Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket  (Read 73634 times)

Offline Michael Chambers

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #620 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}

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8583
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #621 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...

Offline Mike Orr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 336
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #622 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 !

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8583
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #623 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.

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2580
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #624 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
Did they test the jacket for gunpowder residue?

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #625 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.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2018, 08:21:22 PM by Tim Nickerson »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8583
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #626 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.

Offline Howard Gee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #627 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

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8583
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #628 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. 



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?

Offline Howard Gee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #629 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.

 

Mobile View