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

[Bill Brown]

26 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Bill Brown, no I do not have a medical diagnosis that Earlene Roberts was color-blind. Only that she was severely diabetic and medical evidence that diabetics have high color-blindness issues enhanced still further by factors which Earlene had, and that specific yellow-blue color-blindness is the type of colorblindness most common in these diabetics cases. In other words it is a highly plausible explanation, in light of the severity of Earlene Robert's known medical issues, since she fits the profile for it. To my knowledge this aspect of interpretation of Earlene Roberts' description of the jacket Oswald left for the theater with as "dark" and "gray" has not previously been brought to the table. I discuss all this in the paper, with the medical journal reference there.

On Barbara Davis, I judged she was not describing the Tippit killer's jacket with her color "black" which she said was of a "wool fabric" "coat". I am not disputing that she said she was. I am disputing that she did.

It is obvious there is a mistake. No one calls a near-white CE 162 "black" accurately. Every other witness who spoke of color of the Tippit killer's jacket at the Tippit crime scene, and I compiled ten in all, without exception used either the words "light" or "white"--every single one. No other witness remotely came close to calling it black in color. The only issue is the nature of the error. You are insisting the nature of the error was Barbara Davis looked at the Tippit killer, saw a near-white jacket, mistakenly remembered that near-white jacket worn by the Tippit killer as having looked "black" and "wool fabric, it looked sort of rough".

I am saying the nature of the mistake was she confused what she remembered of another person--a running witness past her house--with what she saw of the Tippit killer (I do not deny she saw the Tippit killer too), and the mistake was in the identity of the person, and therefore of the jacket, that she was describing, as distinguished from who she said she was describing, in her memory.

At best it is ambiguous or uncertain which is the true explanation of the error. I believe the second explanation is more likely, but it is the uncertainty that is my reason for rejecting Barbara Davis's "black" as being a witness's description of the killer's jacket, since that cannot be known with confidence, and no other witness even comes close to describing the killer's jacket that way. See my argument on pp. 30-31. 

On "jacket" and "coat", you are right they are often interchangeable and I made clear in my paper that was a tendency in word usage and not a decisive point in itself. CE 163 is called both, which is not surprising since as a heavier, lined, warm jacket it can be called either a "coat" or "jacket". What would be more unusual is for CE 162 to be called a "coat" though there are a couple instances. I would not call CE 162 a coat. Would you? But I would call CE 163 either a jacket or a coat and I do interchangeably in the paper. And that seems to be roughly the way most witnesses described: CE 162 as a jacket, and CE 163 sometimes as jacket and sometimes as coat. 

My closing words on that section, at p. 106: "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." 

 

"On "jacket" and "coat", you are right they are often interchangeable and I made clear in my paper that was a tendency in word usage and not a decisive point in itself. CE 163 is called both, which is not surprising since as a heavier, lined, warm jacket it can be called either a "coat" or "jacket". What would be more unusual is for CE 162 to be called a "coat" though there are a couple instances. I would not call CE 162 a coat. Would you? But I would call CE 163 either a jacket or a coat and I do interchangeably in the paper. And that seems to be roughly the way most witnesses described: CE 162 as a jacket, and CE 163 sometimes as jacket and sometimes as coat."

 

Then your point that Roberts would not call a jacket a coat is invalid.

 

[Greg Doudna]

2 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"I am saying the nature of the mistake was she confused what she remembered of another person--a running witness past her house--with what she saw of the Tippit killer (I do not deny she saw the Tippit killer too), and the mistake was in the identity of the person, and therefore of the jacket, that she was describing, as distinguished from who she said she was describing, in her memory."

Come on now.  She said the guy had a gun in his hand.  She's clearly referring to the man who was cutting across her front yard with a gun and not a witness minutes later.  I appreciate your passion, Greg, but this is the kind of thing you do over and over again.  You outright dismiss the testimonial record and you then use a made up "testimonial record" to fit your narrative.

