Greg Doudna

Pages 91-96

"Did Whaley claim Oswald wore two jackets at the same time—one over the other? (No)

"At this point will be addressed one of the most puzzling aspects of Whaley’s Warren Commission testimony as it is usually read, which has seemed so incoherent and incomprehensible that it has been cited as a basis for rejecting Whaley’s credibility: an idea that Whaley claimed Oswald was wearing two jackets at the same time. 

"Here is the relevant testimony. The two lines at issue are underlined below. (Note in passing that Mr. Ball, going through some exhibits of Oswald’s clothing, does not ask Whaley about CE 151, the shirt Oswald actually wore.)

Mr. BALL. I have some clothing here. Commission Exhibit No. 150, does that look like the shirt? 
Mr. WHALEY. That is the shirt, sir, it has my initials on it. 
Mr. BALL. In other words, this is the shirt the man had on? 
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; that is the same one the FBI man had me identify. 
Mr. BALL. This is the shirt the man had on who took your car at Lamar and Jackson? 
Mr. WHALEY. As near as I can recollect as I told him. I said that is the shirt he had on because it had a kind of little stripe in it, light-colored stripe. I noticed that. 
Mr. BALL. Here are two pair of pants, Commission Exhibit No. 157 and Commission Exhibit No. 156. Does it look anything like that? 
Mr. WHALEY. I don’t think I can identify the pants except they were the same color as that, sir. 
Mr. BALL. Which color? 
Mr. WHALEY. More like this lighter color, at least they were cleaner or something. 
Mr. BALL. That is 157? 
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. 
Mr. BALL. But you are not sure about that? 
Mr. WHALEY. I am not sure about the pants. I wouldn’t be sure of the shirt if it hadn’t had that light stripe in it. I just noticed that. 
Mr. BALL. Here is Commission No. 162 which is a gray jacket with zipper. 
Mr. WHALEY. I think that is the jacket he had on when he rode with me in the cab. 
Mr. BALL. Look something like it? And here is Commission Exhibit No. 163, does this look like anything he had on? 
Mr. WHALEY. He had this one on or the other one. 
Mr. BALL. That is right. 
Mr. WHALEY. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt. 
Mr. BALL. Wait a minute, we have got the shirt which you have identified as the rust brown shirt with the gold stripe in it. 
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. 
Mr. BALL. You said that a jacket— 
Mr. WHALEY. That jacket [CE 162] now it might have been clean, but the jacket he had on looked more the color, you know like a uniform set, but he had this coat here [CE 163] on over that other jacket [CE 162], I am sure, sir. 
Mr. BALL. This is the blue-gray jacket, heavy blue-gray jacket. 
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. 

"As noted above, Whaley did not make a positive identification of CE 150, the brown arrest shirt, in his FBI interview of Dec 18, according to the FBI report of that interview, even though now on March 12 Whaley thinks he did. However when shown CE 150 on March 12 again, Whaley now says 'that is the shirt'. Whaley notes what may be some sort of tag with Whaley’s initials on it attached to the shirt ('it has my initials on it'), perhaps to remind Whaley (lest he forget) of the correct shirt he has identified in some preinterview that he is now to do for the record.

"Moving forward to the jackets, when Whaley is shown CE 162 (now on March 12), Whaley says, 'I think that is the jacket he had on'. But when Mr. Ball then shows him Oswald’s blue CE 163, Whaley backs off from thinking CE 162 was the Oswald jacket Whaley remembered. Whaley first says it could be CE 163 too, one or the other: 'He had this one on or the other one'. But Whaley immediately moves from that to favoring CE 163 over CE 162. 

"With both CE 162 and CE 163 in front of him for comparison, Whaley notices that the off-white of CE 162 is a lot lighter than he remembers the gray jacket of Oswald. Whaley acknowledges CE 162 (the Tippit killer’s off-white light tan jacket) 'might have been clean[ed]', as a possible explanation for why it looked noticeably lighter than Oswald’s gray jacket.

"Although the transcript reads as if Whaley is nonsensically claiming Oswald wore both jackets at the same time, that reading of Whaley can hardly be correct, because it is so nonsensical and it is not what Whaley has otherwise been saying. It is more likely there is some glitch in how Whaley’s words have been reported than that Whaley actually meant something that nonsensical. 

"A better reading of the two lines at issue in Whaley’s testimony is that he is changing from being initially favorable to a CE 162 identification to shifting over to favoring CE 163, as a closer match to the color and shade of the gray jacket and pants Whaley remembered Oswald had. 

"Whaley is not saying Oswald wore both jackets; he is addressing the issue of which one (between the two choices he sees, neither of which is actually correct).

"Whaley is not solving the issue by saying 'both'; he is choosing. He is favoring CE 163 over CE 162 as more likely to have been the jacket of Oswald Whaley saw. Notice the difference the placing of a comma makes in transcription:

'… he had this coat here [CE 163] on over that other jacket [CE 162], I am sure, sir'

---> '… .he had this coat here on [CE 163], over [more likely than] that other jacket [CE 162], I am sure, sir'

"'He had this coat here on (CE 163)' becomes the actual sense Whaley meant. The 'over' is idiom for 'more likely', as in favoring one thing over another. Whaley was saying it was CE 163, it wasn’t 162, and he meant only one jacket. 

"Similarly, consider a pronoun missed by the transcriber of Whaley in rapid speech:

'I told you about the shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt'

---> (*)   'I told you about the shirt being open, he had on {one of} the two jackets with the open shirt'

---> (*)   'I told you about the shirt being open, he had on{e of} the two jackets with the open shirt”

"Whaley says to Mr. Ball, 'I told you' before, alluding to some preinterview, in which Warren Commission counsels would first privately find out what witnesses were going to say, before deciding what questions to ask those witnesses on the record. 

"Whaley did not tell Mr. Ball or anyone in preinterview about Oswald wearing two jackets. There is no record of that, no record of Whaley being questioned about that previously, no reference to him saying that before. Therefore when Whaley alludes to some off-the-record preinterview with Mr. Ball he is alluding to something he has been saying all along and commonplace, not unusual. Whaley understood at all times only one jacket was worn by Oswald which is what Whaley always said before and after his Warren Commission testimony.

"Whaley is not consistent in every detail through his months of recurring testimonies. But apart from going from gray to light blue and back to gray again on the color of the jacket and pants, for the most part Whaley is consistent, more so than he has often been credited. 

"Whaley never previously spoke of Oswald wearing two jackets at once and he was not doing so now. That makes no sense. The only reason Whaley was discussing two jackets is he has been shown two candidates and the issue was which one. (The true answer being 'neither'.) Here is Whaley’s testimony with interpretive comments in parentheses:

Mr. WHALEY. That jacket (the Tippit killer’s nearly white CE 162) now it might have been clean[ed] (it looks so light in tone, was that because it has been cleaned?), but the jacket he had on (the gray jacket) looked more the color, you know like a uniform set (matching to the gray pants in color), but he had this coat here on (he had on CE 163) over (more likely wearing it than) that other jacket (CE 162), I am sure, sir (I am sure CE 163 is more likely than CE 162 to have been what Oswald was wearing, sir). 

"Comparison between Whaley and Linnie Mae Randle concerning choices for identification of Oswald’s gray jacket

"To recapitulate for emphasis: Whaley’s Warren Commission testimony has been read as if Whaley was saying something completely nonsensical—that Oswald wore the blue coat CE 163 over CE 162—wore both jackets at once. 

"But that attributed to Whaley is so nonsensical and out of keeping with everything else Whaley said that it is unlikely Whaley said it. It is more likely that there were minor errors in transcription than that Whaley claimed Oswald wore two jackets at the same time. It makes no sense that Whaley would say that. Whaley never said that anywhere else. All Whaley ever told from start to finish was Oswald wearing one jacket of the same color as his gray pants, and one shirt.

"When Whaley’s words are examined closely, he is contrasting CE 163 against CE 162, saying it was more likely that Oswald’s jacket in the cab had been CE 163 than CE 162.

"It is reminiscent of the choice Mr. Ball put to Linnie Mae Randle concerning the gray jacket Linnie Mae said she had seen Oswald wearing that morning. Mr. Ball forced Linnie Mae to choose whether CE 162 (off-white light tan) or CE 163 (blue) was closer to the gray jacket she had seen on Oswald. 

"Linnie Mae’s answer was parallel to Whaley’s in making the same choice between the same two alternatives. Each chose CE 163 over CE 162 as the less dissimilar of the two to the gray jacket of Oswald. 

"Linnie Mae said CE 162 was not the gray jacket she saw on Oswald because, she said, Oswald’s jacket was gray (meaning Linnie Mae did not regard the near-white CE 162 as gray). Between the two choices (both incorrect) Linnie Mae answered that CE 163 looked closer to the gray jacket of Oswald than did CE 162. It was the same with Whaley. Just as Linnie Mae Randle, Whaley realized CE 162 was too light to have been Oswald’s gray jacket which was a medium gray. 

