Oswald jacket identification question

[Greg Doudna]

 

How could Marina identify CE 162 to the Warren Commission as belonging to Lee if it wasn't true?

Proposed answer: because she honestly confused it as--or went on the assumption that it was even if not from personal recognition--Lee's actual gray jacket, even though that identification was not accurate (as improbable as that sounds upon first hearing)

Explanation of reasoning follows.

To me, it is certain Marina was wrong in identifying Lee as wearing the CE 162 jacket Thursday night in Irving. (Because CE 162 shows up the next day in a parking lot in Irving dropped by the Tippit killer with no plausible mechanism I can see for getting it from Irving on Thu night via Oswald to there in Oak Cliff Fri afternoon. It makes no sense.)

But the more troubling question is how could, or would, Marina have made that error in identification?

I find it hard to believe anyone would confuse CE 162 with Oswald's gray jacket. Difference in material and lightness of tone. Who would confuse CE 162 with the jacket Oswald is wearing in the Minsk photo? Hardly anyone.

But yet...

The only possibility I can see--the prime argument here is I can't think of any other than works-- is that Marina did remember (correctly) that Lee was wearing his gray jacket the night of Thu Nov 21 (the real gray jacket of Lee's), tried to find it on the table in front of her, the real gray jacket was not anywhere there, she picked the closest thing to it, assisted by factors (a) fluorescent lighting (washing out the light tan in its color and making it appear steel-light-gray in color from whatever distance she saw it); (b) CE 162 was physically in dim light in some sort of shadow or something, perhaps arranged that way, with the dimness making the near-white of 162 look less white and artificially a little darker, i.e. gray; (c) just far enough away from Marina physically that she saw only what seemed gray color, and did not notice the woolen-flannel-like material difference. 

On the one hand my rational mind objects that seems still a bit of a stretch that Marina could have got that wrong even with those three factors. But what else is there for an explanation?

I take as preexisting fact that she does not know 162's connection to the Tippit killing case. I take as preexisting fact this was not a case where she had been suborned to perjure in advance (rehearsed in advance). (It just does not come across that way in this instance, plus: no evidence or allegation Marina was ever suborned to perjure on anything specific in the legal sense.)

However it could be argued 162 was realized by Marina to be a WANTED identification from her by the Warren Commission in the sense that all of the items on the table the Commission wanted her to identify including 162. Then, combine Marina's knowledge that that is what the Commission wanted, with she is tired and wants it over, has up to then tried to be helpful, they want these identifications… give them what they want…

(That would not be subornation of perjury in the legal sense. But it would also be something other than a neutral, unprompted objective identification on the part of Marina.)

Let us suppose that explains how Marina makes the identification of 162 as belonging to Lee (Marina with no idea she is linking Lee to the Tippit murder, no idea of the significance of what she assumes is just one more routine item police had found among the rest of Lee's clothes.)

OK, that gets us that far, to the identification by Marina of 162 as Lee’s. Under this scenario Marina EITHER did, from a glance at 162 lying on a table among other items some unknown distance from her eyes, HONESTLY momentarily mistakenly think that was Lee’s actual gray jacket, OR. also from the same momentary glance at the same, honestly doesn’t recognize it, doesn't know really what it was—maybe at this point doesn’t care—but just gives the Commission what they want and goes along with identifying it for them anyway. (Again, no knowledge on her part of the connection to the Tippit killing and incrimination of Oswald by her identification of that item.)

But that scenario gets it, arguably, to account for the identification of the item as Lee’s itself. But then there was that second identification—not asked for by the Commission, Marina volunteered that—of the sighting of 162 with Lee on Thu night Nov 21. 

There is about only one way to account for that, assuming for the sake of argument that the analysis or scenario up to this point has been correct, and that Marina was not doing some passive-aggressive like an innocent ingenue purposeful throwing a spanner into the spinning wheel of the Commission’s construction of its narrative. (I doubt that.) 

