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

Author Topic: Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket  (Read 73655 times)

Offline Pat Speer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56


Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8583
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #272 on: January 31, 2018, 06:39:08 PM »

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1103
    • Plaza 3D
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #273 on: January 31, 2018, 10:26:19 PM »
and made his head look flat in back.

This is the important point.....The LNer's try to avoid Benavides' statement that the killer's head looked FLAT in the Back, by shifting the focus to the nape......

Benavides wasn't exactly sure about how his hairline actually appeared.

Benavides was not referring to the killer's "hairline"......He was referring to the killers hair style.....And the killer's hair was cut in a manner that made the back of his head LOOK FLAT.

Well I don't mind considering that Benavides might have been referring to the back of the head.



Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #274 on: February 01, 2018, 02:51:54 AM »
I figured Brown had his information from Myers' book, because a google search for the file number of the memo lead me there as well. And - I might add - that was the only result that came up, which suggests there is no on line presence of the actual memo.

Belin can write to Myers whatever he wants but the fact remains that, in March 1964, the WC wasn't convinced by the available "overwhelming" evidence because they asked the FBI to investigate the dry-cleaner's label to establish a link between the jacket and Oswald.

Obviously the investigation ultimately was a dead end because, despite a massive search in the greater Dallas and New Orl?ans areas, the FBI could not locate the dry-cleaner who had attached that label to the jacket.

So, if they really had persuasive fiber evidence they did not use because they already had "overwhelming [witness] evidence to tie Oswald to the Tippit murder", then why in the world did they waste the FBI's time by asking for an investigation of the dry-cleaner's label.

Yet, they never fell back on the fibers after that... One can only wonder why.


Quote
So, if they really had persuasive fiber evidence they did not use because they already had "overwhelming [witness] evidence to tie Oswald to the Tippit murder", then why in the world did they waste the FBI's time by asking for an investigation of the dry-cleaner's label.

At the time that the Commission asked the FBI to conduct an investigation into the jacket's relation to dry cleaners, how could they possibly know that it would be a waste of time?

They asked for the investigation in the hopes of establishing a definite, unimpeachable link between the jacket and Oswald.  The fiber match only meant that the jacket could be Oswald's, they were looking for more.  I can't believe this had to be explained to you.

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #275 on: February 01, 2018, 02:55:14 AM »
You can spin it any way you want.

The fact remains the witness with the best look at Tippit's killer, Domingo Benavides, describes

someone not matching a photo taken of LHO on 11/22/63.


Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.

Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........

~snip~

Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.


Quote
The fact remains the witness with the best look at Tippit's killer, Domingo Benavides, describes someone not matching a photo taken of LHO on 11/22/63.

Nonsense.

Ted Callaway got as good a look at the culprit as anyone.

(Cue the lame claim that Callaway didn't officially see the murder so he didn't see the killer)

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #276 on: February 01, 2018, 09:47:46 AM »
That's a fact. You can even strike "officially".

Like clockwork.

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #277 on: February 01, 2018, 09:48:33 AM »
That's a fact. You can even strike "officially".

I can't believe this had to be explained to you.

"I can't believe this had to be explained to you."

Yeah, Brown is being his usual pathetic self with comments like that.

Funny thing is that in this case it seems it needs to be explained to him that it doesn't matter if the WC knew or not they would be wasting the FBI's time with their request to find the dry-cleaner. What matters is that they asked the FBI in the first place, at a time when they already knew about the matched fiber evidence.

It is ironic that Brown in past pages has been trying to make a big deal out of the significance (in his mind) of the matching fibers;


However, don't try to pretend for a second that the fact that the fibers were a match means nothing.  The fiber match is yet another thing to present to the jury in an attempt to convince them that the jacket was Oswald's and in an attempt to change his appearance he ditched the jacket after killing a police officer only minutes ago.


yet, the record shows that the WC actually completely ignored those matched fibres and looked (in vain) for another way to link the jacket to Oswald by having the FBI search for the dry-cleaner.

