JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Bill Brown on June 11, 2022, 10:32:35 PM
-
Sam Guinyard puts the jacket (CE-162) on Oswald's back.
"The #2 man in the lineup I saw at the city hall is the same man I saw running with the pistol in his hand." -- Sam Guinyard (11/22/63 affidavit)
Oswald was the #2 man in the lineup.
Warren Commission testimony:
======
Mr. BALL. Now, the next exhibit here is Commission Exhibit No. 162; have you ever seen this before?
Mr. GUINYARD. That's the jacket.
Mr. BALL. This is a gray jacket?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; that's the gray jacket.
Mr. BALL. It has a zipper on it?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes.
Mr. BALL. You say that's the jacket?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; that he had on in Oak Cliff when he passed the lot.
Mr. BALL. That the man with the pistol had on?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes, sir.
According to housekeeper Earlene Roberts, Oswald left the rooming house on Beckley wearing a jacket, zipping it up as he went out the door:
Warren Commission testimony:
======
Mr. BALL. When he came in the door, what did he do?
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.
By the time Oswald had reached Jefferson Blvd., he was no longer wearing a jacket:
"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 (12/6/63 affidavit)
Warren Commission testimony:
======
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.
The question remains... If he did not gun down a police officer and therefore attempt to change his appearance, why did Oswald ditch the jacket that he was wearing when he left the rooming house on Beckley by the time he was spotted by Johnny Brewer at the shoe store on Jefferson?
-
Sam Guinyard puts the jacket (CE-162) on Oswald's back.
"The #2 man in the lineup I saw at the city hall is the same man I saw running with the pistol in his hand." -- Sam Guinyard (11/22/63 affidavit)
Oswald was the #2 man in the lineup.
Warren Commission testimony:
======
Mr. BALL. Now, the next exhibit here is Commission Exhibit No. 162; have you ever seen this before?
Mr. GUINYARD. That's the jacket.
Mr. BALL. This is a gray jacket?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; that's the gray jacket.
Mr. BALL. It has a zipper on it?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes.
Mr. BALL. You say that's the jacket?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; that he had on in Oak Cliff when he passed the lot.
Mr. BALL. That the man with the pistol had on?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes, sir.
According to housekeeper Earlene Roberts, Oswald left the rooming house on Beckley wearing a jacket, zipping it up as he went out the door:
Warren Commission testimony:
======
Mr. BALL. When he came in the door, what did he do?
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.
By the time Oswald had reached Jefferson Blvd., he was no longer wearing a jacket:
"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 (12/6/63 affidavit)
Warren Commission testimony:
======
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.
The question remains... If he did not gun down a police officer and therefore attempt to change his appearance, why did Oswald ditch the jacket that he was wearing when he left the rooming house on Beckley by the time he was spotted by Johnny Brewer at the shoe store on Jefferson?
Sam Guinyard puts the jacket (CE-162) on Oswald's back.
And Earlene Roberts wasn't so sure;
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.
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.
"Kind of a zipper jacket"
"I didn't pay that much attention"
"It seems like the one he put on was darker than that"
:D
In the meantime, Wesley Buell Frazier's testimony has Oswald wearing a grey jacket to Irving on the evening of 11/21/63, and his only other jacket, blue-grey in color, was later found in the Domino room of the TSBD.
It doesn't take a genius which jacket Oswald was wearing to Irving, as he only had two jackets.
As for Guinyard, the same usual LN claims about sunlight making a jacket look brighter or darker apparently don't apply, but strangely enough they do seem to apply to the officers who found a jacket under a car and called it in as being white.
The only reason why Bill Brown thinks Sam Guinyard is correct is because he is the only witness who actually says what Bill Brown wants to hear.
-
Sam Guinyard puts the jacket (CE-162) on Oswald's back.
And Earlene Roberts wasn't so sure;
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.
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.
"Kind of a zipper jacket"
"I didn't pay that much attention"
"It seems like the one he put on was darker than that"
:D
In the meantime, Wesley Buell Frazier's testimony has Oswald wearing a grey jacket to Irving on the evening of 11/21/63, and his only other jacket, blue-grey in color, was later found in the Domino room of the TSBD.
It doesn't take a genius which jacket Oswald was wearing to Irving, as he only had two jackets.
As for Guinyard, the same usual LN claims about sunlight making a jacket look brighter or darker apparently don't apply, but strangely enough they do seem to apply to the officers who found a jacket under a car and called it in as being white.
