Comparing the White Jacket to CE 162

[Andric Perez]

The same clothing item may look different in different lighting conditions (i.e. indoors vs. outdoors). That's why they even sell indoors film and outdoors film. Was it very sunny at the time Tippit was shot? the light dim or bright in the room where the WC Exhibit was photographed. What exposure settings were used? These are important questions, IMO.

What I do found interesting is that the jacket had laundry tag # "B 9738" and the FBI failed to investigate whether Oswald or someone else had it cleaned, according to Sylvia Meagher: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/meagher/Notes_for_a_new_investigation.html

Let's not forget that an Oswlad look-alike was seen at 2:00pm at the back of El Chico Restaurant. He may have been wearing this light grey (or white, depending on the lighting) jacket.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Andric Perez

[William Kelly]

The same clothing item may look different in different lighting conditions (i.e. indoors vs. outdoors). That's why they even sell indoors film and outdoors film. Was it very sunny at the time Tippit was shot? the light dim or bright in the room where the WC Exhibit was photographed. What exposure settings were used? These are important questions, IMO.

What I do found interesting is that the jacket had laundry tag # "B 9738" and the FBI failed to investigate whether Oswald or someone else had it cleaned, according to Sylvia Meagher: http://karws.gso.uri...estigation.html

Let's not forget that an Oswlad look-alike was seen at 2:00pm at the back of El Chico Restaurant. He may have been wearing this light grey (or white, depending on the lighting) jacket.

The tag was investigated extensively in Dallas and New Orleans, where every laundry was checked to no avail.

They didn't check the laundries in Philadelphia, where the jacket was reportedly sold.

And while the Oswald at El Chico restaurant parking lot, driving Carl Mather's Plymouth is important, the white/grey jacket had already been found under the car in the gas station parking lot, though the identity of the person who found it has never been established.

What did Marina say about this jacket?

And the one found at the TSBD under the window sill in the first floor lunchroom a week later?

[Craig Lamson]

Photographic and vision portions of my work ?

There's a lot more problems with this piece of evidence than just what a camera or human eye sees.

I'm interested in you photographic and visual claims. I could care less about the rest.

There are some serious problems with the chain of custody with this evidence. The video is only the icing on the cake.

Oh yea, back to 'everything is fake again...sheesh...I really don't care about your fantasy.

The video and your critique were not icing at all unless you like icing that tastes like dog crap.

Your work was fatally flawed.

[Gil Jesus]

Oh yea, back to 'everything is fake again...sheesh...I really don't care about your fantasy.

The video and your critique were not icing at all unless you like icing that tastes like dog crap.

Your work was fatally flawed.

AWWWW, AND I THOUGHT YOU LIKED ME.

Let me ask you one question, since you believe that this grey jacket was worn by Oswald when he gunned down J.D.Tippit:

When the FBI examined the jacket, did they find any gunpowder residue on the sleeves ?

Yes or No.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Gil Jesus

[Craig Lamson]

Oh yea, back to 'everything is fake again...sheesh...I really don't care about your fantasy.

The video and your critique were not icing at all unless you like icing that tastes like dog crap.

Your work was fatally flawed.

AWWWW, AND I THOUGHT YOU LIKED ME.

Let me ask you one question, since you believe that this grey jacket was worn by Oswald when he gunned down J.D.Tippit:

When the FBI examined the jacket, did they find any gunpowder residue on the sleeves ?

Yes or No.

I don't give a dang about the jacket one way or the other.

[Gil Jesus]

Oh yea, back to 'everything is fake again...sheesh...I really don't care about your fantasy.

The video and your critique were not icing at all unless you like icing that tastes like dog crap.

Your work was fatally flawed.

AWWWW, AND I THOUGHT YOU LIKED ME.

Let me ask you one question, since you believe that this grey jacket was worn by Oswald when he gunned down J.D.Tippit:

When the FBI examined the jacket, did they find any gunpowder residue on the sleeves ?

Yes or No.

I don't give a dang about the jacket one way or the other.

Of course you don't. That's why you go to great lengths to show why the jacket in the videos is really grey. As much as you CLAIM to be impartial, your posts prove otherwise. An impartial party WOULD be interested in the evidence or lack thereof, including the jacket. Only one whose mind has already determined that Oswald was guilty of the crime would argue in favor of the evidence and go to great technical extremes to "prove" it. An open mind would be just that...open. Yours is not and your snide posts and remarks about me personally is proof of that.

My website contains evidence questioning Oswald's guilt. The evidence I present is not "dog crap". Unlike you WC supporters, I've used official testimony and documents to support my theory of his innocence. I don't hide behind a false display of impartiality everytime evidence comes up that I can't explain.

