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

[Greg Doudna]

Pages 85-88 

"Oswald taking a cab to Oak Cliff: William Whaley

"After the bus was stuck in traffic Oswald got off the bus and walked to the Greyhound bus station where he found and took a cab to his rooming house in Oak Cliff. The cab was driven by William Whaley, who had been driving a cab 36 years by 1963. 

"In the time between his exit from the bus and getting into the cab, Oswald made another change in his physical appearance. He found some momentary spot of privacy—whether behind a building with no one watching, stepping into an alley, behind some trees or bushes—and took off his gray jacket and set it to one side momentarily. He then unhitched his belt in front, pulled out the maroon shirt he had stuffed in the front of his pants, and put on the crumpled maroon shirt over his white T-shirt, buttoning it up partway but not all the way, in keeping with how he and other working men of that time commonly wore shirts partly open. He tucked his shirt into his pants, hitched up his belt again, put his gray jacket back on over his shirt and pants, and either zipped up the gray jacket partway or not at all. This would have been done quickly, within perhaps ca. 20 seconds or so. Then Oswald continued on his way to get the cab.

"The reason for this change of clothing is the same reason for the other changes of clothing before and after and his other evasive maneuvers. He was seeking to evade possible pursuit and being tracked. It is the behavior of someone in fear for his life. 

"Here are the earliest interviews of Oswald’s cab driver, William Whaley, Saturday Nov 23: 

Dallas Police: 'This boy walked up to the cab, he was walking South on Lamar from Commerce, he asked if he could get a cab, I told him, yes, and I opened the back door. He shut the back door and said he wanted to sit in the front. The boy said he wanted to go to the 500 block of North Beckley … This boy was small, five feet eight inches, slender had on a dark shirt with white spots of something on it. He had a bracelet on his left wrist. He looked like he was 25 or 26 years old.' (Dallas Police, affidavit of William Whaley, Nov 23, 1963, https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340509/m1/1/)

FBI: '[Whaley] recalled that the young man he drove in his cab that day [the day before] was wearing a heavy identification bracelet on his left wrist, he appeared to need a haircut and was dressed in gray khaki pants which looked as if they had been slept in. He had on a dark colored shirt with some light color in it. The shirt had long sleeves and the top two or three buttons were unbuttoned. The color of the shirt nearly matched the pants, but was somewhat darker. The man wore no hat. He appeared to be about 25 years of age, 5’7” to 8” tall, about 135 pounds, with brown hair thick on top. He had a long thin face and a high forehead. He did not appear to have a noticeable accent but rather talked as people in this area normally do … Mr. Whaley was present at a lineup at the Dallas Police Department Lineup Room, where Lee Harvey Oswald appeared … Mr. Whaley without hesitation stated that Oswald is definitely the man whom he drove in his cab on November 22, 1963, as related above.' (FBI, Nov 23, 1963, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57698#relPageId=174)

"A first point is that Whaley’s identification of Oswald as his passenger sitting next to him in the cab, within hours of the event, was correct and it can be excluded that it was a mistaken identification. The identification bracelet detail matches what Oswald was wearing. The start and end locations of the cab ride and the time of day match Oswald’s movements, since he did get from the Book Depository at Dealey Plaza to his rooming house in Oak Cliff some way and how else, and Oswald told his interrogators that he had taken a bus and then a cab. 

"The physical description agrees with Oswald. The detail that the man needed a haircut matches. (Oswald coworker Roy Lewis: 'He never wanted to get a haircut. We would tease him about it because hair would be growing down his neck. We told him a week or two before the assassination that we were going to throw him down and cut it ourselves, but he just smiled', Sneed, No More Silence [1998], 86.) The gray pants is the color of pants Oswald was wearing. 

"The 'shirt' description attributed to Whaley in the FBI interview is hardly different from the 'shirt' Mary Bledsoe saw, in both cases actually Oswald’s gray jacket. The FBI reports Whaley saying, 'the color of the shirt nearly matched the pants' which were gray. Although there is reference to only one upper-body item of clothing in this report of Whaley—a 'shirt'—Whaley’s later accounts clearly distinguish a shirt (remembered by Whaley as of dark color with a light-colored or silvery lining) and a gray jacket.

"The gray jacket again

"It was Oswald’s gray jacket (not the CE 151 maroon shirt) which 'nearly matched' Oswald’s gray pants in color. That this is so can be seen by comparison with Whaley’s Warren Commission testimony of March 12, 1964:

Mr. BALL. Did you notice how he was dressed? 
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. I didn’t pay much attention to it right then. But it all came back when I really found out who I had. 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. Then he had on a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it and he had on some kind of jacket, I didn’t notice very close but I think it was a work jacket that almost matched the pants. He, his shirt was open three buttons down here. He had on a T-shirt. You know, the shirt was open three buttons down there. 

There is some confusion which requires disentangling here. First, Whaley has changed his original and correct 'gray' of the jacket and pants to 'faded blue' color. However in an interview filmed after his Warren Commission testimony (because Whaley refers back to his Warren Commission testimony in that interview), Whaley recounting the same as above tells it with gray color again. Whaley is filmed driving his cab and telling of the day he drove Oswald. Whaley:

'Well, he just looked like an ordinary working man. He was small, had on gray work clothes, a brown shirt and a silver stripe and a work jacket.' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UORpPiG9QmI, at 0:14)

Since gray is the known true color of Oswald’s pants, and gray was Whaley’s original color for Oswald’s jacket and is again repeated here, and since the jacket was always said by Whaley to match the color of the pants, gray is therefore the true color of the jacket of Oswald that Whaley saw.

