JFK Assassination Forum

General Discussion & Debate => General Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Bill Brown on January 18, 2018, 12:12:50 PM

Title: Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 18, 2018, 12:12:50 PM
Housekeeper Earlene Roberts, to a radio reporter on the afternoon of the assassination, stated that Oswald was wearing a "short gray coat" as he left the rooming house.  She told the FBI that she remembered Oswald putting on a jacket and zipping it up as he went out the front door, adding that it was the type of jacket that zips up in the front.

Helen Markham, standing at the northwest corner of Tenth and Patton, testified to the Warren Commission that the cop-killer (who she positively identified as Lee Oswald) had on a short jacket that was open in the front and was grayish-tan in color.

Domingo Benavides, passing by in his pickup truck, saw Tippit's patrol car stopped near the curb and stated that the officer (Tippit) was talking to a man on foot.  Benavides heard the shots and saw the killer run from the scene.  Benavides testified to the Warren Commission that the killer was wearing a light-beige jacket, and that the jacket was lightweight.

William Scoggins, sitting in his cab (facing north on Patton towards the intersection with Tenth Street), was eating lunch when he noticed Tippit's patrol car travel from west to east on Tenth Street, crossing through the intersection with Patton.  Scoggins saw the patrol car come to a stop and noticed the officer having a conversation with a man who was walking on the sidewalk.  Scoggins heard the shots, looked up and saw the man running towards his cab.  Scoggins got out of his cab and hid beside it as the cop-killer passed.  He (Scoggins) testified that the man (who he positively identified as Lee Oswald) was wearing a jacket.

Barbara Davis was inside her house on Tenth Street (400 East Tenth St.) at the corner of Patton Avenue when she heard the gun shots.  She went to her front door and noticed a man (who she positively identified as Lee Oswald) cutting across her front yard, heading towards Patton with a gun in his hands.  She testified to the Warren Commission that the cop-killer had on a dark coat as he cut across her yard.

Virginia Davis was inside the same house on Tenth Street as was her sister-in-law, Barbara, when she heard the shots.  Virginia went to the door and saw a man cutting across the yard with a gun in his hands.  Virginia testified to the Warren Commission that the man (who she positively identified as Lee Oswald) had on a light-brown-tan jacket.

Ted Callaway was on the front porch of his office near the alley between Tenth and Jefferson when he heard the shots come from the vicinity of Tenth Street.  He saw a man (who he positively identified as Lee Oswald) cutting across the yard of the house on the corner (Barbara and Virginia Davis) and noticed William Scoggins ducking beside the cab as the man passed, running down Patton from Tenth, holding a gun in his hands.  Callaway stated that the man had on a light tannish-gray windbreaker jacket.  Callaway testified to the Warren Commission that CE-162 (the jacket found on the ground under a car at the Texaco lot) looked like the jacket that the man was wearing as he was running from the scene.

Sam Guinyard was on Patton Ave. when he heard the shots.  Like the others, Guinyard saw the man (who he positively identified as Lee Oswald) cut across the yard of the Davis house on the corner of Tenth and Patton.  Guinyard testified that the man was running down Patton with a gun in his hands.  Guinyard testified to the Warren Commission that Oswald was wearing sort of a light-gray-looking jacket as he ran from the scene.

Warren Reynolds was inside the office at Reynolds Motor Company, located on the corner of Patton and Jefferson.  Reynolds saw a man running down Patton with a gun in his hands and turn the corner onto Jefferson.   Reynolds stated that he followed the man, who he believed in his own mind was Lee Oswald, and saw him go behind the Texaco Station on Jefferson.

A light colored jacket (CE-162) was found on the ground under a car in the parking lot behind the Texaco station.

Johnny Brewer was working in his shoe shop on Jefferson Boulevard.  He noticed a man duck into the recessed area of the storefront, looking nervous and appearing to avoid the police cars that were racing up and down Jefferson with sirens blaring.  Brewer stated that the man, who he identified as Lee Oswald, was NOT wearing a jacket.

Why did Lee Oswald ditch his jacket?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on January 18, 2018, 12:53:07 PM
You mean LHO's "alleged jacket".

Domingo Benavides description of Tippit's killer compared to a photo taken of Ozzie on 11/22/63 while in DPD custody.


Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.

Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........

~snip~

Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3.jpg)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 18, 2018, 06:33:26 PM
Why did Lee Oswald ditch his jacket?

Uh, you haven't actually demonstrated that CE-162 was Oswald's jacket or was even ever on Oswald.

Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. "Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that

Mr. BALL. Does it look like, anything like, the jacket the man had on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It is short, open down the front. but that jacket it is a darker jacket than that, I know it was.
Mr. BALL. You don't think it was as light a jacket as that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, it was darker than that, I know it was.....

Mr. BELIN - I am handing you a jacket which has been marked as "Commission's Exhibit 163," and ask you to state whether this bears any similarity to the jacket you saw this man with the gun wearing?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say this looks just like it.   <--- Note that CE163 was the dark blue jacket found in the Domino room

Mr. BALL. I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. How is it different?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.

Mr. BALL. I have a jacket here Commission's Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that you saw across the street with a gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes; it sure does. Yes, that is the same type jacket. Actually, I thought it had a little more tan to it.

Police radio dictabelt:
279: We believe we've got this suspect on shooting this officer out here. Got his white jacket.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 18, 2018, 07:41:25 PM
You mean LHO's "alleged jacket".

Domingo Benavides description of Tippit's killer compared to a photo taken of Ozzie on 11/22/63 while in DPD custody.


Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.

Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........

~snip~

Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.

You've missed the point.

Regardless of whether CE-162 is Oswald's jacket or not (it is), the fact remains that he was seen by a multitude of witnesses (near the scene of the Tippit slaying) wearing a jacket.

Why did he have no jacket on when he was seen by Brewer?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 18, 2018, 07:45:57 PM
Uh, you haven't actually demonstrated that CE-162 was Oswald's jacket or was even ever on Oswald.

Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. "Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that

Mr. BALL. Does it look like, anything like, the jacket the man had on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It is short, open down the front. but that jacket it is a darker jacket than that, I know it was.
Mr. BALL. You don't think it was as light a jacket as that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, it was darker than that, I know it was.....

Mr. BELIN - I am handing you a jacket which has been marked as "Commission's Exhibit 163," and ask you to state whether this bears any similarity to the jacket you saw this man with the gun wearing?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say this looks just like it.   <--- Note that CE163 was the dark blue jacket found in the Domino room

Mr. BALL. I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. How is it different?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.

Mr. BALL. I have a jacket here Commission's Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that you saw across the street with a gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes; it sure does. Yes, that is the same type jacket. Actually, I thought it had a little more tan to it.

Police radio dictabelt:
279: We believe we've got this suspect on shooting this officer out here. Got his white jacket.

You've also missed the point.

Whether the jacket that Oswald was wearing was white, gray, black or even rainbow colored... he had a jacket on one minute and "15 to 20 minutes" later, he had no jacket on.

What happened to Oswald's white/gray/black/rainbow jacket?

Oswald was seen by Reynolds and Patterson entering the lot behind the Texaco station.  A jacket was found on the ground there.  Oswald, minutes later, is seen without a jacket.

Regardless of what color it was, why did Oswald ditch his jacket?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 18, 2018, 07:51:58 PM
Dark blue, gray-black and orange-yellow cotton fibers were removed from one of the sleeves of the jacket that was found on the ground in the lot behind the Texaco station.

These fibers removed from the sleeve of the jacket (CE-162) match the microscopic characteristics of the dark blue, gray-black and orange-yellow cotton fibers which composed the Oswald arrest shirt.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 18, 2018, 08:05:05 PM
Uh, you haven't actually demonstrated that CE-162 was Oswald's jacket or was even ever on Oswald.

Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. "Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that

Mr. BALL. Does it look like, anything like, the jacket the man had on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It is short, open down the front. but that jacket it is a darker jacket than that, I know it was.
Mr. BALL. You don't think it was as light a jacket as that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, it was darker than that, I know it was.....

Mr. BELIN - I am handing you a jacket which has been marked as "Commission's Exhibit 163," and ask you to state whether this bears any similarity to the jacket you saw this man with the gun wearing?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say this looks just like it.   <--- Note that CE163 was the dark blue jacket found in the Domino room

Mr. BALL. I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. How is it different?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.

Mr. BALL. I have a jacket here Commission's Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that you saw across the street with a gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes; it sure does. Yes, that is the same type jacket. Actually, I thought it had a little more tan to it.

Police radio dictabelt:
279: We believe we've got this suspect on shooting this officer out here. Got his white jacket.

Uh, you haven't actually demonstrated that CE-162 was Oswald's jacket or was even ever on Oswald.

Actually, and even worse, the entire claim that Oswald left the roominghouse wearing a jacket is based completely on the statements of one woman, who by her own admission was paying more attention to getting the TV to work and who her employer warned the WC about as she was known for "making up tales".

There is no corroboration for the claim that Oswald left the roominghouse wearing a jacket.

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 18, 2018, 08:08:29 PM
Uh, you haven't actually demonstrated that CE-162 was Oswald's jacket or was even ever on Oswald.

Actually, and even worse, the entire claim that Oswald left the roominghouse wearing a jacket is based completely on the statements of one woman, who by her own admission was paying more attention to getting the TV to work and who her employer warned the WC about as she was known for "making up tales".

There is no corroboration for the claim that Oswald left the roominghouse wearing a jacket.

If only one person was present when Oswald left the rooming house, how could there be any corroboration?

At least eight witnesses saw Lee Oswald wearing a jacket in Oak Cliff and then Johnny Brewer sees him without a jacket.

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 18, 2018, 09:31:36 PM

Running south on Patton on both sides of the street...


If Oswald did not leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket, then who did those Tippit witnesses see running wearing a jacket?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 18, 2018, 09:45:22 PM
Running south on Patton on both sides of the street...

Yet, none of them say that there were two assailants.

Therefore, you have to ask yourself what is more likely.

1.  Some witnesses saw Oswald flee the scene on one side of Patton and others saw Oswald flee on the other side of Patton (Oswald did indeed cross Patton from one side to the other at some point).

2.  There were two assailants, each on their own side of Patton and going totally unnoticed by the witnesses who saw the other assailant coming down the other side of Patton.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 18, 2018, 09:47:25 PM
If Oswald did not leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket, then who did those Tippit witnesses see running wearing a jacket?

Faulty logic.

The only person who saw Oswald leave the rooming house said that he was zipping up a jacket as he was going out the door.  No one else saw Oswald leave the house.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 18, 2018, 09:49:21 PM
When you explain how LHO left the TSBD with no jacket but then suddenly had one when Whaley allegedly saw him then we can move onto your point.

We?  You're a funny guy.

I've already moved on to my point without you.  So have others.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on January 18, 2018, 10:07:25 PM
You've missed the point.

Regardless of whether CE-162 is Oswald's jacket or not (it is), the fact remains that he was seen by a multitude of witnesses (near the scene of the Tippit slaying) wearing a jacket.

Why did he have no jacket on when he was seen by Brewer?

Benevide's description of Tippit's killer doesn't match a photo taken of Oswald while in custody on

11/22/63.

Benevides was across the street from Tippit, 15 feet away, when he was shot and got a better look at the

murderer than any other witness.

Legally, one piece of exculpatory evidence, or in this case witness, can nullify any number of witnesses or

pieces of evidence.

If Tippit's murderer ditched his jacket and Oswald was arrested without a jacket that doesn't make him

the killer.

The found jacket was too big for Ozzie and it contained laundry tags from being commercially cleaned.

Marina did his laundry.

etc. etc. etc.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 18, 2018, 10:20:20 PM
Benevide's description of Tippit's killer doesn't match a photo taken of Oswald while in custody on

11/22/63.

Benevides was across the street from Tippit, 15 feet away, when he was shot and got a better look at the

murderer than any other witness.

Legally, one piece of exculpatory evidence, or in this case witness, can nullify any number of witnesses or

pieces of evidence.

If Tippit's murderer ditched his jacket and Oswald was arrested without a jacket that doesn't make him

the killer.

The found jacket was too big for Ozzie and it contained laundry tags from being commercially cleaned.

Marina did his laundry.

etc. etc. etc.


Quote
Benevide's description of Tippit's killer doesn't match a photo taken of Oswald while in custody on 11/22/63.

Yes, I know... based on his "tapered hairline".  Right?  LOL


Quote
Benevides was across the street from Tippit, 15 feet away, when he was shot and got a better look at the murderer than any other witness.

Markham got just as good a look at the murderer as did Bneavides.

Scoggins, Callaway and Guinyard got just as good a look at the man running from the scene with a gun in his hands as did Benavides.

Benavides never said that the murderer was not Oswald.


Quote
Legally, one piece of exculpatory evidence, or in this case witness, can nullify any number of witnesses or pieces of evidence.

But, there is not even one piece of exculpatory evidence in the case of Tippit's murder by Oswald.

If you choose, name any evidence which you feel is exculpatory and we can discuss it.


Quote
If Tippit's murderer ditched his jacket and Oswald was arrested without a jacket that doesn't make him the killer.

True.  Simply ditching a jacket doesn't automatically mean one is guilty of killing a police officer.

Oswald was seen by at least eight witnesses running from the scene with a gun in his hands and wearing a jacket.  Can you explain why Oswald would ditch his jacket?


Quote
The found jacket was too big for Ozzie and it contained laundry tags from being commercially cleaned.

This argument is almost almost as lame as the tapered hairline argument.

The jacket was a size medium.  Oswald was a size small.  God forbid (with apologies to John Iacoletti) a small man should ever wear a medium sized jacket.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 18, 2018, 10:22:13 PM
Of course you have since your points require absolutely NO supporting evidence at all.

The jacket found was WHITE. Live with it.

Why did Oswald ditch his jacket?  Whether it was white, gray, black, bright yellow or lime green, why take it off and discard it?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on January 18, 2018, 10:25:09 PM

Yes, I know... based on his "tapered hairline".  Right?  LOL


Markham got just as good a look at the murderer as did Bneavides.

Scoggins, Callaway and Guinyard got just as good a look at the man running from the scene with a gun in his hands as did Benavides.

Benavides never said that the murderer was not Oswald.


But, there is not even one piece of exculpatory evidence in the case of Tippit's murder by Oswald.

If you choose, name any evidence which you feel is exculpatory and we can discuss it.


True.  Simply ditching a jacket doesn't automatically mean one is guilty of killing a police officer.

Oswald was seen by at least eight witnesses running from the scene with a gun in his hands and wearing a jacket.  Can you explain why Oswald would ditch his jacket?


This argument is almost almost as lame as the tapered hairline argument.

The jacket was a size medium.  Oswald was a size small.  God forbid (with apologies to John Iacoletti) a small man should ever wear a medium sized jacket.


"The jacket was a size medium.  Oswald was a size small.  God forbid (with apologies to John Iacoletti) a small man should ever wear a medium sized jacket."

So which of the witnesses described Tippit"s murderer wearing an oversized jacket?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 18, 2018, 10:26:35 PM

"The jacket was a size medium.  Oswald was a size small.  God forbid (with apologies to John Iacoletti) a small man should ever wear a medium sized jacket."

So which of the witnesses described Tippit"s murderer wearing an oversized jacket?

Oversized?  From small to medium?  LOL
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on January 18, 2018, 10:28:59 PM
Oversized?  From small to medium?  LOL

I'll take that as none.

Not one alleged witness described Ozzie wearing a jacket that was too big.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 18, 2018, 10:46:30 PM
I'll take that as none.

Not one alleged witness described Ozzie wearing a jacket that was too big.




Mr. BELIN - What did you see then?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I then pulled on up and I seen this officer standing by the door. The door was open to the car, and I was pretty close to him, and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the other side of the car.


Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. V DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in that room?
Mrs. B DAVIS. Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.

Mr. CALLAWAY. No. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." So they brought four men in.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.
Mr. BALL. You mean he looked like the same man?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Then what did you do?
Mr. GUINYARD. I was looking--trying to see and after I heard the third shot, then Oswald came through on Patton running---came right through the yard in front of the big white house---there's a big two-story white house---there's two of them there and he come through the one right on the corner of Patton.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.


Mr. BELIN. Four? Did any one of the people look anything like strike that. Did you identify anyone in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I identified him.


RUSSELL positively identified a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans Police Department # 112723, taken August 9, 1963, as being identical with the individual he had observed at the scene of the shooting of Dallas Police Officer J.D. TIPPIT on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas.
 

Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.




JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 18, 2018, 10:48:42 PM
Mr. BELIN - What did you see then?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I then pulled on up and I seen this officer standing by the door. The door was open to the car, and I was pretty close to him, and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the other side of the car.


Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. V DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in that room?
Mrs. B DAVIS. Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.

Mr. CALLAWAY. No. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." So they brought four men in.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.
Mr. BALL. You mean he looked like the same man?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Then what did you do?
Mr. GUINYARD. I was looking--trying to see and after I heard the third shot, then Oswald came through on Patton running---came right through the yard in front of the big white house---there's a big two-story white house---there's two of them there and he come through the one right on the corner of Patton.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.


Mr. BELIN. Four? Did any one of the people look anything like strike that. Did you identify anyone in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I identified him.


RUSSELL positively identified a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans Police Department # 112723, taken August 9, 1963, as being identical with the individual he had observed at the scene of the shooting of Dallas Police Officer J.D. TIPPIT on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas.
 

Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.



JohnM

But John, the jacket was a Medium, not a Small.  LOL
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 18, 2018, 10:54:05 PM
Of course you have since your points require absolutely NO supporting evidence at all.

The jacket found was WHITE. Live with it.



It was a BRIGHT and SUNNY day and the following comparison is proof positive that the jacket appears much much lighter under BRIGHT and SUNNY conditions, so your evidence which relies on a personal interpretation of white under difficult lighting conditions is absolutely laughable!

(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/post-3674-043737100%201315564429.jpg)

And besides all that, the Jacket was initialed and is official evidence.

(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/post-5639-024448100%201315611845.gif)



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on January 18, 2018, 10:56:08 PM
from
"VINNIE IT IS ROUND"
by Mark Lane


                     "The Commission claimed that Mrs. Markham identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man who shot the policeman at a line up on November 22 and that in testimony before the Commission, Mrs. Markham confirmed herpositive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man she saw kill Officer Tippit. Captain Fritz - who needed that identification real quickly -- testified that the lineup was hurriedly arranged at 4:30 that afternoon, less than three and a half hours after Tippit's death and less than that after Oswald's arrest. Mrs Markham was "quite hysterical"when she arrived at police headquarters. Her state and the atmosphere in the lineup room are best described by therecord of her testimony."

Q: Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?

Markham: Yes , sir.

Q: Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?

Markham: No, sir

Q: You did not? Did you see anybody-I have asked you that question before-did you recognize anybody from their face?

          "Counsel wished to remind Mrs. Markham that when he had prepared her for her testimony, before
a record of her answers was made, the matter had been discussed. To prepare a witness for testimony may
be acceptable where adversary and hostile cross-examination is expected, and it is also a legitimate way of
preventing repetition and irrelevant conjecture. The record of the Warren Commission, however, reveals no
such cross-examination and was burdened to such a degree by repetition and irrelevance that the initial
preparation seems to have been for the purpose of leading the witness to give an appropiate answer."


Markham: From their face, no.

Q: Did you identify anybody in these four people?

Markham: I didn't know nobody.

Q: I know you didn't know nobody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?

Markham: No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.

Q: No one of the four?

Markham: No one of them.

Q: No one of the four?

Markham: No, sir.

        "At this point counsel, a teacher of criminal law and procedure at the University of Southern California anda member of the U.S. Judical Conference Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, asked arather leading question. Mrs. Markham said that she recognized no one at the lineup; counsel tried five times for amore acceptable answer. Then, departing a little from the legal procedure he teaches, he next asked his friendly but disconcerting witness, "Was there a number two man in there?" Mrs. Markham replied, "Number two is the one I picked." Counsel began another question:"I thought you just told me that you hadn't, but Mrs. Markham interrupted to answer inexplicably, "I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing."

Counsel then inquired:


Q: You recognized him from his appearance?

Markham: I asked-I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.

        "A mystical identification at best. However, the Commission was satisfied that its lawyer had at last
obtained the right answer: "Addressing itself solely to the probative value of Mrs. Markham's contemporaneous discription of the gunman and her identification of Oswald at a police lineup, the Commission considers her testimony reliable."
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on January 18, 2018, 11:00:37 PM
Domingo Benavides description of Tippit's killer compared to a photo taken of Ozzie on 11/22/63 while in DPD custody.


Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.

Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........

~snip~

Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3.jpg)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 18, 2018, 11:03:19 PM
from
"VINNIE IT IS ROUND"
by Mark Lane


                     "The Commission claimed that Mrs. Markham identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man who shot
the policeman at a line up on November 22 and that in testimony before the Commission, Mrs. Markham confirmed her
positive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man she saw kill Officer Tippit. Captain Fritz - who needed that
identification real quickly -- testified that the lineup was hurriedly arranged at 4:30 that afternoon, less than three
and a half hours after Tippit's death and less than that after Oswald's arrest. Mrs Markham was "quite hysterical"
when she arrived at police headquarters. Her state and the atmosphere in the lineup room are best described by the
record of her testimony."


Q: Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?

Markham: Yes , sir.

Q: Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?

Markham: No, sir

Q: You did not? Did you see anybody-I have asked you that question before-did you recognize anybody from their face?

          "Counsel wished to remind Mrs. Markham that when he had prepared her for her testimony, before
a record of her answers was made, the matter had been discussed. To prepare a witness for testimony may
be acceptable where adversary and hostile cross-examination is expected, and it is also a legitimate way of
preventing repetition and irrelevant conjecture. The record of the Warren Commission, however, reveals no
such cross-examination and was burdened to such a degree by repetition and irrelevance that the initial
preparation seems to have been for the purpose of leading the witness to give an appropiate answer."


Markham: From their face, no.

Q: Did you identify anybody in these four people?

Markham: I didn't know nobody.

Q: I know you didn't know nobody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?

Markham: No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.

Q: No one of the four?

Markham: No one of them.

Q: No one of the four?

Markham: No, sir.

        "At this point counsel, a teacher of criminal law and procedure at the University of Southern California and
a member of the U.S. Judical Conference Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, asked a
rather leading question. Mrs. Markham said that she recognized no one at the lineup; counsel tried five times for a
more acceptable answer. Then, departing a little from the legal procedure he teaches, he next asked his friendly but
disconcerting witness, "Was there a number two man in there?" Mrs. Markham replied, "Number two is the one I
picked." Counsel began another question:"I thought you just told me that you hadn't, but Mrs. Markham interrupted
to answer inexplicably, "I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing."

Counsel then inquired:


Q: You recognized him from his appearance?

Markham: I asked-I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.

        "A mystical identification at best. However, the Commission was satisfied that its lawyer had at last
obtained the right answer: "Addressing itself solely to the probative value of Mrs. Markham's contemporaneous
discription of the gunman and her identification of Oswald at a police lineup, the Commission considers her
testimony reliable."




So she didn't understand 1  clearly ambiguous question, WOW, is that all you got?

And as for the identification it wasn't the exact same Oswald, this future Oswald was bruised, cut and had a huge welt over his left eye, so a little trepidation is not only accepted but is welcome with open arms because her slight hesitation can only further reinforce her positive identification.

Try again!



JohnM



Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 18, 2018, 11:11:29 PM
Domingo Benavides description of Tippit's killer compared to a photo taken of Ozzie on 11/22/63 while in DPD custody.


Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.

Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........

~snip~

Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3.jpg)




Oswald's wind breaker type jacket was designed so the collar could be used as to protect your neck and as can be seen it's natural state was up.

(http://harveyandlee.net/November/Jacket%20CE%20162.jpg)

So obviously Oswald's Jacket itself was creating a squared off edge. Just like in the following photo.

(https://s17.postimg.org/up2kfzefj/back_jacket.jpg)



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on January 18, 2018, 11:21:45 PM


So she didn't understand 1  clearly ambiguous question, WOW, is that all you got?

And as for the identification it wasn't the exact same Oswald, this future Oswald was bruised, cut and had a huge welt over his left eye, so a little trepidation is not only accepted but is welcome with open arms because her slight hesitation can only further reinforce her positive identification.

Try again!



JohnM

"So she didn't understand 1  clearly ambiguous question"

 ::)

You might want to look up "ambiguous" in a non LNer Dictionary.


Q: Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?

Markham: No, sir
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 18, 2018, 11:27:00 PM
"So she didn't understand 1  clearly ambiguous question"

 ::)

You might want to look up "ambiguous" in a non LNer Dictionary.


Q: Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?

Markham: No, sir



Exactly, you do realize that Iacoletti argued for weeks, at which point someone was known and unknown and by whom, and you expect Markham to act how you want and if not you throw her under a bus for what is perfectly explainable, you Oswald fanatics are beyond reason.



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on January 18, 2018, 11:31:47 PM

Exactly, you do realize that Iacoletti argued for weeks, at which point someone was known and unknown and by whom, and you expect Markham to act how you want and if not you throw her under a bus for what is perfectly explainable, you Oswald fanatics are beyond reason.

JohnM

Could you translate your response into adult english.

I don't understand gibberish.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 18, 2018, 11:37:13 PM
Could you translate your response into adult english.

I don't understand gibberish.





Up until now you've shown a clear lack of comprehending anything that convicts Oswald, so further clarifying a fact that you have no desire in accepting would be futile.



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on January 18, 2018, 11:52:34 PM

Up until now you've shown a clear lack of comprehending anything that convicts Oswald, so further clarifying a fact that you have no desire in accepting would be futile.

JohnM

Here's where you knuckle heads don't get it.

Oswald wasn't convicted of anything. He never went to trial. He never even got to talk to a lawyer before

being lynched.

The WCR is the uncontested prosecution case against him.

Comprehending it isn't a problem.

It's veracity is though.


Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 18, 2018, 11:56:50 PM
Here's where you knuckle heads don't get it.

Oswald wasn't convicted of anything. He never went to trial. He never even got to talk to a lawyer before

being lynched.

The WCR is the uncontested prosecution case against him.

Comprehending it isn't a problem.

It's veracity is though.



Hitler never went to trial, was he also innocent? Hahaha!



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 19, 2018, 12:06:35 AM
Scoggins, Callaway and Guinyard got just as good a look at the man running from the scene with a gun in his hands as did Benavides.

The same man on both sides of the street passing Callaway's lot ... seriuosly?

So then you do believe that there were two assailants, each on their own side of Patton and going totally unnoticed by the witnesses who saw the other assailant coming down the other side of Patton.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 19, 2018, 12:11:08 AM
from
"VINNIE IT IS ROUND"
by Mark Lane


                     "The Commission claimed that Mrs. Markham identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man who shot the policeman at a line up on November 22 and that in testimony before the Commission, Mrs. Markham confirmed herpositive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man she saw kill Officer Tippit. Captain Fritz - who needed that identification real quickly -- testified that the lineup was hurriedly arranged at 4:30 that afternoon, less than three and a half hours after Tippit's death and less than that after Oswald's arrest. Mrs Markham was "quite hysterical"when she arrived at police headquarters. Her state and the atmosphere in the lineup room are best described by therecord of her testimony."

Q: Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?

Markham: Yes , sir.

Q: Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?

Markham: No, sir

Q: You did not? Did you see anybody-I have asked you that question before-did you recognize anybody from their face?

          "Counsel wished to remind Mrs. Markham that when he had prepared her for her testimony, before
a record of her answers was made, the matter had been discussed. To prepare a witness for testimony may
be acceptable where adversary and hostile cross-examination is expected, and it is also a legitimate way of
preventing repetition and irrelevant conjecture. The record of the Warren Commission, however, reveals no
such cross-examination and was burdened to such a degree by repetition and irrelevance that the initial
preparation seems to have been for the purpose of leading the witness to give an appropiate answer."


Markham: From their face, no.

Q: Did you identify anybody in these four people?

Markham: I didn't know nobody.

Q: I know you didn't know nobody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?

Markham: No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.

Q: No one of the four?

Markham: No one of them.

Q: No one of the four?

Markham: No, sir.

        "At this point counsel, a teacher of criminal law and procedure at the University of Southern California anda member of the U.S. Judical Conference Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, asked arather leading question. Mrs. Markham said that she recognized no one at the lineup; counsel tried five times for amore acceptable answer. Then, departing a little from the legal procedure he teaches, he next asked his friendly but disconcerting witness, "Was there a number two man in there?" Mrs. Markham replied, "Number two is the one I picked." Counsel began another question:"I thought you just told me that you hadn't, but Mrs. Markham interrupted to answer inexplicably, "I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing."

Counsel then inquired:


Q: You recognized him from his appearance?

Markham: I asked-I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.

        "A mystical identification at best. However, the Commission was satisfied that its lawyer had at last
obtained the right answer: "Addressing itself solely to the probative value of Mrs. Markham's contemporaneous discription of the gunman and her identification of Oswald at a police lineup, the Commission considers her testimony reliable."


"Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman."

Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two is the one I picked.
Mr. BALL. Well, I thought you just told me that you hadn't--
Mrs. MARKHAM. I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing.
Mr. BALL. No. I wanted to know if that day when you were in there if you saw anyone in there--
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two.
Mr. BALL. What did you say when you saw number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, let me tell you. I said the second man, and they kept asking me which one, which one. I said, number two. When I said number two, I just got weak.
Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 19, 2018, 12:36:16 AM
You've missed the point.

Regardless of whether CE-162 is Oswald's jacket or not (it is), the fact remains that he was seen by a multitude of witnesses (near the scene of the Tippit slaying) wearing a jacket.

Why did he have no jacket on when he was seen by Brewer?

Somebody was wearing a jacket.  There's no good reason to think that it was the same guy Brewer saw.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 19, 2018, 12:43:44 AM
Dark blue, gray-black and orange-yellow cotton fibers were removed from one of the sleeves of the jacket that was found on the ground in the lot behind the Texaco station.

These fibers removed from the sleeve of the jacket (CE-162) match the microscopic characteristics of the dark blue, gray-black and orange-yellow cotton fibers which composed the Oswald arrest shirt.

Can you prove that those fibers came from that shirt to the exclusion of any other shirt?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 19, 2018, 12:44:55 AM
Uh, you haven't actually demonstrated that CE-162 was Oswald's jacket or was even ever on Oswald.

Actually, and even worse, the entire claim that Oswald left the roominghouse wearing a jacket is based completely on the statements of one woman, who by her own admission was paying more attention to getting the TV to work and who her employer warned the WC about as she was known for "making up tales".

There is no corroboration for the claim that Oswald left the roominghouse wearing a jacket.

But the same guys will jump up and down about how Frazier was not paying attention to the bag.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 19, 2018, 12:45:39 AM
Somebody was wearing a jacket.  There's no good reason to think that it was the same guy Brewer saw.




Yeah, Brewer saw that Oswald imposter, the one who was 5'11", fatter, uglier and had a mom who was a beauty queen, or something like that, you CK's are hilarious!



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 19, 2018, 12:49:57 AM
Yet, none of them say that there were two assailants.

Acquilla Clemons did.  So did Frank Wright.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 19, 2018, 12:51:41 AM
Can you prove that those fibers came from that shirt to the exclusion of any other shirt?




Iacoletti, you've been told, the prohibitive probability is that those fibers came from the shirt Oswald was wearing.
Oswald's rifle and now in addition we have Oswald's jacket having matching fibers to Oswald's shirt, so we can exponentially increase the original prohibitive probability to the power of ten, your client is fcuked!



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 19, 2018, 12:51:58 AM
Somebody was wearing a jacket.  There's no good reason to think that it was the same guy Brewer saw.

Many witnesses positively identified Oswald in the vicinity of Tenth and Patton, running with a gun in his hands and wearing a jacket.

Brewer saw a guy, who he said was Oswald, without a jacket.

Each of us can, on our own, choose to determine how much credibility to give these witnesses.  Some can accept the obvious, that the witnesses near Tenth and Patton saw the same man that Brewer saw.  Others can jump through any hoop that they have to in order to place guilt on anyone other than the actual cop-killer.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 19, 2018, 12:52:06 AM
The jacket was a size medium.  Oswald was a size small.  God forbid (with apologies to John Iacoletti) a small man should ever wear a medium sized jacket.

Is this supposed to somehow prove that CE162 was Oswald's jacket?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 19, 2018, 12:53:09 AM
But John, the jacket was a Medium, not a Small.  LOL

But Bill, none of these people witnessed a crime.  LOL.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 19, 2018, 12:53:53 AM
Acquilla Clemons did.  So did Frank Wright.




2, is that it?

Mr. BELIN - What did you see then?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I then pulled on up and I seen this officer standing by the door. The door was open to the car, and I was pretty close to him, and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the other side of the car.


Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. V DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in that room?
Mrs. B DAVIS. Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.

Mr. CALLAWAY. No. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." So they brought four men in.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.
Mr. BALL. You mean he looked like the same man?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Then what did you do?
Mr. GUINYARD. I was looking--trying to see and after I heard the third shot, then Oswald came through on Patton running---came right through the yard in front of the big white house---there's a big two-story white house---there's two of them there and he come through the one right on the corner of Patton.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.


Mr. BELIN. Four? Did any one of the people look anything like strike that. Did you identify anyone in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I identified him.


RUSSELL positively identified a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans Police Department # 112723, taken August 9, 1963, as being identical with the individual he had observed at the scene of the shooting of Dallas Police Officer J.D. TIPPIT on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas.
 

Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.




JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 19, 2018, 12:54:16 AM
And besides all that, the Jacket was initialed and is official evidence.

They couldn't even figure out who found it.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 19, 2018, 12:56:07 AM
Is this supposed to somehow prove that CE162 was Oswald's jacket?




Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's--an old shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Sort of a jacket?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.




JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 19, 2018, 12:56:37 AM
They couldn't even figure out who found it.



So what?



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 19, 2018, 12:56:59 AM
So she didn't understand 1  clearly ambiguous question, WOW, is that all you got?

"Clearly ambiguous".  LOL.  "Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?"

Quote
And as for the identification it wasn't the exact same Oswald, this future Oswald was bruised, cut and had a huge welt over his left eye, so a little trepidation is not only accepted but is welcome with open arms because her slight hesitation can only further reinforce her positive identification.

Let me get this straight.  He didn't look the same, therefore he must have been the same?

"Slight hesitation"?  She said "no" 6 times!
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 19, 2018, 12:58:10 AM
So obviously Oswald's Jacket itself was creating a squared off edge. Just like in the following photo.

Why is your opinion always the "obvious" one?  And how do you know the guy in your little photo has a tapered haircut?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 19, 2018, 12:59:28 AM
Exactly, you do realize that Iacoletti argued for weeks, at which point someone was known and unknown and by whom, and you expect Markham to act how you want and if not you throw her under a bus for what is perfectly explainable, you Oswald fanatics are beyond reason.

"Perfectly explainable" with lame LN excuses.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 19, 2018, 01:06:07 AM
"Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman"

Nice cherry-pick.  Keep in mind, this is the same "utter screwball" who claimed

- Tippit tried to talk to her and knew she was there, even though he was killed instantly.
- She was there all by herself screaming for help for 5-10 minutes but nobody responded.
- She tried to save Tippit's life.
- She tried to use Tippit's police radio to call for help.
- That the man talked to Tippit through the passenger side window, but it was rolled up.
- That Benavides was a policeman.

Ball had to not only lead her into saying that she recognized someone in the lineup, but he even had to explain to her where she was standing when the event occurred.  Ball also had to lead her into identifying that the stain in the street on a photo was the same place she saw a pool of blood.

But let's ignore all that and just go with "Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman".
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 19, 2018, 01:07:36 AM
Iacoletti, you've been told, the prohibitive probability is that those fibers came from the shirt Oswald was wearing.

"Prohibitive probability" is Bugliosi-speak for "similar".
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 19, 2018, 01:09:36 AM
Many witnesses positively identified Oswald in the vicinity of Tenth and Patton, running with a gun in his hands and wearing a jacket.

In unfair and invalid lineups and photo showups.

Quote
Each of us can, on our own, choose to determine how much credibility to give these witnesses.  Some can accept the obvious, that the witnesses near Tenth and Patton saw the same man that Brewer saw.  Others can jump through any hoop that they have to in order to place guilt on anyone other than the actual cop-killer.

Something doesn't just become "obvious" because it's your unsubstantiated opinion.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 19, 2018, 01:09:56 AM
"Clearly ambiguous".  LOL.  "Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?"



-sigh-

Why is this a problem, she clearly was under the impression if she knew any of the men before 1:15 on the 22nd and she said no, Ball should have seen the problem immediately and rephrased the question.
Besides Markham was in front of some of the most powerful men in the country and they were investigating the death of the President of her country Markham being a little nervous is perfectly understandable and in no way affects her positive identification on the same day.



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 19, 2018, 01:10:30 AM
Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's--an old shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Sort of a jacket?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.


Is this supposed to somehow prove that CE162 was Oswald's jacket?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 19, 2018, 01:16:28 AM
Why is your opinion always the "obvious" one? 





Because Benavides positively identified Oswald.

Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.




JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 19, 2018, 01:17:12 AM
Is this supposed to somehow prove that CE162 was Oswald's jacket?



DUH!



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 19, 2018, 01:27:21 AM
Can you prove that those fibers came from that shirt to the exclusion of any other shirt?

What are you talking about?

Any other shirt?  Do you somehow believe just ANY other shirt has dark blue, gray-black and orange-yellow cotton fibers?

The fibers from the jacket sleeve did indeed match microscopic fibers from Oswald's arrest shirt.

Of course, the fibers from the jacket sleeve could have come from other shirts which consisted of dark blue, gray-black and orange-yellow cotton fibers.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 19, 2018, 01:33:08 AM
Nice cherry-pick.  Keep in mind, this is the same "utter screwball" who claimed

- Tippit tried to talk to her and knew she was there, even though he was killed instantly.
- She was there all by herself screaming for help for 5-10 minutes but nobody responded.
- She tried to save Tippit's life.
- She tried to use Tippit's police radio to call for help.
- That the man talked to Tippit through the passenger side window, but it was rolled up.
- That Benavides was a policeman.




Before I start, Markham was raising a family and held a steady job, some screwball?

Quote
- Tippit tried to talk to her and knew she was there, even though he was killed instantly.

The officer moved slightly and groaned but never said anything that he could understand.
Frank Cimino


Quote
- She was there all by herself screaming for help for 5-10 minutes but nobody responded.

From when it happened till an ambulance response was 5-10 minutes.

Quote
- She tried to save Tippit's life.

She was holding Tippit's head up and talked to him to keep him awake but Tippit's agonal gasps were just involuntary.

Quote
- She tried to use Tippit's police radio to call for help.

She may have at some point.

Quote
- That the man talked to Tippit through the passenger side window, but it was rolled up.

The right front passenger door air vent window was open.

(https://s17.postimg.org/qjwprezwf/tippit_car_windoww.gif)

Quote
- That Benavides was a policeman.

Even if true how that make someone a screwball?


Talk about desperate, an easily refuted and pathetic list.



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 19, 2018, 01:56:39 AM
Yet, none of them say that there were two assailants.

Acquilla Clemons did.  So did Frank Wright.

I was referring to real witnesses, people who actually saw something.

How did real witnesses like Benavides, Markham and Scoggins manage to not notice this second assailant?

In October of 1964, Wright told George and Patricia Nash that he saw the assailant get into his car and drive away, heading west on Tenth Street.  Acquilla Clemmons told Mark Lane that the two men both left on foot.  Which one of them do you want to rely on?

This doesn't even take into account the fact that Wright changed his story later.  He told reporter Earl Golz that the assailant didn't get into his car after all, saying that the man ran alongside the car yelling at the driver as the driver sped off (supposedly straight towards Clemmons, by the way).
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 19, 2018, 01:57:54 AM
Is this supposed to somehow prove that CE162 was Oswald's jacket?

Not at all.  it was a direct reply to Gary Craig's dumb ass post that the jacket was not Oswald's since it was a size Medium.  Did I really have to explain this to you?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 19, 2018, 02:05:19 AM
I was referring to real witnesses, people who actually saw something.

How did real witnesses like Benavides, Markham and Scoggins manage to not notice this second assailant?

In October of 1964, Wright told George and Patricia Nash that he saw the assailant get into his car and drive away, heading west on Tenth Street.  Acquilla Clemmons told Mark Lane that the two men both left on foot.  Which one of them do you want to rely on?

This doesn't even take into account the fact that Wright changed his story later.  He told reporter Earl Golz that the assailant didn't get into his car after all, saying that the man ran alongside the car yelling at the driver as the driver sped off (supposedly straight towards Clemmons, by the way).




Quote
In October of 1964, Wright told George and Patricia Nash that he saw the assailant get into his car and drive away, heading west on Tenth Street.  Acquilla Clemmons told Mark Lane that the two men both left on foot.  Which one of them do you want to rely on?



Ouch!
That's the difference, this happens time and time again, our eyewitnesses are all corroborated because their recollections are based on reality whereas the conspiracy eyewitnesses are totally inconsistent because they don't have a foundation in truth. That's why Iacoletti never supports his claims with evidence because upon scrutiny they all fall apart.


JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 19, 2018, 02:35:46 AM
The actual (something that you ignore) shows that the jacket found was WHITE. Live with it.







Stop trying to change the law of physics, it's scientifically demonstrable that Oswald's jacket under strong sunlight looks white. Cmon Caprio, if this is all you got then you got zilch!

(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/post-3674-043737100%201315564429.jpg)



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 19, 2018, 02:41:00 AM
Duh, chain of custody.



(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/post-5639-024448100%201315611845.gif)

The chain of custody is clear, what's your problem this time?



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 19, 2018, 02:42:31 AM
So was it a shirt or "sort of a jacket?"




Oswald's garment was in front of Marina and she knew it as Oswald's.



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 19, 2018, 04:08:40 AM
I was referring to real witnesses, people who actually saw something.

How did real witnesses like Benavides, Markham and Scoggins manage to not notice this second assailant?

In October of 1964, Wright told George and Patricia Nash that he saw the assailant get into his car and drive away, heading west on Tenth Street.  Acquilla Clemmons told Mark Lane that the two men both left on foot.  Which one of them do you want to rely on?

This doesn't even take into account the fact that Wright changed his story later.  He told reporter Earl Golz that the assailant didn't get into his car after all, saying that the man ran alongside the car yelling at the driver as the driver sped off (supposedly straight towards Clemmons, by the way).

Ouch!
That's the difference, this happens time and time again, our eyewitnesses are all corroborated because their recollections are based on reality whereas the conspiracy eyewitnesses are totally inconsistent because they don't have a foundation in truth. That's why Iacoletti never supports his claims with evidence because upon scrutiny they all fall apart.


JohnM

Indeed.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 19, 2018, 04:10:43 AM
Name the many witnesses.

I did.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 19, 2018, 07:22:42 AM


(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/post-5639-024448100%201315611845.gif)

The chain of custody is clear, what's your problem this time?

JohnM

If the chain of custody is clear, then provide it for us.....

Who found the jacket, who handled it, who took it to the police station and who handed it into the evidence room and when?

Who initialed the jacket and when?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 19, 2018, 07:31:07 AM

Oswald's garment was in front of Marina and she knew it as Oswald's.

JohnM

Yeah, according to her testimony, she thought it was a shirt.  ;D
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 19, 2018, 05:04:00 PM
Why would I believe that when Markham said he ran west on 10th across Patton taking the alley going west?

An obvious mistake, right?  From Tenth Street the killer couldn't have entered any alley going west.  Are you not aware of that?

However, from Tippit's patrol car, one could run west on Tenth Street to Patton, run a half block down Patton and then enter the alley "going west".
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 19, 2018, 05:05:50 PM
Notice board on dash...

Mr. BARNES. That is a board, a clipboard that is installed on the dash of all squad cars for the officers to take notes on and to keep their wanted persons.

Should be interesting reading...

Mr. BELIN. It appears to be there is a picture of some man on the clipboard. Did you notice whether or not there was any handwriting or any memorandum paper on the board?
Mr. BARNES. I couldn't tell you what was on the clipboard.

Could BARNES be lying?

Belin was wrong.  There was no picture of a man on the clipboard.

What would Barnes be lying about?  Do tell.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 19, 2018, 05:40:35 PM
Mr. BARNES. I couldn't tell you what was on the clipboard.

But guess what.... Bill Brown, who wasn't there, knows exactly what wasn't on the clipboard! Go figure..
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on January 19, 2018, 06:23:50 PM
Not at all.  it was a direct reply to Gary Craig's dumb ass post that the jacket was not Oswald's since it was a size Medium.  Did I really have to explain this to you?

Obviously if you could it explain it you would have by now.

Instead you respond with the standard Bill Brown insult.

Somehow you think repeating the case put together by the DPD and FBI for the WC (prosecution) convicts

Oswald of a crime.

Let me ask the dumb ass question again and see if I get another dumb ass response.

The jacket in evidence is a size too large for the accused.

He wore a size small the alleged jacket is a medium.

Please show me testimony from any of those witnesses who claimed to have seen the accused

wearing this jacket that describes a man wearing an oversized jacket.



Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 19, 2018, 07:08:01 PM


-sigh-

Why is this a problem, she clearly was under the impression if she knew any of the men before 1:15 on the 22nd and she said no, Ball should have seen the problem immediately and rephrased the question.

Adding the word "clearly" to an unsubstantiated opinion doesn't actually turn it into a fact.  When did Ball say "before 1:15 on the 22nd"?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 19, 2018, 07:09:13 PM
Because Benavides positively identified Oswald.

Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.


What's really sad is that you consider "I figured it was Oswald" to be a positive ID.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 19, 2018, 07:13:01 PM
Of course, the fibers from the jacket sleeve could have come from other shirts which consisted of dark blue, gray-black and orange-yellow cotton fibers.

Exactly.  Which is why you can't prove they came from that specific shirt.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 19, 2018, 07:29:23 PM
Before I start, Markham was raising a family and held a steady job, some screwball?

What "family" do you think she was raising?  And what does that have to do with anything?

Quote
The officer moved slightly and groaned but never said anything that he could understand.
Frank Cimino


At least Cimino knew the difference between groaning and talking.  Tippit was supposedly killed instantly though. 

Quote
From when it happened till an ambulance response was 5-10 minutes.

all by herself screaming for help for 5-10 minutes.

Quote
She was holding Tippit's head up and talked to him to keep him awake but Tippit's agonal gasps were just involuntary.

How would that "save his life"?  And what agonal gasps?

Quote
She may have at some point.

Edited out of the dictabelt?

Quote
The right front passenger door air vent window was open.

How does one "lean over" an air vent window?

Quote
Even if true how that make someone a screwball?

Usually people identifiable as policemen are wearing police uniforms or identify themselves as policemen somehow.

Talk about a desperate attempt to salvage the screwball testimony of your only witness.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 19, 2018, 07:36:10 PM
I was referring to real witnesses, people who actually saw something.

So when a witness says something Bill doesn't like, then Bill just decrees that she is not a "real witness".

Quote
How did real witnesses like Benavides, Markham and Scoggins manage to not notice this second assailant?

Well, let's see...Markham was covering her eyes and Scoggins was hiding behind his cab...
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 19, 2018, 07:37:14 PM
Not at all.  it was a direct reply to Gary Craig's dumb ass post that the jacket was not Oswald's since it was a size Medium.  Did I really have to explain this to you?

What's the point of making the case that it could be his jacket if you can't prove that it was his jacket?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 19, 2018, 07:40:40 PM
Ouch!

Like it's somehow impossible to leave on foot and then get into a car and drive away?  But what about all of the contradictory statements of your witnesses.  Well that's to be expected of course!

Quote
That's the difference, this happens time and time again, our eyewitnesses are all corroborated because their recollections are based on reality whereas the conspiracy eyewitnesses are totally inconsistent because they don't have a foundation in truth. That's why Iacoletti never supports his claims with evidence because upon scrutiny they all fall apart.

What claims have I made that I didn't support with evidence?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 19, 2018, 07:42:25 PM
Stop trying to change the law of physics, it's scientifically demonstrable that Oswald's jacket under strong sunlight looks white.

"Oswald's jacket".  LOL.

Who scientifically demonstrated this, Walt Junior?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 19, 2018, 08:56:26 PM

"Oswald's jacket".  LOL.

Who scientifically demonstrated this, Walt Junior?


Not only that, but how about demonstrating that when the jacket was found under a car, there was such "strong sunlight" that the officer who picked up and was holding the jacket mistook it for being white?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 20, 2018, 12:09:45 AM
Mr. BARNES. I couldn't tell you what was on the clipboard.

Again... What would Barnes be lying about?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 20, 2018, 12:16:00 AM
Exactly.  Which is why you can't prove they came from that specific shirt.

Wow.  You're the king of making straw man arguments.

I didn't say that the fibers came from any specific shirt.

How about quitting with the straw man and deal with what I actually did say.  The fibers found inside one of the sleeves of the jacket matched the microscopic fibers from Oswald's arrest shirt.

Is something you've posted somehow supposed to prove that my statement is wrong?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 20, 2018, 12:20:01 AM
Well, let's see...Markham was covering her eyes and Scoggins was hiding behind his cab...

And you really believe those are the reasons that Markham and Scoggins did not see a second assailant.

LOL

Anything to get a cop-killer off the hook.  Right?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 20, 2018, 12:51:14 AM

Well, let's see...Markham was covering her eyes and Scoggins was hiding behind his cab...



This is your so called American Justice, I can murder someone in broad daylight in front of eyewitnesses and then get seen running away by almost a dozen people, most of which see me with the same type of gun that killed the man, drop shells that match my revolver, whack the Police Officer that tries to search me, then I try and kill him too and all I need is Iacoletti Inc. to misrepresent the eyewitnesses and I'm magically innocent. Holy WOW Batman!



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 20, 2018, 12:53:33 AM


This is your so called American Justice, I can murder someone in broad daylight in front of eyewitnesses and then get seen running away by almost a dozen people, most of which see me with the same type of gun that killed the man, drop shells that match my revolver, whack the Police Officer that tries to search me, then I try and kill him too and all I need is Iacoletti Inc. to misrepresent the eyewitnesses and I'm magically innocent. Holy WOW Batman!

JohnM

(https://i.imgur.com/7Fp3t2Q.jpg)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 20, 2018, 12:57:26 AM
Obviously if you could it explain it you would have by now.

Instead you respond with the standard Bill Brown insult.

Somehow you think repeating the case put together by the DPD and FBI for the WC (prosecution) convicts

Oswald of a crime.

Let me ask the dumb ass question again and see if I get another dumb ass response.

The jacket in evidence is a size too large for the accused.

He wore a size small the alleged jacket is a medium.

Please show me testimony from any of those witnesses who claimed to have seen the accused

wearing this jacket that describes a man wearing an oversized jacket.

When you make a dumb ass statement, it is not an insult when another calls your statement a dumb ass statement.

So, you're saying that a small man, in the history of the world, has never worn a medium sized jacket.

You made a dumb ass statement.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on January 20, 2018, 06:09:11 AM
When you make a dumb ass statement, it is not an insult when another calls your statement a dumb ass statement.

So, you're saying that a small man, in the history of the world, has never worn a medium sized jacket.

You made a dumb ass statement.

"So, you're saying that a small man, in the history of the world, has never worn a medium sized jacket."

 ???

No that's not what I'm saying.

You claim a dozen witnesses allegedly saw Ozzie wearing an oversized jacket.

LHO's size was small. The jacket in evidence is medium.

I'm asking you to provide an affidavit, testimony, anything, showing one of those witnesses describing

Ozzie or anyone else wearing a jacket that was too large for their size.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 20, 2018, 07:49:15 AM
"So, you're saying that a small man, in the history of the world, has never worn a medium sized jacket."

 ???

No that's not what I'm saying.

You claim a dozen witnesses allegedly saw Ozzie wearing an oversized jacket.

LHO's size was small. The jacket in evidence is medium.

I'm asking you to provide an affidavit, testimony, anything, showing one of those witnesses describing

Ozzie or anyone else wearing a jacket that was too large for their size.

Prove that a man who normally wears a size small jacket would appear to others to be wearing a jacket too large for his size if he was wearing a jacket sized medium.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 20, 2018, 07:51:45 AM
Mr. BELIN. Were there any notes on there that you saw that had been made on this clipboard?
Mr. BARNES. Yes; we never read his clipboard.

Any chance those notes were related to the killing?

I thought you maybe had something that shows Barnes lied about something.  My mistake.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on January 20, 2018, 02:17:12 PM
Prove that a man who normally wears a size small jacket would appear to others to be wearing a jacket too large for his size if he was wearing a jacket sized medium.

LOL, the goofy Bill Brown diversion question - classic.

Ozzie's accusers (look in the mirror) are the ones claiming he was wearing a jacket a size too big.

Why do I need to prove it?

I'm asking for validation in the form of a affidavit, testimony or anything else from one of the dozen

witnesses who allegedly saw him wearing the jacket.

A least one of them should have noticed.

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on January 20, 2018, 02:38:46 PM

This is your so called American Justice, I can murder someone in broad daylight in front of eyewitnesses and then get seen running away by almost a dozen people, most of which see me with the same type of gun that killed the man, drop shells that match my revolver, whack the Police Officer that tries to search me, then I try and kill him too and all I need is Iacoletti Inc. to misrepresent the eyewitnesses and I'm magically innocent. Holy WOW Batman!

JohnM

You are innocent until proven guilty.

In American Justice when you get accused of crimes you have the right to legal representation to

protect your rights and present exculpatory evidence at trial etc.

