that the authorities would be waiting for him at that address at 1:00 pm.
But now you've expanded my question..... You seem to know what thoughts were going through Lee's mind after he decided t take the afternoon off and go to the theater.... So would you please enlighten me?
I'm merely pointing out that the official tale tells us that the authorities are on record of saying they never learned of the 1026 North Beckley address until after 3:00pm that afternoon......And based n that information I was merely asking you to tell me why Lee would think that the authorities would be waiting for him at that address at 1:00 pm.
But now you've expanded my question..... You seem to know what thoughts were going through Lee's mind after he decided t take the afternoon off and go to the theater.... So would you please enlighten me?
It was Oswald who said they were trying to railroad him.
Mr. WHALEY. He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer.
Whaley said: "He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them."
So Lee told the cops "what he thought about them".... Probably something like " You guys are pikers....I've been to Russia and the cops over there make your brutality look like a kids pillow fight"... ;)
Then Whaley observed.... "They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him"
That's Whaley's observation and interpretation ........
....and manipulate the sentence and appear to change it's meaning...He said...
They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer.
Why do you refuse to make sense of the fact people were impersonating SS agents at the Jefferson Branch Library?
You quote something that doesn't make a difference?
OK, Westbrook didn't actually find it.
Who did find it?
Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.
Westbrook recovered the jacket that they found.
Why do you feel it's so important to pinpoint who saw the jacket first?
JohnM
Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.
Westbrook recovered the jacket that they found.
Why do you feel it's so important to pinpoint who saw the jacket first?
JohnM
You used to be good at this ? like five years ago.
Now you're flat on your face again.
Is this a first from Nut Camp: transcript manipulated?
Yes indeed. Brown is slipping... must be getting old!
Earlier I said that, if Oswald had killed Kennedy, it would IMO have made far more sense from him to try to leave town as quickly as possible, by for instance, taking a long distance bus. On the other hand, it would IMO have made no sense at all for him to go home, change his clothes and take a walk trough Oak Cliff...
Silly old Brown then wanted to know if Oswald being at the Texas Theater made sense and the obvious answer is of course that, if he had killed Kennedy, it would not have made sense for him to hang around town and go an see a movie. But any sane person could have figured that out, just Brown couldn't.
So you are calling the DPD Sergeant who wrote about SS agents being at the Jefferson Branch Library in his report a liar?
He is the only person on planet Earth to be in the TSBD at the moment shots were fired who then crosses paths with the Tippit murder (the only murder of a DPD officer in many years) less than an hour later. And he looks so much like the murderer that several witnesses ID him as the shooter. And he happens to have a pistol when arrested with the same types of ammunition as the murderer.
Yes, he was out of the building within minutes and then he was out of the city 20 minutes later.
As I said, the jacket is a rock solid piece of evidence. If a defence team were permitted to carry on about it , all they could do would be to do just as you have done; pound the table and yell like hell.
You have no idea whether I'm manipulating the sentence or not.
Maybe the person responsible for the transcription accidentally manipulated the sentence by placing a period where a comma should be.
Regardless, Whaley is not saying that the police were railroading Oswald.
Is this somehow supposed to be your proof that Secret Service agents were at the library?
But if Earlene Roberts said Oswald was wearing a jacket and Johnny Brewer said he wasn't, then you can take those statements to the bank.
I have no idea what was going through Lee's mind.
Having the cab go past the rooming house before getting out made a ton of sense.
Not really. Lee didn't tell his employer where he lived. He was living on Beckley under an assumed name. Not even his wife knew where he was living. Even if he thought they could have suspected him as early as 12:34 PM, why would he think they would know about the Beckley room 20 minutes later?
I happen to agree with your interpretation, but the statement is ambiguous and could be interpreted either way.
You'd have to ask Lee that.
Still, no harm in having the cab go past the rooming house before getting out.
Maybe Whaley's passenger got out at the 500 block of North Beckley because that's where he was going. Or even south of there as Whaley mentioned he was angled south when he got out of the cab.
You stopped making sense a while back.
You stopped making sense a while back.
You stopped making sense a while back.
Not only that but he is lousy at "translations" as well
In an FBI report dated 12/13/63, William Smith stated that the man he saw shoot Tippit was wearing a "light brown jacket".
This is, of course, the same man Markham saw shoot Tippit, who was wearing a "light short jacket" and who she later identified as Lee Oswald.
This is, of course, the same man who Scoggins saw wearing a "light-colored jacket" with a gun in his hands within a spit second of hearing shots and seeing Tippit fall to the ground. Scoggins identified this man, who he watched turn the corner from Tenth and run down Patton, as Lee Oswald.
This is, of course, the same man who Callaway saw come from the corner of Tenth and run down Patton in his direction, the man who Callaway said was wearing a "light tannish gray windbreaker jacket" and had a gun in his hands. Callaway positively identified this man as Lee Oswald.
This is, of course, the same man seen by Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis and Sam Guinyard, who all stated that the man was Lee Oswald, had a gun in his hands and was wearing a jacket.
Why did Oswald ditch his jacket by the time he was seen by Brewer on Jefferson?
In an FBI report dated 12/13/63, William Smith stated that the man he saw shoot Tippit was wearing a "light brown jacket".
This is, of course, the same man Markham saw shoot Tippit, who was wearing a "light short jacket" and who she later identified as Lee Oswald.
This is, of course, the same man who Scoggins saw wearing a "light-colored jacket" with a gun in his hands within a spit second of hearing shots and seeing Tippit fall to the ground. Scoggins identified this man, who he watched turn the corner from Tenth and run down Patton, as Lee Oswald.
This is, of course, the same man who Callaway saw come from the corner of Tenth and run down Patton in his direction, the man who Callaway said was wearing a "light tannish gray windbreaker jacket" and had a gun in his hands. Callaway positively identified this man as Lee Oswald.
This is, of course, the same man seen by Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis and Sam Guinyard, who all stated that the man was Lee Oswald, had a gun in his hands and was wearing a jacket.
Why did Oswald ditch his jacket by the time he was seen by Brewer on Jefferson?
You forgot the witness who got the best look at Tippit's killer and whose description of the murderer doesn't
match a photo taken of LHO while in DPD custody on 11/22/63.
Testimony Of Domingo Benavides
Mr. BELIN - Where were you when your vehicle stopped?
Mr. BENAVIDES - About 15 foot, just directly across the street and maybe a car length away from the police car.
~snip~
Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
~snip~
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.
~snip~
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3.jpg)
You forgot the witness who got the best look at Tippit's killer...
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.
You keep saying this, but it can definitely be argued that Ted Callaway got a better look at the culprit than did Benavides, unless you're going to go the goofy Iacoletti route and claim that Callaway did not see Tippit's killer.
Aren't you aware that terms like the above are relative only to the person being quoted?
This squared off hairline argument is almost as dumb as your argument that Oswald wasn't wearing the jacket because it was a size medium and Oswald was a size small.
"but it can definitely be argued that Ted Callaway got a better look at the culprit than did Benavides,"
Argue away.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/imagesCAJ5QHE1.jpg)
TESTIMONY OF TED CALLAWAY
~snip~
Mr. BALL. He was crossing Patton?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was that to the south or the north of the taxicab? Closer to you than the taxicab?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Was he running or walking?
Mr. CALLAWAY. He was running.
~snip~
Mr. BALL. About what distance was he away from you--the closest that he ever was to you?
Mr. CALLAWAY. About 56 feet.
~snip~
Testimony Of Domingo Benavides
Mr. BELIN - Where were you when your vehicle stopped?
Mr. BENAVIDES - About 15 foot, just directly across the street and maybe a car length away from the police car.
~snip~
Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
Callaway estimated that he was about fifty-six feet from Oswald as Oswald fled the scene. Anyone who is a baseball fan knows that, in the Major Leagues, the distance from the pitcher's mound to the batter is sixty feet and six inches.
Fifty-six feet is less than nineteen yards. Any golfer knows that nineteen yards is not far at all.
Yet, you foolishly imply that fifty-six feet is supposed to be some great distance.
Callaway talked to the man. Benavides ducked down in his truck.
Benavides didn't feel that he could even identify the killer and that is why he did not go to a lineup.
:o
"Callaway estimated that he was about fifty-six feet from Oswald as Oswald fled the scene."
::)
Mr. BALL. About what distance was he away from you--the closest that he ever was to you?
Mr. CALLAWAY. About 56 feet.
Mr. BALL. You measured that, did you?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Last Saturday morning?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Measured it with a tape measure?
Is that supposed to change something? Are you trying to say that Callaway did more than just estimate, that he actually measured and therefore I said something wrong? So what? He still used the word "about" when he said it was "about 56 feet". It was not an exact measurement, it was an estimation, exactly as I stated.
But, I don't mind rewording.
Callaway measured that he was about fifty-six feet from Oswald as Oswald fled the scene. Anyone who is a baseball fan knows that, in the Major Leagues, the distance from the pitcher's mound to the batter is sixty feet and six inches.
Fifty-six feet is less than nineteen yards. Any golfer knows that nineteen yards is not far at all.
Yet, you foolishly imply that fifty-six feet is supposed to be some great distance.
Callaway talked to the man. Benavides ducked down in his truck.
Benavides didn't feel that he could even identify the killer and that is why he did not go to a lineup.
"Benavides didn't feel that he could even identify the killer and that is why he did not go to a lineup."
That's the WC's story and you're sticking to it.
Based on his WC testimony this makes more sense.
"Benavides felt that he could identify Tippit's killer and that is why he wasn't brought in for a lineup"
Whaley's passenger did not get out at the 500 block. The passenger gave the 500 block of North Beckley as the destination when he entered the cab, but once the cab passed the rooming house, the passenger told Whaley to stop and he exited the cab a couple blocks short of the original destination (and about three blocks past the rooming house).
In an FBI report dated 12/13/63, William Smith stated that the man he saw shoot Tippit was wearing a "light brown jacket".
This is, of course, the same man Markham saw shoot Tippit, who was wearing a "light short jacket" and who she later identified as Lee Oswald.
This is, of course, the same man who Scoggins saw wearing a "light-colored jacket" with a gun in his hands within a spit second of hearing shots and seeing Tippit fall to the ground. Scoggins identified this man, who he watched turn the corner from Tenth and run down Patton, as Lee Oswald.
This is, of course, the same man who Callaway saw come from the corner of Tenth and run down Patton in his direction, the man who Callaway said was wearing a "light tannish gray windbreaker jacket" and had a gun in his hands. Callaway positively identified this man as Lee Oswald.
This is, of course, the same man seen by Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis and Sam Guinyard, who all stated that the man was Lee Oswald, had a gun in his hands and was wearing a jacket.
Why did Oswald ditch his jacket by the time he was seen by Brewer on Jefferson?
You keep saying this, but it can definitely be argued that Ted Callaway got a better look at the culprit than did Benavides,
unless you're going to go the goofy Iacoletti route and claim that Callaway did not see Tippit's killer.
Is that supposed to change something? Are you trying to say that Callaway did more than just estimate, that he actually measured and therefore I said something wrong? So what? He still used the word "about" when he said it was "about 56 feet". It was not an exact measurement, it was an estimation, exactly as I stated.
But, I don't mind rewording.
Callaway measured that he was about fifty-six feet from Oswald as Oswald fled the scene. Anyone who is a baseball fan knows that, in the Major Leagues, the distance from the pitcher's mound to the batter is sixty feet and six inches.
Fifty-six feet is less than nineteen yards. Any golfer knows that nineteen yards is not far at all.
Yet, you foolishly imply that fifty-six feet is supposed to be some great distance.
Callaway talked to the man. Benavides ducked down in his truck.
Benavides didn't feel that he could even identify the killer and that is why he did not go to a lineup.
Your buddy Mutton chickened out of the parking lot so why don't you help out and list the names of police officers who saw a grey jacket on the parking lot, then list those officers from your list who identified the jacket as CE162?
No list. Just one name. Capt. W. R. Westbrook.
Exactly,
The man who didn't find the jacket and can't name the person who pointed the jacket out to him.
Also the man who, when he left the carpark, gave the jacket to another officer he can't identify
And the man who allegedly hands in a gray jacket to the evidence room (without signing for it) with initials of officers on it who were in no way involved in finding the jacket or handling it prior to its arrival at the police station.
In other words, your entire "chain of custody" is just one man who never really had custody of the jacket....
Wow!
Now let me guess, Tim.... Westbrook's word is good enough for you, right?
Martin,
How do you know that Westbrook never found the jacket and that he gave it to another officer that he couldn't identify?
Martin,
How do you know that Westbrook never found the jacket and that he gave it to another officer that he couldn't identify?
Your buddy Mutton chickened out of the parking lot so why don't you help out and list the names of police officers who saw a grey jacket on the parking lot, then list those officers from your list who identified the jacket as CE162?
Your buddy Mutton
chickened out of the parking lot
The fact that you feel the need to insult me shows that my argument was all powerful and btw with every comment you are becoming more and more like Weidmann.
I presented the applicable facts and for some reason you set yourself up as some sort ultimate arbiter who will only be satisfied with some undefined evidence peculiar to your limited world view.
First of all we have the plethora of eyewitnesses who identified Oswald wearing a light coloured jacket.
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light?colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light?colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs. DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.
Mr. BALL. How was this man dressed that had the pistol in his hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. He had on a pair of black britches and a brown shirt and a lithe sort of light-gray-looking jacket.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket.
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; a light gray jacket and a white T-shirt.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize him from his clothing?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light short jacket, dark trousers. I looked at his clothing, but I looked at his face, too.
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this now. When you first saw this man, had the police car stopped or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on.
Mrs Brock who positively identified Oswald witnessed Oswald in the Parking Lot.
She advised she informed them that the individual proceeded north behind the Texaco station and she last observed him in the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station.
The jacket was recovered by Westbrook.
Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket you found?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir.
Marina positively identified the jacket as belonging to Lee.
Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's
The Jacket was filmed in the Carpark.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Eq799KyBJ7k/TnxUhD_sRvI/AAAAAAAAADo/FPcvXBfdjZA/s1600/JACKET.JPG
Oswald was arrested without his light coloured zippered jacket.
