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

[Bill Brown]

 

Let's not forget, Earlene Roberts has Oswald entering the rooming house with no jacket/coat on at all.

 

Secondly, In his statement to the FBI soon after the assassination, William Whaley described what Oswald was wearing in the cab, even describing the shirt in detail, and no mention of Oswald wearing a jacket.  Granted, many months later, Whaley would testify to the Warren Commission that Oswald was wearing two jackets.  Personally, I'd take what he told the FBI almost immediately after the assassination over something he was trying to remember roughly a half year later.

[Bill Brown]

10 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

"Now why "gray" (which is compatible with her "dark")? Because she was diabetic and yellow-blue color-blind is why, medically incapable of seeing blue. For those who are yellow-blue colorblind blue appears as gray."

 

Greg, where is your proof that Roberts was yellow-blue color-blind and medically incapable of seeing blue?

 

Edited June 5, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Bill Brown]

11 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis saw Oswald cut across their yard moments after the shots rang out.  Virginia Davis described the jacket Oswald was wearing as "a light brown tan jacket".  Barbara Davis described it as a "black coat".

 

These two women were looking at the same man.  Yet, one said the outer garment was light brown tan and the other said it was black.  Since we know the two women saw the same man, it's useless to argue that a witness like Earlene Roberts couldn't have been mistaken as to the color of the jacket/coat she saw Oswald leave in at the rooming house.  One of the Davis girls was wrong.  Why can't the same be true for Roberts?

 

Edited June 5, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Bill Brown]

10 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

"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."

 

No Sir.  Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis saw the same item (jacket/coat).

 

Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis saw Oswald cut across their yard moments after the shots rang out.  Virginia Davis described the jacket Oswald was wearing as "a light brown tan jacket".  Barbara Davis described it as a "black coat".

 

You cannot build any case on word play like that.  It is obviously very possible for one person to call it a jacket while another calls it a coat.

[Bill Brown]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And what puts CE 163 in the Texas Theatre?

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

 

"And further, on why it certainly was CE 163 the blue jacket that Earlene saw Lee leave the rooming house with..."

 

Interesting that earlier you tried to build an entire case on how (supposedly) a person (Earlene Roberts) would not be calling a jacket a coat (a coat is much warmer and thicker, etc.).  You argued that Oswald left the rooming house in 163, partly because Roberts called it a coat and no way would she call 163 a jacket.  Yet, that is exactly what you just called it above, a jacket.

 

Below is what you said before:

 

"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."

 

 

Edited June 5, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Bill Brown]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And what puts CE 163 in the Texas Theatre?

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

 

"And further, on why it certainly was CE 163 the blue jacket that Earlene saw Lee leave the rooming house with: because Lee only had two jackets, a gray and a blue, and it is absolutely clear that he wore the gray jacket that morning. That can be tracked straight through from Irving to the cab letting him out on N. Beckley that day, witness after witness."

 

No Sir.

 

The gray jacket is CE-162.  The heavier blue one is CE-163.

 

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.

 

Your above statement is simply incorrect.

 

If Oswald was wearing 163 that morning (per Randle), then your entire thesis is blown out of the water, obviously.  Did you forget about Randle when you claimed (erroneously) that "witness after witness" has Oswald wearing 162 that morning?

 

 

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

"Oswald goes out the door wearing CE 163 and goes to the Theatre, verified in that Oswald was there. So unless he took the jacket off and set it outside somewhere before going in the theater, he wore it into the theater when he bought his ticket and went inside. Then he would do what most people do in warm theaters, take off their coats or jackets."

 

Johnny Brewer was specifically asked (during his Warren Commission testimony) if Oswald was wearing a jacket on Jefferson Blvd., to which Brewer replies "No".  Brewer even says the shirt was untucked.

 

Brewer, in his Dec. 6th affidavit, described the shirt Oswald was wearing on Jefferson Blvd. as a "brown sport shirt" and makes no mention of a jacket at all.

