Oswald's Jacket

[Kevin Balch]

Has anyone ever taken measurements (sleeve length, waist, collar etc.) of CE162 discarded by Tippit's killer and compared them with CE163 which is presumably Oswald’s jacket? What is considered a particular size can vary among clothing manufacturers. Comparing actual dimensions can rule out whether two garments could be worn by the same person.

Who wears a garment with dry cleaner’s tags still attached unless they either 1) needed a it right away and took what was available or 2) wanted to deliberately plant obfuscating evidence?

Oswald was stationed in Southern California before he was discharged from the Marines. It’s possible he obtained CE162 there, which was the primary market for Maurice Holman clothing. It may also have been dry cleaned in Souther California as well. As far as I can tell, only dry cleaners in the Dallas and New Orleans areas where checked.

[Tom Gram]

30 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

Has anyone ever taken measurements (sleeve length, waist, collar etc.) of CE162 discarded by Tippit's killer and compared them with CE163 which is presumably Oswald’s jacket? What is considered a particular size can vary among clothing manufacturers. Comparing actual dimensions can rule out whether two garments could be worn by the same person.

Who wears a garment with dry cleaner’s tags still attached unless they either 1) needed a it right away and took what was available or 2) wanted to deliberately plant obfuscating evidence?

Oswald was stationed in Southern California before he was discharged from the Marines. It’s possible he obtained CE162 there, which was the primary market for Maurice Holman clothing. It may also have been dry cleaned in Souther California as well. As far as I can tell, only dry cleaners in the Dallas and New Orleans areas were checked.

That’s possible, but who the hell keeps a dry cleaning tag in their jacket for 4+ years? If I recall, the FBI found the specific type of machine used, (a Clean-O-Matic or something like that), and found every dry cleaner in Dallas and New Orleans who had one. None of them generated the tag. 

I think you are right that it was just those two cities. Do we know the condition of the tag, like if it looked old/new, etc.? A four-year-old tag would probably be pretty beat up and faded. 

[Kevin Balch]

I have suits in the closet that I haven’t worn in years with dry cleaning tags still on them (I just checked). When I would have garments dry cleaned I would just hang them up and removed the tags when I resumed wearing them. If I were to donate them, I wouldn’t bother removing the tags.

If Oswald did obtain the jacket in Southern California and it had been dry cleaned there, it could have been in storage with his mother or brother all the time he was in the USSR until sometime after his return to the US. That would explain why Marina was not familiar with it. If it was the jacket Oswald wore as he left the rooming house, it could be the first time he wore it in 4 years.

[Kevin Balch]

On 4/4/2024 at 7:00 PM, Greg Doudna said:

On the mix of the bullet brands. The killer of Tippit used the two brands (R and W, Remington-Peters and Winchester-Western), verified by the bullets taken from Tippit's body in the autopsy. But only one brand, W's only, were found among 5 bullets taken from Oswald's pocket. Perhaps W's only is the true original state of the Oswald bullet evidence, pockets and revolver both. All that needs to be supposed is a substitution of 3 R's replacing 3 W's live bullets from the revolver. Since 1+1 (R and W) were given to the Secret Service on I think Sun afternoon, Nov 24, this would be the terminus ad quem, latest possible, for the substitutions of that to have happened, with the odd conveyance of those two bullets to the Secret Service (no good reason for that I have ever heard explained) being for the actual purpose (possibly) of establishing evidence of mixed-brands for Oswald that early. 

From what I am able to tell, the bullet recovered from Tippit at Methodist Hospital (CE602) was sent to the FBI on November, 22 1963. I do not know if the Dallas Police crime lab had the ability to identify the manufacturer of recovered bullets. 

The FBI sent a request to the Dallas Police Department for the other bullets recovered during the autopsy (CE603-605) in March, 1964 and they were identified (along with the first recovered bullet sent on November 22 as follows:

CE602, CE603, CE605 - Winchester-Western

CE604 - Remington-Peters

Warren Commission Document CD774 March, 27 1964.

