Greg Doudna
-
Posts
2,291 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Greg Doudna
-
-
5 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:
So why didn't DPD take a statement from Dodie of Dean's Dairy Way? Myers quotes the survivors:
According to her daughters, Mrs. Dean knew many Dallas policemen because they had come into her store in the past and they knew her. She never gave an affidavit because she felt they knew her and would know where to find her if they needed further information.
Sounds good but DPD did not take statements from any of the purported principal witnesses in the vicinity of the jacket, and none of them shows up in the Tippit murder case papers. Two months later the FBI interviewed Reynolds, Patterson, the Brocks & Roger Ballew. Dodie is conspicuously absent. Why? Surely they knew where she was and at some point decided to consign her to oblivion. Most likely they did not consider her a credible source.
Likewise Myers shows scant confidence in much of the information provided by the daughters, rewriting part & rejecting another part. Why bother at all with them and their story? Here's the payload:
This caused [Mrs. Dean] to look up and out the front window in an easterly direction toward the second-hand store. Just as she did, a young man rounded the corner walking briskly in a westerly direction. As he broke into a run, he was tugging at his jacket, as if to take it off. In those days, the Dairy Way had an overhead door so it made the store fully open rather than windowed, and the cashier’s counter was close to the sidewalk. Mrs. Dean got a good look at the man who passed her at less than ten feet and positively identified him as Lee Harvey Oswald. She stepped outside the store and peered around the corner at the area in-between the store and the Texaco service station next door. She saw Oswald continue behind the service station and into the parking lot.
The goal was to produce a witness who could directly link the throwdown jacket to Oswald, same goal the FBI had when it put words into Patterson's mouth as discussed in a previous post. But this is thin stuff, relying on a juicy element extracted from a stale family memory that is otherwise rejected, cherry picking for the sake of fleshing out a pet theory.
Myers also freely subs in a preferred identity for another that was explicitly reported by a witness, going so far as to claim Kinsley actually saw Reynolds instead of Oswald cross Jefferson in front of the Dudley Hughes ambulance driven by Butler. Nothing if not bold but Reynolds bore about as much resemblance to Oswald as Sergeant Hill, who may have paused at Dean's Dairy Way for a hot fudge sundae, flinging the jacket onto a tire rack and leaving suddenly when sirens sounded nearby, not before giving instructions to Dodie to have someone dump the jacket under an Olds in the back lot. He then rushed across Jefferson to prowl car 207 idling on the opposite side of the street, passing directly in front of the ambulance.
Michael, thanks for your comment. I am not however convinced that the goal of the Mrs. Dean story was to "produce a witness who could directly link the throwdown jacket to Oswald", over 50 years after the fact. Who, exactly, do you have in mind doing the "production" of that witness for that nefarious purpose?
Myers did not invent the story, nor go about soliciting it; it came to him. The ones who brought it to him, Mrs. Dean's daughters, have nothing to do with anything other than belatedly deciding history needed to be informed of their mother's story which had not until then been told. That Mrs. Dean thought the Tippit killer she saw going by her store was Oswald needs no hidden plotters orchestrating that behind the scenes; that is what people thought, rightly or wrongly, from their brief glimpses at someone who fit a similar physical description if he was not Oswald, especially as it seemed confirmed by all the reporting in the news. Nothing complicated there.
A half century is indeed a long time for a story to get morphed and remembered in ways that differ from the originating event. That would be the vulnerable point in Mrs. Dean's story. I don't see any issues to it other than that one.
-
From pages 71-73 in the paper.
"Second floor: Geraldine Reid
"With Baker and Truly gone, Oswald then did two things quickly, alone there in the lunchroom. First, he bought a coke to support his explanation of why he had been there (even though that was not his reason). And second, he took off his maroon shirt, CE 151, stuffed it down into the front of his pants in the crotch area (a shirt can be stuffed there without being noticeable or uncomfortable), and hitched up his belt again. Now he was wearing visibly only his white T-shirt and gray pants, which is how he was seen moments later when he walked past Mrs. Reid on the second floor who told of that encounter.
"Mrs. Reid was just returning to the second floor where she worked after seeing the parade below.
Mr. BELIN. And then what did you do?
Mrs. REID. Well, I kept walking and I looked up and Oswald was coming in the back door of the office. I met him by the time I passed my desk several feet and I told him, I said, 'Oh, the President has been shot, but maybe they didn’t hit him.' He mumbled something to me, I kept walking, he did, too. I didn’t pay any attention to what he said because I had no thoughts of anything of him having any connection with it at all because he was very calm. He had gotten a coke and was holding it in his hands and I guess the reason it impressed me seeing him in there I thought it was a little strange that one of the warehouse boys would be up in the office at the time, not that he had done anything wrong. The only time I had seen him in the office was to come and get change and he already had his coke in his hand so he didn’t come for change and I dismissed him. I didn’t think anything else.(. . .)
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what clothes he had on when you saw him?
Mrs. REID. What he was wearing, he had on a white T-shirt and some kind of wash trousers. What color I couldn’t tell you.
Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission Exhibit, first 157 and then 158, and I will ask you if either or both look like they might have been the trousers that you saw him wear or can you tell?
Mrs. REID. I just couldn’t be positive about that. I would rather not say, because I just cannot.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether he had any shirt or jacket on over his T-shirt?
Mrs. REID. He did not. He did not have any jacket on."Mrs. Reid’s statement that Oswald walked by her in a white T-shirt and carrying a coke has baffled researchers no end, because it is so different from Oswald reported seen only moments earlier wearing what officer Baker called a 'light brown' jacket (maroon shirt CE 151).