It also requires LE to keep the defendant safe while in custody.

 etc. etc. etc.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 20, 2018, 05:01:56 PM
Presumption of innocence applies to a jury not presuming the defendant is guilty just because he's on trial. Otherwise the judge can't claim it's a fair trial.

Jury members can presume the defendant is guilty, innocent or be neutral about it. There's no way to perceive or enforce what human beings on a jury are thinking.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 20, 2018, 06:17:31 PM
Presumption of innocence applies to a jury not presuming the defendant is guilty just because he's on trial. Otherwise the judge can't claim it's a fair trial.

Jury members can presume the defendant is guilty, innocent or be neutral about it. There's no way to perceive or enforce what human beings on a jury are thinking.

Which is why there is the process of jury selection...
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 20, 2018, 06:40:38 PM
Which is why there is the process of jury selection...

One can only ask what a potential juror thinks, and hope for an honest response. One can't perceive or enforce a juror's impartiality because they can't see what's in their mind.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 20, 2018, 06:58:33 PM
One can only ask what a potential juror thinks, and hope for an honest response. One can't perceive or enforce a juror's impartiality because they can't see what's in their mind.

True.. that's why nobody can really predict what the outcome of a trial by jury is going to be.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 20, 2018, 11:08:00 PM
LOL, the goofy Bill Brown diversion question - classic.

Ozzie's accusers (look in the mirror) are the ones claiming he was wearing a jacket a size too big.

Why do I need to prove it?

I'm asking for validation in the form of a affidavit, testimony or anything else from one of the dozen

witnesses who allegedly saw him wearing the jacket.

A least one of them should have noticed.

What are you talking about?  Ted Callaway, just for quick reference, positively identified the jacket (CE-162) as being the one that Oswald had on as he ran down Patton.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 21, 2018, 12:54:46 AM
LNers would be wise to refer to the 'killer' or 'prime suspect' rather than Oswald. Otherwise all these arguments go nowhere. CTers have a point-of-view as well.

'We don't see things as they are; we see things as WE are'--- Anais Nin
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 21, 2018, 01:01:25 AM
LNers would be wise to refer to the 'killer' or 'prime suspect' rather than Oswald. Otherwise all these arguments go nowhere. CTers have a point-of-view as well.

'We don't see things as they are; we see things as WE are'--- Anais Nin

I do, many times.  But for Callaway's purposes, I named Oswald because Callaway knew it was Oswald.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 21, 2018, 02:49:03 AM
So CE 162 had tan in it?

Callaway testified it was: "a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket".

(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/24/48/a6/2448a69e304d3188f5ff3d3b7d67bc16--interior-colors--paint-color-trends-interior-design.jpg)

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/oswald/oswald-jacket-national-archives.jpg)  (https://wtop.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/284291.jpg)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Mick O'Brien on January 21, 2018, 03:28:42 AM
If only one person was present when Oswald left the rooming house, how could there be any corroboration?

At least eight witnesses saw Lee Oswald wearing a jacket in Oak Cliff and then Johnny Brewer sees him without a jacket.

Don't be stupid how can you accept the above!!! because Brewer even lied by saying he never met Oswald before 22.11.63 when in fact he had previously sold Oswald the very shoes that he was wearing on the day
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 21, 2018, 05:56:21 AM
Don't be stupid how can you accept the above!!! because Brewer even lied by saying he never met Oswald before 22.11.63 when in fact he had previously sold Oswald the very shoes that he was wearing on the day

Pretty sure Brewer said he didn't know the man's NAME before 11.22.63:

'Well, in the first place, I had seen him some place before. I think he had been in my store before. And when you wait on somebody, you recognize them' -- Brewer

He obviously recognized the man at his store window by sight only. He didn't yet know him by name. He made that clear in his WC testimony.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on January 21, 2018, 12:58:15 PM
What are you talking about?  Ted Callaway, just for quick reference, positively identified the jacket (CE-162) as being the one that Oswald had on as he ran down Patton.

Oswald wore a size small.

The jacket in evidence is a medium.

Still no witness describing the suspect wearing an over sized jacket?

The jacket in evidence was laundered at a commercial laundry per the marking(s)/tag(s) on it.

Marina laundered all of Ozzie's clothes.

Ted Callaway may have seen Tippit's killer wearing CE-162 but it wasn't LHO.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 21, 2018, 07:32:18 PM
Mr. BALL. Was he dressed the same in the lineup as he was when you saw him running across the lawn?
Mrs. DAVIS. All except he didn't have a black coat on when I saw him in the lineup.

Whether it was black, tan, gray, white or rainbow colored, what happened to Oswald's jacket?  He wasn't wearing a jacket or a coat when he was seen by Brewer.  Why ditch the jacket?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 21, 2018, 07:46:16 PM
Oswald wore a size small.

The jacket in evidence is a medium.

Still no witness describing the suspect wearing an over sized jacket?

The jacket in evidence was laundered at a commercial laundry per the marking(s)/tag(s) on it.

Marina laundered all of Ozzie's clothes.

Ted Callaway may have seen Tippit's killer wearing CE-162 but it wasn't LHO.


Quote
Oswald wore a size small.

The jacket in evidence is a medium.

So what?


Quote
Still no witness describing the suspect wearing an over sized jacket?

Please show the results of your controlled experiment which suggests that it should be painfully obvious to witnesses that a medium jacket should appear grossly over-sized on a small man.

This "small man cannot wear a medium jacket without the jacket appearing over sized" argument is pathetic.


Quote
The jacket in evidence was laundered at a commercial laundry per the marking(s)/tag(s) on it.

Marina laundered all of Ozzie's clothes.

This does not prove that the jacket didn't belong to Oswald.


Quote
Ted Callaway may have seen Tippit's killer wearing CE-162 but it wasn't LHO.

How about we go with Callaway's own words...

"He looked right at me, sir. When I called to him, he looked right at me."

"I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him."

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 21, 2018, 10:56:55 PM
If he wore a jacket. That's your job to prove and you have been at it for how many years now?




Earlene Roberts actually knew Oswald and confirmed that Oswald was zipping up his jacket as he was leaving.

Mrs. ROBERTS. He just walked in---he didn't look around at me---he didn't say nothing and went on to his room.
Mr. BALL. Did he run?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He wasn't running, but he was walking pretty fast---he was all but running.
Mr. BALL. Then, what happened after that?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket.


And what do you know, the jacket recovered had fibers in the sleeve that matched Oswald's shirt and the jacket was had a zipper.

(http://harveyandlee.net/November/Jacket%20CE%20162.jpg)



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 21, 2018, 11:04:38 PM
Another quick reference:

Mr. BALL. I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.







Virginia Davis testified to seeing Oswald wearing a light brown tan jacket.

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs. DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.


Both sisters saw one man who they both positively identified as Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.


Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in that room?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.


Btw Lee Harvey Oswald was man number 2.



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Ray Mitcham on January 21, 2018, 11:07:15 PM
Mrs Roberts testimony continued.

"Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen him wear that jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I can't say I did---if I did, I don't remember it.
Mr. BALL. When he came in he was in a shirt?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He was in his shirt sleeves.
Mr. BALL. What color was his shirt? Do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember. I didn't pay that much attention for I was interested in the television trying to get it fixed.
Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen that shirt before or seen him wear it---the shirt, or do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember---I don't know.
Mr. BALL. You say he put on a separate jacket?
Mrs. ROBERTS. A jacket.
Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?
Mr. BALL. Yes---it has a zipper down the front.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe it was.
Mr. BALL. It was a zippered jacket, was it?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
Mr. BALL. He was zipping it up as he went out the door?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes.

"When he came in he was in his shirt sleeves."

What happened to the two jackets, Whaley, the taxi driver said he was wearing?

Mr. WHALEY. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt.
Mr. BALL. Wait a minute, we have got the shirt which you have identified as the rust brown shirt with the gold stripe in it.
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You said that a jacket--
Mr. WHALEY. That jacket now it might have been clean, but the jacket he had on looked more the color, you know like a uniform set, but he had this coat here on over that other jacket, I am sure, sir.
Mr. BALL. This is the blue-gray jacket, heavy blue-gray jacket.

Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 21, 2018, 11:23:33 PM
Roberts was blind as a bat.





Crikey, with each post your desperation grows and grows, Earlene Roberts was the supervisor and housekeeper for a rooming house with multiple occupants, that's some awesome accomplishment for someone that's blind.



JohnM




Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 21, 2018, 11:38:30 PM
Mrs Roberts testimony continued.

"Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen him wear that jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I can't say I did---if I did, I don't remember it.
Mr. BALL. When he came in he was in a shirt?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He was in his shirt sleeves.
Mr. BALL. What color was his shirt? Do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember. I didn't pay that much attention for I was interested in the television trying to get it fixed.
Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen that shirt before or seen him wear it---the shirt, or do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember---I don't know.
Mr. BALL. You say he put on a separate jacket?
Mrs. ROBERTS. A jacket.
Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?
Mr. BALL. Yes---it has a zipper down the front.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe it was.
Mr. BALL. It was a zippered jacket, was it?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
Mr. BALL. He was zipping it up as he went out the door?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes.

"When he came in he was in his shirt sleeves."

What happened to the two jackets, Whaley, the taxi driver said he was wearing?

Mr. WHALEY. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt.
Mr. BALL. Wait a minute, we have got the shirt which you have identified as the rust brown shirt with the gold stripe in it.
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You said that a jacket--
Mr. WHALEY. That jacket now it might have been clean, but the jacket he had on looked more the color, you know like a uniform set, but he had this coat here on over that other jacket, I am sure, sir.
Mr. BALL. This is the blue-gray jacket, heavy blue-gray jacket.

Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.




Quote
Mrs Roberts testimony continued.

So what? Earlene Roberts saw the jacket in two locations under completely different lighting conditions and besides the slight shade variation Earlene voices no other objections with style or size.

Quote
"When he came in he was in his shirt sleeves."

What happened to the two jackets, Whaley, the taxi driver said he was wearing?

Whaley saw many people every day and Oswald was nothing special but what was important to Whaley was bracelets and he recognised that Oswald was wearing a bracelet which he later confirmed looked like the same one.

Mr. BALL. I have here a bracelet which is marked 383. Take a look at it and tell me if you have ever seen it before.
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; as near as I can tell that is the bracelet he was wearing the day I carried him, the shiny bracelet I was talking about.
Mr. BALL. You mentioned the fact that the man who sat in the front seat of your cab, which you drove from the Greyhound Station on Lamar Street over to 500 North Beckley, had an identification bracelet on him.
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, it looked like an identification bracelet. It looks like this one, sir, it was shiny, I couldn't tell exactly whether that was the bracelet or not.
Mr. BALL. But it looks like one of them?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; it looks like it.


(https://s17.postimg.org/hgdgoq3r3/ce_383_a.jpg)



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 21, 2018, 11:40:01 PM

Crikey, with each post your desperation grows and grows, Earlene Roberts was the supervisor and housekeeper for a rooming house with multiple occupants, that's some awesome accomplishment for someone that's blind.

JohnM

She was also paying more attention to getting the television to work (when Oswald took only a few seconds to walk through the living room) and she was described by her employer as somebody who makes up stuff.

Funny how that works; when Frazier says he wasn't paying much attention the LNs call him mistaken in his observations, when Roberts isn't paying much attention they take her word for it as gospel....
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 21, 2018, 11:43:10 PM
Correct, she was only half blind.

So what you have is an uncorroborated half eye witness...


Quote
Correct, she was only half blind.

That's about the stupidest comment I've ever seen, how can someone be half blind??? Either you're blind or you are not blind and Earlene was not blind.

Quote
So what you have is an uncorroborated half eye witness...

Again with the stupidity or you simply don't know the evidence, the majority of the eyewitnesses who positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald said he was wearing a light coloured jacket.



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 21, 2018, 11:44:20 PM

She also testified: We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to the side door at Patton Street.





And,... what????



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 21, 2018, 11:46:28 PM

That's about the stupidest comment I've ever seen, how can someone be half blind??? Either you're blind or you are not blind and Earlene was not blind.

Again with the stupidity or you simply don't know the evidence, the majority of the eyewitnesses who positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald said he was wearing a light coloured jacket.



JohnM

the majority of the eyewitnesses who positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald said he was wearing a light coloured jacket.


As usual, that's another Mytton lie

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 21, 2018, 11:58:26 PM
Oh...well...how about uncorroborated impaired eye witness?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, you know, I can't see too good how to read. I'm completely blind in my right eye.

If Roberts needed + 200 glasses to see only 10% Mytton would still consider her credible!
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 12:26:05 AM
Oh...well...how about uncorroborated impaired eye witness?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, you know, I can't see too good how to read. I'm completely blind in my right eye.





sniff sniff, the air is thick with the stench of fear and desperation.

Btw if Earlene was blind why was she bothering trying to get better reception on her television?



JohnM





Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 22, 2018, 12:33:48 AM




sniff sniff, the air is thick with the stench of fear and desperation.

Btw if Earlene was blind why was she bothering trying to get better reception on her television?



JohnM

Btw if Earlene was blind why was she bothering trying to get better reception on her television?

So, you agree that she was paying more attention to the television? Well, that's at least something!
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 12:35:28 AM
the majority of the eyewitnesses who positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald said he was wearing a light coloured jacket.


As usual, that's another Mytton lie







This is why I usually don't respond to your insanity, you simply don't know the evidence and now that I've proven that the vast majority of the Tippit eyewitnesses describe a light coloured jacket, your next predictable step will be to ignore this powerful corroborated evidence and focus on another insignificant nothing.

Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.

Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.

Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs. DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.

Mr. BALL. How was this man dressed that had the pistol in his hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. He had on a pair of black britches and a brown shirt and a lithe sort of light-gray-looking jacket.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket.
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; a light gray jacket and a white T-shirt.

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize him from his clothing?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light short jacket, dark trousers. I looked at his clothing, but I looked at his face, too.

Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this now. When you first saw this man, had the police car stopped or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on.

Mr. BALL. This is Commission's Exhibit 162, a grey, zippered jacket. Have you ever seen this before?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that looks like what he had on. A jacket.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket he had on?
Mr. SMITH. Yes.


(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/22/fd/f0/22fdf0b4e7a3d42c0aa377bff8bccc59.jpg)



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 12:43:43 AM
Btw if Earlene was blind why was she bothering trying to get better reception on her television?

So, you agree that she was paying more attention to the television? Well, that's at least something!



Quote
So, you agree that she was paying more attention to the television? Well, that's at least something!

DUH! Of course before Oswald came in her focus was on trying to see the television and find out about the shooting of her President but where do you get the idea that while Oswald was at the Rooming house, Earlene was paying more attention to the television because she seems to go into some detail describing Oswald's movements as he hurried in and how he was zippering up on the way out?



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 22, 2018, 12:46:29 AM

This is why I usually don't respond to your insanity, you simply don't know the evidence and now that I've proven that the vast majority of the Tippit eyewitnesses describe a light coloured jacket, your next predictable step will be to ignore this powerful corroborated evidence and focus on another insignificant nothing.

Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.

Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.

Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs. DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.

Mr. BALL. How was this man dressed that had the pistol in his hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. He had on a pair of black britches and a brown shirt and a lithe sort of light-gray-looking jacket.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket.
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; a light gray jacket and a white T-shirt.

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize him from his clothing?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light short jacket, dark trousers. I looked at his clothing, but I looked at his face, too.

Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this now. When you first saw this man, had the police car stopped or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on.

Mr. BALL. This is Commission's Exhibit 162, a grey, zippered jacket. Have you ever seen this before?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that looks like what he had on. A jacket.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket he had on?
Mr. SMITH. Yes.


(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/22/fd/f0/22fdf0b4e7a3d42c0aa377bff8bccc59.jpg)


JohnM

now that I've proven that the vast majority of the Tippit eyewitnesses describe a light coloured jacket,

That isn't a "vast majority of Tippit eyewitnesses".
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 12:52:39 AM
now that I've proven that the vast majority of the Tippit eyewitnesses describe a light coloured jacket,

That isn't a "vast majority of Tippit eyewitnesses".



I have produced a list of Eight eyewitnesses who all identified a light coloured jacket, give me your alternate list of eyewitnesses who identified a differently described jacket.

Here I'll give you a start;

Mr. BALL. How is it different?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.


Now give me some more eyewitnesses so that you can support your above post????   Waiting....  Yawn!!!!.....



JohnM

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 22, 2018, 12:52:53 AM

DUH! Of course before Oswald came in her focus was on trying to see the television and find out about the shooting of her President but where do you get the idea that while Oswald was at the Rooming house, Earlene was paying more attention to the television because she seems to go into some detail describing Oswald's movements as he hurried in and how he was zippering up on the way out?

JohnM

where do you get the idea that while Oswald was at the Rooming house, Earlene was paying more attention to the television

Stupid question. The answer is; because she said it!

because she seems to go into some detail describing Oswald's movements as he hurried in and how he was zippering up on the way out?

What movements? Oswald's room was next to the living room. To get from the front door to the room (or viceversa) took perhaps 5 seconds. The television was placed in such a way that if Roberts was looking at it she would have her back to Oswald as he moved through the room.

Add to this that she had bad eyesight and was well known for making up stuff and you have your answer.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 12:57:30 AM
You're right, why bother?





Exactly, you got nothing, Earlene held down a steady job that required her to see and she was trying to get her television working.



JohnM

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 22, 2018, 12:57:57 AM


I have produced a list of Eight eyewitnesses who all identified a light coloured jacket, give me your alternate list of eyewitnesses who identified a differently described jacket.

Here I'll give you a start;

Mr. BALL. How is it different?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.


Now give me some more eyewitnesses so that you can support your above post????   Waiting....  Yawn!!!!.....

JohnM

She did not witness the shooting and was no Tippit eyewitness.

Also, she decribes the so-called "light coloured jacket" as dark and fails to identify CE 162 as the jacket she had seen.

Mr. BALL. I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. How is it different?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.

Wanna give it another try?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 22, 2018, 12:59:39 AM

Exactly, you got nothing, Earlene held down a steady job that required her to see and she was trying to get her television working.

JohnM

Actually, she had been fired several times from that job. You kinda forgot about that, didn't you?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 01:05:01 AM
Wasn't that supposed to be CE 162?

Mr. BALL. I have here an exhibit, Commission Exhibit 162, a jacket. Did you ever see this before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No; I did not.




As usual you short change someones testimony to suit your endless quest to discover a conspiracy.

Let's read the full testimony, Markham describes the same style of jacket but she saw the jacket outside in the sunlight as opposed to seeing the jacket inside which has an obvious effect on ones perception of shading.

Mr. BALL. I have here an exhibit, Commission Exhibit 162, a jacket. Did you ever see this before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No; I did not.
Mr. BALL. Does it look like, anything like, the jacket the man had on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It is short, open down the front. But that jacket it is a darker jacket than that, I know it was.


(https://s17.postimg.org/wl9kmif67/optical_illusion.jpg)



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 01:07:22 AM
She did not witness the shooting and was no Tippit eyewitness.

Also, she decribes the so-called "light coloured jacket" as dark and fails to identify CE 162 as the jacket she had seen.

Mr. BALL. I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. How is it different?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.

Wanna give it another try?



You were wrong Martin, the vast majority of eyewitnesses described a light coloured jacket.



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 01:10:10 AM
Wait, you didn't actually leave?





Whaaaat? That post wasn't directed to you, next time you better check which account you are responding



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 22, 2018, 01:13:31 AM

As usual you short change someones testimony to suit your endless quest to discover a conspiracy.

Let's read the full testimony, Markham describes the same style of jacket but she saw the jacket outside in the sunlight as opposed to seeing the jacket inside which has an obvious effect on ones perception of shading.

Mr. BALL. I have here an exhibit, Commission Exhibit 162, a jacket. Did you ever see this before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No; I did not.
Mr. BALL. Does it look like, anything like, the jacket the man had on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It is short, open down the front. But that jacket it is a darker jacket than that, I know it was.


(https://s17.postimg.org/wl9kmif67/optical_illusion.jpg)



JohnM

Let's read the full testimony, Markham describes the same style of jacket but she saw the jacket outside in the sunlight as opposed to seeing the jacket inside which has an obvious effect on ones perception of shading.

Now who is misrepresenting Markham's testimony?

She clearly states that she did not see CE 162 before and that the jacket she had seen was darker than that.

It is you who comes up with crappy mumbo jumbo excuses about sunlight and shades to "explain" why she did not recognize CE 162!

Pathetic!

As usual you short change someones testimony to suit your endless quest to discover a conspiracy.

Please explain how somebody shooting Tippit would automatically result in the discovery of a conspiracy to kill Kennedy?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 22, 2018, 01:14:37 AM

You were wrong Martin, the vast majority of eyewitnesses described a light coloured jacket.

JohnM

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

So, no other try for you?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 22, 2018, 01:15:49 AM

Whaaaat? That post wasn't directed to you, next time you better check which account you are responding

JohnM

It was directed at me, yet you are still here.... Go figure
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 22, 2018, 03:41:49 AM



Earlene Roberts actually knew Oswald and confirmed that Oswald was zipping up his jacket as he was leaving.

Mrs. ROBERTS. He just walked in---he didn't look around at me---he didn't say nothing and went on to his room.
Mr. BALL. Did he run?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He wasn't running, but he was walking pretty fast---he was all but running.
Mr. BALL. Then, what happened after that?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket.


And what do you know, the jacket recovered had fibers in the sleeve that matched Oswald's shirt and the jacket was had a zipper.

(http://harveyandlee.net/November/Jacket%20CE%20162.jpg)



JohnM

The sleeves seem bulky. In fact Buell confirmed those bulky sleeves in testimony. Pretty good choice of jacket for someone intent on concealing the size of a certain package.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 04:07:17 AM
Speaking of short change....Markham continued:

Mr. BALL. You don't think it was as light a jacket as that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, it was darker than that, I know it was. At that moment I was so excited--

As pointed out by Martin, it was darker that CE 162 that she was shown.




You keep avoiding the most important piece of evidence, Markham who positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald described the same style of jacket but her description of the shade was logically influenced by vastly different lighting conditions and different contrasting backgrounds.

Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.


In the following comparison we see the same man from multiple directions under different outside lighting and the shirt appears lighter and relatively darker accordingly then extrapolate this with the inside lighting at the commission and we have some eyewitnesses who see different shades, WOW! But the simple fact remains the majority of eyewitnesses at the Tippit crime scene all see Oswald with a light coloured jacket.

(https://s17.postimg.org/c19c1f99r/Oswaldsjacketlighterdarkerz_zpsb85ca9ed.jpg)



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 04:23:51 AM

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.


What drugs are you on today?




I made a statement....



Again with the stupidity or you simply don't know the evidence, the majority of the eyewitnesses who positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald said he was wearing a light coloured jacket.



JohnM

....and backed it up with evidence of seven eyewitnesses who all positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald and all describe a light coloured jacket, your job was to refute me with eyewitnesses and so far as always you fail miserably.





This is why I usually don't respond to your insanity, you simply don't know the evidence and now that I've proven that the vast majority of the Tippit eyewitnesses describe a light coloured jacket, your next predictable step will be to ignore this powerful corroborated evidence and focus on another insignificant nothing.

Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.

Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.

Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs. DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.

Mr. BALL. How was this man dressed that had the pistol in his hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. He had on a pair of black britches and a brown shirt and a lithe sort of light-gray-looking jacket.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket.
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; a light gray jacket and a white T-shirt.

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize him from his clothing?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light short jacket, dark trousers. I looked at his clothing, but I looked at his face, too.

Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this now. When you first saw this man, had the police car stopped or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on.




(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/22/fd/f0/22fdf0b4e7a3d42c0aa377bff8bccc59.jpg)



JohnM


EDIT here's another eyewitness who describes the man with a light coloured jacket.

JIMMY EARL BURT,  He described this man as a white male, approximately 5'8". He was wearing a light colored short jacket.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/burt.htm

And another;

Mr. BALL. This is Commission's Exhibit 162, a grey, zippered jacket. Have you ever seen this before?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that looks like what he had on. A jacket.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket he had on?
Mr. SMITH. Yes.





JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 06:27:36 AM
The sleeves seem bulky. In fact Buell confirmed those bulky sleeves in testimony. Pretty good choice of jacket for someone intent on concealing the size of a certain package.




(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qUH2sD4GWB0/UUn5xBphLjI/AAAAAAAAA2o/MMYWv7n8sNw/s1600/thumb-up-terminator+pablo+M+R.jpg)

Mr. FRAZIER - He got out of the car and he was wearing the jacket that has the big sleeves



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 22, 2018, 06:44:25 AM
sniff sniff, the air is thick with the stench of fear and desperation.

Btw if Earlene was blind why was she bothering trying to get better reception on her television?

JohnM

John, please stop beating Sorensen and Weidmann over the head with common sense and logic.  This is getting painful to watch.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 22, 2018, 07:04:04 AM
What drugs are you on today?


I made a statement....

....and backed it up with evidence of seven eyewitnesses who all positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald and all describe a light coloured jacket, your job was to refute me with eyewitnesses and so far as always you fail miserably.



EDIT here's another eyewitness who describes the man with a light coloured jacket.

JIMMY EARL BURT,  He described this man as a white male, approximately 5'8". He was wearing a light colored short jacket.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/burt.htm

And another;

Mr. BALL. This is Commission's Exhibit 162, a grey, zippered jacket. Have you ever seen this before?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that looks like what he had on. A jacket.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket he had on?
Mr. SMITH. Yes.





JohnM

What drugs are you on today?

Only some medication that prevents me from breaking out in a rash whenever I am dealing with you.


I made a statement....

Yes you did... and as usual it was a lie.... but a statement nevertheless

....and backed it up with evidence of seven eyewitnesses who all positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald and all describe a light coloured jacket,

No you didn't.... You just cherry-picked some quotes that do not hold water upon closer examination.

your job was to refute me with eyewitnesses and so far as always you fail miserably.

Which only shows just how lively your imagination is.





Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 07:04:34 AM
John, please stop beating Sorensen and Weidmann over the head with common sense and logic.  This is getting painful to watch.



Thanks Bill, but really even both of them combined couldn't argue their way out of a wet paper bag, what with Weidmann who can't support his theories with facts and just repeats the same aggressive nonsense again and again and Sorenson who thinks belittling one eyed Earlene Roberts helps his argument, they're just one and the same.



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 22, 2018, 07:08:58 AM
Thanks Bill, but really even both of them combined couldn't argue their way out of a wet paper bag, what with Weidmann who can't support his theories with facts and just repeats the same aggressive nonsense again and again and Sorenson who thinks belittling one eyed Earlene Roberts helps his argument, they're just one and the same.


JohnM

Agreed.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 22, 2018, 07:09:21 AM

You keep avoiding the most important piece of evidence, Markham who positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald described the same style of jacket but her description of the shade was logically influenced by vastly different lighting conditions and different contrasting backgrounds.

Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.


In the following comparison we see the same man from multiple directions under different outside lighting and the shirt appears lighter and relatively darker accordingly then extrapolate this with the inside lighting at the commission and we have some eyewitnesses who see different shades, WOW! But the simple fact remains the majority of eyewitnesses at the Tippit crime scene all see Oswald with a light coloured jacket.

(https://s17.postimg.org/c19c1f99r/Oswaldsjacketlighterdarkerz_zpsb85ca9ed.jpg)

JohnM

Here we go again... the usual pathetic excuse to explain away why Markham did not recognize CE 162.

And she wasn't the only one.

If Markham had said she had seen a purple jacket you would probably be blaming it on the position of the moon relative to the sun as well as a thunderstorm 300 miles away...
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 22, 2018, 07:11:12 AM


Thanks Bill, but really even both of them combined couldn't argue their way out of a wet paper bag, what with Weidmann who can't support his theories with facts and just repeats the same aggressive nonsense again and again and Sorenson who thinks belittling one eyed Earlene Roberts helps his argument, they're just one and the same.



JohnM

what with Weidmann who can't support his theories with facts

What theories would that be, Johnny?

You wouldn't be making stuff up again, would you now?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 07:14:49 AM

Only some medication that prevents me from breaking out in a rash whenever I am dealing with you.

No you didn't.... You just cherry-picked some quotes that do not hold water upon closer examination.




No, because you don't know the evidence, that same evidence that ironically you are trying to debate, you've been here for years and years and debated the same topics again and again yet you still don't learn, it's tragic!

Anyway I presented the majority of eyewitnesses who described a light coloured jacket whereas as you've admitted, you're drugged up to the eyeballs! I rest my case.


Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.

Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.

Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs. DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.

Mr. BALL. How was this man dressed that had the pistol in his hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. He had on a pair of black britches and a brown shirt and a lithe sort of light-gray-looking jacket.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket.
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; a light gray jacket and a white T-shirt.

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize him from his clothing?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light short jacket, dark trousers. I looked at his clothing, but I looked at his face, too.

Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this now. When you first saw this man, had the police car stopped or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on.


Btw don't forget the eyewitnesses who identified the light coloured jacket and you know what besides one of the Davis sisters I can't find any other description that varies, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

JIMMY EARL BURT,  He described this man as a white male, approximately 5'8". He was wearing a light colored short jacket.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/burt.htm

Mr. BALL. This is Commission's Exhibit 162, a grey, zippered jacket. Have you ever seen this before?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that looks like what he had on. A jacket.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket he had on?
Mr. SMITH. Yes.




JohnM



Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 22, 2018, 07:21:41 AM


No, because you don't know the evidence, that same evidence that ironically you are trying to debate, you've been here for years and years and debated the same topics again and again yet you still don't learn, it's tragic!

Anyway I presented the majority of eyewitnesses who described a light coloured jacket whereas as you've admitted, you're drugged up to the eyeballs! I rest my case.


Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.

Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.

Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs. DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.

Mr. BALL. How was this man dressed that had the pistol in his hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. He had on a pair of black britches and a brown shirt and a lithe sort of light-gray-looking jacket.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket.
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; a light gray jacket and a white T-shirt.

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize him from his clothing?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light short jacket, dark trousers. I looked at his clothing, but I looked at his face, too.

Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this now. When you first saw this man, had the police car stopped or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on.


Btw don't forget the eyewitnesses who identified the light coloured jacket and you know what besides one of the Davis sisters I can't find any other description that varies, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

JIMMY EARL BURT,  He described this man as a white male, approximately 5'8". He was wearing a light colored short jacket.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/burt.htm

Mr. BALL. This is Commission's Exhibit 162, a grey, zippered jacket. Have you ever seen this before?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that looks like what he had on. A jacket.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket he had on?
Mr. SMITH. Yes.




JohnM

No, because you don't know the evidence, that same evidence that ironically you are trying to debate, you've been here for years and years

Says the guy who has lived on boards like this for decades and has already written double the number of posts than I have.


and debated the same topics again and again yet you still don't learn, it's tragic!

No, what is really tragic is that in all the time I have been on this board, you have never ever said anything worthwhile for me to learn.

On occassion I do pick up something useful from guys like Jerry Organ and even Bill Brown, but from you.... zilch!

All you do is copy/paste the same old crap time after time...
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 07:21:52 AM
what with Weidmann who can't support his theories with facts

What theories would that be, Johnny?

You wouldn't be making stuff up again, would you now?



Huh? Your theory is clearly that the majority of eyewitnesses didn't see Oswald with a light coloured jacket, otherwise why would you bother arguing with me?

Anyway here's the list that I claimed and in response you have nothing.

Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.

Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.

Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs. DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.

Mr. BALL. How was this man dressed that had the pistol in his hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. He had on a pair of black britches and a brown shirt and a lithe sort of light-gray-looking jacket.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket.
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; a light gray jacket and a white T-shirt.

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize him from his clothing?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light short jacket, dark trousers. I looked at his clothing, but I looked at his face, too.

Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this now. When you first saw this man, had the police car stopped or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on.


Btw don't forget the eyewitnesses who identified the light coloured jacket and you know what besides one of the Davis sisters I can't find any other description that varies, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

JIMMY EARL BURT,  He described this man as a white male, approximately 5'8". He was wearing a light colored short jacket.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/burt.htm

Mr. BALL. This is Commission's Exhibit 162, a grey, zippered jacket. Have you ever seen this before?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that looks like what he had on. A jacket.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket he had on?
Mr. SMITH. Yes.




JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 07:27:19 AM
No, because you don't know the evidence, that same evidence that ironically you are trying to debate, you've been here for years and years

Says the guy who has lived on boards like this for decades and has already written double the number of posts than I have.


and debated the same topics again and again yet you still don't learn, it's tragic!

No, what is really tragic is that in all the time I have been on this board, you have never ever said anything worthwhile for me to learn.

On occassion I do pick up something useful from guys like Jerry Organ and even Bill Brown, but from you.... zilch!

All you do is copy/paste the same old crap time after time...





Maybe if you had some evidence to refute me then you would post it, but so far we see the typical Weidmann response of attacking the messenger. You are truly not very good at this.



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 22, 2018, 07:33:48 AM


Huh? Your theory is clearly that the majority of eyewitnesses didn't see Oswald with a light coloured jacket, otherwise why would you bother arguing with me?

Anyway here's the list that I claimed and in response you have nothing.

Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.

Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.

Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs. DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.

Mr. BALL. How was this man dressed that had the pistol in his hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. He had on a pair of black britches and a brown shirt and a lithe sort of light-gray-looking jacket.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket.
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; a light gray jacket and a white T-shirt.

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize him from his clothing?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light short jacket, dark trousers. I looked at his clothing, but I looked at his face, too.

Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this now. When you first saw this man, had the police car stopped or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on.


Btw don't forget the eyewitnesses who identified the light coloured jacket and you know what besides one of the Davis sisters I can't find any other description that varies, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

JIMMY EARL BURT,  He described this man as a white male, approximately 5'8". He was wearing a light colored short jacket.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/burt.htm

Mr. BALL. This is Commission's Exhibit 162, a grey, zippered jacket. Have you ever seen this before?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that looks like what he had on. A jacket.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket he had on?
Mr. SMITH. Yes.




JohnM

Huh? Your theory is clearly that the majority of eyewitnesses didn't see Oswald with a light coloured jacket, otherwise why would you bother arguing with me?

Thank you for demonstrating so clearly that you haven't got a clue about what you call "my theory".

And I am not arguing with you. I am simply telling you that your statement is simply not correct.

You should have been paying better attention to the discussion. Perhaps than you would have understood what I was really saying instead of just making something up.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 22, 2018, 07:35:35 AM

Maybe if you had some evidence to refute me then you would post it, but so far we see the typical Weidmann response of attacking the messenger. You are truly not very good at this.

JohnM

Say something true or even remotely interesting and see what happens!
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 08:08:59 AM
Huh? Your theory is clearly that the majority of eyewitnesses didn't see Oswald with a light coloured jacket, otherwise why would you bother arguing with me?

Thank you for demonstrating so clearly that you haven't got a clue about what you call "my theory".

And I am not arguing with you. I am simply telling you that your statement is simply not correct.

You should have been paying better attention to the discussion. Perhaps than you would have understood what I was really saying instead of just making something up.




Quote
Thank you for demonstrating so clearly that you haven't got a clue about what you call "my theory".

You really don't understand do you?, you put your theory on the table as your first response.

Quote
And I am not arguing with you.

Exactly, because you have no argument.

Quote
I am simply telling you that your statement is simply not correct.

Your theory that I'm incorrect requires evidence! Well?


I've had enough, you haven't even come close to refuting my original statement and presenting any relevant evidence is obviously beyond you, anyway Martin your continual downer comments are a real sad reflection on who you are, you're just not worth it.



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 09:09:15 AM

OK, your shade thing didn't really work with Markham so now you're down to style?

As for the "positively identified", how does that work when she didn't recognize Oswald in the lineup?


Quote
OK, your shade thing didn't really work with Markham

Sorry Sorenson, I can't help it if you have no concept of science, the following graphic speaks for itself the same jacket looks different in different lighting conditions and gives a perfect explanation for some slight shading variations. 

(https://s17.postimg.org/c19c1f99r/Oswaldsjacketlighterdarkerz_zpsb85ca9ed.jpg)

Quote
As for the "positively identified", how does that work when she didn't recognize Oswald in the lineup?

You are so far off base it isn't funny, Markham positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald on the same afternoon and her misinterpretation of a single question months later has no bearing on her first day identification.

Mr. BALL. No. I wanted to know if that day when you were in there if you saw anyone in there--
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two.
Mr. BALL. What did you say when you saw number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, let me tell you. I said the second man, and they kept asking me which one, which one. I said, number two. When I said number two, I just got weak.
Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.

Oswald was man number 2.



JohnM

 


Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 09:12:27 AM
Are you sure you want to add Burt to the list?

At the intersection of 10th and Patton Streets the man ran south on Patton Street. BURT said he ran to the intersection of 10th and Patton and when he was close enough to Patton Street to see to the south he saw the man running into an alley located between 10th and Jefferson Avenue on Patton Street. The man ran in the alley to the right and would be running west at this point.




Why not add Burt?
Burt saw Oswald run to the intersection of Tenth and Patton, then he lost sight of Oswald.



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 09:24:20 AM
Did I avoid Markham?

OK, your shade thing didn't really work with Markham so now you're down to style?

As for the "positively identified", how does that work when she didn't recognize Oswald in the lineup?



As soon as I come across CKs who think it's so important to focus on slight discrepancies in Oswald Jacket, it's immediately obvious that they have never studied any case outside JFK.

In the real world, clothing identification will always show slight discrepancies, in the following list these eyewitnesses all positively identified the same killer at Port Arthur and as per normal the jacket descriptions show variation.

Name of Witness: DUTTON Christian Names: James David       brown jacket
Name of Witness: KINGSTON Christian Names: Ian Gregory     green jacket
Name of Witness: BEEKMAN Christian Names: Michael Dean     ski type jacket, blue, orange and a few other colours on it
Name of Witness: WILLIAMS Christian Names: Colin Sydney    3/4 length jacket, dark in appearance
Name of Witness: WILLIAMS Christian Names: Iris Emelia     He had on a jacket of some description.
Name of Witness: SARGENT Christian Names: Michael Robert   blue jacket
Name of Witness: RIVIERE Christian Names: John Michael     “High length’ black jacket
Name of Witness: OLSON Christian Names: MARY LEE           I think was green
Name of Witness: LEVER Cristian Names: Coralee Helen       dark jacket
Name of Witness: NASH Christian Names: Carolyn Louise      khaki green jacket or parker type jacket
Name of Witness: BALASKO Christian Names: James            black jacket
Name of Witness: McKENNA Christian Names: Rebecca Kate     ski type jacket which was zipped all the way up. it was either navy, blue or grey.



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 09:25:03 AM
Picked up on him again. It was "the man".



Was it the same man?, prove it!



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 10:12:19 AM
You added Burt to the list, but now you question his observations?





Not at all, Burt saw the same man in the same light coloured jacket as everybody else and just like everybody else Burt saw Oswald head towards the corner of Tenth and Patton and the same jacketed man with a gun was positively identified running down Patton.



JohnM

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 10:16:36 AM
Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, let me tell you. I said the second man, and they kept asking me which one, which one. I said, number two. When I said number two, I just got weak.

If she said number two why did they keep asking her which one, which one until she got weak?



She said the man was number two and they wanted to make sure, what's your problem with that?  :o

Btw when are you going to start refuting the mountain of evidence because your current tactic of insignificant cherry picking is going nowhere.



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 10:40:56 AM
Evidence of?






If you don't know the evidence, why are you bothering?



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 11:38:07 AM
You're referring to your list of witnesses seeing a light colored jacket or some other mountain?




Quote
You're referring to your list of witnesses seeing a light colored jacket

What planet are you on?, of course we are dealing with the mountain of Jacket evidence because you are in no way prepared to deal with the rest of the evidence, just take it slowly slowly.

Quote
or some other mountain?

Thanks for reinforcing that the mountain of jacket evidence is just one of the mountains of evidence that you need to climb.



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 22, 2018, 12:34:23 PM

You really don't understand do you?, you put your theory on the table as your first response.

Exactly, because you have no argument.

Your theory that I'm incorrect requires evidence! Well?


I've had enough, you haven't even come close to refuting my original statement and presenting any relevant evidence is obviously beyond you, anyway Martin your continual downer comments are a real sad reflection on who you are, you're just not worth it.



JohnM

You really don't understand do you?, you put your theory on the table as your first response.

Lol... my first response was that you, as usual, were telling a lie.

Exactly, because you have no argument.

Unlike you, I'm not insecure and do not require constant confirmation, so I'll gladly leave you your delusion of grandeur

Your theory that I'm incorrect requires evidence! Well?

My statement that you are not correct is not a theory. It is fact....

I've had enough, you haven't even come close to refuting my original statement and presenting any relevant evidence is obviously beyond you, anyway Martin your continual downer comments are a real sad reflection on who you are, you're just not worth it.

Oh Johnny, you still don't get it, do you now? Just how naively stupid does one have to be to think you can persuade WC critics by presenting nothing more that the same old WC arguments to them over and over again. Because that's what you do all the time. You're like a vending machine that dispenses the same old stuff every time a button is pushed.

You are not here to argue. In fact, you don't know how to discuss and argue... You are here to repeat over and over again the same old rubbish you were given by the WC and Bugliosi no matter how often it has been debunked or exposed as a misrepresentation. That's all you do and all you know how to do. There is no point in arguing with you because your answers (mostly copy/paste or a gif) are always predictable and by your standards, nobody will ever come close to refuting anything you say, because you will automatically dismiss everything you don't like, no matter how relevant or correct the information is that you have been given.

   
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Richard Smith on January 22, 2018, 04:31:43 PM
I'm surprised our resident nitwits haven't suggested that Oswald's jacket wasn't found in the theatre because there is no evidence that anyone searched for it.  Maybe it is still there somewhere like Frazier's two-foot long bag in the TSBD or Oswald's rifle at the post office.  It's laughable to watch these kooks dance like circus monkeys around the obvious evidence and then deny they are suggesting a vast conspiracy even though the implications of what they are suggesting mean that almost everyone - including many random people whose testimony they otherwise rely upon - intentionally lied or planted evidence to frame Oswald.  And they take themselves so seriously.  Like ghost hunters. 
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 22, 2018, 06:25:31 PM
Here we go again... the usual pathetic excuse to explain away why Markham did not recognize CE 162.

And she wasn't the only one.

If Markham had said she had seen a purple jacket you would probably be blaming it on the position of the moon relative to the sun as well as a thunderstorm 300 miles away...

Purple, huh. Nah, that far off in colour perception would either strongly suggest an extreme case of color blindness, or the jacket seen in shadow. Well at least according to my scientific non C&P-delivered research on the subject.

 ;)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Richard Smith on January 22, 2018, 07:01:45 PM
LHO left the TSBD with NO jacket, but Whaley said that he had one on. Where did he get the jacket from?

How do you know that he left the TSBD with no jacket?   
 
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 22, 2018, 11:21:52 PM
How about quitting with the straw man and deal with what I actually did say.  The fibers found inside one of the sleeves of the jacket matched the microscopic fibers from Oswald's arrest shirt.

And by "matched" you mean similar.  So what?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 22, 2018, 11:25:50 PM
This is your so called American Justice, I can murder someone in broad daylight in front of eyewitnesses and then get seen running away by almost a dozen people, most of which see me with the same type of gun that killed the man, drop shells that match my revolver, whack the Police Officer that tries to search me, then I try and kill him too and all I need is Iacoletti Inc. to misrepresent the eyewitnesses and I'm magically innocent. Holy WOW Batman!

Whereas you prefer a system of justice that railroads a guy with bogus lineups, shells with magic disappearing initials, and a gun that a cop pulls out of his pocket 2 hours later.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 11:31:37 PM
And by "matched" you mean similar.  So what?






The prohibitive probability is that those fibers came from Oswald's shirt.
RHVB

Another important consideration is coincidence. When fibers that match the clothing fibers of the suspect are found on the clothing of a victim, two conclusions may be drawn: The fibers originated from the suspect, or the fibers originated from another fabric source that not only was composed of fibers of the exact type and color, but was also in a position to contribute those fibers through primary or secondary contact. The likelihood of encountering identical fibers from the environment of a homicide victim (i.e., from his or her residence or friends) is extremely remote.
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2000/deedric3.htm



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 22, 2018, 11:41:42 PM
The prohibitive probability is that those fibers came from Oswald's shirt.
RHVB

As I said, that's just Bugliosi-speak for "similar".  He pulled this "probability" out of his azz.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 11:42:35 PM
Whereas you prefer a system of justice that railroads a guy with bogus lineups, shells with magic disappearing initials, and a gun that a cop pulls out of his pocket 2 hours later.




Quote
Whereas you prefer a system of justice that railroads a guy with bogus lineups

This argument goes nowhere, the crime wasn't committed in some dark alley where a single identification may cause doubt, Oswald killed Tippit in broad daylight and was positively identified by multiple people.

Quote
shells with magic disappearing initials

So they had the shells in custody but forgot to initial them, silly conspirators.
Quote
and a gun that a cop pulls out of his pocket 2 hours later.

I really don't get why you find this to be such a problem, he kept it on his person for safe keeping.
What's the difference if he kept Oswald's revolver for 10 seconds, 10 minutes or 10 hours?



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 22, 2018, 11:44:06 PM
I'm surprised our resident nitwits haven't suggested that Oswald's jacket wasn't found in the theatre because there is no evidence that anyone searched for it.

A jacket doesn't prove who shot a cop, just like a paper bag doesn't prove who shot the president.  Your "mountain" is irrelevancies like this.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 22, 2018, 11:45:33 PM
What are you talking about?  Ted Callaway, just for quick reference, positively identified the jacket (CE-162) as being the one that Oswald had on as he ran down Patton.

No he didn't.  He said it was the same type jacket and that he thought it had more tan to it.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 11:47:57 PM
As I said, that's just Bugliosi-speak for "similar".  He pulled this "probability" out of his azz.




Hahaha, I reinforced Bugliosi's professional opinion with literature directly from the FBI's website and you erase it which so typical of a CT, when evidence is produced that doesn't comply with your mindset it gets magically erased. The intellectual dishonesty on display is absolutely unbelievable.

Another important consideration is coincidence. When fibers that match the clothing fibers of the suspect are found on the clothing of a victim, two conclusions may be drawn: The fibers originated from the suspect, or the fibers originated from another fabric source that not only was composed of fibers of the exact type and color, but was also in a position to contribute those fibers through primary or secondary contact. The likelihood of encountering identical fibers from the environment of a homicide victim (i.e., from his or her residence or friends) is extremely remote.
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2000/deedric3.htm



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 22, 2018, 11:49:09 PM
This is why I usually don't respond to your insanity, you simply don't know the evidence and now that I've proven that the vast majority of the Tippit eyewitnesses describe a light coloured jacket,

What "Tippit eyewitnesses"?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 22, 2018, 11:51:22 PM
You keep avoiding the most important piece of evidence, Markham who positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald described the same style of jacket but her description of the shade was logically influenced by vastly different lighting conditions and different contrasting backgrounds.

Is this supposed to prove that Markham saw the same jacket?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 22, 2018, 11:54:47 PM
How do you know that he left the TSBD with no jacket?   

Isn't that your narrative?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 22, 2018, 11:57:10 PM
Is this supposed to prove that Markham saw the same jacket?





Markham positively identified Oswald and the fact that she thought the jacket was darker under completely different lighting conditions means nothing.



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 22, 2018, 11:59:12 PM
This argument goes nowhere, the crime wasn't committed in some dark alley where a single identification may cause doubt, Oswald killed Tippit in broad daylight and was positively identified by multiple people.

Identified by "multiple people" who didn't even see a crime committed, in unfair lineups.

Quote
So they had the shells in custody but forgot to initial them, silly conspirators.

So you can't prove that they are the same shells then.  Silly LNers.

Quote
I really don't get why you find this to be such a problem, he kept it on his person for safe keeping.

Of course he did.   ::)

Quote
What's the difference if he kept Oswald's revolver for 10 seconds, 10 minutes or 10 hours?

Oswald's revolver.  LOL.  How would anybody know that the gun that Hill pulled out of his pocket 2 hours later was even ever at the theater, much less ever even touched by Oswald?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 23, 2018, 12:01:21 AM
What "Tippit eyewitnesses"?



For a start Markham, Scoggins and Benavides saw Oswald at the crime scene with a light coloured jacket and then a stack more identified Oswald with a gun moving away from the crime scene while wearing a light coloured jacket.



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 23, 2018, 12:04:21 AM
Hahaha, I reinforced Bugliosi's professional opinion with literature directly from the FBI's website and you erase it which so typical of a CT, when evidence is produced that doesn't comply with your mindset it gets magically erased. The intellectual dishonesty on display is absolutely unbelievable.

And what's typical of you is introducing yet another irrelevancy.  What victim's clothing do you think these fibers were found on?  They were found in a jacket that can't even be shown to have anything to do with Tippit or even Oswald.

You can't calculate a probability without knowing how many objects there are with similar fibers.  All you can do is make one up.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 23, 2018, 12:06:55 AM
Markham positively identified Oswald and the fact that she thought the jacket was darker under completely different lighting conditions means nothing.

Then why are you arguing the way colors look under different lighting conditions at all?

The fact that an utter screwball identified someone in an unfair lineup also means nothing.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 23, 2018, 12:13:11 AM
Identified by "multiple people" who didn't even see a crime committed, in unfair lineups.

So you can't prove that they are the same shells then.  Silly LNers.

Of course he did.   ::)

Oswald's revolver.  LOL.  How would anybody know that the gun that Hill pulled out of his pocket 2 hours later was even ever at the theater, much less ever even touched by Oswald?





Quote
Oswald's revolver.  LOL.

You better brief your client because Oswald admitted that he was carrying a revolver at the theater! Doh!

Quote
How would anybody know that the gun that Hill pulled out of his pocket 2 hours later was even ever at the theater, much less ever even touched by Oswald?

The eyewitnesses who positively identified Oswald and confirmed he was carrying a gun

Mr. BALL. Which way?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Towards Jefferson, right across that way.
Mr. DULLES. Did he have the pistol in his hand at this time?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had the gun when I saw him.


Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you said you saw the man with the gun throw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you see the man empty his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it

Mr. BALL. And what did you see the man doing?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, first off she went to screaming before I had paid too much attention to him, and pointing at him, and he was, what I thought, was emptying the gun.
Mr. BALL. He had a gun in his hand?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.

Mr. BALL. And how was he holding the gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. We used to say in the Marine Corps in a raised pistol position.


Mr. BALL. What did you see him doing?
Mr. GUINYARD. He came through there running and knocking empty shells out of his pistol and he had it up just like this with his hand.
Mr. BALL. With which hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. With his right hand; just kicking them out.
Mr. BALL. He had it up?


Mr. B.M. PATTERSON, 4635 Hartford Street, Dallas, Texas, currently employed by Wyatt's Cafeteria, 2647 South Lancaster, Dallas, Texas, advised he was present at the used car lot of JOHNNY REYNOLDS' on the afternoon of November 22, 1963.

PATTERSON advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, he was standing on JONNY REYNOLDS' used car lot together with L.J. LEWIS and HAROLD RUSSELL when they heard shots coming from the vicinity of 10th and Patton Avenue, Dallas, Texas. A minute or so later they observed a white male approximately 30 years of age, running south on Patton Avenue, carrying what appeared to be a revolver in his hand and was obviously trying to reload same while running.


Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see this man's face that had the gun in his hand?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Very good.

HAROLD RUSSELL, employee, Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, he was standing on the lot of Reynolds Used Cars together with L.J. LEWIS and PAT PATTERSON, at which time they heard shots come from the vicinity of Patton and Tenth Street, and a few seconds later they observed a young white man running south on Patton Avenue carrying a pistol or revolver which the individual was attempting to either reload or place in his belt line.


Mr. BELIN. Did he have anything in his hand?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He had a pistol in his left hand.

Jack Tatum
Next. this man with a gun in his hand ran toward the back of the squad car, but instead of running away he stepped into the street and shot the police officer who was lying in the street.


The Police Officers who were confronted with the murdering Oswald.

Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.


Mr. BELIN. When you saw Oswald's hand by his belt, which hand did you see then?
Mr. WALKER. He had ahold of the handle of it.
Mr. BELIN. Handle of what?
Mr. WALKER. The revolver.
Mr. BELIN. Was there a revolver there?
Mr. WALKER. Yes; there was.

Mr. HUTSON. McDonald was at this time simultaneously trying to hold this person's right hand. Somehow this person moved his right hand to his waist, and I saw a revolver come out, and McDonald was holding on to it with his right hand, and this gun was waving up toward the back of the seat like this.


Oswald even admitted carrying his revolver.

Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.


Mr. McCLOY. Was it a sharpshooter's or a marksman's? There are two different types, you know.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
Oswald admitted that he was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 22d of November 1963, where he had been employed since the 15th of October. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was a laborer in this building and had access to the entire building. It had offices on the first and second floors with storage on third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building.
He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home. He went to his residence on North Beckley, changed his clothes, and then went to a movie.
Captain Fritz asked him if he always carried a pistol when he went to the movie, and he said he carried it because he felt like it. He admitted that he did have a pistol on him at the time of his arrest, in this theatre, in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. He further admitted that he had resisted arrest and had received a bump and a cut as a result of his resisting of arrest. He then denied that he had killed Officer Tippit or President Kennedy.


Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.




JohnM






Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 23, 2018, 12:16:25 AM

The fact that an utter screwball identified someone in an unfair lineup also means nothing.







Golly, another woman connected with this case that you just want to insult, pathetic!



JohnM






Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 23, 2018, 12:18:01 AM
You better brief your client because Oswald admitted that he was carrying a revolver at the theater! Doh!