"Whaley’s explanation of why he favored CE 163 over CE 162 (even though CE 163 also was not accurate) has been represented as if Whaley claimed Oswald wore both at the same time. Not so! That claim of Whaley never happened! That idea of Whaley’s testimony should be put to rest."

Pages 85-88 

"Oswald taking a cab to Oak Cliff: William Whaley

"After the bus was stuck in traffic Oswald got off the bus and walked to the Greyhound bus station where he found and took a cab to his rooming house in Oak Cliff. The cab was driven by William Whaley, who had been driving a cab 36 years by 1963. 

"In the time between his exit from the bus and getting into the cab, Oswald made another change in his physical appearance. He found some momentary spot of privacy—whether behind a building with no one watching, stepping into an alley, behind some trees or bushes—and took off his gray jacket and set it to one side momentarily. He then unhitched his belt in front, pulled out the maroon shirt he had stuffed in the front of his pants, and put on the crumpled maroon shirt over his white T-shirt, buttoning it up partway but not all the way, in keeping with how he and other working men of that time commonly wore shirts partly open. He tucked his shirt into his pants, hitched up his belt again, put his gray jacket back on over his shirt and pants, and either zipped up the gray jacket partway or not at all. This would have been done quickly, within perhaps ca. 20 seconds or so. Then Oswald continued on his way to get the cab.

"The reason for this change of clothing is the same reason for the other changes of clothing before and after and his other evasive maneuvers. He was seeking to evade possible pursuit and being tracked. It is the behavior of someone in fear for his life. 

"Here are the earliest interviews of Oswald’s cab driver, William Whaley, Saturday Nov 23: 

Dallas Police: 'This boy walked up to the cab, he was walking South on Lamar from Commerce, he asked if he could get a cab, I told him, yes, and I opened the back door. He shut the back door and said he wanted to sit in the front. The boy said he wanted to go to the 500 block of North Beckley … This boy was small, five feet eight inches, slender had on a dark shirt with white spots of something on it. He had a bracelet on his left wrist. He looked like he was 25 or 26 years old.' (Dallas Police, affidavit of William Whaley, Nov 23, 1963, https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340509/m1/1/)

FBI: '[Whaley] recalled that the young man he drove in his cab that day [the day before] was wearing a heavy identification bracelet on his left wrist, he appeared to need a haircut and was dressed in gray khaki pants which looked as if they had been slept in. He had on a dark colored shirt with some light color in it. The shirt had long sleeves and the top two or three buttons were unbuttoned. The color of the shirt nearly matched the pants, but was somewhat darker. The man wore no hat. He appeared to be about 25 years of age, 5’7” to 8” tall, about 135 pounds, with brown hair thick on top. He had a long thin face and a high forehead. He did not appear to have a noticeable accent but rather talked as people in this area normally do … Mr. Whaley was present at a lineup at the Dallas Police Department Lineup Room, where Lee Harvey Oswald appeared … Mr. Whaley without hesitation stated that Oswald is definitely the man whom he drove in his cab on November 22, 1963, as related above.' (FBI, Nov 23, 1963, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57698#relPageId=174)

"A first point is that Whaley’s identification of Oswald as his passenger sitting next to him in the cab, within hours of the event, was correct and it can be excluded that it was a mistaken identification. The identification bracelet detail matches what Oswald was wearing. The start and end locations of the cab ride and the time of day match Oswald’s movements, since he did get from the Book Depository at Dealey Plaza to his rooming house in Oak Cliff some way and how else, and Oswald told his interrogators that he had taken a bus and then a cab. 

"The physical description agrees with Oswald. The detail that the man needed a haircut matches. (Oswald coworker Roy Lewis: 'He never wanted to get a haircut. We would tease him about it because hair would be growing down his neck. We told him a week or two before the assassination that we were going to throw him down and cut it ourselves, but he just smiled', Sneed, No More Silence [1998], 86.) The gray pants is the color of pants Oswald was wearing. 

"The 'shirt' description attributed to Whaley in the FBI interview is hardly different from the 'shirt' Mary Bledsoe saw, in both cases actually Oswald’s gray jacket. The FBI reports Whaley saying, 'the color of the shirt nearly matched the pants' which were gray. Although there is reference to only one upper-body item of clothing in this report of Whaley—a 'shirt'—Whaley’s later accounts clearly distinguish a shirt (remembered by Whaley as of dark color with a light-colored or silvery lining) and a gray jacket.

"The gray jacket again

"It was Oswald’s gray jacket (not the CE 151 maroon shirt) which 'nearly matched' Oswald’s gray pants in color. That this is so can be seen by comparison with Whaley’s Warren Commission testimony of March 12, 1964:

Mr. BALL. Did you notice how he was dressed? 
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. I didn’t pay much attention to it right then. But it all came back when I really found out who I had. He was dressed in just ordinary work clothes. It wasn’t khaki pants but they were khaki material, blue faded blue color, like a blue uniform made in khaki. Then he had on a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it and he had on some kind of jacket, I didn’t notice very close but I think it was a work jacket that almost matched the pants. He, his shirt was open three buttons down here. He had on a T-shirt. You know, the shirt was open three buttons down there. 

There is some confusion which requires disentangling here. First, Whaley has changed his original and correct 'gray' of the jacket and pants to 'faded blue' color. However in an interview filmed after his Warren Commission testimony (because Whaley refers back to his Warren Commission testimony in that interview), Whaley recounting the same as above tells it with gray color again. Whaley is filmed driving his cab and telling of the day he drove Oswald. Whaley:

'Well, he just looked like an ordinary working man. He was small, had on gray work clothes, a brown shirt and a silver stripe and a work jacket.' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UORpPiG9QmI, at 0:14)

Since gray is the known true color of Oswald’s pants, and gray was Whaley’s original color for Oswald’s jacket and is again repeated here, and since the jacket was always said by Whaley to match the color of the pants, gray is therefore the true color of the jacket of Oswald that Whaley saw.

It was Oswald’s gray jacket which 'nearly matched the pants' or 'almost matched the pants' which in Whaley’s original statement and from other testimony were gray pants (not faded blue). Gray pants and a gray jacket, except the jacket was a little darker gray than the pants, is what Whaley saw. Compare the parallels:

FBI, Nov 23, 1963: Oswald 'was dressed in gray khaki pants ... he had on a dark colored shirt... the color of the shirt nearly matched the pants'.

Warren Commission testimony, March 12, 1964: 'he had on some kind of jacket ... a work jacket that almost matched his pants'.

It is clear it is Oswald’s gray jacket which was the match to the gray pants. The FBI report of Nov 23 of the 'shirt' being the match to the pants, in light of everything else Whaley said and the Warren Commission testimony parallel above, suggests the FBI reporting agent of Nov 23 misunderstood or accidentally misreported what Whaley told on Nov 23. 

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

Putting that aside, do you seriously believe that Lee would own just two jackets/coats and neither of them would be a lightweight jacket?  I mean, you're trying to tell me that Lee owned just two and both were of the more medium-duty to heavy-duty type?  Come on, Greg.  Oswald owned a lightweight jacket.

I think Oswald's gray jacket, the jacket in the Minsk photo, is a lightweight jacket, within reasonable range of usual and customary meaning of native English-speakers' use of "light" (in weight) jacket as opposed to a "heavy" jacket or coat. If you are denying the jacket in that photo is reasonably called a "light jacket" by actual speakers, as distinguished from only yourself, we just disagree. I am open to second or third opinions on this however if someone else wishes to chime in. I cannot post the Minsk photo for technical reasons but it can easily be found on Google Images (just search "Oswald Minsk", will bring it right up).

Continuing with response to points in the Steve Roe May 30. He had told me in advance he saw errors in my paper and in his May 30 he has a section entitled "major cracks in Greg's story" which I will go through.

Roe: the car witness Kirk Coleman saw was not Robert Surrey's car

This is the most fundamental point. The argument stands or falls on the correctness of that car identification. Since I gave an extensive argument for that identification in my paper I won't repeat it here other than I am certain it is correct, due to the extraordinary coincidence of the two-tone black-over-white color match; the fact that the car was where Surrey's black-over-white car had been parked only several days previously by Surrey's admission, and corresponding to a church youth who said he recognized the same black-over-white car (of the night of the Walker shot) parked there on at least one earlier occasion--it was Surrey's car.

Roe gave some reasons, mainly argument that Kirk Coleman's description differed in details from Surrey's car. I have mentioned the dome light objection. Witness Kirk Coleman at night sees a man getting into what looks like a two-door sedan with the interior lit up and leaning in and putting something on the rear floor. Anyone seeing an interior of a car lit up assumes the dome light is on; I would. It happens that Surrey's car was a convertible not a sedan. It was two-door. Being a convertible it did not have a dome light in the roof. Instead 1961 Ford Galaxie Sunliners (Surrey's car) had its interior light under the dashboard. Same effect of lighting up the interior when needed. Kirk Coleman saw the interior light on, was not close enough to verify where the light bulb was. That objection is a non-issue. (Actually credit where credit is due, it was Roe himself who privately informed me after checking that the 1961 Ford Sunliner had a light, just under the dashboard, which I then independently verified.)