"Mrs. Reid’s story was not fabricated or imagined. She told coworkers of her encounter with Oswald that weekend. Another employee, Pauline Sanders, told the FBI on Sun Nov 24 of Mrs. Reid telling her of it (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=64). Otis Campbell, vice president of the Texas School Book Depository, told the FBI on Tue Nov 26 of Mrs. Reid having told him of her encounter with Oswald (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95616#relPageId=89). To the FBI on Dec 5:
'As she entered the office [on the second floor], she observed Lee Harvey Oswald, whose name she did not know at the time, but whom she had previously seen, and whose name she later ascertained from newspaper publicity, coming from the back hallway which is used as an aisleway between the warehouse and the clerical offices. Oswald was carrying a coca cola in his right hand. Mrs. Reid stated that to the best of her recollection, Oswald was wearing a white tee-shirt and a pair of pants, color unknown … Mrs. Reid was shown a rust brown sport shirt with a hole in the right sleeve at the elbow [CE 150] … [she] was certain that Oswald did not have this shirt on at the time she saw him on November 22, 1963' (FBI, Dec 5, 1963, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=316).
"Mrs. Reid’s testimony indicates Oswald took off his maroon shirt in the manner described immediately after the confrontation with officer Baker.
"The purpose of the change in clothing was Oswald was now in evasive flight mode. All of his movements following the shots are consistent with a belief that his life is in danger and he is seeking to make his exit and take flight without being easily tracked."
-
From pages 66-71 of the paper.
"Officer Marrion Baker and the second-floor lunchroom encounter
"After the shots were fired and the shock of the news that Kennedy had been hit rapidly spread, Oswald went into what can only be described as evasive flight mode, which marks all of his movements from the Texas School Book Depository to his rooming house in Oak Cliff, where he changed clothes, picked up a pistol and went to the Texas Theatre, where he was arrested.
"There has been much discussion and debate concerning Oswald’s movements inside the Book Depository at the time of and following the shots fired at President Kennedy. Without engaging those debates and arguments I set out a reconstruction I have worked out.
"Less than two minutes after the shots Oswald was encountered in the second-floor lunchroom by officer Marrion Baker and Book Depository supervisor Roy Truly. Officer Baker, following Truly up the northwest stairway, saw Oswald move in retreat behind a glass window of a door opening to the northwest stairwell on the second floor. Finding that suspicious, Baker went through that door and confronted Oswald at gunpoint in the lunchroom. Truly then came in and told Baker that Oswald worked in the building and was OK, whereupon Baker and Truly left and resumed their movement to the top of the building.
"A key question is in which direction Oswald was moving with respect to the door when Baker saw him: had he just gone through that door into the second floor area from the stairs? Or was he just about to come out to the stairwell and reversed direction before exiting through the door? The former was the Warren Commission position (in which Oswald descended by the northwest stairwell from the sixth floor after firing the shots and went through the door into the second floor area).
"However William Kelly, building on an earlier analysis of Howard Roffman, has convincingly argued that Oswald cannot have gone through the door from the stairway (https://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-doors-of-perception-why-oswald-is.html).
"Seeing the officer through the glass window in the door, Oswald did not open the door but retreated again, and that motion through the glass is what caught Baker’s eye as suspicious.
Mr. BELIN. What happened?
Mr. BAKER. As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly was ahead of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the rooms, and I caught a glimpse of this man walking away from this—I happened to see him through this window in this door. I don’t know how come I saw him, but I had a glimpse of him coming down there.
Mr. DULLES. Where was he coming from, do you know?
Mr. BAKER. No, sir. All I seen of him was a glimpse of him go away from me.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. BAKER. I ran on over there
Representative BOGGS. You mean where he was?
Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir. There is a door there with a glass, it seemed to me like about a 2 by 2, something like that, and then there is another door which is 6 foot on over there, and there is a hallway over there and a hallway entering into a lunchroom, and when I got to where I could see him he was walking away from me about 20 feet away from me in the lunchroom.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do?
Mr. BAKER. I hollered at him at that time and said, “Come here.” He turned and walked right straight back to me."Quoting Roffman, Presumed Guilty (1976):
'It should be noted that the [Warren] Report never mentions Baker’s position at the time he saw Oswald in the vestibule. Instead, it prints a floor plan of the second floor and notes Baker’s position ‘when he observed Oswald in lunchroom.’ This location, as indicated in the Report, was immediately outside the vestibule door. The reader of the Report is left with the impression that Baker saw Oswald in the vestibule as well from this position. However, Baker testified explicitly that he first caught a glimpse of the man in the vestibule from the stairs and, upon running to the vestibule door, saw Oswald in the lunchroom. The Report’s failure to point out Baker’s position is significant.
'The circumstances surrounding the lunchroom encounter indicate that Oswald entered the lunchroom not by the vestibule door from without, as he would have had he descended from the sixth floor, but through a hallway leading into the vestibule. The outer vestibule door is closed automatically by a closing mechanism on the door. When Truly arrived on the second floor, he did not see Oswald entering the vestibule. For the Commission’s case to be valid, Oswald must have entered the vestibule through the first door before Truly arrived. Baker reached the second floor immediately after Truly and caught a fleeting glimpse of Oswald in the vestibule through a small window in the outer door … In fact, the door had to be completely closed for Baker to see anything through the door window…
“Baker’s and Truly’s observations are not at all consistent with Oswald’s having entered the vestibule through the first door. Had Oswald done this, he could have been inside the lunchroom well before the automatic mechanism closed the vestibule door. Truly’s testimony that he saw no one entering the vestibule indicates either that Oswald was already in the vestibule at this time or was approaching it from another source. However, had Oswald already entered the vestibule when Truly arrived on the second floor, it is doubtful that he [Oswald] would have remained there long enough for Baker to see him seconds later. Likewise, the fact that neither man [Truly, Baker] saw the mechanically closed door in motion is cogent evidence that Oswald did not enter the vestibule through that door …
“Had Oswald descended from the sixth floor, his path through the vestibule into the lunchroom would have been confined to the north wall of the vestibule. Yet the line of sight from Baker’s position at the steps does not include any area near the north wall. From the steps, Baker could have seen only one area in the vestibule—the southeast portion. The only way Oswald could have been in this area on his way to the lunchroom is if he entered the vestibule through the southernmost door … Oswald could not have entered the vestibule in this manner had he just descended from the sixth floor. The only way he could have gotten to the southern door is from the first floor up through either a large office space or an adjacent corridor. As the Report concedes, Oswald told police he had eaten his lunch on the first floor and gone up to the second to purchase a coke when he encountered an officer…'
"(On the automatic closing mechanism of the door opening to the vestibule of the second floor lunchroom: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/truly3.htm.)
