Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket

[Richard Smith]

They very well could have, since invalid lineups are invalid.  But since only one of them actually witnessed a crime, I'm not sure how it matters much who the other people saw.

By John's nutty logic no one in Ford's Theatre witnessed John Wilkes Booth shoot Lincoln.   They just heard a shot and looked in his direction to see him pointing a gun at Lincoln's head.  Thus, they did not actually witness a crime.  Cue sinister music. Perhaps Lincoln shot himself and Booth just picked up the gun.  It's possible right?  A hypothesis that must be disproved by others according to some CTers.  And I bet someone in the crowd didn't even describe his clothing with 100% accuracy.  Leaving open the possibility of a Booth double.

[Bill Chapman]

Would that include the two officers who saw the jacket in bright midday sunlight and described it as white?

Did one-eyed (half-blind to some) Earlene blink at the jacket in bright sunlight?
Were the lights even on in the room in which she watches TV?
Did Baker see Oswald's jacket in bright midday sunlight?

[John Iacoletti]

Btw, how much is "astronomical"?

Mytton was asleep during math class.  Besides, nobody is arguing that there was anything "random" about the unfair lineups.

[Richard Smith]

You need to watch a video, because you have just made the best case possible for why the line up identifications can not be trusted. The odds of this happening are indeed astronomical!

Martin has harped on this being only a "circumstantial" evidence case apparently misunderstanding that this term doesn't mean weak.  He now informs us that direct evidence can't be trusted either.  That really narrows things down!  We are finally getting to the center of the lollipop, though.  At its heart what John and Martin are contending is that nothing can ever be proven if they don't like the implications.  The case against Oswald is the collective product of lies, fakery, unfairness, coincidence, police incompetence, chance, being unlucky, but never Oswald's guilt.

[Martin Weidmann]

Did one-eyed (half-blind to some) Earlene blink at the jacket in bright sunlight?
Were the lights even on in the room in which she watches TV?
Did Baker see Oswald's jacket in bright midday sunlight?

Did one-eyed (half-blind to some) Earlene blink at the jacket in bright sunlight?
Were the lights even on in the room in which she watches TV?

Earlene Roberts watched TV in the living room which has several large windows.

Did Baker see Oswald's jacket in bright midday sunlight?

Baker saw Oswald's jacket? When and where?

[John Iacoletti]

By John's nutty logic no one in Ford's Theatre witnessed John Wilkes Booth shoot Lincoln.   They just heard a shot and looked in his direction to see him pointing a gun at Lincoln's head.  Thus, they did not actually witness a crime.

Yes, because somebody sitting in a theater box a few feet away from a person who has just been shot is exactly the same as someone a block or two away a few minutes later who didn't see anything happen.

And you call me nutty...

[John Iacoletti]

Martin has harped on this being only a "circumstantial" evidence case apparently misunderstanding that this term doesn't mean weak.

True, but in this case the little evidence that you have is both circumstantial and weak.

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin has harped on this being only a "circumstantial" evidence case apparently misunderstanding that this term doesn't mean weak.  He now informs us that direct evidence can't be trusted either.  That really narrows things down!  We are finally getting to the center of the lollipop, though.  At its heart what John and Martin are contending is that nothing can ever be proven if they don't like the implications.  The case against Oswald is the collective product of lies, fakery, unfairness, coincidence, police incompetence, chance, being unlucky, but never Oswald's guilt.

This might come as a shock to you, Richie, but if you had paid attention you would have noticed that I have never written one post in which I advocated Oswald's innocence or guilt. I don't really care about Oswald one way or the other. I'm here for the case against him....

Martin has harped on this being only a "circumstantial" evidence case apparently misunderstanding that this term doesn't mean weak.

Apparently? Are you a mind reader now?

He now informs us that direct evidence can't be trusted either. 

No I didn't. Stop making up things.

At its heart what John and Martin are contending is that nothing can ever be proven if they don't like the implications.

Oh boy, now he's a serial mind reader ... where will it end?

The case against Oswald is the collective product of lies, fakery, unfairness, coincidence, police incompetence, chance, being unlucky, but never Oswald's guilt.


Stop whining and show us some evidence that will stand up under scrutiny