It was Oswald’s gray jacket which 'nearly matched the pants' or 'almost matched the pants' which in Whaley’s original statement and from other testimony were gray pants (not faded blue). Gray pants and a gray jacket, except the jacket was a little darker gray than the pants, is what Whaley saw. Compare the parallels:

FBI, Nov 23, 1963: Oswald 'was dressed in gray khaki pants ... he had on a dark colored shirt... the color of the shirt nearly matched the pants'.

Warren Commission testimony, March 12, 1964: 'he had on some kind of jacket ... a work jacket that almost matched his pants'.

It is clear it is Oswald’s gray jacket which was the match to the gray pants. The FBI report of Nov 23 of the 'shirt' being the match to the pants, in light of everything else Whaley said and the Warren Commission testimony parallel above, suggests the FBI reporting agent of Nov 23 misunderstood or accidentally misreported what Whaley told on Nov 23. 

Edited June 12, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

Pages 91-96

"Did Whaley claim Oswald wore two jackets at the same time—one over the other? (No)

"At this point will be addressed one of the most puzzling aspects of Whaley’s Warren Commission testimony as it is usually read, which has seemed so incoherent and incomprehensible that it has been cited as a basis for rejecting Whaley’s credibility: an idea that Whaley claimed Oswald was wearing two jackets at the same time. 

"Here is the relevant testimony. The two lines at issue are underlined below. (Note in passing that Mr. Ball, going through some exhibits of Oswald’s clothing, does not ask Whaley about CE 151, the shirt Oswald actually wore.)

Mr. BALL. I have some clothing here. Commission Exhibit No. 150, does that look like the shirt? 
Mr. WHALEY. That is the shirt, sir, it has my initials on it. 
Mr. BALL. In other words, this is the shirt the man had on? 
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; that is the same one the FBI man had me identify. 
Mr. BALL. This is the shirt the man had on who took your car at Lamar and Jackson? 
Mr. WHALEY. As near as I can recollect as I told him. I said that is the shirt he had on because it had a kind of little stripe in it, light-colored stripe. I noticed that. 
Mr. BALL. Here are two pair of pants, Commission Exhibit No. 157 and Commission Exhibit No. 156. Does it look anything like that? 
Mr. WHALEY. I don’t think I can identify the pants except they were the same color as that, sir. 
Mr. BALL. Which color? 
Mr. WHALEY. More like this lighter color, at least they were cleaner or something. 
Mr. BALL. That is 157? 
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. 
Mr. BALL. But you are not sure about that? 
Mr. WHALEY. I am not sure about the pants. I wouldn’t be sure of the shirt if it hadn’t had that light stripe in it. I just noticed that. 
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. 
Mr. BALL. That is right. 
Mr. WHALEY. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt. 
Mr. BALL. Wait a minute, we have got the shirt which you have identified as the rust brown shirt with the gold stripe in it. 
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. 
Mr. BALL. You said that a jacket— 
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. 
Mr. BALL. This is the blue-gray jacket, heavy blue-gray jacket. 
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. 

"As noted above, Whaley did not make a positive identification of CE 150, the brown arrest shirt, in his FBI interview of Dec 18, according to the FBI report of that interview, even though now on March 12 Whaley thinks he did. However when shown CE 150 on March 12 again, Whaley now says 'that is the shirt'. Whaley notes what may be some sort of tag with Whaley’s initials on it attached to the shirt ('it has my initials on it'), perhaps to remind Whaley (lest he forget) of the correct shirt he has identified in some preinterview that he is now to do for the record.

"Moving forward to the jackets, when Whaley is shown CE 162 (now on March 12), Whaley says, 'I think that is the jacket he had on'. But when Mr. Ball then shows him Oswald’s blue CE 163, Whaley backs off from thinking CE 162 was the Oswald jacket Whaley remembered. Whaley first says it could be CE 163 too, one or the other: 'He had this one on or the other one'. But Whaley immediately moves from that to favoring CE 163 over CE 162. 

"With both CE 162 and CE 163 in front of him for comparison, Whaley notices that the off-white of CE 162 is a lot lighter than he remembers the gray jacket of Oswald. Whaley acknowledges CE 162 (the Tippit killer’s off-white light tan jacket) 'might have been clean[ed]', as a possible explanation for why it looked noticeably lighter than Oswald’s gray jacket.

"Although the transcript reads as if Whaley is nonsensically claiming Oswald wore both jackets at the same time, that reading of Whaley can hardly be correct, because it is so nonsensical and it is not what Whaley has otherwise been saying. It is more likely there is some glitch in how Whaley’s words have been reported than that Whaley actually meant something that nonsensical. 

"A better reading of the two lines at issue in Whaley’s testimony is that he is changing from being initially favorable to a CE 162 identification to shifting over to favoring CE 163, as a closer match to the color and shade of the gray jacket and pants Whaley remembered Oswald had. 

"Whaley is not saying Oswald wore both jackets; he is addressing the issue of which one (between the two choices he sees, neither of which is actually correct).

"Whaley is not solving the issue by saying 'both'; he is choosing. He is favoring CE 163 over CE 162 as more likely to have been the jacket of Oswald Whaley saw. Notice the difference the placing of a comma makes in transcription:

'… he had this coat here [CE 163] on over that other jacket [CE 162], I am sure, sir'

---> '… .he had this coat here on [CE 163], over [more likely than] that other jacket [CE 162], I am sure, sir'

"'He had this coat here on (CE 163)' becomes the actual sense Whaley meant. The 'over' is idiom for 'more likely', as in favoring one thing over another. Whaley was saying it was CE 163, it wasn’t 162, and he meant only one jacket. 

"Similarly, consider a pronoun missed by the transcriber of Whaley in rapid speech:

'I told you about the shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt'

---> (*)   'I told you about the shirt being open, he had on {one of} the two jackets with the open shirt'

---> (*)   'I told you about the shirt being open, he had on{e of} the two jackets with the open shirt”

"Whaley says to Mr. Ball, 'I told you' before, alluding to some preinterview, in which Warren Commission counsels would first privately find out what witnesses were going to say, before deciding what questions to ask those witnesses on the record. 

