Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket

[Bill Brown]

Huh?  Now you're saying that the fibers were not similar?

You said the fibers were only "similar".  You were wrong.  Is that better?

[Bill Brown]

I don't know, and neither do you.  You haven't even demonstrated that Oswald was wearing a jacket, just that Mrs. Roberts thought he was zipping one up when he supposedly left the rooming house.  Mrs. Roberts thought a lot of things.

Earlene Roberts:

"He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on.  It was kind of a zipper jacket...he was zipping it up as he went out the door."

[Bill Brown]

Why would Oswald ditch A jacket by the time he was seen by Brewer?

I don't know, and neither do you.

Denial:  Anything to get a cop-killer off the hook.

Have you come up with any Tippit murder evidence which points somewhere other than Oswald, yet?

[John Iacoletti]

You said the fibers were only "similar".  You were wrong.  Is that better?

I'm not "wrong" just because you want to use a definition of "match" that doesn't exclude other sources.

[John Iacoletti]

Denial:  Anything to get a cop-killer off the hook.

Pretend to know something that you don't actually know.  Anything to railroad a guy you don't like.

Have you come up with any Tippit murder evidence which points somewhere other than Oswald, yet?

Have you come up with any evidence against Oswald yet other than utter screwball identified him in an unfair lineup?  Guilty until proven innocent?

[Bill Brown]

I'm not "wrong" just because you want to use a definition of "match" that doesn't exclude other sources.

I stated that the jacket sleeve fibers and the shirt fibers were a "match".  You made the ill-advised attempt to correct me by claiming that I meant the fibers were "similar" and not a "match".  You were wrong to do so.  The fibers were not only similar, they were indeed a match.

You were wrong.  Do you really want to argue about this for ten more pages?  You've done this sort of thing before.  Why not just stop now versus dragging it out?  Dragging this out for pages on end will not change anything.

And by "matched" you mean similar.  So what?

No.

By "matched" I mean the fibers were more than only similar; I mean exactly what I said, that they were a match.

[Bill Brown]

Pretend to know something that you don't actually know.  Anything to railroad a guy you don't like.

Have you come up with any evidence against Oswald yet other than utter screwball identified him in an unfair lineup?  Guilty until proven innocent?

I have posted dozens of pages (on this forum and the old one) of evidence that would be used in court (had Oswald went to trial) that would convict Oswald for Tippit's murder.

You have never posted anything showing ANY evidence whatsoever that points to someone other than Oswald.  Why is that?

[John Iacoletti]

I stated that the jacket sleeve fibers and the shirt fibers were a "match".  You made the ill-advised attempt to correct me by claiming that I meant the fibers were "similar" and not a "match".  You were wrong to do so.  The fibers were not only similar, they were indeed a match.

You were wrong.  Do you really want to argue about this for ten more pages?  You've done this sort of thing before.  Why not just stop now versus dragging it out?  Dragging this out for pages on end will not change anything.

Because you've done this sort of thing before.  You just decide that your definition of a word is the "correct" one.

But rather that arguing about this, how about you just answer the question?  Whether the fibers are similar or whether they "match" in a way that doesn't exclude other sources,

So What?