How does any of your latest mountain of irrelevancies show that the gun that Hill pulled out of his pocket 2 hours later was ever in Oswald's possession?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 23, 2018, 12:20:06 AM
Golly, another woman connected with this case that you just want to insult, pathetic!

That's what the guy who took her testimony called her.  Do you think you know her better than he did?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 23, 2018, 01:54:00 AM
That what the guy who took her testimony called her.  Do you think you know her better than he did?

The way she misunderstood the questions was what frustrated the interrogator.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 23, 2018, 01:59:54 AM

The way she misunderstood the questions was what frustrated the interrogator.


Or was it that she wasn't telling him what he wanted to hear?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 23, 2018, 02:45:36 AM
That what the guy who took her testimony called her. 

For a start you didn't reference Ball in your comment so blaming Ball for your Woman bashing insult is a gutless cop out.
And secondly, I don't think Ball was qualified to analyse Markham, what's your opinion?

Quote
Do you think you know her better than he did?

Ball interacted with a plethora of witnesses and he concluded from all these witnesses that Oswald did it beyond all doubt, do you endorse that as well?, or will you just cherry pick a single comment from fifty years ago where Ball was clearly using a crowd pleasing ironic metaphor.



JohmM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 23, 2018, 06:13:59 AM
How about quitting with the straw man and deal with what I actually did say.  The fibers found inside one of the sleeves of the jacket matched the microscopic fibers from Oswald's arrest shirt.

And by "matched" you mean similar.  So what?

No.

By "matched" I mean the fibers were more than only similar; I mean exactly what I said, that they were a match.

If you believe the fibers found inside one of the sleeves were only "similar" to fibers taken from Oswald's arrest shirt, then you need to go back and learn the evidence.  The fibers were a match.

Or, maybe you simply don't know the meaning of very basic words, like "similar".

Anything to get a cop-killer off the hook.  Right?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 23, 2018, 07:30:20 AM
Or was it that she wasn't telling him what he wanted to hear?

He wanted her to understand the questions.

Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men*

*Meaning prior to that day
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 23, 2018, 07:44:07 AM
No sign of misunderstanding whether she recognized Oswald or not.

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no

BALL started harassing and leading the witness when Markham didn't deliver what he wanted. 

Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.

In court BALL would have been immediately stopped as she had already answered his question; Markham fully understands "recognized":

Mr. BALL. All right. I have some pictures here that I would like to show you. I have Exhibits 521 and 522, which have been marked as Exhibits. Here is one picture, 521. Do you recognize that as the sign down?
Mrs. MARKHAM. This is the corner of Patton and 10th.
//
Mr. BALL. No, I have another picture I will show her. I have here Exhibit 522; do you recognize the white house in the picture?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.
//
Mr. BALL. Northwest corner; that is the northwest corner. Here is a picture. Do you recognize that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
//
Mr. BALL. I have some other pictures here that might illustrate. Do you recognize this?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.

Straight answers all the way. She didn't recognize Oswald in the lineup. BALL was desperate.

She had seen the streets prior, so naturally she recognized them

You've avoided the way in which she reacted upon realizing he was the killer
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 23, 2018, 07:53:44 AM
No sign of misunderstanding whether she recognized Oswald or not.

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no

BALL started harassing and leading the witness when Markham didn't deliver what he wanted. 

Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.

In court BALL would have been immediately stopped as she had already answered his question; Markham fully understands "recognized":

Mr. BALL. All right. I have some pictures here that I would like to show you. I have Exhibits 521 and 522, which have been marked as Exhibits. Here is one picture, 521. Do you recognize that as the sign down?
Mrs. MARKHAM. This is the corner of Patton and 10th.
//
Mr. BALL. No, I have another picture I will show her. I have here Exhibit 522; do you recognize the white house in the picture?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.
//
Mr. BALL. Northwest corner; that is the northwest corner. Here is a picture. Do you recognize that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
//
Mr. BALL. I have some other pictures here that might illustrate. Do you recognize this?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.

Straight answers all the way. She didn't recognize Oswald in the lineup. BALL was desperate.

How does Markham's testimony in July of 1964, whether she was confused by the questioning or not, negate her 11/22/63 positive identification of Lee Oswald as the man she saw murder J.D. Tippit?

Regardless of how one chooses to view her testimony eight months later, NONE OF IT takes from the fact that she positively identified Oswald at the police lineup on the day of the murder.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 23, 2018, 08:08:48 AM
It's called cross contamination.

Explain.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 23, 2018, 08:11:28 AM
How do you positively identify someone you don't recognize?

On the evening of the murder, many months before her confused Warren Commission testimony, did Markham pick the "number two" man or not?  Of course she did.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 23, 2018, 08:21:42 AM
Transfer of fiber while handling evidence.





So the fibers jumped into the sleeves of Oswald's jacket and the same fibers lodged themselves in Oswald's rifle?



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 23, 2018, 08:23:24 AM
So now it's "pick". I get it.

Correct.  Markham picked out the #2 man (Oswald) as the man she saw murder a police officer.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 23, 2018, 08:24:46 AM
Transfer of fiber while handling evidence.

I know what cross contamination means.  Sheesh.

I'm asking you to explain how it's relevant to the fibers found in the sleeve of the jacket.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 23, 2018, 09:24:34 AM
If you knew you wouldn't have to ask how it's relevant.

The question is: when were the fibers transferred?

Can you answer that question?

Finally.  An explanation (or, at least a question).

Of course I cannot say when the fibers were transferred.  No one can possibly answer such an inane question.  If the fibers found inside the sleeve of the jacket did come from Oswald's shirt, what difference would it make it they were transferred there on 11/22/63 or a month earlier?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 23, 2018, 09:25:45 AM
The question is how the lineup was conducted since she testified to not recognizing the man.

What she testified to was that the number two man is the man who she saw shoot the policeman.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 23, 2018, 10:15:30 AM
So you didn't understand cross contamination.

If the transfer of fibers happened while the DPD was handling the evidence they are irrelevant to the case.

What ever case you're trying to make.

There is no solid chain of custody for the white jacket found at the carpark. The initials on the jacket were place there at the police station (just like it happened with the revolver) and (if Westbrook's testimony is to be believed) clearly do not correspond with the officers who actually found that jacket and took it to the station.

Except for Earlene Roberts saying so (and she was half blind and paying more attention to the TV) there is no evidence that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket at all and even Roberts rejected CE 162 because the jacket she claimed to have seen was darker.

That same afternoon, DPD officers took all Oswald's belongings from the rooming house and took them to the station. If the gray jacket (CE 162) was even in Oak Cliff (and not in Irving) this is how the gray jacket could have gotten to the police station.

The same goes for the search without a warrant at Ruth Paine's house. If the gray jacket was actually there, DPD officers could have brought in to the station from there.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 23, 2018, 12:56:23 PM
During his WC testimony, Barnes was asked a lot of questions about what he did at the Tippit scene of the shooting and later at the crime lab, but they hardly asked him anything about the jacket.

He said he took a photo of the car under which the jacket was found, but there is not a word in his testimony about the jacket itself. They didn't ask him if he knew who found it, or if he had seen or handled it himself. They were not even interested enough to ask him how his initials ended up on the jacket.

For George Doughty, who also initialed the jacket, it's even worse. They did not even call him to testify.

Who really found the jacket, who called it in describing it as being white, who had it when Barnes arrived on the scene to take his picture and how and when it got to the police station is completely and totally unclear.

Some chain of custody!
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 23, 2018, 05:31:44 PM
For a start you didn't reference Ball in your comment so blaming Ball for your Woman bashing insult is a gutless cop out.

Don't blame me for your lack of knowledge about the case.

Quote
Ball interacted with a plethora of witnesses and he concluded from all these witnesses that Oswald did it beyond all doubt,

I don't care what he "concluded", I care about the quality of the evidence (or the lack thereof) that the conclusion is based on.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 23, 2018, 05:46:01 PM
Or, maybe you simply don't know the meaning of very basic words, like "similar".

Or, maybe you simply don't know the meaning of very basic words, like "match".  Are those fibers exclusive to one particular shirt?  Yes or no?

Anything to railroad your suspect with phony rhetoric.  Right?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 23, 2018, 05:46:43 PM
He wanted her to understand the questions.

Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men*

*Meaning prior to that day

Who ever said "prior to that day"?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 23, 2018, 05:49:08 PM
So the fibers jumped into the sleeves of Oswald's jacket and the same fibers lodged themselves in Oswald's rifle?

What gave you the idea that the fibers in the jacket were the same fibers in the rifle?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 23, 2018, 06:25:04 PM
There is no solid chain of custody for the white jacket found at the carpark. The initials on the jacket were place there at the police station (just like it happened with the revolver) and (if Westbrook's testimony is to be believed) clearly do not correspond with the officers who actually found that jacket and took it to the station.

Except for Earlene Roberts saying so (and she was half blind and paying more attention to the TV) there is no evidence that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket at all and even Roberts rejected CE 162 because the jacket she claimed to have seen was darker.

That same afternoon, DPD officers took all Oswald's belongings from the rooming house and took them to the station. If the gray jacket (CE 162) was even in Oak Cliff (and not in Irving) this is how the gray jacket could have gotten to the police station.

The same goes for the search without a warrant at Ruth Paine's house. If the gray jacket was actually there, DPD officers could have brought in to the station from there.

"Except for Earlene Roberts saying so (and she was half blind* and paying more attention to the TV")
Good thing she was only half blind, huh...still had the other half to watch Oswald zip up his jacket

*She was blind in one eye, so I suppose that makes her 'half blind' percentage-wise LOL
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 23, 2018, 06:31:26 PM
"Except for Earlene Roberts saying so (and she was half blind* and paying more attention to the TV")
Good thing she was only half blind, huh...still had the other half to watch Oswald zip up his jacket

*She was blind in one eye, so I suppose that makes her 'half blind' percentage-wise LOL

It must be hard for you having to rely fully on a half blind woman who was paying more attention to the TV and who was known for making up stuff...

Can you imagine how the defense would have a field day destroying this witness (and a few others) on the stand, had it come to a trial?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on January 23, 2018, 07:16:31 PM
Lee Oswald's housekeeper
Lee Oswald's housekeeper (Earlene Roberts, right) and landlady (Gladys Johnson, left) photographed at Oswald's rooming house on the evening of the JFK assassination Courtesy Fort Worth Star-Telegram Collection, Special Collections Division, University of Texas at Arlington Libraries
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/landlady.jpg)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 23, 2018, 09:26:08 PM
So you didn't understand cross contamination.

If the transfer of fibers happened while the DPD was handling the evidence they are irrelevant to the case.

What ever case you're trying to make.

I absolutely understand cross contamination.

Finally, you decided to make a point, regarding such a thing.

Show your evidence that the jacket was sitting beside the arrest shirt on a table top or that the two were placed in a box together or anything like that.  Go on.  I'll wait.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 23, 2018, 09:28:04 PM
There is no solid chain of custody for the white jacket found at the carpark. The initials on the jacket were place there at the police station (just like it happened with the revolver) and (if Westbrook's testimony is to be believed) clearly do not correspond with the officers who actually found that jacket and took it to the station.

Except for Earlene Roberts saying so (and she was half blind and paying more attention to the TV) there is no evidence that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket at all and even Roberts rejected CE 162 because the jacket she claimed to have seen was darker.

That same afternoon, DPD officers took all Oswald's belongings from the rooming house and took them to the station. If the gray jacket (CE 162) was even in Oak Cliff (and not in Irving) this is how the gray jacket could have gotten to the police station.

The same goes for the search without a warrant at Ruth Paine's house. If the gray jacket was actually there, DPD officers could have brought in to the station from there.

"If"

"Could have"


You can call her half blind all you want, but the bottom line is that Earlene Roberts stated over and over that Oswald left the house zipping up a jacket.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 23, 2018, 09:31:12 PM
Or, maybe you simply don't know the meaning of very basic words, like "match".  Are those fibers exclusive to one particular shirt?  Yes or no?

Anything to railroad your suspect with phony rhetoric.  Right?

You're being dumb.

The fibers were much more than "similar".  They, in fact, were a match.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 23, 2018, 09:37:43 PM
Ah, because it was found in the TSBD 10 days later. Now, please answer my question.

For the record, the blue jacket (Ce-163) was found in the Depository on December 16th, which is much more than just ten days later.

This jacket being found inside the Depository does not prove that Oswald left the building without a jacket, however.  You haven't really proven anything.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 23, 2018, 09:45:16 PM
Bill Brown double standard alert;

"the bottom line is that Earlene Roberts stated over and over that Oswald left the house zipping up a jacket."

Ergo; Earlene Roberts is to be believed.

Frazier said from day 1 until today over and over again that the bag found at the TSBD was not the bag he saw Oswald carry

Ergo: Frazier was mistaken
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 23, 2018, 10:17:29 PM
You're being dumb.

The fibers were much more than "similar".  They, in fact, were a match.

As fun as it always is to play word games with you, why are you avoiding the question?

Are those fibers exclusive to one particular shirt?  A simple yes or no will suffice.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 23, 2018, 10:21:45 PM
Bill Brown double standard alert;

"the bottom line is that Earlene Roberts stated over and over that Oswald left the house zipping up a jacket."

Ergo; Earlene Roberts is to be believed.

Frazier said from day 1 until today over and over again that the bag found at the TSBD was not the bag he saw Oswald carry

Ergo: Frazier was mistaken

(https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/emoji-one/104/thumbs-up-sign_1f44d.png)

Besides, so what if Oswald did leave the house zipping up A jacket?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 23, 2018, 10:29:45 PM
Bill Brown double standard alert;

"the bottom line is that Earlene Roberts stated over and over that Oswald left the house zipping up a jacket."

Ergo; Earlene Roberts is to be believed.

Frazier said from day 1 until today over and over again that the bag found at the TSBD was not the bag he saw Oswald carry

Ergo: Frazier was mistaken

So, if Frazier was correct about the size of the package, so what?  Oswald's rifle was still found inside the building.  How he got the rifle in there means nothing.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 23, 2018, 10:31:29 PM
You evidently do not understand the implications of cross contamination.

You need to show the transfer of fibers was not due to cross contamination or you have no case.

That is absolutely not true.  If you feel cross contamination may have occurred, then prove it.  Until then, the record states that the microscopic fibers found inside one of the sleeves of the jacket matched microscopic fibers from Oswald's arrest shirt.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 23, 2018, 10:37:12 PM
As fun as it always is to play word games with you, why are you avoiding the question?

Are those fibers exclusive to one particular shirt?  A simple yes or no will suffice.


Quote
As fun as it always is to play word games with you, why are you avoiding the question?

Word games?  You're a joke.

You said the fibers were similar.  You are wrong.

Also, how can I avoid your question when you have yet to ask one?


Quote
Are those fibers exclusive to one particular shirt?  A simple yes or no will suffice.

Of course not.  The fibers are exclusive to shirts with the same matching microscopic fibers.  Duh.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 23, 2018, 10:38:15 PM
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/emoji-one/104/thumbs-up-sign_1f44d.png)

Besides, so what if Oswald did leave the house zipping up A jacket?

Why would Oswald ditch A jacket by the time he was seen by Brewer?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 23, 2018, 10:53:49 PM
You're being dumb.

The fibers were much more than "similar".  They, in fact, were a match.



Yep!

(https://s17.postimg.org/4rkjra7bz/brownshirtfibers_zpsrgyy13mq.jpg)


These clowns are so desperate to find their man innocent that all reality just flies out the window, the three distinctly different fibers on the rifle matched the three distinctly different fibers found on the rifle, the FBI summed it up very well "in 1998 there was 100 billion pounds of fibers produced" which was made into millions of sheets, shirts, pants, socks, wigs, undies, bags, etc etc and when the three fibers found on the rifle matched the three fibers in Oswald's shirt we are left with powerful persuasive evidence that the fibers on the rifle came from Oswald's shirt.

When one considers the volume of fabric produced in the world each year, the number of garments of a particular color and fiber type is extremely small. The likelihood of two or more manufacturers duplicating all aspects of the fabric type and color exactly is extremely remote. The large number of dye types and colors that exist in the world, coupled with the unlimited number of possible dye combinations, makes any fiber association by color significant. One must also consider the lifespan of a particular fabric: Only so much of a given fabric of a particular color and fiber type is produced, and it will eventually end up being destroyed or dumped in a landfill.

More than 100 billion pounds of fiber were produced in 1998. Approximately 40 billion pounds of cotton were used to produce textile products during 1998 (Fiber Organon 1999), and although a great many of these fibers were used in the production of clothing, a large amount of cotton fiber was also used for other purposes, such as stuffing and padding material (batting), cotton swabs, and cotton balls. Much of the cotton used in clothing ends up undyed, as in white shirts, underwear, socks, and bed sheets, but often cotton is dyed many different shades of blue, red, green, and yellow. Much of the cotton fabric produced is also print-dyed, which imparts different color characteristics to the surface of the cotton fibers, and some cotton fabrics are dyed in such a way as to vary the color along the length of the fiber. The cotton fibers in fabrics can remain in a rough state or can be processed in different ways, such as by mercerization.

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2000/deedric3.htm



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 23, 2018, 10:59:31 PM
Nice try but I don't need to feel anything regarding cross contamination because, as the records state, the fibers are there.

The question is how they arrived there if you want to use those fibers to support your case.

This is the bait you dumped on page one:

Show us how clever you are; what can you prove?


You don't get it do you, Bill doesn't have to prove anything, it's all up to you Sorenson, if you allege contamination happened you must prove contamination happened, do you have any sort of evidence that supports your belief of cross contamination?



JohnM 
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 23, 2018, 11:45:10 PM
Yep!

And the mountain of irrelevancies continues.  What does a 1998 statistic have to do with a 1963 murder?  And then we get this gem:

Quote
These clowns are so desperate to find their man innocent that all reality just flies out the window, the three distinctly different fibers on the rifle matched the three distinctly different fibers found on the rifle,

Well duh!  Of course the fibers on the rifle match the fibers on the rifle.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 24, 2018, 12:38:02 AM
And the mountain of irrelevancies continues.  What does a 1998 statistic have to do with a 1963 murder?  And then we get this gem:

Well duh!  Of course the fibers on the rifle match the fibers on the rifle.



Quote
And the mountain of irrelevancies continues.  What does a 1998 statistic have to do with a 1963 murder?

How petty, in any one year a helluva lot of fiber is produced and even if in 1963 only 1/100 of the fiber was produced than in 1998 then it's still 1 billion pounds of fiber. And no I will not be replying to the inevitable how do you know how much fiber was produced in 1963, blah blah blah... Fiber analysis is still used in 2017 and contributes to the successful prosecutions of many criminals.

EDIT It appears that in 1963 fiber production was in excess of 10 million tons and more than enough to make a lot of problems for Oswald. Case closed.
(http://www.cottonbangladesh.com/October2008/image/ntrlfibrs1.jpg)

Quote
Well duh!  Of course the fibers on the rifle match the fibers on the rifle.

That's even more petty than the one above. How sad!



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Anderson on January 24, 2018, 12:46:01 PM


Yep!

(https://s17.postimg.org/4rkjra7bz/brownshirtfibers_zpsrgyy13mq.jpg)


These clowns are so desperate to find their man innocent that all reality just flies out the window, the three distinctly different fibers on the rifle matched the three distinctly different fibers found on the rifle, the FBI summed it up very well "in 1998 there was 100 billion pounds of fibers produced" which was made into millions of sheets, shirts, pants, socks, wigs, undies, bags, etc etc and when the three fibers found on the rifle matched the three fibers in Oswald's shirt we are left with powerful persuasive evidence that the fibers on the rifle came from Oswald's shirt.

When one considers the volume of fabric produced in the world each year, the number of garments of a particular color and fiber type is extremely small. The likelihood of two or more manufacturers duplicating all aspects of the fabric type and color exactly is extremely remote. The large number of dye types and colors that exist in the world, coupled with the unlimited number of possible dye combinations, makes any fiber association by color significant. One must also consider the lifespan of a particular fabric: Only so much of a given fabric of a particular color and fiber type is produced, and it will eventually end up being destroyed or dumped in a landfill.

More than 100 billion pounds of fiber were produced in 1998. Approximately 40 billion pounds of cotton were used to produce textile products during 1998 (Fiber Organon 1999), and although a great many of these fibers were used in the production of clothing, a large amount of cotton fiber was also used for other purposes, such as stuffing and padding material (batting), cotton swabs, and cotton balls. Much of the cotton used in clothing ends up undyed, as in white shirts, underwear, socks, and bed sheets, but often cotton is dyed many different shades of blue, red, green, and yellow. Much of the cotton fabric produced is also print-dyed, which imparts different color characteristics to the surface of the cotton fibers, and some cotton fabrics are dyed in such a way as to vary the color along the length of the fiber. The cotton fibers in fabrics can remain in a rough state or can be processed in different ways, such as by mercerization.

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2000/deedric3.htm



JohnM

Funny old world aint it? OJ Simpson got off even though both victims blood was found in his car and his ex wife's blood was found on his socks. Defence claimed it must have been planted by a racist cop and Simpson walked.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Anderson on January 24, 2018, 01:54:09 PM
You forgot to mention that cop was a proven teller of non truths.

Ah well then the verdict was fine.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Anderson on January 24, 2018, 04:22:12 PM
Maybe because Oswald is dead.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on January 24, 2018, 06:30:11 PM
You're being dumb.

The fibers were much more than "similar".  They, in fact, were a match.

They were from a shirt that wasn't being worn by the accused at the time he allegedly fired the alleged

murder weapon. A fiber match from that shirt and the TSBD Carcano confirms the frame up not Ozzie's guilt.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 24, 2018, 08:41:20 PM
So, if Frazier was correct about the size of the package, so what?  Oswald's rifle was still found inside the building.  How he got the rifle in there means nothing.

"Oswald's rifle".  LOL.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 24, 2018, 08:45:04 PM
You said the fibers were similar.  You are wrong.

(http://rs1190.pbsrc.com/albums/z459/lfelle/scratching-head-smiley-emoticon_zpslaymac0t.gif?w=93&h=70&fit=crop)

Huh?  Now you're saying that the fibers were not similar?

Quote
Of course not.  The fibers are exclusive to shirts with the same matching microscopic fibers.  Duh.

So what do you think this proves, exactly?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 24, 2018, 08:48:25 PM
Why would Oswald ditch A jacket by the time he was seen by Brewer?

I don't know, and neither do you.  You haven't even demonstrated that Oswald was wearing a jacket, just that Mrs. Roberts thought he was zipping one up when he supposedly left the rooming house.  Mrs. Roberts thought a lot of things.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 24, 2018, 08:56:35 PM
EDIT It appears that in 1963 fiber production was in excess of 10 million tons and more than enough to make a lot of problems for Oswald. Case closed.

I'm not sure what case you think this closes.  Without knowing how many fibers were produced that have similar colors and characteristics to these ones, or what clothing or other materials were made from them, you're just dumping irrelevant statistics.

Even sadder is that we were discussing the fibers in the jacket, not the ones on the rifle, Einstein, so your screenshots of Stombaugh's analysis of the rifle fibers are also irrelevant.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 24, 2018, 08:58:18 PM
Ah well then the verdict was fine.

Way more reasonable doubt in Oswald's case than in Simpson's.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 24, 2018, 11:27:02 PM
They were from a shirt that wasn't being worn by the accused at the time he allegedly fired the alleged

murder weapon. A fiber match from that shirt and the TSBD Carcano confirms the frame up not Ozzie's guilt.

Oswald wore that shirt when he was arrested.  If he was not wearing that shirt while shooting from the sniper's nest window, then he removed it while he was waiting for the motorcade to arrive and then used that shirt to quickly wipe down the rifle in hopes of removing his fingerprints.

It would have taken Oswald mere seconds to wipe down the rifle and then put the shirt on as he descended the first flight of stairs.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 24, 2018, 11:30:28 PM
(http://rs1190.pbsrc.com/albums/z459/lfelle/scratching-head-smiley-emoticon_zpslaymac0t.gif?w=93&h=70&fit=crop)

Huh?  Now you're saying that the fibers were not similar?

You said the fibers were only "similar".  You were wrong.  Is that better?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 24, 2018, 11:34:30 PM
I don't know, and neither do you.  You haven't even demonstrated that Oswald was wearing a jacket, just that Mrs. Roberts thought he was zipping one up when he supposedly left the rooming house.  Mrs. Roberts thought a lot of things.

Earlene Roberts:

"He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on.  It was kind of a zipper jacket...he was zipping it up as he went out the door."
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 24, 2018, 11:38:47 PM
Why would Oswald ditch A jacket by the time he was seen by Brewer?

I don't know, and neither do you.

Denial:  Anything to get a cop-killer off the hook.

Have you come up with any Tippit murder evidence which points somewhere other than Oswald, yet?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 24, 2018, 11:48:30 PM
You said the fibers were only "similar".  You were wrong.  Is that better?

I'm not "wrong" just because you want to use a definition of "match" that doesn't exclude other sources.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 24, 2018, 11:53:42 PM
Denial:  Anything to get a cop-killer off the hook.

Pretend to know something that you don't actually know.  Anything to railroad a guy you don't like.

Quote
Have you come up with any Tippit murder evidence which points somewhere other than Oswald, yet?

Have you come up with any evidence against Oswald yet other than utter screwball identified him in an unfair lineup?  Guilty until proven innocent?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 25, 2018, 12:07:27 AM
I'm not "wrong" just because you want to use a definition of "match" that doesn't exclude other sources.

I stated that the jacket sleeve fibers and the shirt fibers were a "match".  You made the ill-advised attempt to correct me by claiming that I meant the fibers were "similar" and not a "match".  You were wrong to do so.  The fibers were not only similar, they were indeed a match.

You were wrong.  Do you really want to argue about this for ten more pages?  You've done this sort of thing before.  Why not just stop now versus dragging it out?  Dragging this out for pages on end will not change anything.


And by "matched" you mean similar.  So what?

No.

By "matched" I mean the fibers were more than only similar; I mean exactly what I said, that they were a match.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 25, 2018, 12:10:42 AM
Pretend to know something that you don't actually know.  Anything to railroad a guy you don't like.

Have you come up with any evidence against Oswald yet other than utter screwball identified him in an unfair lineup?  Guilty until proven innocent?

I have posted dozens of pages (on this forum and the old one) of evidence that would be used in court (had Oswald went to trial) that would convict Oswald for Tippit's murder.

You have never posted anything showing ANY evidence whatsoever that points to someone other than Oswald.  Why is that?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 25, 2018, 12:11:35 AM
I stated that the jacket sleeve fibers and the shirt fibers were a "match".  You made the ill-advised attempt to correct me by claiming that I meant the fibers were "similar" and not a "match".  You were wrong to do so.  The fibers were not only similar, they were indeed a match.

You were wrong.  Do you really want to argue about this for ten more pages?  You've done this sort of thing before.  Why not just stop now versus dragging it out?  Dragging this out for pages on end will not change anything.

Because you've done this sort of thing before.  You just decide that your definition of a word is the "correct" one.

But rather that arguing about this, how about you just answer the question?  Whether the fibers are similar or whether they "match" in a way that doesn't exclude other sources,

So What?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 25, 2018, 12:15:52 AM
I have posted dozens of pages (on this forum and the old one) of evidence that would be used in court (had Oswald went to trial) that would convict Oswald for Tippit's murder.

Again, you actually have no idea what would have been used in court had Oswald gone to trial.  Or what the outcome might have been.  That's all in your head and doesn't actually prove anything.

Quote
You have never posted anything showing ANY evidence whatsoever that points to someone other than Oswald.  Why is that?

Why do I need to?  Guilty until proven innocent?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on January 25, 2018, 12:16:36 AM
Oswald wore that shirt when he was arrested.  If he was not wearing that shirt while shooting from the sniper's nest window, then he removed it while he was waiting for the motorcade to arrive and then used that shirt to quickly wipe down the rifle in hopes of removing his fingerprints.

It would have taken Oswald mere seconds to wipe down the rifle and then put the shirt on as he descended the first flight of stairs.

He changed his shirt and trousers at his room.

The shirt he was arrested in wasn't the shirt he wore to work on 11/22/63.

Officer Baker testified to the WC that he was wearing different clothes when he saw him at the police

station than when he saw him in the TSBD.

Fibers matching the arrest shirt to the TSBD Carcano point to a frame up not Ozzie's guilt.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPORT OF CAPT. J. W. FRITZ, DALLAS POLICE
                               DEPARTMENT

INTERROGATION OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD


~snip~

I asked him where he went to  when  he  left
work,  and he told me that he had a room on 1026 North Beckley, that  he
went over there and changed his trousers.....


~snip~
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 25, 2018, 12:39:39 AM
Because you've done this sort of thing before.  You just decide that your definition of a word is the "correct" one.

But rather that arguing about this, how about you just answer the question?  Whether the fibers are similar or whether they "match" in a way that doesn't exclude other sources,

So What?


Quote
Because you've done this sort of thing before.  You just decide that your definition of a word is the "correct" one.

My definition is the correct one.  Your definition is way off base.  Learn the difference between match and similar.


Quote
But rather that arguing about this, how about you just answer the question?  Whether the fibers are similar or whether they "match" in a way that doesn't exclude other sources,

So What?

I've already stated that the matching fibers do not exclude other shirts in the world with the dark blue, gray-black and orange-yellow matching fibers.

However, don't try to pretend for a second that the fact that the fibers were a match means nothing.  The fiber match is yet another thing to present to the jury in an attempt to convince them that the jacket was Oswald's and in an attempt to change his appearance he ditched the jacket after killing a police officer only minutes ago.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 25, 2018, 12:41:06 AM
Why do I need to?  Guilty until proven innocent?

Translation:  I have no evidence whatsoever which points to someone other than Lee Oswald.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 25, 2018, 12:43:34 AM
He changed his shirt and trousers at his room.

The shirt he was arrested in wasn't the shirt he wore to work on 11/22/63.

Officer Baker testified to the WC that he was wearing different clothes when he saw him at the police

station than when he saw him in the TSBD.

Fibers matching the arrest shirt to the TSBD Carcano point to a frame up not Ozzie's guilt.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPORT OF CAPT. J. W. FRITZ, DALLAS POLICE
                               DEPARTMENT

INTERROGATION OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD


~snip~

I asked him where he went to  when  he  left
work,  and he told me that he had a room on 1026 North Beckley, that  he
went over there and changed his trousers.....


~snip~

How does changing one's "trousers" translate to changing one's shirt?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on January 25, 2018, 01:17:38 AM
How does changing one's "trousers" translate to changing one's shirt?

 :o

REPORT OF CAPT. J. W. FRITZ, DALLAS POLICE
                               DEPARTMENT

INTERROGATION OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD


~snip~

I asked him where he went to  when  he  left
work,  and he told me that he had a room on 1026 North Beckley, that  he
went over there and changed his trousers.....


~snip~

During  this  conversation  he told me he reached his home  by  cab  and
changed  his shirt and trousers before going to the show.  He  said  his
cab  fare  was 85 cents.  When asked what he did with his  clothing,  he
took off when he got home, he said he put them in the dirty clothes.


~snip~

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

He changed his shirt and trousers at his room.

The shirt he was arrested in wasn't the shirt he wore to work on 11/22/63.

Officer Baker testified to the WC that he was wearing different clothes when he saw him at the police

station than when he saw him in the TSBD.

Fibers matching the arrest shirt to the TSBD Carcano point to a frame up not Ozzie's guilt.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 25, 2018, 02:53:17 AM
:o

REPORT OF CAPT. J. W. FRITZ, DALLAS POLICE
                               DEPARTMENT

INTERROGATION OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD


~snip~

I asked him where he went to  when  he  left
work,  and he told me that he had a room on 1026 North Beckley, that  he
went over there and changed his trousers.....


~snip~

During  this  conversation  he told me he reached his home  by  cab  and
changed  his shirt and trousers before going to the show.  He  said  his
cab  fare  was 85 cents.  When asked what he did with his  clothing,  he
took off when he got home, he said he put them in the dirty clothes.


~snip~

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

He changed his shirt and trousers at his room.

The shirt he was arrested in wasn't the shirt he wore to work on 11/22/63.

Officer Baker testified to the WC that he was wearing different clothes when he saw him at the police

station than when he saw him in the TSBD.

Fibers matching the arrest shirt to the TSBD Carcano point to a frame up not Ozzie's guilt.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338870/m1/1/high_res)

I don't believe Oswald had a place for "dirty laundry" per se. I see in the photo above (of items seized at North Beckley) what the inventory calls:


(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340653/m1/1/med_res)

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340653/m1/3/med_res)

Pat Speer obtained a color photo of the North Beckley rooming-house shirt from the National Archives.

(http://www.patspeer.com/_/rsrc/1479403772493/chapter4b%3A%22theso-calledevidence%22/Screen%20Shot%202016-11-17%20at%209.28.40%20AM.png)

( Speer webpage: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence (http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence) )

Oswald's arrest shirt has been published on the web in some odd ways:

(https://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Collage-472-640x264.jpg)

(Above: Image on the left was probably taken with a modern digital camera and may be the most accurate of the three. )

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0Em7f8W5qC4/V3b69BkNLwI/AAAAAAAAw_Q/5xVm0R9o6qY2Hwina4xJLyVX3nR6U1L9wCLcB/s1600/Oswald%2Bshirt%2Bnatlgeo.jpg)

TV image that I think could be brighter.

So if Oswald did change his shirt at the rooming house (and the shirt found there is that shirt), he put on a very similar (tone and color) shirt that he apparently had on when arrested. Therefore I can see why Marina thought the arrest shirt was the one he wore when he arrived in Irving on Thursday.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on January 25, 2018, 03:07:59 AM
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338870/m1/1/high_res)

I don't believe Oswald had a place for "dirty laundry" per se. I see in the photo above (of items seized at North Beckley) what the inventory calls:
  • "brown shirt"
  • "pair grey trousers"


(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340653/m1/1/med_res)

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340653/m1/3/med_res)

Pat Speer obtained a color photo of the North Beckley rooming-house shirt from the National Archives.

(http://www.patspeer.com/_/rsrc/1479403772493/chapter4b%3A%22theso-calledevidence%22/Screen%20Shot%202016-11-17%20at%209.28.40%20AM.png)

( Speer webpage: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence (http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence) )

Oswald's arrest shirt has been published on the web in some odd ways:

(https://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Collage-472-640x264.jpg)

(Above: Image on the left was probably taken with a modern digital camera and may be the most accurate of the three. )

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0Em7f8W5qC4/V3b69BkNLwI/AAAAAAAAw_Q/5xVm0R9o6qY2Hwina4xJLyVX3nR6U1L9wCLcB/s1600/Oswald%2Bshirt%2Bnatlgeo.jpg)

TV image that I think could be brighter.

So if Oswald did change his shirt at the rooming house (and the shirt found there is that shirt), he put on a very similar (tone and color) shirt that he apparently had on when arrested. Therefore I can see why Marina thought the arrest shirt was the one he wore when he arrived in Irving on Thursday.







Thanks for posting those comparison photos, it seems to me that some of those shirt photos have been artificially enhanced, who would do such a thing and what would they have to gain??



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 25, 2018, 03:26:13 AM

Thanks for posting those comparison photos, it seems to me that some of those shirt photos have been artificially enhanced, who would do such a thing and what would they have to gain??

JohnM

In the JFK case, I would say most CTs are into such manipulation, either producing or feeding on it.

But sometimes a bad image on the Internet is a combination of things from the past, such as: early-generation home scanners, cheap software, badly-calibrated gamma on computer monitors, the color table limitations of GIFs (when people wanted small file sizes because of low internet speeds) and so forth that made scans done in the 80s and 90s go all wacky.

Today there's higher-quality digital devices, easier monitor calibration, the PNG format and industry standards that maintain at least some degree of quality and consistency.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on January 25, 2018, 05:07:28 AM
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338870/m1/1/high_res)

I don't believe Oswald had a place for "dirty laundry" per se. I see in the photo above (of items seized at North Beckley) what the inventory calls:
  • "brown shirt"
  • "pair grey trousers"


(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340653/m1/1/med_res)

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340653/m1/3/med_res)

Pat Speer obtained a color photo of the North Beckley rooming-house shirt from the National Archives.

(http://www.patspeer.com/_/rsrc/1479403772493/chapter4b%3A%22theso-calledevidence%22/Screen%20Shot%202016-11-17%20at%209.28.40%20AM.png)

( Speer webpage: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence (http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence) )

Oswald's arrest shirt has been published on the web in some odd ways:

(https://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Collage-472-640x264.jpg)

(Above: Image on the left was probably taken with a modern digital camera and may be the most accurate of the three. )

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0Em7f8W5qC4/V3b69BkNLwI/AAAAAAAAw_Q/5xVm0R9o6qY2Hwina4xJLyVX3nR6U1L9wCLcB/s1600/Oswald%2Bshirt%2Bnatlgeo.jpg)

TV image that I think could be brighter.

So if Oswald did change his shirt at the rooming house (and the shirt found there is that shirt), he put on a very similar (tone and color) shirt that he apparently had on when arrested. Therefore I can see why Marina thought the arrest shirt was the one he wore when he arrived in Irving on Thursday.

Two different shirts.

The one from the rooming house was a solid color.

The arrest shirt wasn't.


He changed his shirt and trousers at his room.

The shirt he was arrested in wasn't the shirt he wore to work on 11/22/63.

Officer Baker testified to the WC that he was wearing different clothes when he saw him at the police

station than when he saw him in the TSBD.

Fibers matching the arrest shirt to the TSBD Carcano point to a frame up not Ozzie's guilt.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on January 25, 2018, 05:36:49 AM
Oswald wore that shirt when he was arrested.  If he was not wearing that shirt while shooting from the sniper's nest window, then he removed it while he was waiting for the motorcade to arrive and then used that shirt to quickly wipe down the rifle in hopes of removing his fingerprints.

It would have taken Oswald mere seconds to wipe down the rifle and then put the shirt on as he descended the first flight of stairs.

Patspeer.com

Chapter 4b: Threads of Evidence

~snip~

"Back to Stombaugh's discussion of the rust brown shirt. After prompting by WC counsel Melvin Eisenberg, he then added "down the face of the shirt I did find some wax adhering to it." Now this is interesting, as it suggests he took a good look at the shirt. Which makes what he doesn't say remarkable. He doesn't mention finding any grease on the shirt, or anything indicating it had been used to wipe down the rifle. (The proposition that Oswald wore his t-shirt during the shooting, and used the brown shirt to wipe down the rifle, is hereby reduced to the level of unsupported speculation, at odds with the available evidence.)"

 ~snip~
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 25, 2018, 03:30:59 PM
My definition is the correct one.  Your definition is way off base.  Learn the difference between match and similar.

You always think your opinions and definitions are the correct ones.  Learn the difference between opinion and fact.

Quote
However, don't try to pretend for a second that the fact that the fibers were a match means nothing.  The fiber match is yet another thing to present to the jury in an attempt to convince them that the jacket was Oswald's and in an attempt to change his appearance he ditched the jacket after killing a police officer only minutes ago.

Why would this convince anybody when you've just acknowledged that the fibers may or may not have come from that shirt?  Even if you were able to prove that this is his jacket (and you're not), your claim that he "ditched it" and why is pure speculation and not evidence of anything.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 25, 2018, 03:32:16 PM
Translation:  I have no evidence whatsoever which points to someone other than Lee Oswald.

Again, so what?  Do you think that somehow proves that Oswald did it?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 25, 2018, 11:27:04 PM
Again, so what?  Do you think that somehow proves that Oswald did it?

Translation (again):  I have no evidence whatsoever which points to someone other than Lee Oswald.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 25, 2018, 11:34:13 PM
You always think your opinions and definitions are the correct ones.  Learn the difference between opinion and fact.

Were the fibers found in the sleeve of the jacket and the fibers from the arrest shirt similar or a match?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 26, 2018, 05:36:27 PM
Translation (again):  I have no evidence whatsoever which points to someone other than Lee Oswald.

Dance, monkey, dance.  It's obvious why you won't answer the "so what" question.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 26, 2018, 05:42:20 PM
Were the fibers found in the sleeve of the jacket and the fibers from the arrest shirt similar or a match?

Depends what you mean by "similar" and what you mean by "match".  Nobody has actually cited any analysis made on the jacket fibers anyway -- just the ones in the rifle.

But instead of another endless diversion on word definitions, I'd rather discuss what the evidence shows about these fibers and what valid conclusions can be drawn from these fibers.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 26, 2018, 10:49:56 PM
Depends what you mean by "similar" and what you mean by "match".  Nobody has actually cited any analysis made on the jacket fibers anyway -- just the ones in the rifle.

Calling the fibers similar is saying they resembled each other without actually being identical; they were almost the same but not exactly the same.

Saying the fibers were a match is saying they were identical; the same.

You were wrong to say the fibers were only similar.  They were, as I stated, a match.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 28, 2018, 05:51:10 AM
Consulting the index to the hearings I see no expert witness refer to fibers on CE 162, could be somewhere else.

You won't find any mention of it there.  The FBI document detailing the fiber match from the jacket went unreported until the late nineties.  The Warren Commission was made aware of it, but decided not to use it.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 28, 2018, 01:08:37 PM
You won't find any mention of it there.  The FBI document detailing the fiber match from the jacket went unreported until the late nineties.  The Warren Commission was made aware of it, but decided not to use it.

The FBI document detailing the fiber match from the jacket went unreported until the late nineties.

If a person can't understand that this fiber match from the jacket is utter BS they have to be living in la la land....Or on that North African River......
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 28, 2018, 09:08:47 PM
The FBI document detailing the fiber match from the jacket went unreported until the late nineties.

If a person can't understand that this fiber match from the jacket is utter BS they have to be living in la la land....Or on that North African River......

Explain what makes the fiber match utter BS?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 29, 2018, 12:16:16 AM
Still no cite.

FBI RIF 124-10009-10499
FBI memo, Jevons to Conrad
Dec. 3, 1963
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 29, 2018, 12:50:39 PM
Explain what makes the fiber match utter BS?

If they had had evidence that verified that the jack had been in contact with Lee's shirt they would  announced it from the rooftops....  The fact that the report didn't surface until thirty years later speaks for itself.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 29, 2018, 10:30:35 PM
You won't find any mention of it there.  The FBI document detailing the fiber match from the jacket went unreported until the late nineties.  The Warren Commission was made aware of it, but decided not to use it.

So, no actual analysis showing this alleged "match" then.  The Jevons memo certainly doesn't have any.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tom Scully on January 29, 2018, 10:51:58 PM
Still no link to his supposed cite.
https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62264&search=Rh_jevons+and+jacket#relPageId=169&tab=page

Still no reply to my question to you...why was the funeral
of Eddy Benavides delayed a full year (in Caprio alternate universe)
and where did they keep his corpse between the time in 1964
when you have claimed he was killed, and his 1965 funeral and
burial?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 30, 2018, 11:23:58 AM
"REPORT FOLLOWS."

Why does the serial number of the carcano, C2766, precede the information about the fibers in the report?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 30, 2018, 05:39:11 PM
Continued from previous page...

Thanks Tom.....The previous page says that the FBI received a Jacket, ring, and watch .....

Lee's ring was never sent to the FBI and he wore an ID bracelet not a WATCH.....

Since the ring and watch are listed with the Jacket, I wonder if those items were found in the jacket pocket....

The previous page lists ten 6.5mm Japanese cartridges being submitted to the FBI lab.....  WHAT??!!
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on January 31, 2018, 02:41:28 AM
You won't find any mention of it there.  The FBI document detailing the fiber match from the jacket went unreported until the late nineties.  The Warren Commission was made aware of it, but decided not to use it.

The FBI document detailing the fiber match from the jacket went unreported until the late nineties.

If a person can't understand that this fiber match from the jacket is utter BS they have to be living in la la land....Or on that North African River......

Explain what makes the fiber match utter BS?

If they had had evidence that verified that the jack had been in contact with Lee's shirt they would  announced it from the rooftops....  The fact that the report didn't surface until thirty years later speaks for itself.

In 1998, David Belin was asked why the Commission decided to not use the report detailing the fiber match.

In a letter dated 7/30/98 to Dale Myers, Belin replied...

"There was overwhelming evidence to tie Oswald to the Tippit murder shooting in light of the positive identification of Oswald as the man with the gun by William Scoggins, Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis, Ted Callaway, Sam Guinyard and Helen Markham.  Moreover, Oswald was apprehended with the murder weapon in his hand, as confirmed by the cartridge cases turned over to the police by witnesses at the Tippit murder scene.  At the time of the Warren Commission investigation, experts retained by the Commission determined that individual fibers, like hairs, are not unique.  Under all of the circumstances, I did not believe that the quality of the evidence compared with the ballistics identification of the cartridge cases found at the murder scene."
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on January 31, 2018, 01:53:23 PM
In 1998, David Belin was asked why the Commission decided to not use the report detailing the fiber match.

In a letter dated 7/30/98 to Dale Myers, Belin replied...

"There was overwhelming evidence to tie Oswald to the Tippit murder shooting in light of the positive identification of Oswald as the man with the gun by William Scoggins, Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis, Ted Callaway, Sam Guinyard and Helen Markham.  Moreover, Oswald was apprehended with the murder weapon in his hand, as confirmed by the cartridge cases turned over to the police by witnesses at the Tippit murder scene.  At the time of the Warren Commission investigation, experts retained by the Commission determined that individual fibers, like hairs, are not unique.  Under all of the circumstances, I did not believe that the quality of the evidence compared with the ballistics identification of the cartridge cases found at the murder scene."

No trial, no cross examination of witnesses, no expert testimony for the defendant, etc. etc.

Exculpatory evidence is often ignored by prosecutors.

It's up to the defense to bring it up at trial.

If the jacket was discarded by Tippit's killer it could very well have contained evidence pointing

away from Ozzie.

-----------------------------

"the positive identification of Oswald as the man with the gun"

Domingo Benavide's description of Tippit's killer compared to a photo taken of Ozzie on 11/22/63

while in DPD custody.

He was 15 feet away from Tippit's killer.


Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.

Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........

~snip~

Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3.jpg)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 31, 2018, 03:20:38 PM
I figured Brown had his information from Myers' book, because a google search for the file number of the memo lead me there as well. And - I might add - that was the only result that came up, which suggests there is no on line presence of the actual memo.

Belin can write to Myers whatever he wants but the fact remains that, in March 1964, the WC wasn't convinced by the available "overwhelming" evidence because they asked the FBI to investigate the dry-cleaner's label to establish a link between the jacket and Oswald.

Obviously the investigation ultimately was a dead end because, despite a massive search in the greater Dallas and New Orléans areas, the FBI could not locate the dry-cleaner who had attached that label to the jacket.

So, if they really had persuasive fiber evidence they did not use because they already had "overwhelming [witness] evidence to tie Oswald to the Tippit murder", then why in the world did they waste the FBI's time by asking for an investigation of the dry-cleaner's label.

Yet, they never fell back on the fibers after that... One can only wonder why.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 31, 2018, 04:01:29 PM
No trial, no cross examination of witnesses, no expert testimony for the defendant, etc. etc.

Exculpatory evidence is often ignored by prosecutors.

It's up to the defense to bring it up at trial.

If the jacket was discarded by Tippit's killer it could very well have contained evidence pointing

away from Ozzie.

-----------------------------

"the positive identification of Oswald as the man with the gun"

Domingo Benavide's description of Tippit's killer compared to a photo taken of Ozzie on 11/22/63

while in DPD custody.

He was 15 feet away from Tippit's killer.


Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.

Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........

~snip~

Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3.jpg)

Wonder where Benavides' flashbulb was?

Even in the hallway, under certain conditions, Oswald's nape (if the nape is what Benavides was talking about) had the appearance of being square.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/oswald/oswald-hallway-corner-nape.jpg)

This is more like fifteen feet and with some of the flash absorbed by the foreground figure. Try to imagine no flash and the figure moving.

However, it's thought the killer wore a jacket. On Oswald, a jacket would "square" off the nape.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/oswald/oswald-jacket-superimposed.jpg)

In any event, we don't know exactly what part of the head Benavides is referring to by "the hairline", or what "went square" means or of he's referring to the head profile with "his head look fiat in back".
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on January 31, 2018, 04:07:52 PM
Wonder where Benavides' flashbulb was?

Even in the hallway, under certain conditions, Oswald's nape (if the nape is what Benavides was talking about) had the appearance of being square.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/oswald/oswald-hallway-corner-nape.jpg)

This is more like fifteen feet and with some of the flash absorbed by the foreground figure. Try to imagine no flash and the figure moving.

However, it's thought the killer wore a jacket. On Oswald, a jacket would "square" off the nape.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/oswald/oswald-jacket-superimposed.jpg)

In any event, we don't know exactly what part of the head Benavides is referring to by "the hairline", or what "went square" means or of he's referring to the head profile with "his head look fiat in back".

You can spin it any way you want.

The fact remains the witness with the best look at Tippit's killer, Domingo Benavides, describes

someone not matching a photo taken of LHO on 11/22/63.


Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.

Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........

~snip~

Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3.jpg)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 31, 2018, 04:36:27 PM
You can spin it any way you want.

The fact remains the witness with the best look at Tippit's killer, Domingo Benavides, describes

someone not matching a photo taken of LHO on 11/22/63.


Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.

Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........

~snip~

Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3.jpg)

and made his head look flat in back.

This is the important point.....The LNer's try to avoid Benavides' statement that the killer's head looked FLAT in the Back, by shifting the focus to the nape......
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Paul McBrearty on January 31, 2018, 04:39:07 PM
You can spin it any way you want.

The fact remains the witness with the best look at Tippit's killer, Domingo Benavides, describes

someone not matching a photo taken of LHO on 11/22/63.

Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.


Statements like, "seemed", "sort of", and, "kind of", are quite vague in nature and give the impression that Benavides wasn't exactly sure about how his hairline actually appeared. And the killer (Oswald ) was wearing a jacket at the time of the Tippit shooting which leads to the question, how much of the nape of his neck was the collar of the jacket covering ?

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 31, 2018, 05:17:05 PM
Statements like, "seemed", "sort of", and, "kind of", are quite vague in nature and give the impression that Benavides wasn't exactly sure about how his hairline actually appeared. And the killer (Oswald ) was wearing a jacket at the time of the Tippit shooting which leads to the question, how much of the nape of his neck was the collar of the jacket covering ?

Benavides wasn't exactly sure about how his hairline actually appeared.

Benavides was not referring to the killer's "hairline"......He was referring to the killers hair style.....And the killer's hair was cut in a manner that made the back of his head LOOK FLAT.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Pat Speer on January 31, 2018, 05:17:19 PM
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62264&relPageId=138 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62264&relPageId=138)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on January 31, 2018, 05:27:08 PM
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62264&relPageId=138 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62264&relPageId=138)

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62264&relPageId=138
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/jacket1.png)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 31, 2018, 06:39:08 PM
Also,
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408&relPageId=360 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408&relPageId=360)

(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/010/10408/images/img_10408_360_300.png)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 31, 2018, 10:26:19 PM
and made his head look flat in back.

This is the important point.....The LNer's try to avoid Benavides' statement that the killer's head looked FLAT in the Back, by shifting the focus to the nape......

Benavides wasn't exactly sure about how his hairline actually appeared.

Benavides was not referring to the killer's "hairline"......He was referring to the killers hair style.....And the killer's hair was cut in a manner that made the back of his head LOOK FLAT.

Well I don't mind considering that Benavides might have been referring to the back of the head.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/oswald/benavides-oswald-hairline-desc.jpg)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 01, 2018, 02:51:54 AM
I figured Brown had his information from Myers' book, because a google search for the file number of the memo lead me there as well. And - I might add - that was the only result that came up, which suggests there is no on line presence of the actual memo.

Belin can write to Myers whatever he wants but the fact remains that, in March 1964, the WC wasn't convinced by the available "overwhelming" evidence because they asked the FBI to investigate the dry-cleaner's label to establish a link between the jacket and Oswald.

Obviously the investigation ultimately was a dead end because, despite a massive search in the greater Dallas and New Orléans areas, the FBI could not locate the dry-cleaner who had attached that label to the jacket.

So, if they really had persuasive fiber evidence they did not use because they already had "overwhelming [witness] evidence to tie Oswald to the Tippit murder", then why in the world did they waste the FBI's time by asking for an investigation of the dry-cleaner's label.

Yet, they never fell back on the fibers after that... One can only wonder why.


Quote
So, if they really had persuasive fiber evidence they did not use because they already had "overwhelming [witness] evidence to tie Oswald to the Tippit murder", then why in the world did they waste the FBI's time by asking for an investigation of the dry-cleaner's label.

At the time that the Commission asked the FBI to conduct an investigation into the jacket's relation to dry cleaners, how could they possibly know that it would be a waste of time?

They asked for the investigation in the hopes of establishing a definite, unimpeachable link between the jacket and Oswald.  The fiber match only meant that the jacket could be Oswald's, they were looking for more.  I can't believe this had to be explained to you.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 01, 2018, 02:55:14 AM
You can spin it any way you want.

The fact remains the witness with the best look at Tippit's killer, Domingo Benavides, describes

someone not matching a photo taken of LHO on 11/22/63.


Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.

Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........

~snip~

Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.


Quote
The fact remains the witness with the best look at Tippit's killer, Domingo Benavides, describes someone not matching a photo taken of LHO on 11/22/63.

Nonsense.

Ted Callaway got as good a look at the culprit as anyone.

(Cue the lame claim that Callaway didn't officially see the murder so he didn't see the killer)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 01, 2018, 09:47:46 AM
That's a fact. You can even strike "officially".