"Whaley did not tell Mr. Ball or anyone in preinterview about Oswald wearing two jackets. There is no record of that, no record of Whaley being questioned about that previously, no reference to him saying that before. Therefore when Whaley alludes to some off-the-record preinterview with Mr. Ball he is alluding to something he has been saying all along and commonplace, not unusual. Whaley understood at all times only one jacket was worn by Oswald which is what Whaley always said before and after his Warren Commission testimony.

"Whaley is not consistent in every detail through his months of recurring testimonies. But apart from going from gray to light blue and back to gray again on the color of the jacket and pants, for the most part Whaley is consistent, more so than he has often been credited. 

"Whaley never previously spoke of Oswald wearing two jackets at once and he was not doing so now. That makes no sense. The only reason Whaley was discussing two jackets is he has been shown two candidates and the issue was which one. (The true answer being 'neither'.) Here is Whaley’s testimony with interpretive comments in parentheses:

Mr. WHALEY. That jacket (the Tippit killer’s nearly white CE 162) now it might have been clean[ed] (it looks so light in tone, was that because it has been cleaned?), but the jacket he had on (the gray jacket) looked more the color, you know like a uniform set (matching to the gray pants in color), but he had this coat here on (he had on CE 163) over (more likely wearing it than) that other jacket (CE 162), I am sure, sir (I am sure CE 163 is more likely than CE 162 to have been what Oswald was wearing, sir). 

"Comparison between Whaley and Linnie Mae Randle concerning choices for identification of Oswald’s gray jacket

"To recapitulate for emphasis: Whaley’s Warren Commission testimony has been read as if Whaley was saying something completely nonsensical—that Oswald wore the blue coat CE 163 over CE 162—wore both jackets at once. 

"But that attributed to Whaley is so nonsensical and out of keeping with everything else Whaley said that it is unlikely Whaley said it. It is more likely that there were minor errors in transcription than that Whaley claimed Oswald wore two jackets at the same time. It makes no sense that Whaley would say that. Whaley never said that anywhere else. All Whaley ever told from start to finish was Oswald wearing one jacket of the same color as his gray pants, and one shirt.

"When Whaley’s words are examined closely, he is contrasting CE 163 against CE 162, saying it was more likely that Oswald’s jacket in the cab had been CE 163 than CE 162.

"It is reminiscent of the choice Mr. Ball put to Linnie Mae Randle concerning the gray jacket Linnie Mae said she had seen Oswald wearing that morning. Mr. Ball forced Linnie Mae to choose whether CE 162 (off-white light tan) or CE 163 (blue) was closer to the gray jacket she had seen on Oswald. 

"Linnie Mae’s answer was parallel to Whaley’s in making the same choice between the same two alternatives. Each chose CE 163 over CE 162 as the less dissimilar of the two to the gray jacket of Oswald. 

"Linnie Mae said CE 162 was not the gray jacket she saw on Oswald because, she said, Oswald’s jacket was gray (meaning Linnie Mae did not regard the near-white CE 162 as gray). Between the two choices (both incorrect) Linnie Mae answered that CE 163 looked closer to the gray jacket of Oswald than did CE 162. It was the same with Whaley. Just as Linnie Mae Randle, Whaley realized CE 162 was too light to have been Oswald’s gray jacket which was a medium gray. 

"Whaley’s explanation of why he favored CE 163 over CE 162 (even though CE 163 also was not accurate) has been represented as if Whaley claimed Oswald wore both at the same time. Not so! That claim of Whaley never happened! That idea of Whaley’s testimony should be put to rest."

[Greg Doudna]

Page 98.

"Oswald at his rooming house on North Beckley

"Oswald gave Whaley an address on N. Beckley in Oak Cliff that would take the cab several blocks beyond Oswald’s rooming house. He told Whaley he wanted to go to the 500 block of N. Beckley which was south (beyond) the rooming house at 1026 N. Beckley. Before Whaley had gotten to the block requested, at about the 700 block, Oswald told him that was far enough, to let him off there. 

"Oswald paid Whaley $1.00 for a $0.95 cab fare with a nickel tip (Whaley remembered the cheap tip of Oswald), got out of the cab, crossed the street, and may have intentionally let Whaley see him walking south in the opposite direction from his rooming house until Whaley was out of sight, after which Oswald reversed direction and walked north to his rooming house. 

"Lee entered the rooming house with no jacket, according to housekeeper Earlene Roberts who saw him arrive at about 1 pm and go to his room, then leave maybe three or four minutes later zipping up a jacket on his way out, in a hurry going both ways, not stopping for any conversation.

"What happened to Oswald’s gray jacket?

"The gray jacket worn by Oswald that morning went with him when he left the Texas School Book Depository, with him on the bus and with him in the cab. But Oswald did not have it when he entered the rooming house, according to Earlene Roberts. 

"As previously noted, Oswald was in a mode of feint and deception in his movements starting from the time of the shots that killed President Kennedy, attempting to make himself hard to track. 

"The gray jacket of Oswald itself was old and had at least one hole in the right elbow, likely in worse shape than when it was photographed in Minsk from use since then. Therefore it was no great loss that Oswald would toss it, dispose of it, as the evidence indicates Oswald did at some point after leaving Whaley’s cab on N. Beckley but before he entered the rooming house several blocks north on Beckley. 

"What became of Oswald’s gray jacket is not known, but Oswald’s disposal of it occurred sometime just before 1 pm on Nov 22, 1963, in the vicinity of the 1000s-700s blocks of N. Beckley. It is possible it could have been found at some later point by some private party unaware that it had been Oswald’s. If Oswald tossed it inside a bush invisible to external view it is possible it might never have been found."

