Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket  (Read 73872 times)

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2647
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #30 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

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #31 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.

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #32 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.

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8596
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #33 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.

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8596
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #34 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?

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8596
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #35 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.

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2647
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #36 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

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8596
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #37 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.

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2647
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #38 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

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #39 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.

 

Mobile View