"In agreement with this argument on that, the reconstruction is Oswald got there by coming up from the first floor by the southeast stairwell connecting the first to the second floor, and from there crossed the second floor to the lunchroom area intending to go out to the northwest stairwell and back down the northwest stairs to the first floor, then over to the Domino Room to retrieve his gray jacket and exit the building by a door just outside the Domino Room to the rear. That intention was thwarted when Oswald saw the officer through the glass in the door just as he was about to open the door outward. He retreated into the lunchroom where he was accosted by Baker.
"Truly and Baker both said they saw nothing in Oswald’s hands when Baker confronted him, although Oswald gave the impression (falsely, as reconstructed) that he had gone there to get a Coke.
"Officer Baker gave this description of what Oswald was wearing:
Mr. BELIN. Did you notice what clothes the man was wearing as he came up to you?
Mr. BAKER. At that particular time I was looking at his face, and it seemed to me like he had a light brown jacket on and maybe some kind of white-looking shirt. Anyway, as I noticed him walking away from me, it was kind of dim in there that particular day, and it was hanging out to his side."Comment: This is Oswald with his maroon shirt CE 151 hanging out over his belt that Baker is remembering as 'light brown'. On the confusion of the shirt being called a 'jacket', compare FBI agent Barrett outside the Texas Theatre referring to seeing Oswald brought out wearing a brown jacket which was actually the brown shirt, CE 150. The maroon CE 151 shirt was lighter in tone than the dark brown CE 150, and Baker is calling the maroon CE 151 'light' brown. Oswald was wearing CE 151 over a white T-shirt, remembered by Baker as a 'white-looking shirt' underneath the light brown 'jacket'.
"Was Officer Marrion Baker red-green colorblind?
"On Baker calling a reddish-maroon color 'light brown', a reported 1 out of 12 white men have red-green color blindness (the most common type of color blindness, genetically caused and which afflicts men rather than women, and whites more than other ethnicities), in which red cannot be seen and reds are seen as brown ('Color blindness: when red looks like brown', https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/319115#The-optical-illusion-of-color; 'Color blindness by inheritance', https://www.colour-blindness.com/general/prevalence/). That may well account for Baker’s reporting of the color.
"Note Baker consistently calls the color he saw Oswald wearing at the second-floor lunchroom encounter “light” brown, which would never be a natural description of the dark brown CE 150, but exactly how the maroon CE 151 would be seen and told by one of the 1 in 12 white men with red-green color blindness.
Mr. BELIN. Handing you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 150 [brown arrest shirt], would this appear to be anything that you have ever seen before?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; I believe that is the shirt that he had on when he came. I wouldn’t be sure of that. It seemed to me like that other shirt was a little bit darker than that whenever I saw him in the homicide office there."Comment: Here Baker is saying that the shirt he saw Oswald wearing when he saw him at the police station the afternoon of Fri Nov 22, the brown arrest shirt, CE 150, was darker than what Baker saw Oswald wearing at the time of the second floor lunchroom encounter, i.e. the lighter-toned reddish-maroon CE 151.
Mr. BELIN. What about when you saw him in the School Book Depository Building, does this look familiar as anything he was wearing, if you know?
Mr. BAKER - I couldn’t say whether that was—it seemed to me it was a light-colored brown but I couldn’t say it was that or not."Comment: Belin is trying to have Baker identify Oswald as wearing the dark brown arrest shirt (CE 150) at the time of the second-floor lunchroom encounter. Baker is not willing to make that identification that Belin wants. Baker is saying what Oswald was wearing at the time of that encounter was lighter in color than the brown arrest shirt—lighter in color than CE 150. Again Baker signals with the language of “light-colored brown” that Oswald was wearing the maroon-colored CE 151 at the second-floor encounter, compared to the dark brown CE 150 arrest shirt Baker saw Oswald wearing later at the police station.
Mr. DULLES. Lighter brown did you say, I am just asking what you said. I couldn’t quite hear.
Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir; all I can remember it was in my recollection of it it was a light brown jacket.
Mr. BELIN. Are you referring to this Exhibit 150 as being similar to the jacket or similar to the shirt that you saw or, if not, similar to either one?
Mr. BAKER. Well, it [CE 150, the brown arrest shirt] would be similar in color to it—I assume it was a jacket, it was hanging out. Now, I was looking at his face and I wasn’t really paying any attention. After Mr. Truly said he knew him, so I didn’t pay any attention to him, so I just turned and went on.
Mr. BELIN. Now, you did see him later at the police station, is that correct?
Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Was he wearing anything that looked like Exhibit 150 at the police station?
Mr. BAKER. He did have a brown-type shirt [CE 150] on that was out."Comment: The shirt on Oswald at the police station was CE 150 (brown arrest shirt) which was darker than the CE 151 maroon shirt ('light brown jacket') Oswald was wearing at the second floor lunchroom encounter.
Mr. BELIN. Did it appear to be similar to any clothing you had seen when you saw him at the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. BAKER. I could have mistaken it for a jacket, but to my recollection it was a little colored jacket, that is all I can say."Comment: Yes, that is what happened. Baker mistook Oswald’s CE 151 maroon shirt which fell loose outside Oswald’s belt for a light brown 'jacket'. What Baker remembered and assumed was a white regular shirt underneath the light brown 'jacket' was Oswald’s white T-shirt underneath the maroon CE 151 shirt.
"This analysis of what Oswald was wearing at the second-floor lunchroom encounter is important because only moments later Oswald was seen by a witness, Mrs. Geraldine Reid, wearing only a white T-shirt and pants, not a 'light brown' or maroon shirt or 'jacket'."
-
From pages 96-97 of the paper, with credit to Pat Speer for developing a correct line of research and obtaining the first color photo of CE 151.