Which is: she honestly, based on her momentary glance at whatever distance from her eyes did mistakenly think 162 was her husband’s actual gray jacket, the one he had in Minsk and described by Lee’s coworkers at TSBD the next morning, Nov 22, the gray wool-like, flannel-like work jacket. She continued that assumption in remembering correctly that Lee had worn his gray jacket to Irving and back (like he did several times to the personal knowledge of Frazier), but incorrectly identified that actual gray jacket of Lee on Thu night Nov 21, as 162. 

[Greg Doudna]

The last known sighting of Oswald wearing his gray jacket: cab driver William Whaley, Oak Cliff, Fri Nov 22, 1963

After a bus was stuck in traffic, Oswald 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.

FBI report of interview with Whaley, Nov 23, 1963:

“[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.” (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57698#relPageId=174)

In addition to the positive identification of Whaley from seeing Oswald ca. 1-4 feet away, the identification bracelet detail matches what Oswald was wearing. That the man needed a haircut matches. The gray pants match the color of pants Oswald was wearing. The start and end locations of the cab ride and the timing match Oswald’s movements in getting from the Book Depository at Dealey Plaza to his rooming house in Oak Cliff. Oswald told his interrogators he took a bus and a cab to his rooming house.

Here is an FBI interview of Whaley of Dec 18 in which there may be a correction of an earlier reporting confusion in the earlier Nov 23 in which Whaley was said to have said Oswald’s “shirt” matched Oswald’s gray pants. We know independently Oswald wore no gray shirt on Nov 22, but only a gray jacket. The expected word there was “jacket”, and the sense that “jacket” should have been the word there is reinforced in that the Nov 23 omits any description otherwise by Whaley of the jacket. This FBI Dec 18 FBI report appears to confirm the earlier Nov 23 “matching shirt” report of Whaley was a mistake in reporting (where the Nov 23 report should have referred to matching “jacket”):

“[A]s he [Whaley] recalls, Oswald was wearing grey work pants and a grey work jacket and had on a darker shirt which had a gold streak in it. He also recalled that this shirt was opened down the front to about the fourth button, and he does not recall Oswald’s wearing an undershirt.” (FBI, Dec 18, 1963,https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95672#relPageId=151)

The gray jacket

It was Oswald’s gray jacket which “nearly matched” Oswald’s gray pants in color. 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.

Here Whaley’s earlier and correct matching “gray” has changed 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 above tells it with matching gray color again, which is correct since Oswald’s pants were gray. In this video Whaley is filmed driving his cab and telling of the day he drove Oswald. Whaley at 0:14:

“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.”

 

 

Since gray is the known color of Oswald’s pants that day and Whaley always speaks of matching colors, Oswald was wearing his gray jacket. It was Oswald’s gray jacket which “nearly matched the pants” or “almost matched the pants” which were gray (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 this:

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”.

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

Whaley’s Warren Commission testimony has often been misread on one point as seeming so incoherent that it has been cited as a basis for rejecting Whaley’s credibility as a witness: an idea that Whaley claimed Oswald was wearing two jackets at the same time. That is not true. Here is the relevant testimony. The two lines at issue are underlined.

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. 

When Whaley was shown CE 162 (now on March 12), Whaley said, “I think that is the jacket he had on”. But when Mr. Ball showed him Oswald’s blue CE 163, Whaley backed off from thinking 162 was the jacket Whaley remembered. Whaley first says it could be 163 too, one or the other: “He had this one on or the other one”. But Whaley moves to favoring 163 over 162.

With both 162 and 163 in front of him for comparison, Whaley comments on the off-white of 162 being a lot lighter than he remembers of the gray jacket of Oswald he actually saw. Whaley now says, as if thinking out loud, that that jacket, 162 (the Tippit killer’s off-white light tan jacket) “might have been clean[ed]”, as a possible explanation why it looked so much lighter than he remembered Oswald’s gray jacket, if 162 really was the jacket of Oswald he had seen.

