Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket

[Michael Griffith]

15 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

William Whaley, who supposedly drove Oswald from downtown Dallas to his neighborhood, testified that Oswald "had on two jackets" while he was allegedly in Whaley's cab. At the police lineup, Whaley selected an eighteen-year-old named David Knapp instead of the twenty-four-year-old Oswald.

Long before he ever testified to the Warren Commission, Whaley described to the FBI what his passenger was wearing and he made not a single mention of any jacket.  Whaley even went as far as describing, in detail, the shirt Oswald was wearing.

Your claim that Whaley picked out anyone other than Oswald at the lineup is pure nonsense.  Whaley picked Oswald.  This is JFK 101.  Learn the evidence.

You are the one who needs to learn the evidence here. Whaley picked the No. 2 guy in the lineup:

        Mr. WHALEY. No, sir; I did not. They asked me which number he was standing under and he was standing under No. 2. (2 H 294)

Oswald was standing under No. 3. Knapp was standing under No. 2 (7 H 200).

As for the jacket issue, said Whaley:

          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. (2 H 253-255)

But, a bit later, he changed his mind:

          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. (2 H 260)

Go read his testimony. He was all over the place about the jacket's color and other clothing. 

And any competent defense attorney would have shredded any attempt to have "Oswald" getting in Whaley's cab at 12:47. The WC's 15-minute-increment explanation is bogus. Whaley's log proves he followed no such practice in logging his times. 

Edited April 11, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Bill Brown]

14 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

You are the one who needs to learn the evidence here. Whaley picked the No. 2 guy in the lineup:

        Mr. WHALEY. No, sir; I did not. They asked me which number he was standing under and he was standing under No. 2. (2 H 294)

Oswald was standing under No. 3. Knapp was standing under No. 2 (7 H 200).

As for the jacket issue, said Whaley:

          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. (2 H 253-255)

But, a bit later, he changed his mind:

          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. (2 H 260)

Go read his testimony. He was all over the place about the jacket's color and other clothing. 

And any competent defense attorney would have shredded any attempt to have "Oswald" getting in Whaley's cab at 12:47. The WC's 15-minute-increment explanation is bogus. Whaley's log proves he followed no such practice in logging his times. 

 

You are the one who needs to learn the evidence here. Whaley picked the No. 2 guy in the lineup

Oswald was standing under No. 3. Knapp was standing under No. 2

 

Nonsense.

 

Yes, Oswald was the #3 man and the #3 man is who Whaley picked, despite his later claim to the Warren Commission that he picked the #2 man.  This is old hat, Mr. Griffith.

 

I suppose you believe that Knapp was "bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers".  Really?  Do you believe that Knapp was doing such a thing?

 

Mr. BALL. They brought you down to the Dallas police station?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you do there?
Mr. WHALEY. Well, I tried to get by the reporters, stepping over television cables and you couldn't hardly get by, they would grab you and wanted to know what you were doing down here, even with the detectives one in front and one behind you. Then they took me in an office there and I think Bill Alexander, the Assistant District Attorney, two or three, I was introduced to two or three who were FBI men and they wanted my deposition of what happened.
So, I told them to the best of my ability. Then they took me down in their room where they have their show-ups, and all, and me and this other taxi driver who was with me, sir, we sat in the room awhile and directly they brought in six men, young teenagers, and they all were handcuffed together. Well, they wanted me to pick out my passenger.
At that time he had on a pair of black pants and white T-shirt, that is all he had on. But you could have picked him out without identifying him by just listening to him because he was bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers and all of that and they asked me which one and I told them. It was him all right, the same man.
 

Edited April 12, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Michael Griffith]

11 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

You are the one who needs to learn the evidence here. Whaley picked the No. 2 guy in the lineup

Oswald was standing under No. 3. Knapp was standing under No. 2

Nonsense.

Yes, Oswald was the #3 man and the #3 man is who Whaley picked, despite his later claim to the Warren Commission that he picked the #2 man.  This is old hat, Mr. Griffith.

I suppose you believe that Knapp was "bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers".  Really?  Do you believe that Knapp was doing such a thing?

Mr. BALL. They brought you down to the Dallas police station?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you do there?
Mr. WHALEY. Well, I tried to get by the reporters, stepping over television cables and you couldn't hardly get by, they would grab you and wanted to know what you were doing down here, even with the detectives one in front and one behind you. Then they took me in an office there and I think Bill Alexander, the Assistant District Attorney, two or three, I was introduced to two or three who were FBI men and they wanted my deposition of what happened.
So, I told them to the best of my ability. Then they took me down in their room where they have their show-ups, and all, and me and this other taxi driver who was with me, sir, we sat in the room awhile and directly they brought in six men, young teenagers, and they all were handcuffed together. Well, they wanted me to pick out my passenger.
At that time he had on a pair of black pants and white T-shirt, that is all he had on. But you could have picked him out without identifying him by just listening to him because he was bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers and all of that and they asked me which one and I told them. It was him all right, the same man.
 