A postscript on the maroon shirt CE 151
"Pat Speer’s 'Threads of Evidence' gives a fuller account of the identification of CE 151 as the shirt Oswald wore the morning of Nov 22. In 2016 Speer obtained a first-ever color photo of CE 151 from the National Archives, now published on his website, showing that CE 151 indeed is maroon or reddish in color, the shirt Oswald wore that morning. Speer summarizes:
'… I couldn’t get over that Oswald said the shirt was ‘reddish’ [that he wore the morning of Nov 22] and that a ‘red and gray sport shirt’ later disappeared from the records. This felt significant to me … Perhaps CE 151 was the de facto ‘reddish’ shirt … In July 2016, after months of haggling, I was able to obtain color photos of CE 151 from the National Archives, and was able to establish that this shirt, previously described [by Dallas Police and the Warren Commission] as being tan or brown, had a red tint to it, and was undoubtedly the ‘reddish’ shirt Oswald claimed to have worn to work on November 22, 1963.' (https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence)
"Note how often witnesses speak of a 'light' color of Oswald’s shirt the morning of Nov 22, 1963, which agrees with the maroon of CE 151 but does not agree with the dark brown arrest shirt CE 150 which is never called 'light' in color.
"(The maroon CE 151 is called both light and dark by witnesses, but the brown CE 150 is only called dark in color, never light, by witnesses. From the color photos of the shirts it can be seen why the brown CE 150 would never be called 'light' by a witness, whereas the lighter-toned maroon or understated soft pale-reddish of CE 151 is naturally and easily called a 'light' or 'lighter' color.)
"Each of these witnesses below is describing Oswald’s shirt the morning of Nov 22, 1963 before Oswald changed clothes at 1 pm:
o Linnie Mae Randle: 'a solid color and light'.
o Texas School Book Depository supervisor Roy Truly: 'a light colored shirt'.
o Texas School Book Depository employee James Jarman when asked what kind of shirt Lee wore Nov 22: 'Ivy leagues, I believe' (CE 151 was button-down with a designer label, a dress shirt, compared to CE 150 which was a low-cost dark brown sport shirt, not designer label, not dress or button-down).
o Officer Marrion Baker: 'light brown' (agrees with the maroon CE 151 as opposed to the dark brown CE 150; and did Marrion Baker have red-green color blindness?).
o Officer Marrion Baker comparing what he saw Oswald wearing at the police station (CE 150) with Oswald in the second floor lunchroom: 'He looked like he did not have the same on'.
o Housekeeper Earlene Roberts (FBI, Nov 27), 'a light colored shirt'.
o FBI agent James Bookhout (5 CE 100): '[Oswald] stated that after arriving at his apartment he changed his shirt and trousers, because they were dirty. He described his dirty clothes as being a reddish colored, long sleeved shirt with a button-down collar and gray colored trousers.'
o Secret Service agent Thomas Kelley (87 CD 375): 'He said he went home, changed his trousers and shirt, put his shirt in a drawer. This was a red shirt, and he put it in his dirty clothes. He described his shirt as having a button down collar and of reddish color. The trousers were grey colored.'
o Captain J.W. Fritz, Dallas Police Department, from handwritten notes of his interrogations of Oswald acquired by the Assassination Records Review Board in 1997 from an anonymous donor: 'at Apt. changed shirt + tr. put in dirty clothes – longsleeve red sh + gray tr.'
o Buell Wesley Frazier: 'As [Buell Wesley] Frazier recalls [on Thursday Nov 21, in the ride to Irving], Oswald was wearing a reddish shirt and a gray jacket, waist length' (FBI, Dec 1, 1963 [7 CD 294])."
-
Bill just say whatever your point is.
-
Here are three of the same photo of Oswald in Minsk wearing a jacket. I am unable to post because I get a message of overlimit. Is someone else able to post any of these? I see what looks like a small tear in the middle of the right forearm.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24945209
-
Pages 28-29 of the paper.
"The color of the Tippit killer’s CE 162 jacket was misrepresented by the Warren Commission: it was not gray
"A first point of fact concerns the color of the Tippit killer’s abandoned jacket, CE 162. The Warren Commission consistently referred to CE 162 as 'light gray' or 'gray' in color, as does Dale Myers’ encyclopedic study of the Tippit case, With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J.D. Tippit (2013; 1st edn 1998), 340-42, 345-46, 478, and other articles and books routinely to the present day.
"But 'gray' is simply not accurate: CE 162, the jacket found by police and the jacket of the Tippit killer, was not gray, never was gray. It was an off-white light tan. There were witnesses who inaccurately called it gray, and CE 162 could have looked gray under certain indoor lighting conditions, but that does not mean CE 162 was gray. Nor does this point need to be a matter of debate: the jacket exists today and color photos of the jacket from 1964 are published today, in addition to many contemporary witnesses’ descriptions of the jacket’s color from November 1963 and thereafter."
-
Pages 27-28 from the paper (https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1553).
"Précis of the argument to follow: why Oswald’s gray jacket was not CE 162, the Tippit killer’s jacket
o Because Oswald’s gray jacket was gray, but CE 162 is a different color, an off-white light tan (to be discussed below).
o Because with the exception of a manipulated and mistaken identification by Marina of CE 162 in her Warren Commission testimony in February 1964 (the only time Marina was shown that jacket and then in a contrived context), no one who saw Oswald wearing his gray jacket to Irving and to work, identified CE 162 as Oswald’s gray jacket. Buell Wesley Frazier categorically rejected that CE 162 was Oswald’s gray jacket with which Frazier was familiar.
o Because Buell Wesley Frazier described Oswald’s gray jacket as flannel or woolen-like in material, which does not describe CE 162.
o Because the FBI, in all of their interviews of Marina before her Warren Commission testimony, never showed her CE 162 to ask if she recognized it, an unusual omission, one explanation of which could be awareness of risk that her answer might not be what was wanted.
o Because Oswald’s gray jacket appears identifiable in a photo of Oswald taken in Minsk, when Oswald was in the Soviet Union, and that jacket is not CE 162.
o Because Oswald wore his gray jacket to Irving on Thursday Nov 21, and to work at the Book Depository on the morning of Friday Nov 22, according to testimony of Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle and supported by testimony of Marina, which is inconsistent with Oswald newly putting on his gray jacket at his rooming house in Oak Cliff when he changed clothes there at 1:00 pm Friday according to the Warren Commission reconstruction in which Oswald’s gray jacket was CE 162.
o Because Mary Bledsoe’s strange description of a “shirt” she saw Oswald wearing on a bus after Oswald left the Book Depository is to be understood as a description of Oswald’s gray jacket, with no buttons and a torn right elbow matching the jacket in the Oswald Minsk photo, which is not CE 162.
o Because there is no photograph of Oswald wearing CE 162 among the photos of Oswald in the Soviet Union, contrary to what might be expected if CE 162 were Oswald’s gray jacket.
o Because there is no photo of Oswald wearing CE 162 at all.
o Because Ruth Paine did not confirm ever seeing CE 162 worn by Oswald. In all of the voluminous testimony of Ruth Paine, she was never shown CE 162 and asked if she recognized it. One possible reason Ruth Paine was not asked could be because Ruth Paine’s answer to that question might not be wanted on the record.
o For the above reasons, although CE 162 was the Tippit killer’s jacket, CE 162 was not Oswald’s gray jacket."