The only reason why Bill Brown thinks Sam Guinyard is correct is because he is the only witness who actually says what Bill Brown wants to hear.
And Earlene Roberts wasn't so sure;
Your point here is moot.
Earlene Roberts has Oswald leaving in a jacket, even if the jacket was bright orange or any other color you choose.
The only reason why Bill Brown thinks Sam Guinyard is correct is because he is the only witness who actually says what Bill Brown wants to hear.
No.
Every witness to the killing and/or the suspect's path has the suspect in a jacket; not just Guinyard.
-
Earlene didn't pay that much attention
Neither did Buell, btw
Not sure I would conjure up Buell when attacking Earlene's color perception
LOL
-
Your point here is moot.
Earlene Roberts has Oswald leaving in a jacket, even if the jacket was bright orange or any other color you choose.
No. She isn't sure and has Oswald leaving in "kind of a jacket"
No.
Yes
Every witness to the killing and/or the suspect's path has the suspect in a jacket; not just Guinyard.
So, if Oswald's gray jacket was in fact in Irving, the suspect wasn't Oswald.
All you've got to show that Oswald did in fact leave the rooming house wearing a jacket is the extremely shaky testimony of Earlene Roberts, a woman with bad eye sight who wasn't paying much attention and who focused on trying to get the TV to work. And let's not forget what her employer said about her..... known for making up stuff. And why did Earlene leave town that very day?
-
Earlene didn't pay that much attention
Neither did Buell, btw
Not sure I would conjure up Buell when attacking Earlene's color perception
LOL
Great stuff... so you've got two witnesses who were not paying much attention and who say different things.
Pray tell, why would you take Earlene's word over Buell's?
Or shall we call it inconclusive? Oh wait, you can't have that, can you now, because it means you have nothing to show that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket.
It looks like you've just shot yourself in the foot, yet again.....
-
This lame loaded question again? You first have to demonstrate that Oswald "ditched a jacket" before asking why he did so. It's like me asking you why you beat your wife.
And even if you could demonstrate that he ditched a jacket (you can't), what is an unanswerable hypothetical question supposed to prove?
-
Or shall we call it inconclusive? Oh wait, you can't have that, can you now, because it means you have nothing to show that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket.
It looks like you've just shot yourself in the foot, yet again.....
"inconclusivity" is like Kryptonite to the WC-faithful.
-
Great stuff... so you've got two witnesses who were not paying much attention and who say different things.
Pray tell, why would you take Earlene's word over Buell's?
Or shall we call it inconclusive? Oh wait, you can't have that, can you now, because it means you have nothing to show that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket.
It looks like you've just shot yourself in the foot, yet again.....
'Great stuff... so you've got two witnesses who were not paying much attention and who say different things'
_ I don't 'got' either them. Get a grip.
'Pray tell, why would you take Earlene's word over Buell's?'
_Where did you get that little nugget?
'Or shall we call it inconclusive? Oh wait, you can't have that, can you now, because it means you have nothing to show that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket'
_You just called Earlene a liar.
'It looks like you've just shot yourself in the foot, yet again'
_ It looks like you're blind in one eye and can't see out of the other
-
'Great stuff... so you've got two witnesses who were not paying much attention and who say different things'
_ I don't 'got' either them. Get a grip.
'Pray tell, why would you take Earlene's word over Buell's?'
_Where did you get that little nugget?
'Or shall we call it inconclusive? Oh wait, you can't have that, can you now, because it means you have nothing to show that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket'
_You just called Earlene a liar.
'It looks like you've just shot yourself in the foot, yet again'
_ It looks like you're blind in one eye and can't see out of the other
Am I to make sense out of these incoherent ramblings?
-
No. She isn't sure and has Oswald leaving in "kind of a jacket"
Yes
So, if Oswald's gray jacket was in fact in Irving, the suspect wasn't Oswald.
All you've got to show that Oswald did in fact leave the rooming house wearing a jacket is the extremely shaky testimony of Earlene Roberts, a woman with bad eye sight who wasn't paying much attention and who focused on trying to get the TV to work. And let's not forget what her employer said about her..... known for making up stuff. And why did Earlene leave town that very day?
She isn't sure and has Oswald leaving in "kind of a jacket"
Earlene Roberts has Oswald zipping up a jacket as he went out the door. Nothing about "kind of" zipping up a jacket.