(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/lb_maccammon.jpg?quality=85&w=687)
JohnM
btw with every comment you are becoming more and more like Weidmann.
So you have noticed that other people share my opinion of you?
The jacket was recovered by Westbrook.
Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket you found?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir.
You've been asked this before several times, but ran from answering it, so here is the question again: Who is "we"?
So you have noticed that other people share my opinion of you?
Who is "we"?
First of all we have the plethora of eyewitnesses who identified Oswald wearing a light coloured jacket.
Marina positively identified the jacket as belonging to Lee.
Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's
Other people?
Definition of we
1 : I and the rest of a group that includes me
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/we
JohnM
Read his WC testimony, Tim
Uh.....his testimony?
Ok. So, Westbrook's word is good enough after all. That was a quick turnaround. It's nice to see that you've seen the light on that.
Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket you found?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir.
Hi John.
Ok. So, Westbrook's word is good enough after all. That was a quick turnaround. It's nice to see that you've seen the light on that.
That's hilarious, they ask you to read Westbrooks testimony except the part that says that Westbrook can positively identify the Jacket that they found. LOL!
JohnM
Where and when did "they" ask Tim to do that?
Who's "they"?
JohnM
That's hilarious, they ask you to read Westbrooks testimony except the part that says that Westbrook can positively identify the Jacket that they found. LOL!
JohnM
You tell me. You wrote;
So, who were you talking about and when did "they" ask Tim to do that?
So you don't know who I was referring to, interesting!
JohnM
I don't think you know who you were referring to, which is why you are now trying to weasel out of answering the question.
I don't think you know who you were referring to
which is why you are now trying to weasel out of answering the question.
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)
"Callaway talked to the man."
Mr. DULLES. Did he say anything?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir; he said something, but I could not understand it.
Mr. DULLES. You could not understand what he said?
Mr. CALLAWAY. That is right; yes, sir.
So you are calling him either a liar or incompetent. What evidence do you have for your accusation?
I'm just waiting on you to prove that Secret Service agents were actually at the library.
Nice cherry-picking.
Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. "Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that
Mr. BALL. Does it look like, anything like, the jacket the man had on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It is short, open down the front. but that jacket it is a darker jacket than that, I know it was.
Mr. BALL. You don't think it was as light a jacket as that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, it was darker than that, I know it was.....
Mr. BELIN - I am handing you a jacket which has been marked as "Commission's Exhibit 163," and ask you to state whether this bears any similarity to the jacket you saw this man with the gun wearing?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say this looks just like it. <--- Note that CE163 was the dark blue jacket found in the Domino room
Mr. BALL. I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. How is it different?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.
Mr. BALL. I have a jacket here Commission's Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that you saw across the street with a gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes; it sure does. Yes, that is the same type jacket. Actually, I thought it had a little more tan to it.
Ok. So, Westbrook's word is good enough after all. That was a quick turnaround. It's nice to see that you've seen the light on that.
That's hilarious, they ask you to read Westbrooks testimony except the part that says that Westbrook can positively identify the Jacket that they found. LOL!
JohnM
Don't you know Bill, every public building and every grassy knoll in the city of Dallas and nearby surrounding suburbs were outfitted with SS agents just in case someone randomly ran in so they could verify that whoever it was, definitely was NOT Oswald!!!
JohnM
Nice cherry-picking.
Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. "Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that
Mr. BALL. Does it look like, anything like, the jacket the man had on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It is short, open down the front. but that jacket it is a darker jacket than that, I know it was.
Mr. BALL. You don't think it was as light a jacket as that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, it was darker than that, I know it was.....
Mr. BELIN - I am handing you a jacket which has been marked as "Commission's Exhibit 163," and ask you to state whether this bears any similarity to the jacket you saw this man with the gun wearing?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say this looks just like it. <--- Note that CE163 was the dark blue jacket found in the Domino room
Mr. BALL. I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. How is it different?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.
Mr. BALL. I have a jacket here Commission's Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that you saw across the street with a gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes; it sure does. Yes, that is the same type jacket. Actually, I thought it had a little more tan to it.
Nice edit.
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's--an old shirt.
Nice cherry-picking.
Nice edit.
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's--an old shirt.
Again, this testimony was held in private so how do you know he wasn't shown a white jacket?
The point is -- you can't show that a gray jacket was shown to him.
Sadly for you, there is a report by a DPD Sergeant that says he spoke with SS agents at the Jefferson Branch Library.
What's your evidence for the claim that he was shown that jacket? Beyond the WC said so of course.
Not really. Lee didn't tell his employer where he lived. He was living on Beckley under an assumed name. Not even his wife knew where he was living. Even if he thought they could have suspected him as early as 12:34 PM, why would he think they would know about the Beckley room 20 minutes later?
You're just jealous that it might not have been you?
What question???, all I see is the Manager of managers getting his knickers in a knot because he's getting his arse kicked! Boo Hoo!
JohnM
Ok. So, Westbrook's word is good enough after all. That was a quick turnaround. It's nice to see that you've seen the light on that.
Westbrook then takes the jacket, not leaving it in situ, so that when W.E. Barnes of the crime lab arrives there is nothing to photograph but a parked car.
Somehow sounds familiar, doesn't it? Evidence being presented that was found by somebody we don't know and was never photographed in situ.
Flat on your face beside BB.
We're discussing evidence (or lack of ) not why the DPD screwed up crime scenes.
"Some of you guys lack the ability to place yourself in their shoes and trying to understand what they were going through at the time."
No truer words have ever been typed.
Said one clown to another.....
Pathetic insults and patronizing replies do not alter the facts.
Westbrook belonged to the DPD personnel office, for crying out loud. He was not hunting a killer and had no business handling evidence. He was with FBI agent Barrett following the events as they unfolded.
And even if he wanted to search the jacket, that's still no reason to remove the jacket from the scene before W.E. Barnes of the crime lab got there. Those guys were supposed to be professionals and regardless "what they were going through", they should have acted that way instead of making pathetic excuses afterwards.
Wow Marty you seem a little puckered up this morning, relax.
So they weren't so professional, ok I agree. Now what? Does that mean we throw the baby out with the bath water?
Martin has watched too many episodes of CSI. This happened in 1963. Police investigations were a lot different then. But that kind of lazy, defense attorney argument creates no doubt of Oswald's guilt. It's just a way to extend the discussion by distracting from the evidence.
Said one clown to another.....
Pathetic insults and patronizing replies do not alter the facts.
Westbrook belonged to the DPD personnel office, for crying out loud. He was not hunting a killer and had no business handling evidence. He was with FBI agent Barrett following the events as they unfolded.
And even if he wanted to search the jacket, that's still no reason to remove the jacket from the scene before W.E. Barnes of the crime lab got there. Those guys were supposed to be professionals and regardless "what they were going through", they should have acted that way instead of making pathetic excuses afterwards.
Westbrook belonged to the DPD personnel office, for crying out loud. He was not hunting a killer and had no business handling evidence.
How about you? Do you have any evidence to show which supports the idea that anyone other than Lee Oswald killed J.D. Tippit? Maybe you can help Weidmann out. Can you post evidence which points to someone else not named Lee Oswald?
I don't entertain a specific theory.
You do and your evidence is as weak as can be.
I'm surprised this has to be explained to you over and over.
What evidence?..... There is none, stupid! All you've got it Westbrook's scouts honor!
You've got a half blind woman who was concentrating more on getting the TV to work, claiming Oswald (who she only could have seen in the blink of an eye) left the roominghouse wearing a jacket, but when she is shown CE 162 she says the jacket she saw was darker...... as in darker, like perhaps his shirt? Remember officer Baker making the same mistake in the 2nd floor lunchroom?
...but when she is shown CE 162 she says the jacket she saw was darker...... as in darker, like perhaps his shirt?
How does the lack of a certain response from the culprit mean that Callaway did not say something to him? Do you think before you post?
Bill, was Earlene Roberts a reliable witness? If so, do you believe she witnessed a police car pull up in front of her house and honk (as she claimed)? Because, if she lied about it, she is not a reliable witness. If she is not a reliable witness, than ANY statements she made are "questionable". Still churning out the same old butter eh?
Roberts mentioned the fact that Oswald was wearing a jacket as he went out the door to a radio reporter on the day of the assassination.
Despite the fact that she was bombarded by law enforcement personnel and media during the weekend of the assassination, Roberts never mentioned the police car horn honking incident until a week later, after the accused assassin was himself gunned down, which sparked whispers of a possible plot.
Calling Earlene Roberts "half blind" is a pathetic cop-out. Roberts could see a police car out on the street but couldn't see Oswald as he went out the front door fifteen feet away from her?
Mr. BALL. Now, Mrs. Roberts, this deposition will be written up and you can read it if you want to and you can sign it. or you can waive the signature.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, you know, I can't see too good how to read. I'm completely blind in my right eye.
Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen him wear that jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I can't say I did---if I did, I don't remember it.
Mr. BALL. When he came in he was in a shirt?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He was in his shirt sleeves.
Mr. BALL. What color was his shirt? Do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember. I didn't pay that much attention for I was interested in the television trying to get it fixed.
Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen that shirt before or seen him wear it---the shirt, or do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember---I don't know.
Mr. BALL. You say he put on a separate jacket?
Mrs. ROBERTS. A jacket.
Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
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. Had you ever seen him wear that jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I can't say I did---if I did, I don't remember it.
Mr. BALL. When he came in he was in a shirt?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He was in his shirt sleeves.
Mr. BALL. What color was his shirt? Do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember. I didn't pay that much attention for I was interested in the television trying to get it fixed.
Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen that shirt before or seen him wear it---the shirt, or do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember---I don't know.
Mr. BALL. You say he put on a separate jacket?
Mrs. ROBERTS. A jacket.
Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
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.
Well done Martin. You have debunked your own claim that Roberts might have confused Oswald's shirt for a jacket by citing testimony where she clearly distinguishes between the two. Noting that Oswald was wearing a shirt when he arrived and a jacket when he left.
Well done Martin. You have debunked your own claim that Roberts might have confused Oswald's shirt for a jacket by citing testimony where she clearly distinguishes between the two. Noting that Oswald was wearing a shirt when he arrived and a jacket when he left.
Only in the closed mind of a LN.
For sane rational people it is beyond obvious that this half blind, not paying much attention, woman isn't really sure of anything at all.
You and Brown can try to spin it as much as you like but with "maybe it was" you haven't got much of anything.
For sane rational people it is beyond obvious that this half blind, not paying much attention, woman isn't really sure of anything at all.
So all of those people saw Oswald wearing a jacket. Regardless of what color they said that jacket was, they still saw him wearing one. Why would he ditch the jacket?
This is why it's so easy, on one hand you endorse Markham as a Screwball then you use her as your eyewitness?
Btw show me one murder case in the history of the world where the killer was freed because of a slight clothing shade variation?
She was looking directly at the jacket and positively identified it and if in her language she said it was a shirt, trousers or a concrete mixer, that's all irrelevant, she saw Oswald's jacket and identified it as belonging to Lee. Case Closed!
Who's "he"?
Why was he living under an assumed name...
So they weren't so professional, ok I agree. Now what? Does that mean we throw the baby out with the bath water?
Lee Oswald, the man who witnesses identified as wearing a jacket.
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.
LOL. In unfair lineups.
Yes. There's no baby in that filthy bathwater.
Why was he living under an assumed name...
There's no proof of an alternate shooter in CTroll wonderland
There's no proof that anyone but the killer ( 'random guy' ) knew that an attempt was to be made on Kennedy that day
Debatable. But, even if true, is that somehow supposed to mean that Helen Markham, William Scoggins, Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis, Ted Callaway and Sam Guinyard actually saw someone other than Oswald?
Debatable. But, even if true, is that somehow supposed to mean that Helen Markham, William Scoggins, Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis, Ted Callaway and Sam Guinyard actually saw someone other than Oswald?
Yep the chances that Markham would pick a particular random person out of four is obviously 1 in 4, then we have another 5 eyewitnesses who all had an equal chance of 1 in 4 of picking some random dude therefore when totalled means that for all the 6 eyewitnesses to choose the same random guy is close to astronomical!
JohnM
You need to watch a video. I'm sure John doesn't mind me borrowing it.
Once you have done that, get back to us with some rational explanation, if you can.
I have already shown you that eyewitnesses saw Lee Harvey Oswald and couldn't positively identify him.
Btw The video wasn't made in Dallas 1963, has nothing to do with a man carrying a revolver, is showing a completely different scenario and is overcast, so what's your point?
JohnM
Still haven't figured out who "we" is?
And how did Westbrook make the determination that this was exactly the jacket "we" found?
"We" is the DPD officers who were in the parking lot when Westbrook picked the jacket up.
Westbrook was able to make the determination that it was exactly the jacket they found by the laundry tag on the jacket.
"We" is the DPD officers who were in the parking lot when Westbrook picked the jacket up.
Would that include the two officers who saw the jacket in bright midday sunlight and described it as white?
And does it include the officer who Westbrook gave the jacket to?
Who was that again, Tim, and can he tell us how the jacket got to the station? Gotta name, perhaps?
Yes it would.
Of course.
Did Westbrook give the name of the officer who he gave the jacket to?
Did Westbrook give the name of the officer who he gave the jacket to?
I don't know. It's not in his testimony,
but as an officer of the personal department you would think he would know the people he is working with, don't you agree?
If it's not in his testimony then how would you expect me to know who he gave it to?
I would expect that he would know the people he is working with, but I wouldn't necessarily expect him to recall who it was that he passed the jacket to.
They very well could have, since invalid lineups are invalid. But since only one of them actually witnessed a crime, I'm not sure how it matters much who the other people saw.
Would that include the two officers who saw the jacket in bright midday sunlight and described it as white?
Btw, how much is "astronomical"?
You need to watch a video, because you have just made the best case possible for why the line up identifications can not be trusted. The odds of this happening are indeed astronomical!
Did one-eyed (half-blind to some) Earlene blink at the jacket in bright sunlight?
Were the lights even on in the room in which she watches TV?
Did Baker see Oswald's jacket in bright midday sunlight?