The WC clearly understood (IMO) that the matching fiber evidence is completely irrelevant as there is no solid chain of custody for the white jacket found at the carpark to begin with. The initials on the jacket were placed there by officers 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.

During his WC testimony, Barnes, who initialed CE 162 at the station, 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 - he had been told - the jacket had been found, but there is not a word in his testimony about him exactly seeing 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 or give a statement at all.

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!

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.

Even worse, without a solid chain of custody, the DPD could actually have obtained the gray jacket CE 162 during the searches of the roominghouse and Ruth Paine's house, so who cares about matching fibers?
« Last Edit: February 01, 2018, 09:51:47 AM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #278 on: February 01, 2018, 10:02:53 AM »
"I can't believe this had to be explained to you."

Yeah, Brown is being his usual pathetic self with comments like that.

Funny thing is that in this case it seems it needs to be explained to him that it doesn't matter if the WC knew or not they would be wasting the FBI's time with their request to find the dry-cleaner. What matters is that they asked the FBI in the first place, at a time when they already knew about the matched fiber evidence.

It is ironic that Brown in past pages has been trying to make a big deal out of the significance (in his mind) of the matching fibers;

yet, the record shows that the WC actually completely ignored those matched fibres and looked (in vain) for another way to link the jacket to Oswald by having the FBI search for the dry-cleaner.

The WC clearly understood (IMO) that the matching fiber evidence is completely irrelevant as there is no solid chain of custody for the white jacket found at the carpark to begin with. The initials on the jacket were placed there by officers 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.

During his WC testimony, Barnes, who initialed CE 162 at the station, 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 - he had been told - the jacket had been found, but there is not a word in his testimony about him exactly seeing 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 or give a statement at all.

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!

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.

Even worse, without a solid chain of custody, the DPD could actually have obtained the gray jacket CE 162 during the searches of the roominghouse and Ruth Paine's house, so who cares about matching fibers?


Quote
Funny thing is that in this case it seems it needs to be explained to him that it doesn't matter if the WC knew or not they would be wasting the FBI's time with their request to find the dry-cleaner. What matters is that they asked the FBI in the first place, at a time when they already knew about the matched fiber evidence.

Look, this is real simple.  The fiber match shows only that the jacket could have belonged to Oswald.  No one is suggesting otherwise.  The Commission was aware of this very simple and obvious point, so they tried to link the jacket to Oswald in another manner, one which would prove beyond a doubt that it was Oswald's jacket.  The fiber match obviously doesn't prove the jacket belonged to Oswald for an absolute fact.  This is why the Commission asked the FBI to investigate dry cleaners, to link Oswald to the jacket for a fact.


Quote
The WC clearly understood (IMO) that the matching fiber evidence is completely irrelevant as there is no solid chain of custody for the white jacket found at the carpark to begin with.

Or, and much more likely (IMO), the Commission wanted something stronger than only the matching fiber evidence and therefore, wanted the FBI to investigate the matter of the dry cleaning tag.

Online Gary Craig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 922
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #279 on: February 01, 2018, 01:26:45 PM »

Nonsense.

Ted Callaway got as good a look at the culprit as anyone.

(Cue the lame claim that Callaway didn't officially see the murder so he didn't see the killer)

"Ted Callaway got as good a look at the culprit as anyone."

LOL

 ::)

TESTIMONY OF TED CALLAWAY

~snip~

Mr. BALL. He was crossing Patton?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was that to the south or the north of the taxicab? Closer to you than the taxicab?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Was he running or walking?
Mr. CALLAWAY. He was running.

~snip~

Mr. BALL. About what distance was he away from you--the closest that he ever was to you?
Mr. CALLAWAY. About 56 feet.

~snip~


Testimony Of Domingo Benavides

Mr. BELIN - Where were you when your vehicle stopped?
Mr. BENAVIDES - About 15 foot, just directly across the street and maybe a car length away from the police car.

~snip~

Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.

Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........

~snip~

Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.

~snip~



 

Mobile View