This document is the first I am aware of that identifies the bullets recovered from Tippit. I don’t know if CE602 was identified earlier.

If my interpretation is correct, no one knew of the presence of any bullets recovered from Tippit as being made by Remington-Peters until March, 1964.

[Greg Doudna]

4 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

From what I am able to tell, the bullet recovered from Tippit at Methodist Hospital (CE602) was sent to the FBI on November, 22 1963. I do not know if the Dallas Police crime lab had the ability to identify the manufacturer of recovered bullets. 

The FBI sent a request to the Dallas Police Department for the other bullets recovered during the autopsy (CE603-605) in March, 1964 and they were identified (along with the first recovered bullet sent on November 22 as follows:

CE602, CE603, CE605 - Winchester-Western

CE604 - Remington-Peters

Warren Commission Document CD774 March, 27 1964.

This document is the first I am aware of that identifies the bullets recovered from Tippit. I don’t know if CE602 was identified earlier.

If my interpretation is correct, no one knew of the presence of any bullets recovered from Tippit as being made by Remington-Peters until March, 1964.

I appreciate this on this detail Kevin, thanks.

It may not actually disagree with what I said, technically speaking. The Tippit autopsy bullets confirmed the fact that the W's and R's two manufactures of bullets were used in the killing, however as you note that could not have been a source of knowledge of that fact learned on the weekend of Nov 22-24, 1963. The source for that information would necessarily--from the very fact you bring out--be the four shell hulls recovered from the Tippit crime scene on Nov 22. In the scenario in which there were substitutions of those hulls: (a) the R's plus W's mix used by the Tippit killer was learned Nov 22 from the real hulls abandoned by the Tippit killer on Fri Nov 22 (2+2 R's and W's). (b) at some point prior to the FBI lab's receipt of shell hulls a week later, other R's and W's were fired from Oswald's revolver, replications of the officers' markings were made on the substituted hulls, and the substituted R and W hulls were submitted to the FBI lab which matched them to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of any other weapon.

If there were substituted hulls, and if hypothetically that were to be established as distinguished from speculated, the question would arise whether the original (now missing) real hulls of the Tippit killer were indeed R's and W's mixed. However, the Tippit autopsy body bullets independently verify that, in fact, that was the case. That is the sequence of the logic I see.

(On discussion of the chain of custody of the Tippit crime scene shell hulls received by the FBI lab raising the possibility of substitutions, my piece, "Were the Tippit crime scene shell hulls fired from the revolver of Lee Harvey Oswald?", https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/T-BALLISTICS-108-1.pdf .)

[Bill Brown]

On 4/11/2024 at 2:30 PM, Tom Gram said:

That’s possible, but who the hell keeps a dry cleaning tag in their jacket for 4+ years? If I recall, the FBI found the specific type of machine used, (a Clean-O-Matic or something like that), and found every dry cleaner in Dallas and New Orleans who had one. None of them generated the tag. 

I think you are right that it was just those two cities. Do we know the condition of the tag, like if it looked old/new, etc.? A four-year-old tag would probably be pretty beat up and faded. 

 

The B9738 tag had been printed by a Tag-O-Lectric tagging machine and the 030 marking had been printed with a National Laundry tagging machine.

 

Edited April 13 by Bill Brown

[Kevin Balch]

51 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

The B9738 tag had been printed by a Tag-O-Lectric tagging machine and the 030 marking had been printed with a National Laundry tagging machine.

Doesn’t sound like there is enough information to indicate geographical location as well as customer information. Using this information would require actually contacting dry cleaning establishments to see if they used both of these machines as I assume a garment would have any previous tags removed before being dry-cleaned. A massive task even if done by phone. Even limiting Southern California dry cleaning establishments within a 5 mile radius of Oswald’s known postings in Orange and San Diego Counties would be an onerous task, assuming they were still in business in 1964.

I could find no information on either tag equipment company.