All you've got to show that Oswald did in fact leave the rooming house wearing a jacket is the extremely shaky testimony of Earlene Roberts...
Which is far more than you have when arguing that Oswald was not wearing a jacket as he went out the door.
-
In the meantime, Wesley Buell Frazier's testimony has Oswald wearing a grey jacket to Irving on the evening of 11/21/63, and his only other jacket, blue-grey in color, was later found in the Domino room of the TSBD.
It doesn't take a genius which jacket Oswald was wearing to Irving, as he only had two jackets.
The problem for you is that your entire premise relies on Frazier being absolutely correct, regarding the color of the jacket Oswald was wearing Thursday evening. If Frazier is off, then your point is invalid. And we already know just how unreliable Frazier has been and still is.
-
The problem for you is that your entire premise relies on Frazier being absolutely correct, regarding the color of the jacket Oswald was wearing Thursday evening. If Frazier is off, then your point is invalid. And we already know just how unreliable Frazier has been and still is.
Explain how “we know” this without resorting to a circular argument.
-
Explain how “we know” this without resorting to a circular argument.
In your opinion, is Buell Frazier reliable?
-
In your opinion, is Buell Frazier reliable?
How is my opinion relevant to your claim about what “we know”?
My opinion is that all witness testimony is unreliable. But can you answer my question? Knowledge is different from opinion.
-
Earlene Roberts has Oswald zipping up a jacket as he went out the door. Nothing about "kind of" zipping up a jacket.
Which is far more than you have when arguing that Oswald was not wearing a jacket as he went out the door.
Total BS.
Roberts admitted that she wasn't paying much attention as she was concentrating on the television.
This means she had her back turned towards the living room where Oswald walked from his room to the front door.
Add to this that witness testimony is highly unreliable and that Roberts, according to Mrs Johnson, was known to make up stuff and what you are left with is nothing conclusive, whether you like it or not.
If officer Baker can mistake a shirt for a jacket than Roberts, who had poor eye sight, could just as easily have done the same.
So, no, it's not far more than arguing that Oswald was not wearing a jacket as he went out the door.
-
The problem for you is that your entire premise relies on Frazier being absolutely correct, regarding the color of the jacket Oswald was wearing Thursday evening. If Frazier is off, then your point is invalid. And we already know just how unreliable Frazier has been and still is.
The problem for you is that your entire premise relies on Roberts being absolutely correct, regarding the jacket. If Roberts is off, then your point is invalid. And we already know, from her employer, just how unreliable Roberts was.
-
If officer Baker can mistake a shirt for a jacket than Roberts, who had poor eye sight, could just as easily have done the same.
That’s a really good point. Whaley too.
-
How is my opinion relevant to your claim about what “we know”?
My opinion is that all witness testimony is unreliable. But can you answer my question? Knowledge is different from opinion.
My opinion is that all witness testimony is unreliable
_Does that include CTer/JAQer/OAKer fav Arnold Rowland, by any chance?
-
Your point here is moot.
Your point everywhere always is.
-
Earlene Roberts has Oswald zipping up a jacket as he went out the door. Nothing about "kind of" zipping up a jacket.
Which is far more than you have when arguing that Oswald was not wearing a jacket as he went out the door.
It's the typical dishonest and desperate contrarian attempt to create fake doubt by any means. Like the endlessly repeated false claim that there is somehow doubt in Marina's WC testimony that she saw a rifle in the blanket.
-
If officer Baker can mistake a shirt for a jacket than Roberts, who had poor eye sight, could just as easily have done the same.
So, no, it's not far more than arguing that Oswald was not wearing a jacket as he went out the door.
I can see why you stick to playing the contrarian. You think Oswald could somehow "zip up" his shirt? This was a bit before the disco era. Roberts is adamant on the point that he zipped up his jacket. There was no zipper on his shirt. There was a zipper on the 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.
-
It's the typical dishonest and desperate contrarian attempt to create fake doubt by any means. Like the endlessly repeated false claim that there is somehow doubt in Marina's WC testimony that she saw a rifle in the blanket.
No, it’s real doubt about something that isn’t even evidence to begin with.
-
Weidmann
Total BS
_ You should at least try to cut down on that sort of thing , even though it suits you
Roberts admitted that she wasn't paying much attention as she was concentrating on the television.
This means she had her back turned towards the living room where Oswald walked from his room to the front door.