Like clockwork.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 01, 2018, 09:48:33 AM
That's a fact. You can even strike "officially".

I can't believe this had to be explained to you.

"I can't believe this had to be explained to you."

Yeah, Brown is being his usual pathetic self with comments like that.

Funny thing is that in this case it seems it needs to be explained to him that it doesn't matter if the WC knew or not they would be wasting the FBI's time with their request to find the dry-cleaner. What matters is that they asked the FBI in the first place, at a time when they already knew about the matched fiber evidence.

It is ironic that Brown in past pages has been trying to make a big deal out of the significance (in his mind) of the matching fibers;


However, don't try to pretend for a second that the fact that the fibers were a match means nothing.  The fiber match is yet another thing to present to the jury in an attempt to convince them that the jacket was Oswald's and in an attempt to change his appearance he ditched the jacket after killing a police officer only minutes ago.


yet, the record shows that the WC actually completely ignored those matched fibres and looked (in vain) for another way to link the jacket to Oswald by having the FBI search for the dry-cleaner.

The WC clearly understood (IMO) that the matching fiber evidence is completely irrelevant as there is no solid chain of custody for the white jacket found at the carpark to begin with. The initials on the jacket were placed there by officers at the police station (just like it happened with the revolver) and (if Westbrook's testimony is to be believed) clearly do not correspond with the officers who actually found that jacket and took it to the station.

During his WC testimony, Barnes, who initialed CE 162 at the station, was asked a lot of questions about what he did at the Tippit scene of the shooting and later at the crime lab, but they hardly asked him anything about the jacket. He said he took a photo of the car under which - he had been told - the jacket had been found, but there is not a word in his testimony about him exactly seeing the jacket itself. They didn't ask him if he knew who found it, or if he had seen or handled it himself. They were not even interested enough to ask him how his initials ended up on the jacket. For George Doughty, who also initialed the jacket, it's even worse. They did not even call him to testify or give a statement at all.

Who really found the jacket, who called it in describing it as being white, who had it when Barnes arrived on the scene to take his picture and how and when it got to the police station is completely and totally unclear. Some chain of custody!

Except for Earlene Roberts saying so (and she was half blind and paying more attention to the TV) there is no evidence that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket at all and even Roberts rejected CE 162 because the jacket she claimed to have seen was darker.

Even worse, without a solid chain of custody, the DPD could actually have obtained the gray jacket CE 162 during the searches of the roominghouse and Ruth Paine's house, so who cares about matching fibers?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 01, 2018, 10:02:53 AM
"I can't believe this had to be explained to you."

Yeah, Brown is being his usual pathetic self with comments like that.

Funny thing is that in this case it seems it needs to be explained to him that it doesn't matter if the WC knew or not they would be wasting the FBI's time with their request to find the dry-cleaner. What matters is that they asked the FBI in the first place, at a time when they already knew about the matched fiber evidence.

It is ironic that Brown in past pages has been trying to make a big deal out of the significance (in his mind) of the matching fibers;

yet, the record shows that the WC actually completely ignored those matched fibres and looked (in vain) for another way to link the jacket to Oswald by having the FBI search for the dry-cleaner.

The WC clearly understood (IMO) that the matching fiber evidence is completely irrelevant as there is no solid chain of custody for the white jacket found at the carpark to begin with. The initials on the jacket were placed there by officers at the police station (just like it happened with the revolver) and (if Westbrook's testimony is to be believed) clearly do not correspond with the officers who actually found that jacket and took it to the station.

During his WC testimony, Barnes, who initialed CE 162 at the station, was asked a lot of questions about what he did at the Tippit scene of the shooting and later at the crime lab, but they hardly asked him anything about the jacket. He said he took a photo of the car under which - he had been told - the jacket had been found, but there is not a word in his testimony about him exactly seeing the jacket itself. They didn't ask him if he knew who found it, or if he had seen or handled it himself. They were not even interested enough to ask him how his initials ended up on the jacket. For George Doughty, who also initialed the jacket, it's even worse. They did not even call him to testify or give a statement at all.

Who really found the jacket, who called it in describing it as being white, who had it when Barnes arrived on the scene to take his picture and how and when it got to the police station is completely and totally unclear. Some chain of custody!

Except for Earlene Roberts saying so (and she was half blind and paying more attention to the TV) there is no evidence that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket at all and even Roberts rejected CE 162 because the jacket she claimed to have seen was darker.

Even worse, without a solid chain of custody, the DPD could actually have obtained the gray jacket CE 162 during the searches of the roominghouse and Ruth Paine's house, so who cares about matching fibers?


Quote
Funny thing is that in this case it seems it needs to be explained to him that it doesn't matter if the WC knew or not they would be wasting the FBI's time with their request to find the dry-cleaner. What matters is that they asked the FBI in the first place, at a time when they already knew about the matched fiber evidence.

Look, this is real simple.  The fiber match shows only that the jacket could have belonged to Oswald.  No one is suggesting otherwise.  The Commission was aware of this very simple and obvious point, so they tried to link the jacket to Oswald in another manner, one which would prove beyond a doubt that it was Oswald's jacket.  The fiber match obviously doesn't prove the jacket belonged to Oswald for an absolute fact.  This is why the Commission asked the FBI to investigate dry cleaners, to link Oswald to the jacket for a fact.


Quote
The WC clearly understood (IMO) that the matching fiber evidence is completely irrelevant as there is no solid chain of custody for the white jacket found at the carpark to begin with.

Or, and much more likely (IMO), the Commission wanted something stronger than only the matching fiber evidence and therefore, wanted the FBI to investigate the matter of the dry cleaning tag.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on February 01, 2018, 01:26:45 PM

Nonsense.

Ted Callaway got as good a look at the culprit as anyone.

(Cue the lame claim that Callaway didn't officially see the murder so he didn't see the killer)

"Ted Callaway got as good a look at the culprit as anyone."

LOL

 ::)

TESTIMONY OF TED CALLAWAY

~snip~

Mr. BALL. He was crossing Patton?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was that to the south or the north of the taxicab? Closer to you than the taxicab?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Was he running or walking?
Mr. CALLAWAY. He was running.

~snip~

Mr. BALL. About what distance was he away from you--the closest that he ever was to you?
Mr. CALLAWAY. About 56 feet.

~snip~


Testimony Of Domingo Benavides

Mr. BELIN - Where were you when your vehicle stopped?
Mr. BENAVIDES - About 15 foot, just directly across the street and maybe a car length away from the police car.

~snip~

Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.

Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........

~snip~

Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.

~snip~


(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3.jpg)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 01, 2018, 01:29:38 PM
...then failed to do so

Exactly, and then, without a credible chain of custody and with only inconclusive fiber evidence and the highly questionable word of Earlene Roberts to go on they just decided that CE 162 was Oswald's jacket anyway and that he was wearing it when he left the roominghouse.

After all, what other option did they have to keep their narrative alive?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Richard Smith on February 01, 2018, 02:18:25 PM
Exactly, and then, without a credible chain of custody and with only inconclusive fiber evidence and the highly questionable word of Earlene Roberts to go on they just decided that CE 162 was Oswald's jacket anyway and that he was wearing it when he left the roominghouse.

After all, what other option did they have to keep their narrative alive?

Who is this "they" you keep mentioning since you deny suggesting a vast conspiracy?  And "they" also have a narrative?  That's a whole lot of bad luck for old Lee to constantly be connected to these events while out for a stroll to the movies.  He is the only person on planet Earth to be in the TSBD at the moment shots were fired who then crosses paths with the Tippit murder (the only murder of a DPD officer in many years) less than an hour later.  And he looks so much like the murderer that several witnesses ID him as the shooter.  And he happens to have a pistol when arrested with the same types of ammunition as the murderer.  Such constant bad luck.  You nuts can't be for real.  This is more like a game to see how long you can avoid acknowledging checkmate by taking absurd, wildly implausible, and often embarrassing contrarian positions to any evidence linking Oswald to this crime. 
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 01, 2018, 02:30:04 PM
Who is this "they" you keep mentioning since you deny suggesting a vast conspiracy?  And "they" also have a narrative?  That's a whole lot of bad luck for old Lee to constantly be connected to these events while out for a stroll to the movies.  He is the only person on planet Earth to be in the TSBD at the moment shots were fired who then crosses paths with the Tippit murder (the only murder of a DPD officer in many years) less than an hour later.  And he looks so much like the murderer that several witnesses ID him as the shooter.  And he happens to have a pistol when arrested with the same types of ammunition as the murderer.  Such constant bad luck.  You nuts can't be for real.  This is more like a game to see how long you can avoid acknowledging checkmate by taking absurd, wildly implausible, and often embarrassing contrarian positions to any evidence linking Oswald to this crime.

Who is this "they" you keep mentioning since you deny suggesting a vast conspiracy?

The mere fact that you, rather stupidly, need to ask this question shows that you are jumping into a conversation without having read the previous postings.

That's a whole lot of bad luck for old Lee to constantly be connected to these events while out for a stroll to the movies.  He is the only person on planet Earth to be in the TSBD at the moment shots were fired who then crosses paths with the Tippit murder (the only murder of a DPD officer in many years) less than an hour later.  And he looks so much like the murderer that several witnesses ID him as the shooter.  And he happens to have a pistol when arrested with the same types of ammunition as the murderer.  Such constant bad luck. 

So much irrelevant strawman crap... I wonder where it goes....

You nuts can't be for real.  This is more like a game to see how long you can avoid acknowledging checkmate by taking absurd, wildly implausible, and often embarrassing contrarian positions to any evidence linking Oswald to this crime.

Ah.. there it is....

Nothing worth to reply to, really....

As an after thought;

any evidence linking Oswald to this crime

You really don't understand that there isn't much actual evidence (so no assumptions etc) that links Oswald to this crime, do you now?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 01, 2018, 07:36:54 PM
Exactly, and then, without a credible chain of custody and with only inconclusive fiber evidence and the highly questionable word of Earlene Roberts to go on they just decided that CE 162 was Oswald's jacket anyway and that he was wearing it when he left the roominghouse.

After all, what other option did they have to keep their narrative alive?

Pathetic.

There is nothing "questionable" about Earlene Roberts' statement that she watched Oswald zip up a jacket as he went out the door.

That you call it "questionable" doesn't make it so.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 01, 2018, 07:55:38 PM
Talk about pathetic;

Bill Brown double standard alert;

"the bottom line is that Earlene Roberts stated over and over that Oswald left the house zipping up a jacket."

Ergo; Earlene Roberts (who was paying more attention to the TV, has bad eye sight, saw Oswald only a few seconds, claimed to have seen a jacket darker than CE 162 and who was known by her employer for making things up) is to be believed.

Frazier said from day 1 until today over and over again that the bag found at the TSBD was not the bag he saw Oswald carry

Ergo: Frazier (who has good eye sight and saw the bag up close and more than just a few seconds) was mistaken

The silver lining; just because Bill Brown says it doesn't mean it is so.

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 01, 2018, 08:09:02 PM
Talk about pathetic;

Bill Brown double standard alert;

"the bottom line is that Earlene Roberts stated over and over that Oswald left the house zipping up a jacket."

Ergo; Earlene Roberts (who was paying more attention to the TV, has bad eye sight, saw Oswald only a few seconds, claimed to have seen a jacket darker than CE 162 and who was known by her employer for making things up) is to be believed.

Frazier said from day 1 until today over and over again that the bag found at the TSBD was not the bag he saw Oswald carry

Ergo: Frazier (who has good eye sight and saw the bag up close and more than just a few seconds) was mistaken

The silver lining; just because Bill Brown says it doesn't mean it is so.

Earlene Roberts stated over and over that she watched Oswald leave the rooming house zipping up a jacket as he went out the door.  Explain how any of the above is supposed to make her statement "questionable".
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Larry Baldwin on February 01, 2018, 08:30:37 PM
Earlene Roberts stated over and over that she watched Oswald leave the rooming house zipping up a jacket as he went out the door.  Explain how any of the above is supposed to make her statement "questionable".

Bill, was Earlene Roberts a reliable witness?  If so, do you believe she witnessed a police car pull up in front of her house and honk (as she claimed)?  Because, if she lied about it, she is not a reliable witness.  If she is not a reliable witness, than ANY statements she made are "questionable".  Still churning out the same old butter eh?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 01, 2018, 08:36:57 PM

Bill, was Earlene Roberts a reliable witness?  If so, do you believe she witnessed a police car pull up in front of her house and honk (as she claimed)?  Because, if she lied about it, she is not a reliable witness.  If she is not a reliable witness, than ANY statements she made are "questionable".  Still churning out the same old butter eh?


Amazing that something so simple needs to be explained to Bill Brown.....

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Larry Baldwin on February 01, 2018, 08:39:14 PM
Amazing that something so simple needs to be explained to Bill Brown.....

Perhaps it is not all that Amazing.   ;D
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 01, 2018, 09:50:12 PM
Bill, was Earlene Roberts a reliable witness?  If so, do you believe she witnessed a police car pull up in front of her house and honk (as she claimed)?  Because, if she lied about it, she is not a reliable witness.  If she is not a reliable witness, than ANY statements she made are "questionable".  Still churning out the same old butter eh?

Roberts mentioned the fact that Oswald was wearing a jacket as he went out the door to a radio reporter on the day of the assassination.

Despite the fact that she was bombarded by law enforcement personnel and media during the weekend of the assassination, Roberts never mentioned the police car horn honking incident until a week later, after the accused assassin was himself gunned down, which sparked whispers of a possible plot.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 01, 2018, 10:43:12 PM
On the day of the assassination, Frazier denied that the paper bag found at the TSBD was the same bag he had seen Oswald carry some 16 hours earlier and he has never, until today, changed his story one bit.

Not that it mattered, because he was deemed to be mistaken....

What a difference it makes when you tell a story the "investigators" (and LNs) like or not.

On the day of the assassination several people (for example Baker, Whaley) stated they saw Oswald either with or without a jacket and they were all, according to the official narrative, mistaken. But not Earlene Roberts.... The woman with bad eye sight, who was paying more attention to the TV (meaning she must have had her back towards Oswald walking from his room to the frontdoor), and who - at best - saw Oswald for a second or so when he walked out the door...

Not that Earlene Roberts! Never mind that her employer warned the WC about her as being a person who was known for making up things.... and never mind she told this crazy story about a police car in front of the house..

Earlene Roberts couldn't have been wrong about the jacket.... No way.... or could she now?

For me Earlene Roberts is one of those individuals that make me feel sad that there never was a trial.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 01, 2018, 11:24:20 PM
Bill, was Earlene Roberts a reliable witness?  If so, do you believe she witnessed a police car pull up in front of her house and honk (as she claimed)?  Because, if she lied about it, she is not a reliable witness.  If she is not a reliable witness, than ANY statements she made are "questionable".  Still churning out the same old butter eh?



Oswald's rooming house was a few doors down from a 5 way intersection and cars would be constantly queueing up and occasionally beeping, so there's every chance that a car innocently beeped and under the circumstances Earlene just guessed that they were her old Cop mates.
So effectively Earlene to the best of her knowledge never lied.

(https://s17.postimg.org/g5wwivecf/osroomhse.jpg)



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 01, 2018, 11:32:06 PM


Oswald's rooming house was a few doors down from a 5 way intersection and cars would be constantly queueing up and occasionally beeping, so there's every chance that a car innocently beeped and under the circumstances Earlene just guessed that they were her old Cop mates.
So effectively Earlene to the best of her knowledge never lied.

https://s17.postimg.org/g5wwivecf/osroomhse.jpg

JohnM

The witness protection department at work.....
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 01, 2018, 11:43:45 PM
On the day of the assassination, Frazier denied that the paper bag found at the TSBD was the same bag he had seen Oswald carry some 16 hours earlier and he has never, until today, changed his story one bit.







Read the following very slowly, Frazier on multiple occasions repeats that he "didn't pay much attention to the bag" and at that time Frazier had no reason to pay attention to the bag but for some reason you people like Tom, Larry and yourself all believe that witnesses associated with this case should for some unknown reason have the ability for Total Recall even people whose job is basically just to be a human conveyor belt.


Mr. BALL - All right.
When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.



Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.


Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.



Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.


Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.


Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--




Quote
Not that it mattered, because he was deemed to be mistaken....

What a difference it makes when you tell a story the "investigators" (and LNs) like or not.

On the day of the assassination several people (for example Baker, Whaley) stated they saw Oswald either with or without a jacket and they were all, according to the official narrative, mistaken. But not Earlene Roberts.... The woman with bad eye sight, who was paying more attention to the TV (meaning she must have had her back towards Oswald walking from his room to the frontdoor), and who - at best - saw Oswald for a second or so when he walked out the door...

Not that Earlene Roberts! Never mind that her employer warned the WC about her as being a person who was known for making up things.... and never mind she told this crazy story about a police car in front of the house..

Earlene Roberts couldn't have been wrong about the jacket.... No way.... or could she now?

For me Earlene Roberts is one of those individuals that make me feel sad that there never was a trial.


How amazing, Roberts saw Oswald zipping up a jacket and witnesses said that the jacket that Oswald was wearing was a zipper type and the jacket found in the car park was a zipper type and when arrested Oswald wasn't wearing his zipper jacket, howzat!

(http://grandsubversion.com/jfkAssassination/nobotimg/dlspt2/oswald_jacket_tippit_shot_dallas_photo_01.jpg)

(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/lb_maccammon.jpg?quality=85&w=687)



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 01, 2018, 11:49:25 PM
The witness protection department at work.....






Personally I give everyone the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise and in this case we know that Oswald put on a zipper jacket because a plethora of eyewitnesses testified that Oswald was wearing a zipper jacket.
But with the innocent beep beep it may very well have happened, do you have any evidence to the contrary?



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 01, 2018, 11:55:44 PM

Read the following very slowly, Frazier on multiple occasions repeats that he "didn't pay much attention to the bag" and at that time Frazier had no reason to pay attention to the bag but for some reason you people like Tom, Larry and yourself all believe that witnesses associated with this case should for some unknown reason have the ability for Total Recall even people whose job is basically just to be a human conveyor belt.


Mr. BALL - All right.
When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.



Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.


Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.



Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.


Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.


Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--



You sound like a broken record, playing the same old boring song over and over again.

Read this very slowly; Earlene Roberts was paying more attention to getting the TV to work. In order to do so she had to have her back turned to where Oswald was walking from his room to the front door!

Quote

How amazing, Roberts saw Oswald zipping up a jacket and witnesses said that the jacket that Oswald was wearing was a zipper type and the jacket found in the car park was a zipper type and when arrested Oswald wasn't wearing his zipper jacket, howzat!

JohnM

Great... now prove that;

1. Oswald did in fact leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket and Roberts wasn't wrong (like for instance Baker and Whaley were).

2. the white jacket found in the car park is the same as the gray jacket CE 162

3. the gray jacket CE 162 did indeed belong to Oswald

4. the  Texas Theater was ever searched for a jacket 
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 01, 2018, 11:59:45 PM

In order to do so she had to have her back turned to where Oswald was walking from his room to the front door!




Sorry you don't get to write the rules, the eyewitnesses who testified to seeing Oswald wearing a zipper jacket 100% corroborate Earlene Roberts.



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 02, 2018, 12:02:43 AM

Personally I give everyone the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise and in this case we know that Oswald put on a zipper jacket because a plethora of eyewitnesses testified that Oswald was wearing a zipper jacket.
But with the innocent beep beep it may very well have happened, do you have any evidence to the contrary?

JohnM

Personally I give everyone the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise

So now you are a comedian too?

in this case we know that Oswald put on a zipper jacket because a plethora of eyewitnesses testified that Oswald was wearing a zipper jacket.

A logical fallacy called circular reasoning.

The opposite of this is that those people who believed they saw Oswald wearing a jacket must have been mistaken if Oswald never left the roominghouse wearing a jacket.

Or is that too complicated for you?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 02, 2018, 12:08:14 AM

Sorry you don't get to write the rules, the eyewitnesses who testified to seeing Oswald wearing a zipper jacket 100% corroborate Earlene Roberts.

JohnM

Does this mean that you are not familiar with the lay out of the living room at the rooming house?

Or are you ignorantly claiming that when you are concentrating on getting a TV to work you can do so without having your back turned to the other side of the room?

And no... the other eyewitnesses do not corroborate Roberts at all...

You will probably not get this, but if Roberts was wrong (and I believe she was, as the gray jacket was in Irving) and Oswald left the roominghouse without a jacket your precious eyewitnesses must, by implication, be wrong.

Why don't you provide the proof I asked for instead of ignoring the request?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 02, 2018, 01:01:51 AM
You sound like a broken record, playing the same old boring song over and over again.

Read this very slowly; Earlene Roberts was paying more attention to getting the TV to work. In order to do so she had to have her back turned to where Oswald was walking from his room to the front door!

Great... now prove that;

1. Oswald did in fact leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket and Roberts wasn't wrong (like for instance Baker and Whaley were).

2. the white jacket found in the car park is the same as the gray jacket CE 162

3. the gray jacket CE 162 did indeed belong to Oswald

4. the  Texas Theater was ever searched for a jacket


Quote
Great... now prove that;

4. the  Texas Theater was ever searched for a jacket

No need.

Oswald was not wearing a jacket when seen by Brewer before he (Oswald) ever entered the theater.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 02, 2018, 01:08:22 AM
Mrs. ROBERTS: He wasn't running, but he was walking pretty fast---he was all but running.
Mr. BALL: Then, what happened after that?
Mrs. ROBERTS: He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket.


Mr. BALL: It was a zippered jacket, was it?
Mrs. ROBERTS: Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
Mr. BALL: He was zipping it up as he went out the door?
Mrs. ROBERTS: Yes.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 02, 2018, 01:47:11 AM
Amazing what people with bad eye sight can see in a few seconds when they are concentrating on getting the TV to work and thus have their back turned to the living room area.

Whaley said the guy that was in his taxi was wearing two jackets....

Roberts said Oswald was not wearing a jacket when he entered the roominghouse....

Oh those magical technicolor jackets......
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Larry Baldwin on February 02, 2018, 12:59:17 PM
Roberts mentioned the fact that Oswald was wearing a jacket as he went out the door to a radio reporter on the day of the assassination.

Despite the fact that she was bombarded by law enforcement personnel and media during the weekend of the assassination, Roberts never mentioned the police car horn honking incident until a week later, after the accused assassin was himself gunned down, which sparked whispers of a possible plot.

It is interesting how you create a narrative to rationalize her reliability.  God forbid a doubter use this tactic.  Always good for a laugh, Bill.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Larry Baldwin on February 02, 2018, 01:00:03 PM


Oswald's rooming house was a few doors down from a 5 way intersection and cars would be constantly queueing up and occasionally beeping, so there's every chance that a car innocently beeped and under the circumstances Earlene just guessed that they were her old Cop mates.
So effectively Earlene to the best of her knowledge never lied.

(https://s17.postimg.org/g5wwivecf/osroomhse.jpg)



JohnM

It is interesting how you create a narrative to rationalize her reliability.  God forbid a doubter use this tactic.  Always good for a laugh, John.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 02, 2018, 05:55:19 PM
Why can't any LNer explain where this jacket went?

Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. I didn't pay much attention to it right then. But it all came back when I really found out who I had. He was dressed in just ordinary work clothes. It wasn't khaki pants but they were khaki material, blue faded blue color, like a blue uniform made in khaki. Then he had on a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it and he had on some kind of jacket, I didn't notice very close but I think it was a work jacket that almost matched the pants.

Clearly  Whaley DID NOT transport Lee Oswald to Oak Cliff...... Whoever he transported it was NOT Lee Oswald.

The very fact that Whaley and his passenger drove right past the rooming house at a time when the "spin misters" would like us to believe that he was a fleeing assassin and in a hurry to escape.....and that act would be contrary to human nature....

What utter nonsense!!......  If Lee had been Whaley's passenger and a fleeing assassin...he would have departed  the taxi  at the corner of Zangs and Beckley.......Then his fare would have been 85 cents ( not 95 )  and he would have gained about ten minutes on his pursuers ( there were no pursuers)   
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 02, 2018, 11:03:42 PM
Clearly  Whaley DID NOT transport Lee Oswald to Oak Cliff...... Whoever he transported it was NOT Lee Oswald.

The very fact that Whaley and his passenger drove right past the rooming house at a time when the "spin misters" would like us to believe that he was a fleeing assassin and in a hurry to escape.....and that act would be contrary to human nature....

What utter nonsense!!......  If Lee had been Whaley's passenger and a fleeing assassin...he would have departed  the taxi  at the corner of Zangs and Beckley.......Then his fare would have been 85 cents ( not 95 )  and he would have gained about ten minutes on his pursuers ( there were no pursuers)   

Or... Oswald wanted the cab to pass by the rooming house so he could determine if law enforcement was already there waiting for him.  Taking the cab three blocks past the rooming house would accomplish this.  Getting out of the cab at Zangs would not accomplish this.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 02, 2018, 11:59:33 PM
Or... Oswald wanted the cab to pass by the rooming house so he could determine if law enforcement was already there waiting for him.  Taking the cab three blocks past the rooming house would accomplish this.  Getting out of the cab at Zangs would not accomplish this.

Utter Nonsense!!.....  On what basis would Lee Oswald have thought that there might be cops waiting for him at the rooming house just 30 minutes after the murder??

Even if he had been an assassin he would certainly have known that the cops couldn't possibly have learned his address and reached his rooming house in less than 30 minutes.....

You really should give just a little thought to your silly ideas before you post them....You make yourself look like a damned fool.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 03, 2018, 02:57:15 AM
Utter Nonsense!!.....  On what basis would Lee Oswald have thought that there might be cops waiting for him at the rooming house just 30 minutes after the murder??

Even if he had been an assassin he would certainly have known that the cops couldn't possibly have learned his address and reached his rooming house in less than 30 minutes.....


If the cab driver had any suspicions, he would be giving the police a wrong drop-off point.

Quote

You really should give just a little thought to your silly ideas before you post them....You make yourself look like a damned fool.

(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/omerta-city-of-gangsters/images/e/ed/Loony.png)

"Dang fool!"
     -- "Loony" Kowalski from
        Omerta: City of Gangsters
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on February 03, 2018, 04:28:48 AM
Mr. WHALEY. Well, I tried to get by the reporters, stepping over television cables and you couldn't hardly get by, they would grab you and wanted to know what you were doing down here, even with the detectives one in front and one behind you. Then they took me in an office there and I think Bill Alexander, the Assistant District Attorney, two or three, I was introduced to two or three who were FBI men and they wanted my deposition of what happened.
So, I told them to the best of my ability. Then they took me down in their room where they have their show-ups, and all, and me and this other taxi driver who was with me, sir, we sat in the room awhile and directly they brought in six men, young teenagers, and they all were handcuffed together. Well, they wanted me to pick out my passenger.
At that time he had on a pair of black pants and white T-shirt, that is all he had on. But you could have picked him out without identifying him by just listening to him because he was bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers and all of that and they asked me which one and I told them. It was him all right, the same man.
Mr. BALL. They had him in line with men much younger?
Mr. WHALEY. With five others.
Mr. BALL. Men much younger?
Mr. WHALEY. Not much younger, but just young kids they might have got them in jail.
Mr. BALL. Did he look older than those other boys?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And he was talking, was he?
Mr. WHALEY. He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer.

-----------------

Mr. BALL. Tell us what happened.
Mr. CALLAWAY. We first went into the room. There was Jim Leavelle, the detective, Sam Guinyard, and then this busdriver and myself. We waited down there for probably 20 or 30 minutes. And Jim told us, "When I show you these guys, be sure,. take your time, see if you can make a positive identification."
Mr. BALL. Had you known him before?
Mr. CALLAWAY. No. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." So they brought four men in.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 03, 2018, 05:19:35 AM
Utter Nonsense!!.....  On what basis would Lee Oswald have thought that there might be cops waiting for him at the rooming house just 30 minutes after the murder??

Even if he had been an assassin he would certainly have known that the cops couldn't possibly have learned his address and reached his rooming house in less than 30 minutes.....

You really should give just a little thought to your silly ideas before you post them....You make yourself look like a damned fool.

The only thing that is utter nonsense is your belief that there is no chance in hell that Oswald couldn't know, during his thirty minute trek to Oak Cliff, what the authorities had learned about him by that point.

Taking the cab past the rooming house to see if the police were there makes perfect sense.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 03, 2018, 12:09:05 PM
The only thing that is utter nonsense is your belief that there is no chance in hell that Oswald couldn't know, during his thirty minute trek to Oak Cliff, what the authorities had learned about him by that point.

Taking the cab past the rooming house to see if the police were there makes perfect sense.

Taking the cab past the rooming house to see if the police were there makes perfect sense.

So on one hand you're saying that the arch villain Lee Harrrrrvey Osssswald decided on the spur of the moment to murder JFK....and he had no accomplices ...He was just a lone nut.    Therefore nobody could have been prepared before hand to stop him from assassinating JFK or intercept him after the murder.....

But in this post you're presenting the idea that the cops did know where he lived and they were prepared to intercept him, and he was concerned that they might be waiting for him to show up at the rooming house less than thirty minutes after the murder.

Do I have that right, Billy Bob?

 
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 03, 2018, 12:28:16 PM
Mr. WHALEY. Well, I tried to get by the reporters, stepping over television cables and you couldn't hardly get by, they would grab you and wanted to know what you were doing down here, even with the detectives one in front and one behind you. Then they took me in an office there and I think Bill Alexander, the Assistant District Attorney, two or three, I was introduced to two or three who were FBI men and they wanted my deposition of what happened.
So, I told them to the best of my ability. Then they took me down in their room where they have their show-ups, and all, and me and this other taxi driver who was with me, sir, we sat in the room awhile and directly they brought in six men, young teenagers, and they all were handcuffed together. Well, they wanted me to pick out my passenger.
At that time he had on a pair of black pants and white T-shirt, that is all he had on. But you could have picked him out without identifying him by just listening to him because he was bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers and all of that and they asked me which one and I told them. It was him all right, the same man.
Mr. BALL. They had him in line with men much younger?
Mr. WHALEY. With five others.
Mr. BALL. Men much younger?
Mr. WHALEY. Not much younger, but just young kids they might have got them in jail.
Mr. BALL. Did he look older than those other boys?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And he was talking, was he?
Mr. WHALEY. He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer.

-----------------

Mr. BALL. Tell us what happened.
Mr. CALLAWAY. We first went into the room. There was Jim Leavelle, the detective, Sam Guinyard, and then this busdriver and myself. We waited down there for probably 20 or 30 minutes. And Jim told us, "When I show you these guys, be sure,. take your time, see if you can make a positive identification."
Mr. BALL. Had you known him before?
Mr. CALLAWAY. No. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." So they brought four men in.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.

They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him

These are the words of a simple cabbie.....  Whaley observed  the unfairness of the line up and recognized that Lee was being "railroaded"......when he said...."they were trying to railroad him"
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 03, 2018, 12:35:09 PM
Perhaps it is not all that Amazing.   ;D

Is ol Inverted Caret Brown the best the LNer's can muster??   

I always found Whaley's description of the man he transported to Oakcliff interesting.  Here he clearly thought the man had just got off a Greyhound bus and was a "Wino".......  There isn't a single photo of Lee Oswald in which he looks like Whaley's description.

When you drive a taxi that long, you
learn to judge people, and what I actually thought of the man when he
got in was that he was a wino who had been off his bottle for about
two days. That is the way he looked, sir. That was my opinion of him.

Mr. BALL. What was there about his appearance that gave you that
impression? Hair mussed?

Mr. WHALEY. Just the slow way he walked up. He didn't talk. He wasn't
in any hurry. He wasn't nervous or anything.

Mr. BALL. He didn't run?

Mr. WHALEY. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. Did he look dirty?

Mr. WHALEY. He looked like his clothes had been slept in, sir, but he
wasn't actually dirty. The T-shirt was a little soiled around the
collar, but the bottom part of it was white. You have to know those
winos, or they will get in and ride with you and there isn't nothing
you can do but call the police. The city gets the fine and you get
nothing.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 03, 2018, 03:02:06 PM
They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him

These are the words of a simple cabbie.....  Whaley observed  the unfairness of the line up and recognized that Lee was being "railroaded"......when he said...."they were trying to railroad him"

Isn't Whaley characterizing what Oswald was expressing.

    "He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what
     he thought about them. They knew what they were doing
     and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer."

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 03, 2018, 03:15:03 PM
Let's get back to basics for a moment, because it seems that for some reason the LNs are ignoring it;

By even the lowest legal standard, there simply is no solid chain of custody for the white jacket found at the carpark. The initials on the jacket were placed there by officers at the police station (just like it happened with the revolver) and (if Westbrook's testimony is to be believed) clearly do not correspond with the officers who actually found that jacket and took it to the station.

During his WC testimony, W.E. Barnes of the DPD identification bureau, was asked a lot of questions about what he did at the Tippit scene of the shooting and later at the crime lab, but they hardly asked him anything about the jacket, despite the fact that he had initialed it. Barnes said he took a photo of the car, under which the jacket allegedly was found, but there is not a word in his testimony about the jacket itself. They didn't ask him if he knew who found it, or if he had seen or handled it himself. They were not even interested enough to ask him how his initials ended up on the jacket. For George Doughty, who also initialed the jacket, it's even worse. They did not even call him to testify.

Who really found the jacket, who called it in describing it as being white, who had it when Barnes arrived on the scene to take his picture and how and when it got to the police station is completely and totally unclear.

In other words; we just have to assume that the white jacket found under the car is the same as the gray jacket now in evidence as CE 162.

I don't think so.....
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 03, 2018, 04:05:36 PM
Taking the cab past the rooming house to see if the police were there makes perfect sense.

So on one hand you're saying that the arch villain Lee Harrrrrvey Osssswald decided on the spur of the moment to murder JFK....and he had no accomplices ...He was just a lone nut.    Therefore nobody could have been prepared before hand to stop him from assassinating JFK or intercept him after the murder.....

But in this post you're presenting the idea that the cops did know where he lived and they were prepared to intercept him, and he was concerned that they might be waiting for him to show up at the rooming house less than thirty minutes after the murder.

Do I have that right, Billy Bob?

Not at all.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 03, 2018, 04:07:30 PM
They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him

These are the words of a simple cabbie.....  Whaley observed  the unfairness of the line up and recognized that Lee was being "railroaded"......when he said...."they were trying to railroad him"

Whaley is not saying that the police were trying to railroad Oswald.

Whaley is saying that Oswald accused the police of knowing what they were doing, trying to railroad him.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 03, 2018, 04:10:28 PM
Isn't Whaley characterizing what Oswald was expressing.

    "He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what
     he thought about them. They knew what they were doing
     and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer."


It's no use, Jerry.

These clowns have no idea how to properly read testimony once it's been put down on paper.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 03, 2018, 04:39:36 PM
Whaley is not saying that the police were trying to railroad Oswald.

Whaley is saying that Oswald accused the police of knowing what they were doing, trying to railroad him.

No, Mr Inverted Carat ....you've got it wrong again.....

Whaley RECOGNIZED what was happening..... " they were trying to railroad him"   Whaley's words....
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 03, 2018, 04:58:46 PM
No, Mr Inverted Carat ....you've got it wrong again.....

Whaley RECOGNIZED what was happening..... " they were trying to railroad him"   Whaley's words....

Obviously they were Whaley's words.  Duh.  It's his testimony.

But, what you can't understand, for some reason, is that he was describing what Oswald was saying about the police.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 03, 2018, 05:16:26 PM
Not at all.

So on one hand you're saying that the arch villain Lee Harrrrrvey Osssswald decided on the spur of the moment to murder JFK....and he had no accomplices ...He was just a lone nut.    Therefore nobody could have been prepared before hand to stop him from assassinating JFK or intercept him after the murder.....

But in this post you're presenting the idea that the cops did know where he lived and they were prepared to intercept him, and he was concerned that they might be waiting for him to show up at the rooming house less than thirty minutes after the murder.

Do I have that right, Billy Bob?

"Not at all."

Well perhaps you can explain it for me then.......?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on February 03, 2018, 08:13:23 PM
The line ups were cinfigured to make it obvious who the suspect was. Ozzie's reaction sealed it.

Mr. WHALEY. Well, I tried to get by the reporters, stepping over television cables and you couldn't hardly get by, they would grab you and wanted to know what you were doing down here, even with the detectives one in front and one behind you. Then they took me in an office there and I think Bill Alexander, the Assistant District Attorney, two or three, I was introduced to two or three who were FBI men and they wanted my deposition of what happened.
So, I told them to the best of my ability. Then they took me down in their room where they have their show-ups, and all, and me and this other taxi driver who was with me, sir, we sat in the room awhile and directly they brought in six men, young teenagers, and they all were handcuffed together. Well, they wanted me to pick out my passenger.
At that time he had on a pair of black pants and white T-shirt, that is all he had on. But you could have picked him out without identifying him by just listening to him because he was bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers and all of that and they asked me which one and I told them. It was him all right, the same man.
Mr. BALL. They had him in line with men much younger?
Mr. WHALEY. With five others.
Mr. BALL. Men much younger?
Mr. WHALEY. Not much younger, but just young kids they might have got them in jail.
Mr. BALL. Did he look older than those other boys?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And he was talking, was he?
Mr. WHALEY. He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer.

-----------------

Witnesses were screened. Some viewed the line ups, some didn't.

Callaway was coached beforehand.

All he had to do to help them nail the cop killer and POTUS assassin is pick the obvious perp.

Mr. BALL. Tell us what happened.
Mr. CALLAWAY. We first went into the room. There was Jim Leavelle, the detective, Sam Guinyard, and then this busdriver and myself. We waited down there for probably 20 or 30 minutes. And Jim told us, "When I show you these guys, be sure,. take your time, see if you can make a positive identification."
Mr. BALL. Had you known him before?
Mr. CALLAWAY. No. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." So they brought four men in.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Richard Smith on February 03, 2018, 11:31:49 PM
So on one hand you're saying that the arch villain Lee Harrrrrvey Osssswald decided on the spur of the moment to murder JFK....and he had no accomplices ...He was just a lone nut.    Therefore nobody could have been prepared before hand to stop him from assassinating JFK or intercept him after the murder.....

But in this post you're presenting the idea that the cops did know where he lived and they were prepared to intercept him, and he was concerned that they might be waiting for him to show up at the rooming house less than thirty minutes after the murder.

Do I have that right, Billy Bob?

"Not at all."

Well perhaps you can explain it for me then.......?

Oswald committed the crime of the century in assassinating the president.  He had every reason in the world to be concerned about the police closing in on him.  He had no idea what witnesses had seen or the DPD knew.  For all he knew, he was already a suspect and they were looking for him. At the very least, he knew it wouldn't take long for a guy being watched by the FBI who was missing from the TSBD to become a person of interest.  That is why he also probably shot Tippit.  For all he knew, his name had gone out as a suspect.  He couldn't risk identifying himself to a police officer.  He either had to shoot him while he had the chance or risk arrest. 
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 03, 2018, 11:55:17 PM
Oswald committed the crime of the century in assassinating the president.  He had every reason in the world to be concerned about the police closing in on him.  He had no idea what witnesses had seen or the DPD knew.  For all he knew, he was already a suspect and they were looking for him. At the very least, he knew it wouldn't take long for a guy being watched by the FBI who was missing from the TSBD to become a person of interest.  That is why he also probably shot Tippit.  For all he knew, his name had gone out as a suspect.  He couldn't risk identifying himself to a police officer.  He either had to shoot him while he had the chance or risk arrest.


For all he knew, he was already a suspect and they were looking for him.

Really???    So you believe the cops knew where he lived ??    Do you realize that is in direct conflict with what Fritz reported...   According to the official tale nobody knew where Lee's rooming house was located. 

So even if he had been one of the assassins and someone who knew him had gone directly to the police and told them immediately that they had seen Lee Oswald as he shot the President ( You know that nothing like this happened)  The police would have had no idea where to look for him....and yet you think they could have been waiting for him at 1026 North Beckley.
Of course they would have had to set out for the rooming house ahead of Lee Oswald, because he went directly to the rooming house and arrived there at 1:00pm.....

Only an unthinking Kook would believe this nonsense.....
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 04, 2018, 12:11:21 AM

Oswald committed the crime of the century in assassinating the president.  He had every reason in the world to be concerned about the police closing in on him.  He had no idea what witnesses had seen or the DPD knew.  For all he knew, he was already a suspect and they were looking for him. At the very least, he knew it wouldn't take long for a guy being watched by the FBI who was missing from the TSBD to become a person of interest.  That is why he also probably shot Tippit.  For all he knew, his name had gone out as a suspect.  He couldn't risk identifying himself to a police officer.  He either had to shoot him while he had the chance or risk arrest.

He had every reason in the world to be concerned about the police closing in on him.

Good point. He kills the President and then what does he do? Does he try to escape by getting out of town as quickly as he can, perhaps to Mexico?

No, he takes a bus (and a taxi) home (one of the first places police would look), changes his clothes and goes for a walk in Oak Cliff......

Yeah, that makes sense, right?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 04, 2018, 01:55:38 AM
He had every reason in the world to be concerned about the police closing in on him.

Good point. He kills the President and then what does he do? Does he try to escape by getting out of town as quickly as he can, perhaps to Mexico?

No, he takes a bus (and a taxi) home (one of the first places police would look), changes his clothes and goes for a walk in Oak Cliff......

Yeah, that makes sense, right?




Quote
Does he try to escape by getting out of town as quickly as he can

Yes, he was out of the building within minutes and then he was out of the city 20 minutes later.

Quote
No, he takes a bus (and a taxi) home

The bus wasn't getting him out of the city quick enough so he caught a taxi.

Quote
(one of the first places police would look)

Exactly, that's why Oswald drove past his Rooming House.

Quote
changes his clothes

And don't forget along with Oswald changing his appearance, Oswald grabbed his revolver.

Quote
and goes for a walk in Oak Cliff......

Oswald walked 9/10 of a mile in about 12 minutes.

Quote
Yeah, that makes sense, right?

Oswald's entire journey from the 6th floor through to escaping the city was a classic example of flight from a scene of a crime.

(https://s17.postimg.org/54pcujepb/flight.gif)



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 04, 2018, 02:17:23 AM
For all he knew, he was already a suspect and they were looking for him.

Really???    So you believe the cops knew where he lived ??    Do you realize that is in direct conflict with what Fritz reported...   According to the official tale nobody knew where Lee's rooming house was located. 

So even if he had been one of the assassins and someone who knew him had gone directly to the police and told them immediately that they had seen Lee Oswald as he shot the President ( You know that nothing like this happened)  The police would have had no idea where to look for him....and yet you think they could have been waiting for him at 1026 North Beckley.
Of course they would have had to set out for the rooming house ahead of Lee Oswald, because he went directly to the rooming house and arrived there at 1:00pm.....

Only an unthinking Kook would believe this nonsense.....

Whatever "Fritz reported", it's unrelated to the thoughts going through Oswald's mind when he was on the run between the Depository and 1026 N. Beckley.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 04, 2018, 02:22:42 AM
And your evidence for showing that LHO was "on the run" is?



Oswald was the only employee who was in the building at 12:30 and left immediately and never came back, WHY?



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 04, 2018, 03:55:25 AM
Let's get back to basics for a moment, because it seems that for some reason the LNs are ignoring it;

By even the lowest legal standard, there simply is no solid chain of custody for the white jacket found at the carpark. The initials on the jacket were placed there by officers at the police station (just like it happened with the revolver) and (if Westbrook's testimony is to be believed) clearly do not correspond with the officers who actually found that jacket and took it to the station.

Martin, If a chain a custody were required, then you might have a point. Though , I seriously doubt that an imperfect chain of custody would preclude the jacket from being admitted as evidence. Anyway, fortunately for the prosecution, they would be spared any headache of dealing with an imperfect chain of custody. The jacket being readily identifiable forgoes the need to present a chain of custody. The initials placed on it by DPD officials would have made it readily identifiable but the jacket itself was already unique and easily identifiable due to the laundry tag on it. So, it's really a rock solid piece of evidence.

Quote
Who really found the jacket, who called it in describing it as being white, who had it when Barnes arrived on the scene to take his picture and how and when it got to the police station is completely and totally unclear.

We don't know who saw it first but Westbrook was the first to handle it. Patrolman R.W. Walker(Call #85) was the first to describe it as being white. The next person to describe it as being white was motorcycle officer J.T. Griffin (Call #279).

As to why they described it as being white?......Gee, that's tough one......

(https://i.imgur.com/eBRdfjU.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/m7yDKCi.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/FeYT84k.png)




Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 04, 2018, 06:53:35 AM
He had every reason in the world to be concerned about the police closing in on him.

Good point. He kills the President and then what does he do? Does he try to escape by getting out of town as quickly as he can, perhaps to Mexico?

No, he takes a bus (and a taxi) home (one of the first places police would look), changes his clothes and goes for a walk in Oak Cliff......

Yeah, that makes sense, right?

Fact:  Oswald was apprehended inside the theater in Oak Cliff.

Can you make sense of why he was in the theater?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 04, 2018, 12:33:35 PM
Martin, If a chain a custody were required, then you might have a point. Though , I seriously doubt that an imperfect chain of custody would preclude the jacket from being admitted as evidence. Anyway, fortunately for the prosecution, they would be spared any headache of dealing with an imperfect chain of custody. The jacket being readily identifiable forgoes the need to present a chain of custody. The initials placed on it by DPD officials would have made it readily identifiable but the jacket itself was already unique and easily identifiable due to the laundry tag on it. So, it's really a rock solid piece of evidence.

We don't know who saw it first but Westbrook was the first to handle it. Patrolman R.W. Walker(Call #85) was the first to describe it as being white. The next person to describe it as being white was motorcycle officer J.T. Griffin (Call #279).

As to why they described it as being white?......Gee, that's tough one......

(https://i.imgur.com/eBRdfjU.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/m7yDKCi.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/FeYT84k.png)

Martin, If a chain a custody were required, then you might have a point.

You're kidding, right?

Though , I seriously doubt that an imperfect chain of custody would preclude the jacket from being admitted as evidence.

First of all, what you seriously doubt or not is irrelevant. Secondly, the "admission into evidence" argument is a non starter because (1) there is and never will be a trial and (2) something being admitted into evidence at trial does not automatically validate that piece of evidence. During trial the prosecutor would still have to prove it was Oswald's jacket and how and where it was found. The defense would then have a field day demonstrating the massive evidentiary problems with the jacket exactly because there is no credible chain of custody.

But, rather than speculating about what would happen at a trial that will never take place, let's just stick to talking about the WCR and how they reached their conclusions. They pretended to conduct a proper legal investigation but as soon as they hit a problem they simply ignored the basic principals of law and broke just about every rule in the book.

Anyway, fortunately for the prosecution, they would be spared any headache of dealing with an imperfect chain of custody. The jacket being readily identifiable forgoes the need to present a chain of custody. The initials placed on it by DPD officials would have made it readily identifiable but the jacket itself was already unique and easily identifiable due to the laundry tag on it. So, it's really a rock solid piece of evidence.

What a load of BS.... The officers who initialed the jacket did so at the police station and had nothing to do with it being found and/or transported to the station. So, how in the world did they know where it came from? It could just as easily have been brought in as the result of the searches at Ruth Paine's house and Oswald's roominghouse. You are completely delusional to make the argument that a chain of custody doesn't matter just because some officers initialed a jacket at the station. This is exactly the reason why there is a need for a solid chain of custody; to protect the evidence against manipulation!

And as for the dry-cleaners label... Yes it makes the jacket unique, but as far as I know there is no record of the officers who either found the jacket or brought it to the station confirming the jacket they found had a dry-cleaner's label attached to it. So, again... the evidentiary life of the jacket seems to have started at the police station.

And, for all the wrong reasons, even the WC itself wasn't convinced CE 162 was Oswald's jacket. Why else did they request, in March 1964, that the FBI conduct an investigation to determine which dry-cleaner attached the label to the jacket?

We don't know who saw it first but Westbrook was the first to handle it. Patrolman R.W. Walker(Call #85) was the first to describe it as being white. The next person to describe it as being white was motorcycle officer J.T. Griffin (Call #279).

We not only don't know. Even Westbrook himself did not know. That's the entire point. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the white jacket found at the carpark is the same as the gray now in evidence as CE 162. We're just being asked to believe the assumption that it is....

As to why they described it as being white?......Gee, that's tough one......

The two officers described it as white simply because it was white..... See how easy that is? No need for lame excuses about lightning, shades and/or the position of the sun. Your photos prove nothing and are at best misleading propaganda.

The photo of an officer holding the jacket came from b/w footage, so no determination of the true color of the jacket can be made. Two photos were taken of CE 162 at a recent exhibition of the jacket and shirt. Unless you can prove that the color of the jacket has not been affected by 50 years of storage you really have nothing to make a comparision.

But perhaps you have proven something else with your photos; How in the world could Earlene Roberts mistake such a light colored jacket for the darker one she claimed she had seen? 

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on February 04, 2018, 03:22:12 PM

Oswald was the only employee who was in the building at 12:30 and left immediately and never came back, WHY?

JohnM

LHO was a Marxist, married to a Russian  and had just returned from the USSR. The FBI kept track of his whereabouts (he complained about them harassing his wife). He was living in a city full of right wing nut jobs. Shots were just fired at the POTUS from near where he worked, (JFK's condition wasn't known). And you wonder why he left the area?  :o
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 04, 2018, 07:26:23 PM
LHO was a Marxist, married to a Russian  and had just returned from the USSR. The FBI kept track of his whereabouts (he complained about them harassing his wife). He was living in a city full of right wing nut jobs. Shots were just fired at the POTUS from near where he worked, (JFK's condition wasn't known). And you wonder why he left the area?  :o











Quote
And you wonder why he left the area?

Not at all, Oswald immediately left the building because he just killed the President and his rifle was on the 6th floor of his work.



JohnM

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 04, 2018, 07:37:00 PM

Not at all, Oswald immediately left the building because he just killed the President and his rifle was on the 6th floor of his work.

JohnM

Sure, and then he hurried home (the first place police would look) for a change of clothes and a nice walk through Oak Cliff..... Yeah, that makes sense!
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 04, 2018, 07:53:08 PM
Sure, and then he hurried home (the first place police would look) for a change of clothes and a nice walk through Oak Cliff..... Yeah, that makes sense!




Quote
Sure, and then he hurried home

Of course, he was a fugitive and he needed his revolver.

Quote
(the first place police would look)

Oswald knew that, so he had Whaley drive past his rooming house.

Quote
for a change of clothes

Yep, that's what fugitives do.

Quote
and a nice walk through Oak Cliff.....

Huh, Oswald should be still at work, wtf was he doing in Oak Cliff??

Quote
Yeah, that makes sense!

Oswald was on the run and within this context, everything Oswald did made perfect sense.



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 04, 2018, 08:27:53 PM
Sure, and then he hurried home (the first place police would look) for a change of clothes and a nice walk through Oak Cliff..... Yeah, that makes sense!

Since you feel that things must make sense, why do you refuse to make sense of Oswald ending up inside the theater on Jefferson?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Anthony Clayden on February 04, 2018, 08:43:18 PM
John,

Oswald in his visit to Marina on Thursday, from what we understand had failed to reconcile with his wife. The leaving of wedding ring with her would indicate that he had perceived an irrepairable rupture in their relationship. Whatever his relationship with his wife, BWF indicated that he was fond of his kids. A man who had just separated from his wife and knowing that he would see less of kids, would likely be emotionally depressed. The idea of hanging around at work with nothing to do but to think about his situation would not have been optimal for most people in his situation. His movements post the shooting would well fit IMHO an aimless man wandering to escape his thoughts. The meandering route. sudden changes of transport, the seeking of an escape by going to the movies, are all the kind of behaviours I would expect in someone with troubled thoughts of their personal life. (Not to say that these actions cannot be fitted into the actions of Oswald being the shooter but they can be explained without reference to his being the shooter.)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 04, 2018, 11:40:50 PM
Martin, If a chain a custody were required, then you might have a point.

You're kidding, right?

Though , I seriously doubt that an imperfect chain of custody would preclude the jacket from being admitted as evidence.

First of all, what you seriously doubt or not is irrelevant. Secondly, the "admission into evidence" argument is a non starter because (1) there is and never will be a trial and (2) something being admitted into evidence at trial does not automatically validate that piece of evidence. During trial the prosecutor would still have to prove it was Oswald's jacket and how and where it was found. The defense would then have a field day demonstrating the massive evidentiary problems with the jacket exactly because there is no credible chain of custody.

But, rather than speculating about what would happen at a trial that will never take place, let's just stick to talking about the WCR and how they reached their conclusions. They pretended to conduct a proper legal investigation but as soon as they hit a problem they simply ignored the basic principals of law and broke just about every rule in the book.

Anyway, fortunately for the prosecution, they would be spared any headache of dealing with an imperfect chain of custody. The jacket being readily identifiable forgoes the need to present a chain of custody. The initials placed on it by DPD officials would have made it readily identifiable but the jacket itself was already unique and easily identifiable due to the laundry tag on it. So, it's really a rock solid piece of evidence.

What a load of BS.... The officers who initialed the jacket did so at the police station and had nothing to do with it being found and/or transported to the station. So, how in the world did they know where it came from? It could just as easily have been brought in as the result of the searches at Ruth Paine's house and Oswald's roominghouse. You are completely delusional to make the argument that a chain of custody doesn't matter just because some officers initialed a jacket at the station. This is exactly the reason why there is a need for a solid chain of custody; to protect the evidence against manipulation!

