Lee Harvey Oswald's two jackets and why the Tippit killer's jacket was not one of them

[Greg Doudna]

"Lee Harvey Oswald's two jackets and why the Tippit killer's jacket was not one of them"

117 pages

https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1553 

 

[Michael Griffith]

Greg, your paper is excellent. I've added a link to it on the Article and Videos page of my JFKA website.

jfkassassination (google.com)

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Greg, your paper is excellent. I've added a link to it on the Article and Videos page of my JFKA website.

jfkassassination (google.com)

Thanks Michael.

[Greg Doudna]

The most important findings are that CE 162 was the Tippit killer’s abandoned jacket but was not Oswald’s gray jacket; and, in an inversion of the Warren Report’s reconstruction, Oswald first wore his gray jacket the morning of Fri Nov 22, then changed into his blue jacket (CE 163) at 1 p.m. at the rooming house and left with that. (The Warren Report argued the opposite sequence.)

Edited June 4, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Michael Kalin]

Any thought given to the possibility that CE162 was planted by DPD in the parking lot between Ballew's & the ALT? Myers' Dean’s Dairy Way voice-from-the-past article consisting of family folklore carries very little conviction. If Dodie Dean had something important to say she should have been interviewed at the same time as the Brocks, not her descendants many years later.

Probably Captain Westbrook himself did not plant the jacket. More likely it was the work of his operative, Sergeant Hill, taking a slight detour en route to the Tippit murder scene.

[Bill Brown]

On 6/3/2023 at 12:02 PM, Greg Doudna said:

The most important findings are that CE 162 was the Tippit killer’s abandoned jacket but was not Oswald’s gray jacket; and, in an inversion of the Warren Report’s reconstruction, Oswald first wore his gray jacket the morning of Fri Nov 22, then changed into his blue jacket (CE 163) at 1 p.m. at the rooming house and left with that. (The Warren Report argued the opposite sequence.)

 

So Mary Bledose was telling porky pies when she said she saw Oswald on the McWatters bus, noticing the hole in the elbow of the shirt?  How about the fact that 163 was found inside the Depository, nowhere near Oak Cliff?

 

[Greg Doudna]

44 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

So Mary Bledose was telling porky pies when she said she saw Oswald on the McWatters bus, noticing the hole in the elbow of the shirt?  How about the fact that 163 was found inside the Depository, nowhere near Oak Cliff?

Bill I give what I believe is a heretofore overlooked solution to what Mary Bledsoe saw originally: that was the gray jacket of Oswald, which can be seen to have a hole in its right elbow in a photo of Oswald’s gray jacket Oswald is wearing in Minsk. This also resolves how two others on the bus, McWatters and Jones, remembered a jacket on Oswald which conflicts with the notion that Bledsoe was seeing details of a shirt including a hole in an elbow worn under a jacket. The brown color and the CE 150 ID isn’t right, that was secondary influenced, but the torn hole, no buttons, dirty and tucked in under his belt was true, plus the gray jacket is what Oswald was wearing at the time Mary Bledsoe saw whatever she saw, which was that. Argument in the paper. 

I address the relocation of CE 163 from the theater to its find in the TSBD three weeks later.

 

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

Any thought given to the possibility that CE162 was planted by DPD in the parking lot between Ballew's & the ALT? Myers' Dean’s Dairy Way voice-from-the-past article consisting of family folklore carries very little conviction. If Dodie Dean had something important to say she should have been interviewed at the same time as the Brocks, not her descendants many years later.

Probably Captain Westbrook himself did not plant the jacket. More likely it was the work of his operative, Sergeant Hill, taking a slight detour en route to the Tippit murder scene.

I think it was the genuine tippit killers jacket because it exactly matches analysis of ten Tippit crime scene witness descriptions of the killers jacket color, the killer did abandon the jacket the witnesses saw on the killer, and the Ballews Texaco location is where the killer ran. I don’t see what problem is solved by supposing police come up with a fake jacket within only minutes of learning of the crime, made to order to agree exactly with what the killer was wearing anyway according to the witnesses. 

