Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket  (Read 74839 times)

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2476
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #330 on: February 04, 2018, 12:33:35 PM »
Martin, If a chain a custody were required, then you might have a point. Though , I seriously doubt that an imperfect chain of custody would preclude the jacket from being admitted as evidence. Anyway, fortunately for the prosecution, they would be spared any headache of dealing with an imperfect chain of custody. The jacket being readily identifiable forgoes the need to present a chain of custody. The initials placed on it by DPD officials would have made it readily identifiable but the jacket itself was already unique and easily identifiable due to the laundry tag on it. So, it's really a rock solid piece of evidence.

We don't know who saw it first but Westbrook was the first to handle it. Patrolman R.W. Walker(Call #85) was the first to describe it as being white. The next person to describe it as being white was motorcycle officer J.T. Griffin (Call #279).

As to why they described it as being white?......Gee, that's tough one......







Martin, If a chain a custody were required, then you might have a point.

You're kidding, right?

Though , I seriously doubt that an imperfect chain of custody would preclude the jacket from being admitted as evidence.

First of all, what you seriously doubt or not is irrelevant. Secondly, the "admission into evidence" argument is a non starter because (1) there is and never will be a trial and (2) something being admitted into evidence at trial does not automatically validate that piece of evidence. During trial the prosecutor would still have to prove it was Oswald's jacket and how and where it was found. The defense would then have a field day demonstrating the massive evidentiary problems with the jacket exactly because there is no credible chain of custody.

But, rather than speculating about what would happen at a trial that will never take place, let's just stick to talking about the WCR and how they reached their conclusions. They pretended to conduct a proper legal investigation but as soon as they hit a problem they simply ignored the basic principals of law and broke just about every rule in the book.

Anyway, fortunately for the prosecution, they would be spared any headache of dealing with an imperfect chain of custody. The jacket being readily identifiable forgoes the need to present a chain of custody. The initials placed on it by DPD officials would have made it readily identifiable but the jacket itself was already unique and easily identifiable due to the laundry tag on it. So, it's really a rock solid piece of evidence.

What a load of BS.... The officers who initialed the jacket did so at the police station and had nothing to do with it being found and/or transported to the station. So, how in the world did they know where it came from? It could just as easily have been brought in as the result of the searches at Ruth Paine's house and Oswald's roominghouse. You are completely delusional to make the argument that a chain of custody doesn't matter just because some officers initialed a jacket at the station. This is exactly the reason why there is a need for a solid chain of custody; to protect the evidence against manipulation!

And as for the dry-cleaners label... Yes it makes the jacket unique, but as far as I know there is no record of the officers who either found the jacket or brought it to the station confirming the jacket they found had a dry-cleaner's label attached to it. So, again... the evidentiary life of the jacket seems to have started at the police station.

And, for all the wrong reasons, even the WC itself wasn't convinced CE 162 was Oswald's jacket. Why else did they request, in March 1964, that the FBI conduct an investigation to determine which dry-cleaner attached the label to the jacket?

We don't know who saw it first but Westbrook was the first to handle it. Patrolman R.W. Walker(Call #85) was the first to describe it as being white. The next person to describe it as being white was motorcycle officer J.T. Griffin (Call #279).

We not only don't know. Even Westbrook himself did not know. That's the entire point. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the white jacket found at the carpark is the same as the gray now in evidence as CE 162. We're just being asked to believe the assumption that it is....

As to why they described it as being white?......Gee, that's tough one......

The two officers described it as white simply because it was white..... See how easy that is? No need for lame excuses about lightning, shades and/or the position of the sun. Your photos prove nothing and are at best misleading propaganda.

The photo of an officer holding the jacket came from b/w footage, so no determination of the true color of the jacket can be made. Two photos were taken of CE 162 at a recent exhibition of the jacket and shirt. Unless you can prove that the color of the jacket has not been affected by 50 years of storage you really have nothing to make a comparision.

But perhaps you have proven something else with your photos; How in the world could Earlene Roberts mistake such a light colored jacket for the darker one she claimed she had seen? 