By John's nutty logic no one in Ford's Theatre witnessed John Wilkes Booth shoot Lincoln. They just heard a shot and looked in his direction to see him pointing a gun at Lincoln's head. Thus, they did not actually witness a crime.
Martin has harped on this being only a "circumstantial" evidence case apparently misunderstanding that this term doesn't mean weak.
Martin has harped on this being only a "circumstantial" evidence case apparently misunderstanding that this term doesn't mean weak. He now informs us that direct evidence can't be trusted either. That really narrows things down! We are finally getting to the center of the lollipop, though. At its heart what John and Martin are contending is that nothing can ever be proven if they don't like the implications. The case against Oswald is the collective product of lies, fakery, unfairness, coincidence, police incompetence, chance, being unlucky, but never Oswald's guilt.
Stop whining and show us some evidence that will stand up under scrutiny
This might come as a shock to you, Richie, but if you had paid attention you would have noticed that I have never written one post in which I advocated Oswald's innocence or guilt. I don't really care about Oswald one way or the other. I'm here for the case against him....
Yes, because somebody sitting in a theater box a few feet away from a person who has just been shot is exactly the same as someone a block or two away a few minutes later who didn't see anything happen.
And you call me nutty...
Yes, because somebody sitting in a theater box a few feet away from a person who has just been shot is exactly the same as someone a block or two away a few minutes later who didn't see anything happen.
And you call me nutty...
So it is possible to witness a crime without seeing someone pull the trigger? And this analysis depends somehow on how far away the witness is? Who ID'd Oswald as the Tippit shooter by seeing him a few minutes later?
I'm waiting for the lightning to strike. Let me get this one straight. You don't "really care about Oswald one way or the other." And have never advocated his guilt or innocence? LOL. You are just here night and day taking exception to every post that suggests he is guilty. When given the choice between an obvious, common sense interpretation of the evidence that lends itself to Oswald's guilt and a wildly improbable, baseless and often laughable one that might create doubt, you go with the latter in every instance. You are self-delusional if you believe that. What you are is a closet CTer. The worst kind. Too afraid to have the courage of your convictions because you understand the inherent weakness of your case. Thus, the lazy contrarian mentality that you don't have to prove anything.
So it is possible to witness a crime without seeing someone pull the trigger? And this analysis depends somehow on how far away the witness is? Who ID'd Oswald as the Tippit shooter by seeing him a few minutes later?
Well, apparently Bill Brown thinks that Ted Callaway did.
First of all, Callaway saw Oswald run by with a gun in his hands and wearing an Eisenhower-type jacket moments after the shooting, not minutes.
Anyway, Markham saw Oswald shoot Tippit. Scoggins saw the same man that Markham saw. Scoggins saw this man run from Tippit's patrol car towards Patton, cut across the Davis lawn and head down Patton towards Jefferson. Both Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis saw the same man that Scoggins saw. The Davis sisters saw this man cut across their lawn and turn the corner onto Patton. Callaway saw the same man coming from Tenth, cutting through the Davis yard towards Scoggins hiding beside his cab, running down Patton with a gun in his hands.
Oh brother. How many "moments" are in a minute? When did Callaway ever say "moments" anyway?
Correction:
Markham saw a man shoot Tippit who she identified as Oswald in an unfair lineup.
Scoggins saw a man going south on Patton who he identified as Oswald in an unfair lineup.
The Davis sisters-in-law saw a man going across their lawn who they identified as Oswald in an unfair lineup.
Callaway saw a man running south on Patton who he identified as Oswald in an unfair lineup.
That doesn't necessarily mean that they all saw Oswald or that they even saw the same man.
So people impersonating SS agents gives you no pause? Of course not as you have your patsy already picked out.
So people impersonating SS agents gives you no pause?
Of course not as you have your patsy already picked out.
Btw, how much is "astronomical"?
They picked the guy with the bruised face.
That was easy.
They picked the guy with the bruised face.
That was easy.
The report was posted in my series already. Unfortunately this site was hacked and it is gone. I will repost it sometime in the future, but the evidence is still there.
Well then feel free to prove that these witnesses saw different men.
Claim the lineups were unfair. Okay.
Claim the witness identification was wrong and it was not Oswald who they saw. Okay.
But, to claim that these witnesses saw different men is dangerously close to taking up residence in Kookville.
You only think so because your entire argument rests on that, since almost none of your "witnesses" actually witnessed a crime.
But, to claim that these witnesses saw different men is dangerously close to taking up residence in Kookville.
They picked the guy with the bruised face.
That was easy.
So none of the other guys had any bruises? cite?
JohnM
No bruises or gashes on any of these guys' eyes, either.
(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/b/b3/Photo_wcd1083_003.jpg)
So now your number isn't close after all.
You're not bluffing, are you?
Yep the chances that Markham would pick a particular random person out of four is obviously 1 in 4, then we have another 5 eyewitnesses who all had an equal chance of 1 in 4 of picking some random dude therefore when totalled means that for all the 6 eyewitnesses to choose the same random guy is close to astronomical!
JohnM
No bruises or gashes on any of these guys' eyes, either.
(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/b/b3/Photo_wcd1083_003.jpg)
I would expect them to have in a fair lineup.
Do you have photos of the lineups?
I would expect them to have in a fair lineup.
Do you have photos of the lineups?
Hahahaha, when was the CE1054 taken?
JohnM
Why a sudden need to introduce "a small number"?
Do you find my proposition unreasonable?
The three other participants in the lineup were Dallas Police employees.
Det. R.L. Clark testified that he was wearing a white short sleeved shirt and a red vest for both lineups
Don Ables testified that he had on a white shirt and a grey knit sweater for both lineups
William Perry got a brown sports coat from the homicide office.
Below composite photo is a good indicator of what it might have looked like viewing these line ups
it appears to be an obvious set up
(http://s14.postimg.org/raqpw16gh/lineup.jpg)
nice distraction...Where do I say anybody wore a suit & tie?
I was clear in my first line what each man was wearing
Mr. Ball: The other three were better dressed than Oswald, would you say?
Det. Boyd: Well, yes, sir; I would say they probably were.
can you read or just not comprehend?
More distractions in an obvious set up -and of course insults when there is no proof
and how does "good indicator" mean they wore suit & tie
You're the goofball who insisted (at least three times) that I deleted a post in an attempt to hide something, yet the post is still there to this day... and you question another's ability to read and comprehend?
Anyway, you most definitely said that the "composite photo is a good indicator of what it might have looked like viewing these line ups".
Capasse has never been honest a day in his life, in the following image he posted we know Ables is 5'9" and Oswald was 5'9" but he made Oswald much shorter than Ables. Capasse's history with BS manipulative images is well known.
(https://s17.postimg.org/q1iveevkf/oswald_heightz.jpg)
JohnM
I rest my case.
That photo you posted of the lineup participants was taken over five and a half months after the lineups.
So, in an attempt to suggest evidence contamination (fibers found inside the bag being a match to the blanket fibers), we have Iacoletti posting a photo of the bag and blanket in contact with each other which was taken three days AFTER the bag was analyzed and the fibers were found inside the bag and studied by Stombaugh.
It hasn't escaped anyone's notice that your only evidence for this was "Day said so" 5 months later. And there was that other photo...
That photo you posted of the lineup participants was taken over five and a half months after the lineups.
Cite?
Cite?
Stombaugh examined the bag on the 23rd. Day testified that the photo was taken on the the 26th, as they were turning that evidence over to the FBI for the 2nd time. Therefore, Stombaugh analyzed the bag three days BEFORE the photo, that you posted in an attempt to show contamination, was even taken. Prove Day was wrong about the date?
As for the "other photo", no one here has shown that it was taken before Stombaugh examined those two items. Therefore, why mention it?
The bag was stained very dark by the method of esting the FBI used on 11/23/63..... If the bag isn't stained dark the photo was taken PRIOR to the testing....
The bag was stained very dark by the method of esting the FBI used on 11/23/63..... If the bag isn't stained dark the photo was taken PRIOR to the testing....
Paul Stombaugh received the blanket and the paper bag at the same time; 7:30 a.m. November 23, 1963
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive this blanket, Mr. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. This was approximately 7:30 a.m., on the morning of November 23, 1963.
<>
Mr. Stombaugh, I now hand you a homemade paper bag, Commission Exhibit 142, which parenthetically has also received another Exhibit No. 626, and ask you whether you are familiar with this item?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does that have your mark on it?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. At the time I examined this, it was to be treated for latent fingerprints subsequent to my examination, and in a case like this I will not put a mark on the item itself because my mark might cover a latent fingerprint which is later brought up, and therefore obscure it.
In this particular instance, I made a drawing of this bag on my notes with the various sizes and description of it to refresh my memory at a later date.
Mr. EISENBERG. And it is--looking at those notes and as you remember now-- this is the bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is the bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, this bag has an area of very light-brown color, and the greater portion of the area is a quite dark-brownish color. What was the color when you originally received it?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. When I originally received this it was a light-brown color.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which is at one end of the bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. One end of the bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. The tape is also two colors, one a lightish brown and the other a darkish brown. What color was the tape when you received it?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. The tape also was light brown.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you turn the bag over? Was it the color that shows as a lighter yellowish-type of brown?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; a yellow-brown shade.
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive it, by the way, Mr. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. This was received on November 23, 7:30 a.m, 1963.
Stombaugh did not mark the bag because "it was to be treated for latent fingerprints subsequent to my examination".
Sebastian Latona subsequently received the paper bag that same morning.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, do your notes show when you received this paper bag?
Mr. LATONA. I received this paper bag on the morning of November 23, 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG. And when did you conduct your examination?
Mr. LATONA. I conducted my examination on that same day.
<>
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, how did you proceed to conduct your examination for fingerprints on this object?
Mr. LATONA. Well, an effort was made to remove as much of the powder as possible. And then this was subjected to what is known as the iodine-fuming method, which simply means flowing iodine fumes, which are developed by what is known as an iodine-fuming gun--it is a very simple affair, in which there are a couple of tubes attached to each other, having in one of them iodine crystals. And by simply blowing through one end, you get iodine fumes.
The iodine fumes are brought in as close contact to the surface as possible And if there are any prints which contain certain fatty material or protein material, the iodine fumes simply discolor it to a sort of brownish color. And of course such prints as are developed are photographed for record purposes.
That was done in this case here, but no latent prints were developed.
The next step then was to try an additional method, by chemicals. This was subsequently processed by a 3-percent solution of silver nitrate. The processing with silver nitrate resulted in developing two latent prints. One is what we call a latent palmprint, and the other is what we call a latent fingerprint.
<>
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, looking at that bag I see that almost all of it is an extremely dark brown color, except that there are patches of a lighter brown, a manila-paper brown. Could you explain why there are these two colors on the bag?
Mr. LATONA. Yes. The dark portions of the paper bag are where the silver nitrate has taken effect.
Ergo; the photograph showing the blanket and the bag together was either taken prior to 7:30 a.m. November 23, 1963 or during Stombaugh's examination
Ergo; the photograph showing the blanket and the bag together was either taken prior to 7:30 a.m. November 23, 1963 or during Stombaugh's examination
Since it's obvious that the photo shows that blanket was in contact with the paper sack then any blanket fiber found in the sack could have been deposited there at the rime the two items were together.....So the blanket fiber in the paper sack s useless as evidence....
The significance of fibers from the blanket in the bag would be that they were transfered from the Carcano,
which allegedly was wrapped in it for months. However since no fibers from the blanket were found on the rifle the logical explanation is cross contamination or worse the planting of evidence. IMO
since no fibers from the blanket were found on the rifle
You're right there was not a single blanket fiber found on the Carcano.....Which is an astronomical improbability ( maybe impossible) if that rifle had been wrapped in that blanket....
IMO that rifle was NOT ever wrapped in that blanket.....But Marina at least thought that "SOMETHING" like rifle was in that blanket...as did Mike Paine....
Can anybody think of a plausible explanation for no fibers being found on the rifle? I'm familiar with carcanos and they all have sharp points and irregularities that would snag a loosely woven blanket. So there should have been TUFTS of blanket material on that rifle.......( The FBI claimed that a tuft of shirt material was found clinging to the butt of the rifle, so tufts of blanket should definitely have been adhering to the rifle)
Stombaugh examined the bag on the 23rd. Day testified that the photo was taken on the the 26th, as they were turning that evidence over to the FBI for the 2nd time. Therefore, Stombaugh analyzed the bag three days BEFORE the photo, that you posted in an attempt to show contamination, was even taken. Prove Day was wrong about the date?
As for the "other photo", no one here has shown that it was taken before Stombaugh examined those two items. Therefore, why mention it?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11479#relPageId=2&tab=page
You'll find the date that the photo was taken on page 6.
The bag was stained very dark by the method of esting the FBI used on 11/23/63..... If the bag isn't stained dark the photo was taken PRIOR to the testing....
Means nothing.
There was a period of time between when Stombaugh analyzed the bag and when Latona put the silver nitrate on it.
Just because the bag in the photo does not have the silver nitrate on it doesn't automatically mean that Stombaugh has yet to analyze it.
Prove that Day was right about the date. It's your claim. I understand that you believe anything a cop says (as long as it fits your biases anyway), but that doesn't prove that it's actually true. What was the basis of Day's identifying the date? Let me pick a random photo on your phone or camera or photo album from months ago and see it you can identify what date it was taken.
No one here has shown that the other photo was taken after Stombaugh examined those two items. Why the double standard? Why are items of evidence being set out on tables together at any time?
What we have here is a piece of evidence that could have been contaminated by improper evidence handling and some fibers on a bag that can't even be uniquely tied to a blanket, and that somehow shows that a particular rifle was in that particular bag? In what universe?
Prove that Day was right about the date. It's your claim. I understand that you believe anything a cop says (as long as it fits your biases anyway), but that doesn't prove that it's actually true. What was the basis of Day's identifying the date? Let me pick a random photo on your phone or camera or photo album from months ago and see it you can identify what date it was taken.
No one here has shown that the other photo was taken after Stombaugh examined those two items. Why the double standard?
What we have here is a piece of evidence that could have been contaminated by improper evidence handling and some fibers on a bag that can't even be uniquely tied to a blanket, and that somehow shows that a particular rifle was in that particular bag? In what universe?