She saw the killer go by with the gun in his hand. Not disputing that. And she described him too, early on, just as her sister Virginia did. But the "black" color of a "wool...rough" coat which comes up for the first time (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) at her Warren Commission testimony is months later. There was more than just the killer of Tippit run by the front of her house. Jimmy Burt did, and there may have been others. The "black" coat which was "wool" and "rough" sounds like some confusion in her memory of another man's coat, rather than a confusion in her memory of the color of the killer's near-white jacket. 

I am not dismissing the testimonial record any more than you are when you dismiss that the killer's jacket was "black". We both agree in dismissing that the black color is accurate for the Tippit killer's jacket. The issue is the mechanism of the mistake.

[Greg Doudna]

13 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"On "jacket" and "coat", you are right they are often interchangeable and I made clear in my paper that was a tendency in word usage and not a decisive point in itself. CE 163 is called both, which is not surprising since as a heavier, lined, warm jacket it can be called either a "coat" or "jacket". What would be more unusual is for CE 162 to be called a "coat" though there are a couple instances. I would not call CE 162 a coat. Would you? But I would call CE 163 either a jacket or a coat and I do interchangeably in the paper. And that seems to be roughly the way most witnesses described: CE 162 as a jacket, and CE 163 sometimes as jacket and sometimes as coat."

Then your point that Roberts would not call a jacket a coat is invalid.

No there is a point: she called the jacket Oswald left with a "coat" in both of her references to it on KLIF-Radio. That is a reasonable word to use for CE 163, and an unreasonable word to use for CE 162. 

Do you actually dispute those statements? What logical conclusion do you draw from that? 

Would you call CE 162 a coat?

That was my point. I don't mean she, or I or you or anyone, would call CE 163 a coat all the time, and never a jacket. Only that if someone speaks of a "coat", that CAN apply to CE 163 but is not likely to be a person speaking of CE 162.

As noted, speaking of most of the time, most people, tendency. 

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Bill, Brewer's description applies to the man who ran up into the balcony without paying for a ticket, at 1:35 pm, who was the Tippit killer, but as brought out in my paper there is reason to believe Brewer misidentified Oswald seating in the main section of the theater as the man Brewer saw who went into the balcony at 1:35.

 

"Bill, Brewer's description applies to the man who ran up into the balcony without paying for a ticket..."

 

No Sir.

 

Brewer's description applies to the man who was sitting in the main theater who punched McDonald.  And we know the man who punched McDonald was Oswald...

 

"When the police arrived the show was stopped and the lights were turned on. A man in the middle section about five or six rows of seats from the back stood up when the lights were turned on. An officer approached him and he hit the officer and knocked him back. Several other officers then joined the fight and the man was taken out of the theater. This was the same man I had seen in front of the shoe store where I work." -- Johnny Brewer (affidavit, 12-6-63)

 

 

Edited June 5, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Bill Brown]

 

Mr. BALL. When he came in he was in a shirt?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He was in his shirt sleeves.

 

[Greg Doudna]

9 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

"Bill, Brewer's description applies to the man who ran up into the balcony without paying for a ticket..."

No Sir.

Brewer's description applies to the man who was sitting in the main theater who punched McDonald.  And we know the man who punched McDonald was Oswald...

"When the police arrived the show was stopped and the lights were turned on. A man in the middle section about five or six rows of seats from the back stood up when the lights were turned on. An officer approached him and he hit the officer and knocked him back. Several other officers then joined the fight and the man was taken out of the theater. This was the same man I had seen in front of the shoe store where I work." -- Johnny Brewer (affidavit, 12-6-63)

I know that is Brewer’s identification. The question is whether that was a correct or mistaken identification. Roger Craig would swear up and down he saw Oswald get in a getaway car in front of the TSBD. Inside the Texas Theatre deputy sheriff Courson thought a different person who came from the balcony by him was Oswald. These were arguably all mistakes, not just two out of three were mistakes. 

