JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Bill Brown on April 17, 2026, 10:04:17 PM
-
FROM J.C. BOWLES (DISPATCH SUPERVISOR IN CHARGE OF THE DALLAS POLICE DISPATCH OFFICE)
"First, consideration should focus on how the dispatcher's office operated with regard to determining and recording time, especially since the Committee Report did not mention their method for making such determinations, and since they reported the recording methods inaccurately.
A master clock on the telephone room wall was connected to the City Hall system. This clock reported "official" time. Within the dispatcher's office there were numerous other time giving and time recording devices, both in the telephone room and in the radio room. Telephone operators and radio operators were furnished "Simplex" clocks. Because the hands often worked loose, they indicated the incorrect time. However, their purpose was to stamp the time, day and date on incoming calls. While they were reliable at this, they were not synchronized as stated in the Committee report. Therefore, it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock. Accordingly, at "exactly" 10:10, various clocks could be stamping from 10:08 to 10:12, for example. When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. During busy periods this was not readily done.
In addition to the times stamped on calls by telephone operators, the radio operators stamped the "time" as calls were dispatched, and the "time" that officers completed an assignment and returned to service. Radio operators were also furnished with 12-hour digital clocks to facilitate their time references when they were not using call sheets containing stamped time. These digital clocks were not synchronized with any time standard. Therefore, the time "actual" and time "broadcast" could easily be a minute or so apart.
Now, multiply this by two since the police department was operating on two radio frequencies. For convenience they were referred to as Channel 1 and Channel 2. Calls for police service or information as well as interdepartmental messages were placed through the police communications office. Telephone clerks trained for the task handled the initial contacts. Telephone calls which required that an officer be sent to render a service were transcribed by hand on "call sheets" to inform the radio dispatcher as to the location and nature of the service request. The telephone clerk inserted the call sheet into the nearest time clock, causing the call sheet to be stamped with a "call received" time. The operator then sent the call sheet to the dispatcher by way of a conveyer belt which passed continuously between operators sitting opposite each other at the telephone stations. The conveyer belt terminated at the radio operator's console. The radio operator, upon receiving a call sheet, would select the officer appropriate to handle the call, dispatch the call to that officer, and stamp the call sheet with a "call dispatched" time. When the officer assigned a call had rendered the necessary service, he would inform the dispatcher that he was "clear." The dispatcher would then stamp the call sheet to obtain a "call cleared" time, and inform the officer of his clearing time. On November 22, 1963, the regular business of the department was conducted on Channel 1, and radio traffic associated with the President's visit was conducted on Channel 2. Next, consideration should be given to the methods of individual radio operators. A given operator at a given time might broadcast "time" a little early in one event then a little late the next. Accordingly, a call initiated at, say, 10:10 might be stamped at 10:13 by the dispatcher, only to have intervening radio traffic delay his broadcast. He might go ahead and announce the dispatch time as 10:13 and the digital clock then showed 10:14. Time intervals of less than one minute were never used. Likewise, the time stated in periodic station identification time checks was not always exact. During quiet intervals, station time checks were usually on time. However, radio operators did not interrupt radio traffic in progress just to give a station check. Accordingly, an operator might give, say, the 10:30 check as 10:30 when it was actually 10:29 or perhaps 10:31 or later. On another occasion, that same operator might state, "10:31 KKB 364," the correct time even though he was at least a minute late."
It is foolish to argue that the Tippit shooting took place before 1:10 PM and therefore Oswald could have not arrived in time to shoot Tippit.
Mary Wright stated that she heard the shots and called the police immediately after the shooting. (interview with George & Patricia Nash)
Barbara Davis heard the shots and stated that, from the door, she saw Helen Markham across the street yelling that a police officer was shot and killed and then she saw a man with a gun walking across her front yard. Davis looked over and saw the police car. Immediately after seeing the police car, she went inside and phoned the operator and reported the shooting to the police. (affidavit, 11/22/63)
L.J. Lewis was at the Johnny Reynolds Motor Company, located one block south of the shooting. He called the police immediately after hearing the gunshots and seeing a man with a gun trotting down Patton toward Jefferson. (affidavit, 8/26/64)
Murray Jackson, the police radio dispatcher, received an alert at 1:17 from the "citizen using the police radio" (T.F. Bowley). Upon being told by the citizen that a policeman had been shot and that it was on Tenth Street between Marsalis & Beckley, Jackson immediately calls out for "78". After getting no response, he again calls out for "78". Jackson is calling out for "78" because that is Tippit's call number. On 11/22/63, Tippit was "78". That he calls out for Tippit after receiving the alert from the "citizen using the police radio" tells us that at 1:17, Jackson was made aware, for the very first time, that Tippit had been shot.
Since we know that Mary Wright, Barbara Davis and L.J. Lewis called the police immediately... and we know that Murray Jackson (the dispatcher) was unaware of the shooting until 1:17, it becomes painfully obvious that Wright, Davis and Lewis phoned in the shooting at a point in time just before the "citizen using the police radio" alerted Jackson. If these three witnesses had phoned in the shooting much earlier, then Jackson would have been already made aware of the shooting by the time Bowley reported it at 1:17 and would have put an all-points bulletin. No all-points bulletin was put out by dispatch until AFTER dispatch (Jackson) was alerted at 1:17 by Bowley using the patrol car radio.
Once a citizen picks up the telephone to call the police to report a shooting, how long does it take for that information to reach the police dispatcher? The citizen picks up the phone and dials zero to reach the operator. The operator answers and the citizen asks to be transferred to the police department to report a shooting. The citizen is transferred to the police department. The person on duty answering the phone at the police station asks the citizen for the information of what occurred and where. The citizen quickly explains that someone has been shot on Tenth Street in Oak Cliff. The phone operator at the police department then writes down the information onto a slip and sends it down a conveyor belt, if you will, straight to the police dispatcher. Once he receives the slip, the dispatcher (in this case, Murray Jackson) puts out the information over the air waves to all patrol cars in Dallas. The entire process from the time Wright, Davis and Lewis make their phone call to the time Jackson receives the information would take 60 to 90 seconds at the most. This means that by the time Bowley alerts Jackson at 1:17 that there was a shooting of an officer on Tenth Street and Jackson was unaware until that moment, combined with how long it would take the information from Mary Wright's phone call to reach Jackson (60 to 90 seconds), and Wright called immediately after hearing the shots, that the shooting occurred at 1:15-1:16.
The bottom line is that Jackson doesn't know Tippit was shot until 1:17, yet Wright, Davis and Lewis called the police immediately after the shots. Translation... Wright, Davis and Lewis called the police around 1:16. If they had called any earlier, then Jackson would have already known about the shooting by the time Bowley reported it to Jackson at 1:17.
Ted Callaway testified that after hearing the five gun shots, he ran out to the sidewalk on Patton. This was a little over a half block south of the shooting scene. Callaway saw a man (who he later identified as Oswald) cutting across Patton as he (Oswald) made his way south on Patton (towards Callaway's position). Callaway hollered out to the man as the man continued south on Patton past Callaway's position. Callaway testified that the man was running and holding a gun. Callaway saw the man head west on Jefferson (the same direction as the theater).
Once the man turned west onto Jefferson, Callaway ran a "good hard run" up to the corner of Tenth and Patton. Callaway, noticing the stopped patrol car, went to the car and saw the officer (Tippit) lying dead in the street. Callaway said the first thing he did was to grab the police car radio and report the shooting. He said he didn't know if anyone had reported it yet, so he decided to report it himself.
To recap, Callaway hears the shots. Runs to the sidewalk. Sees the gunman run south on Patton the entire block from Tenth to Jefferson. Runs the two-thirds of a block up to the shooting scene. Goes over to the police car and the first thing he does is grab the radio and report the shooting to the police dispatcher.
How much time do you believe passed from the time Callaway heard the shots to the time he reported the shooting on the police radio?
Let's say two minutes pass from the time Oswald shoots Tippit to the time Oswald turns the corner from Patton onto Jefferson. This is a little over one block and Oswald was running.
Let's say it takes Callaway one minute when he made the "good hard run" the two-thirds of a block from his location to the patrol car.
If these two time estimates are anywhere close to being correct, then Callaway is at the patrol car roughly three minutes after the shots rang out. Let's add another full minute for error. So we have Callaway at the patrol car using the police radio about four minutes after the shots rang out.
Here's the thing... Callaway's report to the dispatcher while using the patrol car radio took place at 1:19/1:20.
Do the math and work it backwards. At 1:19/1:20, Callaway makes the call. If four minutes have passed (and that's being generous, in my opinion) since the shots rang out, then the shots rang out around 1:15.
T.F. Bowley tells us that he arrived on the scene, parked, walked up to Tippit's body and noticed immediately that there was nothing he could do for the fallen officer. Bowley then took the police radio mic from Domingo Benavides and reported the shooting to dispatcher Murray Jackson. Bowley's report to Jackson took place at 1:17.
All of this matter-of-factly puts the Tippit shooting between 1:15 and 1:16. Oswald indeed had time to arrive at Tenth & Patton by then (even earlier, really).
-
This BS again?
We've just discussed most of it in the "Podcast on Tippit" thread, where you ran away because you didn't want to answer my question about Earlene Roberts and now you want to do it all over again.
Oh well, have fun, but dealing with your propaganda once in a month is more than enough for me.
-
I don't think we can pin down precisely when Tippit was shot. We can make some pretty good estimates but without precise time stamps, all we can do is estimate. I don't think it is necessary to pin down precisely when Oswald opened fire on Tippit. The forensic evidence is enough to establish he did. The eyewitness accounts are just the icing on the cake.
-
This BS again?
We've just discussed most of it in the "Podcast on Tippit" thread, where you ran away because you didn't want to question about Earlene Roberts and now you want to do it all over again.
Oh well, have fun, but dealing with your propaganda once in a month is more than enough for me.
Earlene Roberts account is probably one of the least important pieces of evidence we have. She said Oswald came and went ABOUT 1:00. I have no reason to doubt that. She said he had his jacket on. While I have no reason to doubt that either, I wouldn't take it to the bank solely her word. The fact Oswald was seen throwing the jacket under a car and a jacket was retrieved from there that was identified belonging to him is enough for me. It witl never be enough for the dedicated CTs. They aren't in search of answers. Their game is to come up with excuses to reject evidence. Like Oswald's jacket that was found under the car.
-
This BS again?
We've just discussed most of it in the "Podcast on Tippit" thread, where you ran away because you didn't want to answer my question about Earlene Roberts and now you want to do it all over again.