More importantly Roe objects that Coleman thought the black-over-white he saw was a 1958 Chevrolet. Roe presents old vintage color advertising of the two kinds of cars and objects that Coleman could not have misidentified, thought one was the other. I do not agree. This was a witness at night. The two-door detail is the same. The "sedan" Coleman thought matches the profile of the Ford Sunliner convertible with the top up that night (profile of a sedan). The black-over-white. The witness simply got Surrey's true make of car wrong, but he saw Surrey's black-over-white Sunliner with the top up. I noted the common detail of the long single stripe running most of the length on the side of each of those cars (can be seen on both in Roe's vintage color old ads for the two cars). It is not as if that stripe is something all or most cars had. But those two particular makes did, and look similar. If I were to guess, I would guess that was the mechanism of the error in which Coleman (who I think was not first reported to have given his car make identification until Sat April 11, a day later). I don't accept Roe's objection that 15-year-old Kirk Coleman looking at night over his fence could not misidentify a black-over-white two-door Ford Sunliner with the top up as a black-over-white 1958 Chevrolet two-door sedan. Roe is holding a truthful witness to a too high standard of precision of accuracy in remembered detail, preferring to see the black-over-white (and two-door and sedan profile and the common distinctive side stripe of the two models) as coincidence rather than that Kirk Coleman simply got the specific make wrong.

Roe: Mary Surrey said her husband (Robert Surrey) was at their home when General Walker called: "was Mary Surrey in on this fake shooting plan?"   

Robert and Mary Surrey lived two miles away from Walker's house as I recall, which would be maybe 4-5 minutes away. As reconstructed, both Robert Surrey and son David went home after the shot and were at home when Walker called, as reported, and they all then returned to the Walker house (large blended family with at least two cars). Walker delayed a small number of minutes by his own account before calling the police. So there is not a conflict in the timeline and presence at the Surrey home on that (cf. p. 27 my paper). On the question of Mary Surrey's knowledge of a faked shot, I don't know. Gayle Nix Jackson's book has some discussion of Mary Surrey being so loyal to Walker that she wrote fake letters on his behalf alleging to be from other women's signed names.

Roe: Walker's wounds in his arm proves he was in the room when the shot was fired: "does anyone in their right mind think Surrey and Walker faked this wound?"

Well, yes I think law enforcement in their right mind investigating the incident would consider it a non-excluded possibility until it is excluded. No witnesses, nature of injury not serious and indeed hardly even painful, publicity-seeking public figure ... not an unusual law enforcement question to consider whether it was faked. Its as natural a question as when police get a call from a husband reporting a dead, murdered wife whose body he just came upon, to consider the husband a suspect until cleared. Its not that faked cases never happen--lots of cases in the news of faked attacks and injuries, for a variety of reasons.  

And Roe erred in claiming I ignored this ("For some reason Greg ignored the obvious, Walker's visible wounds on his arm"). Because of the length of the paper I can understand Roe missed it, but I addressed it. Page 63:

"Man No. 1, with the engine light running and headlights on, leaves the car and walks to a standing position in the parking lot where he can see straight out through the alley exit into the alley itself, with line of sight to the shooter in the darkness there, Oswald. The shooter, Oswald, now in position, can see No. 1 standing out in the lighted parking lot, and Surrey and/or Walker in the Walker house from the second floor also can see No. 1 in the lighted parking lot. Surrey will have assisted Walker upstairs in the preparation of Walker's 'injuries' (scratches on the back of a forearm from pressing lightly over some small jagged metal pieces entering skin in three or four places). (The plaster in the hair could be an added touch by Walker taken from the bullet hole in the wall after he phoned and was awaiting police arrival in the room of the shot.)

"With General Walker readied upstairs with his 'injuries' made, Surrey goes to David and ensures David and he will be on the opposite side of the house on the ground floor from where the shot will come in. Either Surrey or Walker from a window signals to man No. 1, 'ready to go'. Man No. 1 with line of sight to Oswald in the alley gives a 'go-ahead' signal to Oswald. Oswald fires into the empty room, then runs with the rifle down or across the alley and disappears. Man No. 1 turns back to his running car. Kirk Coleman sees No. 1 walking back toward his car with the engine running and headlights on ..."

Roe: the man walking to Kirk Coleman's car No. 2 (the black-over-white) could not be Robert Surrey because of a difference in physical description

Robert Surrey was 5'10", 150-160 pounds, according to an FBI description (obtained from some unknown informant describing Surrey). Witness Kirk Coleman estimated the man going to the black-over-white No. 2 car was 6'1" and 200 pounds. 

I reason that was Robert Surrey Coleman saw because he went to and drove off in Robert Surrey's car. Roe reasons that a witness could not have made a mistake of height and weight of that extent and that argues it was not Surrey or Surrey's car. 

I don't think this objection is substantial, in light of witness variability in description, the only seconds of visibility of the man, at night, and consider what Coleman saw mostly--the backside of someone leaning into a car (after noticing him first walking without paying close attention since his attention was on man No. 1).

Roe: "if this was a staged shot, then why did Oswald fire from the alley where the chipped piece was noticed on the lattice fence? That position risked exposure, and why not take the fake shot inside the Walker backyard where he would be more concealed inside the fence?"

This is a question that could equally be asked of a non-faked shot, either way. I assume the answer (either way) would be the idea was to take the shot in an alley with no one around or watching, and then immediately be gone and disappeared (since the shot would bring people of neighboring houses to windows to look), which could not be done so easily inside Walker's back yard--more risk of being seen leaving. 

Per reconstruction, Kirk Coleman's man No. 1--the one Coleman saw returning walking to a running car with the headlights on in the parking lot--from the position where he would have started his walk, had line of sight to the alley and, unless he was an unusual kind of curious onlooker (hears a shot and gets out of a running car, leaving it running, to go walk to take a better look) ... then that would be a spotter/collaborator in visual signal contact with both the Walker house and Oswald in the alley. 

Roe: "why did [Oswald] hit the window frame if it was a fake shot? This doesn't make sense."

That's an easy one. From all accounts, Oswald just wasn't a very good shot.

(In an underreported, little noticed detail in the Laura Kittrell story, Kittrell claimed Oswald took aptitude tests under her at the Texas Employment Commission in early Oct 1963 and discussed with Oswald a low score on physical coordination. That could suggest maybe some physiological reason Oswald could not be better than mediocre in matters involving physical coordination, such as shooting a firearm. According to Kittrell, Oswald admitted that and admitted he had been a bad shot in the Marines when tested. Of course Kittrell's witness account has credibility issues and is given short thrift because of that, but the response to Kittrell was to write her off rather than check out the specific claims such as the claim of a TEC Oct 1963 aptitude test of Oswald.)

But this is in any case a question that applies whether or not the shot was fake.

Roe: a timing objection:. Man no. 2 could not be Robert Surrey coming out of the Walker house because not enough time until Kirk Coleman was looking

Of all the points raised by Roe this is the one I consider the most serious, calling for explanation (which I believe can be obtained). 

The point goes like this: Kirk Coleman's back fence was only 14 feet from the back door, and Kirk was timed as taking only 2 seconds to get from the back door to the top of looking out over that fence, which he said he did as soon as he heard the shot. No way there is enough time for someone from inside the Walker house could be man No. 2 walking seen by Coleman walking in the parking lot toward the No. 2 car. 

I actually had done quite a bit of work on that question in notes which did not go into my Walker shot paper, but which can in a followup edition or paper. I mentally tried to estimate timing in seconds for each movement of each of the persons as accurately as I could, not as good as a real reenactment but the best that can be done at this distance.

The conclusion was that Coleman, inside the house, must have taken ca. 10-20 seconds longer to get to looking over the fence than has been supposed and that Coleman remembered. Coleman was with someone, and a shot might have a few moments of "what's that?" and listening if there was going to be a second shot, etc. Then considering what to do, then running out back and to the fence, which involved stepping up on a bicycle to look over and focus. The last movement from the rear door to the looking-over can be accepted as ca. 2-3 seconds, so there must be small number of additional seconds of Coleman inside the house before he began his rapid movement to the fence. Time distortion in memory can happen in moments of shock and crisis. 

Man No. 2--whether he was or was not Robert Surrey--from where he was and direction of walking when Coleman saw him, came out of the alley which ran behind Walker's adjoining house. Man No. 2 came from where the shot had just been fired! Now if it were not for the issue of David Surrey also being present (i.e. if perchance his story were to be tossed and it was only Robert Surrey getting into Robert Surrey's car), then one would not need to have Robert Surrey inside the house at the moment of the shot, but for all we know could be out in the alley somewhere with Oswald at the time of the shot, then within 2-4 seconds is walking in the parking lot to his car, as seen by Kirk Coleman with no significant time distortion. But if Robert Surrey is inside the house when the shot happens, then Kirk Coleman must have delayed a certain number of seconds getting out the back door to go run and look. 