_LOL. 'Admitted', or merely 'said'? Not like you're trying to depict Earlene as being involved in something sinister.
_ And are you claiming Roberts was unable to turn her head?
Add to this that witness testimony is highly unreliable
_ Would that happen to include Arnold Rowland's by any chance?
And that Roberts, according to Mrs Johnson, was known to make up stuff
_ Mrs Johnson. Wasn't she a bit of a busybody? I think I heard something along those lines.
And what you are left with is nothing conclusive, whether you like it or not.
_What we are left with is six decades of CTer wash, rinse and repeat
If officer Baker can mistake a shirt for a jacket than Roberts, who had poor eye sight, could just as easily have done the same.
Earlene was not in a poorly-lit hallway
Roberts, who had poor eye sight
_ LOL... Are you claiming her glasses were also weak?
-
I can see why you stick to playing the contrarian. You think Oswald could somehow "zip up" his shirt? This was a bit before the disco era. Roberts is adamant on the point that he zipped up his jacket. There was no zipper on his shirt. There was a zipper on the 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.
There was no zipper on his shirt. There was a zipper on the jacket.
_ And his pants. Sorry, couldn't resist.
--------
UPDATE
---------
'Playing contrarian'
Don't forget the Cartoon with
the horns playing Devil's Advocate
-
Total BS.
Roberts admitted that she wasn't paying much attention as she was concentrating on the television.
This means she had her back turned towards the living room where Oswald walked from his room to the front door.
Add to this that witness testimony is highly unreliable and that Roberts, according to Mrs Johnson, was known to make up stuff and what you are left with is nothing conclusive, whether you like it or not.
If officer Baker can mistake a shirt for a jacket than Roberts, who had poor eye sight, could just as easily have done the same.
So, no, it's not far more than arguing that Oswald was not wearing a jacket as he went out the door.
So Oswald left in a zip-up shirt. Got it.
-
It's the typical dishonest and desperate contrarian attempt to create fake doubt by any means. Like the endlessly repeated false claim that there is somehow doubt in Marina's WC testimony that she saw a rifle in the blanket.
Absolutely correct, Sir.
-
Am I to make sense out of these incoherent ramblings?
Ramble this: YOU JUST CALLED EARLENE A LIAR
-
So Oswald left in a zip-up shirt. Got it.
Or there just was no zipper.... just like there was no police car honking outside the rooming house.
Just consider the source......
-
Or there just was no zipper.... just like there was no police car honking outside the rooming house.
Just consider the source......
Roberts mentioned the jacket to a reporter on the afternoon of the murder.
She didn't mention the horn-honking incident until about one week later once the accused assassin himself was gunned down sparking whispers of conspiracy.
-
Ramble this: YOU JUST CALLED EARLENE A LIAR
According to Johnson, her boss, she was. Deal with it.
If she wasn't a liar, she also did not lie about the police car honking in front of her house, right?
-
Roberts mentioned the jacket to a reporter on the afternoon of the murder.
She didn't mention the horn-honking incident until about one week later once the accused assassin himself was gunned down sparking whispers of conspiracy.
So, what's your point?
She couldn't have made a mistake (like Baker and Whaley did) and didn't lie about the zipper on day one, but she did concoct and lie about this police car a week later?
That's some reliable witness, you've got there! Thumb1:
Henry Wade must have busted for joy when Oswald was killed and saved him from having to go to trial with fruitcakes like Roberts as his best witnesses.
-
So, what's your point?
She couldn't have made a mistake (like Baker and Whaley did) and didn't lie about the zipper on day one, but she did concoct and lie about this police car a week later?
That's some reliable witness, you've got there! Thumb1:
Again, you're ignoring the fact that Roberts said Oswald was zipping up the jacket as he went out. This is a specific recall.
You're jumping through every hoop possible in order to not have to provide an explanation for why Oswald was seen on Jefferson with no jacket.
-
Again, you're ignoring the fact that Roberts said Oswald was zipping up the jacket as he went out. This is a specific recall.
You're jumping through every hoop possible in order to not have to provide an explanation for why Oswald was seen on Jefferson with no jacket.
Again, you're ignoring the fact that Roberts said Oswald was zipping up the jacket as he went out. This is a specific recall.
Just like Baker recalled seeing Oswald wearing a jacket.
You're jumping through every hoop possible in order to not have to provide an explanation for why Oswald was seen on Jefferson with no jacket.
Oswald was on Jefferson? Really?