Well, first of all, I note that you declined to address the WC's lame explanation for the pickup time of 12:30 recorded on Whaley's timesheet--obviously, that pickup time categorically rules out Oswald as the passenger. I also note that you declined to address Whaley's varying descriptions of his passenger's clothing.

Anyway, back to Whaley's identification of Oswald in the police lineup. So you admit that Whaley did tell the WC that he chose the No. 2 man, and you concede that the No. 2 man was not Oswald. So it's not "nonsense." It's documented fact.

But you argue, as did the WC, that Whaley simply erred regarding the number he chose because you're certain he chose No. 3. Yet, when Belin asked Whaley why his police affidavit had him saying that he chose No. 3, Whaley explained that he signed the statement before he saw the lineup!

          Mr. WHALEY. I signed that statement before they carried me down to see the lineup. I signed this statement, and then they carried me down to the lineup at 2:30 in the afternoon. (6 H 430)

But then Whaley said the police wrote out a handwritten statement and in the middle of the statement, they stopped and took him down to view the lineup. Then, he said, when he came back, he signed a typed statement (6 H 430).

However, as you should know, there were actually two handwritten statements supposedly taken from Whaley. What's more, as you should also know, Montgomery's handwritten version of the affidavit does not say that Whaley chose No. 3. And then there's the fact that the other handwritten statement is clearly in different handwriting. 

When Belin pressed Whaley about the confusion and about the typed affidavit's assertion that he chose the No. 3 man, Whaley said he wasn't sure he'd seen the handwritten statement, and then added that "I signed my name [on the typed statement] because they said that is what I said" (6 H 431).

When Whaley told the WC that he identified the No. 2 man, he added that the man he picked "was the third one that came out" (6 H 430). This is important because the numbers on the lineup stage were numbered from left to right (7 H 249), which means that the No. 2 man would have been the third man to come out. (No. 4 would have been the first man to come out, No. 3 the second, No. 2 the third, and No. 1 the fourth.)

Now, you can try to spin and minimize these problems until the Sun burns out, but these problems, if nothing else, show that Whaley's identification of Oswald would have been strongly challenged in a trial. Indeed, it's doubtful that a fair judge would have admitted the identification as evidence.

Oh, yes, as you note, Whaley certainly did talk about Oswald's complaining about the lineup and about being placed among a bunch of teens, etc., etc., and Whaley did indeed say that a person could have picked out Oswald just based on his loud protests to the police.

Yet, you spin these facts as nothing more than proof that Whaley identified Oswald. You miss the obvious point that an identification in such a grossly rigged lineup was virtually a foregone conclusion, that any honest judge would have ruled that the lineup was markedly unfair and would have thrown out the identification.

Add to this the fact that the 12:30 pickup time rules out Oswald as the passenger, that Whaley said the man he picked in the lineup was the third man to come out (which would have been the man standing under No. 2), that Montgomery's handwritten affidavit says nothing about Whaley choosing No. 3, and that Whaley was all over the map about his passenger's clothing--add this all up and you have, at a bare minimum, a very questionable identification.

Edited April 12, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Bill Brown]

23 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Well, first of all, I note that you declined to address the WC's lame explanation for the pickup time of 12:30 recorded on Whaley's timesheet--obviously, that pickup time categorically rules out Oswald as the passenger. I also note that you declined to address Whaley's varying descriptions of his passenger's clothing.

Anyway, back to Whaley's identification of Oswald in the police lineup. So you admit that Whaley did tell the WC that he chose the No. 2 man, and you concede that the No. 2 man was not Oswald. So it's not "nonsense." It's documented fact.

But you argue, as did the WC, that Whaley simply erred regarding the number he chose because you're certain he chose No. 3. Yet, when Belin asked Whaley why his police affidavit had him saying that he chose No. 3, Whaley explained that he signed the statement before he saw the lineup!

          Mr. WHALEY. I signed that statement before they carried me down to see the lineup. I signed this statement, and then they carried me down to the lineup at 2:30 in the afternoon. (6 H 430)

But then Whaley said the police wrote out a handwritten statement and in the middle of the statement, they stopped and took him down to view the lineup. Then, he said, when he came back, he signed a typed statement (6 H 430).