Bottom line: the reasons for car No. 2 and the man walking to it being Robert Surrey are so strong and compelling that an overly rigid insistence on numbers of seconds for witness Kirk Coleman's movements is not a sufficient counterargument to the identification. Any resolution of an apparent discrepancy in timing is to be sought in modifying the reconstruction and timing of Kirk Coleman's movements by some numbers of seconds, in keeping with range of witness error in time-memory.

Concluding comment

I appreciate Steve Roe's taking the time to read and respond to my paper, and the many interesting and fascinating details and lore of history he digs up along the way. I appreciate Gayle Nix Jackson's pioneering work in Pieces of the Puzzle (in which Roe played a contributing role too).

Roe: William Surrey (younger brother) said David Surrey (older brother) "made up the story" of the night of the Walker shot, con'd

As above, the argument is based on the identification of the car that Kirk Coleman saw, not David's story, and Morley explained what William said he thought his brother had made up: that he had he gone shooting with his father and Oswald, and had visited Lee and Marina's place on Neely. Not the night of the Walker shot.

Even there--on David's claim to have gone shooting with his father and Oswald--there is no claim that David knew certainly it was not true, beyond skepticism from a brother who seems to come across as being sensible and having good judgment.

The question then is not did William say David made up the story of being at the Walker house with his father the night of the shot--he did not, from Morley's account--but rather a different question: does a weakening of David's credibility elsewhere (from William's skepticism) spill over to weakening credibility of David's claim that he and his father were at the Walker house the night of the Walker shot?

Well the car shows the father (Robert Surrey) was there. Kirk Coleman, the witness, saw that. Nothing of David's story involved in that. And Kirk Coleman saw what sounds like, from the description, Robert Surrey maybe clearing stuff off a front passenger seat in order to pick up a passenger, which would agree with David's story that he was that passenger picked up moments later.

The question is whether William says anything specific that falsifies or runs counter to that, and the answer is no, nothing known on any record, including what Gayle Nix Jackson reported from earlier contacts and communications from William. But here is William himself, telling details of what he remembers of the night of the Walker shot, May 18, 2013. The video can be seen at Roe's article https://steveroeconsulting.wixsite.com/website/post/new-theory-on-the-general-walker-shooting-breakthrough. Nothing William says counters that either his father or his older brother David were at the Walker house at the time of the shot. (My transcription)

"I just saw what David has talked about [evidently David's video], and it was pretty interesting the way he looked at some of the things, and what I did. The basic thing is that David spent a lot more time with my father, and off with my Dad [than William] ... But the different events that we remember, particularly the one of the night that Edwin Walker was shot at, I can remember specifically being there that night. We were stuffing envelopes, literature and stuff to pass out ...<some confusion and discussion off-camera regarding which election campaign>... We were stuffing envelopes. As kids, what we did--our parents used us to do stuff, and we just did it. And we had fun doing it, it was a good thing, we'd run through, we'd have races who could pack the envelopes the quickest. But then we got done at the end, and I think we ran out of a particular piece, and they wanted to wait until they could print some more, whatever it was, but they said we were done for the night.

"So all I did is, I remember just piling into the car, and different people would get into different cars, and then we headed home. And I could not say who was in the car with me or not. But we just got home, and we weren't home very long, when we got a call to get back to General Walker's house right away. At which point we did. And when we got back there we found out that somebody had shot at him. (Question off-camera: had the police arrived yet?) I don't remember the police there that--I don't remember when the police got there.

"But when we came in the house--because there's a front entrance and a rear entrance. There's a lot more activity going on behind the house than in front of the house. We pulled up in front of the house. And when we went into his house there's kind of like a living area (gesturing) off to the side, kind of like a parlor. And so then we were kind of sitting in there trying to find out what was going on. And we heard that he'd been shot at. They kind of kept us there in the front part, we didn't go in to the other areas, but after--and as a kid you lose track of time, it seemed like a long time, it was probably maybe not more than half an hour, they took us back there and showed us the hole, where the bullet went through. And I just recall them saying something "if it hadn't hit this, he'd probably be dead", and I think they were referring to something in the wall, on the wall, or whatever. (off-camera: window frame) Window frame, OK, this is--I remember them saying, Boy, it hit something and it just set it off just enough to miss him. And to me that didn't mean a lot, I just thought, OK, you know, because I was a kid, probably ten, eleven years old, I don't know, at the time ... And so all that activity was going on and they took us to the back of the house.

"And as I heard David's story I thought, well I wasn't there when the shot went off or anything like that, so as he's telling the story, I didn't recall--David--I don't remember him specifically being with us when we went home. And a lot of times he and my Dad would go places together. So it was nothing out of the ordinary not to have David with us. So any way we went back home and we heard later that he got shot at, that he'd been shot, and that--I knew later, probably years later, when David and I were talking, and my wife, and we're all talking about stuff like this, he told me about the <?> behind the house, which is I think where all the activity and stuff was going on. When we were in front, in the parlor, and maybe they were trying to protect us from some of the stuff, probably just keeping us from all the activity that was going on in the back. And so we got home from that, and that's pretty much all I remember of that particular event."

47 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The Walker Bullet Was Found—Resting between Bundles of Literature?

Among the many oddities of the true Walker Bullet is where it was found.

If DPD patrolman Norvell is correctly quoted, he found the steel-jacketed slug resting atop one bundle of paper in a stack of bundles, after another bundle had been removed from atop of it.

That is, the Walker Bullet missed Walker, then passed through an interior wall behind Walker. The Walker Bullet then purportedly came to rest in-between bundles of paper.^[16]

Commission Exhibit 1009: The Walker Bullet was found “in between” bundles of paper such as this?

Per an FBI report dated June 4, 1964 (italics added):

"In his adjoining [Walker's] room, the [Dallas Police Department] officers [Tucker and Norvell] found numerous bundles and literature and papers stacked against this common wall. Upon removing some, they found a mushroom-shaped bullet lying on one of the stacks of literature near the hole in the wall.”

---30--

There has always been speculation that General Walker, a national public figure, had staged the Walker shooting as a publicity stunt, with or without LHO’s participation.

If the true Walker Bullet was found resting in-between bundles of paper, lying on one of the stacks, then one might have suspicions the bullet had been planted there.

The hole in the wall and the nick in the window sill look like a real shot was fired, and if a real shot was fired I don't see any point to planting a bullet. I don't see a problem with the report that it was found where it was.

Steve Roe, with whom I have been in friendly contact for a while, is one of the most knowledgeable researchers on the Walker shooting and right-wing extremist groups in Dallas at the time of the JFK assassination. He wrote a major chapter in Gayle Nix Jackson's excellent book, Pieces of the Puzzle: An Anthology. 

On March 11, 2023 I posted a paper on my website titled "Did Lee Harvey Oswald shoot at General Walker on April 10, 1963?" (79 pages; https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1497). I made a case that the shot at General Walker was staged, that Walker was never in real danger, was not in the room when the shot was fired, faked his light injuries on a forearm, and that Oswald was working with Walker aide Robert Surrey in the staging of that shot.

The article attracted a little interest. Larry Hancock was very supportive and invited me to share time with him discussing it on an episode of The Ochelli Effect podcast on March 16; https://ochelli.com/banks-plus-walker-shooting-revisited/. I invited and Larry accepted the idea of a possible collaboration on a fuller development of the study in the future. Jefferson Morley ran a story on it (https://jfkfacts.substack.com/p/did-lee-harvey-oswald-shoot-general). 

Recently, on May 30, 2023, Steve has posted a critical review ("New Theory on the General Walker shooting--Breakthrough?" (https://steveroeconsulting.wixsite.com/website/post/new-theory-on-the-general-walker-shooting-breakthrough). Always a straight shooter, Steve told me it was coming and said I wasn't going to like it because he disagreed rather strongly with the idea that the Walker shot was staged. 

So I waited for the shoe to drop, and on May 30 it dropped. 

He's actually rather nice to me in the opening before going to substantive criticisms. He ends with a conclusion that I was taken in by a bogus story of David Surrey (oldest son of Robert Surrey, now deceased), says I was "duped" by that story, and expresses confidence I "will be extra cautious next time".

Well.

After reading and considering the points, I stand by my paper and will address the key points raised. The main point above all else is that the argument is not derivative from nor does it rest upon the story of David Surrey. That is a misunderstanding central to Steve Roe's criticism from its start to finish. The argument would stand if there were no story of David Surrey. The argument rests on the identification of one of the cars Kirk Coleman saw leaving after the shot, as the car of Robert Surrey. That--not the story of David Surrey--is the linchpin.

Following are responses to what I identify as the main points of Roe's critique.

Roe: the video of David Surrey is of dubious credibility "and it served as the foundation to [Doudna's] thesis in regard to the General Walker shooting"

Not so on the foundation of the thesis claim. The identification of the black-over-white Robert Surrey car as the black-over-white car seen by Kirk Coleman is the foundation. That car identification was not previously made before my study and is the foundation and the breakthrough.