And as for the dry-cleaners label... Yes it makes the jacket unique, but as far as I know there is no record of the officers who either found the jacket or brought it to the station confirming the jacket they found had a dry-cleaner's label attached to it. So, again... the evidentiary life of the jacket seems to have started at the police station.

And, for all the wrong reasons, even the WC itself wasn't convinced CE 162 was Oswald's jacket. Why else did they request, in March 1964, that the FBI conduct an investigation to determine which dry-cleaner attached the label to the jacket?

We don't know who saw it first but Westbrook was the first to handle it. Patrolman R.W. Walker(Call #85) was the first to describe it as being white. The next person to describe it as being white was motorcycle officer J.T. Griffin (Call #279).

We not only don't know. Even Westbrook himself did not know. That's the entire point. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the white jacket found at the carpark is the same as the gray now in evidence as CE 162. We're just being asked to believe the assumption that it is....

As to why they described it as being white?......Gee, that's tough one......

The two officers described it as white simply because it was white..... See how easy that is? No need for lame excuses about lightning, shades and/or the position of the sun. Your photos prove nothing and are at best misleading propaganda.

The photo of an officer holding the jacket came from b/w footage, so no determination of the true color of the jacket can be made. Two photos were taken of CE 162 at a recent exhibition of the jacket and shirt. Unless you can prove that the color of the jacket has not been affected by 50 years of storage you really have nothing to make a comparision.

But perhaps you have proven something else with your photos; How in the world could Earlene Roberts mistake such a light colored jacket for the darker one she claimed she had seen?

Martin,

There is a legal maxim that I believe originated with poet Carl Sandburg: If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.

What you've just done in that post is scream and pound the table. There isn't a chance in hell that a defence team could successfully challenge the jacket being what it is or where it was found. Marina identified it as belonging to her husband. Westbrook testified as to where he picked it up from. The laundry tag number on it matches with that given over the radio by Sergeant Stringer to DPD radio Dispatch shortly after it had been picked up by Westbrook.

As I said, the jacket is a rock solid piece of evidence. If a defence team were permitted to carry on about it , all they could do would be to do just as you have done; pound the table and yell like hell.

The two officers described that jacket as being white because that is how it appeared to them.  My photos prove that CE-162 can appear to be white. No amount of table pounding and hollering on your part will alter that truth.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 04, 2018, 11:49:13 PM

And as for the dry-cleaners label... Yes it makes the jacket unique, but as far as I know there is no record of the officers who either found the jacket or brought it to the station confirming the jacket they found had a dry-cleaner's label attached to it.

(https://i.imgur.com/EkQVDss.jpg)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Anderson on February 05, 2018, 12:15:13 AM
Strangely enough since Feb 1963 Marina had been trying to get a visa from the Russian Embassy in Washington, to go back to Russia.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 05, 2018, 12:32:42 AM
Martin,

There is a legal maxim that I believe originated with poet Carl Sandburg: If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.

What you've just done in that post is scream and pound the table. There isn't a chance in hell that a defence team could successfully challenge the jacket being what it is or where it was found. Marina identified it as belonging to her husband. Westbrook testified as to where he picked it up from. The laundry tag number on it matches with that given over the radio by Sergeant Stringer to DPD radio Dispatch shortly after it had been picked up by Westbrook.

As I said, the jacket is a rock solid piece of evidence. If a defence team were permitted to carry on about it , all they could do would be to do just as you have done; pound the table and yell like hell.

The two officers described that jacket as being white because that is how it appeared to them.  My photos prove that CE-162 can appear to be white. No amount of table pounding and hollering on your part will alter that truth.

What you've just done in that post is scream and pound the table. There isn't a chance in hell that a defence team could successfully challenge the jacket being what it is or where it was found.

If you can't provide conclusive proof just make wild claims you can never prove about what you think would have happened at a trial that will never take place! 

Marina identified it as belonging to her husband. Westbrook testified as to where he picked it up from. The laundry tag number on it matches with that given over the radio by Sergeant Stringer to DPD radio Dispatch shortly after it had been picked up by Westbrook.


Yes, Marina did identify CE 162 as belonging to Oswald, and I have no problem accepting that he did own it. However, Westbrook did not find the jacket nor did he transport it to the station, so there is no way you can prove that the jacket found at the carpark is the same as the one now in evidence as CE 162. Now what about this Westbrook sidekick Sergeant Stringer, Tim? Was he the one who found the jacket or did he bring it to the station? If so, why are his initials not on CE 162 and why was he never called to testify?

The amazing thing about the DPD radio transcripts is that they show, the police was looking for a guy wearing a white jacket and that's exactly what they found under the car.... a white jacket. Only later did the jacket go all technicolor on us...

As far as the dry-cleaner's label goes, there is no evidence that it was ever in CE 162 before the police got a hold of it. In March 1964 the WC wanted to link the label to Oswald so they asked the FBI to investigate the matter. The FBI officers visited all the dry-cleaners in the greater Dallas and New Orleans areas and found absolutely nothing, which is kinda remarkable since we know those are the only places Oswald lived since his return from Russia. So, Tim... where did the label come from?


As I said, the jacket is a rock solid piece of evidence. If a defence team were permitted to carry on about it , all they could do would be to do just as you have done; pound the table and yell like hell.

Only in your opinion, Tim. In the real world the gloves were also a "rock solid piece of evidence" in the Simpson trial!

The two officers described that jacket as being white because that is how it appeared to them.  My photos prove that CE-162 can appear to be white. No amount of table pounding and hollering on your part will alter that truth.

Your photos show a jacket that has been stored away for 50 years. The only thing those photos show is that the jacket doesn't look anything like CE 162 used to look in 1963. The only contemporary photo you have shown was b/w and still showed CE 162 to be anything but white.

When you claim that two officers saw the jacket and got the color wrong, is that just your opinion of do you have a statement from them to that effect? And btw it's not only those two agents. The DPD transcripts show that they were looking for a man who was wearing a white jacket. That information must have come from somewhere.... a witness perhaps? But how can that be, considering that (as far as I can recall) none of Tippit witnesses mentioned having seen a white jacket in their testimony?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 05, 2018, 12:49:27 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/EkQVDss.jpg)

That's an amazing document, don't you think, Tim?

Westbrook testified that he turned the jacket over to one of the officers when he left the carpark where it was found. We know from the record that he went on to the Texas Theater for Oswald's arrest and that he went to the police station after that. So, he never had time to return to the carpark and collect the jacket.

Yet, here we have him, allegedly at 3 PM, submitting a jacket to the identification bureau, according to a document that wasn't even signed. And not just any jacket, but the one initialed by several officers including Barnes and Doughty, who we know had nothing at all to do with the finding of the jacket. What really happened to the jacket is the same as what happened to the revolver. Some officers got together at the station and just initialed those articles without really knowning where they came from. And then, only then, did Westbrook submit the jacket to the identifcation bureau. The document you have posted, Tim, is the proof to show that Westbrook was at the very least extremely nonchalant with evidence or at worst simply up to no good!
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 05, 2018, 06:51:16 AM
Fact:

On page 175 and 176 in their report (WCR) they repeatedly claim that Westbrook found/discovered the jacket, footnote 603.

=> 603. 7 H 116-118 (Capt. W. R. Westbrook).

While on 7 H 115 Westbrook admits to NOT finding the jacket...

Mr. WESTBROOK. Actually, I didn't find it--it was pointed out to me by either some officer that--that was while we were going over the scene in the close area where the shooting was concerned, someone pointed. out a jacket to me that was laying under a car and I got the jacket and told the officer to take the license number.

Can you handle the facts?

Tom, I can handle the facts fairly well. Or I think I can anyway. That the WCR claims that Westbrook found the jacket doesn't bother me much. It's the WCR's claim, not mine. I know that it is an inaccurate statement. To my recollection, I have never made that claim myself. Westbrook never discovered the jacket but he was the first law official who handled it.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 05, 2018, 09:42:55 AM
Fair enough you shouldn't answer for the Commission.

(nice use of euphemism inaccurate)

As I've documented, the best the Commission had to offer was misrepresented evidence (testimony ) although that jacket was supposed to be "rock solid piece of evidence."





Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.




JohnM



Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Ray Mitcham on February 05, 2018, 09:45:39 AM




Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.




JohnM

All you have to do now is prove it was Oswald's jacket.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 05, 2018, 09:57:36 AM
Who is we?




What difference does it make?



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 05, 2018, 10:09:55 AM


Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.


JohnM

Who is "we"?

Westbrook confirmed that he didn't find it. Somebody, possibly an unidentified officer, pointed it out to him and when he left the carpark he gave the jacket to another unidentified officer.


What difference does it make?

JohnM

Are you for real? Since when does a chain of custody not matter anymore?

So who is "we"?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Larry Baldwin on February 05, 2018, 12:45:55 PM
Whatever "Fritz reported", it's unrelated to the thoughts going through Oswald's mind when he was on the run between the Depository and 1026 N. Beckley.

What thoughts?  Did he describe them to you in a séance?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 05, 2018, 01:12:06 PM
What thoughts?  Did he describe them to you in a séance?

Perhaps you should stop playing dumb and read my post again.  I did not say what Oswald's thoughts may have been.  I did nothing more than reply to Cakebread's nonsense about what Fritz reported.

Is this really all you have to contribute?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 05, 2018, 01:21:27 PM
What thoughts?  Did he describe them to you in a séance?

How can anyone claim that what "Fritz reported" is unrelated to the thoughts going through Oswald's mind without knowing what Oswald's thoughts were?

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 05, 2018, 03:11:48 PM
How can anyone claim that what "Fritz reported" is unrelated to the thoughts going through Oswald's mind without knowing what Oswald's thoughts were?

Have you made sense yet of Oswald ending up in the Texas Theater?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Larry Baldwin on February 05, 2018, 03:35:38 PM
Perhaps you should stop playing dumb and read my post again.  I did not say what Oswald's thoughts may have been.  I did nothing more than reply to Cakebread's nonsense about what Fritz reported.

Is this really all you have to contribute?

Calling you out on your absurdities is an excellent contribution (IMO).   As for "playing dumb", I am pretty confident that you have cornered that market.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 05, 2018, 06:41:26 PM
Obviously they were Whaley's words.  Duh.  It's his testimony.

But, what you can't understand, for some reason, is that he was describing what Oswald was saying about the police.

Show me where Lee told the police that they were trying to railroad him...

It was William Whaley who recognized that Lee was being railroaded and said..... "They were trying to railroad him"
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 05, 2018, 07:07:45 PM
Whatever "Fritz reported", it's unrelated to the thoughts going through Oswald's mind when he was on the run between the Depository and 1026 N. Beckley.

I'm merely pointing out that the official tale tells us that the authorities are on record of saying they never learned of the 1026 North Beckley address until after 3:00pm that afternoon......And based n that information I was merely asking you to tell me why Lee would think that the authorities would be waiting for him at that address at 1:00 pm. 

But now you've expanded my question..... You seem to know what thoughts were going through Lee's mind after he decided t take the afternoon off and go to the theater.... So would you please enlighten me?



Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 05, 2018, 07:20:57 PM



What difference does it make?

JohnM

What difference does it make?

Hilliary's going to sue you for plagiarism.....
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Paul McBrearty on February 05, 2018, 07:25:01 PM
Show me where Lee told the police that they were trying to railroad him...

It was William Whaley who recognized that Lee was being railroaded and said..... "They were trying to railroad him"

Wrong Walt. It was Oswald who said they were trying to railroad him.

Mr. BALL. They brought you down to the Dallas police station?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you do there?
Mr. WHALEY. Well, I tried to get by the reporters, stepping over television cables and you couldn't hardly get by, they would grab you and wanted to know what you were doing down here, even with the detectives one in front and one behind you. Then they took me in an office there and I think Bill Alexander, the Assistant District Attorney, two or three, I was introduced to two or three who were FBI men and they wanted my deposition of what happened.
So, I told them to the best of my ability. Then they took me down in their room where they have their show-ups, and all, and me and this other taxi driver who was with me, sir, we sat in the room awhile and directly they brought in six men, young teenagers, and they all were handcuffed together. Well, they wanted me to pick out my passenger.
At that time he had on a pair of black pants and white T-shirt, that is all he had on. But you could have picked him out without identifying him by just listening to him because he was bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers and all of that and they asked me which one and I told them. It was him all right, the same man.
Mr. BALL. They had him in line with men much younger?
Mr. WHALEY. With five others.
Mr. BALL. Men much younger?
Mr. WHALEY. Not much younger, but just young kids they might have got them in jail.
Mr. BALL. Did he look older than those other boys?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And he was talking, was he?
Mr. WHALEY. He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 05, 2018, 07:49:30 PM
Wrong Walt. It was Oswald who said they were trying to railroad him.

Mr. BALL. They brought you down to the Dallas police station?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you do there?
Mr. WHALEY. Well, I tried to get by the reporters, stepping over television cables and you couldn't hardly get by, they would grab you and wanted to know what you were doing down here, even with the detectives one in front and one behind you. Then they took me in an office there and I think Bill Alexander, the Assistant District Attorney, two or three, I was introduced to two or three who were FBI men and they wanted my deposition of what happened.
So, I told them to the best of my ability. Then they took me down in their room where they have their show-ups, and all, and me and this other taxi driver who was with me, sir, we sat in the room awhile and directly they brought in six men, young teenagers, and they all were handcuffed together. Well, they wanted me to pick out my passenger.
At that time he had on a pair of black pants and white T-shirt, that is all he had on. But you could have picked him out without identifying him by just listening to him because he was bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers and all of that and they asked me which one and I told them. It was him all right, the same man.
Mr. BALL. They had him in line with men much younger?
Mr. WHALEY. With five others.
Mr. BALL. Men much younger?
Mr. WHALEY. Not much younger, but just young kids they might have got them in jail.
Mr. BALL. Did he look older than those other boys?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And he was talking, was he?
Mr. WHALEY. He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer.


It was Oswald who said they were trying to railroad him.


Mr. WHALEY. He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer.


Whaley said: "He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them."

So Lee told the cops "what he thought about them"....   Probably something like " You guys are pikers....I've been to Russia and the cops over there make your brutality look like a kids pillow fight"... ;)

Then Whaley observed.... "They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him"

That's Whaley's observation and interpretation ........
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 06, 2018, 01:31:06 AM
Show me where Lee told the police that they were trying to railroad him...

It was William Whaley who recognized that Lee was being railroaded and said..... "They were trying to railroad him"

No.

An impartial read of Whaley's testimony shows that you're off base.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 06, 2018, 01:34:59 AM
I'm merely pointing out that the official tale tells us that the authorities are on record of saying they never learned of the 1026 North Beckley address until after 3:00pm that afternoon......And based n that information I was merely asking you to tell me why Lee would think that the authorities would be waiting for him at that address at 1:00 pm. 

But now you've expanded my question..... You seem to know what thoughts were going through Lee's mind after he decided t take the afternoon off and go to the theater.... So would you please enlighten me?


Quote
I'm merely pointing out that the official tale tells us that the authorities are on record of saying they never learned of the 1026 North Beckley address until after 3:00pm that afternoon......And based n that information I was merely asking you to tell me why Lee would think that the authorities would be waiting for him at that address at 1:00 pm.

Your reading comprehension skills are as bad as Larry Baldwin's.  I never said that Lee thought the authorities would be waiting for him.


Quote
But now you've expanded my question..... You seem to know what thoughts were going through Lee's mind after he decided t take the afternoon off and go to the theater.... So would you please enlighten me?

I have no idea what was going through Lee's mind.

Having the cab go past the rooming house before getting out made a ton of sense.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 06, 2018, 01:37:20 AM
It was Oswald who said they were trying to railroad him.


Mr. WHALEY. He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer.


Whaley said: "He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them."

So Lee told the cops "what he thought about them"....   Probably something like " You guys are pikers....I've been to Russia and the cops over there make your brutality look like a kids pillow fight"... ;)

Then Whaley observed.... "They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him"

That's Whaley's observation and interpretation ........


Look.  To make it easier for you to understand, how about we remove the period?

Mr. BALL. And he was talking, was he?
Mr. WHALEY. He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them, they knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 06, 2018, 04:59:55 AM
....and manipulate the sentence and appear to change it's meaning...He said...
They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer.

You have no idea whether I'm manipulating the sentence or not.

Maybe the person responsible for the transcription accidentally manipulated the sentence by placing a period where a comma should be.

Regardless, Whaley is not saying that the police were railroading Oswald.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 06, 2018, 05:02:37 AM
Why do you refuse to make sense of the fact people were impersonating SS agents at the Jefferson Branch Library?

As soon as you prove that Secret Service agents were being impersonated at the library, then I'll try my best to make sense of it.  Fair enough?

Now, why is Weidmann running?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 06, 2018, 09:52:10 AM
You quote something that doesn't  make a difference?




You're not following, Westbrook was part of the "we", it was a joint effort.
Let's put this another way, someone tells me that there was a jacket under a car then I look and "find" the jacket. What's the problem?



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 06, 2018, 10:50:29 AM
OK, Westbrook didn't actually find it.

Who did find it?







Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.


Westbrook recovered the jacket that they found.

Why do you feel it's so important to pinpoint who saw the jacket first?



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 06, 2018, 12:31:47 PM






Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.


Westbrook recovered the jacket that they found.

Why do you feel it's so important to pinpoint who saw the jacket first?

JohnM

Why do you feel it's so important to pinpoint who saw the jacket first?

I'd like to know who actually"found" the jacket, because I don't believe that that person found it UNDER the Oldsmobile.....   The jacket shows no sign of being on the dirty parking lot .....and I suspect the cop "found" it on the seat of that Oldsmobile....  He spotted it on the seat and imagined the fleeing killer had tossed it into the car as he ran by....
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 06, 2018, 03:08:17 PM

Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.


Westbrook recovered the jacket that they found.

Why do you feel it's so important to pinpoint who saw the jacket first?

JohnM

Westbrook testified that the person who found it could have been an officer. If he was right, that would make that officer the first person in the chain of custody.

But to me far more interesting is the officer that Westbrook said he gave the jacket to when he himself left the carpark to go to the next location. This is the crucial missing link.

Who was the officer Westbrook gave the jacket to and how and when did the jacket get to the police station?

While still at the carpark DPD radio and at least two officers were talking about a white jacket. Once the jacket gets to the police station it suddenly is gray and it is initialed by officers that were not involved in the chain of custody at all...

And then you wonder why we want to know who "we" is..... Go figure
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 06, 2018, 03:16:21 PM
You used to be good at this … like five years ago.

Now you're flat on your face again.

Is this a first from Nut Camp: transcript manipulated?

Yes indeed. Brown is slipping... must be getting old!

Earlier I said that, if Oswald had killed Kennedy, it would IMO have made far more sense from him to try to leave town as quickly as possible, by for instance, taking a long distance bus. On the other hand, it would IMO have made no sense at all for him to go home, change his clothes and take a walk trough Oak Cliff...

Silly old Brown then wanted to know if Oswald being at the Texas Theater made sense and the obvious answer is of course that, if he had killed Kennedy, it would not have made sense for him to hang around town and go an see a movie. But any sane person could have figured that out, just Brown couldn't.   
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 07, 2018, 07:08:37 AM
Yes indeed. Brown is slipping... must be getting old!

Earlier I said that, if Oswald had killed Kennedy, it would IMO have made far more sense from him to try to leave town as quickly as possible, by for instance, taking a long distance bus. On the other hand, it would IMO have made no sense at all for him to go home, change his clothes and take a walk trough Oak Cliff...

Silly old Brown then wanted to know if Oswald being at the Texas Theater made sense and the obvious answer is of course that, if he had killed Kennedy, it would not have made sense for him to hang around town and go an see a movie. But any sane person could have figured that out, just Brown couldn't.

Translation:  I can't make any sense whatsoever of Oswald being inside the theater in Oak Cliff, whether he was innocent or guilty.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 07, 2018, 07:09:49 AM
So you are calling the DPD Sergeant who wrote about SS agents being at the Jefferson Branch Library in his report a teller of non truths?

Is this somehow supposed to be your proof that Secret Service agents were at the library?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 07, 2018, 11:29:14 PM
He is the only person on planet Earth to be in the TSBD at the moment shots were fired who then crosses paths with the Tippit murder (the only murder of a DPD officer in many years) less than an hour later.  And he looks so much like the murderer that several witnesses ID him as the shooter.  And he happens to have a pistol when arrested with the same types of ammunition as the murderer. 

Isn't make believe fun?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 07, 2018, 11:33:35 PM
Yes, he was out of the building within minutes and then he was out of the city 20 minutes later.

Uh, Oak Cliff is still in the city of Dallas.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 07, 2018, 11:36:13 PM
As I said, the jacket is a rock solid piece of evidence. If a defence team were permitted to carry on about it , all they could do would be to do just as you have done; pound the table and yell like hell.

Would you care to explain what a jacket allegedly found in a parking lot (whether it was Oswald's or not) is rock solid evidence of?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 07, 2018, 11:39:59 PM
You have no idea whether I'm manipulating the sentence or not.

Maybe the person responsible for the transcription accidentally manipulated the sentence by placing a period where a comma should be.

Regardless, Whaley is not saying that the police were railroading Oswald.

I happen to agree with your interpretation, but the statement is ambiguous and could be interpreted either way.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 07, 2018, 11:41:43 PM
Is this somehow supposed to be your proof that Secret Service agents were at the library?

But if Earlene Roberts said Oswald was wearing a jacket and Johnny Brewer said he wasn't, then you can take those statements to the bank.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 07, 2018, 11:46:37 PM
But if Earlene Roberts said Oswald was wearing a jacket and Johnny Brewer said he wasn't, then you can take those statements to the bank.

Apples and oranges.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 07, 2018, 11:47:14 PM
I have no idea what was going through Lee's mind.

Having the cab go past the rooming house before getting out made a ton of sense.

Not really.  Lee didn't tell his employer where he lived.  He was living on Beckley under an assumed name.  Not even his wife knew where he was living.  Even if he thought they could have suspected him as early as 12:34 PM, why would he think they would know about the Beckley room 20 minutes later?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 08, 2018, 12:19:22 AM
Not really.  Lee didn't tell his employer where he lived.  He was living on Beckley under an assumed name.  Not even his wife knew where he was living.  Even if he thought they could have suspected him as early as 12:34 PM, why would he think they would know about the Beckley room 20 minutes later?

You'd have to ask Lee that.

Still, no harm in having the cab go past the rooming house before getting out.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 08, 2018, 12:31:23 AM
I happen to agree with your interpretation, but the statement is ambiguous and could be interpreted either way.

"They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him". ...William Whaley at a police line up on 11/23/63

These are the words of a simple cabbie.....  Whaley observed  the unfairness of the line up and recognized that Lee was being "railroaded"......when he said...."they were trying to railroad him"
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 08, 2018, 02:57:22 AM
You'd have to ask Lee that.

Still, no harm in having the cab go past the rooming house before getting out.

Maybe Whaley's passenger got out at the 500 block of North Beckley because that's where he was going.  Or even south of there as Whaley mentioned he was angled south when he got out of the cab.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 08, 2018, 03:19:58 AM
Maybe Whaley's passenger got out at the 500 block of North Beckley because that's where he was going.  Or even south of there as Whaley mentioned he was angled south when he got out of the cab.

Whaley's passenger did not get out at the 500 block.  The passenger gave the 500 block of North Beckley as the destination when he entered the cab, but once the cab passed the rooming house, the passenger told Whaley to stop and he exited the cab a couple blocks short of the original destination (and about three blocks past the rooming house).
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 08, 2018, 11:27:32 AM
You stopped making sense a while back.

Great contribution.  Keep up the good work.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 08, 2018, 01:09:08 PM
You stopped making sense a while back.

Not only that but he is lousy at "translations" as well
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 08, 2018, 01:19:25 PM
You stopped making sense a while back.

Not only that but he is lousy at "translations" as well


(https://i.imgur.com/7U03hs0.jpg)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 08, 2018, 01:36:41 PM
In an FBI report dated 12/13/63, William Smith stated that the man he saw shoot Tippit was wearing a "light brown jacket".

This is, of course, the same man Markham saw shoot Tippit, who was wearing a "light short jacket" and who she later identified as Lee Oswald.

This is, of course, the same man who Scoggins saw wearing a "light-colored jacket" with a gun in his hands within a spit second of hearing shots and seeing Tippit fall to the ground.  Scoggins identified this man, who he watched turn the corner from Tenth and run down Patton, as Lee Oswald.

This is, of course, the same man who Callaway saw come from the corner of Tenth and run down Patton in his direction, the man who Callaway said was wearing a "light tannish gray windbreaker jacket" and had a gun in his hands.  Callaway positively identified this man as Lee Oswald.

This is, of course, the same man seen by Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis and Sam Guinyard, who all stated that the man was Lee Oswald, had a gun in his hands and was wearing a jacket.

Why did Oswald ditch his jacket by the time he was seen by Brewer on Jefferson?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on February 08, 2018, 02:23:02 PM
In an FBI report dated 12/13/63, William Smith stated that the man he saw shoot Tippit was wearing a "light brown jacket".

This is, of course, the same man Markham saw shoot Tippit, who was wearing a "light short jacket" and who she later identified as Lee Oswald.

This is, of course, the same man who Scoggins saw wearing a "light-colored jacket" with a gun in his hands within a spit second of hearing shots and seeing Tippit fall to the ground.  Scoggins identified this man, who he watched turn the corner from Tenth and run down Patton, as Lee Oswald.

This is, of course, the same man who Callaway saw come from the corner of Tenth and run down Patton in his direction, the man who Callaway said was wearing a "light tannish gray windbreaker jacket" and had a gun in his hands.  Callaway positively identified this man as Lee Oswald.

This is, of course, the same man seen by Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis and Sam Guinyard, who all stated that the man was Lee Oswald, had a gun in his hands and was wearing a jacket.

Why did Oswald ditch his jacket by the time he was seen by Brewer on Jefferson?

"This is, of course, the same man Markham saw shoot Tippit, who was wearing a "light short jacket"

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/tippitm1.gif)

"and who she later identified as Lee Oswald."

from
"VINNIE IT IS ROUND"
by Mark Lane


                     "The Commission claimed that Mrs. Markham identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man who shot the policeman at a line up on November 22 and that in testimony before the Commission, Mrs. Markham confirmed herpositive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man she saw kill Officer Tippit. Captain Fritz - who needed that identification real quickly -- testified that the lineup was hurriedly arranged at 4:30 that afternoon, less than three and a half hours after Tippit's death and less than that after Oswald's arrest. Mrs Markham was "quite hysterical"when she arrived at police headquarters. Her state and the atmosphere in the lineup room are best described by therecord of her testimony."

Q: Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?

Markham: Yes , sir.

Q: Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?

Markham: No, sir

Q: You did not? Did you see anybody-I have asked you that question before-did you recognize anybody from their face?

          "Counsel wished to remind Mrs. Markham that when he had prepared her for her testimony, before
a record of her answers was made, the matter had been discussed. To prepare a witness for testimony may
be acceptable where adversary and hostile cross-examination is expected, and it is also a legitimate way of
preventing repetition and irrelevant conjecture. The record of the Warren Commission, however, reveals no
such cross-examination and was burdened to such a degree by repetition and irrelevance that the initial
preparation seems to have been for the purpose of leading the witness to give an appropiate answer."


Markham: From their face, no.

Q: Did you identify anybody in these four people?

Markham: I didn't know nobody.

Q: I know you didn't know nobody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?

Markham: No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.

Q: No one of the four?

Markham: No one of them.

Q: No one of the four?

Markham: No, sir.

        "At this point counsel, a teacher of criminal law and procedure at the University of Southern California anda member of the U.S. Judical Conference Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, asked arather leading question. Mrs. Markham said that she recognized no one at the lineup; counsel tried five times for amore acceptable answer. Then, departing a little from the legal procedure he teaches, he next asked his friendly but disconcerting witness, "Was there a number two man in there?" Mrs. Markham replied, "Number two is the one I picked." Counsel began another question:"I thought you just told me that you hadn't, but Mrs. Markham interrupted to answer inexplicably, "I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing."

Counsel then inquired:


Q: You recognized him from his appearance?

Markham: I asked-I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.

        "A mystical identification at best. However, the Commission was satisfied that its lawyer had at last
obtained the right answer: "Addressing itself solely to the probative value of Mrs. Markham's contemporaneous discription of the gunman and her identification of Oswald at a police lineup, the Commission considers her testimony reliable."

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 08, 2018, 02:31:06 PM
Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two is the one I picked.
Mr. BALL. Well, I thought you just told me that you hadn't--
Mrs. MARKHAM. I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing.
Mr. BALL. No. I wanted to know if that day when you were in there if you saw anyone in there--
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two.
Mr. BALL. What did you say when you saw number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, let me tell you. I said the second man, and they kept asking me which one, which one. I said, number two. When I said number two, I just got weak.
Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on February 08, 2018, 02:47:44 PM
In an FBI report dated 12/13/63, William Smith stated that the man he saw shoot Tippit was wearing a "light brown jacket".

This is, of course, the same man Markham saw shoot Tippit, who was wearing a "light short jacket" and who she later identified as Lee Oswald.

This is, of course, the same man who Scoggins saw wearing a "light-colored jacket" with a gun in his hands within a spit second of hearing shots and seeing Tippit fall to the ground.  Scoggins identified this man, who he watched turn the corner from Tenth and run down Patton, as Lee Oswald.

This is, of course, the same man who Callaway saw come from the corner of Tenth and run down Patton in his direction, the man who Callaway said was wearing a "light tannish gray windbreaker jacket" and had a gun in his hands.  Callaway positively identified this man as Lee Oswald.

This is, of course, the same man seen by Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis and Sam Guinyard, who all stated that the man was Lee Oswald, had a gun in his hands and was wearing a jacket.

Why did Oswald ditch his jacket by the time he was seen by Brewer on Jefferson?

You forgot the witness who got the best look at Tippit's killer and whose description of the murderer doesn't

match a photo taken of LHO while in DPD custody on 11/22/63.

Testimony Of Domingo Benavides

Mr. BELIN - Where were you when your vehicle stopped?
Mr. BENAVIDES - About 15 foot, just directly across the street and maybe a car length away from the police car.

~snip~

Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.

Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........

~snip~

Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.

~snip~

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3.jpg)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 08, 2018, 02:59:20 PM
You forgot the witness who got the best look at Tippit's killer and whose description of the murderer doesn't

match a photo taken of LHO while in DPD custody on 11/22/63.

Testimony Of Domingo Benavides

Mr. BELIN - Where were you when your vehicle stopped?
Mr. BENAVIDES - About 15 foot, just directly across the street and maybe a car length away from the police car.

~snip~

Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.

Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........

~snip~

Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.

~snip~

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3.jpg)


Quote
You forgot the witness who got the best look at Tippit's killer...

You keep saying this, but it can definitely be argued that Ted Callaway got a better look at the culprit than did Benavides, unless you're going to go the goofy Iacoletti route and claim that Callaway did not see Tippit's killer.


Quote
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.

Aren't you aware that terms like the above are relative only to the person being quoted?

This squared off hairline argument is almost as dumb as your argument that Oswald wasn't wearing the jacket because it was a size medium and Oswald was a size small.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on February 08, 2018, 03:14:15 PM

You keep saying this, but it can definitely be argued that Ted Callaway got a better look at the culprit than did Benavides, unless you're going to go the goofy Iacoletti route and claim that Callaway did not see Tippit's killer.


Aren't you aware that terms like the above are relative only to the person being quoted?

This squared off hairline argument is almost as dumb as your argument that Oswald wasn't wearing the jacket because it was a size medium and Oswald was a size small.

"but it can definitely be argued that Ted Callaway got a better look at the culprit than did Benavides,"

Argue away.

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/imagesCAJ5QHE1.jpg)


TESTIMONY OF TED CALLAWAY

~snip~

Mr. BALL. He was crossing Patton?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was that to the south or the north of the taxicab? Closer to you than the taxicab?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Was he running or walking?
Mr. CALLAWAY. He was running.

~snip~

Mr. BALL. About what distance was he away from you--the closest that he ever was to you?
Mr. CALLAWAY. About 56 feet.

~snip~


Testimony Of Domingo Benavides

Mr. BELIN - Where were you when your vehicle stopped?
Mr. BENAVIDES - About 15 foot, just directly across the street and maybe a car length away from the police car.

~snip~

Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.

Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 08, 2018, 03:19:35 PM
"but it can definitely be argued that Ted Callaway got a better look at the culprit than did Benavides,"

Argue away.

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/imagesCAJ5QHE1.jpg)


TESTIMONY OF TED CALLAWAY

~snip~

Mr. BALL. He was crossing Patton?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was that to the south or the north of the taxicab? Closer to you than the taxicab?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Was he running or walking?
Mr. CALLAWAY. He was running.

~snip~

Mr. BALL. About what distance was he away from you--the closest that he ever was to you?
Mr. CALLAWAY. About 56 feet.

~snip~


Testimony Of Domingo Benavides

Mr. BELIN - Where were you when your vehicle stopped?
Mr. BENAVIDES - About 15 foot, just directly across the street and maybe a car length away from the police car.

~snip~

Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.

Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........


Callaway estimated that he was about fifty-six feet from Oswald as Oswald fled the scene.  Anyone who is a baseball fan knows that, in the Major Leagues, the distance from the pitcher's mound to the batter is sixty feet and six inches.

Fifty-six feet is less than nineteen yards.  Any golfer knows that nineteen yards is not far at all.

Yet, you foolishly imply that fifty-six feet is supposed to be some great distance.

Callaway talked to the man.  Benavides ducked down in his truck.

Benavides didn't feel that he could even identify the killer and that is why he did not go to a lineup.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on February 08, 2018, 03:31:26 PM

Callaway estimated that he was about fifty-six feet from Oswald as Oswald fled the scene.  Anyone who is a baseball fan knows that, in the Major Leagues, the distance from the pitcher's mound to the batter is sixty feet and six inches.

Fifty-six feet is less than nineteen yards.  Any golfer knows that nineteen yards is not far at all.

Yet, you foolishly imply that fifty-six feet is supposed to be some great distance.

Callaway talked to the man.  Benavides ducked down in his truck.

Benavides didn't feel that he could even identify the killer and that is why he did not go to a lineup.

 :o

"Callaway estimated that he was about fifty-six feet from Oswald as Oswald fled the scene."

 ::)

Mr. BALL. About what distance was he away from you--the closest that he ever was to you?
Mr. CALLAWAY. About 56 feet.
Mr. BALL. You measured that, did you?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Last Saturday morning?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Measured it with a tape measure?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 08, 2018, 03:37:58 PM
:o

"Callaway estimated that he was about fifty-six feet from Oswald as Oswald fled the scene."

 ::)

Mr. BALL. About what distance was he away from you--the closest that he ever was to you?
Mr. CALLAWAY. About 56 feet.
Mr. BALL. You measured that, did you?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Last Saturday morning?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Measured it with a tape measure?


Is that supposed to change something?  Are you trying to say that Callaway did more than just estimate, that he actually measured and therefore I said something wrong?  So what?  He still used the word "about" when he said it was "about 56 feet".  It was not an exact measurement, it was an estimation, exactly as I stated.

But, I don't mind rewording.

Callaway measured that he was about fifty-six feet from Oswald as Oswald fled the scene.  Anyone who is a baseball fan knows that, in the Major Leagues, the distance from the pitcher's mound to the batter is sixty feet and six inches.

Fifty-six feet is less than nineteen yards.  Any golfer knows that nineteen yards is not far at all.

Yet, you foolishly imply that fifty-six feet is supposed to be some great distance.

Callaway talked to the man.  Benavides ducked down in his truck.

Benavides didn't feel that he could even identify the killer and that is why he did not go to a lineup.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on February 08, 2018, 03:50:36 PM

Is that supposed to change something?  Are you trying to say that Callaway did more than just estimate, that he actually measured and therefore I said something wrong?  So what?  He still used the word "about" when he said it was "about 56 feet".  It was not an exact measurement, it was an estimation, exactly as I stated.

But, I don't mind rewording.

Callaway measured that he was about fifty-six feet from Oswald as Oswald fled the scene.  Anyone who is a baseball fan knows that, in the Major Leagues, the distance from the pitcher's mound to the batter is sixty feet and six inches.

Fifty-six feet is less than nineteen yards.  Any golfer knows that nineteen yards is not far at all.

Yet, you foolishly imply that fifty-six feet is supposed to be some great distance.

Callaway talked to the man.  Benavides ducked down in his truck.

Benavides didn't feel that he could even identify the killer and that is why he did not go to a lineup.

"Benavides didn't feel that he could even identify the killer and that is why he did not go to a lineup."

That's the WC's story and you're sticking to it.

Based on his WC testimony this makes more sense.

"Benavides felt that he could identify Tippit's killer and that is why he wasn't brought in for a lineup"



Testimony Of Domingo Benavides

Mr. BELIN - Where were you when your vehicle stopped?
Mr. BENAVIDES - About 15 foot, just directly across the street and maybe a car length away from the police car.

~snip~

Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.

Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........

~snip~
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 08, 2018, 03:54:29 PM
"Benavides didn't feel that he could even identify the killer and that is why he did not go to a lineup."

That's the WC's story and you're sticking to it.

Based on his WC testimony this makes more sense.

"Benavides felt that he could identify Tippit's killer and that is why he wasn't brought in for a lineup"

The difference is that I am using Benavides' own words.  You?  Not so much.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 08, 2018, 06:21:38 PM
Whaley's passenger did not get out at the 500 block.  The passenger gave the 500 block of North Beckley as the destination when he entered the cab, but once the cab passed the rooming house, the passenger told Whaley to stop and he exited the cab a couple blocks short of the original destination (and about three blocks past the rooming house).

Sure, after the WC realized they had to get Oswald to 10th and Patton on a tight schedule.  That's not what Whaley said originally.  Nor what his timesheet said.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340509/m1/1/med_res_d/)

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 08, 2018, 06:24:33 PM
In an FBI report dated 12/13/63, William Smith stated that the man he saw shoot Tippit was wearing a "light brown jacket".

This is, of course, the same man Markham saw shoot Tippit, who was wearing a "light short jacket" and who she later identified as Lee Oswald.

This is, of course, the same man who Scoggins saw wearing a "light-colored jacket" with a gun in his hands within a spit second of hearing shots and seeing Tippit fall to the ground.  Scoggins identified this man, who he watched turn the corner from Tenth and run down Patton, as Lee Oswald.

This is, of course, the same man who Callaway saw come from the corner of Tenth and run down Patton in his direction, the man who Callaway said was wearing a "light tannish gray windbreaker jacket" and had a gun in his hands.  Callaway positively identified this man as Lee Oswald.

This is, of course, the same man seen by Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis and Sam Guinyard, who all stated that the man was Lee Oswald, had a gun in his hands and was wearing a jacket.

Why did Oswald ditch his jacket by the time he was seen by Brewer on Jefferson?

Adding "of course" to an opinion doesn't turn it into a fact.

Of course.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 08, 2018, 06:25:58 PM
You keep saying this, but it can definitely be argued that Ted Callaway got a better look at the culprit than did Benavides,

Great, then make your argument.  Hopefully you have something better than "he talked to the guy".

Quote
unless you're going to go the goofy Iacoletti route and claim that Callaway did not see Tippit's killer.

Nothing goofy about it.  Callaway didn't see anybody killing anybody.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on February 08, 2018, 08:49:07 PM

Is that supposed to change something?  Are you trying to say that Callaway did more than just estimate, that he actually measured and therefore I said something wrong?  So what?  He still used the word "about" when he said it was "about 56 feet".  It was not an exact measurement, it was an estimation, exactly as I stated.

But, I don't mind rewording.

Callaway measured that he was about fifty-six feet from Oswald as Oswald fled the scene.  Anyone who is a baseball fan knows that, in the Major Leagues, the distance from the pitcher's mound to the batter is sixty feet and six inches.

Fifty-six feet is less than nineteen yards.  Any golfer knows that nineteen yards is not far at all.

Yet, you foolishly imply that fifty-six feet is supposed to be some great distance.

Callaway talked to the man.  Benavides ducked down in his truck.

Benavides didn't feel that he could even identify the killer and that is why he did not go to a lineup.

(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)

"Callaway talked to the man."
 
Mr. DULLES. Did he say anything?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir; he said something, but I could not understand it.
Mr. DULLES. You could not understand what he said?
Mr. CALLAWAY. That is right; yes, sir.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 08, 2018, 09:14:51 PM
Your buddy Mutton chickened out of the parking lot so why don't you help out and list the names of police officers who saw a grey jacket on the parking lot, then list those officers from your list who identified the jacket as CE162?

No list. Just one name. Capt. W. R. Westbrook.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 08, 2018, 10:25:02 PM
No list. Just one name. Capt. W. R. Westbrook.

Exactly,

The man who didn't find the jacket and can't name the person who pointed the jacket out to him.

Also the man who, when he left the carpark, gave the jacket to another officer he can't identify

And the man who allegedly hands in a gray jacket to the evidence room (without signing for it) with initials of officers on it who were in no way involved in finding the jacket or handling it prior to its arrival at the police station.

In other words, your entire "chain of custody" is just one man who never really had custody of the jacket....

Wow!

Now let me guess, Tim.... Westbrook's word is good enough for you, right?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 08, 2018, 10:35:48 PM
Exactly,

The man who didn't find the jacket and can't name the person who pointed the jacket out to him.

Also the man who, when he left the carpark, gave the jacket to another officer he can't identify

And the man who allegedly hands in a gray jacket to the evidence room (without signing for it) with initials of officers on it who were in no way involved in finding the jacket or handling it prior to its arrival at the police station.

In other words, your entire "chain of custody" is just one man who never really had custody of the jacket....

Wow!

Now let me guess, Tim.... Westbrook's word is good enough for you, right?

Martin,

How do you know that Westbrook never found the jacket and that he gave it to another officer that he couldn't identify?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 08, 2018, 10:51:04 PM
Martin,

How do you know that Westbrook never found the jacket and that he gave it to another officer that he couldn't identify?

Read his WC testimony, Tim
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 08, 2018, 10:52:12 PM
Martin,

How do you know that Westbrook never found the jacket and that he gave it to another officer that he couldn't identify?

Uh.....his testimony?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 08, 2018, 11:04:16 PM
Your buddy Mutton chickened out of the parking lot so why don't you help out and list the names of police officers who saw a grey jacket on the parking lot, then list those officers from your list who identified the jacket as CE162?





Quote
Your buddy Mutton

The fact that you feel the need to insult me shows that my argument was all powerful and btw with every comment you are becoming more and more like Weidmann.

Quote
chickened out of the parking lot

I presented the applicable facts and for some reason you set yourself up as some sort ultimate arbiter who will only be satisfied with some undefined evidence peculiar to your limited world view.

First of all we have the plethora of eyewitnesses who identified Oswald wearing a light coloured jacket.

Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.

Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.

Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs. DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.

Mr. BALL. How was this man dressed that had the pistol in his hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. He had on a pair of black britches and a brown shirt and a lithe sort of light-gray-looking jacket.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket.
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; a light gray jacket and a white T-shirt.

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize him from his clothing?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light short jacket, dark trousers. I looked at his clothing, but I looked at his face, too.

Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this now. When you first saw this man, had the police car stopped or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on.


Mrs Brock who positively identified Oswald witnessed Oswald in the Parking Lot.

She advised she informed them that the individual proceeded north behind the Texaco station and she last observed him in the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station.

The jacket was recovered by Westbrook.

Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket you found?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir.


Marina positively identified the jacket as belonging to Lee.

Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's


The Jacket was filmed in the Carpark.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Eq799KyBJ7k/TnxUhD_sRvI/AAAAAAAAADo/FPcvXBfdjZA/s1600/JACKET.JPG)

Oswald was arrested without his light coloured zippered jacket.

(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/lb_maccammon.jpg?quality=85&w=687)



JohnM











Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 08, 2018, 11:15:14 PM

The fact that you feel the need to insult me shows that my argument was all powerful and btw with every comment you are becoming more and more like Weidmann.

I presented the applicable facts and for some reason you set yourself up as some sort ultimate arbiter who will only be satisfied with some undefined evidence peculiar to your limited world view.

First of all we have the plethora of eyewitnesses who identified Oswald wearing a light coloured jacket.

Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.

Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.

Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs. DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.

Mr. BALL. How was this man dressed that had the pistol in his hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. He had on a pair of black britches and a brown shirt and a lithe sort of light-gray-looking jacket.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket.
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; a light gray jacket and a white T-shirt.

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize him from his clothing?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light short jacket, dark trousers. I looked at his clothing, but I looked at his face, too.

Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this now. When you first saw this man, had the police car stopped or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on.


Mrs Brock who positively identified Oswald witnessed Oswald in the Parking Lot.

She advised she informed them that the individual proceeded north behind the Texaco station and she last observed him in the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station.

The jacket was recovered by Westbrook.

Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket you found?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir.


Marina positively identified the jacket as belonging to Lee.

Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's


The Jacket was filmed in the Carpark.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Eq799KyBJ7k/TnxUhD_sRvI/AAAAAAAAADo/FPcvXBfdjZA/s1600/JACKET.JPG

Oswald was arrested without his light coloured zippered jacket.

(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/lb_maccammon.jpg?quality=85&w=687)



JohnM

btw with every comment you are becoming more and more like Weidmann.

So you have noticed that other people share my opinion of you?


The jacket was recovered by Westbrook.

Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket you found?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir.


You've been asked this before several times, but ran from answering it, so here is the question again: Who is "we"?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 08, 2018, 11:25:05 PM
btw with every comment you are becoming more and more like Weidmann.

So you have noticed that other people share my opinion of you?


The jacket was recovered by Westbrook.

Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket you found?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir.


You've been asked this before several times, but ran from answering it, so here is the question again: Who is "we"?




Quote
So you have noticed that other people share my opinion of you?

Other people?

Quote
Who is "we"?

Definition of we
1 : I and the rest of a group that includes me

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/we



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 08, 2018, 11:42:32 PM
First of all we have the plethora of eyewitnesses who identified Oswald wearing a light coloured jacket.

Nice cherry-picking.

Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. "Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that

Mr. BALL. Does it look like, anything like, the jacket the man had on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It is short, open down the front. but that jacket it is a darker jacket than that, I know it was.
Mr. BALL. You don't think it was as light a jacket as that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, it was darker than that, I know it was.....

Mr. BELIN - I am handing you a jacket which has been marked as "Commission's Exhibit 163," and ask you to state whether this bears any similarity to the jacket you saw this man with the gun wearing?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say this looks just like it.   <--- Note that CE163 was the dark blue jacket found in the Domino room

Mr. BALL. I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. How is it different?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.

Mr. BALL. I have a jacket here Commission's Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that you saw across the street with a gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes; it sure does. Yes, that is the same type jacket. Actually, I thought it had a little more tan to it.

Quote
Marina positively identified the jacket as belonging to Lee.

Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's


Nice edit.

Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's--an old shirt.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 08, 2018, 11:42:40 PM



Other people?

Definition of we
1 : I and the rest of a group that includes me

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/we


JohnM

Just what I expected from you....

So, now that you have looked up the meaning of the word "we" and thus understand the word and the question, please now tell us who the others are in the "we" that Westbrook was talking about?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 09, 2018, 01:40:42 AM
Read his WC testimony, Tim

Ok. So, Westbrook's word is good enough after all. That was a quick turnaround. It's nice to see that you've seen the light on that.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 09, 2018, 01:43:10 AM
Uh.....his testimony?

Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket you found?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir.

Hi John.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 09, 2018, 01:52:29 AM

Ok. So, Westbrook's word is good enough after all. That was a quick turnaround. It's nice to see that you've seen the light on that.


If you need to play games, it's pretty obvious that you have nothing of any value to offer.

 
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 09, 2018, 01:53:08 AM
Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket you found?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir.

Hi John.

Who is "we", Tim?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 09, 2018, 01:56:20 AM
Ok. So, Westbrook's word is good enough after all. That was a quick turnaround. It's nice to see that you've seen the light on that.




That's hilarious, they ask you to read Westbrooks testimony except the part that says that Westbrook can positively identify the Jacket that they found. LOL!



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 09, 2018, 02:02:42 AM

That's hilarious, they ask you to read Westbrooks testimony except the part that says that Westbrook can positively identify the Jacket that they found. LOL!

JohnM

Where and when did "they" ask Tim to do that?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 09, 2018, 02:04:50 AM
Where and when did "they" ask Tim to do that?



Who's "they"?



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 09, 2018, 02:06:55 AM

Who's "they"?

JohnM

You tell me. You wrote;


That's hilarious, they ask you to read Westbrooks testimony except the part that says that Westbrook can positively identify the Jacket that they found. LOL!

JohnM

So, who were you talking about and when did "they" ask Tim to do that?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 09, 2018, 02:09:33 AM
You tell me. You wrote;

So, who were you talking about and when did "they" ask Tim to do that?




So you don't know who I was referring to, interesting!



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 09, 2018, 02:12:52 AM

So you don't know who I was referring to, interesting!

JohnM

I don't think you know who you were referring to, which is why you are now trying to weasel out of answering the question.

But then again, what else is new?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 09, 2018, 02:19:30 AM
I don't think you know who you were referring to, which is why you are now trying to weasel out of answering the question.





Quote
I don't think you know who you were referring to

You're just jealous that it might not have been you?

Quote
which is why you are now trying to weasel out of answering the question.

What question???, all I see is the Manager of managers getting his knickers in a knot because he's getting his arse kicked! Boo Hoo!



JohnM


Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 09, 2018, 02:20:48 AM
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)

"Callaway talked to the man."
 
Mr. DULLES. Did he say anything?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir; he said something, but I could not understand it.
Mr. DULLES. You could not understand what he said?
Mr. CALLAWAY. That is right; yes, sir.

How does the lack of a certain response from the culprit mean that Callaway did not say something to him?  Do you think before you post?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 09, 2018, 02:23:03 AM
So you are calling him either a teller of non truths or incompetent. What evidence do you have for your accusation?

I'm just waiting on you to prove that Secret Service agents were actually at the library.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 09, 2018, 02:26:58 AM
I'm just waiting on you to prove that Secret Service agents were actually at the library.



Don't you know Bill, every public building and every grassy knoll in the city of Dallas and nearby surrounding suburbs were outfitted with SS agents just in case someone randomly ran in so they could verify that whoever it was, definitely was NOT Oswald!!!



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 09, 2018, 02:27:17 AM
Nice cherry-picking.

Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. "Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that

Mr. BALL. Does it look like, anything like, the jacket the man had on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It is short, open down the front. but that jacket it is a darker jacket than that, I know it was.
Mr. BALL. You don't think it was as light a jacket as that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, it was darker than that, I know it was.....

Mr. BELIN - I am handing you a jacket which has been marked as "Commission's Exhibit 163," and ask you to state whether this bears any similarity to the jacket you saw this man with the gun wearing?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say this looks just like it.   <--- Note that CE163 was the dark blue jacket found in the Domino room

Mr. BALL. I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. How is it different?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.

Mr. BALL. I have a jacket here Commission's Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that you saw across the street with a gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes; it sure does. Yes, that is the same type jacket. Actually, I thought it had a little more tan to it.

So all of those people saw Oswald wearing a jacket.  Regardless of what color they said that jacket was, they still saw him wearing one.  Why would he ditch the jacket?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 09, 2018, 02:30:53 AM
Ok. So, Westbrook's word is good enough after all. That was a quick turnaround. It's nice to see that you've seen the light on that.

That's hilarious, they ask you to read Westbrooks testimony except the part that says that Westbrook can positively identify the Jacket that they found. LOL!


JohnM


(https://i.imgur.com/7Fp3t2Q.jpg)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 09, 2018, 02:36:11 AM
Don't you know Bill, every public building and every grassy knoll in the city of Dallas and nearby surrounding suburbs were outfitted with SS agents just in case someone randomly ran in so they could verify that whoever it was, definitely was NOT Oswald!!!


JohnM

Clever conspirators.  They covered all the bases.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 09, 2018, 02:55:05 AM
Nice cherry-picking.

Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. "Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that

Mr. BALL. Does it look like, anything like, the jacket the man had on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It is short, open down the front. but that jacket it is a darker jacket than that, I know it was.
Mr. BALL. You don't think it was as light a jacket as that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, it was darker than that, I know it was.....

Mr. BELIN - I am handing you a jacket which has been marked as "Commission's Exhibit 163," and ask you to state whether this bears any similarity to the jacket you saw this man with the gun wearing?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say this looks just like it.   <--- Note that CE163 was the dark blue jacket found in the Domino room

Mr. BALL. I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. How is it different?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.

Mr. BALL. I have a jacket here Commission's Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that you saw across the street with a gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes; it sure does. Yes, that is the same type jacket. Actually, I thought it had a little more tan to it.

Nice edit.

Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's--an old shirt.





This is why it's so easy, on one hand you endorse Markham as a Screwball then you use her as your eyewitness?

Mr. BALL. Does it look like, anything like, the jacket the man had on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It is short, open down the front. but that jacket it is a darker jacket than that, I know it was.
Mr. BALL. You don't think it was as light a jacket as that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, it was darker than that, I know it was.....


Quote
Nice cherry-picking.

There's no cherry picking, my original statement is as true today as it was 54 years ago, all those eyewitnesses said Oswald was wearing a light coloured jacket and the slight variations that you cling to are completely understandable due to the outside vs inside lighting and even when outside the jacket will appear to have a slightly different shades. Btw show me one murder case in the history of the world where the killer was freed because of a slight clothing shade variation?

(https://s17.postimg.org/kqt8fi2lb/Oswald_s_jacket_lighter_darkerz.jpg)

Quote
Nice edit.

Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's--an old shirt.