Edited June 5, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[David Von Pein]

On 6/3/2023 at 12:45 AM, Greg Doudna said:

"Lee Harvey Oswald's two jackets and why the Tippit killer's jacket was not one of them"....

117 pages ---- https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1553

Greg's jacket theory, like most conspiracy theories, is just about the opposite of the truth and the known facts. Oswald's BLUE jacket was, of course, found in the TSBD's Domino Room in December 1963. And Earlene Roberts, in the Day 1 (11/22/63) KLIF Radio interview linked below, said that Oswald left the roominghouse on November 22nd wearing a "short gray coat", not a blue jacket.

 

Also see the following excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's book concerning the two jackets that Lee Oswald owned (click to enlarge):

 

Edited June 5, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Greg's jacket theory, like most conspiracy theories, is just about the opposite of the truth and the known facts. Oswald's BLUE jacket was, of course, found in the TSBD's Domino Room on December 6, 1963. And Earlene Roberts, in the Day 1 (11/22/63) KLIF Radio interview linked below, said that Oswald left the roominghouse on November 22nd wearing a "short gray coat", not a blue jacket.

David, agreed it was found at the TSBD on Dec 16 (not Dec 6). (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57742#relPageId=19) I don't dispute that. The issue I take up in my paper is where was the jacket Nov 22.

On Earlene Roberts and her KLIF-Radio interview and the "gray", that is one of the strongest arguments she meant Oswald's blue CE 163 and not the Tippit killer's CE 162, for reasons I go into in my paper. Earlene gave only two colors--ever--for the jacket she saw Lee leaving zipping up. She was not inconsistent at all in what she said she saw. She has been misrepresented. She has been considered all over the map in what she said. Not so, not on the color of the jacket. She never said the jacket was white, or light tan. Never happened, either of those. She never said it was a "light" color. She used only two words, ever, in description of the jacket she saw Oswald leaving wearing: it was "dark" and it was "gray". Those two words. That's what she said.

Now why "gray" (which is compatible with her "dark")? Because she was diabetic and yellow-blue color-blind is why, medically incapable of seeing blue. For those who are yellow-blue colorblind blue appears as gray. Earlene Roberts was diabetic, had been in two diabetic comas, was afraid to take trips away from Dallas and be away from her doctor because of her diabetes. I discussed a 2017 study showing 22% of all Type 2 (adult-onset) diabetics are colorblind, escalating still higher for factors of age, poor eyesight, and length of time diabetic, all three of those worsening factors applicable to Earlene Roberts. And the most common type of color-blindness for diabetics, that study reported, is yellow-blue colorblind in which blue is seen as gray.

CE 162, the Tippit killer's jacket, was not even gray. It was an off-white, near-white light tan.  

Earlene Roberts called the jacket she saw "dark". Unmodified, full stop, "dark". That's in an early affidavit. She called it "gray" as you note on the KLIF-Radio interview the afternoon of Nov 22. Both of those apply directly to CE 163, Oswald's blue coat, as she saw and told what she saw. Neither apply to CE 162, the off-white light tan Tippit killer's abandoned jacket. Incidentally Mr. Ball of the Warren Commission also called CE 163 "blue-gray" too.  

Now you can say Earlene got it wrong, really saw a near-white light-tan CE 162 and called it "dark" and "gray". But her description has nothing to do with CE 162. No other witness called CE 162 "dark" (not Barbara Davis by my analysis in the paper), and neither did Earlene because she wasn't describing CE 162.

