Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket  (Read 74321 times)

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1057
Re: Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket
« Reply #830 on: April 11, 2020, 11:14:39 AM »
The really important question is... Oswald was seen leaving the rooming house zipping up a jacket as he went out the door.  He was seen at Hardy's Shoe Store without a jacket on.  Let's assume for a minute that he never was at Tenth and Patton.  Why did he ditch his jacket somewhere between the rooming house and the shoe store?

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2468
Re: Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket
« Reply #831 on: April 11, 2020, 12:33:49 PM »
No. The really important question is: Did Oswald indeed leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket?

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket
« Reply #832 on: April 12, 2020, 08:55:35 AM »
Really, Tim?

Westbrook was prominent in the chain of custody, wasn't he? He is the main link between the white jacket found in the parking lot and the grey jacket delivered to the evidence room some two hours later, isn't he?

Or does none of that matter and will the initials of anybody, even people who never handled the jacket, do for you?

The initials on the jacket were not necessary. The jacket had something on it that made it readily identifiable.

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2468
Re: Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket
« Reply #833 on: April 12, 2020, 10:49:29 AM »
The initials on the jacket were not necessary. The jacket had something on it that made it readily identifiable.

You mean the dry-cleaner label in the gray jacket that the FBI couldn't trace back to it's origin?
« Last Edit: April 12, 2020, 10:49:57 AM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1057
Re: Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket
« Reply #834 on: April 13, 2020, 05:28:30 AM »
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.

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2468
Re: Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket
« Reply #835 on: April 13, 2020, 06:30:13 AM »
Officer Baker thought Oswald had a jacket on at the TSBD and Whaley thought he was wearing two jackets. People sometimes think they see things that are not there.

Earlene Roberts had bad eyesight. She was standing with her back to the livingroom, trying to get the television to work and only could have seen Oswald for the few seconds that he needed to walk from his room to the frontdoor. When the WC showed her the grey jacket during her testimony she was unable to identify it.

Frazier testified that Oswald was wearing a grey jacket during the trip to Irving and he could not identify the darker jacket that was later found at the TSBD. Marina testified that Oswald only had two jackets, of which one was found at the TSBD. Combined, this testimony justifies the conclusion that Oswald's grey jacket was in Irving of Thursday evening and stayed there. How could Oswald be putting it on in Oak Cliff the next day?

Offline Gerry Down

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 336
Re: Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket
« Reply #836 on: April 13, 2020, 11:20:27 AM »
Could Oswald have been walking east on 10th street (as per Helen Markham) and witnessed the shooting up ahead of him, which had nothing to do with him, and then ran down Patton for his own safety? After which the gunman fled down the same street?
This would explain why Markham thought the man she saw fled down the alleyway that was on Paton street and Callaway thought the man with the gun fled towards Jefferson. Two different men? Markham by her own admission covered her eyes which may have caused her to confuse the two men, thinking that the man she saw, Oswald, had shot Tippit.

Some witnesses say the gunman was walking west along Paton for some distance before the shooting. Markham says he was walking east for some distance before the shooting. A good defense lawyer would make the case that these were two different people, that Oswald had been walking east, saw the shooting up ahead of him and was simply running from the scene of a shooting for his own safety.

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1057
Re: Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket
« Reply #837 on: April 13, 2020, 05:12:32 PM »
Could Oswald have been walking east on 10th street (as per Helen Markham) and witnessed the shooting up ahead of him, which had nothing to do with him, and then ran down Patton for his own safety? After which the gunman fled down the same street?
This would explain why Markham thought the man she saw fled down the alleyway that was on Paton street and Callaway thought the man with the gun fled towards Jefferson. Two different men? Markham by her own admission covered her eyes which may have caused her to confuse the two men, thinking that the man she saw, Oswald, had shot Tippit.

Some witnesses say the gunman was walking west along Paton for some distance before the shooting. Markham says he was walking east for some distance before the shooting. A good defense lawyer would make the case that these were two different people, that Oswald had been walking east, saw the shooting up ahead of him and was simply running from the scene of a shooting for his own safety.

First, Markham didn't say the killer was walking east on Tenth "for some distance".

Second, Markham (later) said that the gunman fled in the alley (as opposed to going all the way down Patton to Jefferson).  Jimmy Burt and Bill Smith, after the shots, went to Tippit's body.  After hanging around there shortly, the two decided to go off in search of the killer (they saw him turn the corner from Tenth onto Patton).  When these two reached a point halfway down the block, they looked west in the alley and saw the gunman in the alley (literally in the vicinity where the jacket was found under a car).  You see, Bill Smith and Jimmy Burt assumed that the killer fled west through the alley (as opposed to going all the way down to Jefferson) from Patton.

Now, Bill Smith was buddies with Markham's son, James Markham.  No doubt Bill Smith told anyone who would listen their fascinating story, including the part about seeing the killer in the alley almost a full block west of Patton (one of them said he was "almost to the next street").

See where I'm going with this?  James Markham, hearing his buddy Bill Smith tell his story, undoubtedly would relay the story to his mother, just as I'm sure James would relay his mother's story to Bill Smith.  It's perfectly natural.

Anyway, to me, it's obvious that Helen Markham heard (from her son) that the killer was seen in the alley.

However, the witnesses clearly watched the gunman run all the way down Patton and then turn west onto Jefferson.

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7483
Re: Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket
« Reply #838 on: April 14, 2020, 01:07:55 AM »
Anyway, to me, it's obvious that Helen Markham heard (from her son) that the killer was seen in the alley.

Could be plausible.  This brings up a big problem with human memory -- distinguishing between what people actually saw and what they were told by others.

Offline Izraul Hidashi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 74
Re: Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket
« Reply #839 on: April 19, 2020, 08:52:26 AM »
Can anyone answer why the heck Oswald needed a jacket on a sunny Texas afternoon, while he was already wearing a long sleeve flannel? Does that even make sense to anyone ... anyone with common sense?

And why would he ditch his jacket after killing a cop? Was he worried someone might identify him as the killer? So I guess keeping the gun and dumping the shells for cops to find wasn't much to worry about, but the jacket.... Oh no... that was the incriminating piece of evidence to be worried about, right?  ::) 

 

Mobile View