[Bill Brown]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I think Oswald's gray jacket, the jacket in the Minsk photo, is a lightweight jacket, within reasonable range of usual and customary meaning of native English-speakers' use of "light" (in weight) jacket as opposed to a "heavy" jacket or coat. If you are denying the jacket in that photo is reasonably called a "light jacket" by actual speakers, as distinguished from only yourself, we just disagree. I am open to second or third opinions on this however if someone else wishes to chime in. I cannot post the Minsk photo for technical reasons but it can easily be found on Google Images (just search "Oswald Minsk", will bring it right up).

 

Except you cannot possibly say with any certainty what color that Minsk jacket is.  It could be dark blue.

 

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Pages 85-88 

"Oswald taking a cab to Oak Cliff: William Whaley

"After the bus was stuck in traffic Oswald got off the bus and walked to the Greyhound bus station where he found and took a cab to his rooming house in Oak Cliff. The cab was driven by William Whaley, who had been driving a cab 36 years by 1963. 

"In the time between his exit from the bus and getting into the cab, Oswald made another change in his physical appearance. He found some momentary spot of privacy—whether behind a building with no one watching, stepping into an alley, behind some trees or bushes—and took off his gray jacket and set it to one side momentarily. He then unhitched his belt in front, pulled out the maroon shirt he had stuffed in the front of his pants, and put on the crumpled maroon shirt over his white T-shirt, buttoning it up partway but not all the way, in keeping with how he and other working men of that time commonly wore shirts partly open. He tucked his shirt into his pants, hitched up his belt again, put his gray jacket back on over his shirt and pants, and either zipped up the gray jacket partway or not at all. This would have been done quickly, within perhaps ca. 20 seconds or so. Then Oswald continued on his way to get the cab.

"The reason for this change of clothing is the same reason for the other changes of clothing before and after and his other evasive maneuvers. He was seeking to evade possible pursuit and being tracked. It is the behavior of someone in fear for his life. 

"Here are the earliest interviews of Oswald’s cab driver, William Whaley, Saturday Nov 23: 

Dallas Police: 'This boy walked up to the cab, he was walking South on Lamar from Commerce, he asked if he could get a cab, I told him, yes, and I opened the back door. He shut the back door and said he wanted to sit in the front. The boy said he wanted to go to the 500 block of North Beckley … This boy was small, five feet eight inches, slender had on a dark shirt with white spots of something on it. He had a bracelet on his left wrist. He looked like he was 25 or 26 years old.' (Dallas Police, affidavit of William Whaley, Nov 23, 1963, https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340509/m1/1/)

FBI: '[Whaley] recalled that the young man he drove in his cab that day [the day before] was wearing a heavy identification bracelet on his left wrist, he appeared to need a haircut and was dressed in gray khaki pants which looked as if they had been slept in. He had on a dark colored shirt with some light color in it. The shirt had long sleeves and the top two or three buttons were unbuttoned. The color of the shirt nearly matched the pants, but was somewhat darker. The man wore no hat. He appeared to be about 25 years of age, 5’7” to 8” tall, about 135 pounds, with brown hair thick on top. He had a long thin face and a high forehead. He did not appear to have a noticeable accent but rather talked as people in this area normally do … Mr. Whaley was present at a lineup at the Dallas Police Department Lineup Room, where Lee Harvey Oswald appeared … Mr. Whaley without hesitation stated that Oswald is definitely the man whom he drove in his cab on November 22, 1963, as related above.' (FBI, Nov 23, 1963, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57698#relPageId=174)

"A first point is that Whaley’s identification of Oswald as his passenger sitting next to him in the cab, within hours of the event, was correct and it can be excluded that it was a mistaken identification. The identification bracelet detail matches what Oswald was wearing. The start and end locations of the cab ride and the time of day match Oswald’s movements, since he did get from the Book Depository at Dealey Plaza to his rooming house in Oak Cliff some way and how else, and Oswald told his interrogators that he had taken a bus and then a cab. 

"The physical description agrees with Oswald. The detail that the man needed a haircut matches. (Oswald coworker Roy Lewis: 'He never wanted to get a haircut. We would tease him about it because hair would be growing down his neck. We told him a week or two before the assassination that we were going to throw him down and cut it ourselves, but he just smiled', Sneed, No More Silence [1998], 86.) The gray pants is the color of pants Oswald was wearing. 

"The 'shirt' description attributed to Whaley in the FBI interview is hardly different from the 'shirt' Mary Bledsoe saw, in both cases actually Oswald’s gray jacket. The FBI reports Whaley saying, 'the color of the shirt nearly matched the pants' which were gray. Although there is reference to only one upper-body item of clothing in this report of Whaley—a 'shirt'—Whaley’s later accounts clearly distinguish a shirt (remembered by Whaley as of dark color with a light-colored or silvery lining) and a gray jacket.

"The gray jacket again

"It was Oswald’s gray jacket (not the CE 151 maroon shirt) which 'nearly matched' Oswald’s gray pants in color. That this is so can be seen by comparison with Whaley’s Warren Commission testimony of March 12, 1964:

Mr. BALL. Did you notice how he was dressed? 
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. I didn’t pay much attention to it right then. But it all came back when I really found out who I had. 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. Then he had on a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it and he had on some kind of jacket, I didn’t notice very close but I think it was a work jacket that almost matched the pants. He, his shirt was open three buttons down here. He had on a T-shirt. You know, the shirt was open three buttons down there. 