Actually the identification of Robert Surrey's car as a black-over-white (1961 Ford Galaxy Sunliner convertible) is one detail that does come first to history from David (in his video), and that detail is essential. But Steve Roe has agreed to me (private communication) on the description of Robert Surrey's car as true, as fact; it is the rest of David's story that Roe rejects. But David's story is not the foundation, the car identification is the foundation.

The reason: the Robert Surrey car identification establishes Robert Surrey was at the Walker house at the time of the shot, as a fact of the case. And since Surrey's presence at Walker's house when the shot happened was concealed and not disclosed to the police, it supports the shot was staged.

The foundation is what Kirk Coleman saw and the identification of the car as Robert Surrey's--a black-over-white parked in the same location where Robert Surrey said he had parked his black-over-white several days earlier (in the church parking lot next to the Walker house). The identification of Robert Surrey's car means the man Coleman saw walking to that car was Robert Surrey.

What Kirk Coleman saw supports David Surrey's story that his father and he were at the Walker house at the time of the shot

Kirk Coleman saw the man at that black-and-white car (Robert Surrey) with a "dome light" on (will get to that detail in a moment), leaning in and with an arm over a seat and setting something on the floor in the rear. I interpret that as Robert Surrey clearing the passenger seat for a passenger about to sit in the front seat. That agrees with the story of David Surrey who said he was that passenger in that car at exactly the moments Kirk Coleman saw, and that his father (Robert Surrey) picked him up in the alley behind the Walker house which would have been moments after Robert cleared the seat for his son to sit. There is no sign that David Surrey in telling of his father and him at the Walker house at the time of the shot had any idea of Kirk Coleman's testimony which independently corroborated Robert Surrey at Walker's house exactly when David said he was there, at the time of the shot. 

Roe: David's younger brother Bill Surrey told Morley that David "made up the story .. and there you have it" "The foundation of this story falls apart"

Not so (referring to the night of the Walker shot). The reference is to a podcast of Morley and Larry Schnapf of April 4, starting at about 18:00: https://jfkfacts.substack.com/p/jfk-facts-podcast-revisiting-the?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=auto_share&r=l459#details). 

David Surrey actually told three stories related to the Walker shot: (1) with his father at the Walker house when the shot was fired (and drove off with his father); (2) going practice shooting with his father and Oswald; and (3) visiting "Martina" [Marina] at the house on Neely where David remembers "Martina" had a boy about 10 from a previous marriage and a dog (none of which matches to Lee and Marina). 

Morley did indeed report that he had called William, David's younger brother, and that William told him unfortunately he thought his older brother David had "made the story up". However the question is what, exactly, was William telling Morley David had made up? Which of the three stories just named? Or all three? I will give the transcript below so anyone can read and judge for themselves, but I believe the reference was to stories #2 and #3 above, not #1 (and I agree with Roe on William being credible and sound).

Here is my transcription of the full Morley segment. Schnapf expresses skepticism about the story of David visiting Lee and Marina with the boy and the dog, story #3 above, Morley answers with the William comment referencing #2 and #3 but not #1.

Schnapf. I think that Greg has done a good piece of research with Surrey. I think he's done a good piece of research with thinking that this thing was staged. I don't believe--I find less credence in the testimonies of the children, because they say that they went to Oswald's house--

Morley. No, they don't say that. David--one of them--said that.

Schnapf. One of then said that they went to the house and that there was a dog there, and that there was a young boy close to their age. So I'm not sure if they're misremembering or conflating this with something else, or if one of them is trying to be a part of history. However--

Morley. Just to note one thing. I called William Surrey. He's still alive, and I spoke with him this week. And I asked him about these interviews, you know, did he have anything to add. And he said that--I asked him--do you think that your brother made up this thing? And he said, unfortunately yes. So his own brother doubted that his father, that what, what--what, what David Surrey said was that he had gone on these shooting expeditions with his father and somebody named Lee, who he identified as Lee Oswald who he later visited and his brother thought that had not happened. Although his brother does remember very similar shooting expeditions with his father. But David was the older one, Bill was the younger one, and so he said, you know, his father actually, usually took the older boy along, not the younger one. 

Schnapf. David was dying, I guess, when he gave his interview. But I do think that their testimony about what happened at the Walker house is actually compelling, because the younger one, William, testified that--both of them say the same thing. They were at the house, filling folders for the campaign--there's some question about what campaign it was--but then--

Morley. Well Edwin Walker was very politically ambitious. He'd run for govenor of Texas in '62, and he was thinking about running for President in '64. 

Schnapf. Yeah, yes. Um, so William, the younger one, at some point, he went back to his house with his mother to get more supplies, and David stayed there. And David said he was there when the shooting occurred. So the brothers, although they have difference experiences with that event, then they come back to the house and they're told what happened. So you have different experiences but they're saying the same thing. So that kind of < ? > that they were there. And the suggestion--and I think Greg might be--has a good point here--that maybe Walker was actually on the second floor knowing that a shot was going to be fired. Because it would have passed real close to his head.

(Morley laughter)

Schnapf. And I don't think anyone if they're going to fake a shooting, I mean, you know, it would have been a very-- it would have been close, I think a too close for comfort for someone to set there and hope that the person misses you. So that's interesting.

Therefore I think Roe overreached in the claim that William discredited David's story of the night of the Walker shot.

Roe: "What easily discounts this as Surrey's car" is Kirk Coleman said he saw a dome light on in the black-over-white; but 1961 Ford Sunliners (convertible top) did not have dome lights.

1961 Ford Sunliners had an under-the-dashboard light, as below. This would have been what Kirk Coleman saw, the interior lit up, and just called it a "dome light".   

Nov 16, 2023 edit:  I have removed from the first sentence a statement that Steve Roe grew up in Dallas which was incorrect. Nothing else has been edited from the above other than that.

Bill apart from the questionable identification of Marina, where are you getting this idea that anybody else ever confused the Tippit killer’s light tan CE 162 with the gray jacket of Oswald which Buell Frazier described as gray and flannel or woolen like?

Why this fixation on they must look similar? Says who? Why are you assuming or saying that?

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

My point is...

You are trying to pass off the jacket/coat that Oswald is wearing in the Minsk photo as one that could possibly be mistaken for (or is similar to) the jacket that Tippit's killer was wearing.  

No.

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

The Minsk jacket/coat is not a lightweight jacket similar to the one worn by Tippit's killer.

Yes. Now you’re catching on. 

27 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Okay.  Progress.

And you also have Oswald in the Minsk photo in this more lightweight jacket of the two owned by Oswald.  Right?  The one which you claim has a hole in the elbow.  Right?

Been saying so all along, yep. Waiting for De Point Bill. 

13 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

I'm getting there.

Now, you have Mary Bledsoe seeing Oswald on the bus in the more lightweight jacket of the two owned by Oswald.  Right?

Yep.

1 minute ago, Bill Brown said:

So then, of Oswald's two jackets, you have him leaving the Depository in the one which is more lightweight.  Right?

Yes, between those two (his gray and his blue). And your point … ?

29 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Point being, the jacket/coat Oswald is wearing in the Minsk photo is too much of a heavier weight jacket/coat than one that could be confused for CE-162.

I agree. Apart from the Marina questionable identification, no one did.

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

Why don't you lower your defenses?  I'm not trying to bait you at all.  I am calling one of Oswald's jackets lightweight and the other somewhat heavyweight for no other reason than to distinguish the two from each other.

One of Oswald's jackets was lightweight and lighter in color than the other jacket/coat which was a little more heavyweight and darker in color.  Right?

No, “lighter colored” is not clear or known, not my language or description of Oswald’s gray jacket, which is simply “gray” and “lightweight”. I already said that above, maybe you missed it. 

The Minsk photo of Oswald wearing a lightweight jacket I am saying was his lightweight gray jacket. I cannot tell from that black-and-white photo whether that Minsk jacket is lighter or darker in tone of color than CE 163’s tone of blue. What do you think?

In any case my description of his gray jacket is “gray” and “lightweight” without claim to lighter or darker than CE 163 (unless you can show cause why that is established without circular invocation of 162). 

Pages 62-63.

"Conclusion regarding Marina and CE 162

"Marina’s identification of CE 162 as an item of Lee’s clothing can be understood as Marina responding to suggestion combined with circumstances conducive to error, which should weaken confidence in its correctness to a reasonable observer. 

"But it is not as if Marina’s testimony stands on its own for better or worse. In this case there is additional information, information that contradicts Marina’s testimony. For Buell Wesley Frazier rejected CE 162 as being Oswald’s gray jacket and gave a different physical description of Lee’s gray jacket. Considerable weight must be given to Buell Frazier’s testimony due to the credibility of Frazier as a witness. 

"Here a choice is forced: to accept Buell Frazier’s clear and unproblematic testimony at this point, or the Warren Commission’s acceptance of Marina’s problematic identification of CE 162, the opposite of Frazier’s, even as the Warren Commission simultaneously arbitrarily dismissed Marina’s claim of the only time she said she saw Oswald wear CE 162, Thursday night in Irving, Nov 21 (when Oswald actually wore his gray jacket as an independently established fact of the case).