The one jumping through hoops is you. Your already weak house of cards comes tumbling down if Roberts was wrong. So, you desperately need to rely on a woman who wasn't paying much attention, has bad eye sight and only saw Oswald for a few seconds as he walked out of the door. Even if she had seen hem walk the entire distance between his room and the front door, she would have had only 5 seconds to observe him (I timed it when I was there). But she had her back turned to him as the TV was in front of the window looking out on Beckley. She most likely only saw him for two seconds at best as he reached and opened the front door. Good luck trying to argue that she was 100% correct in her observations.
If you were only 10% honest, you would admit that Roberts is a very weak and unreliable witness at best, but when it comes to honesty, I'm probably talking to the wrong person.
-
Roberts mentioned the jacket to a reporter on the afternoon of the murder.
She didn't mention the horn-honking incident until about one week later once the accused assassin himself was gunned down sparking whispers of conspiracy.
I love the blatant double-standard here. When did Brennan first mention that the guy he saw was Oswald? When did Carl Day first say he lifted a print? When did Charles Givens first say he saw Oswald on the sixth floor walking away from the SE corner?
-
Oswald was on Jefferson? Really?
The one jumping through hoops is you. Your already weak house of cards comes tumbling down if Roberts was wrong. So, you desperately need to rely on a woman who wasn't paying much attention, has bad eye sight and only saw Oswald for a few seconds as he walked out of the door.
And Brewer saw him (if it was him) for even a shorter amount of time and from a greater distance.
-
Again, you're ignoring the fact that Roberts said Oswald was zipping up the jacket as he went out. This is a specific recall.
Just like Baker recalled seeing Oswald wearing a jacket.
You're comparing the low stress environment that Roberts was in while inside the rooming house with the very high stress environment that Baker was dealing with right after gun shots were fired at the President of the United States. I find that to be very lame.
Yet another post that ignores the fact that Roberts said Oswald was zipping up the jacket as he went out.
Roberts saw Oswald zipping it up. That is one difference between Roberts and Baker.
-
I love the blatant double-standard here. When did Brennan first mention that the guy he saw was Oswald? When did Carl Day first say he lifted a print? When did Charles Givens first say he saw Oswald on the sixth floor walking away from the SE corner?
Another poor straw man.
A double-standard?
While trying to prove a point, when have I ever relied on Brennan's identification, Day's fingerprinting or Givens?
-
You're comparing the low stress environment that Roberts was in while inside the rooming house with the very high stress environment that Baker was dealing with right after gun shots were fired at the President of the United States. I find that to be very lame.
Yet another post that ignores the fact that Roberts said Oswald was zipping up the jacket as he went out.
Roberts saw Oswald zipping it up. That is one difference between Roberts and Baker.
o
You can twist and turn it all you want, but the bottom line is that you have to rely on a highly unreliable witness to keep a highly questionable narrative alive.
-
While trying to prove a point, when have I ever relied on Brennan's identification, Day's fingerprinting or Givens?
Great! Does that mean you dismiss those things as evidence?
-
So, what's your point?
She couldn't have made a mistake (like Baker and Whaley did) and didn't lie about the zipper on day one, but she did concoct and lie about this police car a week later?
That's some reliable witness, you've got there! Thumb1:
Henry Wade must have busted for joy when Oswald was killed and saved him from having to go to trial with fruitcakes like Roberts as his best witnesses.
You are falsely equating two different situations. Neither Baker nor Whaley suggested that they recalled Oswald as wearing a jacket because they remember him zipping it up. They most likely made this determination because he was wearing his long shirt out and it looked somewhat like a jacket. He might even have been wearing a jacket after the assassination. Roberts on the other hand specifically mentioned Oswald zipping his jacket. Something that could not have been done with his arrest shirt because it had no zipper. And other witnesses who identified the shooter as LHO placed him in a jacket. So there are more witnesses than Roberts who put Oswald in a jacket. But Old Ozzie is arrested a short distance away with no jacket. He obviously was making an effort to change his appearance because he knew witnesses would describe the Tippit shooter to police as wearing a jacket.
-
"Identified the shooter as LHO". LOL.
"obviously was making an effort to change his appearance". LOL.
-
Sam Guinyard puts the jacket (CE-162) on Oswald's back.
"The #2 man in the lineup I saw at the city hall is the same man I saw running with the pistol in his hand." -- Sam Guinyard (11/22/63 affidavit)
Oswald was the #2 man in the lineup.