There is some confusion which requires disentangling here. First, Whaley has changed his original and correct 'gray' of the jacket and pants to 'faded blue' color. However in an interview filmed after his Warren Commission testimony (because Whaley refers back to his Warren Commission testimony in that interview), Whaley recounting the same as above tells it with gray color again. Whaley is filmed driving his cab and telling of the day he drove Oswald. Whaley:

'Well, he just looked like an ordinary working man. He was small, had on gray work clothes, a brown shirt and a silver stripe and a work jacket.' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UORpPiG9QmI, at 0:14)

Since gray is the known true color of Oswald’s pants, and gray was Whaley’s original color for Oswald’s jacket and is again repeated here, and since the jacket was always said by Whaley to match the color of the pants, gray is therefore the true color of the jacket of Oswald that Whaley saw.

It was Oswald’s gray jacket which 'nearly matched the pants' or 'almost matched the pants' which in Whaley’s original statement and from other testimony were gray pants (not faded blue). Gray pants and a gray jacket, except the jacket was a little darker gray than the pants, is what Whaley saw. Compare the parallels:

FBI, Nov 23, 1963: Oswald 'was dressed in gray khaki pants ... he had on a dark colored shirt... the color of the shirt nearly matched the pants'.

Warren Commission testimony, March 12, 1964: 'he had on some kind of jacket ... a work jacket that almost matched his pants'.

It is clear it is Oswald’s gray jacket which was the match to the gray pants. The FBI report of Nov 23 of the 'shirt' being the match to the pants, in light of everything else Whaley said and the Warren Commission testimony parallel above, suggests the FBI reporting agent of Nov 23 misunderstood or accidentally misreported what Whaley told on Nov 23. 

 

"The 'shirt' description attributed to Whaley in the FBI interview is hardly different from the 'shirt' Mary Bledsoe saw, in both cases actually Oswald’s gray jacket."

 

Pure nonsense.

 

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Page 98.

 

"Oswald at his rooming house on North Beckley

"Oswald gave Whaley an address on N. Beckley in Oak Cliff that would take the cab several blocks beyond Oswald’s rooming house. He told Whaley he wanted to go to the 500 block of N. Beckley which was south (beyond) the rooming house at 1026 N. Beckley. Before Whaley had gotten to the block requested, at about the 700 block, Oswald told him that was far enough, to let him off there. 

"Oswald paid Whaley $1.00 for a $0.95 cab fare with a nickel tip (Whaley remembered the cheap tip of Oswald), got out of the cab, crossed the street, and may have intentionally let Whaley see him walking south in the opposite direction from his rooming house until Whaley was out of sight, after which Oswald reversed direction and walked north to his rooming house. 

"Lee entered the rooming house with no jacket, according to housekeeper Earlene Roberts who saw him arrive at about 1 pm and go to his room, then leave maybe three or four minutes later zipping up a jacket on his way out, in a hurry going both ways, not stopping for any conversation.

"What happened to Oswald’s gray jacket?

"The gray jacket worn by Oswald that morning went with him when he left the Texas School Book Depository, with him on the bus and with him in the cab. But Oswald did not have it when he entered the rooming house, according to Earlene Roberts. 

"As previously noted, Oswald was in a mode of feint and deception in his movements starting from the time of the shots that killed President Kennedy, attempting to make himself hard to track. 

"The gray jacket of Oswald itself was old and had at least one hole in the right elbow, likely in worse shape than when it was photographed in Minsk from use since then. Therefore it was no great loss that Oswald would toss it, dispose of it, as the evidence indicates Oswald did at some point after leaving Whaley’s cab on N. Beckley but before he entered the rooming house several blocks north on Beckley. 

"What became of Oswald’s gray jacket is not known, but Oswald’s disposal of it occurred sometime just before 1 pm on Nov 22, 1963, in the vicinity of the 1000s-700s blocks of N. Beckley. It is possible it could have been found at some later point by some private party unaware that it had been Oswald’s. If Oswald tossed it inside a bush invisible to external view it is possible it might never have been found."

 

"The gray jacket of Oswald itself was old and had at least one hole in the right elbow, likely in worse shape than when it was photographed in Minsk from use since then. Therefore it was no great loss that Oswald would toss it, dispose of it, as the evidence indicates Oswald did at some point after leaving Whaley’s cab on N. Beckley but before he entered the rooming house several blocks north on Beckley."

 

Again, there is nothing which should lead anyone to conclude that Oswald was wearing his gray jacket on the bus (when seen by Bledsoe) and the cab driven by Whaley.

 

Whaley, on the 23rd, described Oswald's shirt and made no mention of any jacket.

 

[Bill Brown]

There is no real reason to believe that Oswald would ditch a jacket between exiting Whaley's cab and entering the rooming house.

 

Greg Doudna wants to believe Oswald was wearing a jacket on the McWatters bus and the Whaley cab but he knows Oswald entered the rooming house with no jacket.  This is a problem for Greg and his entire 117 page scenario, so what does he do?

 

Simple conclusion.  Just have Oswald throwing his jacket away after getting out of the cab and before waking in the house.

 

This is a perfect example of one having a pet theory all set up and then dismissing the inconvenient evidence which would destroy the pet theory. 

 

Dismiss the known evidence by having the patsy dismiss the jacket on Beckley.

 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Greg Doudna]

Bill, I’ve answered many of your questions. Now I wonder if you would answer a couple from me. 

Let’s start with this one. Would you kindly say which jacket you think Buell Wesley Frazier is referring to in the below, and what do you think became of it?

”All I recall about Oswald’s clothing on the morning of the assassination was a gray work jacket.” (12/5/63)

”It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning … I had seen him wear that gray woolen jacket before … several times…” (Warren Commission testimony)

[Greg Doudna]

On 6/12/2023 at 3:17 PM, Bill Brown said:

There is no real reason to believe that Oswald would ditch a jacket between exiting Whaley's cab and entering the rooming house.

Greg Doudna wants to believe Oswald was wearing a jacket on the McWatters bus and the Whaley cab but he knows Oswald entered the rooming house with no jacket.  This is a problem for Greg and his entire 117 page scenario, so what does he do?

