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

[Ron Ege]

17 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"To me, the most telling issue about the "third jacket" is that no one has ever presented a decent explanation - as to how - relative to the size, manufacturer, cities/stores where sold, and the laundry/dry cleaning marks on it - just how it could've ever belonged to Oswald."

 

By "third jacket", you're referring to CE-162, the jacket found behind the Texaco station.

 

Marina was shown 162 and said it belonged to Lee.

 

Bill, thanks.

Yes, I'm aware.   However, Marina's veracity has been much called into question.  I do understand you may disagree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

[Bill Brown]

On 6/8/2023 at 11:26 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Bill just say whatever your point is.

 

My point should be obvious.  You're saying that Oswald is seen, in a photo taken in Minsk, wearing a light-colored jacket (much like CE-162) with a hole in the elbow.  I am telling you, in the Minsk photos, Oswald is not wearing a lightweight gray jacket.

 

[Greg Doudna]

17 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

My point should be obvious.  You're saying that Oswald is seen, in a photo taken in Minsk, wearing a light-colored jacket (much like CE-162) with a hole in the elbow.  I am telling you, in the Minsk photos, Oswald is not wearing a lightweight gray jacket.

Wait a minute Bill. Where did I ever say Oswald's jacket in Minsk was "light-colored"? I said it was his gray jacket, I did not say "light-colored". You are misquoting me. I am not saying that.

I think Oswald's gray jacket was a medium-gray, because of witness descriptions, not a near-white or off-white or "light" in color. The only mention of Oswald's gray jacket being "light" in color I know of is when Buell Frazier was asked whether Oswald's gray jacket was light or dark (those two choices) and he said "light gray" which I take to mean it was not dark gray but consistent with a medium gray as opposed to dark gray.

And Marina when she said Oswald had a "light" gray jacket in Russia, that was referring to weight or warmth of the jacket, not color.

Would you explain why the jacket worn by Oswald in those Minsk photos is not "a lightweight gray jacket"? How do you speak so categorically on what it was not? Looks like a lightweight jacket to me. Its a jacket, and its not a heavy jacket. What's your basis for the negative certainty?

Edited June 11, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Bill Brown]

9 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Wait a minute Bill. Where did I ever say Oswald's jacket in Minsk was "light-colored"? I said it was his gray jacket, I did not say "light-colored". You are misquoting me. I am not saying that.

I think Oswald's gray jacket was a medium-gray, because of witness descriptions, not a near-white or off-white or "light" in color. The only mention of Oswald's gray jacket being "light" in color I know of is when Buell Frazier was asked whether Oswald's gray jacket was light or dark (those two choices) and he said "light gray" which I take to mean it was not dark gray but consistent with a medium gray as opposed to dark gray.

And Marina when she said Oswald had a "light" gray jacket in Russia, that was referring to weight or warmth of the jacket, not color.

Would you explain why the jacket worn by Oswald in those Minsk photos is not "a lightweight gray jacket"? How do you speak so categorically on what it was not? Looks like a lightweight jacket to me. Its a jacket, and its not a heavy jacket. What's your basis for the negative certainty?

 

Let me get this straight.

 

Regardless of actual color (white versus gray, etc.), you are saying that the jacket/coat Oswald is wearing in the Minsk photo is close enough in nature so as to be confused with 162.  Right?

 

My point is that this jacket/coat in the Minsk photo is darker in color and a more heavy-duty jacket/coat.

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

Just now, Bill Brown said:

Let me get this straight.

Regardless of actual color (white versus gray, etc.), you are saying that the jacket/coat Oswald is wearing in the Minsk photo is close enough in nature so as to be confused with 162.  Right?

No.

[Greg Doudna]

Pages 58-60 from the paper.

"What color was CE 162 to Marina?

"We have seen that CE 162 was off-white light tan in color and that hardly any witnesses who saw CE 162 even claimed it was gray. Marina never was asked nor gave a color description of CE 162 in her Warren Commission testimony. However, Marina’s identification of CE 162 as worn by Lee on Thursday night Nov 21, her identification of CE 162 as Lee’s gray jacket, gives strong cause to suppose Marina in her brief look at CE 162 during her testimony did see it as gray (the reasoning: she must have seen it as gray to have mistakenly identified it with Lee’s gray jacket). That could happen depending on the lighting conditions indoors, where Marina’s testimony occurred. 