Although the transcript has been read 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 nonsensical and not what Whaley otherwise said.

The sensible reading of the two lines at issue in Whaley’s testimony is he is changing from being initially favorable to a CE 162 identification over to favoring CE 163, as a closer match to the gray jacket Oswald had in Whaley’s cab.

Whaley is not saying Oswald wore both jackets; he is addressing the issue of which jacket Oswald wore 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 when he was in Whaley’s cab. Notice the difference the placing of a comma makes in transcription:

(Warren Report 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 than”, as in favoring one thing over another. Whaley was saying it was more likely CE 163 than 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”

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. When Whaley alludes to some off-the-record preinterview with Mr. Ball he is alluding to something he has been saying all along, not outlandish or unusual. Whaley understood at all times only one jacket was worn by Oswald which is what Whaley always said.

Apart from going from gray to light blue and back to gray again on the color of the jacket and pants (the jacket and pants linked as the same matching color by Whaley), for the most part Whaley is consistent, more so than he typically has been credited.

Whaley never previously spoke of Oswald wearing two jackets at once and he was not doing so now. The only reason Whaley was discussing two jackets is he has been shown two candidates and the issue was which one. (The true answer was “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--I don't know if this one has been cleaned to be so white or what), but the jacket he had on (the gray jacket) looked more the color, you know like a uniform set (matching the gray pants in color), but he had this coat here on (CE 163) over (more likely 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).

Whaley as the last person known to have seen Oswald’s gray jacket

Whaley let Oswald off several blocks from his rooming house on Beckley in Oak Cliff. Oswald was wearing his gray jacket when he left Whaley’s cab.

But when Oswald entered the rooming house, he was seen with no jacket and wearing shirt sleeves only.

Oswald arrives at his rooming house on North Beckley

Oswald had given 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. But at about the 700 block, before Whaley had gotten to the block requested, Oswald told Whaley 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), and got out of the cab. 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 ca. three or four minutes later zipping up a jacket on his way out, in a hurry both ways, not stopping for conversation.

From an FBI interview of Earlene Roberts of Nov 27, 1963:

“She stated that on November 22, 1963, Oswald entered the house some time about 1:00 p.m. at which time he was wearing a light colored shirt either short sleeved or with the sleeves rolled up, dark pants and no jacket. … Oswald entered the house, went into his room and left again, staying in the house no longer than four or five minutes. On entering and leaving the house he passed through the living room but did not stop to look at television and said nothing to Mrs. Roberts. He was very hurried and as he left, Mrs. Roberts said something to the effect that he was in a terrible hurry. Oswald made no reply. She stated she cannot definitely recall what he was wearing as he left but that she remembers he was putting on a jacket and zipping it up the front as he left the house.” (FBI, Nov 27, 1963, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=233488#relPageId=5)

From an affidavit of Earlene Roberts of Dec 5, 1963 for the Warren Commission:

“Oswald did not have a jacket when he came in to the house and I don’t recall what type of clothing he was wearing. Oswald went to his room and was only there a few minutes before coming out. I noticed he had a jacket he was putting on. I recall the jacket was a dark color and it was the type that zips up the front. He was zipping the jacket up as he left. Oswald went out the front door. (Earlene Roberts, affidavit, Dec 5, 1963,https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=41#relPageId=449)

What happened to Oswald’s gray jacket?

The gray jacket worn by Oswald at work that morning was worn by Oswald when he left the TSBD, was worn on the bus and in Whaley’s cab. But Oswald did not have it when he entered the rooming house, according to Earlene Roberts.

What became of Oswald’s gray jacket is not known. Did Oswald dispose of it somewhere in the 1000s-700s blocks of N. Beckley before he reached the rooming house? Was it later found somewhere by some private party unaware that it had been Oswald’s, and (old and ragged as it was) tossed into the trash by someone not realizing what it was?

Which jacket did Oswald leave the rooming house with?

These are the possibilities.