(The claim that Earlene said it was "white" is baseless, someone mishearing and misreporting her on KLIF-Radio saying "gray". The claim that Earlene said it was "light tan" came from a story by Hugh Aynesworth published Nov 28 based on an interview of her Nov 22 and I checked and found no corroboration for Earlene saying "light tan" anywhere else. Since Aynesworth's attribution to her of the "light tan" is unconfirmed, since it is out of keeping with every other description Earlene gave of the jacket which was consistently "dark" and "gray", just those two words only, and because Aynesworth's widely circulated story was coincidentally in agreement with the color of the Tippit killer's jacket which was light tan and witnesses were being reported calling it by that color, and the narrative was motivated to connect it to the jacket Earlene saw, I concluded in my study that Earlene never said that, that Aynesworth misreported her, and I suspect, in that particular case, that it was intentional.) 

And notice Earlene Roberts mentioned the jacket on KLIF-Radio twice, and both times called it a "coat", not a "jacket". Why is that? Because Oswald's blue jacket or coat, CE 163, is heavier and lined and warmer, and although there is overlap in the words, the words are not completely synonymous. "Coat" tends to be used of warmer, heavier outerwear than "jacket". She called Oswald's jacket a "coat" both times on KLIF-Radio because it was Oswald's blue coat, CE 163. I noted that William Whaley, the cab driver, when he was being shown both CE 162 and CE 163 during his Warren Commission testimony, unconsciously called CE 162 a "jacket" and CE 163 a "coat". It was unconscious. Just how those two looked to Whaley. Similarly with Earlene Roberts' "coat". 

"Dark", "gray" (blue --> gray, to her), "coat". It is what she said. You can disagree with her. But it is what she said. Picture perfect (understanding a diabetic colorblind medical inability to see blue) description of CE 163.

I like a lot of what you say in discussions David. There is no need to label my paper with sweeping name-calling when it is obvious you haven't read or understand the first thing of my actual argument on the specific points you are attacking. You're better than that. I am hoping my study will be fruitful and productive on a number of points. 

Edited June 5, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[David Von Pein]

Thank you, Greg, for your last detailed post concerning your beliefs pertaining to Oswald's jackets. I can see that you've put a lot of time into creating that large 117-page report/essay on the jackets.

You're 100% wrong regarding the Jacket Charade (in my opinion), but your diligent effort to try and clear up any confusion concerning the jackets is certainly duly noted by yours truly.

Earlene Roberts, by the way, doesn't always refer to Oswald's outer garment as a "coat" (although, yes, she certainly did on Nov. 22 during her KLIF interview). But during her Warren Commission testimony, she referred to LHO's garment as a "jacket" as well.

And in case you're keeping a Jacket Scorecard, the official tally I came up with after looking through Mrs. Roberts' whole WC session is:

"Jacket" --- 5 references.
"Coat" --- 2 references.

In any event, regardless of which word Mrs. Roberts chose to use to describe the outer garment that Lee Harvey Oswald was wearing when he dashed out of his room in a hurry on November 22, 1963, the whole Jacket Charade that you, Greg Doudna, outline in such great detail in your lengthy article is something that is extremely unlikely to have occurred.

And the main reason the police wouldn't have wanted to play Musical Jackets with Oswald's garments is because they just simply didn't need to --- and that's because Lee Oswald still had the Tippit murder weapon on him when he was arrested in the Texas Theater. (Not to mention the multiple eyewitnesses who positively identified Oswald at or near the scene of Tippit's murder with a gun in his hands.)

So, given the fact the DPD knew they had the real killer of Officer Tippit in custody (namely: Lee Oswald), why the need to play Musical Jackets?

But, of course, since Greg Doudna doesn't think Lee Oswald killed J.D. Tippit at all (see Pages 44 and 117), that leaves open a wide variety of unsupportable theories that Greg can pluck from the sky in order to justify why the cops did this and did that.

That's what's so nice about being a conspiracy believer---there's almost nothing that can't be theorized. Even a needless Jacket Charade....and, of course, the switcheroo of the Tippit bullet shells (which is a must---if we're to believe Oswald didn't shoot J.D. Tippit).