Simple conclusion.  Just have Oswald throwing his jacket away after getting out of the cab and before waking in the house.

This is a perfect example of one having a pet theory all set up and then dismissing the inconvenient evidence which would destroy the pet theory. 

Dismiss the known evidence by having the patsy dismiss the jacket on Beckley.

This seems a little silly. Whaley said Oswald had on a jacket getting out of his cab, "had on gray work clothes, a brown shirt ... and a work jacket" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UORpPiG9QmI, at 0:14). Whaley said that consistently throughout his Warren Commission testimony, never wavered from that in his testimony, never denied Oswald had a jacket. And Earlene Roberts said Oswald had no jacket going into the rooming house.

Either one of those witnesses is wrong or Oswald took off his jacket en route between the two. It doesn't get much more simple and basic in logic than that. It’s one of those three options, not so complicated. Just like the Tippit killer had a jacket according to witnesses, then didn't according to witnesses Brewer and Julia Postal going into the theater balcony, therefore conclusion the killer dropped the jacket somewhere en route. You accept that. You don't apply your logic above to that.

It is known otherwise that Oswald was feinting and changing his direction and appearance as seen by others in his movements following the shots that killed JFK. He changed all of his clothes in the rooming house, including jackets. Ditching a jacket at this point before he went in past Earlene Roberts, as these two witnesses at either end put together indicate, is in keeping with his known pattern of behavior at exactly this time.

Your solution is to reject one of the witnesses' testimony, Whaley's testimony that Oswald was wearing a jacket. You say cabbie Whaley invented and fabricated his testimony that Oswald was wearing a work jacket. You disguise the weakness of your insistence (that Whaley made it all up about Oswald wearing a jacket) by throwing all sorts of shade with words and rhetoric on something that is not a problem but simple logic.

Edited June 14, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Bill Brown]

On 6/13/2023 at 3:00 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Bill, I’ve answered many of your questions. Now I wonder if you would answer a couple from me. 

Let’s start with this one. Would you kindly say which jacket you think Buell Wesley Frazier is referring to in the below, and what do you think became of it?

”All I recall about Oswald’s clothing on the morning of the assassination was a gray work jacket.” (12/5/63)

”It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning … I had seen him wear that gray woolen jacket before … several times…” (Warren Commission testimony)

 

Linnie Mae Randle has Oswald wearing 163, the jacket/coat found in the Depository a couple weeks later.

 

Now, she can be wrong; but so can Frazier.

 

Edited June 17, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Greg Doudna]

On 6/13/2023 at 12:00 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Bill, I’ve answered many of your questions. Now I wonder if you would answer a couple from me. 

Let’s start with this one. Would you kindly say which jacket you think Buell Wesley Frazier is referring to in the below, and what do you think became of it?

”All I recall about Oswald’s clothing on the morning of the assassination was a gray work jacket.” (12/5/63)

”It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning … I had seen him wear that gray woolen jacket before … several times…” (Warren Commission testimony)

To which you replied, without answering the question asked:

On 6/17/2023 at 3:43 AM, Bill Brown said:

Linnie Mae Randle has Oswald wearing 163, the jacket/coat found in the Depository a couple weeks later.

Now, she can be wrong; but so can Frazier.

But you see Bill, Linnie Mae Randle did not positively identify the "gray" jacket she saw as 163 as you are claiming--the same gray jacket described by Buell who saw it more than she did. Linnie Mae said that the "gray" jacket she saw resembled 163. You conflate "resemble" as if that is a positive identification, instead of "resembled".

In other words, there is no need to suppose either Linnie Mae, on the basis of her brief memory of the jacket, or Buell, on the basis of his more familiar and multiple times of knowledge of Lee's gray jacket, were mistaken. Linnie Mae only makes a positive identification with 163 by you setting up a straw man claiming that her "resembles" 163 in color means positive identification it was 163. 

Mr. BALL. A gray jacket. I will show you some clothing here. First, I will show you a gray jacket. Does this look anything like the jacket he had on? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir. 
Mr. BALL. That morning? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Similar to that. I didn't pay an awful lot of attention to it. 
Mr. BALL. Was it similar in color? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; I think so. It had big sleeves. 
Mr. BALL. Take a look at these sleeves. Was it similar in color? 
Mrs. RANDLE. I believe so. 
Mr. BALL. What is the Commission Exhibit on this jacket? 
Mrs. RANDLE. It was gray, I am not sure of the shade. 
Mr. BALL. 163.  

But let's return to Buell Frazier's description of the gray jacket that both he and Linnie Mae saw, a gray jacket that they both DID positively dis-identify (denied without question an identification) was the near-white light tan CE 162. Both said Oswald's gray jacket which they saw that morning was not 162, because Oswald's gray jacket was not near-white like the light tan 162. Instead, Oswald's gray jacket was a non-near-white gray.

Now compare that gray jacket of Oswald that Buell and Linnie Mae kept saying was "gray" and which Buell said was "more or less flannel, wool-looking" with the jacket Oswald is wearing in Minsk in that photo of him with his coworkers in Minsk. That is a black-and-white photo, and because it is black-and-white you criticize the notion that it could be the gray jacket Buell Frazier described, and which Linnie Mae also saw, by suggesting Oswald's Minsk jacket in that photo could equally well be dark blue.

On 6/12/2023 at 2:53 PM, Bill Brown said:

Except you cannot possibly say with any certainty what color that Minsk jacket is.  It could be dark blue.

But here is why I don't think your suggestion is correct that that could be the blue jacket that Oswald had in Minsk according to Marina: because I accept that CE 163 was Oswald's blue jacket or coat. The jacket in the Minsk photo Oswald is wearing is certainly not CE 163, and one does not need a color photo of the Minsk photo to know that.