"All it would take for the light tan of CE 162 to look illusorily gray in its off-white to Marina would be fluorescent lighting. An interior designer comments:

'[T]raditional fluorescent lighting gives off a cool, bright, blue-tinged light. This is a light that enhances cool colours such as blue and green and can dull warmer colours like yellow, orange and red. And I’m all for enhancing blues and greens, but creating an "icy cold clinical" look isn’t usually what my clients are going for … Flourescent lighting can be an unfriendly, cold light as it casts a cool bluish light…' (https://www.kylieminteriors.ca/how-fluorescent-light-affects-paint-colour/)

"From another interior decorating source: 

'In warmer light—during sunrise and sunset—warm gray colors will appear taupe or brown. In the cooler light of dawn, midday or dusk, or in cool artificial light, the color turns a purer gray. That’s why I advise homeowners who are testing out paint colors to view the hues during various times of the day, in the changing light, before making the final selection.' (https://www.houzz.com/magazine/color-of-the-week-decorating-with-warm-gray-stsetivw-vs~44305132)

"In fact fluorescent lighting could account for most if not all of the mistaken witness reportings of 'gray' as the color of CE 162 that did happen. If witness Callaway was correct that he told officer Summers the jacket of the Tippit killer was 'tannish gray' and Summers shortened that on his police radio broadcast on Fri Nov 22 to 'gray', and if Guinyard’s testimony was influenced by his indoor viewing of CE 162, then there arguably could be no instance of a witness’s unqualified 'gray' of CE 162 that originated in natural light, as distinguished from indoors under artificial light. Marina never saw CE 162 other than indoors before the Warren Commission, and Marina’s confusion of CE 162 with Lee’s gray jacket suggests Marina saw CE 162 as gray under artificial light.

"Yet this still goes only part way toward solving the problem of how Marina could have confused CE 162 with Oswald’s gray jacket, because the tone of gray would still be markedly different (CE 162 being lighter in tone, almost white, compared to Oswald’s gray jacket which was probably a solid medium gray, not off-white at all). How could one of those tones have been reasonably mistaken by Marina for the other?

"A darker shade of gray

"If CE 162 as Marina saw CE 162 was in a low light setting, dim or semi-dark, under a shadow or some other variant form of low lighting, however it worked, the near-white hue of its light tan, now illusorily looking cold gray due to fluorescent lighting, could also illusorily appear a darker shade ofgray if in a low light situation. 

"And Marina appears to have identified CE 162 visually across a short distance of space to where CE 162 was set on its surface, without Marina physically touching or holding or lifting it from the surface where it was displayed, holding it up for closer inspection, etc., according to any known information. 

"(Again there is no photograph of how the Commission’s exhibit items of Oswald’s clothing plus CE 162 were laid out, but I just imagine that whatever 'desk' surface that was, CE 162 would have been positioned on the other side from Marina just far enough out of Marina’s reach that she could not easily grab it or pick it up to bring closer to her eyes, feel it in her hands, look over the thing. If Marina had asked to see CE 162 more closely her request surely would have been accommodated, but the transcript shows Marina made no such request, and there is no reason to suppose anything like that happened. Which may have been the whole idea and what was intended, in whoever designed the display of the items of Lee’s clothing with CE 162 among them.)

"The fact is Marina saw CE 162 and thought it was a clothing item of Lee prior to any recognition of it (because it was with all the other clothing items of Lee), and identified it as Lee’s gray jacket which was of a significantly darker tone than CE 162. That difference in tone calls for explanation—how could Marina have mistaken CE 162 as Oswald’s gray jacket? The suggested answer to this question is it is possible through a combination of fluorescent lighting which could make CE 162 look gray, and a low light condition on CE 162 itself, however that worked, which would darken its apparent tone to the observer, combined with lack of physical touch or contact with the item—these could function to lessen the difference in color perception between CE 162 as seen by Marina and what Marina remembered of Lee’s gray jacket. (And Marina could see CE 162 was zippered and waist-length just like Lee’s gray jacket…) 

"And remember, there never was a chance for Marina to see CE 162 again for a second look or under different lighting (such as outdoors or under better light), for reconsideration. Marina never saw CE 162 before her final day before the Warren Commission, when the Warren Commission showed it to her in her final minutes of four days’ testimony, got her identification, asked no followup questions, ended her testimony and sent her home. 

"When the FBI interviewed Marina further there was no new opportunity for Marina to view CE 162 (there is certainly no report of any further showing, and from the FBI’s point of view there is no reason why there would be, since that was not the question at issue with Marina requested by the Warren Commission in that interview). Instead, it was Marina telling the FBI of Lee’s gray jacket all from her memory of the actual gray jacket of Lee’s."

[Bill Brown]

42 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

No.

 

Bit it seems to me that you are, indeed.