(1) If Oswald killed Tippit, he left with CE 162 (near-white light tan).

(2) If Oswald did not kill Tippit, he may have left with CE 163 (blue).

(3) If Oswald did not kill Tippit, and if Earlene Roberts was mistaken about Oswald not having his gray jacket when he entered, he may have left with his gray jacket.

As for CE 162, a problem with Oswald leaving the rooming house with the off-white light tan CE 162 (= was the killer of Tippit), is that it would mean Oswald had a third jacket. But Marina said Oswald had only two jackets, one gray and one blue.

A second problem is if CE 162 was worn by Oswald in Irving the previous night of Nov 21 as Marina identified, there is no good explanation how it got from Irving on Thursday night to Oswald’s rooming house by 1 pm Friday, for Oswald to be able to obtain and newly put it on at his room at the rooming house.

A third problem is every statement verifiably in Earlene’s own voice and hand said the jacket Oswald obtained from his room and wore leaving the rooming house was “dark”, never “light”, inconsistent with the near-white color of CE 162.

As for CE 163, a first problem with Oswald leaving the rooming house with the blue CE 163 (= was not the killer of Tippit), is that several weeks later 163 was found in the Texas School Book Depository in the first-floor domino room, yet Oswald never returned from his rooming house to the Book Depository after he left on Nov 22, so it is unexplained how the blue jacket, CE 163, could have gotten there.

A second problem is that reporter Hugh Aynesworth reported that Earlene Roberts had told him on Nov 22 that the jacket was “tan”. (Although Earlene’s radio interview in her own voice of Nov 22 and affidavit signed in her own hand of Dec 5 said the jacket Oswald left with was “dark” and “gray” [gray could be how Earlene might have seen blue for medical reasons]).

As for the gray jacket, a first problem with Oswald leaving the rooming house wearing his gray jacket (= was not the killer of Tippit) is that Earline said he was in shirt sleeves and not wearing a jacket when he entered the rooming house.

A second problem, even if it be supposed that Earlene Roberts erred on that, is that Oswald’s gray jacket was not found on Oswald’s person less than an hour later when he was arrested, nor has the gray jacket turned up in any other way, and it leaves unanswered the question of what became of it.

Conclusions

The first conclusion of this series of studies is unequivocal: on the morning of Fri Nov 22 Oswald wore a gray wool-like, flannel-like old work jacket (which was not CE 162), and wore it in the cab with Whaley until Whaley dropped him off on Beckley in Oak Cliff.

The second conclusion is: the fate of Oswald’s gray jacket is unknown, although in all likelihood it was destroyed soon after its abandonment by Oswald, then found by someone who did not realize whose it had been.

The third conclusion is the identification of the jacket newly worn by Oswald leaving the rooming house at about 1 pm on Fri Nov 22 is directly linked to whether Oswald killed Tippit.

If Oswald killed Tippit, then Oswald left with CE 162 (off-white light tan), and vice versa.

If Oswald did not kill Tippit, then Oswald may have left with CE 163 (blue).

If Oswald did not kill Tippit, and if Earlene was mistaken on Oswald coming into the rooming house with no jacket, then Oswald may have left with his gray jacket, the one worn at work and throughout that morning until Whaley’s cab dropped him off in Oak Cliff. 

Edited October 6 by Greg Doudna

[Jean Ceulemans]

Good find on the one "over" the other, a choice, not together.  The entire Jacket story is finally making some sense to me. I did not check the entire inventory on Jackets found, did he only have two? Besides 162-163 and his long/heavy Navy outfit that is. 

162 in the parking lot - not his, the blue 163 at the TSBD, and nobody looking for the wool/flanel gray one Frazier was so sure about.  

[Greg Doudna]

10 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Good find on the one "over" the other, a choice, not together.  The entire Jacket story is finally making some sense to me. I did not check the entire inventory on Jackets found, did he only have two? Besides 162-163 and his long/heavy Navy outfit that is. 

