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

Author Topic: Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket  (Read 74631 times)

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1057
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #190 on: January 23, 2018, 08:24:46 AM »
Transfer of fiber while handling evidence.

I know what cross contamination means.  Sheesh.

I'm asking you to explain how it's relevant to the fibers found in the sleeve of the jacket.

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1057
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #191 on: January 23, 2018, 09:24:34 AM »
If you knew you wouldn't have to ask how it's relevant.

The question is: when were the fibers transferred?

Can you answer that question?

Finally.  An explanation (or, at least a question).

Of course I cannot say when the fibers were transferred.  No one can possibly answer such an inane question.  If the fibers found inside the sleeve of the jacket did come from Oswald's shirt, what difference would it make it they were transferred there on 11/22/63 or a month earlier?

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1057
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #192 on: January 23, 2018, 09:25:45 AM »
The question is how the lineup was conducted since she testified to not recognizing the man.

What she testified to was that the number two man is the man who she saw shoot the policeman.

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2472
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #193 on: January 23, 2018, 10:15:30 AM »
So you didn't understand cross contamination.

If the transfer of fibers happened while the DPD was handling the evidence they are irrelevant to the case.

What ever case you're trying to make.

There is no solid chain of custody for the white jacket found at the carpark. The initials on the jacket were place there at the police station (just like it happened with the revolver) and (if Westbrook's testimony is to be believed) clearly do not correspond with the officers who actually found that jacket and took it to the station.

Except for Earlene Roberts saying so (and she was half blind and paying more attention to the TV) there is no evidence that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket at all and even Roberts rejected CE 162 because the jacket she claimed to have seen was darker.

That same afternoon, DPD officers took all Oswald's belongings from the rooming house and took them to the station. If the gray jacket (CE 162) was even in Oak Cliff (and not in Irving) this is how the gray jacket could have gotten to the police station.

The same goes for the search without a warrant at Ruth Paine's house. If the gray jacket was actually there, DPD officers could have brought in to the station from there.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2018, 10:19:17 AM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2472
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #194 on: January 23, 2018, 12:56:23 PM »
During his WC testimony, Barnes was asked a lot of questions about what he did at the Tippit scene of the shooting and later at the crime lab, but they hardly asked him anything about the jacket.

He said he took a photo of the car under which the jacket was found, but there is not a word in his testimony about the jacket itself. They didn't ask him if he knew who found it, or if he had seen or handled it himself. They were not even interested enough to ask him how his initials ended up on the jacket.

For George Doughty, who also initialed the jacket, it's even worse. They did not even call him to testify.

Who really found the jacket, who called it in describing it as being white, who had it when Barnes arrived on the scene to take his picture and how and when it got to the police station is completely and totally unclear.

Some chain of custody!
« Last Edit: January 23, 2018, 01:36:03 PM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7498
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #195 on: January 23, 2018, 05:31:44 PM »
For a start you didn't reference Ball in your comment so blaming Ball for your Woman bashing insult is a gutless cop out.

Don't blame me for your lack of knowledge about the case.

Quote
Ball interacted with a plethora of witnesses and he concluded from all these witnesses that Oswald did it beyond all doubt,

I don't care what he "concluded", I care about the quality of the evidence (or the lack thereof) that the conclusion is based on.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7498
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #196 on: January 23, 2018, 05:46:01 PM »
Or, maybe you simply don't know the meaning of very basic words, like "similar".

Or, maybe you simply don't know the meaning of very basic words, like "match".  Are those fibers exclusive to one particular shirt?  Yes or no?

Anything to railroad your suspect with phony rhetoric.  Right?

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7498
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #197 on: January 23, 2018, 05:46:43 PM »
He wanted her to understand the questions.

Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men*

*Meaning prior to that day

Who ever said "prior to that day"?

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7498
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #198 on: January 23, 2018, 05:49:08 PM »
So the fibers jumped into the sleeves of Oswald's jacket and the same fibers lodged themselves in Oswald's rifle?

What gave you the idea that the fibers in the jacket were the same fibers in the rifle?

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3419
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #199 on: January 23, 2018, 06:25:04 PM »
There is no solid chain of custody for the white jacket found at the carpark. The initials on the jacket were place there at the police station (just like it happened with the revolver) and (if Westbrook's testimony is to be believed) clearly do not correspond with the officers who actually found that jacket and took it to the station.

Except for Earlene Roberts saying so (and she was half blind and paying more attention to the TV) there is no evidence that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket at all and even Roberts rejected CE 162 because the jacket she claimed to have seen was darker.

That same afternoon, DPD officers took all Oswald's belongings from the rooming house and took them to the station. If the gray jacket (CE 162) was even in Oak Cliff (and not in Irving) this is how the gray jacket could have gotten to the police station.

The same goes for the search without a warrant at Ruth Paine's house. If the gray jacket was actually there, DPD officers could have brought in to the station from there.

"Except for Earlene Roberts saying so (and she was half blind* and paying more attention to the TV")
Good thing she was only half blind, huh...still had the other half to watch Oswald zip up his jacket

*She was blind in one eye, so I suppose that makes her 'half blind' percentage-wise LOL

 

Mobile View