-
From page 87 of the paper.
"[I]n 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.'
"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."
-
Pages 103-104 from the paper.
"Earlene Roberts and the “gray” color of Oswald’s jacket
"The $64,000 question is: on the assumption that the 'gray' color of the jacket was an early, honest description of Earlene (as it surely was), is that evidence establishing—does it give weight to—a conclusion that the color of Oswald’s jacket as he went out the door of the rooming house was not blue, and the jacket not CE 163?
"And the answer, surprisingly, is 'no', not if Earlene Roberts had yellow-blue colorblindness.
'People with yellow-blue colorblindness often see shades of blue as gray' (https://www.reddit.com/r/ColorBlind/comments/iztxq8/mistake_blue_for_grey/)
"Diabetes Type 2, adult onset diabetes, the most common type of diabetes, is linked to colorblindness:
'The study [of Tan et al.] ... revealed that colour blindness affects 22.3 percent of people with type 2 diabetes. Those who have had the disease for six years or more have a higher incidence of colour blindness. The risk increases each year that patients suffer from the condition ... It was also found that people with poorer vision are more prone to this eye problem.' (https://www.healthhub.sg/a-z/diseases-and-conditions/726/How-Colour-Blindness-is-Linked-to-Type-2-Diabetes)
"The study was published in 2017 in BMC Endocrine Disorders (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28577364/). According to the abstract, of the 22% overall percentage of type 2 diabetics with color-blindness, 'impaired color vision was associated with older patients', and 'impaired blue-yellow color-vision (Tritanomaly) was the commonest impaired color vision'.
"Earlene Roberts, age 58 at the time, was diabetic.
'Mrs. Roberts explained she has diabetes and is afraid to leave Dallas and be away from her doctor. She said she has been in a diabetic coma on two occasions.' (FBI interview of Earlene Roberts, June 8, 1964, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142#relPageId=543)
"The study cited above says the already-significant incidence of color blindness for diabetes type 2 patients is escalated still further in diabetics with poor vision. From her Warren Commission testimony:
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, you know, I can’t see too good how to read. I’m completely blind in my right eye.
"These facts suggest that on medical grounds Earlene Roberts may have been physiologically incapable of seeing the blue of CE 163.
"What others would see as 'blue', Earlene, from color-blindness, may have been unable to see as other than 'gray', in agreement with the only color Earlene Roberts ever claimed for the jacket of Oswald, even though CE 163 in fact is blue (or as Mr. Ball of the Warren Commission called CE 163, 'blue-gray').
"Being color-blind may have caused Earlene to see blue as gray, but it would not affect Earlene being able to see whether something was 'light' or 'dark' in tone or shade even if color recognition itself was poor. Earlene while afflicted with color-blindness would still be able to see the difference between 'light' and 'dark', and Earlene said the jacket was 'dark'.
"That is, a color-blind person can tell 'dark' from 'light' in tone, even if the color is not seen as other than a shade of gray. And the early reports of Earlene speaking of a 'gray' color for the jacket of Oswald as he went out the door just after 1 pm on Friday are consistent with how Oswald’s blue jacket CE 163 would look to Earlene and how she would tell what she saw to others.
"Again, in her own words, when Earlene was shown CE 162, the Tippit killer’s nearly-white light tan jacket, Earlene Roberts told the Warren Commission she thought Oswald’s jacket was 'darker than that' (darker than the off-white CE 162). The early reportings of Earlene saying the jacket was 'gray' do not have Earlene saying 'light gray'.
"Earlene never said other than the color was 'gray' and 'dark', both consistent with Earlene seeing CE 163 and not consistent with Earlene seeing CE 162.
"For these reasons the early reportings of Earlene Roberts referring to the color of Oswald’s jacket as 'dark' and 'gray' are not only fully compatible with the jacket being CE 163, Oswald’s blue coat, but constitute strong positive witness testimony—positive evidence—that it was CE 163, and was not CE 162.
"Oswald left the rooming house with the only other jacket he now had after disposing of his gray jacket, his blue coat, CE 163."
-
Pages 105-106 from the paper.
"Why did Earlene on KLIF-Radio call Oswald's jacket a 'coat'?
"There is a further detail which has gone largely unremarked. In the KLIF-Radio interview of Earlene Roberts of Nov 22, 1963 (https://soundcloud.com/beauweaver/the-fateful-hours-klif-dallas), Earlene does not speak of Oswald’s 'jacket' but rather of Oswald’s 'coat'. Why is that? This occurs twice in that interview. At 25:42, 'a short coat'. At 26:38, 'a short gray coat'. My transcriptions:
'he rushed in in shirt sleeves and got a short coat and went back out… he acted as if he was in a hurry… and I spoke to him and he just ignored me, but that’s not unusual, sometimes he’d speak to you and sometimes he didn’t…' (25:42f)
'and he come in and got a short gray coat and went right on back out in a hurry. And when I looked out the window he was standing at the bus stop…' (26:38f)
"Although there is overlap and interchangeability in uses of 'jacket' and 'coat' in English, the two words are not exactly synonymous. Generally a 'coat' tends to connote a somewhat heavier or warmer outerwear than a 'jacket.
'Coat vs. Jacket: What is the Difference? ...
