Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket

[John Mytton]

Domingo Benavides description of Tippit's killer compared to a photo taken of Ozzie on 11/22/63 while in DPD custody.


Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.

Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........

~snip~

Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.

Oswald's wind breaker type jacket was designed so the collar could be used as to protect your neck and as can be seen it's natural state was up.



So obviously Oswald's Jacket itself was creating a squared off edge. Just like in the following photo.





JohnM

[Gary Craig]

So she didn't understand 1  clearly ambiguous question, WOW, is that all you got?

And as for the identification it wasn't the exact same Oswald, this future Oswald was bruised, cut and had a huge welt over his left eye, so a little trepidation is not only accepted but is welcome with open arms because her slight hesitation can only further reinforce her positive identification.

Try again!



JohnM

"So she didn't understand 1  clearly ambiguous question"

 

You might want to look up "ambiguous" in a non LNer Dictionary.


Q: Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?

Markham: No, sir

[John Mytton]

"So she didn't understand 1  clearly ambiguous question"

 

You might want to look up "ambiguous" in a non LNer Dictionary.


Q: Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?

Markham: No, sir

Exactly, you do realize that Iacoletti argued for weeks, at which point someone was known and unknown and by whom, and you expect Markham to act how you want and if not you throw her under a bus for what is perfectly explainable, you Oswald fanatics are beyond reason.



JohnM

[Gary Craig]

Exactly, you do realize that Iacoletti argued for weeks, at which point someone was known and unknown and by whom, and you expect Markham to act how you want and if not you throw her under a bus for what is perfectly explainable, you Oswald fanatics are beyond reason.

JohnM

Could you translate your response into adult english.

I don't understand gibberish.

[John Mytton]

Could you translate your response into adult english.

I don't understand gibberish.

Up until now you've shown a clear lack of comprehending anything that convicts Oswald, so further clarifying a fact that you have no desire in accepting would be futile.



JohnM

[Gary Craig]

Up until now you've shown a clear lack of comprehending anything that convicts Oswald, so further clarifying a fact that you have no desire in accepting would be futile.

JohnM

Here's where you knuckle heads don't get it.

Oswald wasn't convicted of anything. He never went to trial. He never even got to talk to a lawyer before

being lynched.

The WCR is the uncontested prosecution case against him.

Comprehending it isn't a problem.

It's veracity is though.

[John Mytton]

Here's where you knuckle heads don't get it.

Oswald wasn't convicted of anything. He never went to trial. He never even got to talk to a lawyer before

being lynched.

The WCR is the uncontested prosecution case against him.

Comprehending it isn't a problem.

It's veracity is though.

Hitler never went to trial, was he also innocent? Hahaha!



JohnM

[Bill Brown]

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.

The same man on both sides of the street passing Callaway's lot ... seriuosly?

So then you do believe that 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.