Paul Stombaugh received the blanket and the paper bag at the same time; 7:30 a.m. November 23, 1963
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive this blanket, Mr. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. This was approximately 7:30 a.m., on the morning of November 23, 1963.
<>
Mr. Stombaugh, I now hand you a homemade paper bag, Commission Exhibit 142, which parenthetically has also received another Exhibit No. 626, and ask you whether you are familiar with this item?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does that have your mark on it?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. At the time I examined this, it was to be treated for latent fingerprints subsequent to my examination, and in a case like this I will not put a mark on the item itself because my mark might cover a latent fingerprint which is later brought up, and therefore obscure it.
In this particular instance, I made a drawing of this bag on my notes with the various sizes and description of it to refresh my memory at a later date.
Mr. EISENBERG. And it is--looking at those notes and as you remember now-- this is the bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is the bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, this bag has an area of very light-brown color, and the greater portion of the area is a quite dark-brownish color. What was the color when you originally received it?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. When I originally received this it was a light-brown color.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which is at one end of the bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. One end of the bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. The tape is also two colors, one a lightish brown and the other a darkish brown. What color was the tape when you received it?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. The tape also was light brown.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you turn the bag over? Was it the color that shows as a lighter yellowish-type of brown?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; a yellow-brown shade.
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive it, by the way, Mr. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. This was received on November 23, 7:30 a.m, 1963.
Stombaugh did not mark the bag because "it was to be treated for latent fingerprints subsequent to my examination".
Sebastian Latona subsequently received the paper bag that same morning.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, do your notes show when you received this paper bag?
Mr. LATONA. I received this paper bag on the morning of November 23, 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG. And when did you conduct your examination?
Mr. LATONA. I conducted my examination on that same day.
<>
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, how did you proceed to conduct your examination for fingerprints on this object?
Mr. LATONA. Well, an effort was made to remove as much of the powder as possible. And then this was subjected to what is known as the iodine-fuming method, which simply means flowing iodine fumes, which are developed by what is known as an iodine-fuming gun--it is a very simple affair, in which there are a couple of tubes attached to each other, having in one of them iodine crystals. And by simply blowing through one end, you get iodine fumes.
The iodine fumes are brought in as close contact to the surface as possible And if there are any prints which contain certain fatty material or protein material, the iodine fumes simply discolor it to a sort of brownish color. And of course such prints as are developed are photographed for record purposes.
That was done in this case here, but no latent prints were developed.
The next step then was to try an additional method, by chemicals. This was subsequently processed by a 3-percent solution of silver nitrate. The processing with silver nitrate resulted in developing two latent prints. One is what we call a latent palmprint, and the other is what we call a latent fingerprint.
<>
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, looking at that bag I see that almost all of it is an extremely dark brown color, except that there are patches of a lighter brown, a manila-paper brown. Could you explain why there are these two colors on the bag?
Mr. LATONA. Yes. The dark portions of the paper bag are where the silver nitrate has taken effect.
Ergo; the photograph showing the blanket and the bag together was either taken prior to 7:30 a.m. November 23, 1963 or during Stombaugh's examination
Easy peasy lemon squeezy...
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, let me ask you a hypothetical question, Mr. Stombaugh. First, I hand you Commission Exhibit 139, which consists of a rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, and I ask you, if the rifle had lain in the blanket, which is 140, and were then put inside the bag, 142, could it have picked up fibers from the blanket and transferred them to the bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.
I doubt it, but it was a hypothetical question and Stombaugh had to answer "yes" so Eisenberg got what he wanted from his expert witness.
That's how the WC operated.
So all the fibers transferred from the blanket to the rifle, in the months that it was wrapped in the blanket,
are transferred to the homemade guncase?
Leaving none on the rifle?
LOL
Coming next, circular reasoning.
Fibers....Plural??? There was only ONE fiber found in the paper sack.....
Fibers....Plural??? There was only ONE fiber found in the paper sack.....
No. You prove that Day was wrong about the date the photo was taken.
The photo was posted in an attempt to supposedly show that there was evidence contamination.
Straw man.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/fibersbagsblanketsa.jpg)
This is Bill Brown's thought process in a nutshell:
- Thinks it's significant that fibers in the bag could have come from the blanket in the garage
- Doesn't think it's significant that the bag could have been contaminated through improper evidence handling
I believe the fibers (plural) were ON the exterior surface of the bag....there was only a single fiber found inside the sack...
I didn't claim that Day was wrong. I asked you how you know Day was right. You have no answer.
No, the photo was posted to show that there could easily have been evidence contamination.
It's not a strawman. How do fibers allegedly found in a bag show who shot somebody?
This is Bill Brown's thought process in a nutshell:
- Thinks it's significant that fibers in the bag could have come from the blanket in the garage
- Doesn't think it's significant that the bag could have been contaminated through improper evidence handling
Yes, but you never said why.
I've already told you twice now why Day would know the date of that photo. You ignore it, but it doesn't mean I haven't answered you.
If you can't prove that Day was wrong about the date of the photo then you're only grandstanding. Typical.
The photo was taken three days after those items were examined by Stombaugh, so it (the photo) in no way shows that the evidence "could easily have been" contaminated before Stombaugh's analysis.
When you have to lie in an attempt to prove a point, you have no credibility.
I have never said that it is insignificant that the bag could have been contaminated. I just haven't seen anyone post anything to show that it was.
If you wish, I can run around here attributing false statements and beliefs about you, too. Why do you want to play that game? Don't you think it's a bit dishonest?
Don't misrepresent my position.
This photo explains ...WHY... There were fibers that could have come from the blanket on the exterior surface of the paper sack.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/bag%20amp%20blanket.gif)
The sack is lying on the blanket.....
Is there anyone who examined the bag who said that there was only a single fiber found inside the sack?
This photo explains ...WHY... There were fibers that could have come from the blanket on the exterior surface of the paper sack.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/bag%20amp%20blanket.gif)
The sack is lying on the blanket.....
That wasn't an answer, it was a non-sequitur. How did Day know that this photo reflected the turning over of the evidence to the FBI for the 2nd time? What in the actual photo signifies this?
You can't prove that he was right, and so you're grandstanding. And around we go.
Another circular argument and a tautology. The photo was taken three days after those items were examined by Stombaugh because Day said so, and Day was right because Day said so, and it doesn't show that the evidence could have been contaminated because Day was right.
That wasn't an answer, it was a non-sequitur. How did Day know that this photo reflected the turning over of the evidence to the FBI for the 2nd time? What in the actual photo signifies this?
You can't prove that he was right, and so you're grandstanding. And around we go.
I'm not misrepresenting anything -- you're special pleading. If you thought it was significant you would acknowledge it as a possibility like you do for the fibers coming from the blanket. I haven't seen anyone post anything to show that they did.
I also haven't seen anyone post any proof that there were 5 shots, and both a Remington bullet and a Winchester shell disappeared from the Tippit crime scene and yet not only do you put that forward as a possibility, you actually assert that this is what happened.
You're a hypocrite.
I'm not misrepresenting anything -- you're special pleading. If you thought it was significant you would acknowledge it as a possibility like you do for the fibers coming from the blanket. I haven't seen anyone post anything to show that they did.
I also haven't seen anyone post any proof that there were 5 shots, and both a Remington bullet and a Winchester shell disappeared from the Tippit crime scene and yet not only do you put that forward as a possibility, you actually assert that this is what happened.
You're a hypocrite.
Yes ....It's in an FBI report. I made the mistake of saying that there were fibers found INSIDE of the sack many years ago..... Someone corrected me and posted the FBI report hat says there was only a single fiber found in the sack.
Then show that Day was wrong about the date the photo was taken. Fair enough?
Then show that Day was right about the date the photo was taken. Fair enough?
I'm comfortable saying "I don't know". How about you?
Of course it's a possibility that contamination could have occurred.
But, a photo taken three days after Stombaugh analyzed those items doesn't prove contamination.
The five shot scenario in the Tippit shooting is most definitely my onion. I've always stated it only as my opinion.
How so?
I'm open to accepting information which suggests that Day was wrong when he said the photo was taken on the 26th. No one has provided any. Until then, I accept that the photo was taken three days AFTER those items were analyzed by Stombaugh.
Thank you.
But a claim about when a photo was taken doesn't prove that's when the photo was taken.
ok
Because in one case you do nothing to prove that your opinion is true, but you demand that others do.
Cool. I'm open to accept evidence that both of these photos were taken after Stombaugh analyzed the bag.
I haven't demanded a single thing of others.
Someone ill-advisedly posted the photo as if it proves that the blanket and bag came in contact with each other and therefore Stombaugh's analysis (that the fibers found inside the bag matched the blanket fibers) is irrelevant. I am saying that Day stated the photo was taken on the 26th, three days AFTER Stombaugh examined the two items. No one, including you, has shown otherwise.
Nobody, including you, has shown that Day's claim was correct.
Nobody, including you, has shown that Day's claim was correct. Too bad they didn't show Day this photo.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/bag%20amp%20blanket.gif)
So Day's testimony that he knows the date the photo was taken is questionable... but Tague's testimony is 100% spot-on when he says he remembers a shot AFTER he was hit on the cheek.
Someone ill-advisedly posted the photo as if it proves that the blanket and bag came in contact with each other
What insightful information could Day possibly offer about that photo?
No, you're not.
Day said that the photo was taken as they were turning the evidence over to the FBI for the 2nd time. That, in Day's mind, timestamps the photo.
You automatically reject it because he's a police officer and therefore, dishonest or wrong.
Except I didn't say that. Nice try.
Strawman.
I don't know. Why did they think he could provide insightful information about CE 738?
And Day was actually there, therefore he knows when that photo was taken.
Why is Day questionable but Tague is not?
That's not a straw man at all. Someone did indeed post the photo as if it proved that the two items came into contact with each other before they were examined. It may have been you who made the mistake of posting that photo, but I don't really recall now.
Because the photograph of the items was taken while they were in the possession of the DPD.
That's just your speculation. Day didn't say what in his mind timestamped the photo.
Huh? Are you saying that Tague was not there wen he was struck?
Anyway this is another strawman. When did I say that Tague was not questionable? Tim stated as a fact that Tague was hit by a fragment from the head shot. I merely pointed out that Tague disagreed.
Wrong (again).
Day absolutely did explain why he recalls that the photo was taken on the 26th.
So, you're allowed to "merely point out" but other forum members are not?
I am "merely pointing out" that Day said the photo was taken on the 26th.
You don't have to prove that Tague was correct but somehow I do have to prove that Day was correct.
Again, YOU are the hypocrite.
Speaking of an inability to understand what is written.
Mr. BELIN. I am going to now hand you what has been marked as 738 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. This is a photograph of most of the evidence that was returned to the FBI the second time on November 26, 1963. It was released to Agent Vince Drain at 2 p.m., November 26.
Where does Day even say when the picture was taken?
You claimed that Day is correct. I'm not claiming that Tague was correct. That's the difference.
It is my belief that the items were photographed because they were being turned over to the FBI on the 26th. Hell, the photo could have been taken the day before being turned over to the FBI. That would still have Stombaugh analyzing the bag and blanket BEFORE the photo was taken.
Stombaugh analyzed those two items on the 23rd. Assuming that you believe Stombaugh. Do you? Or is he wrong or lying, too?
But, you did indeed chide Tim Nickerson when you asked him this question below...
"What makes you more authoritative on this than the guy who was actually hit?"
So, Tague could be wrong about when he was hit. Right?
It is my belief that the items were photographed because they were being turned over to the FBI on the 26th. Hell, the photo could have been taken the day before being turned over to the FBI. That would still have Stombaugh analyzing the bag and blanket BEFORE the photo was taken.
Stombaugh analyzed those two items on the 23rd. Assuming that you believe Stombaugh. Do you? Or is he wrong or lying, too?
It is my belief that the items were photographed because they were being turned over to the FBI on the 26th.
Have you read Hosty's book Assignment Oswald Hosty said they inventoried and photographed the evidence on the night of 11/22/63 before it left the possession of the Dallas Police.....
It is my belief that the items were photographed because they were being turned over to the FBI on the 26th.
Have you read Hosty's book Assignment Oswald Hosty said they inventoried and photographed the evidence on the night of 11/22/63 before it left the possession of the Dallas Police.....
Some of the evidence was photographed on 11/22/63 but not all. The photograph in question here was not taken on the night of 11/22/63.
Irrelevant.
The items were turned over to the FBI for the 2nd time on the 26th.
Evidence was turned over to the FBI on the night of the assassination. The evidence was then returned to Dallas. Then, evidence was again sent to Washington on the 26th.
"The photograph in question here was not taken on the night of 11/22/63."
Whether the photograph was taken on the 22nd or the 26th is Irrelevant.
The photo shows they were sloppy and used evidence handling techniques that would absolutely have
caused cross contamination between different items in their possession. In this case the homemade
TSBD wrapping paper gun case and the blanket from the Paine's garage that was allegedly used,
for at least several months, to wrap the TSBD Carcano. The disregard and lack of care shown in the photo
is proof the cross contamination could have taken place anytime the evidence was in their hands.
Since there were no fibers found on the TSBD rifle, the logical conclusion of how the fibers found on
homemade gun case got there is cross contamination. Arguing against that proposition is tantamount to
admitting evidence tampering.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/bag%20amp%20blanket.gif)
The bag was tested by Stombaugh at 7:30 on 11/23 prior to Latona's application of iodine/silver nitrate later that day. Without knowing what time it is from the picture you can't possibly know if the bag has already been processed by Stombaugh. Why waste countless posts on things you don't know.
Does this mean that you accept that the fibers came from Oswald's blanket?
"Does this mean that you accept that the fibers came from Oswald's blanket?"
They could have.
The point I was making was, since no fibers from that blanket were found on the TSBD Carcano the ones
found in/on the homemade gun case didn't/couldn't have come from that rifle. Where did the fibers come
from then? The logical conclusion, based on the photo of the blanket and gun case in contact while in LE
possession, is the fibers got on the gun case via cross contamination. If you argue against that proposition
you are left with evidence tampering.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/BaginDallasarchives.png)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/bag%20amp%20blanket.gif)
A logical possibility is fibres from the blanket were on the rifle which were then transferred from the rifle to the bag.