Oh well, have fun, but dealing with your propaganda once in a month is more than enough for me.
They ignored completely my list of questions mainly : WHO found the jacket under the car and WHO found the blue gray jacket in the Domino room and WHY was it found in the Domino room?
It’s like arguing with Copernicus, who would say well , yes, those anomalous planetary motions exist , however they are only a minor discrepancy. . Trust the other Mountain of evidence that the Earth is at the Center of the Universe and that the Pope ( WC ) has concluded the theory is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
-
They ignored completely my list of questions mainly : WHO found the jacket under the car and WHO found the blue gray jacket in the Domino room and WHY was it found in the Domino room?
It’s like arguing with Copernicus, who would say well , yes, those anomalous planetary motions exist , however they are only a minor discrepancy. . Trust the other Mountain of evidence that the Earth is at the Center of the Universe and that the Pope ( WC ) has concluded the theory is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Spot on Zeon.
They always ignore critical questions or refuse to answer them.
-
Earlene Roberts account is probably one of the least important pieces of evidence we have. She said Oswald came and went ABOUT 1:00. I have no reason to doubt that. She said he had his jacket on. While I have no reason to doubt that either, I wouldn't take it to the bank solely her word. The fact Oswald was seen throwing the jacket under a car and a jacket was retrieved from there that was identified belonging to him is enough for me. It witl never be enough for the dedicated CTs. They aren't in search of answers. Their game is to come up with excuses to reject evidence. Like Oswald's jacket that was found under the car.
That's talking out of two sides of your mouth.
"I don't take much in Roberts, but she did she a jacket."
The fact Oswald was seen throwing the jacket under a car....
who saw that?
-
That's talking out of two sides of your mouth.
"I don't take much in Roberts, but she did she a jacket."
If you're going to quote me, please dos so accurately. I said:
"She said he had his jacket on. While I have no reason to doubt that either, I wouldn't take it to the bank solely her word."
There is a technique known as "COPY AND PASTE". If you learned how to do that, you wouldn't have to lie about what I said.
who saw that?
It's been a number of years since I discussed this aspect and I wrote that from memory so I may have overstated the case. Here is what I found from Dale Myers's website:
"The first mention of a “discarded jacket” occurred at about 1:23 p.m., when sergeants Calvin B. Owens, Gerald L. Hill, and assistant D.A. William F. “Bill” Alexander rolled up at Tenth and Patton. As they arrived, they were approached by an unidentified man who told them that Tippit’s killer had “thrown down his jacket” in the 400 block of East Jefferson – the area of the Texaco service station. [39] (More on this, later.)"
So I will concede that no one is on record as having seen Oswald toss the jacket under the car. The fact is that Oswald's jacket was found under a car and I think we can conclude it didn't get there by PFM (pure freeking magic)
-
Before Bill notices my mistake ( he’s good at that lol) I’m correcting it myself. PTOLEMY was the astronomer who advocated Earth at the Center of the Universe theory.
Copernicus placed the sun at the center of his planetary model of “perfect” circular orbits which seemed to solve SOME of the earlier planetary motions unexplained by the Ptolemy model but there were still some unexplained motions of planets such as Mars.
So I’m not saying Bill is entirely wrong. The WC theory may be almost as correct as the Copernicus model was thought to be and it just needs to be tweaked and throw out all the evidence which cannot be verified by someone recorded as the original finder of that evidence.
-
That's talking out of two sides of your mouth.
"I don't take much in Roberts, but she did she a jacket."
who saw that?
You have to admire their flawed logic;
Earlene Roberts is "probably one of the least important pieces of evidence we have".... "She said he had his jacket on" and he has no reason to doubt what Roberts said.
Never mind there is no corroboration for it, like the kind he demands for Buell Frazier, and Roberts's employer calls her not credible!
"The fact Oswald was seen throwing the jacket under a car and a jacket was retrieved from there that was identified belonging to him is enough for me."
Never mind that there is no chain of custody to show that the white jacket found under the car is the same as the grey jacket that Oswald owned
Even less so when the DPD dispatcher said;
Wanted for investigation for assault to murder on a police officer: A white male; approximately thirty; about five foot eight; slender build; has black hair; a white jacket; a white shirt and dark trousers. The suspect last seen running west on Jefferson from 400 East Jefferson. 1:24
And the officer (279) calling in the find said;
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.
And then;
"So I will concede that no one is on record as having seen Oswald toss the jacket under the car."
So, if nobody saw Oswald leave a jacket under the car, and the suspect was wearing a white shirt (which Oswald didn't) where does that leave him with the "I have no reason to doubt Roberts" BS
And then it comes;
The fact is that Oswald's jacket was found under a car and I think we can conclude it didn't get there by PFM
So a jacket was found under a car and an officer believed it was the suspect's jacket (and wearing a white shirt) is all he has got left!
And it would indeed have been PFM for Oswald's grey jacket (CE 162) to be found under a car in Oak Cliff and being described as white, when there is evidence that places that grey jacket in Irving on Thursday evening!
-
You have to admire their flawed logic;
Earlene Roberts is "probably one of the least important pieces of evidence we have".... "She said he had his jacket on" and he has no reason to doubt what Roberts said.
Never mind there is no corroboration for it, like the kind he demands for Buell Frazier, and Roberts's employer calls her not credible!
"The fact Oswald was seen throwing the jacket under a car and a jacket was retrieved from there that was identified belonging to him is enough for me."
Never mind that there is no chain of custody to show that the white jacket found under the car is the same as the grey jacket that Oswald owned
Even less so when the DPD dispatcher said;
Wanted for investigation for assault to murder on a police officer: A white male; approximately thirty; about five foot eight; slender build; has black hair; a white jacket; a white shirt and dark trousers. The suspect last seen running west on Jefferson from 400 East Jefferson. 1:24
And the officer (279) calling in the find said;
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.
And then;
"So I will concede that no one is on record as having seen Oswald toss the jacket under the car."
So, if nobody saw Oswald leave a jacket under the car, and the suspect was wearing a white shirt (which Oswald didn't) where does that leave him with the "I have no reason to doubt Roberts" BS
And then it comes;
The fact is that Oswald's jacket was found under a car and I think we can conclude it didn't get there by PFM
So a jacket was found under a car and an officer believed it was the suspect's jacket (and wearing a white shirt) is all he has got left!
And it would indeed have been PFM for Oswald's grey jacket (CE 162) to be found under a car in Oak Cliff and being described as white, when there is evidence that places that grey jacket in Irving on Thursday evening!
Not sure we can even conclude that ANY jacket was found under under ANY car in ANY parking lot.
I don’t know how a story that is claimed to have been 1st heard from an unidentified person could be introduced as evidence, but I’m not a lawyer so I’m not sure what the rules of evidence are. Just seems like hearsay imo.
-
You have to admire their flawed logic;
Earlene Roberts is "probably one of the least important pieces of evidence we have".... "She said he had his jacket on" and he has no reason to doubt what Roberts said.
Never mind there is no corroboration for it, like the kind he demands for Buell Frazier, and Roberts's employer calls her not credible!
Earlene Roberts isn't important because we have much more compelling evidence than her recollection, namely that the witnesses to the shooting saw him wearing a jacket and HIS jacket was found under a car a short distance away.
"The fact Oswald was seen throwing the jacket under a car and a jacket was retrieved from there that was identified belonging to him is enough for me."
Never mind that there is no chain of custody to show that the white jacket found under the car is the same as the grey jacket that Oswald owned
Right. Maybe Oswald's jacket ended up under the car by PFM.
Even less so when the DPD dispatcher said;
Wanted for investigation for assault to murder on a police officer: A white male; approximately thirty; about five foot eight; slender build; has black hair; a white jacket; a white shirt and dark trousers. The suspect last seen running west on Jefferson from 400 East Jefferson. 1:24
And the officer (279) calling in the find said;
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.
And then;
"So I will concede that no one is on record as having seen Oswald toss the jacket under the car."
So, if nobody saw Oswald leave a jacket under the car, and the suspect was wearing a white shirt (which Oswald didn't) where does that leave him with the "I have no reason to doubt Roberts" BS
And then it comes;
The fact is that Oswald's jacket was found under a car and I think we can conclude it didn't get there by PFM
So a jacket was found under a car and an officer believed it was the suspect's jacket (and wearing a white shirt) is all he has got left!
And it would indeed have been PFM for Oswald's grey jacket (CE 162) to be found under a car in Oak Cliff and being described as white, when there is evidence that places that grey jacket in Irving on Thursday evening!
Right. Maybe it is just a coincidence that the jacket that was found under the car had fibers that matched the shirt Oswald was wearing. The same matching fibers were also found on the butt plate of the assassination rifle. But I guess that is all just an amazing coincidence and that Oswald was just the unluckiest SOB that ever lived.
-
Not sure we can even conclude that ANY jacket was found under under ANY car in ANY parking lot.
I don’t know how a story that is claimed to have been 1st heard from an unidentified person could be introduced as evidence, but I’m not a lawyer so I’m not sure what the rules of evidence are. Just seems like hearsay imo.
Good point, but don't worry... the LNs are going to go full "It's common sense" to justify them jumping to conclusions from one piece of unauthenticated evidence to the next.
That's about the only thing that makes participating on this forum fun.
As for the jacket;
According to Captain Westbrook a patrol officer who was never identified pointed out a jacket under a car. In radio traffic with the DPD dispatchers this jacket was described as white. This description was of course the result it being seen in bright sunlight. Westbrook then said he gave the white jacket to another unidentified officer before moving on to the Texas Theater.
Then the jacket disappears. We don't know where it was or who had it. When a jacket shows up again, it's at the police station and it has the markings of seven officers on it who never were (or came forward to being) in the chain of custody, and guess what, the jacket was suddenly grey. Go figure!
-
"And he said look, there's a jacket under the car. He pointed this jacket out to me and it was laying slightly under the rear of one of the cars. I think it was an old Pontiac sitting there, if I remember right. So I walked over and reached under and picked up the jacket." -- Capt. Westbrook
(https://i.postimg.cc/C1hgLPqB/Oswald-Jacket4.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/8F03ZbwN)
-
Earlene Roberts isn't important because we have much more compelling evidence than her recollection, namely that the witnesses to the shooting saw him wearing a jacket and HIS jacket was found under a car a short distance away.
Right. Maybe Oswald's jacket ended up under the car by PFM.
Right. Maybe it is just a coincidence that the jacket that was found under the car had fibers that matched the shirt Oswald was wearing. The same matching fibers were also found on the butt plate of the assassination rifle. But I guess that is all just an amazing coincidence and that Oswald was just the unluckiest SOB that ever lived.
