Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket

[Martin Weidmann]

Running south on Patton on both sides of the street...

If Oswald did not leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket, then who did those Tippit witnesses see running wearing a jacket?

[Bill Brown]

Running south on Patton on both sides of the street...

Yet, none of them say that there were two assailants.

Therefore, you have to ask yourself what is more likely.

1.  Some witnesses saw Oswald flee the scene on one side of Patton and others saw Oswald flee on the other side of Patton (Oswald did indeed cross Patton from one side to the other at some point).

2.  There were two assailants, each on their own side of Patton and going totally unnoticed by the witnesses who saw the other assailant coming down the other side of Patton.

[Bill Brown]

If Oswald did not leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket, then who did those Tippit witnesses see running wearing a jacket?

Faulty logic.

The only person who saw Oswald leave the rooming house said that he was zipping up a jacket as he was going out the door.  No one else saw Oswald leave the house.

[Bill Brown]

When you explain how LHO left the TSBD with no jacket but then suddenly had one when Whaley allegedly saw him then we can move onto your point.

We?  You're a funny guy.

I've already moved on to my point without you.  So have others.

[Gary Craig]

You've missed the point.

Regardless of whether CE-162 is Oswald's jacket or not (it is), the fact remains that he was seen by a multitude of witnesses (near the scene of the Tippit slaying) wearing a jacket.

Why did he have no jacket on when he was seen by Brewer?

Benevide's description of Tippit's killer doesn't match a photo taken of Oswald while in custody on

11/22/63.

Benevides was across the street from Tippit, 15 feet away, when he was shot and got a better look at the

murderer than any other witness.

Legally, one piece of exculpatory evidence, or in this case witness, can nullify any number of witnesses or

pieces of evidence.

If Tippit's murderer ditched his jacket and Oswald was arrested without a jacket that doesn't make him

the killer.

The found jacket was too big for Ozzie and it contained laundry tags from being commercially cleaned.

Marina did his laundry.

etc. etc. etc.

[Bill Brown]

Benevide's description of Tippit's killer doesn't match a photo taken of Oswald while in custody on

11/22/63.

Benevides was across the street from Tippit, 15 feet away, when he was shot and got a better look at the

murderer than any other witness.

Legally, one piece of exculpatory evidence, or in this case witness, can nullify any number of witnesses or

pieces of evidence.

If Tippit's murderer ditched his jacket and Oswald was arrested without a jacket that doesn't make him

the killer.

The found jacket was too big for Ozzie and it contained laundry tags from being commercially cleaned.

Marina did his laundry.

etc. etc. etc.

Benevide's description of Tippit's killer doesn't match a photo taken of Oswald while in custody on 11/22/63.

Yes, I know... based on his "tapered hairline".  Right?  LOL

Benevides was across the street from Tippit, 15 feet away, when he was shot and got a better look at the murderer than any other witness.

Markham got just as good a look at the murderer as did Bneavides.

Scoggins, Callaway and Guinyard got just as good a look at the man running from the scene with a gun in his hands as did Benavides.

Benavides never said that the murderer was not Oswald.

Legally, one piece of exculpatory evidence, or in this case witness, can nullify any number of witnesses or pieces of evidence.

But, there is not even one piece of exculpatory evidence in the case of Tippit's murder by Oswald.

If you choose, name any evidence which you feel is exculpatory and we can discuss it.

If Tippit's murderer ditched his jacket and Oswald was arrested without a jacket that doesn't make him the killer.

True.  Simply ditching a jacket doesn't automatically mean one is guilty of killing a police officer.

Oswald was seen by at least eight witnesses running from the scene with a gun in his hands and wearing a jacket.  Can you explain why Oswald would ditch his jacket?

The found jacket was too big for Ozzie and it contained laundry tags from being commercially cleaned.

This argument is almost almost as lame as the tapered hairline argument.

The jacket was a size medium.  Oswald was a size small.  God forbid (with apologies to John Iacoletti) a small man should ever wear a medium sized jacket.

[Bill Brown]

Of course you have since your points require absolutely NO supporting evidence at all.

The jacket found was WHITE. Live with it.

Why did Oswald ditch his jacket?  Whether it was white, gray, black, bright yellow or lime green, why take it off and discard it?

[Gary Craig]

Yes, I know... based on his "tapered hairline".  Right?  LOL


Markham got just as good a look at the murderer as did Bneavides.

Scoggins, Callaway and Guinyard got just as good a look at the man running from the scene with a gun in his hands as did Benavides.

Benavides never said that the murderer was not Oswald.


But, there is not even one piece of exculpatory evidence in the case of Tippit's murder by Oswald.

If you choose, name any evidence which you feel is exculpatory and we can discuss it.


True.  Simply ditching a jacket doesn't automatically mean one is guilty of killing a police officer.

Oswald was seen by at least eight witnesses running from the scene with a gun in his hands and wearing a jacket.  Can you explain why Oswald would ditch his jacket?


This argument is almost almost as lame as the tapered hairline argument.

The jacket was a size medium.  Oswald was a size small.  God forbid (with apologies to John Iacoletti) a small man should ever wear a medium sized jacket.

"The jacket was a size medium.  Oswald was a size small.  God forbid (with apologies to John Iacoletti) a small man should ever wear a medium sized jacket."

So which of the witnesses described Tippit"s murderer wearing an oversized jacket?