Warren Commission testimony:
======
Mr. BALL. Now, the next exhibit here is Commission Exhibit No. 162; have you ever seen this before?
Mr. GUINYARD. That's the jacket.
Mr. BALL. This is a gray jacket?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; that's the gray jacket.
Mr. BALL. It has a zipper on it?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes.
Mr. BALL. You say that's the jacket?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; that he had on in Oak Cliff when he passed the lot.
Mr. BALL. That the man with the pistol had on?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes, sir.
According to housekeeper Earlene Roberts, Oswald left the rooming house on Beckley wearing a jacket, zipping it up as he went out the door:
Warren Commission testimony:
======
Mr. BALL. When he came in the door, what did he do?
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.
By the time Oswald had reached Jefferson Blvd., he was no longer wearing a jacket:
"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 (12/6/63 affidavit)
Warren Commission testimony:
======
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.
The question remains... If he did not gun down a police officer and therefore attempt to change his appearance, why did Oswald ditch the jacket that he was wearing when he left the rooming house on Beckley by the time he was spotted by Johnny Brewer at the shoe store on Jefferson?
"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 (12/6/63 affidavit)
Has anybody seen any picture of Lee Oswald after his arrest at the theater in which he "acted as if he was scared"??? In all photos Lee looks angry or defiant.... But certainly NOT scared... So why the hell would he "ACT AS IF HE WAS SCARED before he was arrested????
It appears that Johnny Brewer had a vivid imagination.
-
"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 (12/6/63 affidavit)
Has anybody seen any picture of Lee Oswald after his arrest at the theater in which he "acted as if he was scared"??? In all photos Lee looks angry or defiant.... But certainly NOT scared... So why the hell would he "ACT AS IF HE WAS SCARED before he was arrested????
It appears that Johnny Brewer had a vivid imagination.
Let's see. Oswald had just killed a police officer in broad daylight in front of numerous witnesses a short distance away, had no means of escape, and the police were closing in on him. Oh yeah. He had also just assassinated the president of the United States. He was only moments away from arrest or death. Other than that I guess he had no reason to be scared. And why does it matter unless you think Brewer was part of the conspiracy. Even if he was wrong in his characterization of Oswald's demeanor, then so what?
-
Let's see. Oswald had just killed a police officer in broad daylight in front of numerous witnesses a short distance away, had no means of escape, and the police were closing in on him. Oh yeah. He had also just assassinated the president of the United States. He was only moments away from arrest or death. Other than that I guess he had no reason to be scared. And why does it matter unless you think Brewer was part of the conspiracy. Even if he was wrong in his characterization of Oswald's demeanor, then so what?
Was the "Oswald" that you're referencing extracting the spent shells from his revolver ONE SHELL AT A TIME?
How did the FBI firearms expert describe the removal of spent shells from a S&W revolver for the Warren Commission? Didn't he tell them that ALL SIX CARTRIDGES are removed in a single push of the shell extractor." The spent shells in the cylinder of a S&W are removed ALL AT ONCE .... and not ONE SHELL AT A TIME as described by several of the witnesses who swore that they saw the fleeing gunman doing.
Even you should be able to understand that the killer WAS NOT using a S&W revolver.....
-
The problem for you is that your entire premise relies on Frazier being absolutely correct, regarding the color of the jacket Oswald was wearing Thursday evening. If Frazier is off, then your point is invalid. And we already know just how unreliable Frazier has been and still is.
Are you saying that Frazier is unreliable identifying the color of the jacket?
-
Are you saying that Frazier is unreliable identifying the color of the jacket?
Of course he is. Any witness who says anything that conflicts with the official narrative gets the same treatment.
-
Two weeks and a couple thousand posts later in this group by Conspiracy Advocates and still not even one logical explanation for why Oswald left the rooming house on Beckley with a jacket and then was seen in front of the shoe store on Jefferson without a jacket, other than attempting to change his appearance after murdering a cop, of course.
-
Two weeks and a couple thousand posts later in this group by Conspiracy Advocates and still not even one logical explanation for why Oswald left the rooming house on Beckley with a jacket and then was seen in front of the shoe store on Jefferson without a jacket, other than attempting to change his appearance after murdering a cop, of course.
It's highly doubtful that Oswald left the rooming house with a jacket. And what makes you think that is was actually Oswald who was seen in front of the shoe store on Jefferson?