 

Edited June 5, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Greg Doudna]

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." 

[Greg Doudna]

29 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

"And further, on why it certainly was CE 163 the blue jacket that Earlene saw Lee leave the rooming house with: because Lee only had two jackets, a gray and a blue, and it is absolutely clear that he wore the gray jacket that morning. That can be tracked straight through from Irving to the cab letting him out on N. Beckley that day, witness after witness."

No Sir.

The gray jacket is CE-162.  The heavier blue one is CE-163.

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.

Your above statement is simply incorrect.

If Oswald was wearing 163 that morning (per Randle), then your entire thesis is blown out of the water, obviously.  Did you forget about Randle when you claimed (erroneously) that "witness after witness" has Oswald wearing 162 that morning?

Bill please read my discussion of Linnie Mae Randle, pp. 47-50. Her testimony supports that Oswald was wearing his gray jacket and not his blue CE 163. She repeatedly said the jacket she saw Oswald was wearing was "gray". Counsel Mr. Ball forced her into a forced choice of, if she had to choose, which looked closer, CE 162 or CE 163, the true answer being neither. She objected to CE 162 (the near-white light tan Tippit killer's jacket) on the grounds that the jacket Oswald was wearing was GRAY. That is, she did not see CE 162 as gray, but DID see the jacket Oswald was wearing the morning of Nov 22 as GRAY. Mr. Ball's forced choice was so manipulative that it is cited as if Linnie Mae's answer to that forced choice (in which she chose CE 163 as less dissimilar to Lee's GRAY jacket, of the two choices forced) is positive evidence for CE 163. I agree that at the end Mr. Ball in confirming her forced choice of CE 163 as "similar" to the jacket she saw Oswald wear, she said "yes". 

Anyway, I made my argument on that at pp. 47-50, and this was a case of a witness who repeatedly kept saying Oswald wore a gray jacket, that was NOT CE 162, the same thing Buell Wesley Frazier said, gray jacket that was NOT CE 162.

And some successful Warren Commission counsel manipulative questioning: which of these two false choices is closer to the gray jacket you saw, Mrs. Randle?? CE 162 or CE 163? Pick one! Oh, you say CE 163 is closer (because of the similar medium solid color tone, not practically white like CE 162)? Aha! Now Bill Brown 58 years from now can cite that as support for CE 163!!! 🙂

Outside of Mr. Ball's manipulative questions, here is Linnie Mae in her own words, trying to tell Mr. Ball it was gray:

"He had a gray jacket, I believe"

"It was gray, I am not sure of the shade."

"No, sir [it was not CE 162]. I remember its being gray."

[Bill Brown]

11 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." 

 

"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."

 

Then you shouldn't have stated as a fact that Earlene Roberts was yellow-blue color-blind.

 

If I recall correctly, you stated that 22% of all Type 2 adult-onset diabetics are colorblind.  I realize Roberts, considering her age, etc. may have a higher chance than 22% but you made it sound like it was a fact that she suffered from this yellow-blue colorblindness.

 

All I'm saying is you shouldn't have done that.

 

[Bill Brown]

2 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Bill please read my discussion of Linnie Mae Randle, pp. 47-50. Her testimony supports that Oswald was wearing his gray jacket and not his blue CE 163. She repeatedly said the jacket she saw Oswald was wearing was "gray". Counsel Mr. Ball forced her into a forced choice of, if she had to choose, which looked closer, CE 162 or CE 163, the true answer being neither. She objected to CE 162 (the near-white light tan Tippit killer's jacket) on the grounds that the jacket Oswald was wearing was GRAY. That is, she did not see CE 162 as gray, but DID see the jacket Oswald was wearing the morning of Nov 22 as GRAY. Mr. Ball's forced choice was so manipulative that it is cited as if Linnie Mae's answer to that forced choice (in which she chose CE 163 as less dissimilar to Lee's GRAY jacket, of the two choices forced) is positive evidence for CE 163. I agree that at the end Mr. Ball in confirming her forced choice of CE 163 as "similar" to the jacket she saw Oswald wear, she said "yes". 

