JFK Assassination Forum

It was taken on 11-22-63, as it says clearly on the back of the picture....see the link HERE.

More here:
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/frazier-randle-and-paper-bag.html

Poor, Poor Martin, you've made almost Three Thousand more posts than me, that's some life you must have!? Hahahahahaha!

And what drew me back was not you, you silly deluded narcissistic fool,(just check my history) but Neidernut, who encouraged me to return to my 9/11 research, and then I destroyed his feeble beliefs which made him leave in disgrace, see ya later Alligator, and then I started to read Royell's posts and decided to dismantle his good natured ramblings, so yeah there are certain personalities that I enjoy debating.
And as for you, you made some self serving statement how you didn't brag about "supposedly" leaving America but in doing so you were bragging, you are such a Dumbass! No one needed to know where and when you "supposedly" left because no one gives a Stuff! And ever since I offended you with a little reality you have been following me around like a demented retarded sick puppy. You are so easy to manipulate! Hilarious.
 
JohnM

In your mind (sic), it that jacket just another example of a "weird JFK assassination coincidence," or is it yet another example of the evil, evil bad guys' fabricating/planting false evidence against Lee "I Guess I Was in the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time" Oswald?

Anybody who deals with a white jacket without a chain of custody morphing into a grey jacket with seven markings of officer that were never in the chain of custody and concludes that the two jackets are actual one and the same needs his head examined!

Oh boy... I don't disbelieve "all the evidence" against Oswald. Evidence is evidence. It either exists or it doesn't. But not every single piece of evidence is also proof.

Evidence can be manipulated and misrepresented. Completely wrong and unjust conclusions can be attached to a piece of evidence and that's what frequently happens in a circumstantial case like this one.

I can't believe I need to explain this to you.

Let me give you an example;

Captain Westbrook testified that an unknown police officer showed him a jacket under a car. In radio traffic the jacket was described as being white. According to Westbrook, the jacket was removed from under the car and given to another unidentified patrol officer, who I presume was to take it to DPD HQ. In any case, the jacket disappeared for several hours. As no attempt was ever made to identify both patrol officers, there clearly was no solid chain of custody for that jacket.

Then, several hours later a grey jacket shows up and is presented to the evidence room. It has the markings of no less than seven officers on it, but none of those officers were ever called to testify about their part in the chain of custody.

Now, you explain to me how you can claim that the white jacket found under the car is the same as the grey jacket presented to the evidence room. Can you do that?

I sure as hell have a possible explanation, which you probably are not going to like, but let's see how you can get this mess sorted out. Tell me what reason does gullible old me have to accept the jacket story at face value?