"It is fair to say without dispute that virtually all investigators—Warren Commission staff investigators and independent researchers alike—have judged Buell Frazier a more credible and trustworthy witness than Marina as a general statement—and Frazier testified unequivocally that CE 162 was not Oswald’s gray jacket.

"Therefore the conclusion is CE 162 was not Oswald’s gray jacket, despite Marina answering that it was in her testimony to the Warren Commission. That identification came about under circumstances including suggestion, possible lighting and display manipulation, and conceivably unknown pre-interviewing of Marina before Marina’s on-the-record testimony, increasing odds that Marina might make that desired identification whether or not it was actually correct. The objective appears to have been to get that identification from Marina more than it was to cross-check Marina’s testimony to assess whether it was actually correct.

"The conclusion is the identification Marina gave for CE 162 as an item of Lee’s clothing and worn on Thursday Nov 21 was mistaken, to be explained as human error on Marina’s part. Buell Wesley Frazier was correct that CE 162 was not Oswald’s gray jacket."  

Pages 60-62 from the paper. 

"The delay in asking Marina about CE 162

"A possible signal of something amiss with the Feb 6, 1964 identification of CE 162 obtained from Marina is the absence of any record that Marina was asked about CE 162 before then, even though the FBI interviewed Marina many times including questioning her concerning Lee’s blue jacket, CE 163.

"An early identification from Marina that CE 162 was Lee’s would have been significant and newsworthy. Yet that never was sought from Marina by the FBI, why? 

"If it was a slam dunk that CE 162 was Lee’s gray jacket known to Marina, why the failure to obtain a statement from Marina to that effect earlier? Sometimes the way to reduce the risk of unwanted things on the record is to not ask witnesses certain questions. On strategic absences of FBI interviews of witnesses on certain topics see Pat Speer’s 'Threads of Evidence', https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence. 

It does not inspire confidence that Marina was shown and asked about CE 162 for a first and only time as late as her Warren Commission testimony.

Comment on manipulative process in obtaining Marina’s identification of CE 162

"The process was manipulative in the way Marina was led to assume CE 162 was an item of Lee’s clothing prior to the question of whether she recognized it. Marina would have mistakenly assumed a priori C162 must be something of Oswald’s (because every other item around it was), and that could contribute to a mistaken identification. 

"It was manipulative in the way identification of CE 162 was considered routine and given no special attention among the other items of undisputed Lee’s clothing, without further questioning of Marina concerning details. 

"It was manipulative in the circumstances of Marina’s viewing of CE 162, in which there is no indication Marina had CE 162 in her hands or that it was lifted up for Marina to see more closely or fully.

"It was manipulative in the scheduling of Marina’s identification in the final part of the closing afternoon session of her testimony. Was there a fear that if Marina had opportunity during a break following a session to reconsider, she might upon return to the next session ask to have her testimony corrected (say, from certainty to uncertainty), and to preempt that risk, the question intentionally was not asked until toward the end of her final session? 

"It was manipulative in that the time chosen to ask her, toward the close of the two-hours-plus final session, would be when it could be anticipated Marina would be at her maximum fatigue. 

"The Warren Commission’s obtaining of Marina’s identification of CE 162 as an item of clothing of Lee’s almost has the appearance of an attempt to trick Marina into that identification.

"Awareness on the part of Warren Commission counsels that the CE 162 identification obtained from Marina was shaky might also be suggested in the lack of followup questions addressed to Marina related to that critically important identification, other than Rankin making clear that CE 162 was a 'jacket' before moving on to other matters. Marina was not asked 'are you sure this was Lee’s?', 'When do you remember last seeing Lee wear that?' and so on. Questions designed to bring out Marina’s answer a second or third time to ensure Marina’s answer had not been premature without full awareness or confidence. 

"Of course, if the objective was to get a hoped-for identification on the record for the purpose of incriminating Oswald in agreement with the theory of the case of the Commission, as distinct from disinterestedly wanting the truth of Marina’s story, further questioning of Marina concerning CE 162 might not be deemed advantageous. 

"Instead of followups on CE 162 the questioning moved smoothly to other things, as if CE 162 had been just one more routine identification among the others. There were a few pro forma questions on other things, then Marina’s testimony came to an end for good as far as the Warren Commission was concerned, in the minutes following Marina’s CE 162 identification. 

"Was there a fear that Marina’s identification of CE 162 might falter or retreat to becoming equivocal if she were asked to repeat it a second or third time? In any case there was no followup concerning CE 162. Marina’s four days were over and Marina was thanked for her testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mrs. Oswald, you have been a very cooperative witness. You have helped the Commission. We are grateful to you for doing this. We realize that this has been a hard ordeal for you to go through.
Mrs. OSWALD. It was difficult to speak all the truth."

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

There's the lightweight jacket and then there's the darker, somewhat heavyweight jacket/coat.

You have Oswald leaving the Depository in the lightweight jacket.  You have the Tippit witnesses saying the killer was wearing a jacket resembling the lightweight jacket, as opposed to the heavyweight jacket/coat.

If you have Oswald leaving the Depository in the lightweight jacket, then you have Bledsoe seeing Oswald on the bus wearing this lightweight jacket that you somehow believe has a hole in the elbow.

You have Oswald wearing this lightweight jacket in the Minsk photo, as opposed to the heavier, darker jacket/coat.

Am I right so far?

No. You are using trickery by using "lightweight" instead of "gray", then trying to have me say CE 162 since it is lightweight "resembles" Oswald's gray jacket which was also lightweight "as opposed to" a heavyweight jacket/coat. No. 

Every man in America had a lightweight jacket. That doesn't make for calling two random lightweight jackets owned by ca. 100 percent of men who exist, a "resemblance" in any two such lightweight jackets. That's what you're trying to set me up to say here.

Bait not taken.

You can go to pp. 42-44 of my paper if you're honestly puzzled (I don't think you are) about wanting to know my definitions and narrative. 

Why don't you just make whatever points you want to make.   

On 6/9/2023 at 1:15 PM, Ron Ege said:

Greg,

Thank you; as I surmised - but did not want to assume.  IMO, you've done a masterful job of presenting your case - although others may still believe otherwise.  

Based on your paper and so much other information that I've read over the years, it seems more than reasonable that there are just two logical  reasonable options for the "discovery" of the "third jacket. 

1.  Tippit's actual killer (not Oswald) discarded it so as to be less likely to eventually be identified as such.

or

2.  The jacket was a "plant" to incriminate Oswald.

Of course, one could proffer a third option - totally illogical - that coincidentally, someone just arbitrarily discarded a perfectly serviceable jacket along the route from the Tippit shooting to the TT.  because . . .  Makes no sense.

To me, the most telling issue about the "third jacket" is that no one has ever presented a decent explanation - as to how - relative to the size, manufacturer, cities/stores where sold, and the laundry/dry cleaning marks on it - just how it could've ever belonged to Oswald. 

Thanks Ron Ege. Your analysis of the three options on the CE 162 pretty well summarizes it.

One detail needs to be corrected however: a claim that has long circulated that the "M" medium size is incompatible with Oswald; not so. That claim came about from Marina said she thought Oswald always wore "S", put together with no known clothes of Oswald reported as other than "S". However that is no longer the case. Oswald's maroon shirt CE 151 in the NARA color photo obtained by Pat Speer in 2016 and posted on his website can be seen showing a label in the collar reading "Briarloom Traditionals by Enro. An original design. All fine cotton. M 15-15 1/2." (See the closeup of the label in Pat’s color photo about halfway down—scroll lower than the color photos of the full shirt to below those for the closeup of the collar with label, at https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence.) No prior photo of CE 151 showed that with sufficient clarity to be read. So Oswald wore size "M" as well as size "S". 

But hundreds of dry cleaning establishments contacted in Dallas and New Orleans by the FBI, and not one could identify the dry cleaning ticket stapled on the inside of that Tippit killer's jacket as the kind of ticket used in their establishment. Either that stapled dry cleaning ticket still remained there years later after Oswald was in the military in California ... or it was someone else's jacket.

Some have noted that Curtis Craford, the mid-October recent hire by Oswald's killer Ruby, the one living at the Carousel Club paid off-the-books (i.e. not formally employed with taxes withheld)--who was mistaken in physical identification for Oswald by other witnesses; of similar build and height and weight (and who left Dallas precipitously with no advance notice within hours after the Tippit killing)—(the one who later said he had been a hitman for a California mobster before he came to Dallas and linked up with Oswald's killer)--was photographed by the FBI, after they tracked him down in Michigan six days later on Nov 28, in color photos wearing a jacket of similar appearance as CE 162 of exactly the same color. 

It is regrettable that the FBI did not find out how recently that jacket of Craford had been purchased and where, and then interviewed the seller of that jacket, as that might or might not have shed light on the true owner of CE 162 (i.e. was that the killer of Tippit buying a second similar jacket of identical color worn as an alibi?).  