And those are the words of an extremely confused person;
Earlene Roberts isn't important because we have much more compelling evidence than her recollection, namely that the witnesses to the shooting saw him wearing a jacket and HIS jacket was found under a car a short distance away.
Roberts is important, because if Oswald left the rooming house without a jacket, nobody could have seen him "wearing a jacket" while shooting Tippit. And no, there is not a shred of evidence that the (white) jacket found under a car is the same one (the grey one) that's now in evidence as CE 162. Once again the master of assumptions strikes again!
Right. Maybe Oswald's jacket ended up under the car by PFM.
So, now he believes in magic when he needs it! :D
Right. Maybe it is just a coincidence that the jacket that was found under the car had fibers that matched the shirt Oswald was wearing. The same matching fibers were also found on the butt plate of the assassination rifle.
Oh boy, here he goes again with the fibers BS! But never mind, it doesn't matter as it is of course probable that fibers of Oswald's shirt were found in the grey jacket that's now in evidence. What you still can't figure out is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the white jacket found under the car is the same as Oswald's grey jacket that's now in evidence. I guess it must all be just a little too difficult for you to understand this.
But I guess that is all just an amazing coincidence and that Oswald was just the unluckiest SOB that ever lived.
So, being an unlucky SOB makes a murderer in your mind?
-
"And he said look, there's a jacket under the car. He pointed this jacket out to me and it was laying slightly under the rear of one of the cars. I think it was an old Pontiac sitting there, if I remember right. So I walked over and reached under and picked up the jacket." -- Capt. Westbrook
(https://i.postimg.cc/C1hgLPqB/Oswald-Jacket4.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/8F03ZbwN)
Nice try
Mr. WESTBROOK. Now, I did, when I left this scene, I turned this jacket over to one of the officers and I went by that church, I think, and I think that would be on 10th Street.
Now, can you bridge the gap between Westbrook giving the white jacket to "onë of the officers" and Westbrook submitting a grey jacket to the evidence room some 2 hours later?
-
1964 CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Had Oswald went to trial in '64, in preparing for that trial, ADA Bill Alexander would have gone to the DPD and asked them, for example, who found the jacket. He would have been told that Capt. Westbrook found the jacket. Alexander then would have gone to Westbrook and asked Westbrook about the jacket. Westbrook would have told Alexander that he picked up the jacket from under one of the cars behind the Texaco station and then handed it to officer X. Then Alexander would have gone to officer X, who would have told Alexander that he received the jacket from Westbrook and then turned it in to Y at the crime lab.
These names would have been worked out had there been a trial. Alexander would have gotten a statement from officer X and Y. Then, officer X and Y, at an evidentiary hearing, would have been shown the jacket. X would have said he got that jacket from Westbrook. Y would have said he got the jacket from X. Had there been a trial, these names would have been put in place to show a chain of custody of the jacket.
Since there was no trial, Alexander, or anyone else, never saw fit to work it out. This is how it would have occurred in 1964. Then, while researching the case today and with Oswald having been put to death by the state of Texas, there would be no lack of a chain of custody for the jacket because one would have been presented at the evidentiary hearing. And at trial... the Defense would NOT bother with challenging a chain of custody of the jacket because one has already been established and the Defense also does not want the jury wondering why the Defense wants so badly to discount the jacket.
-
1964 CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Had Oswald went to trial in '64, in preparing for that trial, ADA Bill Alexander would have gone to the DPD and asked them, for example, who found the jacket. He would have been told that Capt. Westbrook found the jacket. Alexander then would have gone to Westbrook and asked Westbrook about the jacket. Westbrook would have told Alexander that he picked up the jacket from under one of the cars behind the Texaco station and then handed it to officer X. Then Alexander would have gone to officer X, who would have told Alexander that he received the jacket from Westbrook and then turned it in to Y at the crime lab.
These names would have been worked out had there been a trial. Alexander would have gotten a statement from officer X and Y. Then, officer X and Y, at an evidentiary hearing, would have been shown the jacket. X would have said he got that jacket from Westbrook. Y would have said he got the jacket from X. Had there been a trial, these names would have been put in place to show a chain of custody of the jacket.
Since there was no trial, Alexander, or anyone else, never saw fit to work it out. This is how it would have occurred in 1964. Then, while researching the case today and with Oswald having been put to death by the state of Texas, there would be no lack of a chain of custody for the jacket because one would have been presented at the evidentiary hearing. And at trial... the Defense would NOT bother with challenging a chain of custody of the jacket because one has already been established and the Defense also does not want the jury wondering why the Defense wants so badly to discount the jacket.
I couldn't care less of some "explanation" of what would or possibly would not have happened at trial.
Had Oswald went to trial in '64, in preparing for that trial, ADA Bill Alexander would have gone to the DPD and asked them, for example, who found the jacket. He would have been told that Capt. Westbrook found the jacket. Alexander then would have gone to Westbrook and asked Westbrook about the jacket. Westbrook would have told Alexander that he picked up the jacket from under one of the cars behind the Texaco station and then handed it to officer X. Then Alexander would have gone to officer X, who would have told Alexander that he received the jacket from Westbrook and then turned it in to Y at the crime lab.
So, at trial they would have bothered but the WC/FBI couldn't care less, is that what you are saying?
And btw it wasn't Westbrook who found the jacket and it wasn't officer X who turned in a jacket at the crime lab
These names would have been worked out had there been a trial. Alexander would have gotten a statement from officer X and Y. Then, officer X and Y, at an evidentiary hearing, would have been shown the jacket. X would have said he got that jacket from Westbrook. Y would have said he got the jacket from X. Had there been a trial, these names would have been put in place to show a chain of custody of the jacket.
Yes, that's how a chain of custody normally works. CE2011 was the result of a request by the WC about a number of chains of custody. So, why not this one?
Which of course begs the question of how the WC could conclude that the grey jacket presented by Westbrook to the evidence room at 3:00 PM was the same as the white jackets the officers at the parking lot reported to have seen.
And that brings me back to my original question; can you bridge the gap between Westbrook giving the white jacket to "onë of the officers" and Westbrook submitting a grey jacket to the evidence room some 2 hours later?
Or is your answer simply, they just threw away all the rules of evidence because they "knew" they had their man?
-
Once Oswald was murdered and there'd be no trial, there was no concern for a proper chain of custody of the jacket.
-
....they "knew" they had their man?
Well, DUH!
Oswald was positively identified at the scene.
Oswald was seen fumbling with his gun and removing shells.
The shells seen being discarded were a 100% match to Oswald's revolver.
The cartridges used to kill officer J.D. Tippit were a mix of Winchester-Western and Remington-Peters .38 Special rounds, the SAME mix as found in Oswald's revolver.
Oswald tried to kill more Police when arrested.
Oswald was arrested with the same revolver that was purchased by him.
This insane need to find a cop killer innocent is psychotic!
JohnM
-
Once Oswald was murdered and there'd be no trial, there was no concern for a proper chain of custody of the jacket.
This is what the CTs never understand. The case against Oswald never wasn't going to trial once he was pronounced dead. From a historical perspective, the only thing we should ask ourselves is whether a piece of evidence is the real deal. CTs act like they are trying to get Oswald off on technicalities. I've never understood that perspective. If you are interested in figuring out how JFK died and also Tippit, you shouldn't dismiss any evidence. You should simply be concerned with whether that piece of evidence helps to tell us what happened. On the other hand, if you are dedicated to arguing for Oswald's innocence in either murder, you just want excuses to disregard the evidence of his guilt. The problem with that approach is there is so damn much evidence you have to come up with lots of excuses. Sometimes you even have to invent excuses.
-
This is what the CTs never understand. The case against Oswald never wasn't going to trial once he was pronounced dead. From a historical perspective, the only thing we should ask ourselves is whether a piece of evidence is the real deal. CTs act like they are trying to get Oswald off on technicalities. I've never understood that perspective. If you are interested in figuring out how JFK died and also Tippit, you shouldn't dismiss any evidence. You should simply be concerned with whether that piece of evidence helps to tell us what happened. On the other hand, if you are dedicated to arguing for Oswald's innocence in either murder, you just want excuses to disregard the evidence of his guilt. The problem with that approach is there is so damn much evidence you have to come up with lots of excuses. Sometimes you even have to invent excuses.
That's some nutter's BS: right there.
-
That's the nutter's BS: right there.
Wow, what a coincidence, like clockwork when Weidman's in trouble, here come his White Knight in Shining Armour! Hilarious! :D
JohnM
-
Wow, what a coincidence, like clockwork when Weidman's in trouble, here come his White Knight in Shining Armour! Hilarious! :D
JohnM
Weidman's in trouble?
Thumb1: NO actually, he kicks your butt every time.
-
And those are the words of an extremely confused person;
Earlene Roberts isn't important because we have much more compelling evidence than her recollection, namely that the witnesses to the shooting saw him wearing a jacket and HIS jacket was found under a car a short distance away.
Roberts is important, because if Oswald left the rooming house without a jacket, nobody could have seen him "wearing a jacket" while shooting Tippit. And no, there is not a shred of evidence that the (white) jacket found under a car is the same one (the grey one) that's now in evidence as CE 162. Once again the master of assumptions strikes again!
Right. Maybe Oswald's jacket ended up under the car by PFM.
So, now he believes in magic when he needs it! :D
Right. Maybe it is just a coincidence that the jacket that was found under the car had fibers that matched the shirt Oswald was wearing. The same matching fibers were also found on the butt plate of the assassination rifle.
Oh boy, here he goes again with the fibers BS! But never mind, it doesn't matter as it is of course probable that fibers of Oswald's shirt were found in the grey jacket that's now in evidence. What you still can't figure out is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the white jacket found under the car is the same as Oswald's grey jacket that's now in evidence. I guess it must all be just a little too difficult for you to understand this.
But I guess that is all just an amazing coincidence and that Oswald was just the unluckiest SOB that ever lived.
So, being an unlucky SOB makes a murderer in your mind?
Are you still pretending fiber matching isn't real evidence? Are you still pretending our courts haven't accepted that as valid evidence for decades?
-
Are you still pretending fiber matching isn't real evidence? Are you still pretending our courts haven't accepted that as valid evidence for decades?
You have got to laugh about the LN BS
On the one hand we have just had three LNs basically saying "once Oswald was dead nobody cared about the authenticity of the evidence".
Which of course means that they just threw bits and pieces together to wrap the case around an already dead man who couldn't defend himself.