162 in the parking lot - not his, the blue 163 at the TSBD, and nobody looking for the wool/flanel gray one Frazier was so sure about.  

That about sums it up. I cannot believe how the very existence of that gray jacket which wasn't 162 was missed, literally missed. You read Posner, Bugliosi, David von Pein's site -- its just simply not there, not a clue to awareness or acknowledgement of that gray jacket's existence.

Now I know (very predictable) von Pein when he does get around to this will be some form of (pull out the boilerplate), "But even if xyz, that still doesn't change that CTs are crazy and JFK was killed by a lone assassin from all the evidence ha ha ha".

Which may or may not be the case, but that is not the issue here, which is the existence of that non-162 gray jacket, something missed, so far as I can tell, in all of the Lee Harvey Oswald narratives of Nov 22 up to now that I have seen. I would love to know of a prior published discussion of this.

[Bill Brown]

 

Greg, Let me ask you two questions (and please forgive me as I'm sure you've explained both of these in the past but I want it to be stated right here).

The jacket found underneath the car in the lot behind the Texaco station, in your opinion, is that the same jacket we now know to be in evidence as CE-162?

The jacket in evidence as CE-162, in your opinion, did that jacket belong to Oswald?

 

[Greg Doudna]

Bill, I was hoping you would be back. If I answer your questions, will you express your analysis, put your cards on the table too on the gray jacket and Nov 22, say what you think, beyond cross-examination of me?

I am particularly interested in whether anything I have presented on the gray jacket causes you to alter or see differently or to have learned something new from what you believed before.

Yes on the first question, I consider that a fact. The second question goes outside the scope of my present argument which establishes the distinct existence of a non-162 gray jacket worn by Oswald the morning of Nov 22. For purposes of the argument here, consider my answer to your second question to be "unresolved", with an appended statement that I do not believe Marina's testimony establishes that it was.  

As you know, the argument 162 belonged to Oswald is the connection to the Tippit killing, fibers in agreement with Oswald's brown arrest shirt, and Marina identified it. I do not object to a narrative of yours which includes on the basis of those or other reasons that that was Oswald's jacket. But please tell your interpretive narrative and reasons, whatever it may be.

 

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Bill, I was hoping you would be back. If I answer your questions, will you express your analysis, put your cards on the table too on the gray jacket and Nov 22, say what you think, beyond cross-examination of me?

I am particularly interested in whether anything I have presented on the gray jacket causes you to alter or see differently or to have learned something new from what you believed before.

Yes on the first question, I consider that a fact. The second question goes outside the scope of my present argument which establishes the distinct existence of a non-162 gray jacket worn by Oswald the morning of Nov 22. For purposes of the argument here, consider my answer to your second question to be "unresolved", with an appended statement that I do not believe Marina's testimony establishes that it was.  

As you know, the argument 162 belonged to Oswald is the connection to the Tippit killing, fibers in agreement with Oswald's brown arrest shirt, and Marina identified it. I do not object to a narrative of yours which includes on the basis of those or other reasons that that was Oswald's jacket. But please tell your interpretive narrative and reasons, whatever it may be.

 

 

Greg, thanks for the response.  If you believe CE-612 was found behind the Texaco station, what do you have to say about the microscopic fibers that were found inside one of the sleeves of that jacket which were a match to test fibers removed from the shirt Oswald was wearing when he was arrested inside the theater?

 

[Greg Doudna]

24 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Greg, thanks for the response.  If you believe CE-612 was found behind the Texaco station, what do you have to say about the microscopic fibers that were found inside one of the sleeves of that jacket which were a match to test fibers removed from the shirt Oswald was wearing when he was arrested inside the theater?

I don't have anything to say about that in this discussion, other than it is physical evidence that is in agreement with and looks like it weighs in favor of its being Oswald's.

[Bill Brown]

16 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I don't have anything to say about that in this discussion, other than it is physical evidence that is in agreement with and looks like it weighs in favor of its being Oswald's.