[Bill Brown]

2 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

Doesn’t sound like there is enough information to indicate geographical location as well as customer information. Using this information would require actually contacting dry cleaning establishments to see if they used both of these machines as I assume a garment would have any previous tags removed before being dry-cleaned. A massive task even if done by phone. Even limiting Southern California dry cleaning establishments within a 5 mile radius of Oswald’s known postings in Orange and San Diego Counties would be an onerous task, assuming they were still in business in 1964.

I could find no information on either tag equipment company.

 

For what it's worth...

The 30-030 marking could be a water temperature recommendation when laundering a particular piece of garment, in this case, the jacket. 

The B-9738 marking could be a description of the jacket's color of "vanilla".

 

[Paul Cummings]

"On April 7, 1964 Harry Young, City Manager, Dallas Tailor & Laundry Supply, 502 Second, Dallas, Texas, advised SA R Neil Quigley and SA Thomas T. Trettis, Jr, he has been in the laundry business for over twenty years. Upon viewing the a photo of the grey cotton jacket, K42, he stated, in his opinion, the laundry mark in the collar would "030" and not "30 030." He feels the first "30" at best is a partial printing which did not take and the last "030" is the actual number.

He feels the "030" was printed by a National Laundry Marking Machine, in view of the spacing, which is wider than the normal marking machine. The National machine is spaced slightly larger, since it uses an inked pad rather than a ribbon in other machines. The extra spacing on the the National machine is necessary to keep the print from blotting when applied to clothing.

He stated the dry cleaning tag "B9738" was by Tag-O-Lectric Machine."

I believe the Tag-O-Lectric machines were made in Kansas City Missouri. Some where used in the Dallas area but the manufacturing was done in another state.

Edited April 13 by Paul Cummings

[Kevin Balch]

17 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

"On April 7, 1964 Harry Young, City Manager, Dallas Tailor & Laundry Supply, 502 Second, Dallas, Texas, advised SA R Neil Quigley and SA Thomas T. Trettis, Jr, he has been in the laundry business for over twenty years. Upon viewing the a photo of the grey cotton jacket, K42, he stated, in his opinion, the laundry mark in the collar would "030" and not "30 030." He feels the first "30" at best is a partial printing which did not take and the last "030" is the actual number.

He feels the "030" was printed by a National Laundry Marking Machine, in view of the spacing, which is wider than the normal marking machine. The National machine is spaced slightly larger, since it uses an inked pad rather than a ribbon in other machines. The extra spacing on the the National machine is necessary to keep the print from blotting when applied to clothing.

He stated the dry cleaning tag "B9738" was by Tag-O-Lectric Machine."

I believe the Tag-O-Lectric machines were made in Kansas City Missouri. Some where used in the Dallas area but the manufacturing was done in another state.

Would both tags be applied at the same dry cleaner? Hard to imagine why someone would have a garment dry cleaned twice and not removing the tags from the first cleaning before wearing and having it cleaned again.

[Paul Cummings]

29 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

Would both tags be applied at the same dry cleaner? Hard to imagine why someone would have a garment dry cleaned twice and not removing the tags from the first cleaning before wearing and having it cleaned again.

Thanks for the question. I will be asking someone in the industry about it. Rabbit hole

Edited April 13 by Paul Cummings

[Bill Brown]

35 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

Would both tags be applied at the same dry cleaner? Hard to imagine why someone would have a garment dry cleaned twice and not removing the tags from the first cleaning before wearing and having it cleaned again.

The 30 030 was not a removable tag. It was printed onto the jacket. 

[Greg Doudna]

Concerning the color of the CE 162 jacket, the majority of Tippit crime scene witnesses spoke of "warm" light-tan tones of an off-white color of the Tippit killer's jacket, most NOT describing it as gray, even though the Warren Commission was insistent on always calling and labeling CE 162 "gray". The reason? Because Oswald actually did have an honest-to god gray jacket in color. Buell Frazier testified as clearly as could be that Oswald frequently wore a gray jacket to work at the TSBD.

Marina told the FBI Lee had a gray jacket in the Soviet Union that he returned to America with.