The positive reason for thinking so is that witnesses inside the theatre have Oswald as a different person than the man who went into the balcony (killer of Tippit), who I have made the argument did so because of intent to kill Oswald next. 

[Bill Brown]

50 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

No there is a point: she called the jacket Oswald left with a "coat" in both of her references to it on KLIF-Radio. That is a reasonable word to use for CE 163, and an unreasonable word to use for CE 162. 

Do you actually dispute those statements? What logical conclusion do you draw from that? 

Would you call CE 162 a coat?

That was my point. I don't mean she, or I or you or anyone, would call CE 163 a coat all the time, and never a jacket. Only that if someone speaks of a "coat", that CAN apply to CE 163 but is not likely to be a person speaking of CE 162.

As noted, speaking of most of the time, most people, tendency. 

 

Mrs. ROBERTS. He was in his shirt sleeves.
Mr. BALL. What color was his shirt? Do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember. I didn't pay that much attention for I was interested in the television trying to get it fixed.
Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen that shirt before or seen him wear it---the shirt, or do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember---I don't know.
Mr. BALL. You say he put on a separate jacket?
Mrs. ROBERTS. A jacket.

 

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?
Mr. BALL. Yes---it has a zipper down the front.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe it was.
Mr. BALL. It was a zippered jacket, was it?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket.

 

Mr. BALL.. How long did he stay in the room ?
Mr. ROBERTS. Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes-just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it.

 

And it is painfully obvious that Roberts called the same item of clothing two different things...

 

Mr. BALL. Now, did it appear to you he had on the same pants or different pants from the time he came in and when he went out ?
Mr. ROBERTS. Well, I just didn't pay that much attention. All I remember-he was zipping up a coat and I was trying to find out about President Kennedy.

[Bill Brown]

 

"Oswald went to his room and was only there a very few minutes before coming out.  I noticed he had a jacket he was putting on.  I recall the jacket was a dark color and it was the type that zips up the front.  He was zipping the jacket up as he left." -- Earlene Roberts (12-5-63 affidavit)

 

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

No there is a point: she called the jacket Oswald left with a "coat" in both of her references to it on KLIF-Radio. That is a reasonable word to use for CE 163, and an unreasonable word to use for CE 162. 

Do you actually dispute those statements? What logical conclusion do you draw from that? 

Would you call CE 162 a coat?

That was my point. I don't mean she, or I or you or anyone, would call CE 163 a coat all the time, and never a jacket. Only that if someone speaks of a "coat", that CAN apply to CE 163 but is not likely to be a person speaking of CE 162.

As noted, speaking of most of the time, most people, tendency. 

 

"That was my point. I don't mean she, or I or you or anyone, would call CE 163 a coat all the time, and never a jacket. Only that if someone speaks of a "coat", that CAN apply to CE 163 but is not likely to be a person speaking of CE 162."

 

I get your point but I just don't really agree that one can build a case on any of this.  My opinion is that it is certainly possible for one to call a thinner jacket (like 162 was) a coat.  To me, it's no different than calling any soda a "Coke", even if it is not Coke brand.

 

Edited June 5, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Greg Doudna]

Bill the point isnt that she didn't call it a coat always. Its that she called it a coat sometimes. 

You are going on and on as if her calling CE 163 a jacket sometimes is relevant to the point. It isn't. 

[Bill Brown]

7 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Bill the point isnt that she didn't call it a coat always. Its that she called it a coat sometimes. 

You are going on and on as if her calling CE 163 a jacket sometimes is relevant to the point. It isn't. 

 

See my post right above yours here.

 

[Greg Doudna]

On 6/5/2023 at 3:08 PM, Bill Brown said:

"That was my point. I don't mean she, or I or you or anyone, would call CE 163 a coat all the time, and never a jacket. Only that if someone speaks of a "coat", that CAN apply to CE 163 but is not likely to be a person speaking of CE 162."