However, as you should know, there were actually two handwritten statements supposedly taken from Whaley. What's more, as you should also know, Montgomery's handwritten version of the affidavit does not say that Whaley chose No. 3. And then there's the fact that the other handwritten statement is clearly in different handwriting. 

When Belin pressed Whaley about the confusion and about the typed affidavit's assertion that he chose the No. 3 man, Whaley said he wasn't sure he'd seen the handwritten statement, and then added that "I signed my name [on the typed statement] because they said that is what I said" (6 H 431).

When Whaley told the WC that he identified the No. 2 man, he added that the man he picked "was the third one that came out" (6 H 430). This is important because the numbers on the lineup stage were numbered from left to right (7 H 249), which means that the No. 2 man would have been the third man to come out. (No. 4 would have been the first man to come out, No. 3 the second, No. 2 the third, and No. 1 the fourth.)

Now, you can try to spin and minimize these problems until the Sun burns out, but these problems, if nothing else, show that Whaley's identification of Oswald would have been strongly challenged in a trial. Indeed, it's doubtful that a fair judge would have admitted the identification as evidence.

Oh, yes, as you note, Whaley certainly did talk about Oswald's complaining about the lineup and about being placed among a bunch of teens, etc., etc., and Whaley did indeed say that a person could have picked out Oswald just based on his loud protests to the police.

Yet, you spin these facts as nothing more than proof that Whaley identified Oswald. You miss the obvious point that an identification in such a grossly rigged lineup was virtually a foregone conclusion, that any honest judge would have ruled that the lineup was markedly unfair and would have thrown out the identification.

Add to this the fact that the 12:30 pickup time rules out Oswald as the passenger, that Whaley said the man he picked in the lineup was the third man to come out (which would have been the man standing under No. 2), that Montgomery's handwritten affidavit says nothing about Whaley choosing No. 3, and that Whaley was all over the map about his passenger's clothing--add this all up and you have, at a bare minimum, a very questionable identification.

 

Blah, blah blah.

 

Again...

 

I suppose you believe that Knapp was "bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers".  Really?  Do you believe that Knapp was doing such a thing?

 

[Michael Griffith]

3 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Blah, blah blah.

Again...

I suppose you believe that Knapp was "bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers".  Really?  Do you believe that Knapp was doing such a thing?

"Blah, blah, blah" = you have no answer for the evidence I presented.

And you surely must know that your question about Knapp is disingenuous. You're simply ignoring the points I made about the problems with Whaley's identification. 

 

[Bill Brown]

5 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

"Blah, blah, blah" = you have no answer for the evidence I presented.

And you surely must know that your question about Knapp is disingenuous. You're simply ignoring the points I made about the problems with Whaley's identification. 

 

 

No Sir.  You are changing the subject in an attempt to avoid answering my original question.

 

You said that Whaley didn't pick Oswald at the lineup.  You said Whaley picked the #2 man while Oswald was the #3 man.  You said that Whaley actually picked Knapp.

 

I told you what Whaley said about the guy he did pick, about how the guy was acting; and it certainly was not Knapp.  Unless you believe that Knapp was "bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers".

 

 

[Bill Brown]

On 4/11/2023 at 1:45 AM, Greg Doudna said:

Not acceptable. Again you do not give a direct answer. I will give straight answers to you on anything relating to this topic, I assure you. But you are continuing to try to deflect without answering the question. In order to engage with you I need to know what you mean, and not be drawn into guessing and then have you rip me for guessing wrong on your reason when you REFUSE to say what your reason IS.

You have said "the killer did not touch the quarter panel". You have denied saying it could not have happened. But you have said that it did not happen, as if you have some (secret???) means of knowing that with certainty. 

Your statement, without qualification, that the killer did not touch the quarter panel (the right front fender of Tippit's patrol car), you have used as a premise upon which you have built further argument.

When you say "let me put it to you this way..." is that a retraction, a replacement for, or in addition to your assertion, which despite four direct requests from me you still refuse to explain: "the killer did not touch the quarter panel"?

If I allow you to change the subject without you giving a straight answer to what I asked, then you will attack that and it will derail further. 

That is unacceptable. 

Do you believe with certainty your repeated unqualified statement, "the killer did not touch the quarter panel"? If that's not what you meant in its presently worded form, then why not just up front say so, replace it with what you now do believe in a more accurate form, and be done with it?

If you are in good faith my question should not be that hard to answer. 