30 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Bit it seems to me that you are, indeed.

You cite the Bledsoe scenario (hole in the elbow of the lighter-colored jacket of the two that Oswald owned) and then you tie that in to the jacket/coat (which you believe shows a hole in the elbow) seen in the Minsk photo.

No, my Bledsoe interpretation has nothing to do with a "lighter-colored jacket of the two" of Oswald. I am not sure that Oswald's gray jacket was lighter in color tone than his CE 162 blue jacket which was called faded. You are putting in "lighter-colored".

Nothing in Bledsoe or the Minsk photo or Oswald's gray jacket has the least bit to do with CE 162. 

Pages 58-60 from the paper.

"What color was CE 162 to Marina?

"We have seen that CE 162 was off-white light tan in color and that hardly any witnesses who saw CE 162 even claimed it was gray. Marina never was asked nor gave a color description of CE 162 in her Warren Commission testimony. However, Marina’s identification of CE 162 as worn by Lee on Thursday night Nov 21, her identification of CE 162 as Lee’s gray jacket, gives strong cause to suppose Marina in her brief look at CE 162 during her testimony did see it as gray (the reasoning: she must have seen it as gray to have mistakenly identified it with Lee’s gray jacket). That could happen depending on the lighting conditions indoors, where Marina’s testimony occurred. 

"All it would take for the light tan of CE 162 to look illusorily gray in its off-white to Marina would be fluorescent lighting. An interior designer comments:

'[T]raditional fluorescent lighting gives off a cool, bright, blue-tinged light. This is a light that enhances cool colours such as blue and green and can dull warmer colours like yellow, orange and red. And I’m all for enhancing blues and greens, but creating an "icy cold clinical" look isn’t usually what my clients are going for … Flourescent lighting can be an unfriendly, cold light as it casts a cool bluish light…' (https://www.kylieminteriors.ca/how-fluorescent-light-affects-paint-colour/)

"From another interior decorating source: 

'In warmer light—during sunrise and sunset—warm gray colors will appear taupe or brown. In the cooler light of dawn, midday or dusk, or in cool artificial light, the color turns a purer gray. That’s why I advise homeowners who are testing out paint colors to view the hues during various times of the day, in the changing light, before making the final selection.' (https://www.houzz.com/magazine/color-of-the-week-decorating-with-warm-gray-stsetivw-vs~44305132)

"In fact fluorescent lighting could account for most if not all of the mistaken witness reportings of 'gray' as the color of CE 162 that did happen. If witness Callaway was correct that he told officer Summers the jacket of the Tippit killer was 'tannish gray' and Summers shortened that on his police radio broadcast on Fri Nov 22 to 'gray', and if Guinyard’s testimony was influenced by his indoor viewing of CE 162, then there arguably could be no instance of a witness’s unqualified 'gray' of CE 162 that originated in natural light, as distinguished from indoors under artificial light. Marina never saw CE 162 other than indoors before the Warren Commission, and Marina’s confusion of CE 162 with Lee’s gray jacket suggests Marina saw CE 162 as gray under artificial light.

"Yet this still goes only part way toward solving the problem of how Marina could have confused CE 162 with Oswald’s gray jacket, because the tone of gray would still be markedly different (CE 162 being lighter in tone, almost white, compared to Oswald’s gray jacket which was probably a solid medium gray, not off-white at all). How could one of those tones have been reasonably mistaken by Marina for the other?

"A darker shade of gray

"If CE 162 as Marina saw CE 162 was in a low light setting, dim or semi-dark, under a shadow or some other variant form of low lighting, however it worked, the near-white hue of its light tan, now illusorily looking cold gray due to fluorescent lighting, could also illusorily appear a darker shade ofgray if in a low light situation. 

"And Marina appears to have identified CE 162 visually across a short distance of space to where CE 162 was set on its surface, without Marina physically touching or holding or lifting it from the surface where it was displayed, holding it up for closer inspection, etc., according to any known information. 

"(Again there is no photograph of how the Commission’s exhibit items of Oswald’s clothing plus CE 162 were laid out, but I just imagine that whatever 'desk' surface that was, CE 162 would have been positioned on the other side from Marina just far enough out of Marina’s reach that she could not easily grab it or pick it up to bring closer to her eyes, feel it in her hands, look over the thing. If Marina had asked to see CE 162 more closely her request surely would have been accommodated, but the transcript shows Marina made no such request, and there is no reason to suppose anything like that happened. Which may have been the whole idea and what was intended, in whoever designed the display of the items of Lee’s clothing with CE 162 among them.)

"The fact is Marina saw CE 162 and thought it was a clothing item of Lee prior to any recognition of it (because it was with all the other clothing items of Lee), and identified it as Lee’s gray jacket which was of a significantly darker tone than CE 162. That difference in tone calls for explanation—how could Marina have mistaken CE 162 as Oswald’s gray jacket? The suggested answer to this question is it is possible through a combination of fluorescent lighting which could make CE 162 look gray, and a low light condition on CE 162 itself, however that worked, which would darken its apparent tone to the observer, combined with lack of physical touch or contact with the item—these could function to lessen the difference in color perception between CE 162 as seen by Marina and what Marina remembered of Lee’s gray jacket. (And Marina could see CE 162 was zippered and waist-length just like Lee’s gray jacket…) 

"And remember, there never was a chance for Marina to see CE 162 again for a second look or under different lighting (such as outdoors or under better light), for reconsideration. Marina never saw CE 162 before her final day before the Warren Commission, when the Warren Commission showed it to her in her final minutes of four days’ testimony, got her identification, asked no followup questions, ended her testimony and sent her home. 

"When the FBI interviewed Marina further there was no new opportunity for Marina to view CE 162 (there is certainly no report of any further showing, and from the FBI’s point of view there is no reason why there would be, since that was not the question at issue with Marina requested by the Warren Commission in that interview). Instead, it was Marina telling the FBI of Lee’s gray jacket all from her memory of the actual gray jacket of Lee’s."

Just now, Bill Brown said:

Let me get this straight.

Regardless of actual color (white versus gray, etc.), you are saying that the jacket/coat Oswald is wearing in the Minsk photo is close enough in nature so as to be confused with 162.  Right?

No.

17 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

My point should be obvious.  You're saying that Oswald is seen, in a photo taken in Minsk, wearing a light-colored jacket (much like CE-162) with a hole in the elbow.  I am telling you, in the Minsk photos, Oswald is not wearing a lightweight gray jacket.

Wait a minute Bill. Where did I ever say Oswald's jacket in Minsk was "light-colored"? I said it was his gray jacket, I did not say "light-colored". You are misquoting me. I am not saying that.

I think Oswald's gray jacket was a medium-gray, because of witness descriptions, not a near-white or off-white or "light" in color. The only mention of Oswald's gray jacket being "light" in color I know of is when Buell Frazier was asked whether Oswald's gray jacket was light or dark (those two choices) and he said "light gray" which I take to mean it was not dark gray but consistent with a medium gray as opposed to dark gray.

And Marina when she said Oswald had a "light" gray jacket in Russia, that was referring to weight or warmth of the jacket, not color.

Would you explain why the jacket worn by Oswald in those Minsk photos is not "a lightweight gray jacket"? How do you speak so categorically on what it was not? Looks like a lightweight jacket to me. Its a jacket, and its not a heavy jacket. What's your basis for the negative certainty?

Pages 63-64 of the paper.

"Ruth Paine

"In all of Ruth Paine’s extensive testimony, nowhere is Ruth asked whether she recognized CE 162 or CE 163.

"That Ruth Paine might actually never have been asked concerning identification of Oswald’s blue coat, CE 163, believed by the Warren Commission to have been worn by Lee to work at the Texas School Book Depository on Friday morning Nov 22, or the Tippit killer’s jacket, CE 162, is difficult to believe. Ruth was asked voluminous questions on everything else. Her testimony is characterized by accuracy and recall for detail. Why would she not be asked about those two items of clothing? 

"Lee certainly wore his gray jacket to Ruth’s place and likely more than once, based on the testimony of Buell Wesley Frazier who said he had seen Oswald wear his gray jacket several times including to Irving the evening and morning of Nov 21-22.

"If CE 162 were a jacket of Lee’s, an identification from Ruth Paine would carry credibility and there would be no reason on earth not to have that on the record. But Ruth was not asked. It is difficult to imagine a better explanation for that than that Ruth had been asked in some preinterview form and Ruth’s answer was not deemed helpful. (Imagine, for example, if Ruth had been asked and had answered the same as Buell Wesley Frazier testified, that she had seen Lee with a gray jacket but CE 162 was not it and she had never seen CE 162 before.)

"Here is the only instance I could find of Ruth Paine asked concerning Lee’s clothing in Ruth Paine’s testimony:

Mr. JENNER. Would you describe Lee’s attire when you first saw him on the lawn when you returned that evening [Thu Nov 21, 1963]?
Mrs. PAINE. I don’t recall it.