And then on the other hand this clown keeps going on about what courts have accepted as "valid evidence".
-
Once Oswald was murdered and there'd be no trial, there was no concern for a proper chain of custody of the jacket.
Don't you understand how idiotic that sounds?
But to follow your thinking; who cares if the jacket found under a car belongs to Oswald. Let's just say it does and make it easier to call him guilty. Is that what you are saying?
-
On the one hand we have just had three LNs basically saying "once Oswald was dead nobody cared about the authenticity of the evidence".
Which of course means that they just threw bits and pieces together to wrap the case around an already dead man who couldn't defend himself.
Don't you understand how idiotic that sounds?
But to follow your thinking; who cares if the jacket found under a car belongs to Oswald. Let's just say it does and make it easier to call him guilty. Is that what you are saying?
First, I didn't say anything about the weapon, the bullets or the shell casings. I only referred to the jacket, as far as the authorities feeling no need to pursue a chain of custody.
Secondly, I said what I said and I did not say what I did not say. Make sense?
-
I only referred to the jacket, as far as the authorities feeling no need to pursue a chain of custody.
IOW - NO need to validate a piece evidence.
One of the dumbest things I have ever heard a nutter say. lame.
-
First, I didn't say anything about the weapon, the bullets or the shell casings. I only referred to the jacket, as far as the authorities feeling no need to pursue a chain of custody.
Secondly, I said what I said and I did not say what I did not say. Make sense?
I also didn't say anything about the weapon, bullets and shell casings.
I also was only talking about the jacket. You know, the jacket that was described as being white by the officer who called in the find. The grey jacket that several officers marked despite the fact that they were not and could not have been in the chain of custody, and the same grey jacket that the FBI spent days on visiting some 400 dry cleaners in the greater Dallas and New Orleans area to track down a label found in the jacket.
Secondly, I said what I said and I did not say what I did not say. Make sense?
You also frequently say what you don't say... Does that make sense?
-
You have got to laugh about the LN BS
On the one hand we have just had three LNs basically saying "once Oswald was dead nobody cared about the authenticity of the evidence".
Which of course means that they just threw bits and pieces together to wrap the case around an already dead man who couldn't defend himself.
And then on the other hand this clown keeps going on about what courts have accepted as "valid evidence".
Why do you have to tell blatant lies to make your points. Nobody ever said what you put in quotes. When you put something in quotes, it should be word for word what the person actually said. It's a very easy thing to quote somebody accurately by doing a Copy and Paste. Instead, you choose to make a strawman argument against something nobody said. Nobody said what you put in quotes and your words twisted the point we have actually made. We were speaking about the admissibility of the evidence which is different than the authenticity. Courts will sometimes declare authentic evidence inadmissible if the police or the prosecution failed to dot the i's and cross the t's. Of course, no one would expect an Oswald denier such as yourself to understand the difference.
-
Why do you have to tell blatant lies to make your points. Nobody ever said what you put in quotes. When you put something in quotes, it should be word for word what the person actually said. It's a very easy thing to quote somebody accurately by doing a Copy and Paste. Instead, you choose to make a strawman argument against something nobody said. Nobody said what you put in quotes and your words twisted the point we have actually made. We were speaking about the admissibility of the evidence which is different than the authenticity. Courts will sometimes declare authentic evidence inadmissible if the police or the prosecution failed to dot the i's and cross the t's. Of course, no one would expect an Oswald denier such as yourself to understand the difference.
I quoted you accurately.
Are you still pretending fiber matching isn't real evidence? Are you still pretending our courts haven't accepted that as valid evidence for decades?
that's why the words "valid evidence" are in quotes.
I also have not misrepresented what you said, because you do keep going on and on about what courts have accepted for decades.
We were speaking about the admissibility of the evidence which is different than the authenticity.
Who is "we"?
Admissibility is indeed different than authenticity. Courts do allow all sorts of evidence to come in but not all evidence is actually proof of anything!
And besides, you were rambling on about "valid evidence" which clearly is not the case when the evidence isn't or can't be authenticated.
But keep digging your hole, if you like
-
I quoted you accurately.
I was speaking of the first quote which is entirely an invention of yours. Neither eye nor any other LN wrote that.
that's why the words "valid evidence" are in quotes.
That's another favorite ploy of CTs. They will clip a few words out of context which allows them to completely misrepresent what was actually said. If you guys actually had a valid argument to make, you wouldn't have to resort to such deceitful tactics.
I also have not misrepresented what you said, because you do keep going on and on about what courts have accepted for decades.
We were speaking about the admissibility of the evidence which is different than the authenticity.
Who is "we"?
Admissibility is indeed different than authenticity. Courts do allow all sorts of evidence to come in but not all evidence is actually proof of anything!
That's right. They leave it up to the good sense of the jury to weigh the evidence and make logical inferences from it. As it applies to fiber evidence, it is no proof positive that fibers came from a particular item because there is the theoretical possibility it could have come from an identical item. The jury is left to decide what the likelihood of that is. Had the case gone to trial, the jury would have to ask themselves what the likelihood the fibers came from identical shirt to the one that was worn by the owner of the rifle. Ditto for the fibers found on the jacket.
And besides, you were rambling on about "valid evidence" which clearly is not the case when the evidence isn't or can't be authenticated.
But keep digging your hole, if you like
You must think you are winning this debate. By any chance, are you of Iranian descent?
-
I was speaking of the first quote which is entirely an invention of yours. Neither eye nor any other LN wrote that.
That's another favorite ploy of CTs. They will clip a few words out of context which allows them to completely misrepresent what was actually said. If you guys actually had a valid argument to make, you wouldn't have to resort to such deceitful tactics.
That's right. They leave it up to the good sense of the jury to weigh the evidence and make logical inferences from it. As it applies to fiber evidence, it is no proof positive that fibers came from a particular item because there is the theoretical possibility it could have come from an identical item. The jury is left to decide what the likelihood of that is. Had the case gone to trial, the jury would have to ask themselves what the likelihood the fibers came from identical shirt to the one that was worn by the owner of the rifle. Ditto for the fibers found on the jacket.
You must think you are winning this debate. By any chance, are you of Iranian descent?
I was speaking of the first quote which is entirely an invention of yours.
You should be more clear about what you mean. And that wasn't a quote. To call it one only exposes your paranoid mindset.
So, you don't understand the concept of "basically saying"? You don't understand that what follows isn't a verbatim quote?
Neither eye nor any other LN wrote that.
You have an eye that writes? Wow.... and nobody claimed LNs wrote that. You are really struggling with all this, aren't you?
That's right. They leave it up to the good sense of the jury to weigh the evidence and make logical inferences from it. As it applies to fiber evidence, it is no proof positive that fibers came from a particular item because there is the theoretical possibility it could have come from an identical item. The jury is left to decide what the likelihood of that is. That's right. They leave it up to the good sense of the jury to weigh the evidence and make logical inferences from it. As it applies to fiber evidence, it is no proof positive that fibers came from a particular item because there is the theoretical possibility it could have come from an identical item. The jury is left to decide what the likelihood of that is. Had the case gone to trial, the jury would have to ask themselves what the likelihood the fibers came from identical shirt to the one that was worn by the owner of the rifle. Ditto for the fibers found on the jacket.
So, for once we agree. The jury usually weighs the evidence after the prosecution and defence have presented their case. That never happened in the JFK case, so why you keep bringing stuff like this up time after time is beyond me.
You must think you are winning this debate. By any chance, are you of Iranian descent?
Winning this debate? You really have me confused with some delusional fool who actually thinks it is possible with rational points and authentic evidence to ever get you to accept or admit defeat about anything!
You couldn't even handle being schooled about the existence of documents about the Frazier polygraph, which you falsely claimed didn't exist and I made up. You even tried to weasel your way out of that one.
I don't think in terms of winning or losing. Only people who are ego driven are concerned with having to win.... You know, people like you and John Mytton and a few others...
-
... and John Mytton...
Wow, your obsession with me has risen to a new level, how creepy, you sad miserable little man.
JohnM
-
Wow, your obsession with me has risen to a new level, how creepy, you sad miserable little man.
JohnM
What now... you are always going on about winning. My comment is factual.
Only a fool would call that an obsession.
-
I was speaking of the first quote which is entirely an invention of yours.
You should be more clear about what you mean. And that wasn't a quote. To call it one only exposes your paranoid mindset.
So, you don't understand the concept of "basically saying"? You don't understand that what follows isn't a verbatim quote?
If it wasn't a quote why did you put it in QUOTATION MARKS? Punctuation has meaning. If you are paraphrasing, you have no business putting a statement in quotes.
Neither eye nor any other LN wrote that.
You have an eye that writes? Wow.... and nobody claimed LNs wrote that. You are really struggling with all this, aren't you?
Again, when you put a statement in quotes, it implies the words came from somebody else.
That's right. They leave it up to the good sense of the jury to weigh the evidence and make logical inferences from it. As it applies to fiber evidence, it is no proof positive that fibers came from a particular item because there is the theoretical possibility it could have come from an identical item. The jury is left to decide what the likelihood of that is. That's right. They leave it up to the good sense of the jury to weigh the evidence and make logical inferences from it. As it applies to fiber evidence, it is no proof positive that fibers came from a particular item because there is the theoretical possibility it could have come from an identical item. The jury is left to decide what the likelihood of that is. Had the case gone to trial, the jury would have to ask themselves what the likelihood the fibers came from identical shirt to the one that was worn by the owner of the rifle. Ditto for the fibers found on the jacket.
So, for once we agree. The jury usually weighs the evidence after the prosecution and defence have presented their case. That never happened in the JFK case, so why you keep bringing stuff like this up time after time is beyond me.
I brought up the fibers as evidence that Oswald was the one that fired the rifle. The fibers also are evidence it was Oswald's jacket that was recovered from under the car. While fiber evidence isn't proof positive, it is a very strong indication that it was Oswald who fired the rifle and Oswald was the one who tossed the jacket under the car. It would be a remarkable coincidence if the fibers on the two items in question came from a shirt other than the one Oswald was wearing. As a dedicated Oswald denier, a theoretical possibility, no matter how unlikely, is all the excuse you need to dismiss highly probative evidence of his guilt.
You must think you are winning this debate. By any chance, are you of Iranian descent?
Winning this debate? You really have me confused with some delusional fool who actually thinks it is possible with rational points and authentic evidence to ever get you to accept or admit defeat about anything!