Marina said that to the FBI who, however, did not show CE 162 to Marina when she said that, or any other time.

Marina was shown CE 162 for the very first time in her Warren Commission testimony in 1964 at which time she identified it as gray and as Oswald's, and said Oswald wore it to Irving the night of Nov 21.

The Warren Commission rejected Marina's testimony on when she said she saw Oswald wearing CE 162. The Warren Commission concluded Lee wore his blue jacket CE 163 to Irving Nov 21 and back to Dallas on Nov 22, and dismissed Marina's testimony that she saw Lee wear CE 162 the night of Nov 21.

Marina never testified to having seen Lee wear CE 162 on any other specific occasion than the night of Nov 21.

The only specific occasion Marina testified to having seen Lee wear CE 162, the Warren Commission concluded never happened.

Ruth Paine never testified to having ever seen Oswald wear CE 162. Buell Frazier never did. The only time Marina ever claimed to have seen Oswald wear CE 162, the Warren Commission blew that off, decided Marina didn't know what she was talking about on that.

Nobody in Irving ever said they saw Oswald wear CE 162, except Marina whom the Warren Commission dismissed as unbelievable on the one time Marina claimed she had seen the phantom CE 162 on Lee. Nobody in the TSBD ever said they saw Oswald wear CE 162. Nobody at Oswald's rooming house on N. Beckley ever said they saw Oswald wear CE 162. Nobody prior to the Tippit killing ever spoke of Oswald having a light-tan off-white jacket of the color of the Tippit killer's light-tan off-white CE 162.

Oswald did have a gray jacket, however.

It just had nothing to do with CE 162.

A photo of Oswald in a group photo of coworkers in Minsk has Lee in a jacket, not otherwise identified, whose color cannot be verified due to the photo being in black-and-white. As can be seen, the jacket Oswald is wearing in that photo is NOT--is NOT-- CE 162 (nor is it CE 163). But that jacket Oswald is wearing in Minsk DOES EXACTLY match the "flannel, wool-looking" description of Buell Frazier of the real Oswald's "gray" jacket which Frazier saw Oswald frequently wear--sitting next to him in the car--to work to the TSBD, a gray jacket frequently worn by Oswald which Frazier said unequivocally was NOT--was NOT--CE 162. 

The Warren Commission was dead-set on having the off-white light-tan CE 162, the jacket of the Tippit killer, identified as the real gray jacket of Oswald. That is why they consistently labeled CE 162 gray when it was not gray but off-white light tan. That is why. That is why. That is why.

And just about all the major books and discussions in the decades since, more or less, have perpetuated that labeling--continuing to call CE 162, the jacket abandoned by the killer of Tippit, a "gray" jacket, even though it never was gray, except to people challenged with color-recognition issues, or under indoor fluorescent lighting which washes out warm colors in interior lighting.

The Warren Commission called CE 162 a "gray" jacket. And therefore it became a "gray" jacket in the annals of journalism and history writing. That is how powerful a labeling is.

The Tippit killer's light-tan off-white jacket CE 162 was not the color of the real Oswald's gray jacket, because it was not Oswald's gray jacket, which was gray. From the Warren Commission testimony of Buell Frazier:

Mr. BALL - On that day [Nov 22, 1963] 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? [CE 162 and CE 163] 
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. 

(. . .)

Mr. BALL - You are not able to tell us then anything or are you able to tell us, describe any of the clothing he had on that day, except this gray jacket? 
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. 
Mr. BALL - That is the only thing you can remember? 
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. 
Mr. BALL - I have here a paper sack which is Commission's Exhibit 364. 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 - You say it had a zipper on it? 
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.  

Buell Frazier was describing the jacket Oswald was wearing in the Minsk photo, not CE 162.

Edited April 15 by Greg Doudna

[Sean Coleman]

If the 030 label was non removable it was indicating serial/model no.,quality control, place/date of manufacture. Inside info for the factory?

The B9738 ticket was simply to match the customer’s stub? A thru 9999, B thru 9999 etc.?

isn’t it that simple?