 

I'm just trying to fully understand your position.

Do you believe Oswald was anywhere near Tenth and Patton?  Anywhere near that Texaco station?

 

[Greg Doudna]

7 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

I'm just trying to fully understand your position.

Do you believe Oswald was anywhere near Tenth and Patton?  Anywhere near that Texaco station?

You are trying to turn this into an issue of did Oswald shoot Tippit, the Tippit case. That is a very wide issue with many complex and interrelated arguments, none of which are essential to the gray jacket argument the subject of my studies here, which are compatible either with or without Oswald's having been the killer of Tippit. 

Do you intend to get to a narrative interpretation of your own concerning the gray jacket that morning, put some cards of your own on the table on that, take a position, engage with the arguments I have made here? I am asking you to do so. 

[Greg Doudna]

Bill suppose for the sake of argument 162 did belong to Oswald. So what? You haven’t offered a single comment or opinion about anything I’ve written on the topic. Say something 🙂 Inquiring minds want to know. How do you interpret Buell Frazier’s description of the gray jacket he saw Oswald wear several times including Nov 22 etc. what jacket was Frazier describing? The other witnesses, Marina Thu night, the others on Friday etc

You know I’ve never shied away from discussing Tippit with you other times, and there will be future times I am sure. But this is about a gray jacket issue here, and Ive set forth original argument. What do you make of it? 

[Jean Ceulemans]

18 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Greg, thanks for the response.  If you believe CE-612 was found behind the Texaco station, what do you have to say about the microscopic fibers that were found inside one of the sleeves of that jacket which were a match to test fibers removed from the shirt Oswald was wearing when he was arrested inside the theater?

 

Huh? The answer - IMO - is literally in the post you replied to, as per Greg: "fibers in agreement with Oswald's brown arrest shirt, and Marina identified it".

This topic is very specific about a wool/flanel gray jacket as described by... etc. 

 

[Greg Doudna]

Jean, doesn’t look like he’ll be back. As razor-sharp on facts as he is, I don’t think Bill can ever be accused of having learned something in his years here that has ever departed from Myers, and a non162 gray jacket of Oswald is not on the map of WR, Posner, Bugliosi, Myers, and it therefore follows as night follows day, should not be expected to be considered by Bill. That is not what is remarkable. What is remarkable is the dog that is not barking—the expected rebuttal.

Hubris is always risky but I think the reason he isn’t and won’t be back with an on-point rebuttal is because there really is no good one.

Edited Wednesday at 05:37 PM by Greg Doudna

[Bill Brown]

On 10/9/2024 at 1:36 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Jean, doesn’t look like he’ll be back. As razor-sharp on facts as he is, I don’t think Bill can ever be accused of having learned something in his years here that has ever departed from Myers, and a non162 gray jacket of Oswald is not on the map of WR, Posner, Bugliosi, Myers, and it therefore follows as night follows day, should not be expected to be considered by Bill. That is not what is remarkable. What is remarkable is the dog that is not barking—the expected rebuttal.

Hubris is always risky but I think the reason he isn’t and won’t be back with an on-point rebuttal is because there really is no good one.

 

More mistaken assumptions.  You've done this before (re: the transcripts of the Jimmy Burt interview with Al Chapman).  Slow down.  It's annoying.

I was suspended for two days for calling one of DiEugenio's posts "tripe".  Apparently, I can't use that word in describing another member's posts while W. Niederhut (a Moderator here, no less) is allowed to use the word "guano" when describing another member's post.  Run Bulman (the Mod who suspended me for 48 hours) is a hypocrite.

@W. Niederhut @Ron Bulman

Edited Thursday at 06:37 PM by Bill Brown

[Greg Doudna]

So that’s where you’ve been Bill. Well glad you’re out of the hoosegow. Sanctioning use of the word “tripe” in reference to expressed arguments, as distinguished from persons, seems a bit heavy handed. Anyway welcome back.