 

You cite the Bledsoe scenario (hole in the elbow of the lighter-colored jacket of the two that Oswald owned) and then you tie that in to the jacket/coat (which you believe shows a hole in the elbow) seen in the Minsk photo.

 

[Greg Doudna]

30 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Bit it seems to me that you are, indeed.

You cite the Bledsoe scenario (hole in the elbow of the lighter-colored jacket of the two that Oswald owned) and then you tie that in to the jacket/coat (which you believe shows a hole in the elbow) seen in the Minsk photo.

No, my Bledsoe interpretation has nothing to do with a "lighter-colored jacket of the two" of Oswald. I am not sure that Oswald's gray jacket was lighter in color tone than his CE 162 blue jacket which was called faded. You are putting in "lighter-colored".

Nothing in Bledsoe or the Minsk photo or Oswald's gray jacket has the least bit to do with CE 162. 

Edited June 11, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

On 6/9/2023 at 1:15 PM, Ron Ege said:

Greg,

Thank you; as I surmised - but did not want to assume.  IMO, you've done a masterful job of presenting your case - although others may still believe otherwise.  

Based on your paper and so much other information that I've read over the years, it seems more than reasonable that there are just two logical  reasonable options for the "discovery" of the "third jacket. 

1.  Tippit's actual killer (not Oswald) discarded it so as to be less likely to eventually be identified as such.

or

2.  The jacket was a "plant" to incriminate Oswald.

Of course, one could proffer a third option - totally illogical - that coincidentally, someone just arbitrarily discarded a perfectly serviceable jacket along the route from the Tippit shooting to the TT.  because . . .  Makes no sense.

To me, the most telling issue about the "third jacket" is that no one has ever presented a decent explanation - as to how - relative to the size, manufacturer, cities/stores where sold, and the laundry/dry cleaning marks on it - just how it could've ever belonged to Oswald. 

Thanks Ron Ege. Your analysis of the three options on the CE 162 pretty well summarizes it.

One detail needs to be corrected however: a claim that has long circulated that the "M" medium size is incompatible with Oswald; not so. That claim came about from Marina said she thought Oswald always wore "S", put together with no known clothes of Oswald reported as other than "S". However that is no longer the case. Oswald's maroon shirt CE 151 in the NARA color photo obtained by Pat Speer in 2016 and posted on his website can be seen showing a label in the collar reading "Briarloom Traditionals by Enro. An original design. All fine cotton. M 15-15 1/2." (See the closeup of the label in Pat’s color photo about halfway down—scroll lower than the color photos of the full shirt to below those for the closeup of the collar with label, at https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence.) No prior photo of CE 151 showed that with sufficient clarity to be read. So Oswald wore size "M" as well as size "S". 

But hundreds of dry cleaning establishments contacted in Dallas and New Orleans by the FBI, and not one could identify the dry cleaning ticket stapled on the inside of that Tippit killer's jacket as the kind of ticket used in their establishment. Either that stapled dry cleaning ticket still remained there years later after Oswald was in the military in California ... or it was someone else's jacket.

Some have noted that Curtis Craford, the mid-October recent hire by Oswald's killer Ruby, the one living at the Carousel Club paid off-the-books (i.e. not formally employed with taxes withheld)--who was mistaken in physical identification for Oswald by other witnesses; of similar build and height and weight (and who left Dallas precipitously with no advance notice within hours after the Tippit killing)—(the one who later said he had been a hitman for a California mobster before he came to Dallas and linked up with Oswald's killer)--was photographed by the FBI, after they tracked him down in Michigan six days later on Nov 28, in color photos wearing a jacket of similar appearance as CE 162 of exactly the same color. 

It is regrettable that the FBI did not find out how recently that jacket of Craford had been purchased and where, and then interviewed the seller of that jacket, as that might or might not have shed light on the true owner of CE 162 (i.e. was that the killer of Tippit buying a second similar jacket of identical color worn as an alibi?).  

[Bill Brown]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

No, my Bledsoe interpretation has nothing to do with a "lighter-colored jacket of the two" of Oswald. I am not sure that Oswald's gray jacket was lighter in color tone than his CE 162 blue jacket which was called faded. You are putting in "lighter-colored".

Nothing in Bledsoe or the Minsk photo or Oswald's gray jacket has the least bit to do with CE 162. 

 

There's the lightweight jacket and then there's the darker, somewhat heavyweight jacket/coat.

 

You have Oswald leaving the Depository in the lightweight jacket.  You have the Tippit witnesses saying the killer was wearing a jacket resembling the lightweight jacket, as opposed to the heavyweight jacket/coat.

 

If you have Oswald leaving the Depository in the lightweight jacket, then you have Bledsoe seeing Oswald on the bus wearing this lightweight jacket that you somehow believe has a hole in the elbow.