-
"Identified the shooter as LHO". LOL.
"obviously was making an effort to change his appearance". LOL.
"Identified the shooter as LHO". LOL.
Yeah, the nerve of some people
I mean how can one separate clones by name
Which one is Oswald, and which one is Dirty Harvey/Hidell/Lee?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Qd3CyJfJ/SEND-IN-THE-CLONES-FINAL.png)
billchapman
-
It's highly doubtful that Oswald left the rooming house with a jacket. And what makes you think that is was actually Oswald who was seen in front of the shoe store on Jefferson?
Exactly. I mean how the hell can the cops or Brewer tell the difference between Oswald and Hidell, O.H.Lee, or Dirty Harvey?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Qd3CyJfJ/SEND-IN-THE-CLONES-FINAL.png)
billchapman
-
It's highly doubtful that Oswald left the rooming house with a jacket.
Only to those wearing the Kook Goggles.
-
Only to those wearing the Kook Goggles.
Says the guy who is so gullible that he will believe anything as long as it fits the narrative he prefers.
-
Says the guy who is so gullible that he will believe anything as long as it fits the narrative he prefers.
One more post to add to the list of those which do not logically explain why Oswald was seen on Jefferson with no jacket even though he left the rooming house on Beckley zipping one up as he went out the door of the rooming house.
If I were among the pathetic Oswald defenders, I too would take the lame position that "it is highly doubtful" that Oswald left the rooming house with a jacket. It's all you have in order to not have to explain why he no longer had the jacket on Jefferson.
-
One more post to add to the list of those which do not logically explain why Oswald was seen on Jefferson with no jacket even though he left the rooming house on Beckley zipping one up as he went out the door of the rooming house.
If I were among the pathetic Oswald defenders, I too would take the lame position that "it is highly doubtful" that Oswald left the rooming house with a jacket. It's all you have in order to not have to explain why he no longer had the jacket on Jefferson.
All you have to claim that Oswald left the rooming house with a jacket is a comment by Roberts about a zipper.
What you can't explain is which grey jacket Frazier saw Oswald wear to Irving the previous day, if it wasn't the only grey jacket he owned.
There is enough reasonable doubt about Oswald leaving the rooming house with a jacket to make your question superfluous.
If I were among the pathetic Oswald defenders, I too would take the lame position that "it is highly doubtful" that Oswald left the rooming house with a jacket.
If I were among the pathetic Oswald accusers, I too would take the lame position that Oswald left the rooming house with a jacket based solely on the word of a highly unreliable witness who wasn't paying much attention.
-
All you have to claim that Oswald left the rooming house with a jacket is a comment by Roberts about a zipper.
What you can't explain is which grey jacket Frazier saw Oswald wear to Irving the previous day, if it wasn't the only grey jacket he owned.
There is enough reasonable doubt about Oswald leaving the rooming house with a jacket to make your question superfluous.
If I were among the pathetic Oswald defenders, I too would take the lame position that "it is highly doubtful" that Oswald left the rooming house with a jacket.
If I were among the pathetic Oswald accusers, I too would take the lame position that Oswald left the rooming house with a jacket based solely on the word of a highly unreliable witness who wasn't paying much attention.
Kook strategy #26... When you're up against it with no way out, change the argument to the color of the jacket versus the fact that it was a jacket, regardless of the color.
-
Kook strategy #26... When you're up against it with no way out, change the argument to the color of the jacket versus the fact that it was a jacket, regardless of the color.
BS. If it wasn't a grey jacket, your entire argument falls apart.
Your fairytale story only works if Oswald left the rooming house, not with any old jacket, but a grey one. Why? Because that grey one was allegedly found under a car in a car park, which in your fantasy world somehow explain why Oswald was (allegedly) seen without a jacket on Jefferson.
You just don't want to talk about the color because it destroys your narrative as Roberts failed to identify the grey jacket belonging to Oswald and said the jacket she had seen (for what that is worth) was darker.
This is just another example of a LN not being willing to look at all the evidence and only concentrating on one part of the evidence (a very weak part) in a pathetic attempt to score a point.
-
BS. If it wasn't a grey jacket, your entire argument falls apart.
Your fairytale story only works if Oswald left the rooming house, not with any old jacket, but a grey one. Why? Because that grey one was allegedly found under a car in a car park, which in your fantasy world somehow explains why Oswald was (allegedly) seen without a jacket on Jefferson.