« Last Edit: February 04, 2018, 03:13:52 PM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline Gary Craig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 889
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #331 on: February 04, 2018, 03:22:12 PM »

Oswald was the only employee who was in the building at 12:30 and left immediately and never came back, WHY?

JohnM

LHO was a Marxist, married to a Russian  and had just returned from the USSR. The FBI kept track of his whereabouts (he complained about them harassing his wife). He was living in a city full of right wing nut jobs. Shots were just fired at the POTUS from near where he worked, (JFK's condition wasn't known). And you wonder why he left the area?  :o

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2637
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #332 on: February 04, 2018, 07:26:23 PM »
LHO was a Marxist, married to a Russian  and had just returned from the USSR. The FBI kept track of his whereabouts (he complained about them harassing his wife). He was living in a city full of right wing nut jobs. Shots were just fired at the POTUS from near where he worked, (JFK's condition wasn't known). And you wonder why he left the area?  :o











Quote
And you wonder why he left the area?

Not at all, Oswald immediately left the building because he just killed the President and his rifle was on the 6th floor of his work.



JohnM


Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2476
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #333 on: February 04, 2018, 07:37:00 PM »

Not at all, Oswald immediately left the building because he just killed the President and his rifle was on the 6th floor of his work.

JohnM

Sure, and then he hurried home (the first place police would look) for a change of clothes and a nice walk through Oak Cliff..... Yeah, that makes sense!

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2637
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #334 on: February 04, 2018, 07:53:08 PM »
Sure, and then he hurried home (the first place police would look) for a change of clothes and a nice walk through Oak Cliff..... Yeah, that makes sense!




Quote
Sure, and then he hurried home

Of course, he was a fugitive and he needed his revolver.

Quote
(the first place police would look)

Oswald knew that, so he had Whaley drive past his rooming house.

Quote
for a change of clothes

Yep, that's what fugitives do.

Quote
and a nice walk through Oak Cliff.....

Huh, Oswald should be still at work, wtf was he doing in Oak Cliff??

Quote
Yeah, that makes sense!

Oswald was on the run and within this context, everything Oswald did made perfect sense.



JohnM
« Last Edit: February 04, 2018, 10:38:47 PM by John Mytton »

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1057
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #335 on: February 04, 2018, 08:27:53 PM »
Sure, and then he hurried home (the first place police would look) for a change of clothes and a nice walk through Oak Cliff..... Yeah, that makes sense!

Since you feel that things must make sense, why do you refuse to make sense of Oswald ending up inside the theater on Jefferson?

Offline Anthony Clayden

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 77
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #336 on: February 04, 2018, 08:43:18 PM »
John,

Oswald in his visit to Marina on Thursday, from what we understand had failed to reconcile with his wife. The leaving of wedding ring with her would indicate that he had perceived an irrepairable rupture in their relationship. Whatever his relationship with his wife, BWF indicated that he was fond of his kids. A man who had just separated from his wife and knowing that he would see less of kids, would likely be emotionally depressed. The idea of hanging around at work with nothing to do but to think about his situation would not have been optimal for most people in his situation. His movements post the shooting would well fit IMHO an aimless man wandering to escape his thoughts. The meandering route. sudden changes of transport, the seeking of an escape by going to the movies, are all the kind of behaviours I would expect in someone with troubled thoughts of their personal life. (Not to say that these actions cannot be fitted into the actions of Oswald being the shooter but they can be explained without reference to his being the shooter.)

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1596
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #337 on: February 04, 2018, 11:40:50 PM »
Martin, If a chain a custody were required, then you might have a point.

You're kidding, right?

Though , I seriously doubt that an imperfect chain of custody would preclude the jacket from being admitted as evidence.

First of all, what you seriously doubt or not is irrelevant. Secondly, the "admission into evidence" argument is a non starter because (1) there is and never will be a trial and (2) something being admitted into evidence at trial does not automatically validate that piece of evidence. During trial the prosecutor would still have to prove it was Oswald's jacket and how and where it was found. The defense would then have a field day demonstrating the massive evidentiary problems with the jacket exactly because there is no credible chain of custody.