She was looking directly at the jacket and positively identified it and if in her language she said it was a shirt, trousers or a concrete mixer, that's all irrelevant, she saw Oswald's jacket and identified it as belonging to Lee. Case Closed!



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 09, 2018, 03:31:53 AM
Again, this testimony was held in private so how do you know he wasn't shown a white jacket?

Maybe he was shown this white jacket:

(https://i.imgur.com/Rnmcx3F.png)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 09, 2018, 03:51:15 AM
The point is -- you can't show that a gray jacket was shown to him.

 Here is the jacket that was shown to him:


(https://i.imgur.com/TXuozpu.gif)

Sure looks gray to me. It's even labeled as being gray.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 09, 2018, 03:52:44 AM
Sadly for you, there is a report by a DPD Sergeant that says he spoke with SS agents at the Jefferson Branch Library.




OK Rob, without any corroboration apparently someone in a Library said they were an SS agent, So what?



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 09, 2018, 03:59:20 AM
What's your evidence for the claim that he was shown that jacket? Beyond the WC said so of course.

What's your evidence that  a DPD Sergeant wrote in a report that he spoke with agents from the SS?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 09, 2018, 07:56:38 AM
Not really.  Lee didn't tell his employer where he lived.  He was living on Beckley under an assumed name.  Not even his wife knew where he was living.  Even if he thought they could have suspected him as early as 12:34 PM, why would he think they would know about the Beckley room 20 minutes later?

Why was he living under an assumed name...
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 09, 2018, 11:53:37 AM

You're just jealous that it might not have been you?

What question???, all I see is the Manager of managers getting his knickers in a knot because he's getting his arse kicked! Boo Hoo!

JohnM

So predictable.... When little Johnny gets himself in a jam he turns nasty. Kindergarten stuff!

Just too afraid to admit that he screwed up because he knows full well that nobody ever asked Tim to ignore any part of Westbrook's testimony.

Pathetic!
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 09, 2018, 01:05:57 PM

Ok. So, Westbrook's word is good enough after all. That was a quick turnaround. It's nice to see that you've seen the light on that.


You're missing the point, Tim. It's pretty obvious to me that you are doing that on purpose and for a reason, but let's pretend for now that I did not notice that.....

The whole thing comes down to one man; Pinky Westbrook! You either believe him or not, because there is no corroboration for anything he says and the facts are against him.

Let's examine what we know. 

When the jacket was found it was described as white by not one but two officers and DPD radio gave out a description of the suspect of Tippit's killer (likely obtained from an unidentified witness) that had him wearing a white jacket.

All the mumbo jumbo Mytton "science" about different colors under different shades of sunlight do not apply, because the car park was an open area and the jacket was found on the middle of a bright sunny day and, according to the two officers, it was white.

Now, Westbrook's tale begins. As fas as I can tell, Westbrook never wrote a contemporary report about his activities in 11/22/63. Months later, he tells the WC that somebody, possibly a police officer, who he can not identify, found the jacket and pointed it out to him. Westbrook then takes the jacket, not leaving it in situ, so that when W.E. Barnes of the crime lab arrives there is nothing to photograph but a parked car.

Somehow sounds familiar, doesn't it? Evidence being presented that was found by somebody we don't know and was never photographed in situ.

Anyway, by the time Barnes arrives the jacket is apparently already gone because he never sees it. Westbrook tells the WC that he gave the jacket to another officer, who he also can not identify, before leaving the carpark to go to the Texas Theater.

So, we don't know how the jacket came to be under the car (if it ever was), who really found the jacket nor do we know how it got to the police station.

Next we learn that, according to an unsigned or countersigned receipt of the Identification bureau, Westbrook is submitting a gray jacket to the CSSS, which has the initials on it of W.E. Barnes and G.M. Doughty, which at best is odd because neither Barnes or Doughty were involved in the chain of custody for the jacket. In his WC testimony, Barnes confirms that he initialed the jacket at the station at around the same time the revolver was being initialed. Btw the revolver also has intitials on it from officers who were not actually involved in the chain of custody.

In other words, the entire "chain of custody" is just one man, Westbrook, who never really had custody of the jacket.... and low and behold it's the same Westbrook who is at the center of the controversy over the wallet that was found at the Tippit scene. It was Westbrook who, according to FBI agent Bob Barrett, was holding and going through that wallet and asked him if he had ever heard of Lee Harvey Oswald or Alek Hidell.

So we have a gray jacket and a revolver being initialed at the police stations by officers who were not involved in the chain of custody and who had no way of knowing where those items really came from and we have a wallet from the Tippit scene that morphes into a wallet taken from Oswald in the car by Paul Bentley, who in turn claims that wallet contained a credit card and a drivers license.

And in the middle of it all; Captain W.R. Westbrook of the DPD Personnel Office

Now let me ask you again, Tim.... Westbrook's word is good enough for you, right?

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 09, 2018, 02:25:56 PM
Westbrook then takes the jacket, not leaving it in situ, so that when W.E. Barnes of the crime lab arrives there is nothing to photograph but a parked car.

Somehow sounds familiar, doesn't it? Evidence being presented that was found by somebody we don't know and was never photographed in situ.

At the time, they were looking for someone who just killed a police officer moments earlier.  They weren't concerned with "photographing the jacket in situ".

What they were worried about is grabbing the jacket to see if there was anything inside which might lead them to the guy who just shot a fellow officer in the head.

Some of you guys lack the ability to place yourself in their shoes and trying to understand what they were going through at the time.

Now, do you have any evidence whatsoever, I mean any little thing at all, which points to anyone other than Lee Oswald in the shooting death of J.D. Tippit?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 09, 2018, 03:04:28 PM
Flat on your face beside BB.

We're discussing evidence (or lack of ) not why the DPD screwed up crime scenes.

How about you?  Do you have any evidence to show which supports the idea that anyone other than Lee Oswald killed J.D. Tippit?  Maybe you can help Weidmann out.  Can you post evidence which points to someone else not named Lee Oswald?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 09, 2018, 03:07:37 PM

"Some of you guys lack the ability to place yourself in their shoes and trying to understand what they were going through at the time."

No truer words have ever been typed.

Said one clown to another.....

Pathetic insults and patronizing replies do not alter the facts.

Westbrook belonged to the DPD personnel office, for crying out loud. He was not hunting a killer and had no business handling evidence. He was with FBI agent Barrett following the events as they unfolded.

And even if he wanted to search the jacket, that's still no reason to remove the jacket from the scene before W.E. Barnes of the crime lab got there. Those guys were supposed to be professionals and regardless "what they were going through", they should have acted that way instead of making pathetic excuses afterwards.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Richard Smith on February 09, 2018, 03:19:29 PM
Said one clown to another.....

Pathetic insults and patronizing replies do not alter the facts.

Westbrook belonged to the DPD personnel office, for crying out loud. He was not hunting a killer and had no business handling evidence. He was with FBI agent Barrett following the events as they unfolded.

And even if he wanted to search the jacket, that's still no reason to remove the jacket from the scene before W.E. Barnes of the crime lab got there. Those guys were supposed to be professionals and regardless "what they were going through", they should have acted that way instead of making pathetic excuses afterwards.

Martin has watched too many episodes of CSI.  This happened in 1963.  Police investigations were a lot different then.  But that kind of lazy, defense attorney argument creates no doubt of Oswald's guilt.  It's just a way to extend the discussion by distracting from the evidence.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 09, 2018, 03:22:46 PM

Wow Marty you seem a little puckered up this morning, relax.

So they weren't so professional, ok I agree. Now what? Does that mean we throw the baby out with the bath water?

Does that mean we throw the baby out with the bath water?

What baby would that be? Is there a baby left to throw out?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 09, 2018, 03:32:08 PM

Martin has watched too many episodes of CSI.  This happened in 1963.  Police investigations were a lot different then.  But that kind of lazy, defense attorney argument creates no doubt of Oswald's guilt.  It's just a way to extend the discussion by distracting from the evidence.


Martin has watched too many episodes of CSI. 

A fool's argument.

This happened in 1963.  Police investigations were a lot different then.

I agree... they were far more a rush to judgment then.... especially in Texas

It's just a way to extend the discussion by distracting from the evidence.

What evidence?..... There is none, stupid! All you've got is Westbrook's scouts honor!

You've got a half blind woman who was concentrating more on getting the TV to work, claiming Oswald (who she only could have seen in the blink of an eye) left the roominghouse wearing a jacket, but when she is shown CE 162 she says the jacket she saw was darker...... as in darker, like perhaps his shirt? Remember officer Baker making the same mistake in the 2nd floor lunchroom?

Then you've got a jacket allegedly found under a car, described by two officers who saw it in broad daylight as being white.

And you've got a gray jacket suddenly showing up at the police station but nobody can tell us where it came from or who brought it in. What we do know is that it is initialed by two officers who did not find or see it at the car park and did not handle it until it got to the station....
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 09, 2018, 03:36:14 PM
Said one clown to another.....

Pathetic insults and patronizing replies do not alter the facts.

Westbrook belonged to the DPD personnel office, for crying out loud. He was not hunting a killer and had no business handling evidence. He was with FBI agent Barrett following the events as they unfolded.

And even if he wanted to search the jacket, that's still no reason to remove the jacket from the scene before W.E. Barnes of the crime lab got there. Those guys were supposed to be professionals and regardless "what they were going through", they should have acted that way instead of making pathetic excuses afterwards.


Quote
Westbrook belonged to the DPD personnel office, for crying out loud. He was not hunting a killer and had no business handling evidence.

You're not making sense.  You've argued that someone other than Westbrook picked up the jacket from underneath the car.

Therefore, once Westbrook "handled" the evidence, it had already been picked up by another and it makes no sense to criticize him for the jacket being picked up off the ground.

By the way, do you have ANY thing at all to post which suggests that someone other than Lee Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 09, 2018, 03:37:58 PM
How about you?  Do you have any evidence to show which supports the idea that anyone other than Lee Oswald killed J.D. Tippit?  Maybe you can help Weidmann out.  Can you post evidence which points to someone else not named Lee Oswald?

I don't entertain a specific theory.

You do and your evidence is as weak as can be.

I'm surprised this has to be explained to you over and over.

Translation:  No.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 09, 2018, 03:44:32 PM
What evidence?..... There is none, stupid! All you've got it Westbrook's scouts honor!

You've got a half blind woman who was concentrating more on getting the TV to work, claiming Oswald (who she only could have seen in the blink of an eye) left the roominghouse wearing a jacket, but when she is shown CE 162 she says the jacket she saw was darker...... as in darker, like perhaps his shirt? Remember officer Baker making the same mistake in the 2nd floor lunchroom?

Calling Earlene Roberts "half blind" is a pathetic cop-out.  Roberts could see a police car out on the street but couldn't see Oswald as he went out the front door fifteen feet away from her?


Quote
...but when she is shown CE 162 she says the jacket she saw was darker...... as in darker, like perhaps his shirt?

Now you're saying Oswald was zipping up a shirt as he went out the front door?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on February 09, 2018, 03:59:03 PM
How does the lack of a certain response from the culprit mean that Callaway did not say something to him?  Do you think before you post?

"How does the lack of a certain response from the culprit mean that Callaway did not say something to him?"

I didn't say he didn't.

In fact he did yell at him.

That wasn't the conversation though was it Bill?

You claimed that Callaway got as good a look at Tippit's killer as Domingo Benavides and was thus as good

a witness as him to identify Tippit's killer.

I pointed out that Benavides' view was 15 feet from the killer as he turned away from shooting Tippit

and Callaway's view was at best from 56 feet looking at a running/trotting figure.

You tried to bolster your contention by saying Callaway "talked" to the suspect.

Below is Callaway's recollection of the "talk" he had with Tippit's killer.


TESTIMONY OF TED CALLAWAY

~snip~

Mr. BALL. And did you say anything to him?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. What did you say?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I hollered "Hey, man, what the hell is going on?" When he was right along here.

~snip~

Mr. DULLES. Did he say anything?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir; he said something, but I could not understand it.
Mr. DULLES. You could not understand what he said?
Mr. CALLAWAY. That is right; yes, sir.

~snip~

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 09, 2018, 04:11:11 PM
Calling Earlene Roberts "half blind" is a pathetic cop-out.  Roberts could see a police car out on the street but couldn't see Oswald as he went out the front door fifteen feet away from her?

Mr. BALL. Now, Mrs. Roberts, this deposition will be written up and you can read it if you want to and you can sign it. or you can waive the signature.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, you know, I can't see too good how to read. I'm completely blind in my right eye.


Bill, was Earlene Roberts a reliable witness?  If so, do you believe she witnessed a police car pull up in front of her house and honk (as she claimed)?  Because, if she lied about it, she is not a reliable witness.  If she is not a reliable witness, than ANY statements she made are "questionable".  Still churning out the same old butter eh?



Roberts mentioned the fact that Oswald was wearing a jacket as he went out the door to a radio reporter on the day of the assassination.

Despite the fact that she was bombarded by law enforcement personnel and media during the weekend of the assassination, Roberts never mentioned the police car horn honking incident until a week later, after the accused assassin was himself gunned down, which sparked whispers of a possible plot.

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 09, 2018, 04:34:38 PM
Calling Earlene Roberts "half blind" is a pathetic cop-out.  Roberts could see a police car out on the street but couldn't see Oswald as he went out the front door fifteen feet away from her?

Mr. BALL. Now, Mrs. Roberts, this deposition will be written up and you can read it if you want to and you can sign it. or you can waive the signature.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, you know, I can't see too good how to read. I'm completely blind in my right eye.

How was her vision in her left eye?  Care to guess?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 09, 2018, 04:41:50 PM
Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen him wear that jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I can't say I did---if I did, I don't remember it.
Mr. BALL. When he came in he was in a shirt?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He was in his shirt sleeves.
Mr. BALL. What color was his shirt? Do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember. I didn't pay that much attention for I was interested in the television trying to get it fixed.
Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen that shirt before or seen him wear it---the shirt, or do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember---I don't know.
Mr. BALL. You say he put on a separate jacket?
Mrs. ROBERTS. A jacket.
Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?
Mr. BALL. Yes---it has a zipper down the front.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe it was.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 09, 2018, 04:48:08 PM
Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen him wear that jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I can't say I did---if I did, I don't remember it.
Mr. BALL. When he came in he was in a shirt?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He was in his shirt sleeves.
Mr. BALL. What color was his shirt? Do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember. I didn't pay that much attention for I was interested in the television trying to get it fixed.
Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen that shirt before or seen him wear it---the shirt, or do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember---I don't know.
Mr. BALL. You say he put on a separate jacket?
Mrs. ROBERTS. A jacket.
Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?
Mr. BALL. Yes---it has a zipper down the front.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe it was.

What's your point?

Earlene Roberts wasn't willing to say whether or not CE-162 was the jacket Lee had on as he left until she was first aware that it was a zipper type jacket?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Richard Smith on February 09, 2018, 04:50:19 PM
Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen him wear that jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I can't say I did---if I did, I don't remember it.
Mr. BALL. When he came in he was in a shirt?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He was in his shirt sleeves.
Mr. BALL. What color was his shirt? Do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember. I didn't pay that much attention for I was interested in the television trying to get it fixed.
Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen that shirt before or seen him wear it---the shirt, or do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember---I don't know.
Mr. BALL. You say he put on a separate jacket?
Mrs. ROBERTS. A jacket.
Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?
Mr. BALL. Yes---it has a zipper down the front.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe it was.

Well done Martin.  You have debunked your own claim that Roberts might have confused Oswald's shirt for a jacket by citing testimony where she clearly distinguishes between the two.  Noting that Oswald was wearing a shirt when he arrived and a jacket when he left.   
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 09, 2018, 04:52:20 PM
Well done Martin.  You have debunked your own claim that Roberts might have confused Oswald's shirt for a jacket by citing testimony where she clearly distinguishes between the two.  Noting that Oswald was wearing a shirt when he arrived and a jacket when he left.   

Not to mention, Earlene Roberts wasn't willing to say whether or not CE-162 was the jacket Lee had on as he left until she was first aware that it was a zipper type jacket.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 09, 2018, 05:02:45 PM
Well done Martin.  You have debunked your own claim that Roberts might have confused Oswald's shirt for a jacket by citing testimony where she clearly distinguishes between the two.  Noting that Oswald was wearing a shirt when he arrived and a jacket when he left.   

Only in the closed mind of a LN.

For sane rational people it is beyond obvious that this half blind, not paying much attention, woman isn't really sure of anything at all.

You and Brown can try to spin it as much as you like but with "maybe it was" you haven't got much of anything. 


You have debunked your own claim that Roberts might have confused Oswald's shirt for a jacket

That wasn't a claim. I'm not like you. I don't go round making claims I can not support. It was a suggestion of a possibility at best.

You rely on a woman who (1) is blind in one eye, (2) was paying more attention to the TV and thus had her back turned toward the living room, (3) could not have seen Oswald for more than a blink of an eye as he walked the short distance between his room and the front door and (4) isn't sure of anything. Add to it that her employer described her to the WC as somebody who makes up stories and you have one hell of witness....
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 09, 2018, 05:10:48 PM
Only in the closed mind of a LN.

For sane rational people it is beyond obvious that this half blind, not paying much attention, woman isn't really sure of anything at all.

You and Brown can try to spin it as much as you like but with "maybe it was" you haven't got much of anything.


Quote
For sane rational people it is beyond obvious that this half blind, not paying much attention, woman isn't really sure of anything at all.

No.  This is a flat out lie.

If it's one thing Roberts was sure of, it's that whatever Oswald was wearing as he went out the door, he was zipping it up.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 09, 2018, 05:47:44 PM
So all of those people saw Oswald wearing a jacket.  Regardless of what color they said that jacket was, they still saw him wearing one.  Why would he ditch the jacket?

Who's "he"?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 09, 2018, 05:53:43 PM
This is why it's so easy, on one hand you endorse Markham as a Screwball then you use her as your eyewitness?

She was a screwball.  That doesn't entitle you to misrepresent what she did say by cherry-picking "light short jacket" and ignoring everything else.

Quote
Btw show me one murder case in the history of the world where the killer was freed because of a slight clothing shade variation?

Then why are you even bothering to make a case (badly I might add) that they all saw a light-colored jacket?

Quote
She was looking directly at the jacket and positively identified it and if in her language she said it was a shirt, trousers or a concrete mixer, that's all irrelevant, she saw Oswald's jacket and identified it as belonging to Lee. Case Closed!

That doesn't make it true.  Marina said a lot of things.  On what basis did she make that determination?  Case open.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 09, 2018, 05:54:42 PM
Who's "he"?

Lee Oswald, the man who witnesses identified as wearing a jacket.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 09, 2018, 05:55:51 PM
Why was he living under an assumed name...

Because he wanted to kill the president of course.  There could be no other reason.   ::)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 09, 2018, 06:01:55 PM
So they weren't so professional, ok I agree. Now what? Does that mean we throw the baby out with the bath water?

Yes.  There's no baby in that filthy bathwater.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 09, 2018, 06:06:26 PM
Lee Oswald, the man who witnesses identified as wearing a jacket.

LOL.  In unfair lineups.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 09, 2018, 06:08:31 PM
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.

Still haven't figured out who "we" is?

And how did Westbrook make the determination that this was exactly the jacket "we" found?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 09, 2018, 06:10:29 PM
LOL.  In unfair lineups.

Debatable.  But, even if true, is that somehow supposed to mean that Helen Markham, William Scoggins, Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis, Ted Callaway and Sam Guinyard actually saw someone other than Oswald?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 09, 2018, 06:12:24 PM
Yes.  There's no baby in that filthy bathwater.

There's no proof of an alternate shooter in CTroll wonderland
There's no proof that anyone but the killer ( 'random guy' ) knew that an attempt was to be made on Kennedy that day

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 09, 2018, 06:29:11 PM
Why was he living under an assumed name...

Spies are known to occasionally use an alias.....  Lee had been trained as a US intelligence agent ....

But your question is interesting....   When Fritz asked, Lee readily admitted that he was registered as O.H. Lee  at the rooming house.....   He told Fritz that Mrs Roberts made the error when he rented the room...

I don't know if that is true.....  So it raises an interesting question......

WHO was Lee hiding from?....   We know that FBI agent Hosty claimed that was looking for him...and Lee was aware that Hosty was looking for him.....BUT..... Hosty knew that he was working in the TSBD...and Lee tried to contact Hosty when he left the note at the FBI office......

Who was Lee trying to avoid?......

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 09, 2018, 06:39:02 PM
There's no proof of an alternate shooter in CTroll wonderland

...or your shooter for that matter.

Quote
There's no proof that anyone but the killer ( 'random guy' ) knew that an attempt was to be made on Kennedy that day

Who said otherwise?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 09, 2018, 06:43:06 PM
Debatable.  But, even if true, is that somehow supposed to mean that Helen Markham, William Scoggins, Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis, Ted Callaway and Sam Guinyard actually saw someone other than Oswald?

They very well could have, since invalid lineups are invalid.  But since only one of them actually witnessed a crime, I'm not sure how it matters much who the other people saw.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 09, 2018, 06:58:41 PM
Debatable.  But, even if true, is that somehow supposed to mean that Helen Markham, William Scoggins, Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis, Ted Callaway and Sam Guinyard actually saw someone other than Oswald?




Yep the chances that Markham would pick a particular random person out of four is obviously 1 in 4, then we have another 5 eyewitnesses who all had an equal chance of 1 in 4 of picking some random dude therefore when totalled means that for all the 6 eyewitnesses to choose the same random guy is close to astronomical!



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 09, 2018, 07:16:21 PM

Yep the chances that Markham would pick a particular random person out of four is obviously 1 in 4, then we have another 5 eyewitnesses who all had an equal chance of 1 in 4 of picking some random dude therefore when totalled means that for all the 6 eyewitnesses to choose the same random guy is close to astronomical!

JohnM

You need to watch a video, because you have just made the best case possible for why the line up identifications can not be trusted. The odds of this happening are indeed astronomical!

I'm sure John doesn't mind me borrowing the video.


Once you have done that, get back to us with some rational explanation, if you can.

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 09, 2018, 07:25:13 PM
You need to watch a video. I'm sure John doesn't mind me borrowing it.


Once you have done that, get back to us with some rational explanation, if you can.




I have already shown you that eyewitnesses saw Lee Harvey Oswald and couldn't positively identify him.

Btw The video wasn't made in Dallas 1963, has nothing to do with a man carrying a revolver, is showing a completely different scenario and is overcast, so what's your point?



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 09, 2018, 07:28:21 PM


I have already shown you that eyewitnesses saw Lee Harvey Oswald and couldn't positively identify him.

Btw The video wasn't made in Dallas 1963, has nothing to do with a man carrying a revolver, is showing a completely different scenario and is overcast, so what's your point?


JohnM

I have already shown you that eyewitnesses saw Lee Harvey Oswald and couldn't positively identify him.

How many of the people that attended a line up could not identify him?

Btw The video wasn't made in Dallas 1963, has nothing to do with a man carrying a revolver, is showing a completely different scenario and is overcast, so what's your point?

If you don't get the point, there is no reason to discuss anything with you. A brick wall would get the point the video clearly makes!
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 09, 2018, 07:46:37 PM
Still haven't figured out who "we" is?

And how did Westbrook make the determination that this was exactly the jacket "we" found?

"We" is the DPD officers who were in the parking lot when Westbrook picked the jacket up.

Westbrook was able to make the determination that it was exactly the jacket they found by the laundry tag on the jacket.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 09, 2018, 07:59:14 PM
"We" is the DPD officers who were in the parking lot when Westbrook picked the jacket up.

Westbrook was able to make the determination that it was exactly the jacket they found by the laundry tag on the jacket.

"We" is the DPD officers who were in the parking lot when Westbrook picked the jacket up.

Would that include the two officers who saw the jacket in bright midday sunlight and described it as white?

And does it include the officer who Westbrook gave the jacket to? Who was that again, Tim, and can he tell us how the jacket got to the station? Gotta name, perhaps?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 09, 2018, 08:05:24 PM
"We" is the DPD officers who were in the parking lot when Westbrook picked the jacket up.

Would that include the two officers who saw the jacket in bright midday sunlight and described it as white?

Yes it would.

Quote
And does it include the officer who Westbrook gave the jacket to?

Of course.

Quote
Who was that again, Tim, and can he tell us how the jacket got to the station? Gotta name, perhaps?

Did Westbrook give the name of the officer who he gave the jacket to?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 09, 2018, 08:19:03 PM
Yes it would.

Of course.

Did Westbrook give the name of the officer who he gave the jacket to?

Did Westbrook give the name of the officer who he gave the jacket to?

I don't know. It's not in his testimony, but as an officer of the personal department you would think he would know the people he is working with, don't you agree?

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 09, 2018, 08:24:19 PM
Did Westbrook give the name of the officer who he gave the jacket to?

I don't know. It's not in his testimony,

If it's not in his testimony then how would you expect me to know who he gave it to?

Quote
but as an officer of the personal department you would think he would know the people he is working with, don't you agree?

I would expect that he would know the people he is working with, but I wouldn't necessarily expect him to recall who it was that he passed the jacket to.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 09, 2018, 08:35:02 PM
If it's not in his testimony then how would you expect me to know who he gave it to?

I would expect that he would know the people he is working with, but I wouldn't necessarily expect him to recall who it was that he passed the jacket to.

So, you agree that we have no way of knowing what happened to the jacket after Westbrook gave it to an unidentified officer and how it got to the police station? 
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Richard Smith on February 09, 2018, 08:55:14 PM
They very well could have, since invalid lineups are invalid.  But since only one of them actually witnessed a crime, I'm not sure how it matters much who the other people saw.

By John's nutty logic no one in Ford's Theatre witnessed John Wilkes Booth shoot Lincoln.   They just heard a shot and looked in his direction to see him pointing a gun at Lincoln's head.  Thus, they did not actually witness a crime.  Cue sinister music. Perhaps Lincoln shot himself and Booth just picked up the gun.  It's possible right?  A hypothesis that must be disproved by others according to some CTers.  And I bet someone in the crowd didn't even describe his clothing with 100% accuracy.  Leaving open the possibility of a Booth double.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 09, 2018, 08:57:32 PM
Would that include the two officers who saw the jacket in bright midday sunlight and described it as white?

Did one-eyed (half-blind to some) Earlene blink at the jacket in bright sunlight?
Were the lights even on in the room in which she watches TV?
Did Baker see Oswald's jacket in bright midday sunlight?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 09, 2018, 09:10:11 PM
Btw, how much is "astronomical"?

Mytton was asleep during math class.  Besides, nobody is arguing that there was anything "random" about the unfair lineups.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Richard Smith on February 09, 2018, 09:12:24 PM
You need to watch a video, because you have just made the best case possible for why the line up identifications can not be trusted. The odds of this happening are indeed astronomical!


Martin has harped on this being only a "circumstantial" evidence case apparently misunderstanding that this term doesn't mean weak.  He now informs us that direct evidence can't be trusted either.  That really narrows things down!  We are finally getting to the center of the lollipop, though.  At its heart what John and Martin are contending is that nothing can ever be proven if they don't like the implications.  The case against Oswald is the collective product of lies, fakery, unfairness, coincidence, police incompetence, chance, being unlucky, but never Oswald's guilt.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 09, 2018, 09:13:09 PM
Did one-eyed (half-blind to some) Earlene blink at the jacket in bright sunlight?
Were the lights even on in the room in which she watches TV?
Did Baker see Oswald's jacket in bright midday sunlight?

Did one-eyed (half-blind to some) Earlene blink at the jacket in bright sunlight?
Were the lights even on in the room in which she watches TV?


Earlene Roberts watched TV in the living room which has several large windows.

Did Baker see Oswald's jacket in bright midday sunlight?

Baker saw Oswald's jacket? When and where?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 09, 2018, 09:14:29 PM
By John's nutty logic no one in Ford's Theatre witnessed John Wilkes Booth shoot Lincoln.   They just heard a shot and looked in his direction to see him pointing a gun at Lincoln's head.  Thus, they did not actually witness a crime.

Yes, because somebody sitting in a theater box a few feet away from a person who has just been shot is exactly the same as someone a block or two away a few minutes later who didn't see anything happen.

And you call me nutty...
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 09, 2018, 09:16:15 PM
Martin has harped on this being only a "circumstantial" evidence case apparently misunderstanding that this term doesn't mean weak.

True, but in this case the little evidence that you have is both circumstantial and weak.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 09, 2018, 09:22:00 PM

Martin has harped on this being only a "circumstantial" evidence case apparently misunderstanding that this term doesn't mean weak.  He now informs us that direct evidence can't be trusted either.  That really narrows things down!  We are finally getting to the center of the lollipop, though.  At its heart what John and Martin are contending is that nothing can ever be proven if they don't like the implications.  The case against Oswald is the collective product of lies, fakery, unfairness, coincidence, police incompetence, chance, being unlucky, but never Oswald's guilt.


This might come as a shock to you, Richie, but if you had paid attention you would have noticed that I have never written one post in which I advocated Oswald's innocence or guilt. I don't really care about Oswald one way or the other. I'm here for the case against him....

Martin has harped on this being only a "circumstantial" evidence case apparently misunderstanding that this term doesn't mean weak.

Apparently? Are you a mind reader now?

He now informs us that direct evidence can't be trusted either. 

No I didn't. Stop making up things.

At its heart what John and Martin are contending is that nothing can ever be proven if they don't like the implications.

Oh boy, now he's a serial mind reader ... where will it end?

The case against Oswald is the collective product of lies, fakery, unfairness, coincidence, police incompetence, chance, being unlucky, but never Oswald's guilt.


Stop whining and show us some evidence that will stand up under scrutiny
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 09, 2018, 09:40:22 PM
Stop whining and show us some evidence that will stand up under scrutiny

Richard is a one trick pony.  Strawmen and insults.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Richard Smith on February 09, 2018, 09:53:15 PM
This might come as a shock to you, Richie, but if you had paid attention you would have noticed that I have never written one post in which I advocated Oswald's innocence or guilt. I don't really care about Oswald one way or the other. I'm here for the case against him....


I'm waiting for the lightning to strike.  Let me get this one straight.  You don't "really care about Oswald one way or the other."  And have never advocated his guilt or innocence?  LOL.  You are just here night and day taking exception to every post that suggests he is guilty.  When given the choice between an obvious, common sense interpretation of the evidence that lends itself to Oswald's guilt and a wildly improbable, baseless and often laughable one that might create doubt, you go with the latter in every instance.  You are self-delusional if you believe that.  What you are is a closet CTer.  The worst kind.  Too afraid to have the courage of your convictions because you understand the inherent weakness of your case.  Thus, the lazy contrarian mentality that you don't have to prove anything.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 09, 2018, 09:59:47 PM
And when Richard says "obvious, common sense interpretation", he means his unsupported opinion.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Richard Smith on February 09, 2018, 10:00:27 PM
Yes, because somebody sitting in a theater box a few feet away from a person who has just been shot is exactly the same as someone a block or two away a few minutes later who didn't see anything happen.

And you call me nutty...

So it is possible to witness a crime without seeing someone pull the trigger?  And this analysis depends somehow on how far away the witness is?  Who ID'd Oswald as the Tippit shooter by seeing him a few minutes later?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 09, 2018, 10:00:45 PM
Yes, because somebody sitting in a theater box a few feet away from a person who has just been shot is exactly the same as someone a block or two away a few minutes later who didn't see anything happen.

And you call me nutty...

A citizen hears gunshots in the neighbourhood and a few moments later a 'random guy' walks by carrying a handgun. The citizen later identifies this particular 'random guy' as Oswald. Tell us where that would not help in the case against Oswald.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 09, 2018, 10:06:44 PM
So it is possible to witness a crime without seeing someone pull the trigger?  And this analysis depends somehow on how far away the witness is?  Who ID'd Oswald as the Tippit shooter by seeing him a few minutes later?

Well, apparently Bill Brown thinks that Ted Callaway did.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 09, 2018, 10:20:50 PM

I'm waiting for the lightning to strike.  Let me get this one straight.  You don't "really care about Oswald one way or the other."  And have never advocated his guilt or innocence?  LOL.  You are just here night and day taking exception to every post that suggests he is guilty.  When given the choice between an obvious, common sense interpretation of the evidence that lends itself to Oswald's guilt and a wildly improbable, baseless and often laughable one that might create doubt, you go with the latter in every instance.  You are self-delusional if you believe that.  What you are is a closet CTer.  The worst kind.  Too afraid to have the courage of your convictions because you understand the inherent weakness of your case.  Thus, the lazy contrarian mentality that you don't have to prove anything.


the inherent weakness of your case

I have no case, fool.... That only exists in your paranoid mind

And you call me delusional? Go figure...

Here's a deal for you; show me a solid piece of evidence that holds up under scrutiny and I will agree that it points to Oswald's guilt.

Would that make you happy?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 09, 2018, 11:11:31 PM
So it is possible to witness a crime without seeing someone pull the trigger?  And this analysis depends somehow on how far away the witness is?  Who ID'd Oswald as the Tippit shooter by seeing him a few minutes later?

Well, apparently Bill Brown thinks that Ted Callaway did.

First of all, Callaway saw Oswald run by with a gun in his hands and wearing an Eisenhower-type jacket moments after the shooting, not minutes.

Anyway, Markham saw Oswald shoot Tippit.  Scoggins saw the same man that Markham saw.  Scoggins saw this man run from Tippit's patrol car towards Patton, cut across the Davis lawn and head down Patton towards Jefferson.  Both Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis saw the same man that Scoggins saw.  The Davis sisters saw this man cut across their lawn and turn the corner onto Patton.  Callaway saw the same man coming from Tenth, cutting through the Davis yard towards Scoggins hiding beside his cab, running down Patton with a gun in his hands.

When pieced together, Callaway saw Tippit's killer.

One does not have to see the killing to see the killer.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 09, 2018, 11:48:45 PM
First of all, Callaway saw Oswald run by with a gun in his hands and wearing an Eisenhower-type jacket moments after the shooting, not minutes.

Oh brother.  How many "moments" are in a minute?  When did Callaway ever say "moments" anyway?

Quote
Anyway, Markham saw Oswald shoot Tippit.  Scoggins saw the same man that Markham saw.  Scoggins saw this man run from Tippit's patrol car towards Patton, cut across the Davis lawn and head down Patton towards Jefferson.  Both Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis saw the same man that Scoggins saw.  The Davis sisters saw this man cut across their lawn and turn the corner onto Patton.  Callaway saw the same man coming from Tenth, cutting through the Davis yard towards Scoggins hiding beside his cab, running down Patton with a gun in his hands.

Correction:

Markham saw a man shoot Tippit who she identified as Oswald in an unfair lineup.
Scoggins saw a man going south on Patton who he identified as Oswald in an unfair lineup.
The Davis sisters-in-law saw a man going across their lawn who they identified as Oswald in an unfair lineup.
Callaway saw a man running south on Patton who he identified as Oswald in an unfair lineup.

That doesn't necessarily mean that they all saw Oswald or that they even saw the same man.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 10, 2018, 02:38:34 AM
Oh brother.  How many "moments" are in a minute?  When did Callaway ever say "moments" anyway?

Correction:

Markham saw a man shoot Tippit who she identified as Oswald in an unfair lineup.
Scoggins saw a man going south on Patton who he identified as Oswald in an unfair lineup.
The Davis sisters-in-law saw a man going across their lawn who they identified as Oswald in an unfair lineup.
Callaway saw a man running south on Patton who he identified as Oswald in an unfair lineup.

That doesn't necessarily mean that they all saw Oswald or that they even saw the same man.

Well then feel free to prove that these witnesses saw different men.

Claim the lineups were unfair.  Okay.

Claim the witness identification was wrong and it was not Oswald who they saw.  Okay.

But, to claim that these witnesses saw different men is dangerously close to taking up residence in Kookville.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 10, 2018, 03:10:33 AM
So people impersonating SS agents gives you no pause? Of course not as you have your patsy already picked out.



Quote
So people impersonating SS agents gives you no pause?

Sure if you had some corroboration and your SS agents were somewhere closer to Elm street but alas all you have is the word of one person seeing SS agents somewhere in the suburbs, so what?

Quote
Of course not as you have your patsy already picked out.

You say Oswald was a lousy shot and liked Kennedy, who in their right mind would pick Oswald to be a Patsy?



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 10, 2018, 03:16:01 AM
Btw, how much is "astronomical"?




A lot more than "close to astronomical"!



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 10, 2018, 03:17:59 AM
They picked the guy with the bruised face.

That was easy.



Quote
They picked the guy with the bruised face.

That was easy.

So none of the other guys had any bruises? cite?



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on February 10, 2018, 02:49:49 PM


Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 10, 2018, 07:42:07 PM
The report was posted in my series already. Unfortunately this site was hacked and it is gone. I will repost it sometime in the future, but the evidence is still there.

Detective Marvin Buhk's report to Curry.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 10, 2018, 07:45:26 PM
Well then feel free to prove that these witnesses saw different men.

Claim the lineups were unfair.  Okay.

Claim the witness identification was wrong and it was not Oswald who they saw.  Okay.

But, to claim that these witnesses saw different men is dangerously close to taking up residence in Kookville.

You only think so because your entire argument rests on that, since almost none of your "witnesses" actually witnessed a crime.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 10, 2018, 07:48:20 PM
No bruises or gashes on any of these guys' eyes, either.

(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/b/b3/Photo_wcd1083_003.jpg)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 11, 2018, 12:34:17 PM
You only think so because your entire argument rests on that, since almost none of your "witnesses" actually witnessed a crime.


I rest my case.

But, to claim that these witnesses saw different men is dangerously close to taking up residence in Kookville.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 11, 2018, 12:49:43 PM
They picked the guy with the bruised face.

That was easy.

So none of the other guys had any bruises? cite?

JohnM

No bruises or gashes on any of these guys' eyes, either.

(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/b/b3/Photo_wcd1083_003.jpg)

Exactly how long do you feel that a bruise should linger?

That photo you posted of the lineup participants was taken over five and a half months after the lineups.

I'm not arguing that any of the lineup participants actually had a bruise on their face, even though it can't be ruled out.  But, what does posting a photo of the participants taken almost six months later do to prove how these men looked on 11/22/63?  Please explain. 



Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 11, 2018, 02:35:18 PM
So now your number isn't close after all.

You're not bluffing, are you?


What on Earth are you blathering about?
Here is my original post.




Yep the chances that Markham would pick a particular random person out of four is obviously 1 in 4, then we have another 5 eyewitnesses who all had an equal chance of 1 in 4 of picking some random dude therefore when totalled means that for all the 6 eyewitnesses to choose the same random guy is close to astronomical!



JohnM



A small number < "close to astronomical" < astronomical.



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 11, 2018, 02:46:22 PM
No bruises or gashes on any of these guys' eyes, either.

(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/b/b3/Photo_wcd1083_003.jpg)




Hahahaha, when was the CE1054 taken?







JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 11, 2018, 02:52:17 PM
I would expect them to have in a fair lineup.

Do you have photos of the lineups?




Quote
I would expect them to have in a fair lineup.

So you made a statement which you had no way of knowing is true, awesome!

Quote
Do you have photos of the lineups?

Unbelievable!



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 11, 2018, 04:38:21 PM
Hahahaha, when was the CE1054 taken?


JohnM

Mid-May of '64.

So, in an attempt to suggest evidence contamination (fibers found inside the bag being a match to the blanket fibers), we have Iacoletti posting a photo of the bag and blanket in contact with each other which was taken three days AFTER the bag was analyzed and the fibers were found inside the bag and studied by Stombaugh.

Now, we have Iacoletti posting a photo of Clark, Perry and Ables (the lineup participants along with Oswald) taken almost six months after the lineups were conducted in an attempt to show that these three men didn't have visible bruises on 11/22/63.

Nuts.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 11, 2018, 11:50:15 PM
Why a sudden need to introduce "a small number"?




No offence but since you didn't understand the concept the first couple of times I tried to dumb it down a little.



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 11, 2018, 11:59:32 PM
Do you find my proposition unreasonable?


What, that they all picked the man with the bruises, yes I find that totally unreasonable.

These eyewitnesses were just average people like you and me, and I know for certain that I would not just pick the man with the bruises and I'm sure that 6 of my family or friends would act exactly the same, why would anybody want to send anyone to the electric chair just because they had a bruise, are you for real?
Now I ask you "an average person" would you just pick the an innocent man with a bruise and would your Best Friend, Brother, Sister, Mom or Dad just pick the innocent guy with a bruise, I sincerely hope not.

And even if Oswald was the only man with a bruise which I suspect may have been the case what's the answer? I think the Geneva convention or whatever applicable law prohibits the use of force to create matching injuries.



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 12, 2018, 06:27:47 PM
The three other participants in the lineup were Dallas Police employees.
Det. R.L. Clark testified that he was wearing a white short sleeved shirt and a red vest for both lineups
Don Ables testified that he had on a white shirt and a grey knit sweater for both lineups
William Perry got a brown sports coat from the homicide office.

Below composite photo is a good indicator of what it might have looked like viewing these line ups
it appears to be an obvious set up

(http://s14.postimg.org/raqpw16gh/lineup.jpg)



It's amazing that you really believe that the composite photo is a "good indicator" of what the lineups might have looked like to the witnesses.

Do you seriously believe either Clark, Ables or Perry wore a suit and tie?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 12, 2018, 06:55:16 PM
nice distraction...Where do I say anybody wore a suit & tie?
I was clear in my first line what each man was wearing

Mr. Ball: The other three were better dressed than Oswald, would you say?
Det. Boyd: Well, yes, sir; I would say they probably were.

can you read or just not comprehend?


You're the goofball who insisted (at least three times) that I deleted a post in an attempt to hide something, yet the post is still there to this day... and you question another's ability to read and comprehend?

Anyway, you most definitely said that the "composite photo is a good indicator of what it might have looked like viewing these line ups".

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 12, 2018, 08:01:54 PM
More distractions in an obvious set up  -and of course insults when there is no proof
 and how does "good indicator" mean they wore suit & tie

No proof?  What am I trying to prove here?  I'm just pointing out your foolish statement.

Moving on.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Mytton on February 12, 2018, 08:02:32 PM

You're the goofball who insisted (at least three times) that I deleted a post in an attempt to hide something, yet the post is still there to this day... and you question another's ability to read and comprehend?

Anyway, you most definitely said that the "composite photo is a good indicator of what it might have looked like viewing these line ups".





Capasse has never been honest a day in his life, in the following image he posted we know Ables is 5'9" and Oswald was 5'9" but he made Oswald much shorter than Ables. Capasse's history with BS manipulative images is well known.

(https://s17.postimg.org/q1iveevkf/oswald_heightz.jpg)



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Ray Mitcham on February 12, 2018, 08:40:47 PM




Capasse has never been honest a day in his life, in the following image he posted we know Ables is 5'9" and Oswald was 5'9" but he made Oswald much shorter than Ables. Capasse's history with BS manipulative images is well known.

(https://s17.postimg.org/q1iveevkf/oswald_heightz.jpg)



JohnM

Oh, the irony!
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 13, 2018, 12:39:04 AM
I rest my case.

What case are you resting?  That your case involves pretending that non-witnesses are witnesses?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 13, 2018, 12:41:18 AM
That photo you posted of the lineup participants was taken over five and a half months after the lineups.

Cite?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 13, 2018, 12:44:09 AM
So, in an attempt to suggest evidence contamination (fibers found inside the bag being a match to the blanket fibers), we have Iacoletti posting a photo of the bag and blanket in contact with each other which was taken three days AFTER the bag was analyzed and the fibers were found inside the bag and studied by Stombaugh.

It hasn't escaped anyone's notice that your only evidence for this was "Day said so" 5 months later.  And there was that other photo...
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 13, 2018, 03:59:41 AM
It hasn't escaped anyone's notice that your only evidence for this was "Day said so" 5 months later.  And there was that other photo...

Stombaugh examined the bag on the 23rd.  Day testified that the photo was taken on the the 26th, as they were turning that evidence over to the FBI for the 2nd time.  Therefore, Stombaugh analyzed the bag three days BEFORE the photo, that you posted in an attempt to show contamination, was even taken.  Prove Day was wrong about the date?

As for the "other photo", no one here has shown that it was taken before Stombaugh examined those two items.  Therefore, why mention it? 
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 13, 2018, 04:03:21 AM
That photo you posted of the lineup participants was taken over five and a half months after the lineups.

Cite?

What difference does it make?  You'll just end up saying it's a lie or a mistake, like you're currently doing with Day's testimony about the photo of the bag and blanket (CE-738).
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 13, 2018, 06:29:34 AM
Cite?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11479#relPageId=2&tab=page

You'll find the date that the photo was taken on page 6.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 13, 2018, 12:42:48 PM
Stombaugh examined the bag on the 23rd.  Day testified that the photo was taken on the the 26th, as they were turning that evidence over to the FBI for the 2nd time.  Therefore, Stombaugh analyzed the bag three days BEFORE the photo, that you posted in an attempt to show contamination, was even taken.  Prove Day was wrong about the date?

As for the "other photo", no one here has shown that it was taken before Stombaugh examined those two items.  Therefore, why mention it?

The bag was stained very dark by the method of esting the FBI used on 11/23/63..... If the bag isn't stained dark the photo was taken PRIOR to the testing....
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on February 13, 2018, 02:13:24 PM
The bag was stained very dark by the method of esting the FBI used on 11/23/63..... If the bag isn't stained dark the photo was taken PRIOR to the testing....

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/bag%20amp%20blanket.gif)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 13, 2018, 02:26:06 PM

The bag was stained very dark by the method of esting the FBI used on 11/23/63..... If the bag isn't stained dark the photo was taken PRIOR to the testing....

Paul Stombaugh received the blanket and the paper bag at the same time; 7:30 a.m. November 23, 1963
 
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive this blanket, Mr. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. This was approximately 7:30 a.m., on the morning of November 23, 1963.

<>

Mr. Stombaugh, I now hand you a homemade paper bag, Commission Exhibit 142, which parenthetically has also received another Exhibit No. 626, and ask you whether you are familiar with this item?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does that have your mark on it?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. At the time I examined this, it was to be treated for latent fingerprints subsequent to my examination, and in a case like this I will not put a mark on the item itself because my mark might cover a latent fingerprint which is later brought up, and therefore obscure it.
In this particular instance, I made a drawing of this bag on my notes with the various sizes and description of it to refresh my memory at a later date.
Mr. EISENBERG. And it is--looking at those notes and as you remember now-- this is the bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is the bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, this bag has an area of very light-brown color, and the greater portion of the area is a quite dark-brownish color. What was the color when you originally received it?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. When I originally received this it was a light-brown color.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which is at one end of the bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. One end of the bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. The tape is also two colors, one a lightish brown and the other a darkish brown. What color was the tape when you received it?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. The tape also was light brown.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you turn the bag over? Was it the color that shows as a lighter yellowish-type of brown?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; a yellow-brown shade.
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive it, by the way, Mr. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. This was received on November 23, 7:30 a.m, 1963.


Stombaugh did not mark the bag because "it was to be treated for latent fingerprints subsequent to my examination".

Sebastian Latona subsequently received the paper bag that same morning.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, do your notes show when you received this paper bag?
Mr. LATONA. I received this paper bag on the morning of November 23, 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG. And when did you conduct your examination?
Mr. LATONA. I conducted my examination on that same day.

<>

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, how did you proceed to conduct your examination for fingerprints on this object?
Mr. LATONA. Well, an effort was made to remove as much of the powder as possible. And then this was subjected to what is known as the iodine-fuming method, which simply means flowing iodine fumes, which are developed by what is known as an iodine-fuming gun--it is a very simple affair, in which there are a couple of tubes attached to each other, having in one of them iodine crystals. And by simply blowing through one end, you get iodine fumes.
The iodine fumes are brought in as close contact to the surface as possible And if there are any prints which contain certain fatty material or protein material, the iodine fumes simply discolor it to a sort of brownish color. And of course such prints as are developed are photographed for record purposes.
That was done in this case here, but no latent prints were developed.
The next step then was to try an additional method, by chemicals. This was subsequently processed by a 3-percent solution of silver nitrate. The processing with silver nitrate resulted in developing two latent prints. One is what we call a latent palmprint, and the other is what we call a latent fingerprint.

<>

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, looking at that bag I see that almost all of it is an extremely dark brown color, except that there are patches of a lighter brown, a manila-paper brown. Could you explain why there are these two colors on the bag?
Mr. LATONA. Yes. The dark portions of the paper bag are where the silver nitrate has taken effect.


Ergo; the photograph showing the blanket and the bag together was either taken prior to 7:30 a.m. November 23, 1963 or during Stombaugh's examination


Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 13, 2018, 03:30:11 PM
Paul Stombaugh received the blanket and the paper bag at the same time; 7:30 a.m. November 23, 1963
 
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive this blanket, Mr. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. This was approximately 7:30 a.m., on the morning of November 23, 1963.

<>

Mr. Stombaugh, I now hand you a homemade paper bag, Commission Exhibit 142, which parenthetically has also received another Exhibit No. 626, and ask you whether you are familiar with this item?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does that have your mark on it?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. At the time I examined this, it was to be treated for latent fingerprints subsequent to my examination, and in a case like this I will not put a mark on the item itself because my mark might cover a latent fingerprint which is later brought up, and therefore obscure it.
In this particular instance, I made a drawing of this bag on my notes with the various sizes and description of it to refresh my memory at a later date.
Mr. EISENBERG. And it is--looking at those notes and as you remember now-- this is the bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is the bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, this bag has an area of very light-brown color, and the greater portion of the area is a quite dark-brownish color. What was the color when you originally received it?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. When I originally received this it was a light-brown color.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which is at one end of the bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. One end of the bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. The tape is also two colors, one a lightish brown and the other a darkish brown. What color was the tape when you received it?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. The tape also was light brown.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you turn the bag over? Was it the color that shows as a lighter yellowish-type of brown?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; a yellow-brown shade.
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive it, by the way, Mr. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. This was received on November 23, 7:30 a.m, 1963.


Stombaugh did not mark the bag because "it was to be treated for latent fingerprints subsequent to my examination".

Sebastian Latona subsequently received the paper bag that same morning.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, do your notes show when you received this paper bag?
Mr. LATONA. I received this paper bag on the morning of November 23, 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG. And when did you conduct your examination?
Mr. LATONA. I conducted my examination on that same day.

<>

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, how did you proceed to conduct your examination for fingerprints on this object?
Mr. LATONA. Well, an effort was made to remove as much of the powder as possible. And then this was subjected to what is known as the iodine-fuming method, which simply means flowing iodine fumes, which are developed by what is known as an iodine-fuming gun--it is a very simple affair, in which there are a couple of tubes attached to each other, having in one of them iodine crystals. And by simply blowing through one end, you get iodine fumes.
The iodine fumes are brought in as close contact to the surface as possible And if there are any prints which contain certain fatty material or protein material, the iodine fumes simply discolor it to a sort of brownish color. And of course such prints as are developed are photographed for record purposes.
That was done in this case here, but no latent prints were developed.
The next step then was to try an additional method, by chemicals. This was subsequently processed by a 3-percent solution of silver nitrate. The processing with silver nitrate resulted in developing two latent prints. One is what we call a latent palmprint, and the other is what we call a latent fingerprint.

<>

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, looking at that bag I see that almost all of it is an extremely dark brown color, except that there are patches of a lighter brown, a manila-paper brown. Could you explain why there are these two colors on the bag?
Mr. LATONA. Yes. The dark portions of the paper bag are where the silver nitrate has taken effect.


Ergo; the photograph showing the blanket and the bag together was either taken prior to 7:30 a.m. November 23, 1963 or during Stombaugh's examination

Ergo; the photograph showing the blanket and the bag together was either taken prior to 7:30 a.m. November 23, 1963 or during Stombaugh's examination

Since it's obvious that the photo shows that blanket was in contact with the paper sack then any blanket fiber found in the sack could have been deposited there at the rime the two items were together.....So the blanket fiber in the paper sack s useless as evidence....
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on February 13, 2018, 03:39:48 PM
Ergo; the photograph showing the blanket and the bag together was either taken prior to 7:30 a.m. November 23, 1963 or during Stombaugh's examination

Since it's obvious that the photo shows that blanket was in contact with the paper sack then any blanket fiber found in the sack could have been deposited there at the rime the two items were together.....So the blanket fiber in the paper sack s useless as evidence....

The significance of fibers from the blanket in the bag would be that they were transfered from the Carcano,
which allegedly was wrapped in it for months. However since no fibers from the blanket were found on the rifle the logical explanation is cross contamination or worse the planting of evidence. IMO
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 13, 2018, 04:01:52 PM
The significance of fibers from the blanket in the bag would be that they were transfered from the Carcano,
which allegedly was wrapped in it for months. However since no fibers from the blanket were found on the rifle the logical explanation is cross contamination or worse the planting of evidence. IMO

since no fibers from the blanket were found on the rifle

You're right there was not a single blanket fiber found on the Carcano.....Which is an astronomical improbability ( maybe impossible) if that rifle had been wrapped in that blanket....   

IMO that rifle was NOT ever wrapped in that blanket.....But Marina at least thought that "SOMETHING" like rifle was in that blanket...as did Mike Paine....   

Can anybody think of a plausible explanation for no fibers being found on the rifle?   I'm familiar with carcanos and they all have sharp points and irregularities that would snag a loosely woven blanket.   So there should have been TUFTS of blanket material on that rifle.......( The FBI claimed that a tuft of shirt material was found clinging to the butt of the rifle, so tufts of blanket should definitely have been adhering to the rifle) 
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 13, 2018, 05:28:11 PM
since no fibers from the blanket were found on the rifle

You're right there was not a single blanket fiber found on the Carcano.....Which is an astronomical improbability ( maybe impossible) if that rifle had been wrapped in that blanket....   

