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

[David Von Pein]

Here's Mrs. Roberts' original hand-signed affidavit. She signed it EARLENE. This was sent to me by Paul Hoch via e-mail. (Thanks, Paul.) ....

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=233488#relPageId=17

 

[David Von Pein]

FWIW ---

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=233488#relPageId=22

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=233488#relPageId=7

Edited June 7, 2023 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

After the Earlene / Earline thing is settled, maybe we can move on to the other witness whose name is often misspelled --- Acquilla Clemons (Clemmons).

I defer to Dale Myers on the Clemons/Clemmons debate. And as of his circa 2017 blog posts, Dale has apparently confirmed that Acquilla's name has just one M, not two.

The odd part about the Clemons thing, though, is that Myers in past years thought her name was spelled CLEMMONS, with two Ms, because he spells it that way dozens of times in his original 1998 version of his book "With Malice". But now he's switched to CLEMONS. He must have been able to somehow verify the One-M variation.

 

Edited June 7, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Greg Doudna]

 

On 6/6/2023 at 10:41 PM, Bill Brown said:

The bottom line is that three of the Tippit witnesses indeed called the killer's jacket/coat a "coat".  This despite Greg Doudna's claim that none of them did.  Warren Reynolds was one of them.

Greg, thanks for acknowledging.

Just to be clear Bill, I have been saying all along this was an argument from tendency or statistical incidence, in which "coat" is more natural for CE 163, without ruling out occasional uses applied to CE 162. You keep trying to characterize and represent me as speaking in absolutes. 

Actually, the 1 versus 3 disagreement out of 15 aside, I think you and I already agree on the basics:

• that most witnesses were not calling CE 162 a "coat";
• that Earlene called something a "coat";
• and that one of Oswald's two jackets was more naturally called a "coat" than the other: CE 163.

Why not just accept we already agree on those, and then you keep your belief that Earlene was one of the minority of cases that called something a "coat" that few others did and that you wouldn't and I wouldn't, but she could have. There, ended this argument with agreement on all points! 🙂

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Michael Kalin]

Before returning to the credibility of Myers' effusion about Dean's Dairy Way, a correction is in order to the description of Patterson's role relative to CE162.

In an FBI document of Aug 24, 1964 referring to a statement of witness B.M. Patterson of Reynolds Motor Company of Nov 23, 1963, it is said that Patterson—who along with his coworker Warren Reynolds followed the killer west on Jefferson from the other side (south side) of Jefferson and saw the killer run north between Ballew’s Texaco and Dean’s Dairy Way—“did identify Oswald and also saw him discard his zipper jacket” (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62230#relPageId=109).
[p.25]
    

The key to avoid getting bamboozled by FBI reports is to realize that they seldom if ever contain direct quotations. Patterson's original statements were made to the FBI on 1/22/64, and the subsequent 1/23/64 report by SAs Mitchem & Kesler is typical in terms of fudged content. Toward the bottom of the main paragraph these words appear, "the individual made a turn in a northerly direction and proceeded behind Ballew’s Texaco Service Station where the individual discarded a jacket which was later recovered by the Dallas Police." The clause beginning with "where" is an FBI interpolation designed to imply that Patterson witnessed an event he couldn't possibly observe. It doesn't even rise to the level of indirect quotation.

It's a cagey attempt to produce an eye-witness to the throwdown jacket, echoed in the internal 8/24/64 document, and necessary to defeat the obvious "planted" nature of the jacket, but there is no basis for attributing the words to Patterson. The clincher is the 1/22/64 FBI report of an interview conducted with Warren Reynolds. Reynolds accompanied Patterson and lost sight of the same individual after he turned north at Ballew's, without reference to the disposition of the jacket either directly, indirectly, inferentially, implicitly, or by loose interpretation, vague paraphrase or creative interpolation.

[Bill Brown]

7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

Just to be clear Bill, I have been saying all along this was an argument from tendency or statistical incidence, in which "coat" is more natural for CE 163, without ruling out occasional uses applied to CE 162. You keep trying to characterize and represent me as speaking in absolutes. 

You claim 3 out of 15 witnesses called CE 162 a coat (by including a "sport coat" and Barbara Davis's black coat), and I say its 1 out of 15 of the witnesses I inventoried (originally by mistake counted 0 of those particular 15) and I never denied CE 162 could be called a "coat" occasionally.