I get your point but I just don't really agree that one can build a case on any of this.  My opinion is that it is certainly possible for one to call a thinner jacket (like 162 was) a coat.  To me, it's no different than calling any soda a "Coke", even if it is not Coke brand.

I reviewed my Tippit crime scene data for the jacket descriptions. Prediction: should all or nearly all be "jacket", unlikely to see uses of "coat".

Domingo Benavides: jacket. Mary Brock: jacket. Jimmy Burt: jacket. Ted Callaway: windbreaker jacket. Virginia Davis: jacket. Sam Guinyard: jacket. Helen Markham: jacket. Warren Reynolds: coat. William Scoggins: jacket. William Smith: jacket. 

I omitted Tatum (light blazer) and Barbara Davis (black dark coat ... explicitly said it was not CE 162) from my database, for reasons in my study as I do not believe it can be confident those were descriptions of the killer's jacket as opposed to some other jacket.

In the database of 10 I assessed as descriptions of the killer's jacket, which is CE 162, 9 out of 10 said "jacket", 1 said "coat".

Descriptions of CE 162 at Ballew's Texaco (there might be a couple more here I missed, but this is what I found): Hutson: jacket. Griffin: jacket. Wesbrook: jacket. Alexander: jacket. Ewell: jacket.

That's 5 out of 5 there. One mention of "coat" in the database of the 15.

William Whaley, average man, cab driver, is shown CE 162 AND CE 163, right in front of him, in his Warren Commission testimony. He just speaks naturally...

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.

(Incidentally, I argue in my paper that what Whaley is really saying there is he is favoring CE 163 over CE 162 as the identification of the jacket Oswald was wearing in his cab [which was Oswald's gray jacket], moving the comma in the Warren Commission transcript and reading "over" as "in preference to", i.e.: "he had this coat here [CE 163] on, over [more likely than] that other jacket [CE 162], I am sure, sir." He was not saying Oswald wore one over the top of the other, wearing both at the same time, as has long been misunderstood. He was doing the same thing Linnie Mae Randle did, trying to decide between whether CE 162 or CE 163 looked more like the actual gray jacket Oswald had been wearing, the true answer in both cases being "neither".)

Against this database of witnesses of the Tippit killer's jacket/CE 162, which 1 out of 15 call a "coat", versus CE 163 which is more naturally called a coat, what conclusion might come to mind to you when you hear Earlene Roberts on the radio to KLIF-Radio telling of Oswald leaving in a "gray coat"?

Not that she and others don't also sometimes refer to CE 163 as a jacket too (I personally consider both words perfectly natural and suitable for CE 163 [but not for CE 162]). 

Earlene Roberts called the jacket of Oswald headed to the Texas Theatre ... a coat. (Not all the time, but she did then.) Both times to KLIF-Radio during her earliest interview of it (i.e. it wasn't a slip of the tongue, she did it twice, two out of two), first public mention of it ever, to KLIF-Radio. Like Whaley, just an ordinary native-English speaker unconsciously calling something by the word that comes to mind.

I agree that human language use is variable and there are outliers, and Earlene Roberts could be an outlier (i.e. I am agreeing this point is not absolute).

But I don't see Earlene as obviously using unusual English in her speech patterns on KLIF-Radio or in her Warren Commission testimony. She is not an ESL second-language case. She is normal native-English speaking. Oswald headed to the Texas Theatre wearing what Earlene called "dark" and "gray" and a "coat". 

[June 6--this has been edited to reflect Bill Brown bringing to attention one of the Tippit crime scene witnesses, Warren Reynolds, referred to CE 162 as a "coat".]

 

Edited June 7, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Bill Brown]

18 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I reviewed my Tippit crime scene data for the jacket descriptions. Prediction: should all or nearly all be "jacket", unlikely to see uses of "coat".