I wonder if there is ANY evidence in the JFK & Tippit cases that an Internet conspiracy theorist thinks wasn't tampered with and/or manipulated by the authorities?

Greg Doudna has now added Oswald's two jackets to the list of "Fraudulent Evidence". (And as far as I can recall, that's the first time those two items have been labeled as "Fake" or "Tampered With" by any conspiracist.)

What's next? Oswald's wedding ring in the teacup?
 

[Charles Blackmon]

DPD Jesse Curry, 11/06/1969, Dallas Morning News:

"I'm not sure about it. No one has ever been able to put him (Oswald) in the Texas School Book Depository with a rifle in his hand."

DPD couldn't do it, FBI couldn't do it. Nobody knows where he was at 12:30 unless photo/video enhancement eventually turns up something.

[Greg Doudna]

6 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Thank you, Greg, for your last detailed post concerning your beliefs pertaining to Oswald's jackets. I can see that you've put a lot of time into creating that large 117-page report/essay on the jackets.

You're 100% wrong regarding the Jacket Charade (in my opinion), but your diligent effort to try and clear up any confusion concerning the jackets is certainly duly noted by yours truly.

Earlene Roberts, by the way, doesn't always refer to Oswald's outer garment as a "coat" (although, yes, she certainly did on Nov. 22 during her KLIF interview). But during her Warren Commission testimony, she referred to LHO's garment as a "jacket" as well.

And in case you're keeping a Jacket Scorecard, the official tally I came up with after looking through Mrs. Roberts' whole WC session is:

"Jacket" --- 5 references.
"Coat" --- 2 references.

In any event, regardless of which word Mrs. Roberts chose to use to describe the outer garment that Lee Harvey Oswald was wearing when he dashed out of his room in a hurry on November 22, 1963, the whole Jacket Charade that you, Greg Doudna, outline in such great detail in your lengthy article is something that is extremely unlikely to have occurred.

And the main reason the police wouldn't have wanted to play Musical Jackets with Oswald's garments is because they just simply didn't need to --- and that's because Lee Oswald still had the Tippit murder weapon on him when he was arrested in the Texas Theater. (Not to mention the multiple eyewitnesses who positively identified Oswald at or near the scene of Tippit's murder with a gun in his hands.)

So, given the fact the DPD knew they had the real killer of Officer Tippit in custody (namely: Lee Oswald), why the need to play Musical Jackets?

But, of course, since Greg Doudna doesn't think Lee Oswald killed J.D. Tippit at all (see Pages 44 and 117), that leaves open a wide variety of unsupportable theories that Greg can pluck from the sky in order to justify why the cops did this and did that.

That's what's so nice about being a conspiracy believer---there's almost nothing that can't be theorized. Even a needless Jacket Charade....and, of course, the switcheroo of the Tippit bullet shells (which is a must---if we're to believe Oswald didn't shoot J.D. Tippit).

I wonder if there is ANY evidence in the JFK & Tippit cases that an Internet conspiracy theorist thinks wasn't tampered with and/or manipulated by the authorities?

Greg Doudna has now added Oswald's two jackets to the list of "Fraudulent Evidence". (And as far as I can recall, that's the first time those two items have been labeled as "Fake" or "Tampered With" by any conspiracist.)

What's next? Oswald's wedding ring in the teacup?
 

David no, moving the blue jacket to the TSBD to be found at the TSBD 3-1/2 weeks later on Dec 16, had no motive to incriminate Oswald in that. You misunderstand, misrepresent, mocking as pointless something that is not the reason.

Rather it was the opposite: NOT moving out of the Texas Theatre a jacket if it verifiably turned out to be Oswald's would powerfully function to EXCULPATE Oswald. That would be the issue, the point. If that had happened, you would have to toss out witness Brewer and witness Julia Postal saying they saw the man who ran in the theatre at 1:35, the Tippit killer, had no jacket when he went into the theater. You would have to toss out CE 162 being the killer's jacket, call that a mistake too. If you toss out those, then you begin to wonder what is left of the case that the man who ran into the Theatre at 1:35 was Oswald. Do you see? The case would become about 100 times more complicated at that point from a prosecutor's point of view. 