'[C]oats often provide more warmth and insulation than jackets ... A coat is a warm outer garment worn over top of other clothing meant to protect the wearer from extreme temperatures. Coats often have a hip-length or longer length, though they can also end at the waist ... coats almost always use heavier, more insulating fabric than jackets. This makes them much warmer... A jacket is a kind of outwear for the upper body that usually ends at the waist or the hips ... provide less warmth than a coat ...' (https://silverbobbin.com/coat-vs-jacket/)
"Oswald’s blue jacket or coat, CE 163, was warmer and heavier than his lighter-weight gray jacket (the gray jacket Oswald ditched for good just before entering the rooming house; the jacket of the Minsk photograph noted earlier).
"Compare the way William Whaley, the cab driver, in his Warren Commission testimony unconsciously associated—just from looking at the items—CE 162 as a 'jacket' whereas he called the blue CE 163 a 'coat':
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.
"Therefore, although due to variability in actual usage this point would not be decisive in itself, when combined with other evidence Earlene’s word choice of 'coat' in her KLIF-Radio interview supports that Oswald left the rooming house with CE 163."
-
Buell Wesley Frazier was describing the same jacket as Linnie Mae, worn by Oswald on the morning of Fri Nov 22, a gray jacket which Buell described and said was neither the off-white light tan 162 nor the blue 163. And Buell was right.
-
1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:
I just checked out pages 47-50. As I've pointed out earlier, Linnie Mae Randle clearly says that Oswald, that morning, was wearing a garment much more like 163 than 162. Shown both, she chose 163.
She did not have to pick either. She could easily have said that neither 162 nor 163 resemble what she saw Oswald wearing that morning.
You think Joseph Ball was performing Jedi mind tricks on witnesses. Personally, I don't think he possessed that ability.
Ball was a veteran very experienced trial attorney, top of his game.
The trick question Ball asked was "now if you had to choose between these two?"
And she had to answer the question. Because that is what witnesses are to do: answer the question asked.
And she answered, "I would choose the dark one [CE 163].
Her reason: because CE 162 was way too light. She protested Oswald's jacket could not have been CE 162 because, she said, Oswald's jacket was gray.
Ball gave her a forced choice between two false alternatives.
I think Pat Speer goes into the Belin and Ball lawyerly team doing numbers on witnesses, in one of the chapters on his website.
Mr. BALL. Here is another jacket [CE 162] which is a gray jacket, does this look anything like the jacket he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; I remember its being gray.
Mr. BALL. Well, this one [CE 162] is gray but of these two the jacket I last showed you [CE 162] is Commission Exhibit No. 162, and this blue gray [CE 163] is 163, now if you had to choose between these two?
Mrs. RANDLE. I would choose the dark one [CE 163].
Mr. BALL. You would choose the dark one?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Which is 163, as being more similar to the jacket he had?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; that I remember. But I, you know, didn’t pay an awful lot of attention to his jacket. I remember his T-shirt and the shirt more so than I do the jacket.
Mr. BALL. The witness just stated that 163 which is the gray-blue is similar to the jacket he had on. 162, the light gray jacket was not.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. I have no further questions.But here is the bottom line: Linnie Mae said the jacket she saw Oswald wearing was gray. She never said the jacket she saw was any color other than gray. Not "light gray". Not "blue-gray". Just gray.
“he had a gray jacket, I believe.”
“It was gray, I am not sure of the shade.
“No, sir [it was not CE 162]; I remember its being gray.”
And Buell Wesley Frazier, describing the same Oswald jacket, the same one Linnie Mae saw (and in a much better position to know it more familiarly than Linnie Mae):
Frazier to the FBI:
“At about 4:45 PM, on November 21, 1963, Frazier and Oswald departed the TSBD Building, walked to Frazier’s car and drove to Irving … As Frazier recalls, Oswald was wearing a reddish shirt and a grey jacket, waist length.” (FBI interview, 12/1/63)
Frazier to the Secret Service:
“All I recall about Oswald’s clothing on the morning of the assassination was a gray wool jacket.” (Buell Wesley Frazier affidavit for the Secret Service, 12/5/63, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=232975#relPageId=45)
FBI again:
“The only thing Frazier can recall about Oswald’s clothing on November 22, 1963, was that Oswald was wearing a gray jacket.” (FBI report, 12/7/63, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=232975#relPageId=49)
From Buell Wesley Frazier’s Warren Commission testimony:
Mr. BALL. I have here Commission’s 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I don’t.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I don’t believe I have.
Mr. BALL. Commission Exhibit No. 162, which can be described for the record as a gray jacket with zipper, have you seen Lee Oswald wear this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I haven’t.(…)
Mr. BALL. On that day you did notice one article of clothing, that is, he had a jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What color was the jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER. It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning.
Mr. BALL. Did it have a zipper on it?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it was one of the zipper types.
Mr. BALL. It isn’t one of these two zipper jackets we have shown? Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.(...)
Mr. BALL. (…) That gray jacket you mentioned, did it have any design in it?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was it light or dark gray?
Mr. FRAZIER. It was light gray.
Mr. BALL. You mentioned it was woolen.
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Long sleeves?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Buttoned sleeves at the wrist, or do you remember?
Mr. FRAZIER. To be frank with you, I didn’t notice that much about the jacket, but I had seen him wear that gray woolen jacket before.(…)
Mr. BALL. On Thursday afternoon when you went home, drove on home, did he carry any package with him?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; he didn’t.
Mr. BALL. Did he have a jacket or coat on him?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a jacket or coat did he have?
Mr. FRAZIER. That, you know, like I say gray jacket.
Mr. BALL. That same gray jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Now, I can be frank with you, I had seen him wear that jacket several times, because it is cool type like when you keep a jacket on all day, if you are working on outside or something like that, you wouldn’t go outside with just a plain shirt on.
Mr. BALL. I have no further questions.Buell Wesley Frazier is a credible witness, about as credible as it gets, drove Lee back and forth, sitting right next to him in the car, saw Lee's gray jacket.
-
12 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:
I haven't read your 117 page "paper".
How about, if the topic interests you, read the paper and get back to me? The paper is the intended topic of this thread.