[/quote]
Why would I admit defeat. There is a strong consensus in history books, journals, news organizations, etc. that Oswald was the assassin. These resources also mention the fact that many people suspect he was part of a conspiracy. Even among CTs, the majority belief is that Oswald was one of the assassins.
It is only the loons who think he was innocent of both murders. As for me, I'm glad Oswald got murdered because he deserved it for what he did. I have no doubt he would have been convicted and sentenced to die but I seriously doubt the execution would have been carried out because SCOTUS struck down all existing death penalty statutes in 1972. The little bastard might still be thumbing his nose at us from the Texas state prison. There would probably even be people telling us he deserved parole. That almost worked for Sirhan Sirhan. The California parole board recommended he be released. In one of the few good acts of Gavin Newsom's career, he vetoed his parole board's decision. It's still possible Sirhan will eventually be released which would be a damn shame. He should have gone to the gas chamber 50 years ago.
You couldn't even handle being schooled about the existence of documents about the Frazier polygraph, which you falsely claimed didn't exist and I made up. You even tried to weasel your way out of that one.
My memory isn't as sharp as it once was but I don't recall making such a statement and given your propensity for creating strawman arguments by making up things that other people never actually said, I sure as hell am not going to take your word for it. Please tell us the thread, the date, and the time I made such a statement. If you can't do that, I'll take that as a tacit admission you made this one up too.
I don't think in terms of winning or losing. Only people who are ego driven are concerned with having to win.... You know, people like you and John Mytton and a few others...
You did make the following statement:
"But keep digging your hole, if you like"
Note that what I put in quotes is word-for-word what you wrote. I didn't make up something you didn't say. I took your suggestion that I was in a hole to mean you thought you had gained the upper hand in this discussion. If that's not what you intended, just say so.
-
If it wasn't a quote why did you put it in QUOTATION MARKS? Punctuation has meaning. If you are paraphrasing, you have no business putting a statement in quotes.
Again, when you put a statement in quotes, it implies the words came from somebody else.
I brought up the fibers as evidence that Oswald was the one that fired the rifle. The fibers also are evidence it was Oswald's jacket that was recovered from under the car. While fiber evidence isn't proof positive, it is a very strong indication that it was Oswald who fired the rifle and Oswald was the one who tossed the jacket under the car. It would be a remarkable coincidence if the fibers on the two items in question came from a shirt other than the one Oswald was wearing. As a dedicated Oswald denier, a theoretical possibility, no matter how unlikely, is all the excuse you need to dismiss highly probative evidence of his guilt.
You must think you are winning this debate. By any chance, are you of Iranian descent?
Winning this debate? You really have me confused with some delusional fool who actually thinks it is possible with rational points and authentic evidence to ever get you to accept or admit defeat about anything!
Why would I admit defeat. There is a strong consensus in history books, journals, news organizations, etc. that Oswald was the assassin. These resources also mention the fact that many people suspect he was part of a conspiracy. Even among CTs, the majority belief is that Oswald was one of the assassins.
It is only the loons who think he was innocent of both murders. As for me, I'm glad Oswald got murdered because he deserved it for what he did. I have no doubt he would have been convicted and sentenced to die but I seriously doubt the execution would have been carried out because SCOTUS struck down all existing death penalty statutes in 1972. The little bastard might still be thumbing his nose at us from the Texas state prison. There would probably even be people telling us he deserved parole. That almost worked for Sirhan Sirhan. The California parole board recommended he be released. In one of the few good acts of Gavin Newsom's career, he vetoed his parole board's decision. It's still possible Sirhan will eventually be released which would be a damn shame. He should have gone to the gas chamber 50 years ago.
My memory isn't as sharp as it once was but I don't recall making such a statement and given your propensity for creating strawman arguments by making up things that other people never actually said, I sure as hell am not going to take your word for it. Please tell us the thread, the date, and the time I made such a statement. If you can't do that, I'll take that as a tacit admission you made this one up too.
You did make the following statement:
"But keep digging your hole, if you like"
Note that what I put in quotes is word-for-word what you wrote. I didn't make up something you didn't say. I took your suggestion that I was in a hole to mean you thought you had gained the upper hand in this discussion. If that's not what you intended, just say so.
If it wasn't a quote why did you put it in QUOTATION MARKS? Punctuation has meaning. If you are paraphrasing, you have no business putting a statement in quotes.
Again, when you put a statement in quotes, it implies the words came from somebody else.
I wasn't paraphrasing either, because that would imply that somebody actually said something similar. The words were in quotation marks to highlight words used ironically.
You are really really struggling with this, aren't you?
I brought up the fibers as evidence that Oswald was the one that fired the rifle. The fibers also are evidence it was Oswald's jacket that was recovered from under the car. While fiber evidence isn't proof positive, it is a very strong indication that it was Oswald who fired the rifle and Oswald was the one who tossed the jacket under the car. It would be a remarkable coincidence if the fibers on the two items in question came from a shirt other than the one Oswald was wearing.
No, on both counts. Fibers can not prove who fired a rifle nor do they prove that it was Oswald's jacket that was found under the car. But I agree, it probably wasn't a coincidence that fibers were found on the rifle and Oswald's grey jacket (CE 162). We do however likely disagree about why it wasn't a coincidence.
As a dedicated Oswald denier, a theoretical possibility, no matter how unlikely, is all the excuse you need to dismiss highly probative evidence of his guilt.
I don't even know what a Oswald denier is, nor do I need an excuse to dismiss "highly probative evidence of his guilt". The reason I reject your claims is that you constantly are using flawed reasoning, ignoring discrepancies and jumping to predetermined conclusions. Only in your mind is this fiber BS "highly probative evidence of his guilt". In the real world it works differently, regardless of what happened in some trial in the past. Every trial is different and trying to make a comparison to somehow prove a point is a fool's errand.
Why would I admit defeat. There is a strong consensus in history books, journals, news organizations, etc. that Oswald was the assassin.
Hilarious. There is only a "strong consensus" if you read certain books and follow certain media outlets. Having said that, this is the Appeal to Authority fallacy in it's purest form, you do understand that? Don't you have a mind of your own?
For nearly five centuries the history books have said that Richard III killed the boys in the tower, or at least had them killed. Now we know it was Henry VII Tudor, to whom Richard III lost his crown, who most likely made up that story to justify his own reign. He also predated his reign with one day before the battle of Bosworth, so he could claim he was already king when he defeated the usurper Richard of York. History books and opinions are constantly updated and revisited. It's the victor who writes the history. If they get away with it or not depends on critical thinkers who challenge claims.
These resources also mention the fact that many people suspect he was part of a conspiracy.
Even if he was indeed a patsy, he still would have had to have been part of such conspiracy, whether he understood that at the time or not. Now before you go off on this. I have no idea if there actually was a conspiracy or not, nor do I know how Oswald would have fitted in.
Even among CTs, the majority belief is that Oswald was one of the assassins.
Well, that's simply not true.
It is only the loons who think he was innocent of both murders. As for me, I'm glad Oswald got murdered because he deserved it for what he did. I have no doubt he would have been convicted and sentenced to die but I seriously doubt the execution would have been carried out because SCOTUS struck down all existing death penalty statutes in 1972. The little bastard might still be thumbing his nose at us from the Texas state prison. There would probably even be people telling us he deserved parole. That almost worked for Sirhan Sirhan. The California parole board recommended he be released. In one of the few good acts of Gavin Newsom's career, he vetoed his parole board's decision. It's still possible Sirhan will eventually be released which would be a damn shame. He should have gone to the gas chamber 50 years ago.
So much anger and aggression. Hardly the words of a rational reasonable person.
I'm glad Oswald got murdered
I'm not, because if he had not been murdered he could have told his side of the story and a trial would have eliminated a lot of assumptions and speculations.
-
If it wasn't a quote why did you put it in QUOTATION MARKS? Punctuation has meaning. If you are paraphrasing, you have no business putting a statement in quotes.
Again, when you put a statement in quotes, it implies the words came from somebody else.
I wasn't paraphrasing either, because that would imply that somebody actually said something similar. The words were in quotation marks to highlight words used ironically.
You are really really struggling with this, aren't you?
You are really rationalizing your duplicitous conduct, aren't you?
I brought up the fibers as evidence that Oswald was the one that fired the rifle. The fibers also are evidence it was Oswald's jacket that was recovered from under the car. While fiber evidence isn't proof positive, it is a very strong indication that it was Oswald who fired the rifle and Oswald was the one who tossed the jacket under the car. It would be a remarkable coincidence if the fibers on the two items in question came from a shirt other than the one Oswald was wearing.
No, on both counts. Fibers are can not prove who fired a rifle nor do they prove that it was Oswald's jacket that was found under the car. But I agree, it probably wasn't a coincidence that fibers were found on the rifle and Oswald's grey jacket (CE 162). We do however likely disagree about why it wasn't a coincidence.
You wouldn't say why you don't think it was a coincidence because that would put the burden on your to show evidence for your claim. I'm going to guess you are implying the fiber evidence was planted even though we both know you have no evidence that happened. If that's not what you were implying, why don't you tell us what you were implying when you said it was no coincidence.
As a dedicated Oswald denier, a theoretical possibility, no matter how unlikely, is all the excuse you need to dismiss highly probative evidence of his guilt.
I don't even know what a Oswald denier is
HINT: Look in the mirror
nor do I need an excuse to dismiss "highly probative evidence of his guilt". The reason I reject your claims is that you constantly are using flawed reasoning, ignoring discrepancies and jumping to predetermined conclusions. Only in your mind is this fiber BS "highly probative evidence of his guilt".
A jury convicted Wayne Williams primarily on fiber evidence. Apparently they didn't think it was BS. Neither do most thinking people.
In the real world it works differently, regardless of what happened in some trial in the past. Every trial is different and trying to make a comparison to somehow prove a point is a fool's errand.
So tell us why fiber evidence was proof beyond a reasonable doubt in the Wayne Williams case but isn't probative in the case against Oswald.
Why would I admit defeat. There is a strong consensus in history books, journals, news organizations, etc. that Oswald was the assassin.
Hilarious. There is only a "strong consensus" if you read certain books and follow certain media outlets. Having said that, this is the Appeal to Authority fallacy in it's purest form, you do understand that? Don't you have a mind of your own?
Fair enough. Cite just one respected news or historical publication that doesn't identify Oswald as the assassin. I would have no problem citing plenty that do.
For nearly five centuries the history books have said that Richard III killed the boys in the tower, or at least had them killed. Now we know it was Henry VII Tudor, to whom Richard III lost his crown, who most likely made up that story to justify his own reign. He also predated his reign with one day before the battle of Bosworth, so he could claim he was already king when he defeated the usurper Richard of York. History books and opinions are constantly updated and revisited. It's the victor who writes the history. If they get away with it or not depends on critical thinkers who challenge claims.