And further, on why it certainly was CE 163 the blue jacket that Earlene saw Lee leave the rooming house with: because Lee only had two jackets, a gray and a blue, and it is absolutely clear that he wore the gray jacket that morning. That can be tracked straight through from Irving to the cab letting him out on N. Beckley that day, witness after witness. That is so clear from the evidence that even Myers in With Malice admits that "eyewitness recollections" support the gray jacket worn in the morning and, unlike the Warren Commission, Myers allows that that "remains a possibility" (that Lee wore his gray jacket that morning in agreement with the witnesses), p. 343 of the 2013 edition. Myers notes "inconsistencies" in the witness testimonies (that is, notably witness testimony supporting Lee wearing a gray jacket that morning) and ends up not taking a firm stand on which jacket Oswald wore that morning. That is, Myers ends up inconclusive on the matter of which jacket Lee wore that morning.

(Myers: "On the other hand, the somewhat convoluted eyewitness suggestion that Oswald wore the light gray jacket to Irving on Thursday night, to work the following morning, and to his Oak Cliff room after the assassination remains a possibility. It may be that the blue jacket, later found in the Depository, had been left behind on a previous occasion.")

(Note on the above: Myers' reference to "light" gray jacket is not how witnesses who spoke of Oswald's gray jacket that morning or of Oswald's wearing of his gray jacket to work to the TSBD normally spoke of Oswald's gray jacket: they overwhelmingly called it simply "gray". The one real exception was one instance of Buell Wesley Frazier. Frazier was describing Oswald's gray jacket in his Warren Commission testimony as gray, flannel-like, woolen-like (not at all a description of CE 162) ... and when shown CE 162 directly, Frazier categorically denied Oswald's gray jacket was CE 162, said he'd never seen CE 162 on Oswald. It was then Frazier was asked whether Oswald's actual gray jacket--the gray jacket of Oswald to which Buell Frazier testified and described from personal knowledge--was a "light" or "dark" shade of gray. Given those two only choices, Buell Frazier said "light", as opposed to "dark". Though no color photo exists of Oswald's true gray jacket--I think I found a black-and-white photo of Oswald wearing his gray jacket in Minsk but that's not in color--Oswald's gray jacket certainly was a "medium" gray, and not an off-white.) 

(The Tippit killer's jacket was "light" or near-white according to the Tippit crime scene witnesses, which is CE 162, near-white light-tan, but that is the only reason for referring to Oswald's gray jacket as "light" gray--the conflation of two sets of descriptions which do not match because they are two distinct items.)

But after Oswald wore his gray jacket that morning which is just clear from the witnesses, including on the bus and in the cab to Oak Cliff, he is seen by Earlene entering the rooming house on N. Beckley wearing no jacket.

If you accept Earlene's testimony on that, that means he ditched that gray jacket between getting out of Whaley's cab and entering the rooming house when Earlene saw him. But then he went back out from his room past Earlene leaving zipping up a jacket, as she told KLIF-Radio. If you accept that Oswald entered the rooming house wearing no jacket--if you accept Earlene Robert's witness on that--then there was no other jacket Lee had or could have gotten from his room when he changed clothes, than CE 163. That is simply corroboration of what would be expected, that Earlene would describe the jacket Oswald was zipping up matching in perfect agreement in her description--"dark", "gray" (what she saw), "coat"--the only other jacket Lee had  at that point that it could have been, CE 163.

And what puts CE 163 in the Texas Theatre?

Because that is where Oswald was headed after leaving the rooming house wearing CE 163.