But, rather than speculating about what would happen at a trial that will never take place, let's just stick to talking about the WCR and how they reached their conclusions. They pretended to conduct a proper legal investigation but as soon as they hit a problem they simply ignored the basic principals of law and broke just about every rule in the book.

Anyway, fortunately for the prosecution, they would be spared any headache of dealing with an imperfect chain of custody. The jacket being readily identifiable forgoes the need to present a chain of custody. The initials placed on it by DPD officials would have made it readily identifiable but the jacket itself was already unique and easily identifiable due to the laundry tag on it. So, it's really a rock solid piece of evidence.

What a load of BS.... The officers who initialed the jacket did so at the police station and had nothing to do with it being found and/or transported to the station. So, how in the world did they know where it came from? It could just as easily have been brought in as the result of the searches at Ruth Paine's house and Oswald's roominghouse. You are completely delusional to make the argument that a chain of custody doesn't matter just because some officers initialed a jacket at the station. This is exactly the reason why there is a need for a solid chain of custody; to protect the evidence against manipulation!

And as for the dry-cleaners label... Yes it makes the jacket unique, but as far as I know there is no record of the officers who either found the jacket or brought it to the station confirming the jacket they found had a dry-cleaner's label attached to it. So, again... the evidentiary life of the jacket seems to have started at the police station.

And, for all the wrong reasons, even the WC itself wasn't convinced CE 162 was Oswald's jacket. Why else did they request, in March 1964, that the FBI conduct an investigation to determine which dry-cleaner attached the label to the jacket?

We don't know who saw it first but Westbrook was the first to handle it. Patrolman R.W. Walker(Call #85) was the first to describe it as being white. The next person to describe it as being white was motorcycle officer J.T. Griffin (Call #279).

We not only don't know. Even Westbrook himself did not know. That's the entire point. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the white jacket found at the carpark is the same as the gray now in evidence as CE 162. We're just being asked to believe the assumption that it is....

As to why they described it as being white?......Gee, that's tough one......

The two officers described it as white simply because it was white..... See how easy that is? No need for lame excuses about lightning, shades and/or the position of the sun. Your photos prove nothing and are at best misleading propaganda.

The photo of an officer holding the jacket came from b/w footage, so no determination of the true color of the jacket can be made. Two photos were taken of CE 162 at a recent exhibition of the jacket and shirt. Unless you can prove that the color of the jacket has not been affected by 50 years of storage you really have nothing to make a comparision.

But perhaps you have proven something else with your photos; How in the world could Earlene Roberts mistake such a light colored jacket for the darker one she claimed she had seen?

Martin,

There is a legal maxim that I believe originated with poet Carl Sandburg: If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.

What you've just done in that post is scream and pound the table. There isn't a chance in hell that a defence team could successfully challenge the jacket being what it is or where it was found. Marina identified it as belonging to her husband. Westbrook testified as to where he picked it up from. The laundry tag number on it matches with that given over the radio by Sergeant Stringer to DPD radio Dispatch shortly after it had been picked up by Westbrook.

As I said, the jacket is a rock solid piece of evidence. If a defence team were permitted to carry on about it , all they could do would be to do just as you have done; pound the table and yell like hell.

The two officers described that jacket as being white because that is how it appeared to them.  My photos prove that CE-162 can appear to be white. No amount of table pounding and hollering on your part will alter that truth.

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1596
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #338 on: February 04, 2018, 11:49:13 PM »

And as for the dry-cleaners label... Yes it makes the jacket unique, but as far as I know there is no record of the officers who either found the jacket or brought it to the station confirming the jacket they found had a dry-cleaner's label attached to it.


Offline John Anderson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #339 on: February 05, 2018, 12:15:13 AM »
Strangely enough since Feb 1963 Marina had been trying to get a visa from the Russian Embassy in Washington, to go back to Russia.

 

Mobile View