No blanket fibres left remaining on the rifle doesn't negate that possibility.
I'm not saying that is what happened I'm saying it is possible.
A logical possibility is fibres from the blanket were on the rifle which were then transferred from the rifle to the bag.
No blanket fibres left remaining on the rifle doesn't negate that possibility.
I'm not saying that is what happened I'm saying it is possible.
That is what happened. Any blanket fibers that had been on the rifle would have fallen off between the time that Oswald removed the rifle from the blanket and the time that Carl Day prepared it to be handed over to Vincent Drain.
That is what happened. Any blanket fibers that had been on the rifle would have fallen off between the time that Oswald removed the rifle from the blanket and the time that Carl Day prepared it to be handed over to Vincent Drain.
"A logical possibility is fibres from the blanket were on the rifle which were then transferred from the rifle to the bag.
No blanket fibres left remaining on the rifle doesn't negate that possibility."
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/eakpsh.gif)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/thick%20blanket_zpsccorzjgh_1.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_naraevid_CE139-2.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_naraevid_CE139-3.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_naraevid_CE139-4.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_naraevid_CE139-5.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_naraevid_CE142-1.jpg)
We can certainly take it as a possiblity and anyone claiming it's not a possiblity is plain wrong. Thisn't tough stuff to understand.
Anything is possible. The question is, is there any good reason to believe that it's true?
I didn't say it was true. I posted it was possible in response to someone who claimed he had 'the only other logical explanation'
which definitely isn't true.
Is there any good reason to believe the FBI would be so incompetent?
Agreed. It was Tim who said "that's what happened".
FBI, no. Dallas PD, yes.
"Does this mean that you accept that the fibers came from Oswald's blanket?"
They could have.
The point I was making was, since no fibers from that blanket were found on the TSBD Carcano the ones
found in/on the homemade gun case didn't/couldn't have come from that rifle. Where did the fibers come
from then? The logical conclusion, based on the photo of the blanket and gun case in contact while in LE
possession, is the fibers got on the gun case via cross contamination. If you argue against that proposition
you are left with evidence tampering.
It was Gary Craig.
I didn't say it was true. I posted it was possible in response to someone who claimed he had 'the only other logical explanation'
which definitely isn't true.
If the bag and blanket were forensically analysed before being photographed together and touching on a table then we have reason to consider it as true. If they were not forensically analysed by that point then no we don't have good reason. Simple. Although time stamping photos isn't necessarily so simple.
Is there any good reason to believe the FBI would be so incompetent?
The O.J. trial
C.S.I.
Law and Order
Everybody's a F'N detective. Beautiful.
The O.J. trial
C.S.I.
Law and Order
Everybody's a F'N detective. Beautiful.
You're wrong on both counts.
1st).
It was Tim Nickerson who said "that is what happened".
Quote from: Tim Nickerson on February 21, 2018, 05:29:28 PM
"That is what happened. Any blanket fibers that had been on the rifle would have fallen off between the time that Oswald removed the rifle from the blanket and the time that Carl Day prepared it to be handed over to Vincent Drain."
2nd).
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/thick%20blanket_zpsccorzjgh_1.jpg)
Allegedly the TSBD Carcano was wrapped in the blanket found in the Paine's garage for several months.
It was moved around, opened and closed etc in that time.
It's a absolute certainty that fibers from that blanket would have been found on that rifle if the above is
true. The rough stock, sharp edges and angles would have snagged and trapped hundreds of fiubers.
Whether the photograph was taken on the 22nd or the 26th is Irrelevant.
The photo shows they were sloppy and used evidence handling techniques that would absolutely have
caused cross contamination between different items in their possession. In this case the homemade
TSBD wrapping paper gun case and the blanket from the Paine's garage that was allegedly used,
for at least several months, to wrap the TSBD Carcano. The disregard and lack of care shown in the photo
is proof the cross contamination could have taken place anytime the evidence was in their hands.
Since there were no fibers found on the TSBD rifle, the logical conclusion of how the fibers found on
homemade gun case got there is cross contamination. Arguing against that proposition is tantamount to
admitting evidence tampering.
A logical possibility is fibres from the blanket were on the rifle which were then transferred from the rifle to the bag.
No blanket fibres left remaining on the rifle doesn't negate that possibility.
I'm not saying that is what happened I'm saying it is possible.
I beg to differ. You said
In response to the part I highlighted in bold I said
The possibility of 3 or 4 fibers being transferred with the gun to the homemade gun case without
more remaining on it, after spending that amount of time in contact, is zero.
Prove it.
How do you prove a negative, Richard?
Hey, it's not my claim, Gary. ::)
The Jacket found was not Oswalds . The jacket found had a Cleaners tag (30 030) in it and also had a dry cleaning tag ( B 9738 ) Oswalds jackets were washed by Marina and the color of Oswalds jackets were a dark Blue jacket and a light weight Gray Jacket . Benavides said the man he saw was wearing a white jacket and Oswald did not have a white jacket !
Anyone with any sense at all is perfectly aware that a proper chain of custody is required when collecting & verifying evidence.
A proper chain of custody is not always required to verify evidence.
I am not sure I understand this It is certainly possible that an item, whose chain of evidence is not known, may indeed be the original item in question. Is that what you are saying?
Only a dishonest person who is not interested in the truth would make a big deal out of the light-colored jacket being called white by some.
Anyone with any sense at all is perfectly aware that a light-grey jacket could easily be called white by some people. To deny this only proves the agenda of some.
If anyone were really interested in the truth, even a conspiracy believer, they wouldn't even bother mentioning this light-grey versus white thing, as if it means a damn thing.
The dishonesty is a shame, really.
The person with an agenda is the one who claims trained law enforcement officers couldn't tell a light grey jacket from a white one. Please.
I believe Tim is saying that an item of evidence can sometimes be verified as being authentic and true even if there is a problem, on some level, with the chain of custody of said item.
If I'm not mistaken, the jacket was found before Saint Oz was arrested.
The conspirators were amazingly fast in planting that jacket replete with fibers in it that match the shirt Saint Oz was wearing, weren't they ?
It's positively amazing that the conspirators knew that Saint Oz would be arrested without a jacket and that his landlady would report that he was wearing one when he left the boarding house.
Poor Saint Oz. More evidence that points to the innocent patsy's guilt.
He really had a bad day.
If I'm not mistaken, the jacket was found before Saint Oz was arrested.
The conspirators were amazingly fast in planting that jacket replete with fibers in it that match the shirt Saint Oz was wearing, weren't they ?
It's positively amazing that the conspirators knew that Saint Oz would be arrested without a jacket and that his landlady would report that he was wearing one when he left the boarding house.
Poor Saint Oz. More evidence that points to the innocent patsy's guilt.
He really had a bad day.
Whatever you do , don't ever go into a theater without paying ! But wait a minute ! Oswald did pay !
The Jacket found was not Oswalds . The jacket found had a Cleaners tag (30 030) in it and also had a dry cleaning tag ( B 9738 ) Oswalds jackets were washed by Marina and the color of Oswalds jackets were a dark Blue jacket and a light weight Gray Jacket . Benavides said the man he saw was wearing a white jacket and Oswald did not have a white jacket !
I am not sure I understand this It is certainly possible that an item, whose chain of evidence is not known, may indeed be the original item in question. Is that what you are saying?
The FBI checked every dry cleaner in the Dallas area (over 400) and every dry cleaner in New Orleans (250 plus) and could NOT match the laundry tag to LHO.
Straight out of the LN playbook. If a piece of "evidence" can't be authenticated, then make an appeal to a strawman of "vast conspirators" and hope that will distract everyone from noticing your unauthenticated evidence.
Then never actually explain how a jacket in a parking lot is evidence of murder in the first place...
Actually, it's straight out of the common sense playbook.
But you can bet your azz if his landlady reported he was not wearing a jacket when he left the boarding house, or if he was wearing or had a jacket with him when arrested in the theater, the fanbois would say that's exculpatory evidence.
And in this matter, the fanbois would be right. It would be exculpatory evidence. It would be hard to imagine Saint Oz wearing two jackets.
However, in the real world, the jacket was found before he was arrested and before his landlady reported he was wearing a jacket when he left his room.
So the cops got real lucky planting the jacket.
You LNers seem to have no regard for our justice system as you seem to spit on all our rights and processes.
I for one (and I am sure other CTers feel the same way) am not here to defend LHO, but rather our justice system. You cannot accuse people of murder and then provide no evidence to support it.
I knew the significance of the jacket being found before Saint Oz was arrested would be lost on his fanboi cult.
The fanboi droolers are so predictable.
LOL. Something isn't "significant" just because the cowardly troll boy wants it to be. Answer the question, Howard:
Do you have any good reasons to believe that CE 162
a) was the jacket found in the parking lot?
b) belonged to Oswald?
c) demonstrates anything at all about who killed Tippit?
Here's your chance to show that you have something other than schoolboy insults.
Sorry Johnny, I've already explained why the bag being found before Saint Oz was arrested is significant.
And in this matter, the fanbois would be right. It would be exculpatory evidence. It would be hard to imagine Saint Oz wearing two jackets.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Whaley, the purpose of our meeting today is to take some further testimony concerning the events surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy, and we understand you have some facts that will bear on it in a way and we would like to ask you questions concerning it.
*******************************************************
Mr. BALL. Did you notice how he was dressed?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. I didn't pay much attention to it right then. But it all came back when I really found out who I had. He was dressed in just ordinary work clothes. It wasn't khaki pants but they were khaki material, blue faded blue color, like a blue uniform made in khaki. Then he had on a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it and he had on some kind of jacket, I didn't notice very close but I think it was a work jacket that almost matched the pants.
He, his shirt was open three buttons down here. He had on a T-shirt. You know, the shirt was open three buttons down there.
Then show us how smart you are: Who found that jacket?
2nd Testimony of Oswald's 'cab driver' Wm Whaley..
The cab driver had Oswald wearing a jacket before he ever [supposedly] put one on.
"It all came back to him" after some apparent persuasion [from somebody]
The cab driver had Oswald wearing a jacket before he ever [supposedly] put one on.
Whether Saint Oz was wearing a jacket or not when he was in the cab has no importance. Just like who found the jacket doesn't matter.
What does matter is if Saint Oz was wearing a jacket when he left his room.
If he was, then it's hard to understand why he no longer has a jacket when he's arrested.
The implication that the jacket that was found wasn't his, or was planted is pretty much destroyed by the fibers that matched his arrest shirt in the jacket and the fact that the conspirators would have had to known that Saint Oz wouldn't have had a jacket when he was arrested. The cops woud look pretty dumb arresting someone with a jacket when the suspect they were looking for discarded his after murdering JDT.
I know this is too much common sense for the Ozzie fanbois, but don't let common sense get in the way of your Oz worshipping.
And Bardwell Odum had Oswald wearing a jacket in the Texas Theatre. So what?
Cite.These WC defenders can swallow camels and still manage to choke on a gnat.
Odum was in the TSBD at the time that the murder weapon was found.Very crafty guy....Agent Odum
Later, Lt. Day drove Odum to the police station with the weapon. Odum
was seen and photographed leaving the building with Day at sometime
close to 1:45 pm.
According to Day, the agent used the car radio to contact his FBI
office to describe the rifle. 4H264, Meager, p.100.
SA James P. Hosty Jr. mentions the Bard numerous times, and it is
Hosty who is witness and reporter to the spirit-like nature of SA
Odum.
It was between 1:45 and 2:00 pm. that Odum and Day made the
delivery to Lt. Day's office at Main and Harwood Streets in downtown
Dallas. At the very same time, according to Hosty, Bardwell was at the
Texas Theater witnessing the arrest of LHO. Odum, himself made a
statement (HSCA document #01431) describing his observing the arrest.
His statement begins:
"At approximately 2 p.m., November 22, 1963, I was informed by an
unidentified policeman of the DPD that a suspect had been seen
entering the back door of the Texas Theater. I immediately proceeded
to the Texas Theater...."
Dallas police radio transcripts reveal that at 1:51 pm. car No. 2
radioed to the dispatcher that they were on their way in with the
suspect
(WR. p, 179).
Talk about double Oswalds, now we have a double Odum.
In Dallas, the agent was well acquainted with Michael and Ruth
Paine. Mike called the agent BOB; Ruth called him Mr. Odum and
sometimes Bardwell . From Mike's testimony:
Mr. Liebeler: Do you remember being interviewed by FBI Agents Odum
and Peggs on Nov. 24?
Mike: Well, of course, I have seen BOB Odum frequently. Peggs ia an
unfamiliar name. It doesn't mean that he couldn't have been there,
That night I mostly went to the police station. I was introduced to
Odum PRIOR TO THE 22nd.
9H444.
Ruth felt comfortable enough with "BOB" to visit Marina's bedroom
alone with SA Odum, who was at the Irving home to pick up Lee's
wedding ring for Marina.
3H 111-112, 9H385.
Ruth also had a conversation with the "Bard"about the General
Walker shooting before there was reason to believe that Lee was
involved,
9H387.
Ruth: Agent Odum has been out a great deal.
3H106.
Ruth: I would guess that I reported to MR.ODUM other things-... I
talked with him a great deal.
3H107.
Lt. Day released the slug from the Walker shooting to the "Bard."
Day: I released it to the FBI Agent B.D. Odum on Dec.2, 1963
10H273.
Odum says that he never had the Walker bullet.
The early history of the bullet, Commission Exhibit #399, is laid out
in Warren Commission Exhibit #2011. This exhibit consists of a 3-page,
July 7, 1964 FBI letterhead memorandum that was written to the Warren
Commission in response to a Commission request that the Bureau trace
?various items of physical evidence,? among them #399 [Fig. 2]. #2011
relates that, in chasing down the bullet?s chain of possession, FBI
agent Bardwell ODUM took #399 to Darrell Tomlinson and O.P. Wright on
June 12, 1964. The memo asserts that both men told Agent Odum that the
bullet ?appears to be the same one? they found on the day of the
assassination, but that neither could ?positively identify? it.