Anyway, I made my argument on that at pp. 47-50, and this was a case of a witness who repeatedly kept saying Oswald wore a gray jacket, that was NOT CE 162, the same thing Buell Wesley Frazier said, gray jacket that was NOT CE 162.

And some successful Warren Commission counsel manipulative questioning: which of these two false choices is closer to the gray jacket you saw, Mrs. Randle?? CE 162 or CE 163? Pick one! Oh, you say CE 163 is closer (because of the similar medium solid color tone, not practically white like CE 162)? Aha! Now Bill Brown 58 years from now can cite that as support for CE 163!!! 🙂

Outside of Mr. Ball's manipulative questions, here is Linnie Mae in her own words, trying to tell Mr. Ball it was gray:

"He had a gray jacket, I believe"

"It was gray, I am not sure of the shade."

"No, sir [it was not CE 162]. I remember its being gray."

 

This is all one needs to know, re: how Greg Doudna is trying to simply outright dismiss what it was exactly that Linnie Mae Randle said.  Randle clearly has Oswald wearing 163 that morning....

Mr. BALL. How was Lee dressed that morning?
Mrs. RANDLE. He had on a white T-shirt, I just saw him from the waist up, I didn't pay any attention to his pants or anything, when he was going with the package. I was more interested in that. But he had on a white T-shirt and I remember some sort of brown or tan shirt and he had a gray jacket, I believe.
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.
I will show you another shirt which is Commission No. 150.
Does this look anything like the shirt he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well now, I don't remember it being that shade of brown. It could have been but I was looking through the screen and out the window but I don't remember it being exactly that. I thought it was a solid color.
Mr. BALL. Here is another jacket which is a gray jacket, does this look anything like the jacket he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; I remember its being gray.
Mr. BALL. Well, this one is gray but of these two the jacket I last showed you is Commission Exhibit No. 162, and this blue gray is 163, now if you had to choose between these two?
Mrs. RANDLE. I would choose the dark one.
Mr. BALL. You would choose the dark one?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Which is 163, as being more similar to the jacket he had?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; that I remember. But I, you know, didn't pay an awful lot of attention to his jacket. I remember his T-shirt and the shirt more so than I do the jacket.
Mr. BALL. The witness just stated that 163 which is the gray-blue is similar to the jacket he had on. 162, the light gray jacket was not.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.

 

[Greg Doudna]

37 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

"Oswald goes out the door wearing CE 163 and goes to the Theatre, verified in that Oswald was there. So unless he took the jacket off and set it outside somewhere before going in the theater, he wore it into the theater when he bought his ticket and went inside. Then he would do what most people do in warm theaters, take off their coats or jackets."

Johnny Brewer was specifically asked (during his Warren Commission testimony) if Oswald was wearing a jacket on Jefferson Blvd., to which Brewer replies "No".  Brewer even says the shirt was untucked.

Brewer, in his Dec. 6th affidavit, described the shirt Oswald was wearing on Jefferson Blvd. as a "brown sport shirt" and makes no mention of a jacket at all.

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 Brown]

21 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 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."

 

Say again?  You lost me.

 

[Bill Brown]

22 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." 

 

"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.

 

[Greg Doudna]

1 minute ago, Bill Brown said:

"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."

Say again?  You lost me.

I am saying Barbara Davis said she was telling a memory of Oswald/killer's coat as "black...wool fabric", but really wasn't. She was remembering some other coat being worn by some other man (one of the other crime scene witnesses). Therefore her description is not applicable as part of the database of color descriptions of the tippit killer's/CE 162 jacket. I analyze a database of 10 crime scene witnesses' color descriptions but exclude Barbara Davis's description as part of that database.