IMO that rifle was NOT ever wrapped in that blanket.....But Marina at least thought that "SOMETHING" like rifle was in that blanket...as did Mike Paine....   

Can anybody think of a plausible explanation for no fibers being found on the rifle?   I'm familiar with carcanos and they all have sharp points and irregularities that would snag a loosely woven blanket.   So there should have been TUFTS of blanket material on that rifle.......( The FBI claimed that a tuft of shirt material was found clinging to the butt of the rifle, so tufts of blanket should definitely have been adhering to the rifle)

Either the rifle was carefully cleaned by wiping it with a lint free cloth and a vacuum cleaner...or it was NOT the rifle that had been in the blanket....

Personally I lean toward the cleaning and vacuuming of the rifle ....   But that would mean that it had been removed from the garage prior to 11/22/63.   ( A distinct possibility because the only reference to the presence of the rifle in the blanket was by Marina and she said she had seen it several weeks prior to 11/22/63....)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 13, 2018, 07:04:04 PM
Stombaugh examined the bag on the 23rd.  Day testified that the photo was taken on the the 26th, as they were turning that evidence over to the FBI for the 2nd time.  Therefore, Stombaugh analyzed the bag three days BEFORE the photo, that you posted in an attempt to show contamination, was even taken.  Prove Day was wrong about the date?

Prove that Day was right about the date.  It's your claim.  I understand that you believe anything a cop says (as long as it fits your biases anyway), but that doesn't prove that it's actually true.  What was the basis of Day's identifying the date?  Let me pick a random photo on your phone or camera or photo album from months ago and see it you can identify what date it was taken.

Quote
As for the "other photo", no one here has shown that it was taken before Stombaugh examined those two items.  Therefore, why mention it?

No one here has shown that the other photo was taken after Stombaugh examined those two items.  Why the double standard?  Why are items of evidence being set out on tables together at any time?

What we have here is a piece of evidence that could have been contaminated by improper evidence handling and some fibers on a bag that can't even be uniquely tied to a blanket, and that somehow shows that a particular rifle was in that particular bag?  In what universe?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 13, 2018, 07:05:53 PM
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11479#relPageId=2&tab=page

You'll find the date that the photo was taken on page 6.

Thanks Tim.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 14, 2018, 03:16:58 AM
The bag was stained very dark by the method of esting the FBI used on 11/23/63..... If the bag isn't stained dark the photo was taken PRIOR to the testing....

Means nothing.

There was a period of time between when Stombaugh analyzed the bag and when Latona put the silver nitrate on it.

Just because the bag in the photo does not have the silver nitrate on it doesn't automatically mean that Stombaugh has yet to analyze it.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 14, 2018, 03:23:26 AM
Means nothing.

There was a period of time between when Stombaugh analyzed the bag and when Latona put the silver nitrate on it.

Just because the bag in the photo does not have the silver nitrate on it doesn't automatically mean that Stombaugh has yet to analyze it.

Very true Bill.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 14, 2018, 03:28:34 AM
Prove that Day was right about the date.  It's your claim.  I understand that you believe anything a cop says (as long as it fits your biases anyway), but that doesn't prove that it's actually true.  What was the basis of Day's identifying the date?  Let me pick a random photo on your phone or camera or photo album from months ago and see it you can identify what date it was taken.

No one here has shown that the other photo was taken after Stombaugh examined those two items.  Why the double standard?  Why are items of evidence being set out on tables together at any time?

What we have here is a piece of evidence that could have been contaminated by improper evidence handling and some fibers on a bag that can't even be uniquely tied to a blanket, and that somehow shows that a particular rifle was in that particular bag?  In what universe?


Quote
Prove that Day was right about the date.  It's your claim.  I understand that you believe anything a cop says (as long as it fits your biases anyway), but that doesn't prove that it's actually true.  What was the basis of Day's identifying the date?  Let me pick a random photo on your phone or camera or photo album from months ago and see it you can identify what date it was taken.

No.  You prove that Day was wrong about the date the photo was taken.

I already told you that the significance of the date for Day was that the photo was being taken as they were turning over the evidence to the FBI for the 2nd time.


Quote
No one here has shown that the other photo was taken after Stombaugh examined those two items.  Why the double standard?

Just because you haven't followed along doesn't mean there is a double standard.

This is real simple, to those who have paid attention.

The photo was posted in an attempt to supposedly show that there was evidence contamination.


Quote
What we have here is a piece of evidence that could have been contaminated by improper evidence handling and some fibers on a bag that can't even be uniquely tied to a blanket, and that somehow shows that a particular rifle was in that particular bag?  In what universe?

Straw man.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 14, 2018, 06:25:37 AM
Paul Stombaugh received the blanket and the paper bag at the same time; 7:30 a.m. November 23, 1963
 
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive this blanket, Mr. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. This was approximately 7:30 a.m., on the morning of November 23, 1963.

<>

Mr. Stombaugh, I now hand you a homemade paper bag, Commission Exhibit 142, which parenthetically has also received another Exhibit No. 626, and ask you whether you are familiar with this item?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does that have your mark on it?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. At the time I examined this, it was to be treated for latent fingerprints subsequent to my examination, and in a case like this I will not put a mark on the item itself because my mark might cover a latent fingerprint which is later brought up, and therefore obscure it.
In this particular instance, I made a drawing of this bag on my notes with the various sizes and description of it to refresh my memory at a later date.
Mr. EISENBERG. And it is--looking at those notes and as you remember now-- this is the bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is the bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, this bag has an area of very light-brown color, and the greater portion of the area is a quite dark-brownish color. What was the color when you originally received it?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. When I originally received this it was a light-brown color.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which is at one end of the bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. One end of the bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. The tape is also two colors, one a lightish brown and the other a darkish brown. What color was the tape when you received it?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. The tape also was light brown.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you turn the bag over? Was it the color that shows as a lighter yellowish-type of brown?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; a yellow-brown shade.
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive it, by the way, Mr. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. This was received on November 23, 7:30 a.m, 1963.


Stombaugh did not mark the bag because "it was to be treated for latent fingerprints subsequent to my examination".

Sebastian Latona subsequently received the paper bag that same morning.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, do your notes show when you received this paper bag?
Mr. LATONA. I received this paper bag on the morning of November 23, 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG. And when did you conduct your examination?
Mr. LATONA. I conducted my examination on that same day.

<>

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, how did you proceed to conduct your examination for fingerprints on this object?
Mr. LATONA. Well, an effort was made to remove as much of the powder as possible. And then this was subjected to what is known as the iodine-fuming method, which simply means flowing iodine fumes, which are developed by what is known as an iodine-fuming gun--it is a very simple affair, in which there are a couple of tubes attached to each other, having in one of them iodine crystals. And by simply blowing through one end, you get iodine fumes.
The iodine fumes are brought in as close contact to the surface as possible And if there are any prints which contain certain fatty material or protein material, the iodine fumes simply discolor it to a sort of brownish color. And of course such prints as are developed are photographed for record purposes.
That was done in this case here, but no latent prints were developed.
The next step then was to try an additional method, by chemicals. This was subsequently processed by a 3-percent solution of silver nitrate. The processing with silver nitrate resulted in developing two latent prints. One is what we call a latent palmprint, and the other is what we call a latent fingerprint.

<>

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, looking at that bag I see that almost all of it is an extremely dark brown color, except that there are patches of a lighter brown, a manila-paper brown. Could you explain why there are these two colors on the bag?
Mr. LATONA. Yes. The dark portions of the paper bag are where the silver nitrate has taken effect.


Ergo; the photograph showing the blanket and the bag together was either taken prior to 7:30 a.m. November 23, 1963 or during Stombaugh's examination


How do you figure that?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on February 14, 2018, 05:16:42 PM
No fibers were found on the TSBD Carcano from the blanket it was allegedly wrapped in for months.
 
How did fibers, allegedly from that blanket, get into/onto the TSBD 6th floor homemade guncase?

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/blanketCE140-3.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/fibersbagsblankets.gif1.gif)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/bag%20amp%20blanket.gif)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on February 14, 2018, 06:00:52 PM
Easy peasy lemon squeezy...

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, let me ask you a hypothetical question, Mr. Stombaugh. First, I hand you Commission Exhibit 139, which consists of a rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, and I ask you, if the rifle had lain in the blanket, which is 140, and were then put inside the bag, 142, could it have picked up fibers from the blanket and transferred them to the bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

So all the fibers transferred from the blanket to the rifle, in the months that it was wrapped in the blanket,

are transferred to the homemade guncase?

Leaving none on the rifle?

LOL

Coming next, circular reasoning.


Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on February 14, 2018, 08:24:33 PM
I doubt it, but it was a hypothetical question and Stombaugh had to answer "yes" so Eisenberg got what he wanted from his expert witness.

That's how the WC operated.

"That's how the WC operated."

Yup
SOP
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 14, 2018, 08:53:07 PM
So all the fibers transferred from the blanket to the rifle, in the months that it was wrapped in the blanket,

are transferred to the homemade guncase?

Leaving none on the rifle?

LOL

Coming next, circular reasoning.

Fibers....Plural???    There was only ONE fiber found in the paper sack.....
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Anderson on February 14, 2018, 09:00:20 PM
Maybe carrying it around upside down wasn't a great idea.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 14, 2018, 09:08:21 PM
Fibers....Plural???    There was only ONE fiber found in the paper sack.....

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I removed the debris from the inside of the bag by opening the bag as best I could, and tapping it and knocking the debris on to a small piece of white paper, and I found a very small number of fibers. Upon examining these fibers, I found a single brown, delustered, viscose fiber and several light-green cotton fibers from the inside of the bag. I also found a minute particle of wood and a single particle of a waxy substance.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on February 14, 2018, 09:09:34 PM
Fibers....Plural???    There was only ONE fiber found in the paper sack.....

"Fibers....Plural???    There was only ONE fiber found in the paper sack....."

The first entry in the following says different.

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/fibersbagsblanketsa.jpg)

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/fibersbagsblankets.gif1.gif)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 15, 2018, 02:40:03 AM
No.  You prove that Day was wrong about the date the photo was taken.

I didn't claim that Day was wrong.  I asked you how you know Day was right.  You have no answer.

Quote
The photo was posted in an attempt to supposedly show that there was evidence contamination.

No, the photo was posted to show that there could easily have been evidence contamination.

Quote
Straw man.

It's not a strawman.  How do fibers allegedly found in a bag show who shot somebody?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 15, 2018, 02:42:48 AM
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/fibersbagsblanketsa.jpg)

"Could have originated from this blanket".  There's some solid evidence for you!  ::)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 15, 2018, 10:18:43 PM
This is Bill Brown's thought process in a nutshell:

- Thinks it's significant that fibers in the bag could have come from the blanket in the garage

- Doesn't think it's significant that the bag could have been contaminated through improper evidence handling
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 15, 2018, 11:01:21 PM
This is Bill Brown's thought process in a nutshell:

- Thinks it's significant that fibers in the bag could have come from the blanket in the garage

- Doesn't think it's significant that the bag could have been contaminated through improper evidence handling

I believe the fibers (plural) were ON the exterior surface of the bag....there was only a single fiber found inside the sack...
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 15, 2018, 11:10:30 PM
I believe the fibers (plural) were ON the exterior surface of the bag....there was only a single fiber found inside the sack...

Yes, but you never said why.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 16, 2018, 12:42:14 AM
I didn't claim that Day was wrong.  I asked you how you know Day was right.  You have no answer.

No, the photo was posted to show that there could easily have been evidence contamination.

It's not a strawman.  How do fibers allegedly found in a bag show who shot somebody?

I've already told you twice now why Day would know the date of that photo.  You ignore it, but it doesn't mean I haven't answered you.

If you can't prove that Day was wrong about the date of the photo then you're only grandstanding.  Typical.

The photo was taken three days after those items were examined by Stombaugh, so it (the photo) in no way shows that the evidence "could easily have been" contaminated before Stombaugh's analysis.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 16, 2018, 12:45:42 AM
This is Bill Brown's thought process in a nutshell:

- Thinks it's significant that fibers in the bag could have come from the blanket in the garage

- Doesn't think it's significant that the bag could have been contaminated through improper evidence handling

When you have to lie in an attempt to prove a point, you have no credibility.

I have never said that it is insignificant that the bag could have been contaminated.  I just haven't seen anyone post anything to show that it was. 

If you wish, I can run around here attributing false statements and beliefs about you, too.  Why do you want to play that game?  Don't you think it's a bit dishonest?

Don't misrepresent my position.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 16, 2018, 01:45:03 PM
Yes, but you never said why.

This photo explains ...WHY...  There were fibers that could have come from the blanket on the exterior surface of the paper sack.   

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/bag%20amp%20blanket.gif)

The sack is lying on the blanket.....
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 16, 2018, 06:06:44 PM
I've already told you twice now why Day would know the date of that photo.  You ignore it, but it doesn't mean I haven't answered you.

That wasn't an answer, it was a non-sequitur.  How did Day know that this photo reflected the turning over of the evidence to the FBI for the 2nd time?  What in the actual photo signifies this?

Quote
If you can't prove that Day was wrong about the date of the photo then you're only grandstanding.  Typical.

You can't prove that he was right, and so you're grandstanding.  And around we go.

Quote
The photo was taken three days after those items were examined by Stombaugh, so it (the photo) in no way shows that the evidence "could easily have been" contaminated before Stombaugh's analysis.

Another circular argument and a tautology.  The photo was taken three days after those items were examined by Stombaugh because Day said so, and Day was right because Day said so, and it doesn't show that the evidence could have been contaminated because Day was right.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 16, 2018, 06:16:34 PM
When you have to lie in an attempt to prove a point, you have no credibility.

I have never said that it is insignificant that the bag could have been contaminated.  I just haven't seen anyone post anything to show that it was. 

If you wish, I can run around here attributing false statements and beliefs about you, too.  Why do you want to play that game?  Don't you think it's a bit dishonest?

Don't misrepresent my position.

I'm not misrepresenting anything -- you're special pleading.  If you thought it was significant you would acknowledge it as a possibility like you do for the fibers coming from the blanket.  I haven't seen anyone post anything to show that they did.

I also haven't seen anyone post any proof that there were 5 shots, and both a Remington bullet and a Winchester shell disappeared from the Tippit crime scene and yet not only do you put that forward as a possibility, you actually assert that this is what happened.

You're a hypocrite.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 16, 2018, 06:19:55 PM
This photo explains ...WHY...  There were fibers that could have come from the blanket on the exterior surface of the paper sack.   

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/bag%20amp%20blanket.gif)

The sack is lying on the blanket.....

Is there anyone who examined the bag who said that there was only a single fiber found inside the sack?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 16, 2018, 06:47:04 PM
Is there anyone who examined the bag who said that there was only a single fiber found inside the sack?

Yes ....It's in an FBI report.    I made the mistake of saying that there were fibers found INSIDE of the sack  many years ago..... Someone corrected me and posted the FBI report  hat says there was only a single fiber found in the sack.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 16, 2018, 07:43:51 PM
This photo explains ...WHY...  There were fibers that could have come from the blanket on the exterior surface of the paper sack.   

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/bag%20amp%20blanket.gif)

The sack is lying on the blanket.....

But if that photo was taken AFTER Stombaugh analyzed the bag and found the fibers, then it means nothing.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 16, 2018, 07:45:40 PM
That wasn't an answer, it was a non-sequitur.  How did Day know that this photo reflected the turning over of the evidence to the FBI for the 2nd time?  What in the actual photo signifies this?

You can't prove that he was right, and so you're grandstanding.  And around we go.

Another circular argument and a tautology.  The photo was taken three days after those items were examined by Stombaugh because Day said so, and Day was right because Day said so, and it doesn't show that the evidence could have been contaminated because Day was right.


Quote
That wasn't an answer, it was a non-sequitur.  How did Day know that this photo reflected the turning over of the evidence to the FBI for the 2nd time?  What in the actual photo signifies this?

You can't prove that he was right, and so you're grandstanding.  And around we go.

Then show that Day was wrong about the date the photo was taken.  Fair enough?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 16, 2018, 07:50:02 PM
I'm not misrepresenting anything -- you're special pleading.  If you thought it was significant you would acknowledge it as a possibility like you do for the fibers coming from the blanket.  I haven't seen anyone post anything to show that they did.

I also haven't seen anyone post any proof that there were 5 shots, and both a Remington bullet and a Winchester shell disappeared from the Tippit crime scene and yet not only do you put that forward as a possibility, you actually assert that this is what happened.

You're a hypocrite.


Quote
I'm not misrepresenting anything -- you're special pleading.  If you thought it was significant you would acknowledge it as a possibility like you do for the fibers coming from the blanket.  I haven't seen anyone post anything to show that they did.

Of course it's a possibility that contamination could have occurred.  But, a photo taken three days after Stombaugh analyzed those items doesn't prove contamination.


Quote
I also haven't seen anyone post any proof that there were 5 shots, and both a Remington bullet and a Winchester shell disappeared from the Tippit crime scene and yet not only do you put that forward as a possibility, you actually assert that this is what happened.

The five shot scenario in the Tippit shooting is most definitely my opinion.  I've always stated it only as my opinion.


Quote
You're a hypocrite.

How so?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 16, 2018, 09:00:51 PM
Yes ....It's in an FBI report.    I made the mistake of saying that there were fibers found INSIDE of the sack  many years ago..... Someone corrected me and posted the FBI report  hat says there was only a single fiber found in the sack.

I'd be interested to see that report.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 16, 2018, 09:01:51 PM

Then show that Day was wrong about the date the photo was taken.  Fair enough?

Then show that Day was right about the date the photo was taken.  Fair enough?

I'm comfortable saying "I don't know".  How about you?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 16, 2018, 09:04:35 PM
Then show that Day was right about the date the photo was taken.  Fair enough?

I'm comfortable saying "I don't know".  How about you?

I'm open to accepting information which suggests that Day was wrong when he said the photo was taken on the 26th.  No one has provided any.  Until then, I accept that the photo was taken three days AFTER those items were analyzed by Stombaugh.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 16, 2018, 09:07:27 PM
Of course it's a possibility that contamination could have occurred.

Thank you.

Quote
  But, a photo taken three days after Stombaugh analyzed those items doesn't prove contamination.

But a claim about when a photo was taken doesn't prove that's when the photo was taken.

Quote
The five shot scenario in the Tippit shooting is most definitely my onion.  I've always stated it only as my opinion.

ok

Quote
How so?

Because in one case you do nothing to prove that your opinion is true, but you demand that others do.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 16, 2018, 09:11:23 PM
I'm open to accepting information which suggests that Day was wrong when he said the photo was taken on the 26th.  No one has provided any.  Until then, I accept that the photo was taken three days AFTER those items were analyzed by Stombaugh.

Cool.  I'm open to accept evidence that both of these photos were taken after Stombaugh analyzed the bag.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 16, 2018, 09:42:40 PM
Thank you.

But a claim about when a photo was taken doesn't prove that's when the photo was taken.

ok

Because in one case you do nothing to prove that your opinion is true, but you demand that others do.

I haven't demanded a single thing of others.

Someone ill-advisedly posted the photo as if it proves that the blanket and bag came in contact with each other and therefore Stombaugh's analysis (that the fibers found inside the bag matched the blanket fibers) is irrelevant.  I am saying that Day stated the photo was taken on the 26th, three days AFTER Stombaugh examined the two items.  No one, including you, has shown otherwise.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 16, 2018, 09:45:52 PM
Cool.  I'm open to accept evidence that both of these photos were taken after Stombaugh analyzed the bag.

No, you're not.

Day said that the photo was taken as they were turning the evidence over to the FBI for the 2nd time.  That, in Day's mind, timestamps the photo.

You automatically reject it because he's a police officer and therefore, dishonest or wrong.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 16, 2018, 09:52:40 PM
I haven't demanded a single thing of others.

Someone ill-advisedly posted the photo as if it proves that the blanket and bag came in contact with each other and therefore Stombaugh's analysis (that the fibers found inside the bag matched the blanket fibers) is irrelevant.  I am saying that Day stated the photo was taken on the 26th, three days AFTER Stombaugh examined the two items.  No one, including you, has shown otherwise.

Nobody, including you, has shown that Day's claim was correct.  Too bad they didn't show Day this photo.

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/bag%20amp%20blanket.gif)

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 16, 2018, 09:55:01 PM
Nobody, including you, has shown that Day's claim was correct.

So Day's testimony that he knows the date the photo was taken is questionable... but Tague's testimony is 100% spot-on when he says he remembers a shot AFTER he was hit on the cheek.

And you call me the hypocrite.  LOL
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 16, 2018, 09:56:55 PM
Nobody, including you, has shown that Day's claim was correct.  Too bad they didn't show Day this photo.

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/bag%20amp%20blanket.gif)

What insightful information could Day possibly offer about that photo?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 16, 2018, 09:58:02 PM
So Day's testimony that he knows the date the photo was taken is questionable... but Tague's testimony is 100% spot-on when he says he remembers a shot AFTER he was hit on the cheek.

Except I didn't say that.  Nice try.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 16, 2018, 09:58:45 PM
Someone ill-advisedly posted the photo as if it proves that the blanket and bag came in contact with each other

Strawman.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 16, 2018, 10:00:19 PM
What insightful information could Day possibly offer about that photo?

I don't know.  Why did they think he could provide insightful information about CE 738?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 16, 2018, 10:00:46 PM
No, you're not.

Day said that the photo was taken as they were turning the evidence over to the FBI for the 2nd time.  That, in Day's mind, timestamps the photo.

That's just your speculation.  Day didn't say what in his mind timestamped the photo.

Quote
You automatically reject it because he's a police officer and therefore, dishonest or wrong.

Nope.  You're automatically accepting it because he said so.  I'm asking how did he know?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 16, 2018, 10:01:00 PM
Except I didn't say that.  Nice try.

And Day was actually there, therefore he knows when that photo was taken.

Why is Day questionable but Tague is not?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 16, 2018, 10:03:01 PM
Strawman.

That's not a straw man at all.  Someone did indeed post the photo as if it proved that the two items came into contact with each other before they were examined.  It may have been you who made the mistake of posting that photo, but I don't really recall now.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 16, 2018, 10:03:38 PM
I don't know.  Why did they think he could provide insightful information about CE 738?

Because the photograph of the items was taken while they were in the possession of the DPD.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 16, 2018, 10:04:03 PM
And Day was actually there, therefore he knows when that photo was taken.

Why is Day questionable but Tague is not?

Huh?  Are you saying that Tague was not there wen he was struck?

Anyway this is another strawman.  When did I say that Tague was not questionable?  Tim stated as a fact that Tague was hit by a fragment from the head shot.  I merely pointed out that Tague disagreed.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 16, 2018, 10:05:20 PM
That's not a straw man at all.  Someone did indeed post the photo as if it proved that the two items came into contact with each other before they were examined.  It may have been you who made the mistake of posting that photo, but I don't really recall now.

Your recall isn't any better than Day's.

Go back through the thread and find anybody saying that this photo proved that the two items came into contact with each other before they were examined.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 16, 2018, 10:06:16 PM
Because the photograph of the items was taken while they were in the possession of the DPD.

And the other one wasn't?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 16, 2018, 10:07:42 PM
That's just your speculation.  Day didn't say what in his mind timestamped the photo.

Wrong (again).

Day absolutely did explain why he recalls that the photo was taken on the 26th.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 16, 2018, 10:09:59 PM
Huh?  Are you saying that Tague was not there wen he was struck?

Anyway this is another strawman.  When did I say that Tague was not questionable?  Tim stated as a fact that Tague was hit by a fragment from the head shot.  I merely pointed out that Tague disagreed.

So, you're allowed to "merely point out" but other forum members are not?

I am "merely pointing out" that Day said the photo was taken on the 26th.

You don't have to prove that Tague was correct but somehow I do have to prove that Day was correct.

Again, YOU are the hypocrite.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 16, 2018, 10:21:07 PM
Wrong (again).

Day absolutely did explain why he recalls that the photo was taken on the 26th.

Speaking of an inability to understand what is written.

Mr. BELIN. I am going to now hand you what has been marked as 738 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. This is a photograph of most of the evidence that was returned to the FBI the second time on November 26, 1963. It was released to Agent Vince Drain at 2 p.m., November 26.

Where does Day even say when the picture was taken?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 16, 2018, 10:22:53 PM
So, you're allowed to "merely point out" but other forum members are not?

I am "merely pointing out" that Day said the photo was taken on the 26th.

You don't have to prove that Tague was correct but somehow I do have to prove that Day was correct.

Again, YOU are the hypocrite.

You claimed that Day is correct.  I'm not claiming that Tague was correct.  That's the difference.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 16, 2018, 10:28:39 PM
Speaking of an inability to understand what is written.

Mr. BELIN. I am going to now hand you what has been marked as 738 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. This is a photograph of most of the evidence that was returned to the FBI the second time on November 26, 1963. It was released to Agent Vince Drain at 2 p.m., November 26.

Where does Day even say when the picture was taken?

It is my belief that the items were photographed because they were being turned over to the FBI on the 26th.  Hell, the photo could have been taken the day before being turned over to the FBI.  That would still have Stombaugh analyzing the bag and blanket BEFORE the photo was taken.

Stombaugh analyzed those two items on the 23rd.  Assuming that you believe Stombaugh.  Do you?  Or is he wrong or lying, too?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 16, 2018, 10:35:40 PM
You claimed that Day is correct.  I'm not claiming that Tague was correct.  That's the difference.

But, you did indeed chide Tim Nickerson when you asked him this question below...

"What makes you more authoritative on this than the guy who was actually hit?"

So, Tague could be wrong about when he was hit.  Right?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 16, 2018, 10:37:55 PM
It is my belief that the items were photographed because they were being turned over to the FBI on the 26th.  Hell, the photo could have been taken the day before being turned over to the FBI.  That would still have Stombaugh analyzing the bag and blanket BEFORE the photo was taken.

So, all of your grandstanding about when the photo was taken was all a bluff.

Quote
Stombaugh analyzed those two items on the 23rd.  Assuming that you believe Stombaugh.  Do you?  Or is he wrong or lying, too?

I have no reason not to.  Unfortunately, all Stombaugh's analysis shows is that the fibers he found could have originated from the blanket.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 16, 2018, 10:41:03 PM
But, you did indeed chide Tim Nickerson when you asked him this question below...

"What makes you more authoritative on this than the guy who was actually hit?"

So, Tague could be wrong about when he was hit.  Right?

Yes, Tague could be wrong.  I still want to know what makes Tim's opinion more authoritative.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 17, 2018, 04:06:10 PM
It is my belief that the items were photographed because they were being turned over to the FBI on the 26th.  Hell, the photo could have been taken the day before being turned over to the FBI.  That would still have Stombaugh analyzing the bag and blanket BEFORE the photo was taken.

Stombaugh analyzed those two items on the 23rd.  Assuming that you believe Stombaugh.  Do you?  Or is he wrong or lying, too?

It is my belief that the items were photographed because they were being turned over to the FBI on the 26th.

Have you read Hosty's  book  Assignment Oswald   Hosty said they inventoried and photographed the evidence on the night of 11/22/63 before it left the possession of the Dallas Police.....
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 17, 2018, 07:06:41 PM
It is my belief that the items were photographed because they were being turned over to the FBI on the 26th.

Have you read Hosty's  book  Assignment Oswald   Hosty said they inventoried and photographed the evidence on the night of 11/22/63 before it left the possession of the Dallas Police.....

Some of the evidence was photographed on 11/22/63 but not all. The photograph in question here was not taken on the night of 11/22/63.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on February 17, 2018, 07:30:13 PM
It is my belief that the items were photographed because they were being turned over to the FBI on the 26th.

Have you read Hosty's  book  Assignment Oswald   Hosty said they inventoried and photographed the evidence on the night of 11/22/63 before it left the possession of the Dallas Police.....

Irrelevant.

The items were turned over to the FBI for the 2nd time on the 26th.

Evidence was turned over to the FBI on the night of the assassination.  The evidence was then returned to Dallas.  Then, evidence was again sent to Washington on the 26th.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on February 19, 2018, 03:48:48 PM
Some of the evidence was photographed on 11/22/63 but not all. The photograph in question here was not taken on the night of 11/22/63.

"The photograph in question here was not taken on the night of 11/22/63."

Whether the photograph was taken on the 22nd or the 26th is Irrelevant.

The photo shows they were sloppy and used evidence handling techniques that would absolutely have

caused cross contamination between different items in their possession. In this case the homemade

TSBD wrapping paper gun case and the blanket from the Paine's garage that was allegedly used,

for at least several months, to wrap the TSBD Carcano. The disregard and lack of care shown in the photo

is proof the cross contamination could have taken place anytime the evidence was in their hands.

Since there were no fibers found on the TSBD rifle, the logical conclusion of how the fibers found on

homemade gun case got there is cross contamination. Arguing against that proposition is tantamount to

admitting evidence tampering.


(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/bag%20amp%20blanket.gif)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2018, 07:16:39 PM
Irrelevant.

The items were turned over to the FBI for the 2nd time on the 26th.

Evidence was turned over to the FBI on the night of the assassination.  The evidence was then returned to Dallas.  Then, evidence was again sent to Washington on the 26th.

:The items were turned over to the FBI for the 2nd time on the 26th."

All the better to confuse you, my dear, ...said the FBI Wolf.

While it appears to be true that the evidence was shuffled a couple of times ....It is a fact that the paper sack was stained a dark brown by the FBI testing lab on 11/23/63 .....  Therefore if the sack is not discolored the photo was taken prior to the testing.

Surely this is simple enough that even you can understand, Billy Bob

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Richard Smith on February 20, 2018, 03:29:54 PM
"The photograph in question here was not taken on the night of 11/22/63."

Whether the photograph was taken on the 22nd or the 26th is Irrelevant.

The photo shows they were sloppy and used evidence handling techniques that would absolutely have

caused cross contamination between different items in their possession. In this case the homemade

TSBD wrapping paper gun case and the blanket from the Paine's garage that was allegedly used,

for at least several months, to wrap the TSBD Carcano. The disregard and lack of care shown in the photo

is proof the cross contamination could have taken place anytime the evidence was in their hands.

Since there were no fibers found on the TSBD rifle, the logical conclusion of how the fibers found on

homemade gun case got there is cross contamination. Arguing against that proposition is tantamount to

admitting evidence tampering.


(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/bag%20amp%20blanket.gif)

Does this mean that you accept that the fibers came from Oswald's blanket?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 20, 2018, 04:15:25 PM
The bag was tested by Stombaugh at 7:30 on 11/23 prior to Latona's application of iodine/silver nitrate later that day. Without knowing what time it is from the picture you can't possibly know if the bag has already been processed by Stombaugh. Why waste countless posts on things you don't know.

The bag was tested by Stombaugh at 7:30 on 11/23

The bag was received  by Stombaugh at 7:30 on 11/23
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on February 20, 2018, 05:32:20 PM
Does this mean that you accept that the fibers came from Oswald's blanket?

"Does this mean that you accept that the fibers came from Oswald's blanket?"

They could have.

The point I was making was, since no fibers from that blanket were found on the TSBD Carcano the ones

found in/on the homemade gun case didn't/couldn't have come from that rifle. Where did the fibers come

from then? The logical conclusion, based on the photo of the blanket and gun case in contact while in LE

possession, is the fibers got on the gun case via cross contamination. If you argue against that proposition

you are left with evidence tampering.

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/BaginDallasarchives.png)

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/bag%20amp%20blanket.gif)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Anderson on February 21, 2018, 02:11:34 AM
"Does this mean that you accept that the fibers came from Oswald's blanket?"

They could have.

The point I was making was, since no fibers from that blanket were found on the TSBD Carcano the ones

found in/on the homemade gun case didn't/couldn't have come from that rifle. Where did the fibers come

from then? The logical conclusion, based on the photo of the blanket and gun case in contact while in LE

possession, is the fibers got on the gun case via cross contamination. If you argue against that proposition

you are left with evidence tampering.

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/BaginDallasarchives.png)

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/bag%20amp%20blanket.gif)

A logical possibility is fibres from the blanket were on the rifle which were then transferred from the rifle to the bag.
No blanket fibres left remaining on the rifle doesn't negate that possibility.
I'm not saying that is what happened I'm saying it is possible.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on February 21, 2018, 04:49:55 PM
A logical possibility is fibres from the blanket were on the rifle which were then transferred from the rifle to the bag.
No blanket fibres left remaining on the rifle doesn't negate that possibility.

I'm not saying that is what happened I'm saying it is possible.

"A logical possibility is fibres from the blanket were on the rifle which were then transferred from the rifle to the bag.
No blanket fibres left remaining on the rifle doesn't negate that possibility."


(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/eakpsh.gif)

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/thick%20blanket_zpsccorzjgh_1.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_naraevid_CE139-2.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_naraevid_CE139-3.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_naraevid_CE139-4.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_naraevid_CE139-5.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_naraevid_CE142-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 21, 2018, 05:29:28 PM
A logical possibility is fibres from the blanket were on the rifle which were then transferred from the rifle to the bag.
No blanket fibres left remaining on the rifle doesn't negate that possibility.
I'm not saying that is what happened I'm saying it is possible.

That is what happened. Any blanket fibers that had been on the rifle would have fallen off between the time that Oswald removed the rifle from the blanket and the time that Carl Day prepared it to be handed over to Vincent Drain.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 21, 2018, 08:34:17 PM

That is what happened. Any blanket fibers that had been on the rifle would have fallen off between the time that Oswald removed the rifle from the blanket and the time that Carl Day prepared it to be handed over to Vincent Drain.


Wow, that's some factual statement, Tim

You will of course be able to back that up that claim with evidence to show that it is not just your opinion, right?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Anderson on February 21, 2018, 10:30:54 PM
That is what happened. Any blanket fibers that had been on the rifle would have fallen off between the time that Oswald removed the rifle from the blanket and the time that Carl Day prepared it to be handed over to Vincent Drain.

We can certainly take it as a possiblity and anyone claiming it's not a possiblity is plain wrong. Thisn't tough stuff to understand.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Anderson on February 21, 2018, 10:31:47 PM
"A logical possibility is fibres from the blanket were on the rifle which were then transferred from the rifle to the bag.
No blanket fibres left remaining on the rifle doesn't negate that possibility."


(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/eakpsh.gif)

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/thick%20blanket_zpsccorzjgh_1.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_naraevid_CE139-2.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_naraevid_CE139-3.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_naraevid_CE139-4.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_naraevid_CE139-5.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_naraevid_CE142-1.jpg)

Nice pictures.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 21, 2018, 10:36:51 PM
We can certainly take it as a possiblity and anyone claiming it's not a possiblity is plain wrong. Thisn't tough stuff to understand.

Anything is possible.  The question is, is there any good reason to believe that it's true?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Anderson on February 21, 2018, 11:19:49 PM
Anything is possible.  The question is, is there any good reason to believe that it's true?

I didn't say it was true. I posted it was possible in response to someone who claimed he had 'the only other logical explanation'
which definitely isn't true.

If the bag and blanket were forensically analysed before being photographed together and touching on a table then we have reason to consider it as true. If they were not forensically analysed by that point then no we don't have good reason. Simple. Although time stamping photos isn't necessarily so simple.

Is there any good reason to believe the FBI would be so incompetent?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 21, 2018, 11:52:12 PM
I didn't say it was true. I posted it was possible in response to someone who claimed he had 'the only other logical explanation'
which definitely isn't true.

Agreed.  It was Tim who said "that's what happened".

Quote
Is there any good reason to believe the FBI would be so incompetent?

FBI, no.  Dallas PD, yes.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Anderson on February 22, 2018, 01:53:23 AM
Agreed.  It was Tim who said "that's what happened".

FBI, no.  Dallas PD, yes.

It was Gary Craig.

"Does this mean that you accept that the fibers came from Oswald's blanket?"

They could have.

The point I was making was, since no fibers from that blanket were found on the TSBD Carcano the ones

found in/on the homemade gun case didn't/couldn't have come from that rifle. Where did the fibers come

from then? The logical conclusion, based on the photo of the blanket and gun case in contact while in LE

possession, is the fibers got on the gun case via cross contamination. If you argue against that proposition

you are left with evidence tampering.

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on February 22, 2018, 06:09:13 AM
It was Gary Craig.

You're wrong on both counts.

1st).

It was Tim Nickerson who said "that is what happened".

Quote from: Tim Nickerson on February 21, 2018, 05:29:28 PM

"That is what happened. Any blanket fibers that had been on the rifle would have fallen off between the time that Oswald removed the rifle from the blanket and the time that Carl Day prepared it to be handed over to Vincent Drain."

2nd).

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/thick%20blanket_zpsccorzjgh_1.jpg)

Allegedly the TSBD Carcano was wrapped in the blanket found in the Paine's garage for several months.

It was moved around, opened and closed etc in that time. 

It's a absolute certainty that fibers from that blanket would have been found on that rifle if the above is

true. The rough stock, sharp edges and angles would have snagged and trapped hundreds of fiubers.

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on February 22, 2018, 06:17:16 AM
I didn't say it was true. I posted it was possible in response to someone who claimed he had 'the only other logical explanation'
which definitely isn't true.

If the bag and blanket were forensically analysed before being photographed together and touching on a table then we have reason to consider it as true. If they were not forensically analysed by that point then no we don't have good reason. Simple. Although time stamping photos isn't necessarily so simple.

Is there any good reason to believe the FBI would be so incompetent?

Doesn't matter when the photos were taken.

The photos establish the sloppy careless way the evidence was handled by LE.

The cross contamination could have taken place at anytime while in their possession.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 22, 2018, 07:25:14 PM
The O.J. trial
C.S.I.
Law and Order

Everybody's a F'N detective. Beautiful.

Your posts are always so informative and helpful......Have you found a rational explanation for all of those red rings in the TSBD windows  yet?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 22, 2018, 11:52:08 PM
The O.J. trial
C.S.I.
Law and Order

Everybody's a F'N detective. Beautiful.

Somebody has to be.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Anderson on February 23, 2018, 01:57:09 AM
You're wrong on both counts.

1st).

It was Tim Nickerson who said "that is what happened".

Quote from: Tim Nickerson on February 21, 2018, 05:29:28 PM

"That is what happened. Any blanket fibers that had been on the rifle would have fallen off between the time that Oswald removed the rifle from the blanket and the time that Carl Day prepared it to be handed over to Vincent Drain."

2nd).

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/thick%20blanket_zpsccorzjgh_1.jpg)

Allegedly the TSBD Carcano was wrapped in the blanket found in the Paine's garage for several months.

It was moved around, opened and closed etc in that time. 

It's a absolute certainty that fibers from that blanket would have been found on that rifle if the above is

true. The rough stock, sharp edges and angles would have snagged and trapped hundreds of fiubers.

I beg to differ. You said



Whether the photograph was taken on the 22nd or the 26th is Irrelevant.

The photo shows they were sloppy and used evidence handling techniques that would absolutely have

caused cross contamination between different items in their possession. In this case the homemade

TSBD wrapping paper gun case and the blanket from the Paine's garage that was allegedly used,

for at least several months, to wrap the TSBD Carcano. The disregard and lack of care shown in the photo

is proof the cross contamination could have taken place anytime the evidence was in their hands.

Since there were no fibers found on the TSBD rifle, the logical conclusion of how the fibers found on

homemade gun case got there is cross contamination. Arguing against that proposition is tantamount to

admitting evidence tampering.


In response to the part I highlighted in bold I said

A logical possibility is fibres from the blanket were on the rifle which were then transferred from the rifle to the bag.
No blanket fibres left remaining on the rifle doesn't negate that possibility.
I'm not saying that is what happened I'm saying it is possible.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on February 26, 2018, 02:52:57 AM
I beg to differ. You said

In response to the part I highlighted in bold I said

Quote from: John Anderson on February 21, 2018, 02:11:34 AM
"A logical possibility is fibres from the blanket were on the rifle which were then transferred from the rifle to the bag.
No blanket fibres left remaining on the rifle doesn't negate that possibility.
I'm not saying that is what happened I'm saying it is possible.


No blanket fibers were found on the TSBD Caracano.

That rifle was allegedly wrapped in it for months.

Kicked around the floor of the Paine's garage and possibly making a road trip to New Orleans and back.

The possibility of 3 or 4 fibers being transferred with the gun to the homemade gun case without

more remaining on it, after spending that amount of time in contact, is zero.

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/thick%20blanket_zpsccorzjgh_1.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_naraevid_CE139-2.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_naraevid_CE139-3.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_naraevid_CE139-4.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_naraevid_CE139-5.jpg)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Anderson on February 26, 2018, 02:56:31 PM
You sure like posting nice pics.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 05, 2018, 06:29:23 PM

The possibility of 3 or 4 fibers being transferred with the gun to the homemade gun case without

more remaining on it, after spending that amount of time in contact, is zero.


Prove it.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Ray Mitcham on March 05, 2018, 07:05:27 PM
Prove it.

How do you prove a negative, Richard?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 05, 2018, 07:36:54 PM
How do you prove a negative, Richard?

Hey, it's not my claim, Gary.  ::)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Ray Mitcham on March 05, 2018, 09:02:20 PM
Hey, it's not my claim, Gary.  ::)

Touche.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on May 27, 2018, 06:15:23 PM
Captain Westbrook positively identified CE-162 as the jacket found under a car in the lot behind the Texaco station.  Microscopic fibers were found inside one of the sleeves of this jacket.  According to an FBI report, these fibers were dark blue, grey-black and orange-yellow cotton fibers.

The shirt that Oswald was wearing when he was arrested consisted of dark blue, grey-black and orange-yellow cotton fibers.

Ted Callaway positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw running down Patton towards Jefferson.  Callaway said that Oswald was wearing a "light Eisenhower-type jacket".

When seen by Johnny Brewer and when arrested inside the theater, Oswald had no jacket on.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Mike Orr on May 27, 2018, 10:53:01 PM
The Jacket found was not Oswalds . The  jacket found had a Cleaners tag (30 030) in it and also had a dry cleaning tag ( B 9738 ) Oswalds jackets were washed by Marina and the color of Oswalds jackets were a dark Blue jacket and a light weight Gray Jacket . Benavides said the man he saw was wearing a white jacket and Oswald did not have a white jacket !
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 28, 2018, 06:44:58 AM
The Jacket found was not Oswalds . The  jacket found had a Cleaners tag (30 030) in it and also had a dry cleaning tag ( B 9738 ) Oswalds jackets were washed by Marina and the color of Oswalds jackets were a dark Blue jacket and a light weight Gray Jacket . Benavides said the man he saw was wearing a white jacket and Oswald did not have a white jacket !

A white jacket eh?

(https://i.imgur.com/FeYT84k.png)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on May 28, 2018, 07:52:40 AM

Only a dishonest person who is not interested in the truth would make a big deal out of the light-colored jacket being called white by some.

Anyone with any sense at all is perfectly aware that a light-grey jacket could easily be called white by some people.  To deny this only proves the agenda of some.

If anyone were really interested in the truth, even a conspiracy believer, they wouldn't even bother mentioning this light-grey versus white thing, as if it means a damn thing.

The dishonesty is a shame, really.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 28, 2018, 09:58:58 PM
Anyone with any sense at all is perfectly aware that a proper chain of custody is required when collecting & verifying evidence.


A proper chain of custody is not always required to verify evidence.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 28, 2018, 11:07:41 PM
A proper chain of custody is not always required to verify evidence.

 I am not sure I understand this It is certainly possible that an item, whose chain of evidence is not known, may indeed be the original item in question. Is that what you are saying?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on May 28, 2018, 11:10:57 PM
I am not sure I understand this It is certainly possible that an item, whose chain of evidence is not known, may indeed be the original item in question. Is that what you are saying?

I believe Tim is saying that an item of evidence can sometimes be verified as being authentic and true even if there is a problem, on some level, with the chain of custody of said item.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Michael Chambers on May 29, 2018, 03:53:48 AM
Indeed in the view of Oswald being used as and set up for being a patsy, while he thinks the instructions he is following pinpoint all along the line are something other, the ONLY flaw in the perfect forensic sense of that of the entire JFK crime scene matter, is why then, if Oswalds instructions for the departure from TBD to the boarding house and then to theatre, are not to wear a jacket, would Oswald don a jacket at the boarding house?


That is the only fly in the ointment of patsy instructions theory to that extent of the whole matter. And at first glance WELL does that derail the whole patsy thing mebbe??


BUT on the other hand  -


!/- The landlady is seriously blind and she was mebbe not paying much attention to Oswald. What if Lee only has a t shirt on and only dons that shirt maybe not even tucked in, to conceal the gun he is instructed to take, and is buttoning the shirt from the bottom. And the Tippit crime scene suspect surely has an unbuttoned jacket at that stage to get his gun out so quick. And I do seem to recall Oswald always wearing unbuttoned jackets but not sure on that.

2/- Even if he had forgotten his instructions then between there and the theatre he may have remembered or been reminded and ditched the jacket.

So I don't find the Oswald wearing a jacket at the boarding house that unshakeable. And after all his jacket was at the TBD rolled up in the 1st floor lunchroom window alcove behind the bench seat at this time, where he had placed it and left it for that stage. :D ;D Walk:
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on May 29, 2018, 04:22:05 AM
Only a dishonest person who is not interested in the truth would make a big deal out of the light-colored jacket being called white by some.

Anyone with any sense at all is perfectly aware that a light-grey jacket could easily be called white by some people.  To deny this only proves the agenda of some.

If anyone were really interested in the truth, even a conspiracy believer, they wouldn't even bother mentioning this light-grey versus white thing, as if it means a damn thing.

The dishonesty is a shame, really.

The person with an agenda is the one who claims trained law enforcement officers couldn't tell a light grey jacket from a white one. Please.


I rest my case.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Howard Gee on May 29, 2018, 05:09:13 AM
If I'm not mistaken, the jacket was found before Saint Oz was arrested.

The conspirators were amazingly fast in planting that jacket replete with fibers in it that match the shirt Saint Oz was wearing, weren't they ?

It's positively amazing that the conspirators knew that Saint Oz would be arrested without a jacket and that his landlady would report that he was wearing one when he left the boarding house.

Poor Saint Oz. More evidence that points to the innocent patsy's guilt.

He really had a bad day.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Gary Craig on May 29, 2018, 05:53:29 AM
I believe Tim is saying that an item of evidence can sometimes be verified as being authentic and true even if there is a problem, on some level, with the chain of custody of said item.

Maybe in front of the Warren Commission.

See how it holds up in a real courtroom where the defendant has legal representation, the witnesses are

cross examined and exculpatory evidence is allowed.
 
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Michael Chambers on May 29, 2018, 11:16:20 AM
If I'm not mistaken, the jacket was found before Saint Oz was arrested.

The conspirators were amazingly fast in planting that jacket replete with fibers in it that match the shirt Saint Oz was wearing, weren't they ?

It's positively amazing that the conspirators knew that Saint Oz would be arrested without a jacket and that his landlady would report that he was wearing one when he left the boarding house.

Poor Saint Oz. More evidence that points to the innocent patsy's guilt.

He really had a bad day.


Do you think the landlady saying about the jacket and zipping it is that strong? Some say she also says Oswald entered and exited behind her back and so not seen by her he could even have been an Oswald imposter and at least meaning she couldn't have seen him zipping a jacket.

source = http://assassinationofjfk.net/looking-at-the-tippit-case-from-a-different-angle/

{scroll about one inch down for that specific paragraph}
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 29, 2018, 05:56:33 PM
If I'm not mistaken, the jacket was found before Saint Oz was arrested.

The conspirators were amazingly fast in planting that jacket replete with fibers in it that match the shirt Saint Oz was wearing, weren't they ?

It's positively amazing that the conspirators knew that Saint Oz would be arrested without a jacket and that his landlady would report that he was wearing one when he left the boarding house.

Poor Saint Oz. More evidence that points to the innocent patsy's guilt.

He really had a bad day.

Straight out of the LN playbook.  If a piece of "evidence" can't be authenticated, then make an appeal to a strawman of "vast conspirators" and hope that will distract everyone from noticing your unauthenticated evidence.

Then never actually explain how a jacket in a parking lot is evidence of murder in the first place...
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Mike Orr on May 29, 2018, 06:06:13 PM
Whatever you do , don't ever go into a theater without paying ! But wait a minute ! Oswald did pay !
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 29, 2018, 06:28:35 PM
Whatever you do , don't ever go into a theater without paying ! But wait a minute ! Oswald did pay !

Julia Postal wasn't sure if he paid or not.  I don't know why the LNers are so sure he didn't.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 29, 2018, 07:44:25 PM
The Jacket found was not Oswalds . The  jacket found had a Cleaners tag (30 030) in it and also had a dry cleaning tag ( B 9738 ) Oswalds jackets were washed by Marina and the color of Oswalds jackets were a dark Blue jacket and a light weight Gray Jacket . Benavides said the man he saw was wearing a white jacket and Oswald did not have a white jacket !

Wow...it took 79 pages of this thread to get to this here(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
Did they test the jacket for gunpowder residue?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 29, 2018, 08:18:44 PM
I am not sure I understand this It is certainly possible that an item, whose chain of evidence is not known, may indeed be the original item in question. Is that what you are saying?

I'm saying that sometimes items can be admitted into courts of law as evidence without presenting a chain of custody. If an item is readily identifiable or has been made readily identifiable, then establishing a chain of custody is unnecessary. For items that don't fall into that category or are not self-identifying, a chain of custody may be required. However, even an imperfect chain of custody will rarely, if ever, keep non-fungible items from being admitted as evidence.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 29, 2018, 08:24:28 PM
The FBI checked every dry cleaner in the Dallas area (over 400) and every dry cleaner in New Orleans (250 plus) and could NOT match the laundry tag to LHO.

The LN lame-excuse-du-jour for that is that Oswald "must have" got the jacket from a thrift store which "must have" gotten the jacket from a person who laundered it somewhere other than in the Dallas or New Orleans areas.

Because they want to cling to the conclusion that it was Oswald's jacket despite there being no evidence for that whatsoever.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Howard Gee on May 29, 2018, 09:23:58 PM
Straight out of the LN playbook.  If a piece of "evidence" can't be authenticated, then make an appeal to a strawman of "vast conspirators" and hope that will distract everyone from noticing your unauthenticated evidence.

Then never actually explain how a jacket in a parking lot is evidence of murder in the first place...

Actually, it's straight out of the common sense playbook.

It's sad, but not surprising, that the Saint Oz fanbois don't see the significance of the jacket being found BEFORE their hero was arrested.

But you can bet your azz if his landlady reported he was not wearing a jacket when he left the boarding house, or if he was wearing or had a jacket with him when arrested in the theater, the fanbois would say that's exculpatory evidence.

And in this matter, the fanbois would be right. It would be exculpatory evidence. It would be hard to imagine Saint Oz wearing two jackets. 

However, in the real world, the jacket was found before he was arrested and before his landlady reported he was wearing a jacket when he left his room.

So the cops got real lucky planting the jacket.

And they got 'hit the lottery' lucky when fibers in the jacket just happened to match the shirt Saint Oz was wearing.

TOO MUCH COMMON SENSE FOR THE SAINT OZ FANBOIS TO HANDLE
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 29, 2018, 11:17:58 PM
Actually, it's straight out of the common sense playbook.

"common sense" is what you appeal to when you don't have actual evidence for what you believe.

Quote
But you can bet your azz if his landlady reported he was not wearing a jacket when he left the boarding house, or if he was wearing or had a jacket with him when arrested in the theater, the fanbois would say that's exculpatory evidence.

Another strawman argument.  How predictable. 

(http://rs787.pbsrc.com/albums/yy151/msj1997tx/Skype%20Emoticons/emoticon-0118-yawn.gif~c200)

Quote
And in this matter, the fanbois would be right. It would be exculpatory evidence. It would be hard to imagine Saint Oz wearing two jackets. 

William Whaley didn't have any problem imagining that.

Quote
However, in the real world, the jacket was found before he was arrested and before his landlady reported he was wearing a jacket when he left his room.

Yeah, and that's supposed to demonstrate what, exactly?

Quote
So the cops got real lucky planting the jacket.

Who said the cops planted the jacket?  Do you have any good reason to believe that CE 162

a) was the jacket found in the parking lot?
b) belonged to Oswald?
c) demonstrates anything at all about who killed Tippit?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Howard Gee on May 29, 2018, 11:18:57 PM


You LNers seem to have no regard for our justice system as you seem to spit on all our rights and processes.

I for one (and I am sure other CTers feel the same way) am not here to defend LHO, but rather our justice system. You cannot accuse people of murder and then provide no evidence to support it.


LMAO @ 'There is no evidence' Carpio: defender of truth, justice, and the American way.

It's a good thing you're not here to defend Saint Oz because the hysterical 'there is no evidence' mantra is failing miserably.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Mike Orr on May 29, 2018, 11:19:09 PM
Maybe the White jacket belonged to the person who killed J.D. Tippit . Once again , that was a hell of a shot by Oswald to shoot Tippit from the Texas Theater and of course they would tie him in to the assassination of JFK, which of course was another hell of a shot since Oswald was in the breakroom at the TSBD . LNers , give it up ! You didn't have a case back then and you don't have a case now ! Give it up ! I would hate to get your take on 9/11 and the first 3 concrete and steel buildings to collapse , Ever , and building 7 was not ever hit by a plane as it fell into it's own footprints as did both of the "Twin Towers" as in just like a Controlled Demolition !!!!!
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Howard Gee on May 29, 2018, 11:27:55 PM
I knew the significance of the jacket being found before Saint Oz was arrested would be lost on his fanboi cult.

