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

Author Topic: Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket  (Read 74810 times)

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2476
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #340 on: February 05, 2018, 12:32:42 AM »
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?
« Last Edit: February 05, 2018, 09:34:11 AM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2476
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #341 on: February 05, 2018, 12:49:27 AM »


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!
« Last Edit: February 05, 2018, 01:51:52 AM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1596
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #342 on: February 05, 2018, 06:51:16 AM »
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.

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2637
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #343 on: February 05, 2018, 09:42:55 AM »
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




Online Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 870
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #344 on: February 05, 2018, 09:45:39 AM »




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




JohnM

All you have to do now is prove it was Oswald's jacket.

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2637
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #345 on: February 05, 2018, 09:57:36 AM »
Who is we?




What difference does it make?



JohnM

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2476
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #346 on: February 05, 2018, 10:09:55 AM »


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


JohnM

Who is "we"?

Westbrook confirmed that he didn't find it. Somebody, possibly an unidentified officer, pointed it out to him and when he left the carpark he gave the jacket to another unidentified officer.


What difference does it make?

JohnM

Are you for real? Since when does a chain of custody not matter anymore?

So who is "we"?
« Last Edit: February 05, 2018, 10:37:18 AM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline Larry Baldwin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #347 on: February 05, 2018, 12:45:55 PM »
Whatever "Fritz reported", it's unrelated to the thoughts going through Oswald's mind when he was on the run between the Depository and 1026 N. Beckley.

What thoughts?  Did he describe them to you in a s?ance?

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1057
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #348 on: February 05, 2018, 01:12:06 PM »
What thoughts?  Did he describe them to you in a s?ance?

Perhaps you should stop playing dumb and read my post again.  I did not say what Oswald's thoughts may have been.  I did nothing more than reply to Cakebread's nonsense about what Fritz reported.

Is this really all you have to contribute?

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2476
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #349 on: February 05, 2018, 01:21:27 PM »
What thoughts?  Did he describe them to you in a s?ance?

How can anyone claim that what "Fritz reported" is unrelated to the thoughts going through Oswald's mind without knowing what Oswald's thoughts were?


 

Mobile View