[Figs. 2, 3]
Mr. Odum said that he had never had any bullet related to the Kennedy
assassination in his possession, whether during the FBI?s
investigation in 1964 or at any other time. Asked whether he might
have forgotten the episode, Mr. Odum remarked that he doubted he would
have ever forgotten investigating so important a piece of evidence.
But even if he had done the work, and later forgotten about it, he
said he would certainly have turned in a ?302? report covering
something that important. Odum?s sensible comment had the ring of
truth. For not only was Odum?s name absent from the FBI?s once secret
files, it was also it difficult to imagine a motive for him to
besmirch the reputation of the agency he had worked for and admired.
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMor...
Odum interviewed; Mrs. Markham 3H319.
Bonnie Williams 3H171-172.
Sylvia Odio 11H369.
Capt. G.M. Doughty
Domingo Benavides
Officer J.M. Poe
Dr. Paul Mollenhoff, Methodist Hospital
Dr. Earl Rose, Parkland
Marguerite Oswald
From the Texas Employment Commission: Helen P. Cunningham
Louise Latham
Robert L. Adams
Odum made a replica bag from material found in the TSBD
(Dec) and showed it to
Frazier/Randle).
I clearly explained why the jacket being found BEFORE Saint Oz was arrested is significant.
It's still there for you to see and for anyone else that wants to read it.
No strawman.
Can't help you anymore than that Johnny.
CAN'T FIX STUPID
And Bardwell Odum had Oswald wearing a jacket in the Texas Theatre. So what?
What kind of weird "logic" is this?
Whether Saint Oz was wearing a jacket or not when he was in the cab has no importance. Just like who found the jacket doesn't matter.
....but don't let common sense get in the way of your Oz worshipping.
Just to backtrack immediately after the assassination Oswald departs just with the white shirt but apparently goes back in to get the brown overshirt?
Of course it is. Chain of custody. Remember?
Just to backtrack immediately after the assassination Oswald departs just with the white shirt but apparently goes back in to get the brown overshirt?
So whether he did or did not have some kind of jacket at any particular time is rather irrelevant isn't it?
It does more than just show Oswald passed through the parking lot.
It demonstrates that Saint Oswald was desperately trying to alter his appearance.
People don't usually ditch their jackets in parking lots without a reason for doing so.
Of course it's possible that Saint Oz was trying to throw the jacket into a Goodwill or Salvation Army bin located a few miles away, but I kind of doubt it.
Yep, bcz people that are wearing a jacket and feeling warm tend to just throw the jacket away in a parking lot, rather than removing the jacket and carrying it with them.
Ummm, to the extend that the Commission had to lie about who found this small piece of evidence.
Your weakest post so far?
The Commission had a solid lead right there in the police log as to who might have found the jacket:
We believe we've got this suspect on shooting this officer out here. Got his white jacket. Believe he dumped it on this parking lot behind this service station at 400 block East Jefferson across from Dudley Hughes and he had a white jacket on. We believe this is it.
Coming from "279", but listed as "Unknown" which raises the question if the DP used fake IDs?
It's not irrelevant but it's not of great significance either. It's merely just small piece of evidence that further shows that Oswald passed through that parking lot as he fled from the murder scene.
Mr. BALL. How was Lee dressed that morning?
Mrs. RANDLE. He had on a white T-shirt, I just saw him from the waist up, I didn't pay any attention to his pants or anything, when he was going with the package. I was more interested in that. But he had on a white T-shirt and I remember some sort of brown or tan shirt and he had a gray jacket, I believe.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket. I will show you some clothing here. First, I will show you a gray jacket. Does this look anything like the jacket he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. That morning?
Mrs. RANDLE. Similar to that. I didn't pay an awful lot of attention to it.
Mr. BALL. Was it similar in color?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; I think so. It had big sleeves.
Mr. BALL. Take a look at these sleeves. Was it similar in color?
Mrs. RANDLE. I believe so.
Mr. BALL. What is the Commission Exhibit on this jacket?
Mrs. RANDLE. It was gray, I am not sure of the shade.
A statement from Wes Frazier's sister.....
Why would Oswald need to go to his rooming house to get and put on a jacket that he had already worn to work that morning?........... ;)
So why list him as "Unknown"?
And what could he tell the Commission about the white jacket?
Nope. Oswald had the brown shirt with him at all times; from the time that he assassinated Kennedy until the time of his arrest in the Texas Theatre.
It's not irrelevant but it's not of great significance either. It's merely just small piece of evidence that further shows that Oswald passed through that parking lot as he fled from the murder scene.
It does more than just show Oswald passed through the parking lot.
It demonstrates that Saint Oswald was desperately trying to alter his appearance.
He wouldn't and he didn't.
Mr. BALL. Here is another jacket which is a gray jacket, does this look anything like the jacket he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; I remember its being gray.
Mr. BALL. Well, this one is gray but of these two the jacket I last showed you is Commission Exhibit No. 162, and this blue gray is 163, now if you had to choose between these two?
Mrs. RANDLE. I would choose the dark one.
Mr. BALL. You would choose the dark one?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Which is 163, as being more similar to the jacket he had?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; that I remember. But I, you know, didn't pay an awful lot of attention to his jacket. I remember his T-shirt and the shirt more so than I do the jacket.
Mr. BALL. The witness just stated that 163 which is the gray-blue is similar to the jacket he had on. 162, the light gray jacket was not.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.
He wouldn't and he didn't.
Mr. BALL. Here is another jacket which is a gray jacket, does this look anything like the jacket he had on?Now does that make any sense?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; I remember its being gray.
Mrs. RANDLE. .... But I, you know, didn't pay an awful lot of attention to his jacket. I remember his T-shirt and the shirt more so than I do the jacket.Why would Randle remember the T shirt the long sleeve brown shirt but not remember some like this [below] covering them up...
But where was the brown shirt when he passed by Jeraldean Reid?
How would a jacket in a parking lot show that anyone "fled from a murder scene"?
Didn't what? Grab a jacket?
Why would Randle remember the T shirt the long sleeve brown shirt but not remember some like this [below] covering them up...
(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/4/44/Photo_naraevid_CE163-2.jpg)
If this [below] was shown earlier in the thread...apologies
(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/post-3674-043737100%201315564429_thumb.jpg)
On the left is a jacket that was supposedly 'found' in a parking lot. Was described as a WHITE Ike style jacket.
On the right is CE 162... the gray jacket ..What a transformation!
So you claim, but you have not shown this to be correct. Moreover, the DPD disagreed as they listed 279 as UNKNOWN.
CE 163, the blue zipper jacket, was found in the Book Depository and was identified by Marina Oswald as her husband's.https://www.maryferrell.org/photos.html?set=NARA-OSWCLOTHES
It was hanging off of the back of his pants, tucked into his belt.
Oswald was seen by numerous witnesses fleeing the scene of the shooting. Mary Brock saw him in the parking lot behind the Texaco service station wearing a jacket. His jacket being found in that parking lot just confirms her statement.
279, according to this, was assigned to the "No-Parking Detail". Why would he be in Oak Cliff to supposedly find a jacket?
Next, you have to show that he actually did find the white jacket.
Sure, and the person who made the transcript (which one?) couldn't have had the same sheet you attached a link for. Good one.
Mr. BALL - I have here Commission's 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have.
Mr. BALL - On that day you did notice one article of clothing, that is, he had a jacket?************************************************
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What color was the 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-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 - 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.
Mr. BALL - You say it had a zipper on it?
Please keep up Tim. The transcript (which one?) said that 279 found the jacket. YOU said that 279 was Griffin, therefore, you have to show that Griffin found the white jacket. Got it now?
All of sudden you are conveniently slow. You told Tom that the person who typed the transcript (which one?) didn't know who 279 was, but your sheet shows that they should have IF it is accurate.
If the gray zipper jacket (CE 162) is legitimate, it was in the hands of the police before Oswald was arrested.
Why not give him the opportunity to confirm or deny that it was his property. - they never did
Julia Postal wasn't sure if he paid or not. I don't know why the LNers are so sure he didn't.
How can you even be sure that Oswald didn't have jacket at the Texas Theater? How does the fact that he wasn't wearing a jacket when he was arrested justify the conclusion that he didn't have a jacket? What makes you eliminate the possibility that a jacket simply was never found or looked for?
The implication that the jacket that was found wasn't his, or was planted is pretty much destroyed by the fibers that matched his arrest shirt in the jacket
Really? Are you sure you have thought this trough? How can you even begin to be sure that the white jacket that was found at the parking lot was indeed the grey jacket that actually belonged to Oswald?
and the fact that the conspirators would have had to known [sic] that Saint Oz wouldn't have had a jacket when he was arrested.
What makes you think the jacket would have been part of any master plan? What makes you even sure that Oswald didn't have a jacket at the Texas Theater?
The gray jacket (which I believe very likely belonged to Oswald) now in evidence could well have been found during the first search of Ruth Paine's house and used as a substitute for the white jacket found at the carpark.
No dumber than when they only rely on a half blind woman (who was concentrating on getting the TV to work and thus had her back turned towards the living room when Oswald walked from his room to the front door in a matter of seconds) to conclude that Oswald did indeed leave the rooming house wearing a jacket in the first place!
Oswald was seen by numerous witnesses fleeing the scene of the shooting. Mary Brock saw him in the parking lot behind the Texaco service station wearing a jacket. His jacket being found in that parking lot just confirms her statement.
No, he was identified as a person near or some distance away from the scene of the shooting in biased and unfair lineups or from a single photo months later.
On November 22, 1963, Warren "Butch" Burroughs, who ran the concession stand at the Texas Theatre where Oswald was arrested, said that Oswald came into the theater between 1:00 and 1:07 pm; he also claimed he sold Oswald popcorn at 1:15 p.m.
Earlene was so blind, I'm surprised she even had a television !
Oh, and of course she had her back turned the entire time Saint Oz was leaving the boarding house.
The poor blind woman couldn't have possibly averted her attention from the TV that she was incapable of watching, not even for a moment to vainly try and see who was walking in and out of the house.
And even if she was able to actually turn her head and see Saint Oz she couldn't possibly tell if he was wearing a jacket.
Nope, at best she might have heard someone she assumed to be Saint Oz zipping a jacket.
Ain't that right, kooks ?
EARLENE WASN'T HALF AS BLIND AS THE DROOLING SAINT OZ FANBOIS ARE
Cagey, but it won't work. I am not disputing *your* claim that Griffin was 279. What I am asking you to do is explain why an officer assigned to a "No-Parking Detail" presumably in the DP area would be in Oak Cliff.
Then I am asking that you show that 279-Griffin did indeed find the white jacket.
When caught in a falsehood LNers revert to games. What is this?
Quote on
279 (unknown) We believe we?ve got that suspect on shooting this officer out here. Got his white jacket. Believe he dumped it on this parking lot behind this service station at 400 block East Jefferson across from Dudley-Hughes and he had a white jacket on. We believe this is it.
Dispatcher 10-4, you do have the suspect, is that correct.
279 (unknown) No, just the jacket laying on the ground.
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0447b.htm
Quote off
Johnny Brewer, the only person watching Oswald, said that Oswald did not buy a ticket.
Do you really want to make your stand here? Really?
"About 1:30 pm I saw a man standing in the lobby of the shoe store. This man was wearing a brown sport shirt. He also acted as if he was scared." - Johnny Brewer
Mr. BELIN - So you say he was about 5'9"?
Mr. BREWER - About 5'9".
Mr. BELIN - And about 150?
Mr. BREWER - And had brown hair. He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out.
Mr. BELIN - Any jacket?
Mr. BREWER - No.
Oswald was seen zipping up his jacket by housekeeper Earlene Roberts as he left the rooming house. Oswald was wearing a jacket when he gunned down J.D. Tippit.
You left out the part where all of the witnesses saw Oswald with a gun in his hands. Honest mistake on your part to leave that out, right?
This is wrong, pure and simple.
Burroughs never said anything of the sort on November 22, 1963.
Burroughs made that claim for The Men Who Killed Kennedy (1988).
===============
Warren Commission testimony, April 8, 1964:
Mr. BALL. Did you see that man come in the theatre?
Mr. BURROUGHS. No, sir; I didn't.
Brewer didn't see the person he was watching from behind way down the street even enter the theater.
That's right, from his vantage Brewer couldn't see the person enter the theater.
But he could see the person he identified as none other than Saint Oz stop in front of the theater and disappear from his view.
Good, then show Griffin acknowledging this transmission and stating that he was heading there.
Then explain why the DPD transcript says 279 found the jacket. You are running around in circles.
He is as close as anyone. He sent the transmission and he didn't say anyone else found it.
Explain why he said the jacket is white.
You're right again, Johnboi.
By itself, Brewer witnessing someone acting suspiciously and taking action which led to your hero being apprehended isn't evidence of murder.
However, it does destroy your narrative that Brewer just saw 'a person' walking towards the theater. There's no doubt that the person Brewer saw, entered the theater, and that person's name was Lee Harvey Oswald, AKA Saint Oz.
The same Saint Oz who wasn't wearing a jacket when arrested but whose shirt fibers were found in the jacket ditched under a car in a lot through which JDT's assailent fled.
Poor Saint Oz was having a really, really bad day.
Next up: Hairless goofball says Oswald's shirt fibers in a jacket aren't evidence of murder.
He didn't say that he found it either.
He said the jacket was white for the same reason that people would say the the jacket seen in the pics below is white.
(https://i.imgur.com/Rnmcx3F.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/FeYT84k.png)
Earlene was so blind, I'm surprised she even had a television !
Oh, and of course she had her back turned the entire time Saint Oz was leaving the boarding house.
The poor blind woman couldn't have possibly averted her attention from the TV that she was incapable of watching, not even for a moment to vainly try and see who was walking in and out of the house.
And even if she was able to actually turn her head and see Saint Oz she couldn't possibly tell if he was wearing a jacket.
Nope, at best she might have heard someone she assumed to be Saint Oz zipping a jacket.
Ain't that right, kooks ?