And when I point to only 1 out of 15 in that database called CE 162 a "coat" I mean as Earlene used the word "coat", I mean actually was calling CE 162 a "coat" and by "coat" i mean a coat (not a technical term for a particular style of jacket which has in that technical term as one of its two words "coat", which is not the same meaning as "coat"). 1 out of 15 is not a high incidence. (Even if it were 3 out of 15 that's not so high either.) I have not done counts on CE 163 but it probably would be higher for CE 163. 

And that agrees intuitively, because, be real (and you never did answer this question): would you personally call CE 162 a "coat"? (I wouldn't.) How about CE 163? (I would, would call it either a coat or a jacket.)

And although 1 (or your 3) out of 15 did refer to CE 162 as a "coat", are most witnesses calling it that? But we know from e.g. Whaley that when he saw CE 163 he called it a "coat" naturally. spontaneously. He looks at CE 162, calls it a "jacket". He looks at CE 163, to him that's a "coat".

You keep wanting to make this an issue of all or nothing and cast me as saying such, and if you find a counterexample (which I have acknowledged all along are likely to be there, that this is a spectrum or statistical incidence or tendency) you go "AHA!" and think MY point is refuted, instead of your straw man attributed to me being refuted.

Actually, the 1 versus 3 disagreement out of 15 aside, I think you and I already agree on the basics:

• that most witnesses were not calling CE 162 a "coat";
• that Earlene called something a "coat";
• and that one of Oswald's two jackets was more naturally called a "coat" than the other: CE 163.

Why not just accept we already agree on those, and then you keep your belief that Earlene was one of the minority of cases that called something a "coat" that few others did and that you wouldn't and I wouldn't, but she could have. There, ended this argument with agreement on all points! 🙂

Below is what I have been saying on this thread, which is not the all-or-nothing you want to attribute (emphasis added): 

June 5 1:32 am. 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". 

June 5 1:45 pm. 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.  

 

 

"Below is what I have been saying on this thread, which is not the all-or-nothing you want to attribute"

 

Greg, the "all or nothing" was put forth by yourself when you incorrectly stated that none of the Tippit witnesses called it a coat.  Reynolds, Smith and B. Davis called it such.  You've built your house based on many bricks and this particular brick (that none of the witnesses called it a coat) simply needs to be removed.  This missing brick, at least a little bit, weakens the structure.

 

And for the record, me personally, no, I would not call 162 a coat.  The word I would use is jacket.  However, Reynolds, Smith and B. Davis indeed called the killer's garment a coat, Reynolds even describing the same garment as both a coat and a jacket.

 

My advice:  Just accept that your particular point that none of the Tippit witnesses called the killer's garment a coat is simply invalid, remove it from your "paper" and spend your efforts defending the other points you bring up.

 

Next on the list should be Johnny Brewer, who told the Warren Commission that the man on Jefferson was NOT wearing a jacket at all despite your claim that Oswald entered the theater wearing 163.

 

Edited June 7, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Bill Brown]

Then, after Brewer, we can discuss Linnie Mae Randle.

 

You (again, incorrectly) stated that it is "absolutely clear" that Oswald wore the gray jacket (162) that morning.  But you must have missed perhaps the most important witness, re: what Oswald was wearing that morning.

 

Linnie Mae Randle saw Oswald approach Buell Frazier's car that morning.  She was shown CE-163 and said that it was the jacket/coat Oswald was wearing that morning.  She was then shown CE-162 and said that it did not resemble what Oswald was wearing that morning.  She was then asked about both items at the same time and she chose 163 as the one Oswald was wearing that morning.

Now obviously if Oswald was wearing 163 that morning (per Randle), then your entire thesis is blown out of the water.

[Bill Brown]

On 6/4/2023 at 8:07 PM, Greg Doudna said:

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.

 

 

"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."

 

Which photo would that be?  I don't believe there are any photos of Oswald wearing the lighter-colored jacket (162) in Russia.  Surely you aren't referring to the photo of Oswald sitting with buddies and wearing sunglasses.