 

You have Oswald wearing this lightweight jacket in the Minsk photo, as opposed to the heavier, darker jacket/coat.

 

Am I right so far?

 

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

There's the lightweight jacket and then there's the darker, somewhat heavyweight jacket/coat.

You have Oswald leaving the Depository in the lightweight jacket.  You have the Tippit witnesses saying the killer was wearing a jacket resembling the lightweight jacket, as opposed to the heavyweight jacket/coat.

If you have Oswald leaving the Depository in the lightweight jacket, then you have Bledsoe seeing Oswald on the bus wearing this lightweight jacket that you somehow believe has a hole in the elbow.

You have Oswald wearing this lightweight jacket in the Minsk photo, as opposed to the heavier, darker jacket/coat.

Am I right so far?

No. You are using trickery by using "lightweight" instead of "gray", then trying to have me say CE 162 since it is lightweight "resembles" Oswald's gray jacket which was also lightweight "as opposed to" a heavyweight jacket/coat. No. 

Every man in America had a lightweight jacket. That doesn't make for calling two random lightweight jackets owned by ca. 100 percent of men who exist, a "resemblance" in any two such lightweight jackets. That's what you're trying to set me up to say here.

Bait not taken.

You can go to pp. 42-44 of my paper if you're honestly puzzled (I don't think you are) about wanting to know my definitions and narrative. 

Why don't you just make whatever points you want to make.   

Edited June 11, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

Pages 60-62 from the paper. 

"The delay in asking Marina about CE 162

"A possible signal of something amiss with the Feb 6, 1964 identification of CE 162 obtained from Marina is the absence of any record that Marina was asked about CE 162 before then, even though the FBI interviewed Marina many times including questioning her concerning Lee’s blue jacket, CE 163.

"An early identification from Marina that CE 162 was Lee’s would have been significant and newsworthy. Yet that never was sought from Marina by the FBI, why? 

"If it was a slam dunk that CE 162 was Lee’s gray jacket known to Marina, why the failure to obtain a statement from Marina to that effect earlier? Sometimes the way to reduce the risk of unwanted things on the record is to not ask witnesses certain questions. On strategic absences of FBI interviews of witnesses on certain topics see Pat Speer’s 'Threads of Evidence', https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence. 

It does not inspire confidence that Marina was shown and asked about CE 162 for a first and only time as late as her Warren Commission testimony.

Comment on manipulative process in obtaining Marina’s identification of CE 162

"The process was manipulative in the way Marina was led to assume CE 162 was an item of Lee’s clothing prior to the question of whether she recognized it. Marina would have mistakenly assumed a priori C162 must be something of Oswald’s (because every other item around it was), and that could contribute to a mistaken identification. 

"It was manipulative in the way identification of CE 162 was considered routine and given no special attention among the other items of undisputed Lee’s clothing, without further questioning of Marina concerning details. 

"It was manipulative in the circumstances of Marina’s viewing of CE 162, in which there is no indication Marina had CE 162 in her hands or that it was lifted up for Marina to see more closely or fully.

"It was manipulative in the scheduling of Marina’s identification in the final part of the closing afternoon session of her testimony. Was there a fear that if Marina had opportunity during a break following a session to reconsider, she might upon return to the next session ask to have her testimony corrected (say, from certainty to uncertainty), and to preempt that risk, the question intentionally was not asked until toward the end of her final session? 

"It was manipulative in that the time chosen to ask her, toward the close of the two-hours-plus final session, would be when it could be anticipated Marina would be at her maximum fatigue. 

"The Warren Commission’s obtaining of Marina’s identification of CE 162 as an item of clothing of Lee’s almost has the appearance of an attempt to trick Marina into that identification.

"Awareness on the part of Warren Commission counsels that the CE 162 identification obtained from Marina was shaky might also be suggested in the lack of followup questions addressed to Marina related to that critically important identification, other than Rankin making clear that CE 162 was a 'jacket' before moving on to other matters. Marina was not asked 'are you sure this was Lee’s?', 'When do you remember last seeing Lee wear that?' and so on. Questions designed to bring out Marina’s answer a second or third time to ensure Marina’s answer had not been premature without full awareness or confidence. 

"Of course, if the objective was to get a hoped-for identification on the record for the purpose of incriminating Oswald in agreement with the theory of the case of the Commission, as distinct from disinterestedly wanting the truth of Marina’s story, further questioning of Marina concerning CE 162 might not be deemed advantageous. 