EARLENE WASN'T HALF AS BLIND AS THE DROOLING SAINT OZ FANBOIS ARE
Brewer didn't see the person he was watching from behind way down the street even enter the theater.
So what? Marrion Baker said he was wearing a light brown jacket and on the 3rd or 4th floor.
"Oswald". LOL.
Mr. BALL. Does it look like, anything like, the jacket the man had on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It is short, open down the front. but that jacket it is a darker jacket than that, I know it was.
Mr. BALL. You don't think it was as light a jacket as that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, it was darker than that, I know it was.....
whose shirt fibers were found in the jacket ditched under a car in a lot
So you can actually prove conclusively that the grey jacket now in evidence as CE 162 is the jacket found under a car in a lot?
Care to amaze us all?
...in biased and unfair lineups or from a single photo months later.
But is this supposed to prove who shot Tippit?
Highly dishonest. Burroughs never claimed even in 1988 to have seen Oswald come in the theater. There's no contradiction here.
If that's not evidence of murder then I don't know what is.
::)
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, you know, I can't see too good how to read. I'm completely blind in my right eye.
It is extreme desperation to claim that Buell Wesley Frazier, who had 20/20 vision and saw Oswald for much longer that Earlene Roberts was mistaken about what he saw.... Oswald carrying the package in the cup of his hand and tucked under his armpit!
It is nothing more than a lame (and desperate) Brown argument. Pathetic really.
You're right again, Johnboi.
By itself, Brewer witnessing someone acting suspiciously and taking action which led to your hero being apprehended isn't evidence of murder.
However, it does destroy your narrative that Brewer just saw 'a person' walking towards the theater. There's no doubt that the person Brewer saw, entered the theater, and that person's name was Lee Harvey Oswald, AKA Saint Oz.
The same Saint Oz who wasn't wearing a jacket when arrested but whose shirt fibers were found in the jacket ditched under a car in a lot through which JDT's assailent fled.
Poor Saint Oz was having a really, really bad day.
Next up: Hairless goofball says Oswald's shirt fibers in a jacket aren't evidence of murder.
He said the jacket was white for the same reason that people would say the the jacket seen in the pics below is white.
Since Julia Postal left the ticket booth to walk out towards the sidewalk to see the police cars, who do you suppose would have sold a ticket to Oswald before he entered? I can't wait to hear this one.
You mean the pictures the esteemed Tim Nickerson just posted are of a grey jacket ?
Looks white to me.
Can you prove the jacket now in evidence was substituted for the one found and Saint Oz's shirt fibers were planted in it ?
You were doing better when you were contesting whether the half blind woman could see if Saint Oz was wearing a jacket.
BTW, Marty, got a huge kick out of you pointing out that the half blind woman might have been watching a TV that she didn't own.
That would make a world of difference !
Pathetic.
You don't even know when Oswald entered the theater.
What's your point? Markham saw Oswald wearing a jacket, regardless of what color she believed it to be. It doesn't matter if Markham believed the jacket was bright red.
She saw the same man seen by Ted Callaway, who said Oswald was wearing a light Eisenhower-type jacket.
Regardless of what color Markham believed the jacket to be, why wasn't Oswald wearing that jacket when seen by Brewer and when he was arrested inside the theater?
You mean the pictures the esteemed Tim Nickerson just posted are of a grey jacket ?
Looks white to me.
Can you prove the jacket now in evidence was substituted for the one found and Saint Oz's shirt fibers were planted in it ?
You were doing better when you were contesting whether the half blind woman could see if Saint Oz was wearing a jacket.
BTW, Marty, got a huge kick out of you pointing out that the half blind woman might have been watching a TV that she didn't own.
That would make a world of difference !
Pathetic.
..and that's supposed to prove that CE162 is Oswald's Jacket...how exactly?
Couldn't be. They had on different jackets.
And you're assuming that the guy Markham saw and the guy Brewer saw were the same guy, because . . . ?
..and that's supposed to prove that CE162 is Oswald's Jacket...how exactly?
Couldn't be. They had on different jackets.
And you're assuming that the guy Markham saw and the guy Brewer saw were the same guy, because . . . ?
All of the witnesses saw a gun in Oswald's hands. You made the ill-advised attempt to imply that these witnesses saw nothing more than Oswald as being "a person near or some distance away from the scene of the shooting". You conveniently left out the part where each witness stated he was running with a gun.
This is good enough for most people (well, those who aren't in serious denial about Oswald being a cop-killer):
You're the king of straw man arguments.
Howard Gee did not say that Oswald was guilty of murder just because he entered the theater without paying for a ticket.
If you were truly interested in what really happened, at the very minimum you would accept that Oswald was wearing a jacket as he left that house.
Unrelated.
I'll ask again (since you avoided answering it the first time), Julia Postal left the booth and went out to the sidewalk. Who do you suppose could have sold a ticket to Oswald?
No, they saw a gun in the hands of a person who they identified in an unfair, biased, and unreliable lineup or from a single photo months later.
But since when does having a gun in one's hands prove that the person just murdered somebody? I guess Callaway was guilty of murder too. He had a gun in his hands at the scene of the crime.
Translation from Bill-speak: "people who don't agree with my unsupported conjectures are in serious denial"
Feel free to point out where in that video Burroughs says he saw Oswald come in the theater.
I accept that Roberts thought came into the house and left wearing a jacket. Just like she thought a police car pulled up and honked its horn twice. Why is it that you consider your opinion and the truth to be synonymous?
Not unrelated at all. You're assuming that Oswald entered the theater when Julia Postal left the booth and went out to the sidewalk, which you don't actually know because nobody saw him enter the theater.
Markham saw Oswald wearing a jacket. What this is "supposed to prove" is that Oswald ditched his jacket at some point.
Why would he do that?
It's far more likely that one witness is wrong about the color of a killer's jacket
than it is that the two witnesses saw different men flee, each saying that the man had a gun in his hands. You do realize that Ted Callaway was only a half block away from Markham, right? Reading your silly posts would lead one to believe that you thought maybe Callaway was miles away from the scene by the time he saw Oswald wearing a jacket while running with a gun.
"Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman." - Helen Markham
Lee Oswald was the #2 man in the lineup.
Brewer pointed Oswald out to McDonald from the stage of the theater.
Do you really want to compare Oswald running from the scene immediately after the shots rang out with a gun in his hands... with Callaway taking Tippit's service revolver and recruiting Scoggins' cab to go look for the killer at a point in time when Tippit's body was already headed to Methodist Hospital?
You're nuttier than a port?a-?potty at a peanut festival.
And you like to constantly accuse me of being the one who plays word games. What do you have against the police? I'm curious.
So Earlene Roberts was just guessing when she said Oswald was zipping up the jacket as he went out the door. Lame.
He said the jacket was white for the same reason that people would say the the jacket seen in the pics below is white.
How in the world would you know what reason he had for saying the jacket was white?
Also, did he look at the jacket under the same lightning conditions as those when the photo was taken?
A parking lot is still not a museum.
I'll take that as you agreeing that the jacket in the photos appears to be white. I'll mark you down.
Already been done. Looks white in that photo too.
Already been done. Looks white in that photo too.
I'll take that as you admitting that the jacket in the photo looks to be white. I'll mark you down.
Already been done. Looks white in that photo too.
Might can give you some additional information. I got an eye-ball witness to the get-away man. That suspect in this shooting is a white male, twenty-seven, five feet eleven, a hundred sixty-five, black wavy hair, fair complected, wearing a light grey Eisenhower-type jacket, dark trousers and a white shirt,
Which raises a couple of questions. Why did they believe that a WHITE jacket they thought they found in a parking lot was his? And why did they think Julia Postal's "ruddy looking, medium height, brown sport shirt" guy was the same guy?
First you have to show LHO went to Tenth and Patton. Well?
Of course he did. As evidenced by the fact that when Helen Markham looked at his eyes she just kind of fell over.
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)
Exactly, she recognized mystery guest number #2 (Oswald) from the Tippit scene, those cold dead eyes.
Good catch.
"Mr. BALL. Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two is the one I picked.
And the Feluccas have the temerity to quote her. :D
Ray, have you ever had it explained to you before? I believe that you have. In fact, I'm sure that you have.
She never knew any of them personally.
Had not even seen any of them before that day.She was never asked that question either.
However, she did pick Oswald out of the line up as the man who she saw murder Officer Tippet.
You've never been able to grasp that? Or has old age caught up to you and your memory is shot?New study confirms adage that with age comes wisdom
She never knew any of them personally. Had not even seen any of them before that day.
Let's see.....did Ball ask her if she knew any of them personally or if she had seen any of them before that day?
No, that's right, he asked her if she recognized anyone in the lineup.
So all of a sudden Markham is clear-minded & lucid. How convenient for you.
Explain Ball's obvious frustration with the way The Divine Miss M was responding to the questions.
First you have to show LHO went to Tenth and Patton. Well?
Helen Markham
William Scoggins
Barbara Davis
Virginia Davis
William Scoggins
Ted Callaway
Sam Guinyard
Warren Reynolds
Pat Patterson
Harold Russell
Helen Markham
William Scoggins
Barbara Davis
Virginia Davis
William Scoggins
Ted Callaway
Sam Guinyard
Warren Reynolds
Pat Patterson
Harold Russell
Let's see.....did Ball ask her if she knew any of them personally or if she had seen any of them before that day?
No, that's right, he asked her if she recognized anyone in the lineup.
But didn't she say that she didn't see the shooter's face?
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
Isn't part of a positive identification include recognizing the person's face? I would think so. You're sunk.
For anyone who can read and comprehend the English language this is a falsehood by you as she was DIRECTED to the number two man. Furthermore, she couldn't recognize anyone by THEIR FACE!
That's a direct hit. You're sunk. Get the lifeboats out. 🚣
2. The light gray one had a dry cleaning label sewed into it and LHO had never been in that part of the country.
1. LHO left a dark jacket in the TSBD lunch room
2. The light gray one had a dry cleaning label sewed into it and LHO had never been in that part of the country.
What part of the country would that be?
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.assassination.jfk/lQ1GX7lVprA/7M8X-JFhqHYJ
(https://s7.postimg.cc/i19apnre3/Honest_Markham_zpsuyfq8h1m.gif)
JohnM
Can it get any more obvious?
"She looked at him" "He looked at her"
And she still couldn't pick him out of a 4 man "line-up".
Can it get any more obvious?
"She looked at him" "He looked at her"
And she still couldn't pick him out of a 4 man "line-up".
(https://s31.postimg.cc/cbnc4zzwb/line_up_Oswald_positive_ID.gif)
JohnM
You just can't help yourself, can you? Do you ever get anything right?
Can it get any more obvious?
"She looked at him" "He looked at her"
And she still couldn't pick him out of a 4 man "line-up".
Michael,
No where in that discussion is it specified where in the country that laundry tag originated.
The second hand clothes outlet is a good explanation and is the one that I subscribe to.
Oops , I thought I logged into the JFKassassination Forum. Instead this place has turned into the let the scumbag go , the proper paperwork wasn't filed forum. :-\
(https://s7.postimg.cc/i19apnre3/Honest_Markham_zpsuyfq8h1m.gif)
JohnM
Can it get any more obvious?
"She looked at him" "He looked at her"
And she still couldn't pick him out of a 4 man "line-up".
Oops , I thought I logged into the JFKassassination Forum. Instead this place has turned into the let the scumbag go , the proper paperwork wasn't filed forum. :-\
I got my dry cleaning tags mixed up. What I meant in my original post is this:
The DPD discovered that the light gray jacket had a dry cleaner tag inside it with the number B 9738. This was broadcasted over the DPD radio at about 1:44 pm (CE 705/1974). The jacket also contained the laundry mark "30" in its collar (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 9, Folder 4, Item 5). Myers admits that the FBI had canvassed hundreds of dry cleaners in Dallas and New Orleans; and that they were unable to determine if any of them had served Oswald, or had even used a laundry tag identical to the one found inside the jacket (With Malice, Chapter 8). In fact, the FBI also claimed that none of Oswald's other clothing contained a dry cleaners or laundry mark that could be associated with the laundry tag of the light gray jacket (ibid). Although Myers states that none of Oswald's belongings contained any dry cleaning tags, a pair of Khaki-colored trousers and a Khaki long-sleeved shirt which belonged to Oswald, contained laundry tags bearing the number "03230". However, this is not identical to the laundry mark or dry cleaning tag found on the light gray jacket. Finally, even Myers admits that Marina Oswald told the FBI that she could not recall if Oswald ever sent the light gray jacket to a dry cleaner; but that she recalled hand washing them herself (ibid).
From:
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/myers-dale-with-malice-part-2
Question... when did Westbrook get the jacket and who gave it to him?
Nobody gave it to him. He picked it up off of the ground.
Oops , I thought I logged into the JFKassassination Forum. Instead this place has turned into the let the scumbag go , the proper paperwork wasn't filed forum. :-\
The second hand clothes outlet is a good explanation and is the one that I subscribe to.
Nobody gave it to him. He picked it up off of the ground.
That was not what I asked, Tim, but - to be fair - perhaps the question was too difficult for you. If so, sorry for that. I will dumb it down.
At the police station, Westbrook presented a grey jacket to the evidence room, but he told us in his testimony that at the car park he had given the jacket to an officer he could not identify. So, how did Westbrook get the jacket back at the police station?
That was not what I asked, Tim,
Is there any evidence that Oswald ever got clothing from a second hand clothes outlet? Any evidence whatsoever?
This is a real tough choice.
I have to decide whether the jacket couldn't have belonged to Saint Oz because there was a laundry tag in it...
or
Maybe I should conclude that the jacket was his, based on the fibers found in it that just happen to match the shirt he was wearing when arrested.
Hmmmmm, this is a real close call.
Regardless of whether CE-162 is Oswald's jacket or not (it is), the fact remains that he left the rooming house zipping up a jacket as he went out the door and then was seen by a multitude of witnesses (near the scene of the Tippit slaying) wearing a jacket.
Why did he have no jacket on when he was seen by Brewer?