You really are an optimist if you think 500 years from now you and your CT comrades will be vindicated.
These resources also mention the fact that many people suspect he was part of a conspiracy.
Even if he was indeed a patsy, he still would have had to have been part of such conspiracy, whether he understood that at the time or not. Now before you go off on this. I have no idea if there actually was a conspiracy or not, nor do I know how Oswald would have fitted in.
Very convenient. By remaining agnostic, you relieve yourself of the burden of providing evidence to support your beliefs.
Even among CTs, the majority belief is that Oswald was one of the assassins.
Well, that's simply not true.
Every poll I remember doesn't even bother to ask people if the think Oswald was innocent. Apparently they pollsters take it as a given that Oswald was guilty. Given the amount of evidence against him, that is a very understandable POV. I have a vague memory of seeing a poll somewhere that included the option that Oswald was completely innocent and that number was in the single digits. I've searched for a poll that offers that as a choice and have come up empty. If you know of such a poll, by all means, post it.
It is only the loons who think he was innocent of both murders. As for me, I'm glad Oswald got murdered because he deserved it for what he did. I have no doubt he would have been convicted and sentenced to die but I seriously doubt the execution would have been carried out because SCOTUS struck down all existing death penalty statutes in 1972. The little bastard might still be thumbing his nose at us from the Texas state prison. There would probably even be people telling us he deserved parole. That almost worked for Sirhan Sirhan. The California parole board recommended he be released. In one of the few good acts of Gavin Newsom's career, he vetoed his parole board's decision. It's still possible Sirhan will eventually be released which would be a damn shame. He should have gone to the gas chamber 50 years ago.
So much anger and aggression. Hardly the words of a rational reasonable person.
My anger turned to glee when NBC's Frank McGee announced Oswald had died from his gunshot wounds. Oswald needed killing and Jack Ruby killed him.
Good job, Jack.
I'm glad Oswald got murdered
I'm not, because if he had not been murdered he could have told his side of the story and a trial would have eliminated a lot of assumptions and speculations.
A trial would have resulted in his conviction and death sentence, a sentence the very likely would never have been carried out. Oswald would have had a chance to live a long life behind bar. I'm glad he never got the chance.
-
You are really rationalizing your duplicitous conduct, aren't you?
You wouldn't say why you don't think it was a coincidence because that would put the burden on your to show evidence for your claim. I'm going to guess you are implying the fiber evidence was planted even though we both know you have no evidence that happened. If that's not what you were implying, why don't you tell us what you were implying when you said it was no coincidence.HINT: Look in the mirrorA jury convicted Wayne Williams primarily on fiber evidence. Apparently they didn't think it was BS. Neither do most thinking people.
So tell us why fiber evidence was proof beyond a reasonable doubt in the Wayne Williams case but isn't probative in the case against Oswald.
Fair enough. Cite just one respected news or historical publication that doesn't identify Oswald as the assassin. I would have no problem citing plenty that do.
You really are an optimist if you think 500 years from now you and your CT comrades will be vindicated.
Very convenient. By remaining agnostic, you relieve yourself of the burden of providing evidence to support your beliefs. Every poll I remember doesn't even bother to ask people if the think Oswald was innocent. Apparently they pollsters take it as a given that Oswald was guilty. Given the amount of evidence against him, that is a very understandable POV. I have a vague memory of seeing a poll somewhere that included the option that Oswald was completely innocent and that number was in the single digits. I've searched for a poll that offers that as a choice and have come up empty. If you know of such a poll, by all means, post it.
My anger turned to glee when NBC's Frank McGee announced Oswald had died from his gunshot wounds. Oswald needed killing and Jack Ruby killed him.
Good job, Jack.
A trial would have resulted in his conviction and death sentence, a sentence the very likely would never have been carried out. Oswald would have had a chance to live a long life behind bar. I'm glad he never got the chance.
You are really rationalizing your duplicitous conduct, aren't you?
No. It's not my problem thay you don't understand what quotation marks are used for.
You wouldn't say why you don't think it was a coincidence because that would put the burden on your to show evidence for your claim. I'm going to guess you are implying the fiber evidence was planted even though we both know you have no evidence that happened. If that's not what you were implying, why don't you tell us what you were implying when you said it was no coincidence.
Nice one. Moving the goalpost away from your ridiculous claims that fibers prove who fired the rifle and/of that it was Oswald's jacket that was found under the car.
Thank you for confirming that I do not need to show evidence because I never made any claim. It's actually a lot more fun to see you speculate, and you instantly started doing exactly that. What makes you think that I think fiber evidence was planted? If fibers similar to Oswald's shirt were found in a jacket that we know belonged to Oswald, then there is no reason to believe the fibers were planted. As for the rifle and the fibers found on that; if you claim those fibers matched the shirt Oswald was wearing on Friday morning, you need to prove that and it's pretty obvious you can't.
A jury convicted Wayne Williams primarily on fiber evidence. Apparently they didn't think it was BS. Neither do most thinking people. So tell us why fiber evidence was proof beyond a reasonable doubt in the Wayne Williams case but isn't probative in the case against Oswald.
I know nothing about that case, but even if that case and Oswald's case were perfectly similar, that still doesn't mean you will automatically the same outcome. A jury can be swayed by the arguments of a good prosecutor or defence lawyer (remember O.J.'s "I it don't fit you must aquit) and frequently juries get it wrong. All you need to look at are all the cases the innocence project has gotten overturned. You can't compare one case to another, no matter how hard you try.
Apparently they didn't think it was BS. Neither do most thinking people.
Just how many "thinking people" have you talked to, to justify that claim?
Cite just one respected news or historical publication that doesn't identify Oswald as the assassin. I would have no problem citing plenty that do.
I don't use history books or other material written by writers with an agenda, so I'm not going to do that. The only JFKA related book I've ever read is the WC report. I stayed well clear of all the other opinions by so-called researchers on both side. What I know about the case is what I found out by doing my own research. You should try it....
But I'll throw you a bone; even the plaque fixed to the former TSBD building says "when Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly shot and killed President Kennedy. Say enough, really....
You really are an optimist if you think 500 years from now you and your CT comrades will be vindicated.
Silly remark, which only shows your "us against them" mindset. I don't have CT comrades and I don't have to be vindicated for the simple fact of rejecting the BS you're trying to sell about this entire case.
Very convenient. By remaining agnostic, you relieve yourself of the burden of providing evidence to support your beliefs.
So, now you are a mind reader? What beliefs should I be supporting? I've told you what I think and even that's not good enough for you. Stop nagging, will ya!
Every poll I remember doesn't even bother to ask people if the think Oswald was innocent. Apparently they pollsters take it as a given that Oswald was guilty. Given the amount of evidence against him, that is a very understandable POV. I have a vague memory of seeing a poll somewhere that included the option that Oswald was completely innocent and that number was in the single digits. I've searched for a poll that offers that as a choice and have come up empty. If you know of such a poll, by all means, post it.
Oh boy, you claimed that "even among CTs, the majority belief is that Oswald was one of the assassins.". No mention of polls or anything. So, why don't we start with you claim and you provide evidence for it? If you don't, I'll take that as an admission for you making it up.
-
Coming back to a bit of previous conversation. Possibly I may have misunderstood what you were saying when you responded to my remark;
You couldn't even handle being schooled about the existence of documents about the Frazier polygraph, which you falsely claimed didn't exist and I made up. You even tried to weasel your way out of that one.
with;
My memory isn't as sharp as it once was but I don't recall making such a statement and given your propensity for creating strawman arguments by making up things that other people never actually said, I sure as hell am not going to take your word for it. Please tell us the thread, the date, and the time I made such a statement. If you can't do that, I'll take that as a tacit admission you made this one up too.
You probably referred to this;
Note to Martin Wiedmann:
This is how one provides a cite to support a statement one has made. I realize it's not possible for you to do this when you have just made something up out of thin air.
I didn't know how to post images on this forum, but I've had some help, so here is the evidence that you said didn't exist.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55212288775_19c9743617.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55211887491_789e0dc253.jpg)
Consider yourself schooled!
OK. I was wrong. You didn't make this up. You just lied about it. Earlier, you stated:
"The fact remains that Frazier passed the test and that was enough to cause massive panic by Lt Day"
Please point out anything in either document you posted that Day exhibited "massive panic". Sounds like Day's reaction was rather matter of fact.
Let me guess, you are now going to make a big deal out of the fact that I used the words "didn't exist" when you actually said I "just made something up out of thin air."
-
You are really rationalizing your duplicitous conduct, aren't you?
No. It's not my problem thay you don't understand what quotation marks are used for.
You wouldn't say why you don't think it was a coincidence because that would put the burden on your to show evidence for your claim. I'm going to guess you are implying the fiber evidence was planted even though we both know you have no evidence that happened. If that's not what you were implying, why don't you tell us what you were implying when you said it was no coincidence.
Nice one. Moving the goalpost away from your ridiculous claims that fibers prove who fired the rifle and/of that it was Oswald's jacket that was found under the car.
That is what the fibers indicate for anyone capable of adding 2 + 2 and getting the right answer. I guess that leaves you out.
Thank you for confirming that I do not need to show evidence because I never made any claim.
You seem to lack the intellectual courage to actually tell us what you believe. You seem to be more interested in playing word games. I've seen your kind before over the last 35 years. People who troll forums just to play word games without ever saying what they believe because that would require you to support what you say.
It's actually a lot more fun to see you speculate, and you instantly started doing exactly that. What makes you think that I think fiber evidence was planted? If fibers similar to Oswald's shirt were found in a jacket that we know belonged to Oswald, then there is no reason to believe the fibers were planted. As for the rifle and the fibers found on that; if you claim those fibers matched the shirt Oswald was wearing on Friday morning, you need to prove that and it's pretty obvious you can't.
More trolling. You add nothing to the discourse.
A jury convicted Wayne Williams primarily on fiber evidence. Apparently they didn't think it was BS. Neither do most thinking people. So tell us why fiber evidence was proof beyond a reasonable doubt in the Wayne Williams case but isn't probative in the case against Oswald.
I know nothing about that case, but even if that case and Oswald's case were perfectly similar, that still doesn't mean you will automatically the same outcome. A jury can be swayed by the arguments of a good prosecutor or defence lawyer (remember O.J.'s "I it don't fit you must aquit) and frequently juries get it wrong. All you need to look at are all the cases the innocence project has gotten overturned. You can't compare one case to another, no matter how hard you try.