I will give a straight answer to your question above now, then I want yours: My answer is I don't know the 99% Bayesian probability figure estimate, that specific number, is correct. I believe the Bayesian number is high based on the finding that a single person, and only a single person, left all the prints in both locations, and the killer was the only and last person seen with arms and hands and body leaning on the right front door where those prints were found, and was also standing next to the right front fender where he was shooting and could have stumbled and left that handprint there. Maybe the Bayesian number should be only 92.5%, or 95.4%, who knows, I just think its high for reasons stated. You don't need to agree, but I have answered your question, which was why think the figure is high ("99%").

Its like coming across a spilled goldfish bowl which had a goldfish in it which is now missing and a happy cat nearby, and concluding the Bayesian number is high on a certain explanation of how the goldfish might have disappeared. 

(Note that Bayesian probability says nothing about whether something actually is true or not true after all the evidence is considered. It is a subjective estimate of what one would expect based on starting conditions prior to getting the full evidence to know.)

Question answered.

Now I am ready for your answer to mine.  

Give a straight answer, or I'm about done here.

 

Greg, as simple as I can answer this... No witness said the killer touched the front fender/quarter panel.  The man was walking on the sidewalk and then went straight to the passenger door to talk to Tippit.  The man would have no reason at that moment to touch the front fender.  Then, after the man shoots Tippit from across the hood, the man backs up onto the sidewalk and heads toward the corner in the opposite direction from the front passenger fender..  At no point does this man touch the front passenger fender.

 

It is YOU who is stating that the killer touched the front passenger fender without a shred of evidence to suggest such a scenario.  This is the kind of thing you do all the time, quite frankly.

 

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

Greg, as simple as I can answer this... No witness said the killer touched the front fender/quarter panel.  The man was walking on the sidewalk and then went straight to the passenger door to talk to Tippit.  The man would have no reason at that moment to touch the front fender.  Then, after the man shoots Tippit from across the hood, the man backs up onto the sidewalk and heads toward the corner in the opposite direction from the front passenger fender..  At no point does this man touch the front passenger fender.

OK thanks Bill, this is progress, in answer to the question of why you are certain the shooter of Tippit did not leave a handprint from a right hand lifted at the right front fender of the patrol car.

Just to be clear (please confirm I am understanding you correctly): you are saying there is 0% realistic or reasonable possibility it came from the shooter (i.e. certainty it did not happen from the shooter), for two reasons: because no witness saw it, and because there is no reasonable scenario whereby the shooter would have, based on his location, movements, and purpose. 

Does that accurately represent your position?

Just to clarify (please stay with me on this), it is agreed the shooter stepped back a little and moved to the right (east) from the front passenger window, in order to shoot over the hood as he did and was seen doing. How far forward are you assuming is the realistic maximum he would or did move toward the front of the car, when shooting, before retreating back to the sidewalk? 

Do you think it is possible he was standing over where that handprint was found (that far forward on the right side of the patrol car), or do you believe that far forward is not realistically imaginable? Thanks—

[Michael Griffith]

18 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

No Sir.  You are changing the subject in an attempt to avoid answering my original question.

You said that Whaley didn't pick Oswald at the lineup.  You said Whaley picked the #2 man while Oswald was the #3 man.  You said that Whaley actually picked Knapp.

I told you what Whaley said about the guy he did pick, about how the guy was acting; and it certainly was not Knapp.  Unless you believe that Knapp was "bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers".

Your "original question" misses the point and dodges a bunch of contrary evidence. 

Whaley told the WC that he picked the No. 2 man, and the No. 2 man was not Oswald. Whaley even specified that the man he picked was the third man to come out, who was not Oswald. Montgomery's first handwritten statement taken from Whaley said nothing about his having chosen the No. 3 man.

Yes, of course, Whaley also said that anyone could have picked Oswald because Oswald was bawling out the police and objecting to the lineup. But, but he also said, over and over again, that he picked the No. 2 guy and that that guy was the third man out, which rules out Oswald. This is what's called a contradiction.

And this is not to mention the damning 12:30 pickup time noted on Whaley's timesheet, which categorically rules out Oswald as the passenger. The WC's claim that Whaley entered his pickup times in 15-minute increments is demonstrably false. The Commission's claim that the pickup time was actually 12:47 contradicts their 15-minute-intervals claim and makes no sense anyway, since, if Whaley did enter his times in 15-minute increments (which he didn't), he would have entered the time as either 12:45 or 1:00. 

How many times are you going to restate the undisputed fact that Whaley acknowledged that, yes, certainly, Oswald was bawling out the police and complaining about the lineup, without addressing the obvious implications for the fairness of the lineup and the admissibility of an identification made at such a lineup? 