You just don't want to talk about the color because it destroys your narrative as Roberts failed to identify the grey jacket belonging to Oswald and said the jacket she had seen (for what that is worth) was darker.
This is just another example of a LN not being willing to look at all the evidence and only concentrating on one part of the evidence (a very weak part) in a pathetic attempt to score a point.
And.... Another post goes by with no logical explanation for why Oswald ditched the jacket he was zipping up when he left the rooming house.
-
And.... Another post goes by with no logical explanation for why Oswald ditched the jacket he was zipping up when he left the rooming house.
And... Another post goes by with a questionable claim based on a buch of assumptions.
You can throw a hissy fit and repeat the same thing over and over again but you are only wasting people's time with your BS
-
And... Another post goes by with a questionable claim based on a buch of assumptions.
You can throw a hissy fit and repeat the same thing over and over again but you are only wasting people's time with your BS
I think most here know who is the time-wasting troll and who isn't.
-
I think most here know who is the time-wasting troll and who isn't.
Of course you think that. You think a great many things. The problem is that most of them are only true in your own mind.
-
Did I miss the part where you explained why Oswald ditched the two jackets he was wearing in Whaley's cab?
I've already showed you the FBI interview written long before he ever testified to the Warren Commission where Whaley describes Oswald's shirt, making no mention of a jacket.
-
Two weeks and a couple thousand posts later, and still no evidence that Oswald ditched a jacket.
-
I've already showed you the FBI interview written long before he ever testified to the Warren Commission where Whaley describes Oswald's shirt, making no mention of a jacket.
I see what's going on here, Bill. Its the word 'ditched' that has Oswald-lovers all shook up.
Seems they are still smarting from the fact that Marina had dumped the little psycho (and who wouldn't) just that morning.
After all, its only been six decades and such delicate little blossoms need time to heal.
I suggest that in future, one might simply say that 'Oswald abruptly ended his personal relationship with his jacket'
-
You WC-cultists can say whatever you like. I’m only interested in what you can demonstrate is actually true.
-
Go back in time and join the witnesses in Oak Cliff
Pack a lunch, the time flops around like a Dali painting
(https://i.postimg.cc/j5M45LMS/Dali-watch.png)
-
I've already showed you the FBI interview written long before he ever testified to the Warren Commission where Whaley describes Oswald's shirt, making no mention of a jacket.
Bill Whaley DID NOT describe the shirt that Lee was wearing when he left the TSBD . Whaley clearly said that his passenger was wearing A BLUE JACKET that matched the BLUE trousers that the man in his cab was wearing.
Whaley said that his passenger was wearing a dark colored shirt with SILVER STREAKS running through it....
When Detective Potts recovered the shirt that Lee had taken off and placed in his dresser drawer, Potts described the shirt a Reddish brown with a button down collar......
Which raises an interesting question.... How does a reddish brown shirt yield a tuft of fibers that was composed of dark blue, gray black and orange yellow shades .....Which were the colors of the tufts of fibers the FBI found on the rifle.
The FBI said that the fibers matched the shirt that Lee was wearing at the theater when he was arrested. ( falsely) But Lee had changed his shirt at the rooming house at 1:00pm ......and he definitely had no contact with the carcano while wearing the arrest shirt.
-
Bill Whaley DID NOT describe the shirt that Lee was wearing when he left the TSBD . Whaley clearly said that his passenger was wearing A BLUE JACKET that matched the BLUE trousers that the man in his cab was wearing.
Whaley said that his passenger was wearing a dark colored shirt with SILVER STREAKS running through it....
But nothing about a jacket.
-
But nothing about a jacket.
Whaley said that as the man approached his cab he noticed that the man was wearing a BLUE jacket that matched the BLUE trousers he was wearing. Just the part about the man's BLUE trousers is enough to know that the man was not Lee Oswald, because Lee was wearing dark GREY trousers.
-
Whaley said that as the man approached his cab he noticed that the man was wearing a BLUE jacket that matched the BLUE trousers he was wearing. Just the part about the man's BLUE trousers is enough to know that the man was not Lee Oswald, because Lee was wearing dark GREY trousers.
But originally, when interviewed by the FBI many months before the testimony to the Warren Commission (which you rely on above), Whaley said nothing about any jacket while describing the shirt in detail.
-
The first twenty seconds will suffice...
-
The first twenty seconds will suffice...
No zipper?