-
1 minute ago, Bill Brown said:
I haven't read your 117 page "paper". I've been going by only your posts in this thread. My apologies if I've mistakenly attributed things you've said in this thread and assumed you also said them in your "paper". In this thread, you excluded Barbara Davis and then stated as a fact that 100% of the witnesses used the word "jacket" instead of "coat". This mistake of yours proves that the point you were trying to make is completely invalid.
Why the air quotes around "paper"?
And no, Barbara Davis even if she was thinking of the near-white CE 162 months later and had it changed in her memory to a black coat, does not prove the point I was trying to make is "completely invalid". That shows you have not understood the point. See pages 105-106.
-
2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:
Then, after Brewer, we can discuss Linnie Mae Randle.
You (again, incorrectly) stated that it is "absolutely clear" that Oswald wore the gray jacket (162) that morning. But you must have missed perhaps the most important witness, re: what Oswald was wearing that morning.
Linnie Mae Randle saw Oswald approach Buell Frazier's car that morning. She was shown CE-163 and said that it was the jacket/coat Oswald was wearing that morning. She was then shown CE-162 and said that it did not resemble what Oswald was wearing that morning. She was then asked about both items at the same time and she chose 163 as the one Oswald was wearing that morning.
Now obviously if Oswald was wearing 163 that morning (per Randle), then your entire thesis is blown out of the water.
See pp. 47-50 of my paper.
-
1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:
My advice: Just accept that your particular point that none of the Tippit witnesses called the killer's garment a coat is simply invalid, remove it from your "paper" and spend your efforts defending the other points you bring up.
Bill that never was in my paper. I never claimed that in my paper, and never claimed it was in my paper. Its not there now because it never was. Look it up for yourself in my discussion at pages 105-106.
Show the quote in the paper or retract your above.
It would improve discussion if you criticize a paper based on what it says, rather than on what it doesn't say.
I get the impression you never read pages 105-106 before attacking what isn't there, despite my attempts to explain.
-
On 6/6/2023 at 10:41 PM, Bill Brown said:
The bottom line is that three of the Tippit witnesses indeed called the killer's jacket/coat a "coat". This despite Greg Doudna's claim that none of them did. Warren Reynolds was one of them.
Greg, thanks for acknowledging.
Just to be clear Bill, I have been saying all along this was an argument from tendency or statistical incidence, in which "coat" is more natural for CE 163, without ruling out occasional uses applied to CE 162. You keep trying to characterize and represent me as speaking in absolutes.
Actually, the 1 versus 3 disagreement out of 15 aside, I think you and I already agree on the basics:
- that most witnesses were not calling CE 162 a "coat";
- that Earlene called something a "coat";
- and that one of Oswald's two jackets was more naturally called a "coat" than the other: CE 163.
Why not just accept we already agree on those, and then you keep your belief that Earlene was one of the minority of cases that called something a "coat" that few others did and that you wouldn't and I wouldn't, but she could have. There, ended this argument with agreement on all points! 🙂
-
(Another reference thanks to Steve Roe) On Nov 27, 1963, her sister Bertha Cheek, spells her sister's name "Earline" for the FBI, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1136#relPageId=346
-
9 hours ago, Bill Brown said:
As for the Tippit witnesses, some used the term jacket instead of coat. Barbara Davis, who indeed used the word "coat" and Bill Smith, who also used the word "coat" (I think you missed this one). Barbara was looking at the same man her sister-in-law Virginia was looking at and Virginia used the word "jacket". This makes it obvious that two people can be looking at the same item and describe it differently. Warren Reynolds also called it a "coat". The bottom line is, some people would call 162 a jacket and still some prefer to use the word "coat". Is this what you're really building a case on? This wordplay?
No that is not the foundation of the case for Oswald wearing CE 163 out the door of the rooming house. The foundation is the argument that Oswald wore his gray jacket that morning, starting with the testimony of Buell Wesley Frazier and working forward from there, and did not have it going into the rooming house. Therefore coming out of the rooming house with a jacket, and he only had two, his blue jacket (CE 163) is the only other one it could be. That is supported in the "dark" in Earlene's description which agrees with CE 163 but not CE 162, and the "gray" and "coat" of Earlene's description also work well with CE 163.
Anyway, I made my arguments, all 117 pages of it, and people can read and agree or disagree. The linchpin is the gray jacket worn in the morning, and that the gray jacket as described by Buell Wesley Frazier and other witnesses does not at all agree with CE 162, but does agree with this photo of Oswald wearing an unidentified jacket in Minsk, which I think is his gray jacket (not CE 162): https://www.pinterest.com/pin/162692605265325162/.
And the hole in the right elbow in that photo of Oswald's jacket I believe is what Mary Bledsoe saw on the bus.
-
8 hours ago, Bill Brown said:
Greg Doudna said: "Against this database of witnesses of the Tippit killer's jacket/CE 162, which 0% of those two databases totaling 15 call a "coat"...
"In short, in the database of 10 I assessed as descriptions of the killer's jacket, which is CE 162, all 10 out of 10 say "jacket", none "coat". 100%"
To claim that other witnesses did not use the word "coat" is just erroneous.
Bill Smith:
Mr. BALL. What kind of clothes did he have on when he shot the officer?
Mr. SMITH. He had on dark pants--just a minute. He had on dark pants and a sport coat of some kind. I can't really remember very well.
Mr. BALL. I will show you a coat----
Mr. SMITH. This looks like it.Warren Reynolds:
Mr.REYNOLDS. I looked through the parking lot for him after. See, when he went behind the service station, I was right across the street, and when he ducked behind, I ran across the street and asked this man which way he went and they told me the man had gone to the back. And I ran back there and looked up and down the alley right then and didn't see him, and I looked under the cars, and I assumed that he was still hiding there.
Mr. LIEBELER. In the parking lot?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Even to this day I assume that he was.
Mr. LIEBELER. Where was this parking lot located now?
Mr.REYNOLDS. It would be at the back of the Texaco station that is on the corner of Crawford and Jefferson where they found his coat.
Mr. LIEBELER. They found his coat in the parking lot?
