Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket

[Anthony Clayden]

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.)

[Tim Nickerson]

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.

[Tim Nickerson]

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.

[John Anderson]

Strangely enough since Feb 1963 Marina had been trying to get a visa from the Russian Embassy in Washington, to go back to Russia.

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

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.

If you can't provide conclusive proof just make wild claims you can never prove about what you think would have happened at a trial that will never take place! 

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.


Yes, Marina did identify CE 162 as belonging to Oswald, and I have no problem accepting that he did own it. However, Westbrook did not find the jacket nor did he transport it to the station, so there is no way you can prove that the jacket found at the carpark is the same as the one now in evidence as CE 162. Now what about this Westbrook sidekick Sergeant Stringer, Tim? Was he the one who found the jacket or did he bring it to the station? If so, why are his initials not on CE 162 and why was he never called to testify?

The amazing thing about the DPD radio transcripts is that they show, the police was looking for a guy wearing a white jacket and that's exactly what they found under the car.... a white jacket. Only later did the jacket go all technicolor on us...

As far as the dry-cleaner's label goes, there is no evidence that it was ever in CE 162 before the police got a hold of it. In March 1964 the WC wanted to link the label to Oswald so they asked the FBI to investigate the matter. The FBI officers visited all the dry-cleaners in the greater Dallas and New Orleans areas and found absolutely nothing, which is kinda remarkable since we know those are the only places Oswald lived since his return from Russia. So, Tim... where did the label come from?


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.

Only in your opinion, Tim. In the real world the gloves were also a "rock solid piece of evidence" in the Simpson trial!

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.

Your photos show a jacket that has been stored away for 50 years. The only thing those photos show is that the jacket doesn't look anything like CE 162 used to look in 1963. The only contemporary photo you have shown was b/w and still showed CE 162 to be anything but white.

When you claim that two officers saw the jacket and got the color wrong, is that just your opinion of do you have a statement from them to that effect? And btw it's not only those two agents. The DPD transcripts show that they were looking for a man who was wearing a white jacket. That information must have come from somewhere.... a witness perhaps? But how can that be, considering that (as far as I can recall) none of Tippit witnesses mentioned having seen a white jacket in their testimony?

[Martin Weidmann]

That's an amazing document, don't you think, Tim?

Westbrook testified that he turned the jacket over to one of the officers when he left the carpark where it was found. We know from the record that he went on to the Texas Theater for Oswald's arrest and that he went to the police station after that. So, he never had time to return to the carpark and collect the jacket.

Yet, here we have him, allegedly at 3 PM, submitting a jacket to the identification bureau, according to a document that wasn't even signed. And not just any jacket, but the one initialed by several officers including Barnes and Doughty, who we know had nothing at all to do with the finding of the jacket. What really happened to the jacket is the same as what happened to the revolver. Some officers got together at the station and just initialed those articles without really knowning where they came from. And then, only then, did Westbrook submit the jacket to the identifcation bureau. The document you have posted, Tim, is the proof to show that Westbrook was at the very least extremely nonchalant with evidence or at worst simply up to no good!

[Tim Nickerson]

Fact:

On page 175 and 176 in their report (WCR) they repeatedly claim that Westbrook found/discovered the jacket, footnote 603.

=> 603. 7 H 116-118 (Capt. W. R. Westbrook).

While on 7 H 115 Westbrook admits to NOT finding the jacket...

Mr. WESTBROOK. Actually, I didn't find it--it was pointed out to me by either some officer that--that was while we were going over the scene in the close area where the shooting was concerned, someone pointed. out a jacket to me that was laying under a car and I got the jacket and told the officer to take the license number.

Can you handle the facts?

Tom, I can handle the facts fairly well. Or I think I can anyway. That the WCR claims that Westbrook found the jacket doesn't bother me much. It's the WCR's claim, not mine. I know that it is an inaccurate statement. To my recollection, I have never made that claim myself. Westbrook never discovered the jacket but he was the first law official who handled it.

[John Mytton]

Fair enough you shouldn't answer for the Commission.

(nice use of euphemism inaccurate)

As I've documented, the best the Commission had to offer was misrepresented evidence (testimony ) although that jacket was supposed to be "rock solid piece of evidence."

Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.



JohnM