The fanboi droolers are so predictable.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 29, 2018, 11:35:08 PM
I knew the significance of the jacket being found before Saint Oz was arrested would be lost on his fanboi cult.

The fanboi droolers are so predictable.

LOL.  Something isn't "significant" just because the cowardly troll boy wants it to be.  Answer the question, Howard:

Do you have any good reasons to believe that CE 162

a) was the jacket found in the parking lot?
b) belonged to Oswald?
c) demonstrates anything at all about who killed Tippit?

Here's your chance to show that you have something other than schoolboy insults.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Howard Gee on May 29, 2018, 11:55:49 PM
LOL.  Something isn't "significant" just because the cowardly troll boy wants it to be.  Answer the question, Howard:

Do you have any good reasons to believe that CE 162

a) was the jacket found in the parking lot?
b) belonged to Oswald?
c) demonstrates anything at all about who killed Tippit?

Here's your chance to show that you have something other than schoolboy insults.

Cowardly troll boy ???

Another bad hair day, I guess.

Sorry Johnny, I've already explained why the jacket being found before Saint Oz was arrested is significant.

Can't make you understand something above your intelligence and pay level.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 30, 2018, 12:01:37 AM
Sorry Johnny, I've already explained why the bag being found before Saint Oz was arrested is significant.

You didn't explain anything.  You just declared that it was significant because of something you imagined your strawman "conspirators" wouldn't do.

And you have the nerve to call what others write "comedy".

Still waiting on the answers...

(https://i.giphy.com/media/11R5KYi6ZdP8Z2/giphy.webp)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Howard Gee on May 30, 2018, 12:31:55 AM
I clearly explained why the jacket being found BEFORE Saint Oz was arrested is significant.

It's still there for you to see and for anyone else that wants to read it.

No strawman.

Can't help you anymore than that Johnny.

CAN'T FIX STUPID
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 30, 2018, 04:20:37 AM

And in this matter, the fanbois would be right. It would be exculpatory evidence. It would be hard to imagine Saint Oz wearing two jackets. 

 

2nd Testimony of Oswald's 'cab driver' Wm Whaley..

Quote
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Whaley, the purpose of our meeting today is to take some further testimony concerning the events surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy, and we understand you have some facts that will bear on it in a way and we would like to ask you questions concerning it.
*******************************************************
Mr. BALL. Did you notice how he was dressed?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. I didn't pay much attention to it right then. But it all came back when I really found out who I had. He was dressed in just ordinary work clothes. It wasn't khaki pants but they were khaki material, blue faded blue color, like a blue uniform made in khaki. Then he had on a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it and he had on some kind of jacket, I didn't notice very close but I think it was a work jacket that almost matched the pants.
He, his shirt was open three buttons down here. He had on a T-shirt. You know, the shirt was open three buttons down there.

 The cab driver had Oswald wearing a jacket before he ever [supposedly] put one on.
"It all came back to him" after some apparent persuasion [from somebody]
 
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 30, 2018, 06:55:28 AM
Then show us how smart you are: Who found that jacket?

It doesn't matter who first saw the jacket. It's of no importance.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Howard Gee on May 30, 2018, 07:40:09 AM
2nd Testimony of Oswald's 'cab driver' Wm Whaley..

 The cab driver had Oswald wearing a jacket before he ever [supposedly] put one on.
"It all came back to him" after some apparent persuasion [from somebody]
 

Whether Saint Oz was wearing a jacket or not when he was in the cab has no importance. Just like who found the jacket doesn't matter.

What does matter is if Saint Oz was wearing a jacket when he left his room.

If he was, then it's hard to understand why he no longer has a jacket when he's arrested.

The implication that the jacket that was found wasn't his, or was planted is pretty much destroyed by the fibers that matched his arrest shirt in the jacket and the fact that the conspirators would have had to known that Saint Oz wouldn't have had a jacket when he was arrested. The cops woud look pretty dumb arresting someone with a jacket when the suspect they were looking for discarded his after murdering JDT.

I know this is too much common sense for the Ozzie fanbois, but don't let common sense get in the way of your Oz worshipping.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 30, 2018, 07:51:50 AM
The cab driver had Oswald wearing a jacket before he ever [supposedly] put one on.

And Bardwell Odum had Oswald wearing a jacket in the Texas Theatre. So what?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on May 30, 2018, 08:11:44 AM
Whether Saint Oz was wearing a jacket or not when he was in the cab has no importance. Just like who found the jacket doesn't matter.

What does matter is if Saint Oz was wearing a jacket when he left his room.

If he was, then it's hard to understand why he no longer has a jacket when he's arrested.

The implication that the jacket that was found wasn't his, or was planted is pretty much destroyed by the fibers that matched his arrest shirt in the jacket and the fact that the conspirators would have had to known that Saint Oz wouldn't have had a jacket when he was arrested. The cops woud look pretty dumb arresting someone with a jacket when the suspect they were looking for discarded his after murdering JDT.

I know this is too much common sense for the Ozzie fanbois, but don't let common sense get in the way of your Oz worshipping.

What does matter is if Saint Oz was wearing a jacket when he left his room.

If he was, then it's hard to understand why he no longer has a jacket when he's arrested.


What kind of weird "logic" is this? How can you even be sure that Oswald didn't have jacket at the Texas Theater? How does the fact that he wasn't wearing a jacket when he was arrested justify the conclusion that he didn't have a jacket? What makes you eliminate the possibility that a jacket simply was never found or looked for?

The implication that the jacket that was found wasn't his, or was planted is pretty much destroyed by the fibers that matched his arrest shirt in the jacket

Really? Are you sure you have thought this trough? How can you even begin to be sure that the white jacket that was found at the parking lot was indeed the grey jacket that actually belonged to Oswald?

and the fact that the conspirators would have had to known [sic] that Saint Oz wouldn't have had a jacket when he was arrested.

What makes you think the jacket would have been part of any master plan? What makes you even sure that Oswald didn't have a jacket at the Texas Theater?

The cops woud [sic] look pretty dumb arresting someone with a jacket when the suspect they were looking for discarded his after murdering JDT.

No dumber than when they only rely on a half blind woman (who was concentrating on getting the TV to work and thus had her back turned towards the living room when Oswald walked from his room to the front door in a matter of seconds) to conclude that Oswald did indeed leave the rooming house wearing a jacket in the first place!

I know this is too much common sense for the Ozzie fanbois, but don't let common sense get in the way of your Oz worshipping


Your desperate desire to have Oswald be the lone nut gunman is clouding your judgment. Who cares about the facts (all the facts, that is) when you have already made up your mind, right?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Ray Mitcham on May 30, 2018, 01:25:15 PM
And Bardwell Odum had Oswald wearing a jacket in the Texas Theatre. So what?

Cite.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 30, 2018, 07:08:39 PM
Cite.
These WC defenders can swallow camels and still manage to choke on a gnat.
They demand links but hardly ever supply them
Mr everywhere on the scene of every event ..FBI Agent Bard Odum...
He will remind us of Agent Smith in Matrix. If you saw that movie 'Reloaded'...Smith duplicated himself into hundreds of Smiths.

[First I've heard about him mentioning a jacket too.]


   
Quote
Odum was in the TSBD at the time that the murder weapon was found.
Later, Lt. Day drove Odum to the police station with the weapon. Odum
was seen and photographed leaving the building with Day at sometime
close to 1:45 pm.

According to Day, the agent used the car radio to contact his FBI
office to describe the rifle. 4H264, Meager, p.100.

   SA James P. Hosty Jr. mentions the Bard  numerous times, and it is
Hosty who is witness and reporter to the spirit-like nature of SA
Odum.

   It was between 1:45 and 2:00 pm. that Odum and Day made the
delivery to Lt. Day's office at Main and Harwood Streets in downtown
Dallas.
At the very same time, according to Hosty, Bardwell was at the
Texas Theater witnessing the arrest of LHO. Odum, himself made a
statement (HSCA document #01431) describing his observing the arrest.

His statement begins:
"At approximately 2 p.m., November 22, 1963, I was informed by an
unidentified policeman of the DPD that a suspect had been seen
entering the back door of the Texas Theater
. I immediately proceeded
to the Texas Theater...."

   Dallas police radio transcripts reveal that at 1:51 pm. car No. 2
radioed to the dispatcher that they were on their way in with the
suspect
(WR. p, 179).

Talk about double Oswalds, now we have a double Odum.

   In Dallas, the agent was well acquainted with Michael and Ruth
Paine.
Mike called the agent BOB; Ruth called him Mr. Odum and
sometimes Bardwell . From Mike's testimony:
   Mr. Liebeler: Do you remember being interviewed by FBI Agents Odum
and Peggs on Nov. 24?
   Mike: Well, of course, I have seen BOB Odum frequently. Peggs ia an
unfamiliar name. It doesn't mean that he couldn't have been there,
That night I mostly went to the police station. I was introduced to
Odum PRIOR TO THE 22nd.
9H444.

  Ruth felt comfortable enough with "BOB" to visit Marina's bedroom
alone with SA Odum, who was at the Irving home to pick up Lee's
wedding ring for Marina.

3H 111-112, 9H385.

    Ruth also had a conversation with the "Bard"about the General
Walker shooting before there was reason to believe that Lee was
involved,
9H387.

    Ruth: Agent Odum has been out a great deal.
3H106.

    Ruth: I would guess that I reported to MR.ODUM other things-... I
talked with him a great deal.
3H107.

  Lt. Day released the slug from the Walker shooting to the "Bard."
    Day: I released it to the FBI Agent B.D. Odum on Dec.2, 1963
10H273.

Odum says that he never had the Walker bullet.

The early history of the bullet, Commission Exhibit #399, is laid out
in Warren Commission Exhibit #2011. This exhibit consists of a 3-page,
July 7, 1964 FBI letterhead memorandum that was written to the Warren
Commission in response to a Commission request that the Bureau trace
“various items of physical evidence,” among them #399 [Fig. 2].  #2011
relates that, in chasing down the bullet’s chain of possession, FBI
agent Bardwell ODUM took #399 to Darrell Tomlinson and O.P. Wright on
June 12, 1964. The memo asserts that both men told Agent Odum that the
bullet “appears to be the same one” they found on the day of the
assassination, but that neither could “positively identify” it.
[Figs. 2, 3]

Mr. Odum said that he had never had any bullet related to the Kennedy
assassination in his possession, whether during the FBI’s
investigation in 1964 or at any other time. Asked whether he might
have forgotten the episode, Mr. Odum remarked that he doubted he would
have ever forgotten investigating so important a piece of evidence.
But even if he had done the work, and later forgotten about it, he
said he would certainly have turned in a “302” report covering
something that important. Odum’s sensible comment had the ring of
truth. For not only was Odum’s name absent from the FBI’s once secret
files, it was also it difficult to imagine a motive for him to
besmirch the reputation of the agency he had worked for and admired.
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMor...

          Odum interviewed; Mrs. Markham 3H319.
                            Bonnie Williams 3H171-172.
                            Sylvia Odio 11H369.
                            Capt. G.M. Doughty
                            Domingo Benavides
                            Officer J.M. Poe
                            Dr. Paul Mollenhoff, Methodist Hospital
                            Dr. Earl Rose, Parkland
                            Marguerite Oswald

    From the Texas Employment Commission: Helen P. Cunningham
                                          Louise Latham
                                          Robert L. Adams

   Odum made a replica bag from material found in the TSBD
(Dec) and showed it to
Frazier/Randle).
Very crafty guy....Agent Odum
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/iNrIeD8aYFc

Agent Odum....too bad he wasn't this keen before a president was killed on his city street.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 30, 2018, 09:30:44 PM
I clearly explained why the jacket being found BEFORE Saint Oz was arrested is significant.

It's still there for you to see and for anyone else that wants to read it.

No strawman.

Can't help you anymore than that Johnny.

CAN'T FIX STUPID

Typical Howard.  Won't answer the questions.  Thinks that strawmen and insults are sufficient evidence for his claims.

Those crickets are still chirping.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 30, 2018, 09:34:40 PM
And Bardwell Odum had Oswald wearing a jacket in the Texas Theatre. So what?

So whether he did or did not have some kind of jacket at any particular time is rather irrelevant isn't it?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 30, 2018, 09:36:28 PM
What kind of weird "logic" is this?

Welcome to "common sense" by Howard Gee....
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 30, 2018, 10:52:51 PM
Whether Saint Oz was wearing a jacket or not when he was in the cab has no importance. Just like who found the jacket doesn't matter.
 
....but don't let common sense get in the way of your Oz worshipping.

 1- Why the psychotic ranting? Keep it civil OK?
 2- Why would someone who was wearing a jacket go home and put on a jacket?
Common sense indeed-----
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 30, 2018, 11:46:53 PM
 Just to backtrack immediately after the assassination Oswald departs just with the white shirt but apparently goes back in to get the brown overshirt?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 30, 2018, 11:56:45 PM
Just to backtrack immediately after the assassination Oswald departs just with the white shirt but apparently goes back in to get the brown overshirt?

Whatever it takes.  LOL.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 31, 2018, 01:35:56 AM
Of course it is. Chain of custody. Remember?

Chain of custody for an item of evidence doesn't begin until a law enforcement officer takes possession of it.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 31, 2018, 01:38:22 AM
Just to backtrack immediately after the assassination Oswald departs just with the white shirt but apparently goes back in to get the brown overshirt?

Nope. Oswald had the brown shirt with him at all times; from the time that he assassinated Kennedy until the time of his arrest in the Texas Theatre.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 31, 2018, 01:42:41 AM
So whether he did or did not have some kind of jacket at any particular time is rather irrelevant isn't it?

It's not irrelevant but it's not of great significance either.  It's merely just small piece of evidence that further shows that Oswald passed through that parking lot as he fled from the murder scene.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Howard Gee on May 31, 2018, 01:57:27 AM
It does more than just show Oswald passed through the parking lot.

It demonstrates that Saint Oswald was desperately trying to alter his appearance.

People don't usually ditch their jackets in parking lots without a reason for doing so.

Of course it's possible that Saint Oz was trying to throw the jacket into a Goodwill or Salvation Army bin located a few miles away, but I kind of doubt it.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 31, 2018, 02:05:13 AM
It does more than just show Oswald passed through the parking lot.

It demonstrates that Saint Oswald was desperately trying to alter his appearance.

People don't usually ditch their jackets in parking lots without a reason for doing so.

Of course it's possible that Saint Oz was trying to throw the jacket into a Goodwill or Salvation Army bin located a few miles away, but I kind of doubt it.

I suspect that he was overheated and just ditched it without giving it much thought.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Howard Gee on May 31, 2018, 02:14:59 AM
Yep, bcz people that are wearing a jacket and feeling warm tend to just throw the jacket away in a parking lot, rather than removing the jacket and carrying it with them.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 31, 2018, 02:20:37 AM
Yep, bcz people that are wearing a jacket and feeling warm tend to just throw the jacket away in a parking lot, rather than removing the jacket and carrying it with them.

"People that are wearing a jacket"? How many people are we talking about here?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 31, 2018, 07:18:40 AM
Ummm, to the extend that the Commission had to lie about who found this small piece of evidence.

Your weakest post so far?

The Commission had a solid lead right there in the police log as to who might have found the jacket:

   We believe we've got this suspect on shooting this officer out here. Got his white jacket. Believe he dumped it on this parking lot behind this service station at 400 block East Jefferson across from Dudley Hughes and he had a white jacket on. We believe this is it.

Coming from "279", but listed as "Unknown" which raises the question if the DP used fake IDs?

"279" was not unknown. It was motorcycle officer J.T. Griffin.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on May 31, 2018, 09:05:09 AM
It's not irrelevant but it's not of great significance either.  It's merely just small piece of evidence that further shows that Oswald passed through that parking lot as he fled from the murder scene.

It's merely just small piece of evidence that further shows that Oswald passed through that parking lot as he fled from the murder scene.

No.

It doesn't show that at all, because all you've got is the assumption that the white jacket found in the parking lot was actually the grey jacket now in evidence.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 31, 2018, 11:28:53 AM
Are we doing the shirt or the jacket here?
Shirt....let's do a separate topic :)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 31, 2018, 05:36:08 PM
A statement from Wes Frazier's sister.....

Quote
Mr. BALL. How was Lee dressed that morning?
Mrs. RANDLE. He had on a white T-shirt, I just saw him from the waist up, I didn't pay any attention to his pants or anything, when he was going with the package. I was more interested in that. But he had on a white T-shirt and I remember some sort of brown or tan shirt and he had a gray jacket, I believe.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket. I will show you some clothing here. First, I will show you a gray jacket. Does this look anything like the jacket he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. That morning?
Mrs. RANDLE. Similar to that. I didn't pay an awful lot of attention to it.
Mr. BALL. Was it similar in color?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; I think so. It had big sleeves.
Mr. BALL. Take a look at these sleeves. Was it similar in color?
Mrs. RANDLE. I believe so.
Mr. BALL. What is the Commission Exhibit on this jacket?
Mrs. RANDLE. It was gray, I am not sure of the shade.

Why would Oswald need to go to his rooming house to get and put on a jacket that he had already worn to work that morning?........... ;) 
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 31, 2018, 05:47:12 PM
A statement from Wes Frazier's sister.....

Why would Oswald need to go to his rooming house to get and put on a jacket that he had already worn to work that morning?........... ;) 


He wouldn't and he didn't.

Mr. BALL. Here is another jacket which is a gray jacket, does this look anything like the jacket he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; I remember its being gray.
Mr. BALL. Well, this one is gray but of these two the jacket I last showed you is Commission Exhibit No. 162, and this blue gray is 163, now if you had to choose between these two?
Mrs. RANDLE. I would choose the dark one.
Mr. BALL. You would choose the dark one?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Which is 163, as being more similar to the jacket he had?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; that I remember. But I, you know, didn't pay an awful lot of attention to his jacket. I remember his T-shirt and the shirt more so than I do the jacket.
Mr. BALL. The witness just stated that 163 which is the gray-blue is similar to the jacket he had on. 162, the light gray jacket was not.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 31, 2018, 06:00:33 PM
So why list him as "Unknown"?

Because whoever listed him as Unknown didn't know who he was. What other reason could there be?

Quote
And what could he tell the Commission about the white jacket?

About the same as his fellow motorcycle officer R.W. Walker. Not much. They saw it from a distance.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 31, 2018, 06:43:15 PM
Nope. Oswald had the brown shirt with him at all times; from the time that he assassinated Kennedy until the time of his arrest in the Texas Theatre.

"The time that he assassinated Kennedy" -- nothing like assuming what you're trying to prove.

But where was the brown shirt when he passed by Jeraldean Reid?

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 31, 2018, 06:44:00 PM
It's not irrelevant but it's not of great significance either.  It's merely just small piece of evidence that further shows that Oswald passed through that parking lot as he fled from the murder scene.

How would a jacket in a parking lot show that anyone "fled from a murder scene"?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 31, 2018, 06:45:09 PM
It does more than just show Oswald passed through the parking lot.

It demonstrates that Saint Oswald was desperately trying to alter his appearance.

LOL.  It demonstrates that you have an overactive imagination.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 31, 2018, 06:48:26 PM
He wouldn't and he didn't.

Mr. BALL. Here is another jacket which is a gray jacket, does this look anything like the jacket he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; I remember its being gray.
Mr. BALL. Well, this one is gray but of these two the jacket I last showed you is Commission Exhibit No. 162, and this blue gray is 163, now if you had to choose between these two?
Mrs. RANDLE. I would choose the dark one.
Mr. BALL. You would choose the dark one?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Which is 163, as being more similar to the jacket he had?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; that I remember. But I, you know, didn't pay an awful lot of attention to his jacket. I remember his T-shirt and the shirt more so than I do the jacket.
Mr. BALL. The witness just stated that 163 which is the gray-blue is similar to the jacket he had on. 162, the light gray jacket was not.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.


Who in the world would refer to this as being "gray"?

(https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/ctka/public/2013/fullscreen/Photo_naraevid_CE163-2.jpg)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 31, 2018, 07:11:46 PM
He wouldn't and he didn't.

Didn't what? Grab a jacket?

 
Quote
Mr. BALL. Here is another jacket which is a gray jacket, does this look anything like the jacket he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; I remember its being gray.
Now does that make any sense?

 
Quote
Mrs. RANDLE. .... But I, you know, didn't pay an awful lot of attention to his jacket. I remember his T-shirt and the shirt more so than I do the jacket.
Why would Randle remember the T shirt the long sleeve brown shirt but not remember some like this [below]  covering them up...

(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/4/44/Photo_naraevid_CE163-2.jpg)

If this [below] was shown earlier in the thread...apologies


(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/post-3674-043737100%201315564429_thumb.jpg)

On the left is a jacket that was supposedly 'found' in a parking lot. Was described as a WHITE Ike style jacket.
On the right is CE 162... the gray jacket ..What a transformation!

 
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 31, 2018, 07:14:09 PM

But where was the brown shirt when he passed by Jeraldean Reid?

It was hanging off of the back of his pants, tucked into his belt.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 31, 2018, 07:15:18 PM
How would a jacket in a parking lot show that anyone "fled from a murder scene"?

Oswald was seen by numerous witnesses fleeing the scene of the shooting. Mary Brock saw him in the parking lot behind the Texaco service station wearing a jacket. His jacket being found in that parking lot just confirms her statement.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 31, 2018, 07:26:47 PM

Didn't what? Grab a jacket?

He didn't grab the same jacket that he had worn to work that morning.

Quote
Why would Randle remember the T shirt the long sleeve brown shirt but not remember some like this [below]  covering them up...

(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/4/44/Photo_naraevid_CE163-2.jpg)

How should I know?

Quote
If this [below] was shown earlier in the thread...apologies

(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/post-3674-043737100%201315564429_thumb.jpg)

On the left is a jacket that was supposedly 'found' in a parking lot. Was described as a WHITE Ike style jacket.
On the right is CE 162... the gray jacket ..What a transformation!


(https://i.imgur.com/eBRdfjU.png)

How would you describe the jacket on the left?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 31, 2018, 07:45:31 PM
So you claim, but you have not shown this to be correct. Moreover, the DPD disagreed as they listed 279 as UNKNOWN.

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0255b.htm

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 31, 2018, 08:16:48 PM
Quote
CE 163, the blue zipper jacket, was found in the Book Depository and was identified by Marina Oswald as her husband's.
https://www.maryferrell.org/photos.html?set=NARA-OSWCLOTHES

Regarding the 'witnesses' mentioned earlier....most if not all were shown a New Orleans PD mug shot of Oswald [for some reason] Like the Dallas PD mug shot wouldn't do?  Of course he was dead when their statements were made. They had all long seen the televised information...Oswald did it ..Here's the guy that did it...will you identify him?
 With all these witnesses, why were they not taken in for a real lineup that day?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 31, 2018, 10:59:34 PM
It was hanging off of the back of his pants, tucked into his belt.

...and you know this....how?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 31, 2018, 11:01:45 PM
Oswald was seen by numerous witnesses fleeing the scene of the shooting. Mary Brock saw him in the parking lot behind the Texaco service station wearing a jacket. His jacket being found in that parking lot just confirms her statement.

No, he was identified as a person near or some distance away from the scene of the shooting in biased and unfair lineups or from a single photo months later.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 01, 2018, 02:26:23 AM
279, according to this, was assigned to the "No-Parking Detail". Why would he be in Oak Cliff to supposedly find a jacket?

Next, you have to show that he actually did find the white jacket.

I've never claimed that Griffin found the jacket, so why would I have to show that he actually did?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 01, 2018, 02:27:11 AM
Sure, and the person who made the transcript (which one?) couldn't have had the same sheet you attached a link for. Good one.

And your point is?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Jerry Freeman on June 01, 2018, 02:36:13 AM
From the testimony of Wes Frazier...
 
Quote
Mr. BALL - I have here Commission's 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have.

A gray blue jacket?
... or was it a blue gray jacket?
********************************************************
Quote
Mr. BALL - On that day you did notice one article of clothing, that is, he had a jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What color was the jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning.
************************************************
Quote
Mr Ball-That gray jacket you mentioned, did it have any design in it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - Was it light or dark gray?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was light gray.
**************************************************
Quote
Mr. BALL - Long sleeves?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Buttoned sleeves at the wrist, or do you remember?
Mr. FRAZIER - To be frank with you, I didn't notice that much about the jacket, but I had seen him wear that gray woolen jacket before.
Mr. BALL - You say it had a zipper on it?
***************************************************
Enough with Joseph Ball and the obsession with Oswald's attire.
Why didn't he just show Frazier the gray jacket [CE 162] so he can identify it?
But he didn't.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Mike Orr on June 01, 2018, 02:55:04 AM
Did anyone actually see anybody throw a white jacket down on the ground or was this just a jacket that was found as in a white jacket that did not belong to Lee Harvey Oswald.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 01, 2018, 03:38:48 AM
Please keep up Tim. The transcript (which one?) said that 279 found the jacket. YOU said that 279 was Griffin, therefore, you have to show that Griffin found the white jacket. Got it now?

The transcript does not say that 279 found the jacket.

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 01, 2018, 03:40:12 AM
All of sudden you are conveniently slow. You told Tom that the person who typed the transcript (which one?) didn't know who 279 was, but your sheet shows that they should have IF it is accurate.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm

It's you being slow, not me. That transcript of the channel one tape was made by JFK assassination researcher Russ Shearer in 1990. It seems likely that he copied the names and numbers from an earlier transcript that also has 279 as "Unknown". There are other "Unknowns" as well. It's likely that the creator of the earlier transcript was not aware of the sheet that I linked to.

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 01, 2018, 02:34:35 PM
If the gray zipper jacket (CE 162) is legitimate, it was in the hands of the police before Oswald was arrested.
Why not give him the opportunity to confirm or deny that it was his property. - they never did

If the gray zipper jacket (CE 162) is legitimate, it was in the hands of the police before Oswald was arrested.

That doesn't have to be the case. The gray jacket (which I believe very likely belonged to Oswald) now in evidence could well have been found during the first search of Ruth Paine's house and used as a substitute for the white jacket found at the carpark.

This possibility alone is exactly why a correct chain of custody is essential. What Tim and his ilk are doing is simply accepting the word of Westbrook ........ because cops don't lie, right?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on June 02, 2018, 10:18:44 AM
Julia Postal wasn't sure if he paid or not.  I don't know why the LNers are so sure he didn't.

Johnny Brewer, the only person watching Oswald, said that Oswald did not buy a ticket.

Do you really want to make your stand here?  Really?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on June 02, 2018, 10:28:35 AM
How can you even be sure that Oswald didn't have jacket at the Texas Theater? How does the fact that he wasn't wearing a jacket when he was arrested justify the conclusion that he didn't have a jacket? What makes you eliminate the possibility that a jacket simply was never found or looked for?

"About 1:30 pm I saw a man standing in the lobby of the shoe store. This man was wearing a brown sport shirt. He also acted as if he was scared." - Johnny Brewer

Mr. BELIN - So you say he was about 5'9"?
Mr. BREWER - About 5'9".
Mr. BELIN - And about 150?
Mr. BREWER - And had brown hair. He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out.
Mr. BELIN - Any jacket?
Mr. BREWER - No.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on June 02, 2018, 10:41:59 AM
The implication that the jacket that was found wasn't his, or was planted is pretty much destroyed by the fibers that matched his arrest shirt in the jacket

Really? Are you sure you have thought this trough? How can you even begin to be sure that the white jacket that was found at the parking lot was indeed the grey jacket that actually belonged to Oswald?

and the fact that the conspirators would have had to known [sic] that Saint Oz wouldn't have had a jacket when he was arrested.

What makes you think the jacket would have been part of any master plan? What makes you even sure that Oswald didn't have a jacket at the Texas Theater?

The gray jacket (which I believe very likely belonged to Oswald) now in evidence could well have been found during the first search of Ruth Paine's house and used as a substitute for the white jacket found at the carpark.


Oswald was seen zipping up his jacket by housekeeper Earlene Roberts as he left the rooming house.  Oswald was wearing a jacket when he gunned down J.D. Tippit. 

So, Oswald had his jacket on as he entered the theater and it's a great coincidence that an entirely separate jacket happened to be found along the path known to have been taken by Oswald.  Just how often do you think a jacket is found laying on the ground underneath a car?

Wait.  Sometimes you argue that Oswald was not wearing a jacket when he left the rooming house.  Now you're arguing on behalf of the idea that Oswald had on his jacket as he entered the theater.

Anything to get a cop-killer off the hook, I guess.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on June 02, 2018, 10:44:48 AM
No dumber than when they only rely on a half blind woman (who was concentrating on getting the TV to work and thus had her back turned towards the living room when Oswald walked from his room to the front door in a matter of seconds) to conclude that Oswald did indeed leave the rooming house wearing a jacket in the first place!

Mr. BALL. It was a zippered jacket, was it?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
Mr. BALL. He was zipping it up as he went out the door?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 02, 2018, 10:48:08 AM
On November 22, 1963, Warren "Butch" Burroughs, who ran the concession stand at the Texas Theatre where Oswald was arrested, said that Oswald came into the theater between 1:00 and 1:07 pm; he also claimed he sold Oswald popcorn at 1:15 p.m.

Another case of "which witness do you prefer to believe"!

Oh well, if one takes at face value the words of a half blind woman who, when Oswald allegedly walked through the room, had her back turned to the living room when she was trying to get the TV to work and who was known for making up stuff, I guess one can just as easily accept the words of any witness that says what one wants to hear to fit with the predetermined conclusion.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on June 02, 2018, 10:52:25 AM
Oswald was seen by numerous witnesses fleeing the scene of the shooting. Mary Brock saw him in the parking lot behind the Texaco service station wearing a jacket. His jacket being found in that parking lot just confirms her statement.

No, he was identified as a person near or some distance away from the scene of the shooting in biased and unfair lineups or from a single photo months later.

You left out the part where all of the witnesses saw Oswald with a gun in his hands.  Honest mistake on your part to leave that out, right?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on June 02, 2018, 11:06:46 AM
On November 22, 1963, Warren "Butch" Burroughs, who ran the concession stand at the Texas Theatre where Oswald was arrested, said that Oswald came into the theater between 1:00 and 1:07 pm; he also claimed he sold Oswald popcorn at 1:15 p.m.

This is wrong, pure and simple.

Burroughs never said anything of the sort on November 22, 1963.

Burroughs made that claim for The Men Who Killed Kennedy (1988).

===============

Warren Commission testimony, April 8, 1964:

Mr. BALL. Did you see that man come in the theatre?
Mr. BURROUGHS. No, sir; I didn't.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Howard Gee on June 02, 2018, 11:28:00 AM
Earlene was so blind, I'm surprised she even had a television !

Oh, and of course she had her back turned the entire time Saint Oz was leaving the boarding house.

The poor blind woman couldn't have possibly averted her attention from the TV that she was incapable of watching, not even for a moment to vainly try and see who was walking in and out of the house.

And even if she was able to actually turn her head and see Saint Oz she couldn't possibly tell if he was wearing a jacket.

Nope, at best she might have heard someone she assumed to be Saint Oz zipping a jacket.

Ain't that right, kooks ?

EARLENE WASN'T HALF AS BLIND AS THE DROOLING SAINT OZ FANBOIS ARE
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 02, 2018, 12:42:56 PM
Earlene was so blind, I'm surprised she even had a television !

Oh, and of course she had her back turned the entire time Saint Oz was leaving the boarding house.

The poor blind woman couldn't have possibly averted her attention from the TV that she was incapable of watching, not even for a moment to vainly try and see who was walking in and out of the house.

And even if she was able to actually turn her head and see Saint Oz she couldn't possibly tell if he was wearing a jacket.

Nope, at best she might have heard someone she assumed to be Saint Oz zipping a jacket.

Ain't that right, kooks ?

EARLENE WASN'T HALF AS BLIND AS THE DROOLING SAINT OZ FANBOIS ARE

Earlene was so blind, I'm surprised she even had a television !

The television belonged to the roominghouse. Whether Earlene Roberts had a television of her own is of no signifance.

Oh, and of course she had her back turned the entire time Saint Oz was leaving the boarding house.

Didn't she?

The poor blind woman couldn't have possibly averted her attention from the TV that she was incapable of watching, not even for a moment to vainly try and see who was walking in and out of the house.


Mr. BALL. You were working with the television?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I was trying to clear it up to see what was happening and try to find out about President Kennedy.

<>

Mr. BALL. When he came in he was in a shirt?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He was in his shirt sleeves.
Mr. BALL. What color was his shirt? Do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember. I didn't pay that much attention for I was interested in the television trying to get it fixed.

<>

Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?

<>

Mr. BALL. Does the color of this shirt which I show you here, Commission Exhibit No. 150, look anything like the shirt he had on?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I'm sorry, I just don't know.

<>

Mr. BALL. Did he have the same colored pants on when he came in as when he went out?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Now, I wouldn't say that because I don't remember-I didn't pay that much attention.
Mr. BALL. Now, did it appear to you he had on the same pants or different pants from the time he came in and when he went out ?
Mr. ROBERTS. Well, I just didn't pay that much attention. All I remember-he was zipping up a coat and I was trying to find out about President Kennedy--I was still trying to find out about President Kennedy-they was broadcasting it then-I was more interested in that.


And even if she was able to actually turn her head and see Saint Oz she couldn't possibly tell if he was wearing a jacket.


Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?

Nope, at best she might have heard someone she assumed to be Saint Oz zipping a jacket.

Ain't that right, kooks ?


Earlene Robers is a kook?

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, I just didn't pay that much attention. All I remember-he was zipping up a coat

EARLENE WASN'T HALF AS BLIND AS THE DROOLING SAINT OZ FANBOIS ARE

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, you know, I can't see too good how to read. I'm completely blind in my right eye.

Buell Wesley Frazier had 20/20 vision and saw Oswald for much longer than Roberts ever did, yet fools like you claim he was wrong about just about everything, but a half blind known story teller who wasn't paying much attention is believed by idiots like yourself and then you call others "kooks".... Go figure!
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 02, 2018, 05:44:16 PM
Cagey, but it won't work. I am not disputing *your* claim that Griffin was 279. What I am asking you to do is explain why an officer assigned to a "No-Parking Detail" presumably in the DP area would be in Oak Cliff.

His 7:00 AM No Parking Detail was likely over. As for why he was in Oak Cliff at 1:25 PM, it was because he heard the following over the Channel Two Police radio:

"General Broadcast - All squads, we have a report that an officer has been involved in a shooting in the 400 E. 10th. 1:18 p.m."


Quote
Then I am asking that you show that 279-Griffin did indeed find the white jacket.

I've never claimed that Griffin found the jacket, so why would I have to show that he actually did?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 02, 2018, 05:45:41 PM
When caught in a falsehood LNers revert to games. What is this?

Quote on

279 (unknown)   We believe we’ve got that suspect on shooting this officer out here. Got his white jacket. Believe he dumped it on this parking lot behind this service station at 400 block East Jefferson across from Dudley-Hughes and he had a white jacket on. We believe this is it.

Dispatcher   10-4, you do have the suspect, is that correct.

279 (unknown)   No, just the jacket laying on the ground.

http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0447b.htm

Quote off

It's Officer J.T. Griffin. Why do you ask?

To paraphrase what he said: "WE (the DPD) have the suspect's jacket over here in Oak Cliff. It is laying on the ground". As for who actually found the jacket (saw it first) , he doesn't say.

The late Larry R. Harris, who co-authored Cover UP with Gary Shaw, claimed in 1985 that it was Motorcycle Officer John R. Mackey who found the jacket.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 02, 2018, 09:56:28 PM
Johnny Brewer, the only person watching Oswald, said that Oswald did not buy a ticket.

Do you really want to make your stand here?  Really?

Brewer didn't see the person he was watching from behind way down the street even enter the theater.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 02, 2018, 09:58:04 PM
"About 1:30 pm I saw a man standing in the lobby of the shoe store. This man was wearing a brown sport shirt. He also acted as if he was scared." - Johnny Brewer

Mr. BELIN - So you say he was about 5'9"?
Mr. BREWER - About 5'9".
Mr. BELIN - And about 150?
Mr. BREWER - And had brown hair. He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out.
Mr. BELIN - Any jacket?
Mr. BREWER - No.

So what?  Marrion Baker said he was wearing a light brown jacket and on the 3rd or 4th floor.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 02, 2018, 10:00:12 PM
Oswald was seen zipping up his jacket by housekeeper Earlene Roberts as he left the rooming house.  Oswald was wearing a jacket when he gunned down J.D. Tippit. 

"Oswald".  LOL.

Mr. BALL. Does it look like, anything like, the jacket the man had on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It is short, open down the front. but that jacket it is a darker jacket than that, I know it was.
Mr. BALL. You don't think it was as light a jacket as that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, it was darker than that, I know it was.....
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 02, 2018, 10:02:45 PM
You left out the part where all of the witnesses saw Oswald with a gun in his hands.  Honest mistake on your part to leave that out, right?

...in biased and unfair lineups or from a single photo months later.

But is this supposed to prove who shot Tippit?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 02, 2018, 10:07:16 PM
This is wrong, pure and simple.

Burroughs never said anything of the sort on November 22, 1963.

Burroughs made that claim for The Men Who Killed Kennedy (1988).

===============

Warren Commission testimony, April 8, 1964:

Mr. BALL. Did you see that man come in the theatre?
Mr. BURROUGHS. No, sir; I didn't.

Highly dishonest.  Burroughs never claimed even in 1988 to have seen Oswald come in the theater.  There's no contradiction here.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Howard Gee on June 02, 2018, 11:31:09 PM
Brewer didn't see the person he was watching from behind way down the street even enter the theater.

That's right, from his vantage Brewer couldn't see the person enter the theater.

But he could see the person he identified as none other than Saint Oz stop in front of the theater and disappear from his view.

At which point the cops were notified that their suspect was probably in the theater and lo and behold, there's Saint Oz.

What an amazing coincidence !
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 03, 2018, 12:32:40 AM
That's right, from his vantage Brewer couldn't see the person enter the theater.

But he could see the person he identified as none other than Saint Oz stop in front of the theater and disappear from his view.

If that's not evidence of murder then I don't know what is.

 ::)
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 03, 2018, 02:56:27 AM
Good, then show Griffin acknowledging this transmission and stating that he was heading there.

What for?

Quote
Then explain why the DPD transcript says 279 found the jacket. You are running around in circles.

The DPD transcript doesn't say 279 found the jacket.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 03, 2018, 03:00:38 AM
He is as close as anyone. He sent the transmission and he didn't say anyone else found it.

He didn't say that he found it either.

 
Quote
Explain why he said the jacket is white.

He said the jacket was white for the same reason that people would say the the jacket seen in the pics below is white.

(https://i.imgur.com/Rnmcx3F.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/FeYT84k.png)

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 03, 2018, 03:01:55 AM
You're right again, Johnboi.

By itself, Brewer witnessing someone acting suspiciously and taking action which led to your hero being apprehended isn't evidence of murder.

However, it does destroy your narrative that Brewer just saw 'a person' walking towards the theater. There's no doubt that the person Brewer saw, entered the theater, and that person's name was Lee Harvey Oswald, AKA Saint Oz.

The same Saint Oz who wasn't wearing a jacket when arrested but whose shirt fibers were found in the jacket ditched under a car in a lot through which JDT's assailent fled.

Poor Saint Oz was having a really, really bad day.


Next up: Hairless goofball says Oswald's shirt fibers in a jacket aren't evidence of murder.

whose shirt fibers were found in the jacket ditched under a car in a lot

So you can actually prove conclusively that the grey jacket now in evidence as CE 162 is the jacket found under a car in a lot?

Care to amaze us all?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 03, 2018, 03:04:02 AM
He didn't say that he found it either.

 
He said the jacket was white for the same reason that people would say the the jacket seen in the pics below is white.

(https://i.imgur.com/Rnmcx3F.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/FeYT84k.png)

He said the jacket was white for the same reason that people would say the the jacket seen in the pics below is white.

How in the world would you know what reason he had for saying the jacket was white?

Also, did he look at the jacket under the same lightning conditions as those when the photo was taken?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on June 03, 2018, 03:25:17 AM
Earlene was so blind, I'm surprised she even had a television !

Oh, and of course she had her back turned the entire time Saint Oz was leaving the boarding house.

The poor blind woman couldn't have possibly averted her attention from the TV that she was incapable of watching, not even for a moment to vainly try and see who was walking in and out of the house.

And even if she was able to actually turn her head and see Saint Oz she couldn't possibly tell if he was wearing a jacket.

Nope, at best she might have heard someone she assumed to be Saint Oz zipping a jacket.

Ain't that right, kooks ?

EARLENE WASN'T HALF AS BLIND AS THE DROOLING SAINT OZ FANBOIS ARE

It is extreme desperation to claim that Earlene Roberts was half-blind and couldn't possibly be able to see Oswald wearing a jacket (and even zipping it up).

It is nothing more than a lame (and desperate) Weidmann argument.  Pathetic really.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on June 03, 2018, 03:41:21 AM
Brewer didn't see the person he was watching from behind way down the street even enter the theater.

Since Julia Postal left the ticket booth to walk out towards the sidewalk to see the police cars, who do you suppose would have sold a ticket to Oswald before he entered?  I can't wait to hear this one.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 03, 2018, 03:41:34 AM
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, you know, I can't see too good how to read. I'm completely blind in my right eye.


It is extreme desperation to claim that Buell Wesley Frazier, who had 20/20 vision and saw Oswald for much longer that Earlene Roberts was mistaken about what he saw.... Oswald carrying the package in the cup of his hand and tucked under his armpit!

It is nothing more than a lame (and desperate) Brown argument.  Pathetic really.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on June 03, 2018, 03:42:35 AM
So what?  Marrion Baker said he was wearing a light brown jacket and on the 3rd or 4th floor.

"About 1:30 pm I saw a man standing in the lobby of the shoe store. This man was wearing a brown sport shirt. He also acted as if he was scared." - Johnny Brewer

Mr. BELIN - So you say he was about 5'9"?
Mr. BREWER - About 5'9".
Mr. BELIN - And about 150?
Mr. BREWER - And had brown hair. He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out.
Mr. BELIN - Any jacket?
Mr. BREWER - No.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on June 03, 2018, 03:47:10 AM
"Oswald".  LOL.

Mr. BALL. Does it look like, anything like, the jacket the man had on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It is short, open down the front. but that jacket it is a darker jacket than that, I know it was.
Mr. BALL. You don't think it was as light a jacket as that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, it was darker than that, I know it was.....

What's your point?  Markham saw Oswald wearing a jacket, regardless of what color she believed it to be.

It doesn't matter if Markham believed the jacket was bright red.

She saw the same man seen by Ted Callaway, who said Oswald was wearing a light Eisenhower-type jacket.

Regardless of what color Markham believed the jacket to be, why wasn't Oswald wearing that jacket when seen by Brewer and when he was arrested inside the theater?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Howard Gee on June 03, 2018, 03:48:02 AM
whose shirt fibers were found in the jacket ditched under a car in a lot

So you can actually prove conclusively that the grey jacket now in evidence as CE 162 is the jacket found under a car in a lot?

Care to amaze us all?

You mean the pictures the esteemed Tim Nickerson just posted are of a grey jacket ?

Looks white to me.

Can you prove the jacket now in evidence was substituted for the one found and Saint Oz's shirt fibers were planted in it ?

You were doing better when you were contesting whether the half blind woman could see if Saint Oz was wearing a jacket.

BTW, Marty, got a huge kick out of you pointing out that the half blind woman might have been watching a TV that she didn't own.

That would make a world of difference !

Pathetic.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on June 03, 2018, 03:51:52 AM
...in biased and unfair lineups or from a single photo months later.

But is this supposed to prove who shot Tippit?


All of the witnesses saw a gun in Oswald's hands.  You made the ill-advised attempt to imply that these witnesses saw nothing more than Oswald as being "a person near or some distance away from the scene of the shooting".  You conveniently left out the part where each witness stated he was running with a gun.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on June 03, 2018, 03:55:39 AM
Highly dishonest.  Burroughs never claimed even in 1988 to have seen Oswald come in the theater.  There's no contradiction here.

This is good enough for most people (well, those who aren't in serious denial about Oswald being a cop-killer):

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on June 03, 2018, 03:57:44 AM
If that's not evidence of murder then I don't know what is.

 ::)

You're the king of straw man arguments.

Howard Gee did not say that Oswald was guilty of murder just because he entered the theater without paying for a ticket. 
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Howard Gee on June 03, 2018, 04:03:13 AM
Come to think of it, how do we know Tim Nickerson didn't photoshop the pictures he posted to make the jacket appear white ??

Attention all kooks: Tim Nickerson is now officially a suspect in the frame Saint Oz conspiracy !
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on June 03, 2018, 04:05:26 AM
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, you know, I can't see too good how to read. I'm completely blind in my right eye.


It is extreme desperation to claim that Buell Wesley Frazier, who had 20/20 vision and saw Oswald for much longer that Earlene Roberts was mistaken about what he saw.... Oswald carrying the package in the cup of his hand and tucked under his armpit!

It is nothing more than a lame (and desperate) Brown argument.  Pathetic really.

Another straw man.

The bottom line is that Roberts saw enough to know that Oswald was wearing a jacket as he left the house, specifically noticing that he was zipping it up as he went out the door.  You have to live with that.

One can believe in a conspiracy all they wish.  One can even believe that someone other than Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit.  But, to argue that Roberts couldn't have really seen Oswald as he left the house is dishonest.

You claim that you don't defend Oswald, that you're only interested in the truth.  If you were truly interested in what really happened, at the very minimum you would accept that Oswald was wearing a jacket as he left that house.  Only a true Kook would really attempt to argue that Roberts really could not have seen Oswald well enough to see him leave the house.

The bottom line is that you clearly are not interested in the truth, whatever it may be.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 03, 2018, 04:07:43 AM
You're right again, Johnboi.

By itself, Brewer witnessing someone acting suspiciously and taking action which led to your hero being apprehended isn't evidence of murder.

Thank you.  You've just inadvertently admitted that the cops had no probable cause to search, beat up, and arrest Oswald for murder in the theater.  Nice job.

Quote
However, it does destroy your narrative that Brewer just saw 'a person' walking towards the theater. There's no doubt that the person Brewer saw, entered the theater, and that person's name was Lee Harvey Oswald, AKA Saint Oz.

BS.  Brewer saw a guy who looked funny in front of his shop and by the time he got around his counter and out on the sidewalk he spotted a guy from the back down the street in front of the Furniture Mart who he just assumed was the same guy.  And he didn't even see that guy enter the theater.

Quote
The same Saint Oz who wasn't wearing a jacket when arrested but whose shirt fibers were found in the jacket ditched under a car in a lot through which JDT's assailent fled.

BS again.  The best they could say was that those fibers could have come from the shirt.  But the jacket in the parking lot doesn't prove anybody shot anybody anyway, so it's not evidence.

Quote
Poor Saint Oz was having a really, really bad day.

Not nearly as bad as the day you're having.

Quote
Next up: Hairless goofball says Oswald's shirt fibers in a jacket aren't evidence of murder.

You finally got something right.  Feel free to explain how they are.  Maybe you can do it without re-defining the word "disappeared" this time.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 03, 2018, 04:08:35 AM
He said the jacket was white for the same reason that people would say the the jacket seen in the pics below is white.

A parking lot is still not a museum.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 03, 2018, 04:10:09 AM
Since Julia Postal left the ticket booth to walk out towards the sidewalk to see the police cars, who do you suppose would have sold a ticket to Oswald before he entered?  I can't wait to hear this one.

You don't even know when Oswald entered the theater.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on June 03, 2018, 04:10:22 AM
You mean the pictures the esteemed Tim Nickerson just posted are of a grey jacket ?

Looks white to me.

Can you prove the jacket now in evidence was substituted for the one found and Saint Oz's shirt fibers were planted in it ?

You were doing better when you were contesting whether the half blind woman could see if Saint Oz was wearing a jacket.

BTW, Marty, got a huge kick out of you pointing out that the half blind woman might have been watching a TV that she didn't own.

That would make a world of difference !

Pathetic.

It really is pathetic.

Arguing that Oswald was not wearing a jacket as he left the house is akin to arguing that Oswald was out on the front steps of the Depository and appears in Billy Lovelady's position in Altgens 6.  Each "theory" is as kooky as the other.  I'd be embarrassed to be linked to Ralph Cinque's insanity.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on June 03, 2018, 04:14:31 AM
You don't even know when Oswald entered the theater.

Unrelated.

I'll ask again (since you avoided answering it the first time), Julia Postal left the booth and went out to the sidewalk.  Who do you suppose could have sold a ticket to Oswald? 
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 03, 2018, 04:14:33 AM
What's your point?  Markham saw Oswald wearing a jacket, regardless of what color she believed it to be.  It doesn't matter if Markham believed the jacket was bright red.

..and that's supposed to prove that CE162 is Oswald's Jacket...how exactly?

Quote
She saw the same man seen by Ted Callaway, who said Oswald was wearing a light Eisenhower-type jacket.

Couldn't be.  They had on different jackets.

Quote
Regardless of what color Markham believed the jacket to be, why wasn't Oswald wearing that jacket when seen by Brewer and when he was arrested inside the theater?

And you're assuming that the guy Markham saw and the guy Brewer saw were the same guy, because . . . ?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 03, 2018, 04:17:45 AM
You mean the pictures the esteemed Tim Nickerson just posted are of a grey jacket ?

Looks white to me.

Can you prove the jacket now in evidence was substituted for the one found and Saint Oz's shirt fibers were planted in it ?

You were doing better when you were contesting whether the half blind woman could see if Saint Oz was wearing a jacket.

BTW, Marty, got a huge kick out of you pointing out that the half blind woman might have been watching a TV that she didn't own.

That would make a world of difference !

Pathetic.

Isn't it funny how this star witness becomes half-blind and crazy again when she starts talking about the police car that went toot-toot?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Bill Brown on June 03, 2018, 04:20:56 AM
..and that's supposed to prove that CE162 is Oswald's Jacket...how exactly?

Couldn't be.  They had on different jackets.

And you're assuming that the guy Markham saw and the guy Brewer saw were the same guy, because . . . ?


Quote
..and that's supposed to prove that CE162 is Oswald's Jacket...how exactly?

Yet one more straw man.  What is it with you and all of these straw man arguments?

Markham saw Oswald wearing a jacket.  What this is "supposed to prove" is that Oswald ditched his jacket at some point.  Why would he do that?


Quote
Couldn't be.  They had on different jackets.

Nah.

It's far more likely that one witness is wrong about the color of a killer's jacket than it is that the two witnesses saw different men flee, each saying that the man had a gun in his hands.  You do realize that Ted Callaway was only a half block away from Markham, right?  Reading your silly posts would lead one to believe that you thought maybe Callaway was miles away from the scene by the time he saw Oswald wearing a jacket while running with a gun.


Quote
And you're assuming that the guy Markham saw and the guy Brewer saw were the same guy, because . . . ?

"Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman." - Helen Markham

Lee Oswald was the #2 man in the lineup.


Brewer pointed Oswald out to McDonald from the stage of the theater.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 03, 2018, 04:21:21 AM
All of the witnesses saw a gun in Oswald's hands.  You made the ill-advised attempt to imply that these witnesses saw nothing more than Oswald as being "a person near or some distance away from the scene of the shooting".  You conveniently left out the part where each witness stated he was running with a gun.

No, they saw a gun in the hands of a person who they identified in an unfair, biased, and unreliable lineup or from a single photo months later.

But since when does having a gun in one's hands prove that the person just murdered somebody?  I guess Callaway was guilty of murder too.  He had a gun in his hands at the scene of the crime.

Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 03, 2018, 04:23:50 AM
This is good enough for most people (well, those who aren't in serious denial about Oswald being a cop-killer):

Translation from Bill-speak:  "people who don't agree with my unsupported conjectures are in serious denial"

Feel free to point out where in that video Burroughs says he saw Oswald come in the theater.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 03, 2018, 04:24:36 AM
You're the king of straw man arguments.

Howard Gee did not say that Oswald was guilty of murder just because he entered the theater without paying for a ticket.

I never said he did.  Nice, you made a strawman argument about a strawman argument.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 03, 2018, 04:27:58 AM
If you were truly interested in what really happened, at the very minimum you would accept that Oswald was wearing a jacket as he left that house.

I accept that Roberts thought he came into the house and left wearing a jacket.  Just like she thought a police car pulled up and honked its horn twice.  Why is it that you consider your opinion and the truth to be synonymous?
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 03, 2018, 04:30:38 AM
Unrelated.

I'll ask again (since you avoided answering it the first time), Julia Postal left the booth and went out to the sidewalk.  Who do you suppose could have sold a ticket to Oswald?

Not unrelated at all.  You're assuming that Oswald entered the theater when Julia Postal left the booth and went out to the sidewalk, which you don't actually know because nobody saw him enter the theater.
Title: Re: Oswald's Jacket
Post by: Michael Chambers on June 03, 2018, 04:32:44 AM
A thing I see as a conundrum if you are saying the housekeeper saw him zipping a jacket is that you are
also saying Oswald couldn't be at the Tippit crime scene.


In that local TV started broadcasting JFK at 12.58pm. Sometime after this Earlene Roberts friend rings her to tell her of it.

Now we are at 12.59-1.00pm. Then or later Oswald/Unsub enters and spends 3-4 minutes