But the jacket Oswald is wearing in that Minsk photo looks like it could be Oswald's other jacket, the gray jacket Oswald had in Minsk... the one described by Buell Frazier. The one Buell said one would wear on a cool day outdoors when it was too cool to be comfortable in shirt sleeves alone. 

Linnie Mae when shown 163 said 163 resembled Oswald's gray jacket--the one described by Buell--in color.

So did Mr. Ball. Mr. Ball was calling 163 a "gray" jacket as he led Linnie Mae to agree to a color resemblance between 163 and the gray jacket of Oswald Linnie Mae recalled (see testimony above).

There was no positive identification from Linnie Mae of 163, which you should stop misrepresenting as such. Rather, Mr. Ball obtained from Linnie Mae agreement that what Mr. Ball called the "gray" 163 resembled, in color, what Linnie Mae and Buell were referring to, Oswald's gray jacket, which actually was gray.

The "gray" 163 (per Mr. Ball, which actually was blue) resembled the actually gray gray jacket Oswald was wearing, in terms of resemblance in shade, resemblance in tone, and that was true as far as it went, between Oswald's gray and blue jackets--the gray described by Buell and in the Minsk photo, and the blue being 163.   

Edited June 19, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Bill Brown]

 

To buy into the premise of Greg Doudna's 117 page "paper", as well as the arguments he has made in this thread, one must accept ALL of the following....

 

-- Linnie Mae Randle was wrong when she identified CE-163 as the jacket/coat that Oswald was wearing when she saw him that morning.

--  Oswald wears a coat from the Depository to Beckley, discarding the coat after exiting Whaley's cab.

--  Mrs. Reid was wrong when she stated that she saw Oswald on the 2nd floor (basically on his way out of the building) with no jacket.

-- Mary Bledsoe was wrong (or lying) when she stated that Oswald was not wearing a jacket when she saw him on the McWatters bus.  Bledsoe said Oswald's shirt was tucked in.  One does not tuck in his jacket.

-- William Whaley, on 11/23/63, was able to describe, in detail, the shirt Oswald was wearing and made no mention of any jacket even though Oswald was wearing a jacket in the cab.

--  For some unknown reason, Oswald discards the jacket he is wearing after exiting Whaley's cab and before entering the rooming house on Beckley.

--  Johnny Brewer was wrong when he states that the man he saw step into the foyer/entrance of Hardy's Shoes was Lee Oswald.

-- Oswald wore his coat, CE-163, into the Texas Theater and, in an attempt to help frame the patsy, it was later planted inside the Domino Room at the Depository, to be found three weeks after the assassination.

-- The manner decided upon in which Oswald was to meet his handler (a person apparently unknown to Oswald) at the theater was to sit beside each random theater patron until he (Oswald) eventually sat beside the handler.  How these two identified each other is unknown.

--  The jacket/coat that Oswald is wearing in the black and white Minsk photo has a hole in the elbow of the right sleeve and must be gray (as opposed to blue or any other color).

 

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

To buy into the premise of Greg Doudna's 117 page "paper", as well as the arguments he has made in this thread, one must accept ALL of the following.... (. . .) --  Mrs. Reid was wrong when she stated that she saw Oswald on the 2nd floor (basically on his way out of the building) with no jacket.

That is a total misrepresentation. 

 

 

Edited June 19, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Ron Ege]

6 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

To which you replied, without answering the question asked:

But you see Bill, Linnie Mae Randle did not positively identify the "gray" jacket she saw as 163 as you are claiming--the same gray jacket described by Buell who saw it more than she did. Linnie Mae said that the "gray" jacket she saw resembled 163. You conflate "resemble" as if that is a positive identification, instead of "resembled".

In other words, there is no need to suppose either Linnie Mae, on the basis of her brief memory of the jacket, or Buell, on the basis of his more familiar and multiple times of knowledge of Lee's gray jacket, were mistaken. Linnie Mae only makes a positive identification with 163 by you setting up a straw man claiming that her "resembles" 163 in color means positive identification it was 163. 

Mr. BALL. A gray jacket. I will show you some clothing here. First, I will show you a gray jacket. Does this look anything like the jacket he had on? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir. 
Mr. BALL. That morning? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Similar to that. I didn't pay an awful lot of attention to it. 
Mr. BALL. Was it similar in color? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; I think so. It had big sleeves. 
Mr. BALL. Take a look at these sleeves. Was it similar in color? 
Mrs. RANDLE. I believe so. 
Mr. BALL. What is the Commission Exhibit on this jacket? 
Mrs. RANDLE. It was gray, I am not sure of the shade. 
Mr. BALL. 163.  

But let's return to Buell Frazier's description of the gray jacket that both he and Linnie Mae saw, a gray jacket that they both DID positively dis-identify (denied without question an identification) was the near-white light tan CE 162. Both said Oswald's gray jacket which they saw that morning was not 162, because Oswald's gray jacket was not near-white like the light tan 162. Instead, Oswald's gray jacket was a non-near-white gray.

Now compare that gray jacket of Oswald that Buell and Linnie Mae kept saying was "gray" and which Buell said was "more or less flannel, wool-looking" with the jacket Oswald is wearing in Minsk in that photo of him with his coworkers in Minsk. That is a black-and-white photo, and because it is black-and-white you criticize the notion that it could be the gray jacket Buell Frazier described, and which Linnie Mae also saw, by suggesting Oswald's Minsk jacket in that photo could equally well be dark blue.

But here is why I don't think your suggestion is correct that that could be the blue jacket that Oswald had in Minsk according to Marina: because I accept that CE 163 was Oswald's blue jacket or coat. The jacket in the Minsk photo Oswald is wearing is certainly not CE 163, and one does not need a color photo of the Minsk photo to know that.

But the jacket Oswald is wearing in that Minsk photo looks like it could be Oswald's other jacket, the gray jacket Oswald had in Minsk... the one described by Buell Frazier. The one Buell said one would wear on a cool day outdoors when it was too cool to be comfortable in shirt sleeves alone. 