Edited June 5, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[David Von Pein]

48 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

David no, moving the blue jacket to the TSBD to be found at the TSBD 3-1/2 weeks later on Dec 16, had no motive to incriminate Oswald in that. .... Rather it was the opposite: NOT moving out of the Texas Theatre a jacket if it verifiably turned out to be Oswald's would powerfully function to EXCULPATE Oswald. 

Huh? I'm not understanding you here. Was the moving of the jacket to the TSBD (per your theory, that is) an effort by the cops to make Oswald look guiltier or make him look less guilty? You seem to be advocating both of those positions in the two sentences I just quoted above.

~shrug~

 

Edited June 5, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Greg Doudna]

50 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Huh? I'm not following you here at all. Was the moving of the jacket to the TSBD (per your theory, that is) an effort by the cops to make Oswald look guiltier or make him look less guilty? You seem to be advocating both of those positions in the two sentences I just quoted above.

~shrug~

There was a case on other grounds making him look guilty. Moving the jacket from where Oswald was last known to be after being witnessed going out the door heading there wearing it, was to keep that case (on other grounds) intact, status quo, as it was. The move did not make him look guiltier, and it did not make him look less guilty. It preempted something which could have been brought in Oswald's favor in opposing the case that he was guilty (a report of a find of an Oswald jacket found at the Theatre). I see this is partly semantics, I see your point. Your point is resistance of invocation of law enforcement tampering with provenance of evidence. I understand the objection. But I think in this instance that is what looks like happened.  

The jacket was CE 163 (argument from it was the only jacket it could be of Oswald's since he did not arrive with the gray one he had been wearing that morning, and he had no others; and Earlene's description). Oswald goes out the door wearing CE 163 and goes to the Theatre, verified in that Oswald was there. So unless he took the jacket off and set it outside somewhere before going in the theater, he wore it into the theater when he bought his ticket and went inside. Then he would do what most people do in warm theaters, take off their coats or jackets. Oswald moves around from seat to seat three or four times as witnessed, looking for a contact, and in one of those moves would leave the jacket on a seat next to him, intentionally. The idea would be to reduce association with it if he was followed, while remaining able to retrieve it going out the theater. When arrested and taken away he is not wearing it but it remains.

The jacket would remain where he left it until it was found, not necessarily realized to be from Oswald, and brought to the attention of probably general manager Callahan. Callahan would make a phone call to the Dallas Police asking if they would like the jacket, what would they like him to do. Callahan might be asked as an immediate response to hold on to the jacket and see if anyone showed up to claim it. The Dallas Police would refer to the FBI. Something like that.

The 3-plus weeks delay before, as Truly reported the next day to an FBI agent after reporting it was found for the first time in the TSBD during cleaning, combined with none of Lee's coworkers in the TSBD ever saw him wear CE 163 (they only saw Oswald wear his gray jacket) ... that's why it looks like it was relocated.

Bear in mind by this time the whole world was watching and the FBI was wrapping up the case tight, closing the case on the dead Oswald in no position to protest back (or speak of accomplices or whatever). It is like for a long time I have had an interest in reading about airplane crashes, as a private pilot myself. I want to know what happened, what went wrong, why. I found that investigators would try to find out what had gone wrong but often they could not find any known reason. Therefore in those cases there was a default: "pilot error". The argument and evidence being: it had to be that, logically, because no other reason could be found. Well there was a curious systems theory phenomenon: that worked extremely well when the pilot was dead, because the pilot didn't object, easy to close those cases with that finding. But living pilots very frequently do object to being blamed for the crash. So it was harder to close cases with "pilot error" determinations when living pilots were fighting back, than when the pilot was dead. And there is pressure to close cases.

Analogy to the situation at the time that blue jacket that Oswald was seen wearing leaving his rooming house as he headed to the Theatre, turned up, at the Theatre, and then would have been quietly reported to authorities... 

Edited June 5, 2023 by Greg Doudna