Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket

[Gary Craig]

Oswald wore that shirt when he was arrested.  If he was not wearing that shirt while shooting from the sniper's nest window, then he removed it while he was waiting for the motorcade to arrive and then used that shirt to quickly wipe down the rifle in hopes of removing his fingerprints.

It would have taken Oswald mere seconds to wipe down the rifle and then put the shirt on as he descended the first flight of stairs.

Patspeer.com

Chapter 4b: Threads of Evidence

~snip~

"Back to Stombaugh's discussion of the rust brown shirt. After prompting by WC counsel Melvin Eisenberg, he then added "down the face of the shirt I did find some wax adhering to it." Now this is interesting, as it suggests he took a good look at the shirt. Which makes what he doesn't say remarkable. He doesn't mention finding any grease on the shirt, or anything indicating it had been used to wipe down the rifle. (The proposition that Oswald wore his t-shirt during the shooting, and used the brown shirt to wipe down the rifle, is hereby reduced to the level of unsupported speculation, at odds with the available evidence.)"

 ~snip~

[John Iacoletti]

My definition is the correct one.  Your definition is way off base.  Learn the difference between match and similar.

You always think your opinions and definitions are the correct ones.  Learn the difference between opinion and fact.

However, don't try to pretend for a second that the fact that the fibers were a match means nothing.  The fiber match is yet another thing to present to the jury in an attempt to convince them that the jacket was Oswald's and in an attempt to change his appearance he ditched the jacket after killing a police officer only minutes ago.

Why would this convince anybody when you've just acknowledged that the fibers may or may not have come from that shirt?  Even if you were able to prove that this is his jacket (and you're not), your claim that he "ditched it" and why is pure speculation and not evidence of anything.

[John Iacoletti]

Translation:  I have no evidence whatsoever which points to someone other than Lee Oswald.

Again, so what?  Do you think that somehow proves that Oswald did it?

[Bill Brown]

Again, so what?  Do you think that somehow proves that Oswald did it?

Translation (again):  I have no evidence whatsoever which points to someone other than Lee Oswald.

[Bill Brown]

You always think your opinions and definitions are the correct ones.  Learn the difference between opinion and fact.

Were the fibers found in the sleeve of the jacket and the fibers from the arrest shirt similar or a match?

[John Iacoletti]

Translation (again):  I have no evidence whatsoever which points to someone other than Lee Oswald.

Dance, monkey, dance.  It's obvious why you won't answer the "so what" question.

[John Iacoletti]

Were the fibers found in the sleeve of the jacket and the fibers from the arrest shirt similar or a match?

Depends what you mean by "similar" and what you mean by "match".  Nobody has actually cited any analysis made on the jacket fibers anyway -- just the ones in the rifle.

But instead of another endless diversion on word definitions, I'd rather discuss what the evidence shows about these fibers and what valid conclusions can be drawn from these fibers.

[Bill Brown]

Depends what you mean by "similar" and what you mean by "match".  Nobody has actually cited any analysis made on the jacket fibers anyway -- just the ones in the rifle.

Calling the fibers similar is saying they resembled each other without actually being identical; they were almost the same but not exactly the same.

Saying the fibers were a match is saying they were identical; the same.

You were wrong to say the fibers were only similar.  They were, as I stated, a match.