Linnie Mae when shown 163 said 163 resembled Oswald's gray jacket--the one described by Buell--in color.

So did Mr. Ball. Mr. Ball was calling 163 a "gray" jacket as he led Linnie Mae to agree to a color resemblance between 163 and the gray jacket of Oswald Linnie Mae recalled (see testimony above).

There was no positive identification from Linnie Mae of 163, which you should stop misrepresenting as such. Rather, Mr. Ball obtained from Linnie Mae agreement that what Mr. Ball called the "gray" 163 resembled, in color, what Linnie Mae and Buell were referring to, Oswald's gray jacket, which actually was gray.

The "gray" 163 (per Mr. Ball, which actually was blue) resembled the actually gray gray jacket Oswald was wearing, in terms of resemblance in shade, resemblance in tone, and that was true as far as it went, between Oswald's gray and blue jackets--the gray described by Buell and in the Minsk photo, and the blue being 163.   

 

Greg, thanks.

There's some back and forth here, but I believe that you are on quite solid ground, making the case that there were three jackets, Oswald's two and the one "found" under a vehicle at the gas station.  Others who have also addressed the issue, to me, have buttressed your position.

I personally, do not recall ever, anyone plausibly refuting that there was a not a third jacket - and no credible evidence that the third "found" jacket could conceivably and rationally be construed to have been owned by Oswald.

Not being omniscient, I cannot know if Oswald actually "ditched", what from the credible evidence we have, was the grey jacket, the one that quite credibly, he wore to work that morning.  But in the light of anything else, it "went" somewhere - between leaving the TSBD, and if we choose to believe Roberts, Oswald entering her rooming house.

 

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

To buy into the premise of Greg Doudna's 117 page "paper", as well as the arguments he has made in this thread, one must accept ALL of the following....

-- Linnie Mae Randle was wrong when she identified CE-163 as the jacket/coat that Oswald was wearing when she saw him that morning.

Misrepresentation. I just got through explaining why Linnie Mae Randle was not wrong in what she did say, which was a resemblance in color to CE 163, not a positive identification as you continue to represent.   

--  Oswald wears a coat from the Depository to Beckley, discarding the coat after exiting Whaley's cab.

The gray jacket, the same gray jacket he wore that morning according to Buell and Linnie Mae, at the TSBD that morning and other mornings according to coworkers, and other mornings in Irving and at the TSBD according to Buell. 

--  Mrs. Reid was wrong when she stated that she saw Oswald on the 2nd floor (basically on his way out of the building) with no jacket.

No, I have an entire section on Mrs. Reid's testimony and support her being accurate and correct on her testimony, on seeing Oswald on the second floor moments after his encounter with officer Baker, wearing the white T-shirt and not a shirt and not a jacket. You are misrepresenting me.  

-- Mary Bledsoe was wrong (or lying) when she stated that Oswald was not wearing a jacket when she saw him on the McWatters bus.  Bledsoe said Oswald's shirt was tucked in.  One does not tuck in his jacket.

She was not lying (which goes beyond saying something in error and must include intent or wilfulness in knowingly saying something untrue). I wrote why Oswald may have had his jacket tucked in when Bledsoe saw him, and why I believe Mary Bledsoe mistook the jacket that two other witnesses on that bus said Oswald was wearing, for an old torn shirt with no buttons that was tucked in. 

-- William Whaley, on 11/23/63, was able to describe, in detail, the shirt Oswald was wearing and made no mention of any jacket even though Oswald was wearing a jacket in the cab.

This canard again, which comes close to wilful misrepresentation on your part, not of me, but of the evidence. Because the first FBI reporting agent mentioned a shirt but no jacket description from Whaley, you assume Whaley's entire corpus of later testimony--his entire Warren Commission testimony, all his later interviews, his Utube video interview I posted, in all of which Whaley spoke of Oswald's jacket, the "gray work clothes" and "a work jacket"... you dismiss (without disclosing that you are dismissing all that). When even on the point of that original FBI interview, Whaley himself is never is quoted as denying a jacket, only is not quoted by the first FBI agent as to what if anything he may or may not have said about it. 

--  For some unknown reason, Oswald discards the jacket he is wearing after exiting Whaley's cab and before entering the rooming house on Beckley.

Its not an unknown reason. It was because he was changing clothes, changing appearance to make tracking him more difficult. I wrote all that. 

--  Johnny Brewer was wrong when he states that the man he saw step into the foyer/entrance of Hardy's Shoes was Lee Oswald.

Correct, according to other witnesses. "Burroughs ... reiterated his story of someone slipping in the theater about 1:35 p.m. that day. However, Burroughs claimed that it could not have been Oswald because Oswald entered the theater shortly after 1 p.m... about 1:15 p.m. ... came to his concession stand and bought some popcorn..." 

-- Oswald wore his coat, CE-163, into the Texas Theater and, in an attempt to help frame the patsy, it was later planted inside the Domino Room at the Depository, to be found three weeks after the assassination.

-- The manner decided upon in which Oswald was to meet his handler (a person apparently unknown to Oswald) at the theater was to sit beside each random theater patron until he (Oswald) eventually sat beside the handler.  How these two identified each other is unknown.

Meeting someone. I don't say "handler". 

--  The jacket/coat that Oswald is wearing in the black and white Minsk photo has a hole in the elbow of the right sleeve and must be gray (as opposed to blue or any other color).

It very likely is Oswald's gray jacket because it agrees so well in description with Buell Wesley Frazier's description of Oswald's gray jacket. And, because Oswald had a gray jacket in Minsk according to Marina, and the jacket in the Minsk photo is not the blue CE 163, and the only jackets Marina said Oswald had in Minsk were the gray and the blue.