"Both the question and the 'I don’t recall it' answer, in a strict reading, apply only to the moment Ruth Paine first saw Oswald that evening. Mr. Jenner does not ask Ruth if she remembered anything of Lee’s attire at some other time during his visit, such as inside the house that evening or whether she had seen Lee wear a gray jacket on any occasion and if so was the off-white light tan CE 162 it. The question Jenner asked Ruth Paine has the appearance of a lawyer asking a question very narrowly and then moving away from it quickly.

"The absence of inquiry to Ruth Paine concerning recognition of CE 162 in her testimony to the Warren Commission is further grounds for skepticism of Marina’s identification of CE 162 as a jacket of Lee’s."

From pages 55-56 of the paper.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall whether the jacket, Exhibit 163, is something that he put on in your presence at any time that day?
Mrs. OSWALD. Not in my presence.
Mr. RANKIN. And you didn’t observe it on him at any time, then?
Mrs. OSWALD. No.

"Here Marina fails to support the Warren Commission’s narrative that Oswald wore his blue coat or jacket, CE 163, to work the morning of Nov 22, 1963. As Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle testified, the jacket Lee wore to Irving on Thursday night and back to Dallas Friday morning was his gray jacket.

(…) Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall any of these clothes that your husband was wearing when he came home Thursday night, November 21, 1963?
Mrs. OSWALD. On Thursday I think he wore this shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Is that Exhibit 150? [brown arrest shirt of Oswald]
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember anything else he was wearing at that time?
Mrs. OSWALD. It seems he had that jacket, also.
Mr. RANKIN. Exhibit 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. And the pants, Exhibit 157? [gray work pants]
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. But I am not sure. This is as much as I can remember.
Mr. RANKIN. Thank you.

"In this testimony Marina erred in saying Lee wore CE 150—the brown arrest shirt—to Irving Thursday night Nov 21. It is a fact of the case (differing from the Warren Commission here) that Oswald wore a different, maroon-colored, long-sleeved button-down shirt, CE 151, to work to the Book Depository Friday morning Nov 22—and according to Buell Frazier to Irving on Thursday—before changing into CE 150 (the brown arrest shirt) at his rooming house at about 1 pm Friday (see Pat Speer, 'Threads of Evidence' for the convincing argument on that: https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence).    

"Just as Marina was mistaken concerning the CE 150 shirt identification, so Marina was mistaken on the CE 162 jacket identification the same Thursday night. In both cases the items confused have some similarities accounting for the mistake.

"In the case of CE 151 (a maroon, button-down-collar dress shirt) mistakenly identified by Marina as CE 150 (brown, non-button-down-collar shirt), the maroon or reddish color of CE 151—from contemporary descriptions and a first-ever color photo of that shirt obtained by Pat Speer—was also at times called 'brown' by the Dallas Police, the Warren Commission, and some contemporary witnesses. 

"In the case of CE 162, the confusion with Oswald’s gray jacket—the 'gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking jacket that I had seen him wear' of Buell Wesley Frazier’s description, which Frazier said was not CE 162—the similarity was in what Marina may have seen as a similar gray tone of CE 162 depending on lighting conditions, zippered and waist length, similar in those ways to the gray jacket Lee actually had and had worn Thursday night Nov 21. As developed below, factors of lighting and how the item was displayed could have played a role in causing Marina’s identification of CE 162 as Lee’s gray jacket. 

"Although the identification itself was mistaken (Buell Frazier being correct that CE 162 was not Oswald’s gray jacket), the mistake would have its explanation in the similarities just cited, with Marina making the identification from a short distance visually without physical contact with the item or deliberation or careful examination, not helped by 2-1/2 months distance in time before she was first asked.

"That Marina thought Oswald wore CE 162 on Thursday night Nov 21 means Marina was identifying CE 162—rightly or wrongly—with Oswald’s gray jacket, since that is what Oswald did wear Thursday night and Friday morning Nov 21-22.

"The differences between Oswald’s gray jacket and CE 162 described by Buell Frazier mean CE 162 was not actually Lee’s gray jacket (as Buell Frazier directly said it was not). But the claim of Marina of seeing CE 162 with Lee Thursday night, while mistaken, identifies the nature of the error: Marina thought CE 162—as she saw it in color and tone in the way the Warren Commission had it displayed—was Lee’s gray jacket." 

Pages 50-52 from the paper.

"Marina Oswald

"On Feb 6, 1964, at the end of her final day of several days of testimony to the Warren Commission, in the final minutes at the end of hours of grueling testimony that day, the Warren Commission obtained from Marina Oswald an identification of CE 162 as an item of clothing that had belonged to her husband (which if true would make Oswald the killer of Tippit). There are two distinct issues: what did Marina claim, and was Marina correct in what she claimed.  

"On the first question, what did Marina claim, Marina actually made two identification claims with respect to CE 162. The first:

Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee’s—an old shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Sort of a jacket?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

"The second:

Mrs. OSWALD. It seems he had that jacket [CE 162], also [on the night of Thursday, Nov 21, 1963, in Irving].
Mr. RANKIN. Exhibit 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

"The Warren Commission rejects one of Marina’s identifications of CE 162 

"The Warren Commission narrative was that CE 162 was retrieved by Oswald Friday afternoon Nov 22 at Lee’s rooming house in Oak Cliff. The Warren Commission therefore rejected Marina’s claim of seeing CE 162 with Lee on Thursday night Nov 21 in Irving, dismissed that as mistaken. The Warren Commission held that Marina was credible only on the first claim, not on the second.

'The interpretation developed here is that Marina erred in both identifications of CE 162, not just one of the two, because Marina was mistaken in thinking CE 162 was Lee’s gray jacket which Lee wore to Irving Thursday night and Friday morning, Nov 21-22, 1963.

"Obtaining critical testimony from a witness when she is tired

"During the two and a half months between the assassination and Marina’s testimony to the Warren Commission, the FBI never showed CE 162 to Marina. Marina’s Warren Commission testimony was the first and only time Marina saw CE 162. Let it be considered how that was done. 

"At midday during the final of four days of Marina giving testimony under oath, at about 12:30 pm on Feb 6, 1964, Commission Chair Earl Warren wrapping up the morning session spoke considerate words to Marina:

… Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall what he said about what he didn’t like about the United States?
Mrs. OSWALD. The problem of unemployment.
Mr. RANKIN. Anything else?
Mrs. OSWALD. I already said what he didn’t like that it was hard to get an education, that medical care is very expensive. About his political dissatisfaction, he didn’t speak to me.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he ever say anything against the leaders of the government here?
Mrs. OSWALD. No.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, that is all we have now except the physical exhibits, and I think we could do that at 2 o’clock.
The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Oswald, we are going to recess now until 2 o’clock. You must be quite tired by now. And this afternoon we are going to introduce some of the physical objects that are essential to make up our record. When we finish with those, I think your testimony will be completed. And I think we should finish today. You won’t be unhappy about that, will you?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. Thank you.

"Comment: There is almost a subtext here which might be paraphrased: 'As a last thing, Mrs. Oswald, please help us, if you would, with what we [Warren Commission] need established, some items of Lee’s clothing. It’s mostly a formality really, but we need confirmations from you on some things for our records, and then all of this will be over and you can go home.'

“'You must be quite tired by now … you won’t be unhappy about that, will you?' Marina is asked solicitously—perhaps in acknowledgement that Marina, single mother of two small children one of whom she was nursing in breaks between sessions of her testimony, may have shown visible signs of tiredness.

"In that final afternoon session, items of clothing from Oswald’s person and belongings, or which Marina had already previously identified as Lee’s—with one exception—were laid out on a desk surface area of some kind (there is no known photograph of the display). The items were not formally told to Marina to have been from Lee’s belongings and person, but Marina on her own would recognize that. 

"Among the otherwise entirely genuine clothing items of Lee arranged on display the Warren Commission had unobtrusively set among them (one is tempted to use the word 'planted') CE 162. Marina was then asked to confirm all of the clothing items were Lee’s, one after another, for the record, with CE 162 slipped in among them. 

"Marina—not known for being the most accurate or careful of witnesses under the best of circumstances—was cooperating, identifying those items one after another, 'yes… yes… yes…', then asked for identification of CE 162, which (unknown to Marina) was not from Lee’s belongings among the other items which were.

"It was like having someone fatigued sign many papers at one time, with some landmine document or fine print slipped in, signed unthinkingly by the person as one more among the others.

Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, would you step over with the interpreter to this desk and point out the different pieces of clothing as we ask you about it, please? Do you know the shirt that Lee Oswald wore the morning that he left?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don’t remember. What else interests you? What do you want?

"Comment: The picture is Marina is standing with her interpreter near some large flat desk surface looking at items but there is no indication that she touches or handles the items. The items are not brought individually one by one close to Marina to examine individually. It is unclear whether CE 162 was lifted up for Marina to see better when that item was asked of Marina; nothing indicates it was."