"Instead of followups on CE 162 the questioning moved smoothly to other things, as if CE 162 had been just one more routine identification among the others. There were a few pro forma questions on other things, then Marina’s testimony came to an end for good as far as the Warren Commission was concerned, in the minutes following Marina’s CE 162 identification. 

"Was there a fear that Marina’s identification of CE 162 might falter or retreat to becoming equivocal if she were asked to repeat it a second or third time? In any case there was no followup concerning CE 162. Marina’s four days were over and Marina was thanked for her testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mrs. Oswald, you have been a very cooperative witness. You have helped the Commission. We are grateful to you for doing this. We realize that this has been a hard ordeal for you to go through.
Mrs. OSWALD. It was difficult to speak all the truth."

Edited June 12, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

Pages 62-63.

"Conclusion regarding Marina and CE 162

"Marina’s identification of CE 162 as an item of Lee’s clothing can be understood as Marina responding to suggestion combined with circumstances conducive to error, which should weaken confidence in its correctness to a reasonable observer. 

"But it is not as if Marina’s testimony stands on its own for better or worse. In this case there is additional information, information that contradicts Marina’s testimony. For Buell Wesley Frazier rejected CE 162 as being Oswald’s gray jacket and gave a different physical description of Lee’s gray jacket. Considerable weight must be given to Buell Frazier’s testimony due to the credibility of Frazier as a witness. 

"Here a choice is forced: to accept Buell Frazier’s clear and unproblematic testimony at this point, or the Warren Commission’s acceptance of Marina’s problematic identification of CE 162, the opposite of Frazier’s, even as the Warren Commission simultaneously arbitrarily dismissed Marina’s claim of the only time she said she saw Oswald wear CE 162, Thursday night in Irving, Nov 21 (when Oswald actually wore his gray jacket as an independently established fact of the case).

"It is fair to say without dispute that virtually all investigators—Warren Commission staff investigators and independent researchers alike—have judged Buell Frazier a more credible and trustworthy witness than Marina as a general statement—and Frazier testified unequivocally that CE 162 was not Oswald’s gray jacket.

"Therefore the conclusion is CE 162 was not Oswald’s gray jacket, despite Marina answering that it was in her testimony to the Warren Commission. That identification came about under circumstances including suggestion, possible lighting and display manipulation, and conceivably unknown pre-interviewing of Marina before Marina’s on-the-record testimony, increasing odds that Marina might make that desired identification whether or not it was actually correct. The objective appears to have been to get that identification from Marina more than it was to cross-check Marina’s testimony to assess whether it was actually correct.

"The conclusion is the identification Marina gave for CE 162 as an item of Lee’s clothing and worn on Thursday Nov 21 was mistaken, to be explained as human error on Marina’s part. Buell Wesley Frazier was correct that CE 162 was not Oswald’s gray jacket."  

Edited June 11, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Bill Brown]

10 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

No. You are using trickery by using "lightweight" instead of "gray", then trying to have me say CE 162 since it is lightweight "resembles" Oswald's gray jacket which was also lightweight "as opposed to" a heavyweight jacket/coat. No. 

Every man in America had a lightweight jacket. That doesn't make for calling two random lightweight jackets owned by ca. 100 percent of men who exist, a "resemblance" in any two such lightweight jackets. That's what you're trying to set me up to say here.

Bait not taken.

You can go to pp. 42-44 of my paper if you're honestly puzzled (I don't think you are) about wanting to know my definitions and narrative. 

Why don't you just make whatever points you want to make.   

 

Why don't you lower your defenses?  I'm not trying to bait you at all.  I am calling one of Oswald's jackets lightweight and the other somewhat heavyweight for no other reason than to distinguish the two from each other.

 

One of Oswald's jackets was lightweight and lighter in color than the other jacket/coat which was a little more heavyweight and darker in color.  Right?

 

Edited June 11, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

Why don't you lower your defenses?  I'm not trying to bait you at all.  I am calling one of Oswald's jackets lightweight and the other somewhat heavyweight for no other reason than to distinguish the two from each other.

One of Oswald's jackets was lightweight and lighter in color than the other jacket/coat which was a little more heavyweight and darker in color.  Right?

No, “lighter colored” is not clear or known, not my language or description of Oswald’s gray jacket, which is simply “gray” and “lightweight”. I already said that above, maybe you missed it. 

The Minsk photo of Oswald wearing a lightweight jacket I am saying was his lightweight gray jacket. I cannot tell from that black-and-white photo whether that Minsk jacket is lighter or darker in tone of color than CE 163’s tone of blue. What do you think?

In any case my description of his gray jacket is “gray” and “lightweight” without claim to lighter or darker than CE 163 (unless you can show cause why that is established without circular invocation of 162).