Domingo Benavides: jacket. Mary Brock: jacket. Jimmy Burt: jacket. Ted Callaway: windbreaker jacket. Virginia Davis: jacket. Sam Guinyard: jacket. Helen Markham: jacket. Warren Reynolds: jacket. William Scoggins: jacket. William Smith: jacket. 

I omitted Tatum (zippered jacket) and Barbara Davis (black dark coat ... explicitly said it was not CE 162) from my database, for reasons in my study as I do not believe it can be confident those were descriptions of the killer's jacket as opposed to some other jacket.

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%

Descriptions of CE 162 at Ballew's Texaco (there might be a couple more here I missed, but this is what I found): Hutson: jacket. Griffin: jacket. Wesbrook: jacket. Alexander: jacket. Ewell: jacket.

That's 5 out of 5 there. Another 100%.

Not a single "coat" mention in the database. 15 out of 15.

William Whaley, average man, cab driver, is shown CE 162 AND CE 163, right in front of him, in his Warren Commission testimony. He just speaks naturally...

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.

(Incidentally, I argue in my paper that what Whaley is really saying there is he is favoring CE 163 over CE 162 as the identification of the jacket Oswald was wearing in his cab [which was Oswald's gray jacket], moving the comma in the Warren Commission transcript and reading "over" as "in preference to", i.e.: "he had this coat here [CE 163] on, over [more likely than] that other jacket [CE 162], I am sure, sir." He was not saying Oswald wore one over the top of the other, wearing both at the same time, as has long been misunderstood. He was doing the same thing Linnie Mae Randle did, trying to decide between whether CE 162 or CE 163 looked more like the actual gray jacket Oswald had been wearing, the true answer in both cases being "neither".)

Against this database of witnesses of the Tippit killer's jacket/CE 162, which 0% of those two databases totaling 15 call a "coat", versus CE 163 which is interchangeably and routinely sometimes called a coat, what conclusion might come to mind to you when you hear Earlene Roberts on the radio to KLIF-Radio telling of Oswald leaving in a "gray coat"?

Not that she and others don't also sometimes refer to CE 163 as a jacket too (I personally consider both words perfectly natural and suitable for CE 163 [but not for CE 162]). 

Earlene Roberts called the jacket of Oswald headed to the Texas Theatre ... a coat. (Not all the time, but she did then.) Both times to KLIF-Radio during her earliest interview of it (i.e. it wasn't a slip of the tongue, she did it twice, two out of two), first public mention of it ever, to KLIF-Radio. Like Whaley, just an ordinary native-English speaker unconsciously calling something by the word that comes to mind.

I agree that human language use is variable and there are outliers, and Earlene Roberts could be an outlier (i.e. I am agreeing this point is not absolute).

But I don't see Earlene as obviously using unusual English in her speech patterns on KLIF-Radio or in her Warren Commission testimony. She is not an ESL second-language case. She is normal native-English speaking just like the 15 witnesses of CE 162. None of them called CE 162 a "coat". But some people are known to call CE 163 a "coat". Earlene refers to a "coat". Oswald headed to the Texas Theatre wearing what Earlene called "dark" and "gray" and a "coat". 

q.e.d. I am not claiming this point is absolute but I think you are underestimating it. 

 

 

I don't believe Oswald was wearing any jacket/coat at all in Whaley's cab.  On the 23rd (the very next day after the assassination), Whaley described what Oswald was wearing.  He described the shirt in detail and made no mention of any jacket or coat.

 

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?

 

Edited June 6, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Bill Brown]

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.

 

Edited June 6, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Ron Ege]

20 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"Oswald went to his room and was only there a very few minutes before coming out.  I noticed he had a jacket he was putting on.  I recall the jacket was a dark color and it was the type that zips up the front.  He was zipping the jacket up as he left." -- Earlene Roberts (12-5-63 affidavit)

 

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?