Any honest judge would have tossed the identification based on the gross unfairness and irregularity of the lineup, not to mention the suspicious contradictions in the three Whaley statements taken by the police. 

First off, Oswald had requested a lawyer. He should not have been forced to appear in a lineup until his request for a lawyer had been met. 

Second, in a valid, legal, and fair police lineup, Oswald would not have been made to appear to stand out in any way. The clothing of the other lineup members would have been comparable to his--not exactly the same but comparable. The other members would have been of the same approximate height and weight and age--not exact but approximate. This is just common sense and basic fairness. 

And, needless to say, no witness should never, ever, ever have been allowed to view a lineup while Oswald was vocally complaining about the lineup's fairness. I know you WC apologists are willing to say the Earth is flat rather than admit anything in Oswald's favor, but, sheesh, this point seems so obvious and self-evident that it's hard to fathom how any credible person could deny it. 

 

Edited April 14, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Bill Brown]

5 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Your "original question" misses the point and dodges a bunch of contrary evidence. 

Whaley told the WC that he picked the No. 2 man, and the No. 2 man was not Oswald. Whaley even specified that the man he picked was the third man to come out, who was not Oswald. Montgomery's first handwritten statement taken from Whaley said nothing about his having chosen the No. 3 man.

Yes, of course, Whaley also said that anyone could have picked Oswald because Oswald was bawling out the police and objecting to the lineup. But, but he also said, over and over again, that he picked the No. 2 guy and that that guy was the third man out, which rules out Oswald. This is what's called a contradiction.

And this is not to mention the damning 12:30 pickup time noted on Whaley's timesheet, which categorically rules out Oswald as the passenger. The WC's claim that Whaley entered his pickup times in 15-minute increments is demonstrably false. The Commission's claim that the pickup time was actually 12:47 contradicts their 15-minute-intervals claim and makes no sense anyway, since, if Whaley did enter his times in 15-minute increments (which he didn't), he would have entered the time as either 12:45 or 1:00. 

How many times are you going to restate the undisputed fact that Whaley acknowledged that, yes, certainly, Oswald was bawling out the police and complaining about the lineup, without addressing the obvious implications for the fairness of the lineup and the admissibility of an identification made at such a lineup? 

Any honest judge would have tossed the identification based on the gross unfairness and irregularity of the lineup, not to mention the suspicious contradictions in the three Whaley statements taken by the police. 

First off, Oswald had requested a lawyer. He should not have been forced to appear in a lineup until his request for a lawyer had been met. 

Second, in a valid, legal, and fair police lineup, Oswald would not have been made to appear to stand out in any way. The clothing of the other lineup members would have been comparable to his--not exactly the same but comparable. The other members would have been of the same approximate height and weight and age--not exact but approximate. This is just common sense and basic fairness. 

And, needless to say, no witness should never, ever, ever have been allowed to view a lineup while Oswald was vocally complaining about the lineup's fairness. I know you WC apologists are willing to say the Earth is flat rather than admit anything in Oswald's favor, but, sheesh, this point seems so obvious and self-evident that it's hard to fathom how any credible person could deny it. 

 

 

So then, you do indeed believe that Knapp was "bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers".

 

Strange, but okay I guess.

[Michael Griffith]

16 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

So then, you do indeed believe that Knapp was "bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers".

Strange, but okay I guess.

in reply to that evasive, juvenile argument, I'll just say "see my previous three replies." 

[Steve Roe]

3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

in reply to that evasive, juvenile argument, I'll just say "see my previous three replies." 

Mr. Griffith, simple question. Did Lee Harvey Oswald murder Patrolman Tippit?

[Michael Griffith]

50 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

Mr. Griffith, simple question. Did Lee Harvey Oswald murder Patrolman Tippit?

Here's my answer:

Did Oswald Shoot Tippit?

[Steve Roe]

32 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Here's my answer:

Did Oswald Shoot Tippit?

Reading through all that, all your disagreements with Myers and other stuff, you never reached any conclusion whether or not Oswald shot Tippit. Did I get that right?

[Bill Brown]

8 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

in reply to that evasive, juvenile argument, I'll just say "see my previous three replies." 

 

Look.  This is real simple.  In addition to trying to change the subject, you said that Whaley did not choose Oswald at the lineup; that he chose Knapp.

 

But, you were completely unaware that Whaley said that the man he chose was bawling out the police and complaining about being placed in lineups alongside teenagers.

 

Perhaps you should stop commenting on subjects that you are clueless on.

 

So my direct question to you (AGAIN), do you believe Knapp was bawling out the police or were you wrong to say Whaley chose Knapp?  It's one or the other.