I believe that I asked you a question about this grey jacket that you claimed only appeared to be white in the video and this forum deserves an answer.

I'm not going to let you run away from answering:

When the FBI examined the jacket, did they find any gunpowder residue on the sleeves ?

Yes or No.

[Gil Jesus]

Has anyone ever investigated the DPD to see whether or not this type of stuff - poor chains of custody etc - was common for them?

They had no problem initialling the .38 handgun.

They had no problem initialling the 6.5mm rifle.

They had no problem initialling the spent .38 shells.

They had no problem initialling the UNSPENT .38 shells.

They had no problem marking the paper and tape samples from the TSBD shipping room on 11/22.

They showed evidence to witnesses and had the witnesses initial the evidence.

Sounds like pretty solid police work to me.

But whether or not sloppy police work was the milieu of the DPD is irrelevent in determining this particular case.

The Dallas authorities had at their disposal the full cooperation of law enforcement entities in the entire state of Texas, not to mention the FBI and whatever Federal agencies whose help they required.

These guys weren't a bunch of "Barney Fifes". They knew what they were doing.

[Craig Lamson]

Of course you don't. That's why you go to great lengths to show why the jacket in the videos is really grey. As much as you CLAIM to be impartial, your posts prove otherwise. An impartial party WOULD be interested in the evidence or lack thereof, including the jacket. Only one whose mind has already determined that Oswald was guilty of the crime would argue in favor of the evidence and go to great technical extremes to "prove" it. An open mind would be just that...open. Yours is not and your snide posts and remarks about me personally is proof of that.

My website contains evidence questioning Oswald's guilt. The evidence I present is not "dog crap". Unlike you WC supporters, I've used official testimony and documents to support my theory of his innocence. I don't hide behind a false display of impartiality everytime evidence comes up that I can't explain.

I believe that I asked you a question about this grey jacket that you claimed only appeared to be white in the video and this forum deserves an answer.

I'm not going to let you run away from answering:

When the FBI examined the jacket, did they find any gunpowder residue on the sleeves ?

Yes or No.

No, I posted some simple facts to show that YOU were less than competent with your "work" entailing the video and still photos. PERIOD.

You got that? The target was YOUR work, pure and simple. I accomplished exactly what I set out to do. And the long and the short of it was your work was no BFD.

Osswald? Who cares? Not me.

The jacket? Who cares? Not me.

Gunpowder? Don't have a clue and don't care one way or the other.

Holding the feet of the photographically ignorant to the fire....priceless.

You are yet another predictable e CT. Thanks for the grins Gil.

[Ed LeDoux]

lamson does not care because he gets his ass handed to him along with the facts!

Try keeping up with us Craig.

And just cause its IN a photo does not make Craig an expert on the evidence shown in the photo.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Ed LeDoux

[Craig Lamson]

lamson does not care because he gets his ass handed to him along with the facts!

Try keeping up with us Craig.

And just cause its IN a photo does not make Craig an expert on the evidence shown in the photo.

You are absolutely correct Ed. And gee, that's my stated position and has been for years. I'll let you guys argue and speculate for another 50 years.

[Gil Jesus]

lamson does not care because he gets his ass handed to him along with the facts!

Try keeping up with us Craig.

He suggests that the jacket only APPEARS to be white in the video because of some technological reasons that exist in black and white video/photography regarding shadows and such.

But the witnesses who saw the jacket IN PERSON didn't view it in black and white.

And they described the jacket's color as white.

That includes policemen and civilians.

But there's more than just the visual that the jacket was white. The grey jacket has no chain of possession.

Not one of the officers who viewed the "white" jacket marked the grey jacket as the jacket they saw.

Not one of the civilians who viewed the "white" jacket marked the grey jacket as the jacket they saw.

Not one of the officers who handled the "white" jacket at the scene of discovery marked the grey jacket as the jacket they handled.

IOW, this grey jacket was not the jacket found in the parking lot. I believe that this jacket was recovered from the Texas Theater at the time of Oswald's arrest. Like the white jacket found in the parking lot, this grey jacket was handled by Capt. W.R. Westbrook, who went on later ( I believe in 1966 ) to leave the DPD for a job with the CIA.

I believe that Westbrook switched the jackets. I can't prove it, but that's what I believe.

[Gil Jesus]

Martin Hay asked:

Why did the officers who found the jacket not simply write their initials on the sustitute jacket thus "preserving" the chain? Why were these competent officers so incompetent at stitching Oswald up?