 

Edited June 7, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

My advice:  Just accept that your particular point that none of the Tippit witnesses called the killer's garment a coat is simply invalid, remove it from your "paper" and spend your efforts defending the other points you bring up.

Bill that never was in my paper. I never claimed that in my paper, and never claimed it was in my paper. Its not there now because it never was. Look it up for yourself in my discussion at pages 105-106.

Show the quote in the paper or retract your above. 

It would improve discussion if you criticize a paper based on what it says, rather than on what it doesn't say.

I get the impression you never read pages 105-106 before attacking what isn't there, despite my attempts to explain. 

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Then, after Brewer, we can discuss Linnie Mae Randle.

 

You (again, incorrectly) stated that it is "absolutely clear" that Oswald wore the gray jacket (162) that morning.  But you must have missed perhaps the most important witness, re: what Oswald was wearing that morning.

 

Linnie Mae Randle saw Oswald approach Buell Frazier's car that morning.  She was shown CE-163 and said that it was the jacket/coat Oswald was wearing that morning.  She was then shown CE-162 and said that it did not resemble what Oswald was wearing that morning.  She was then asked about both items at the same time and she chose 163 as the one Oswald was wearing that morning.

Now obviously if Oswald was wearing 163 that morning (per Randle), then your entire thesis is blown out of the water.

See pp. 47-50 of my paper.

[Bill Brown]

Just now, Greg Doudna said:

Bill that never was in my paper. I never claimed that in my paper, and never claimed it was in my paper. Its not there now because it never was. Look it up for yourself in my discussion at pages 105-106.

Show the quote in the paper or retract your above. 

It would improve discussion if you criticize a paper based on what it says, rather than on what it doesn't say.

I get the impression you never read pages 105-106 before attacking what isn't there, despite my attempts to explain. 

 

I haven't read your 117 page "paper".  I've been going by only your posts in this thread.  My apologies if I've mistakenly attributed things you've said in this thread and assumed you also said them in your "paper".  In this thread, you excluded Barbara Davis and then stated as a fact that 100% of the witnesses used the word "jacket" instead of "coat".  This mistake of yours proves that the point you were trying to make is completely invalid.

 

[Greg Doudna]

1 minute ago, Bill Brown said:

 

I haven't read your 117 page "paper".  I've been going by only your posts in this thread.  My apologies if I've mistakenly attributed things you've said in this thread and assumed you also said them in your "paper".  In this thread, you excluded Barbara Davis and then stated as a fact that 100% of the witnesses used the word "jacket" instead of "coat".  This mistake of yours proves that the point you were trying to make is completely invalid.

Why the air quotes around "paper"? 

And no, Barbara Davis even if she was thinking of the near-white CE 162 months later and had it changed in her memory to a black coat, does not prove the point I was trying to make is "completely invalid". That shows you have not understood the point. See pages 105-106.

[Greg Doudna]

12 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

I haven't read your 117 page "paper".  

How about, if the topic interests you, read the paper and get back to me? The paper is the intended topic of this thread. 

[Bill Brown]

6 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Why the air quotes around "paper"? 

And no, Barbara Davis even if she was thinking of the near-white CE 162 months later and had it changed in her memory to a black coat, does not prove the point I was trying to make is "completely invalid". That shows you have not understood the point. See pages 105-106.

 

Let me put it another way.  I'll spell it out for you.

 

One of your points here in this thread... You stated (sans Barbara Davis) that 100% of the Tippit witnesses called it a jacket and zero per cent called it a coat.  I pointed out that Warren Reynolds and Bill Smith also used the word "coat".  These are facts.  Therefore, your point that no one would dare call an item like 162 a "coat" is simply incorrect.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.

 

Let's move on.

 

[Bill Brown]

44 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

See pp. 47-50 of my paper.

 

I just checked out pages 47-50.  As I've pointed out earlier, Linnie Mae Randle clearly says that Oswald, that morning, was wearing a garment much more like 163 than 162.  Shown both, she chose 163.

 

She did not have to pick either.  She could easily have said that neither 162 nor 163 resemble what she saw Oswald wearing that morning.

 

You think Joseph Ball was performing Jedi mind tricks on witnesses.  Personally, I don't think he possessed that ability.

 

 

Edited June 7, 2023 by Bill Brown