It's obvious you don't understand what happened, Bill. There were multiple Oswalds. There's the real Oswald Mrs. Bledsoe saw get in the Marsalis bus, went to his rooming house, quickly put on a jacket, discarded the jacket at the parking lot, was seen by Brewer entering the Texas theater and was arrested at the Texas theater. There's the decoy Oswald that got on Whaley's taxi wearing two jackets. Then there's the decoy Oswald that Roger Craig saw get in the Rambler 15 minutes after the assassination. The decoy Oswald that Whaley gave a ride to then gave one of his jackets to the decoy Oswald that Roger Craig saw and that's the Oswald that shot officer Tippit. Simple, really. ::)
You're actually quite good at making up stuff....
But, come to think of it, that was already obvious, so never mind.
It's obvious you don't understand what happened, Bill. There were multiple Oswalds. There's the real Oswald Mrs. Bledsoe saw get in the Marsalis bus, went to his rooming house, quickly put on a jacket, discarded the jacket at the parking lot, was seen by Brewer entering the Texas theater and was arrested at the Texas theater. There's the decoy Oswald that got on Whaley's taxi wearing two jackets. Then there's the decoy Oswald that Roger Craig saw get in the Rambler 15 minutes after the assassination. The decoy Oswald that Whaley gave a ride to then gave one of his jackets to the decoy Oswald that Roger Craig saw and that's the Oswald that shot officer Tippit. Simple, really. ::)
It's obvious you don't understand what happened, Bill. There were multiple Oswalds. There's the real Oswald Mrs. Bledsoe saw get in the Marsalis bus, went to his rooming house, quickly put on a jacket, discarded the jacket at the parking lot, was seen by Brewer entering the Texas theater and was arrested at the Texas theater. There's the decoy Oswald that got on Whaley's taxi wearing two jackets. Then there's the decoy Oswald that Roger Craig saw get in the Rambler 15 minutes after the assassination. The decoy Oswald that Whaley gave a ride to then gave one of his jackets to the decoy Oswald that Roger Craig saw and that's the Oswald that shot officer Tippit. Simple, really. ::)
Ha Nice.
The real question is... why do some try their best to clear the name of a proven cop-killer?
That day, a policeman lost his life while on duty.
I don't know? It is weird isn't? Some will go as far as implicating Officer Tippitt in the assassination of JFK as being part of the conspiracy! I have come to the conclusion that
(1) even if there had been several witnesses that saw Oswald shoot JFK
(2) saw Oswald leave the scene of the shooting
(3) saw Oswald go into the place where he was eventually captured
(4) was identified to the police as that same man inside the place where he was capture
(5) that Oswald then tried to kill another police officer while being apprehended
(6) was found in possession of the gun later identified as the weapon used to kill JFK
(7) and while under interrogation by the police admitted he was carrying that gun for the hell of it
(8) The bullets found on his person were identified as being the same as those used to kill JFK
Even then, these yahoos would still question, or go as far as exonerate Oswald from having committed the crime.
What can be assumed is the yahoos believe their mission is to act as defense attorneys for Oswald because he wasn't afforded that opportunity, and not as serious and objective observers of the evidence and/or the man who committed these crimes. Or, perhaps, their obssessed with the subject to the point where rational thinking is replaced by a stubburn and imaginary quest for justice even to the point where the most minute detail that has nothing to do with anything becomes a subject of intense and deep exploration. Then it's their research that becomes the main focus of attention in order to achieve recognition in the kook commmunity.
I don't know
Indeed!
It seems you main complaint is that other people are less gullible than you and question the evidence more than you would like.
Perhaps, but I doubt that! The gullible part goes both ways. You, and a couple of others I've seen on this forum, question just about every piece of evidence even when you ask for evidence to be produced. Yet, when asked to give an alternative explanation or, better yet, your theory of what happened you punt. Question after question but no answers. According to your ilk it's up to the LNers to provide the answers while you CTers sit back and ignore or reject the answers. I have more respect for the CTers who at least offer an alternative theory no matter how bizarre. At least they put their heads in the guillotine, even if some of them just like to pontificate and ignore request to explain their theories.
Perhaps, but I doubt that!
No surprise there...
You, and a couple of others I've seen on this forum, question just about every piece of evidence
Yes, so what? Is it your position that evidence should be accepted at face value?
Yet, when asked to give an alternative explanation or, better yet, your theory of what happened you punt.
I'm not going to play your game, just because you want me to. You want me to have and present alternative explanations or theories of what happened so you can attack, mock and dismiss them. Besides, that's not why I am here. I want to find out if the known evidence supports the conclusions about Oswald's guilt, and the only way to do that is by asking questions. That's it!
I don't have alternative explanations of theories of what happened, because that would make me like you (and your ilk) who first draw a conclusion and then look for anything that supports the conclusion.
Question after question but no answers.
See... you're complaining again.
According to your ilk it's up to the LNers to provide the answers
Indeed... the LNs are making the claims. The onus of proof lies with those making the claims.
while you CTers sit back and ignore or reject the answers.
If you answer isn't persuasive why shouldn't it be rejected?
I have more respect for the CTers who at least offer an alternative theory no matter how bizarre.
And I would have more respect for an LNer who just tries to support his claims with evidence and enters into an open and honest discussion about it instead of one who constantly throws around claims like "It has already been proven beyond reasonable doubt, just read the WC and HSCA reports".
And I would have more respect for an LNer who just tries to support his claims with evidence and enters into an open and honest discussion about it instead of one who constantly throws around claims like "It has already been proven beyond reasonable doubt, just read the WC and HSCA reports".
First of all, they're not my claims. What I do is to base my opinion on the conclusions reached by investigative bodies such as the WC and the HSCA based on the evidence these august bodies have uncovered and provided. I also rely on additional sources which validate the evidence provided by the WC and the HSCA or that invalidate or update on the evidence and conclusions reached by the WC and the HSCA.
Second, Bill Brown has given you the opportunity to enter "into an open and honest discussion" on just one topic and you have run away from it. But here you're contradicting yourself. You don't want to have any type of discussion because you don't want to play the game.
Regardless of whether CE-162 is Oswald's jacket or not (it is), the fact remains that he left the rooming house zipping up a jacket as he went out the door and then was seen by a multitude of witnesses (near the scene of the Tippit slaying) wearing a jacket.
Why did he have no jacket on when he was seen by Brewer?
Ha Nice.
The real question is... why do some try their best to clear the name of a proven cop-killer?
That day, a policeman lost his life while on duty.
Second, Bill Brown has given you the opportunity to enter "into an open and honest discussion" on just one topic and you have run away from it. But here you're contradicting yourself. You don't want to have any type of discussion because you don't want to play the game.
Second, Bill Brown has given you the opportunity to enter "into an open and honest discussion" on just one topic and you have run away from it. But here you're contradicting yourself. You don't want to have any type of discussion because you don't want to play the game.
Bill Brown can give me as many opportunities as he likes. That doesn't mean I have to accept them. Experience shows that there can not be an "open and honest" discussion with him because that would include respecting the other's opinion and not looking for ways to mock and attack.
I haven't been talking to Bill Brown for a long time and for exactly those reasons and I have seen no reason to change my mind. I do indeed do not want to play his usual game.
How do we know that he was seen by Brewer? Oh, that's right, because Brewer said so.
If you can't trust the evidence, you can't trust any conclusions based on it either.
RoboCall still hasn't cited his 2 year old claim that 98% of the world (yes, the WORLD, no less) believes there was a conspiracy re JFK.
Don't expect anything more than a canned, hollow response.
Don't be silly, it takes a bit of time to count everybody.
Ah... the CTer rant
There MUST have been an alternate shooter
There MUST have been a conspiracy
There MUST be an alternate explanation
Well, tick-tock goes my grandfather's clock
What, too soon?
If you have an explanation as to why Brewer would lie, let's hear it.
RoboCall still hasn't cited his 2 year old claim that 98% of the world (yes, the WORLD, no less) believes there was a conspiracy re JFK.
Don't expect anything more than a canned, hollow response.
Says the guy who can't cite one piece of supporting evidence for any of the WC's claims.
Another canned RoboCall...
Another post by Chapman that has no supporting evidence for a WC claim that he wholeheartedly endorses.
Shifting the burden again. It's your job to support the claims that you endorse. Well?
Says the guy who can't cite one piece of supporting evidence for any of the WC's claims.
Stop trying to change the law of physics, it's scientifically demonstrable that Oswald's jacket under strong sunlight looks white. Cmon Caprio, if this is all you got then you got zilch!
(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/post-3674-043737100%201315564429.jpg)
(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/post-5639-024448100%201315611845.gif)
A blind man can see that there is a difference in the jacket held by the cop and the jacket produced as evidence.
The paper ID in CE 162 is also white but the jacket is obviously gray ??? Duh! Look at the color strip next to the jacket!
Even more disturbing; the initials on the jacket are not from any of the men who actually found the white jacket. Instead they are from some cops who were in the lunchroom (if I remember correctly) when Westbrook brought the grey jacket in and asked them to initial it.
Mr. RANKIN. When was the last time that you saw this jacket, Exhibit 163?(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/NHe_-Bg8SzasRVzhMwzUleZEovndIqpEkFtKL9gOglFJVhi1u8So-debdm-yymIeDkKajkIvQ6c_W8kma8PueoiWbvgb3eBDRcaRJj5KuGx57uEycl2SWoX5eBToq6RfJ5Ewjyw4VBeLwq62lKIvdL3T1kfdxN0QhyDjkHRX3G4Spf1C2mUqCgPcWnm-LFGu8rdxSutR12mpEqBhRb20)
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember seeing it on the morning of November 22, 1963?
Mrs. OSWALD. The thing is that I saw Lee in the room, and I didn't see him getting dressed in the room. That is why it is difficult for me to say. But I told him to put on something warm on the way to work.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall whether the jacket, Exhibit 163, is something that he put on in your presence at any time that day?
Mrs. OSWALD. Not in my presence.
Mr. RANKIN. And you didn't observe it on him at any time, then?
Mrs. OSWALD. No.
Mr. RANKIN. Is it possible that Exhibit 163 was worn by him that morning without your knowing about it?
Mrs. OSWALD. Quite possible.
Mr. BALL. Here is another jacket which is a gray jacket, does this look anything like the jacket he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; I remember its being gray.
Mr. BALL. Well, this one is gray but of these two the jacket I last showed you is Commission Exhibit No. 162, and this blue gray is 163, now if you had to choose between these two?
Mrs. RANDLE. I would choose the dark one.
Mr. BALL. You would choose the dark one?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Which is 163, as being more similar to the jacket he had?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; that I remember. But I, you know, didn't pay an awful lot of attention to his jacket. I remember his T-shirt and the shirt more so than I do the jacket.
Mr. BALL. The witness just stated that 163 which is the gray-blue is similar to the jacket he had on... 162, the light gray jacket was not.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall any of these clothes that your husband was wearing when he came home Thursday night, November 21, 1963?Looking up everything ...we find that Lee [according to what the attorney weaned out of Marina] supposedly wore the same shirt [CE 150] to Irving that Thursday evening that he wore to work the next day. However if he wore CE 151 to work that Friday [which I believe he did] ... then how did CE 150 get back to Beckley?
Mrs. OSWALD. On Thursday I think he wore this shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Is that Exhibit 150?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember anything else he was wearing at that time?
Mrs. OSWALD. It seems he had that jacket, also.
Mr. RANKIN. Exhibit 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
The real question is... why do some try their best to clear the name of a proven cop-killer?
That day, a policeman lost his life while on duty.
This gets me too. Some people leave flowers on Oswalds grave.
This gets me too. Some people leave flowers on Oswalds grave.
A guy from this forum took a knee at Oswald's grave
No further claims here from the defenders of the Oswald did it Report?
Continuing... I don't see this Captain Westbrook's initials [who was supposedly involved with it's alleged discovery] on the jacket....How come?
(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/post-5639-024448100%201315611845.gif)
Probably because he never placed his initials on it. It wasn't necessary for him to do so.
Really, Tim?
Westbrook was prominent in the chain of custody, wasn't he? He is the main link between the white jacket found in the parking lot and the grey jacket delivered to the evidence room some two hours later, isn't he?
Or does none of that matter and will the initials of anybody, even people who never handled the jacket, do for you?
The initials on the jacket were not necessary. The jacket had something on it that made it readily identifiable.
Could Oswald have been walking east on 10th street (as per Helen Markham) and witnessed the shooting up ahead of him, which had nothing to do with him, and then ran down Patton for his own safety? After which the gunman fled down the same street?
This would explain why Markham thought the man she saw fled down the alleyway that was on Paton street and Callaway thought the man with the gun fled towards Jefferson. Two different men? Markham by her own admission covered her eyes which may have caused her to confuse the two men, thinking that the man she saw, Oswald, had shot Tippit.
Some witnesses say the gunman was walking west along Paton for some distance before the shooting. Markham says he was walking east for some distance before the shooting. A good defense lawyer would make the case that these were two different people, that Oswald had been walking east, saw the shooting up ahead of him and was simply running from the scene of a shooting for his own safety.
Anyway, to me, it's obvious that Helen Markham heard (from her son) that the killer was seen in the alley.
Can anyone answer why the heck Oswald needed a jacket on a sunny Texas afternoon, while he was already wearing a long sleeve flannel? Does that even make sense to anyone ... anyone with common sense?
And why would he ditch his jacket after killing a cop? Was he worried someone might identify him as the killer? So I guess keeping the gun and dumping the shells for cops to find wasn't much to worry about, but the jacket.... Oh no... that was the incriminating piece of evidence to be worried about, right? ::)
Common sense, huh... I recently schooled you on the fact that it was only 50°F in Dallas that day,
And a baggy-sleeved jacket (according to Buell) would be a good choice for those wanting to limit the profile of a 34.8" lunch/curtain rod/rifle bag.
Wearing a jacket would cover up the revolver and getting rid of said jacket would be a no-brainer since there were a number of citizens eyeballing the little prick sporting a revolver and wearing a jacket @Tippit
Common sense, huh... I recently schooled you on the fact that it was only 50°F in Dallas that day,
Wrong again, Chapman The high was 70 degrees that day. https://www.iweathernet.com/texas-dfw-weather-records (https://www.iweathernet.com/texas-dfw-weather-records)"Common sense" :D