Mr.REYNOLDS. They found his coat there.Barbara Davis:
Mr. BALL. Was he dressed the same in the lineup as he was when you saw him running across the lawn?
Mrs. DAVIS. All except he didn't have a black coat on when I saw him in the lineup.
Mr. BALL. Did he have a coat on when you saw him?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What color coat?
Mrs. DAVIS. A dark coat.By the way, Barbara Davis also used the word "jacket", when describing the exact item she earlier called a "coat"...
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.
Bill, you are right on Warren Reynolds and I have corrected my earlier on that: 1 out of the 15 (Reynolds) said "coat", the other 14 said "jacket".
I don't accept the "sport coat" reference of William Smith as a true "coat" parallel to Earlene's "coat" and here is why: that is a technical term for a particular kind of jacket. In America it is called "sport coat", in England "sport jacket" (same meaning for a particular style of jacket). Earlene did not say it was a "sport coat".
And we just disagree on Barbara Davis. Barbara Davis herself when shown CE 162 said CE 162 was not the coat she remembered as black and rough. She did say Oswald was wearing the black coat, but that the black coat was not CE 162. Either she misremembered a white jacket as a rough black coat, or she misremembered who was wearing a rough black coat. Those are the two alternatives. You are certain it was the former, and I am not certain it was the former. So without belaboring this further, there is just disagreement there.
-
7 hours ago, Ron Ege said:
Bill and Greg,
I'm confused; not unusual for me!
Am I understanding (1) Oswald left the rooming house, wearing a "dark color" jacket, and then, (2) Had no jacket on, upon entering the theatre?
So is the light tan jacket, alleged to have been shed by Tippit's killer, found under a vehicle, parked at a gas station, along the route from the the shooting to the TT, one of the Oswald's two jackets in question, be it blue or grey or a third jacket, of whatever provenance?
The Warren Commission said CE 162 the light tan near-white jacket, was one of Oswald's two jackets, his gray jacket. Bill defends the Warren Commission interpretation.
My paper argues CE 162 was a separate, third jacket, was not one of Oswald's two, not Oswald's gray jacket. See pages 42-44 of my paper which summarize the two conflicting interpretations.
Your middle paragraph "Am I understanding..." is an accurate understanding of WC/Bill/David except they don't think Earlene's color "dark" was accurate. It is not accurate for me: I say Oswald did enter the theatre as a ticket-paying customer with the dark jacket Earlene saw him wearing, before the (jacketless) Tippit killer went past Brewer's store and into the balcony.
The link below is a photo of Oswald in Minsk wearing a jacket which I think is Oswald's gray jacket, the gray jacket Buell Wesley Frazier described of Oswald. Notice the hole in the right elbow: that is the hole in the right elbow Mary Bledsoe saw on Oswald on the bus--Oswald was wearing his gray jacket that morning and on that bus.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/162692605265325162/
Marina said Lee had only two jackets, one blue and one gray, and had them in the USSR. It is excluded that this jacket of Oswald's in this Minsk photo is the blue CE 163 and it is excluded that it is CE 162, visually. I doubt either Bill or David will ever, ever admit it just possibly could be Lee's gray jacket in the USSR, even though this jacket on Oswald in this Minsk photo agrees with Buell Wesley Frazier's description of Lee's gray jacket in his Warren Commission testimony.
-
19 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:
The census report from 1930 says she and her husband have two kids, ages 7 and 4.
Puzzling that our Earlene didn't have kids.
I can't find the census reports now that I saw last night to recheck, but good point: I see Earline/Earlene testified to the Warren Commission that she had no children, so whatever census you are looking at (maybe the same I saw?) must be a different person. I wonder what her birth certificate or marriage license said. Her 1966 Dallas Morning News obituary (no children):
-
Bill Brown and Ron Ege, I will address yours shortly, but for the moment, to all, a detail of interest found by Steve Roe: the correct spelling of Earline Roberts’ name.
We all have been spelling “Earlene” and that is the spelling used by the Warren Commission, the FBI, the reporting of Hugh Aynesworth etc.
But as can be confirmed online, the spelling on her death certificate is “Earline”. That is the spelling used in a Dallas newspaper obituary article for her in 1966. I found census reports from 1930-1950 which used “Earline” (though one had, I assume a typo, “Erline”).
In studying these witnesses, average people by total accident caught up in events bigger than themselves, often to their grief in seeming approximate correlation to the degree they tried to tell what they could … I have felt a compassion for these witnesses, such as Earline Roberts.
Although I have not seen confirmation of the spelling on her birth certificate, the information I have seen seems sufficient to conclude her name has been misspelled all this time, and so going forward, as a small token of postmortem respect to this witness I intend to use the correct spelling of her name: Earline. Earline Roberts, R.I.P.
Thanks to Steve Roe for bringing this to attention.
Note added 6/8/23: Much of the above is obsolete in light of a signature of Earlene Roberts spelled "Earlene" on a handwritten affidavit of Dec 5, 1963, brought to attention by Paul Hoch (noted by David von Pein below): https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=233488#relPageId=17.
Lee Harvey Oswald's two jackets and why the Tippit killer's jacket was not one of them
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Greg Doudna
I don’t see any reason to suppose an advance plot to frame Oswald for the Tippit killing. Police were filmed looking at a citizens wallet at the Tippit scene but I don’t buy that had anything to do with Oswald, despite the urban legend-genre surrounding that. I see the arrest of Oswald in the theater as a straight up mistake on the part of police advised by Brewer arresting the killer’s next intended victim instead of the killer who was also in the theater at the time of that arrest. Simple accident, chaos theory at work—an accident that Oswald didn’t end up dead on Nov 22. No advance plot to frame him for the killing of Tippit.
You don’t explain how planting a light tan near-white jacket differing in color from what anyone said Oswald had, with a dry cleaning ticket that looks like it was not from anywhere Oswald was after investigation, would frame Oswald. How? And the witnesses saw the killer wearing a jacket looking like that one. Are you supposing the killer was in on the frame-Oswald plot too to coordinate the color of jacket planting? (Had to be for the plotters to get right style and color of planted jacket planted within minutes, right?) Wouldn’t it just be simpler then to have the killer plant his own jacket there? Oh wait…