You're assuming that all of the officers who saw the "white" jacket were involved in the framing of Oswald. I'm not sure that's true. IMO the reason why most of the initials are not there is because most of the officers who saw the "white" jacket never saw the grey jacket. Ditto the civilian witnesses. That's why many of the witnesses to the murder of Tippit could not identify to the WC that the grey jacket was the jacket they saw.

Had the police initialled the substitute evidence, and it was discovered to be fake during a trial, they'd be looking at a job loss and possibly jail time. Don't forget, until Oswald is dead, this case, regardless of who the perpetrator is, is going to trial. By not initialling fake evidence, no one in particular can be prosecuted for tampering. It's really the smart thing to do.

The first set of initials on the grey jacket of a DPD officer is "WEB". These are the initials of W.E. "Pete" Barnes who was a sergeant in the ID Bureau whose specialty was crime scene search. He testified that he arrived at the Tippit murder scene at 1:40pm and started taking pictures of the crime scene within 5-10 minutes of arriving.

( 7 H 273 )

While at the Tippit murder scene, Barnes took pictures, received the spent .38 shells, and tried to lift fingerprints off of the passenger's side door sill of the police cruiser. When he was finished at the scene, he then headed for the Texas Theater, stopping off at the parking lot to take two photos of where the jacket was found.

( 7 H 275 )

Not a photo of the jacket in situ, mind you, just two photos of the car it was found under.

Barnes was never asked by Commission counsel if he ever saw the jacket at the scene, what color it was, if the WEB initials on the grey jacket were put there by him and if so, when did he place them there.

In fact, in spite of his initials being on the grey jacket, Barnes isn't asked one single quesion about it.

That, to me is amazing.

And he wasn't the only one. The initials of Capt. George M. Doughty ( GMD ), head of the DPD crime lab, also appear on the grey jacket.

Doughty was never called to testify before the WC.

The point I'm trying to make here is that by the time Barnes got to the scene of the parking lot to take his pictures, Capt. Westbrook ( who was at the Texas Theater ) would have had in his possession a white jacket discovered in the lot and a grey jacket recovered from the theater.

Handing the grey jacket over to Barnes or Doughty at the station to be initialled would not have been a hard thing to do.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Gil Jesus

[Gil Jesus]

Now, I'm not saying that Gill shouldn't go after what he feels is important but from an evidentiary standpoint, the jacket is meaningless. It was never proven to be Oswald's jacket. His wife said it wasn't his. It was the wrong size. And even though extensive manpower and effort was put into it the laundry tag was never traced.

Additionally, he left a perfectly good jacket behind in the TSBD.

That's the end of it for me.

Thanks, Lee, that was gonna be my next point; why switch a jacket not traceable to Oswald for a jacket not traceable to Oswald?

You're assuming the police knew that the grey jacket was untraceable. That's where I disagree. I believe that Oswald was wearing the grey jacket when he entered the theater. The police substituted the grey jacket because they THOUGHT it was traceable to Oswald.

This is just my opinion, of course.

[Gil Jesus]

Gunpowder? Don't have a clue and don't care one way or the other.

<grins> I know.

[Ed LeDoux]

He suggests that the jacket only APPEARS to be white in the video because of some technological reasons that exist in black and white video/photography regarding shadows and such.

Yes this would be ridiculous from an actual expert, but completely acceptable from a pseudo-expert

But the witnesses who saw the jacket IN PERSON didn't view it in black and white.

But Craig see's everything in black and white, he's stuck in 1964

And they described the jacket's color as white.

That includes policemen and civilians.

But there's more than just the visual that the jacket was white. The grey jacket has no chain of possession.

Not one of the officers who viewed the "white" jacket marked the grey jacket as the jacket they saw.

Not one of the civilians who viewed the "white" jacket marked the grey jacket as the jacket they saw.

Not one of the officers who handled the "white" jacket at the scene of discovery marked the grey jacket as the jacket they handled.

IOW, this grey jacket was not the jacket found in the parking lot. I believe that this jacket was recovered from the Texas Theater at the time of Oswald's arrest. Like the white jacket found in the parking lot, this grey jacket was handled by Capt. W.R. Westbrook, who went on later ( I believe in 1966 ) to leave the DPD for a job with the CIA.

Richard Gilbride has it in "Matrix For Assassination" as two years after the assassination, so '65.

I believe that Westbrook switched the jackets. I can't prove it, but that's what I believe.

You would be well within reason to suspect this happened Gil, especially if we add this to the other highly questionable if not manufactured "evidence" that was not photographed in situ