I don't need a jury to tell me Oswald murdered two men on 11/22/1963 and you don't need a jury to play your silly games.
Apparently they didn't think it was BS. Neither do most thinking people.
Just how many "thinking people" have you talked to, to justify that claim?
The same number as I had before I started engaging with you.
Cite just one respected news or historical publication that doesn't identify Oswald as the assassin. I would have no problem citing plenty that do.
I don't use history books or other material written by writers with an agenda, so I'm not going to do that. The only JFKA related book I've ever read is the WC report. I stayed well clear of all the other opinions by so-called researchers on both side. What I know about the case is what I found out by doing my own research. You should try it....
You've never given any indication you know shit about the case. You're only here to play games. That's pretty obvious.
But I'll throw you a bone; even the plaque fixed to the former TSBD building says "when Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly shot and killed President Kennedy. Say enough, really....
The fact the built a museum on the same floor Oswald fired his shots from and created a glassed in enclosure around the location he fired from and installed a webcam there is a better indication of who they believe killed JFK.
You really are an optimist if you think 500 years from now you and your CT comrades will be vindicated.
Silly remark, which only shows your "us against them" mindset. I don't have CT comrades and I don't have to be vindicated for the simple fact of rejecting the BS you're trying to sell about this entire case.
You don't seem to have a pair either. I respect people who will say what they believe and defend those beliefs honestly, even if I disagree with them. That doesn't include you. You get your jollies by trolling. You've made that obvious.
Very convenient. By remaining agnostic, you relieve yourself of the burden of providing evidence to support your beliefs.
So, now you are a mind reader? What beliefs should I be supporting? I've told you what I think and even that's not good enough for you. Stop nagging, will ya!
I've come to realize you have no beliefs. You're a troll.
Every poll I remember doesn't even bother to ask people if the think Oswald was innocent. Apparently they pollsters take it as a given that Oswald was guilty. Given the amount of evidence against him, that is a very understandable POV. I have a vague memory of seeing a poll somewhere that included the option that Oswald was completely innocent and that number was in the single digits. I've searched for a poll that offers that as a choice and have come up empty. If you know of such a poll, by all means, post it.
Oh boy, you claimed that "even among CTs, the majority belief is that Oswald was one of the assassins.". No mention of polls or anything. So, why don't we start with you claim and you provide evidence for it? If you don't, I'll take that as an admission for you making it up.
I'm done playing your silly ass trolling games. When you grow the stones to tell us what you believe and are willing to support those beliefs, let me know. Until then, you aren't worth the time of day.
-
That is what the fibers indicate for anyone capable of adding 2 + 2 and getting the right answer. I guess that leaves you out.
You seem to lack the intellectual courage to actually tell us what you believe. You seem to be more interested in playing word games. I've seen your kind before over the last 35 years. People who troll forums just to play word games without ever saying what they believe because that would require you to support what you say.
More trolling. You add nothing to the discourse.
I don't need a jury to tell me Oswald murdered two men on 11/22/1963 and you don't need a jury to play your silly games.
The same number as I had before I started engaging with you.
You've never given any indication you know shit about the case. You're only here to play games. That's pretty obvious.
The fact the built a museum on the same floor Oswald fired his shots from and created a glassed in enclosure around the location he fired from and installed a webcam there is a better indication of who they believe killed JFK.
You don't seem to have a pair either. I respect people who will say what they believe and defend those beliefs honestly, even if I disagree with them. That doesn't include you. You get your jollies by trolling. You've made that obvious.
I've come to realize you have no beliefs. You're a troll.
I'm done playing your silly ass trolling games. When you grow the stones to tell us what you believe and are willing to support those beliefs, let me know. Until then, you aren't worth the time of day.
Wow, what a great example of LN rage and frustration! :D :D :D :D :D :D
That is what the fibers indicate for anyone capable of adding 2 + 2 and getting the right answer. I guess that leaves you out.
That's just another way of saying; with speculation and assumptions you can reach any conclusion you like (btw I left the quotation marks out so you won't get confused again)
You seem to lack the intellectual courage to actually tell us what you believe.
What I actually believe is that you haven't got sufficient credible evidence to support your wild claims.
You seem to be more interested in playing word games.
Project much?
More trolling. You add nothing to the discourse.
Just as I thought. You can't provide evidence for your claims about the fibers.
I don't need a jury to tell me Oswald murdered two men on 11/22/1963 and you don't need a jury to play your silly games.
What a silly remark. You are the one who is constantly going on about what a jury would do.
The same number as I had before I started engaging with you.
So, you've talked to none.... Thanks for clearing that up.
You've never given any indication you know shit about the case. You're only here to play games. That's pretty obvious.
That's only because you are so self-involved that you are not paying attention.
The fact the [sic] built a museum on the same floor Oswald fired his shots from and created a glassed in enclosure around the location he fired from and installed a webcam there is a better indication of who they believe killed JFK.
Gary Mack once told Dutch reporter Peter R. de Vries that they have never been able to place Oswald at the sniper's nest when the shots were fired. Chief Curry has said something similar. Everybody has an opinion. Your opinion isn't automatically the right one, even if you will never accept that it isn't.
But I will give you this. The 6th floor museum, although promoting the official narrative, is, unlike you, fair enough to allow and accept people who disagree with the official narrative to speak their mind.
A couple of year ago, they interviewed Wesley Buell Frasier, who was clear about how he saw Oswald carry the paper bag. It is now part of their record and that's how a museum should function.
I would have preferred a different approach than to go with the official narrative, but I fully understand why they did. Having said that, an actual museum normally doesn't promote a narrative but just tries to present the facts about what happened.
You don't seem to have a pair either. I respect people who will say what they believe and defend those beliefs honestly, even if I disagree with them. That doesn't include you. You get your jollies by trolling. You've made that obvious.
Tell the truth, weasel. You don't like me because I ask questions you don't like and can not answer. Stop whining and grow up!
I'm done playing your silly ass trolling games. When you grow the stones to tell us what you believe and are willing to support those beliefs, let me know. Until then, you aren't worth the time of day.
And yet another example of how you can't support your pathetic claims with evidence.
Btw, I understand that you are stuck and can't find the way out. I'm not holding it against you.
-
Wow, what a great example of LN rage and frustration! :D :D :D :D :D :D
That is what the fibers indicate for anyone capable of adding 2 + 2 and getting the right answer. I guess that leaves you out.
That's just another way of saying; with speculation and assumptions you can reach any conclusion you like (btw I left the quotation marks out so you won't get confused again)
You seem to lack the intellectual courage to actually tell us what you believe.
What I actually believe is that you haven't got sufficient credible evidence to support your wild claims.
You seem to be more interested in playing word games.
Project much?
More trolling. You add nothing to the discourse.
Just as I thought. You can't provide evidence for your claims about the fibers.
I don't need a jury to tell me Oswald murdered two men on 11/22/1963 and you don't need a jury to play your silly games.
What a silly remark. You are the one who is constantly going on about what a jury would do.
The same number as I had before I started engaging with you.
So, you've talked to none.... Thanks for clearing that up.
You've never given any indication you know shit about the case. You're only here to play games. That's pretty obvious.
That's only because you are so self-involved that you are not paying attention.
The fact the [sic] built a museum on the same floor Oswald fired his shots from and created a glassed in enclosure around the location he fired from and installed a webcam there is a better indication of who they believe killed JFK.
Gary Mack once told Dutch reporter Peter R. de Vries that they have never been able to place Oswald at the sniper's nest when the shots were fired. Chief Curry has said something similar. Everybody has an opinion. Your opinion isn't automatically the right one, even if you will never accept that it isn't.
But I will give you this. The 6th floor museum, although promoting the official narrative, is fair enough to allow people who disagree with the official narrative to speak their mind.
A couple of year ago, they interviewed Wesley Buell Frasier, who was clear about how he saw Oswald carry the paper bag. It is now part of their record and that's how a museum should function.
I would have preferred a different approach than to go with the official narrative, but I fully understand why they did. Having said that, an actual museum normally doesn't promote a narrative but just tries to present the facts about what happened.
You don't seem to have a pair either. I respect people who will say what they believe and defend those beliefs honestly, even if I disagree with them. That doesn't include you. You get your jollies by trolling. You've made that obvious.
Tell the truth, weasel. You don't like me because I ask questions you don't like and can not answer. Stop whining and grow up!
I'm done playing your silly ass trolling games. When you grow the stones to tell us what you believe and are willing to support those beliefs, let me know. Until then, you aren't worth the time of day.
And yet another example of how you can't support your pathetic claims with evidence.
Btw, I understand that you are stuck and can't find the way out. I'm not holding it against you.
Go away, troll
-
Go away, troll
Did I hit a nerve?
Did your "powers of persuasion" (see what I did there with the quotation marks?) fail you?
If you can't stand the heat, perhaps you should stay out of the kitchen :D
-
A. Earlene Roberts described Oswald as wearing a long sleeve shirt when he entered the boarding room. (She couldn’t tell what color) She said Oswald left the room wearing and zipping up a jacket which appeared to her darker than CE 162 the light gray jacket.(still could not tell what color).
B. Since CE 163, the Blue gray jacket was allegedly found in the Domino room albeit unknown whom found it, then either Oswald left CE 163 there or it was moved there a month later for some unknown reason.
C. Frazier describes Oswald wearing a jacket that was similar to the CE 162 light gray jacket to work on Friday.
D. McWatters the bus driver, said he saw the man to whom the bus transfer ticket was given, wearing a jacket. McWatters was not asked about the color of the jacket.
E. Whaley the taxi driver said he thought Oswald was wearing a jacket but what the color was could be either jacket.
F. Bledsoe said she was on McWatters bus and saw Oswald wearing the brown shirt with the hole in the sleeve.
A thru E can be reconciled as supporting a proposition that Oswald wore CE 162 to work Friday, then left TSBD Friday wearing it , then wore it on McWatters bus , wore it in Whaleys taxi and then Oswald entered the boarding house wearing it and finally left his room STILL wearing it and zipping it up.
Bledsoe cannot be reconciled at all with these other witnesses therefore she must be mistaken or she just wanted to claim she saw the hole because she already despised Oswald from previous experience as his landlady.
Thus the solution for the Blue Jacket found in the Domino Room may be that Oswald wore Both CE163 the Blue gray jacket and CE 162 light gray jacket to work on Thursday morning and left CE 163 in the Domino room on Thursday afternoon. Oswald wore just CE 162 when he got the ride with Frazier Thursday afternoon.
-
A. Earlene Roberts described Oswald as wearing a long sleeve shirt when he entered the boarding room. (She couldn’t tell what color) She said Oswald left the room wearing and zipping up a jacket which appeared to her darker than CE 162 the light gray jacket.(still could not tell what color).
B. Since CE 163, the Blue gray jacket was allegedly found in the Domino room albeit unknown whom found it, then either Oswald left CE 163 there or it was moved there a month later for some unknown reason.
C. Frazier describes Oswald wearing a jacket that was similar to the CE 162 light gray jacket to work on Friday.
D. McWatters the bus driver, said he saw the man to whom the bus transfer ticket was given, wearing a jacket. McWatters was not asked about the color of the jacket.
E. Whaley the taxi driver said he thought Oswald was wearing a jacket but what the color was could be either jacket.
F. Bledsoe said she was on McWatters bus and saw Oswald wearing the brown shirt with the hole in the sleeve.
A thru E can be reconciled as supporting a proposition that Oswald wore CE 162 to work Friday, then left TSBD Friday wearing it , then wore it on McWatters bus , wore it in Whaleys taxi and then Oswald entered the boarding house wearing it and finally left his room STILL wearing it and zipping it up.
Bledsoe cannot be reconciled at all with these other witnesses therefore she must be mistaken or she just wanted to claim she saw the hole because she already despised Oswald from previous experience as his landlady.
Thus the solution for the Blue Jacket found in the Domino Room may be that Oswald wore Both CE163 the Blue gray jacket and CE 162 light gray jacket to work on Thursday morning and left CE 163 in the Domino room on Thursday afternoon. Oswald wore just CE 162 when he got the ride with Frazier Thursday afternoon.
The problem with your analysis is that Bledsoe could not have seen the hole in the elbow of Oswald's shirt if he was wearing a jacket and Oswald's shirt had a hole in it when he was arrested. He had that same shirt on when he shot JFK because fibers matching that shirt were found on the butt plate of his rifle.
Second problem is why would Oswald wear both jackets. It wasn't that cold in Dallas that morning. You put too much faith in witnesses to tell you whether Oswald was wearing a jacket at any given time. Why would anyone notice that. How many passengers do you think McWatters picked up that day. How many of them do you think he could remember what they were wearing. Why would that even matter to him at the time. Same for Whaley. Oswald was just another fare for him at the time. Why would he even pay attention to what Oswald was wearing. These are just the kind of details witnesses get wrong because at the time they are seeing them, there's no reason for them to even make note of what someone was wearing. If they aren't making a mental note of it at the time, there is no reason to think they could remember it when asked about it later. The hard evidence tells us Oswald wore his blue jacket to work, left it in the TSBD when he fled, picked up his light gray jacket when he went to retrieve his revolver at the rooming house, then ditched it after he shot Tippit.
-
@JC : So you don’t think Oswald was wearing ANY jacket when he left TSBD?
-
@JC : So you don’t think Oswald was wearing ANY jacket when he left TSBD?
Definitely not.
My regard for witness testimony has always been consistent. If what they said fits with the other evidence, I believe them. If it doesn't, I don't. Not because I think they lied. I just don't see any reason for them to remember details that would have seemed unimportant to them at the time they saw those details.
-
The problem with your analysis is that Bledsoe could not have seen the hole in the elbow of Oswald's shirt if he was wearing a jacket and Oswald's shirt had a hole in it when he was arrested. He had that same shirt on when he shot JFK because fibers matching that shirt were found on the butt plate of his rifle.
Second problem is why would Oswald wear both jackets. It wasn't that cold in Dallas that morning. You put too much faith in witnesses to tell you whether Oswald was wearing a jacket at any given time. Why would anyone notice that. How many passengers do you think McWatters picked up that day. How many of them do you think he could remember what they were wearing. Why would that even matter to him at the time. Same for Whaley. Oswald was just another fare for him at the time. Why would he even pay attention to what Oswald was wearing. These are just the kind of details witnesses get wrong because at the time they are seeing them, there's no reason for them to even make note of what someone was wearing. If they aren't making a mental note of it at the time, there is no reason to think they could remember it when asked about it later. The hard evidence tells us Oswald wore his blue jacket to work, left it in the TSBD when he fled, picked up his light gray jacket when he went to retrieve his revolver at the rooming house, then ditched it after he shot Tippit.
The problem with your analysis is that Bledsoe could not have seen the hole in the elbow of Oswald's shirt if he was wearing a jacket
Of course she saw it, before her WC testimony, when they brought the shirt Oswald was arrested in to her home and showed it to her.
Mr. BALL - Now, I have got a piece of clothing here, which is marked---
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - Commission Exhibit 150.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - This is a shirt.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Because they brought it out to the house and showed it.
Mr. BALL - I know. What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, because I can recognize it.
Mr. BALL - Recognize it as what?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes, sir; see there?
Mr. BALL - Yes. You tell me what do you see here? What permits you to recognize it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I recognize---first thing I notice the elbow is out and then I saw---when the man brought it out and let me see it?
Mr. BALL - No, I am talking about---I am showing you this shirt now, and you said, "That is it." You mean---What do you mean by "that is it"?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is the one he had out there that day?
Mr. BALL - Who had it out there?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Some Secret Service man.
And this is where she gives up the game;
Mr. BALL - He brought it out. Now, I am---you have seen this shirt then before?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - It was brought out by the Secret Service man and shown to you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Had you ever seen the shirt before that?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well---
Mr. BALL - Have you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No; he had it on, though.
She saw Oswald wearing the shirt "before he was shot".
Mr. BALL - Who had it on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oswald.
Mr. BALL - Oswald had it on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oswald had it on.
Mr. BALL - Now, what is there about the shirt that makes you believe that this is the shirt that Oswald had on when he was on the bus? What is there about it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, let's see the front of it. Yes See all this [indicating]? I remember that.
Mr. BALL - Tell me what you see there?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I saw the---no; not so much that. It was done after---that is part I recognize more than anything.
Mr. BALL - You are pointing to a hole in the right elbow?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - What about the color?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, I---What do you mean?
Mr. BALL - Well----
Mrs. BLEDSOE - When he had it on?
Mr. BALL - Yes.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Before he was shot? Yes; I remember it being brown.
Bledsoe was all over the place and her testimony has no corroboration. She saw Oswald wear the shirt after he was arrested and before he was shot.
She recognized the shirt from when it was shown to her at her home.
He had that same shirt on when he shot JFK because fibers matching that shirt were found on the butt plate of his rifle.
:D :D :D :D
-
A. Earlene Roberts described Oswald as wearing a long sleeve shirt when he entered the boarding room. (She couldn’t tell what color) She said Oswald left the room wearing and zipping up a jacket which appeared to her darker than CE 162 the light gray jacket.(still could not tell what color).
B. Since CE 163, the Blue gray jacket was allegedly found in the Domino room albeit unknown whom found it, then either Oswald left CE 163 there or it was moved there a month later for some unknown reason.
C. Frazier describes Oswald wearing a jacket that was similar to the CE 162 light gray jacket to work on Friday.
D. McWatters the bus driver, said he saw the man to whom the bus transfer ticket was given, wearing a jacket. McWatters was not asked about the color of the jacket.
E. Whaley the taxi driver said he thought Oswald was wearing a jacket but what the color was could be either jacket.
F. Bledsoe said she was on McWatters bus and saw Oswald wearing the brown shirt with the hole in the sleeve.
A thru E can be reconciled as supporting a proposition that Oswald wore CE 162 to work Friday, then left TSBD Friday wearing it , then wore it on McWatters bus , wore it in Whaleys taxi and then Oswald entered the boarding house wearing it and finally left his room STILL wearing it and zipping it up.
Bledsoe cannot be reconciled at all with these other witnesses therefore she must be mistaken or she just wanted to claim she saw the hole because she already despised Oswald from previous experience as his landlady.
Thus the solution for the Blue Jacket found in the Domino Room may be that Oswald wore Both CE163 the Blue gray jacket and CE 162 light gray jacket to work on Thursday morning and left CE 163 in the Domino room on Thursday afternoon. Oswald wore just CE 162 when he got the ride with Frazier Thursday afternoon.
E. Whaley the taxi driver said he thought Oswald was wearing a jacket but what the color was could be either jacket.
Months before his Warren Commission testimony, no mention of a jacket....
(https://i.postimg.cc/NG9YBPnC/Whaley-No-Jacket.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/9zhsB1Cy)
-
Recall this to me in the jury room and she is OUT:
Mr. BALL - He brought it out. Now, I am---you have seen this shirt then before?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - It was brought out by the Secret Service man and shown to you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Had you ever seen the shirt before that?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well---
Mr. BALL - Have you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No; he had it on, though.
-
Months before rhis Warren Commission testimony, no mention of a jacket....
(https://i.postimg.cc/NG9YBPnC/Whaley-No-Jacket.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/9zhsB1Cy)
That last couple of sentences looks like to me the description of the man as 5ft 8in , slender wearing a dark shirt and white pants? And he was wearing a bracelet ?
Whaley repeated the bracelet detail in his WC testimony.
Bill do you know what the time was when Whaley wrote that statement?
Because if he wrote that statement before he saw any TV camera recordings or pictures of Oswald in newspapers then imo that bracelet detail supports that Whaley saw Oswald.
If however if the statement was written after Oswald was seen by millions holding up his hands handcuffed with the bracelet clearly visible, then given the discrepancy of Whaleys WC testimony about seeing a jacket, would that cast some reasonable doubt if he even ever had Oswald in the taxi at all?
-
That last couple of sentences looks like to me the description of the man as 5ft 8in , slender wearing a dark shirt and white pants? And he was wearing a bracelet ?
Whaley repeated the bracelet detail in his WC testimony.
Bill do you know what the time was when Whaley wrote that statement?
Because if he wrote that statement before he saw any TV camera recordings or pictures of Oswald in newspapers then imo that bracelet detail supports that Whaley saw Oswald.
If however if the statement was written after Oswald was seen by millions holding up his hands handcuffed with the bracelet clearly visible, then given the discrepancy of Whaleys WC testimony about seeing a jacket, would that cast some reasonable doubt if he even ever had Oswald in the taxi at all?
Whaley attended the lineup on Saturday afternoon around 2:15 p.m.
He wrote this statement shortly after viewing the lineup. So.....2:30 ish
-
I don't believe he WROTE that statement.
I think he had limited ability to read and write.
:) No mention of a jacket? So what. They didn't asked him.