She testified under oath that LHO was wearing a jacket.
Roberts’ TV response was to Ball asking about the color of the shirt that LHO was wearing when he came in. (Not when he was leaving.) So what is your claim?
She testified under oath that LHO was wearing a jacket. Yes, but she said - also under oath - that the jacket was dark and she failed to identify the grey jacket now in evidence as CE 162. So, if you want to play the "under oath" game we can take it to the bank that Oswald, if he left with a jacket, did not leave with the one now in evidence as CE 162.
Roberts’ TV response was to Ball asking about the color of the shirt that LHO was wearing when he came in. (Not when he was leaving.) So what is your claim?No claim. Just uncertainty, but either location works for me. If you want her to be on the couch, it's fine with me. That probably means she could have had a slightly better look at him, but regardless she still was unable to identify the grey jacket, so it still isn't getting you anywhere.
We've got a woman with a blind eye, concentrating on the television, who thought Oswald left wearing a jacket because of a zipping movement, who said the jacket was dark colored and who failed to identify the jacket that Oswald was supposed to have been wearing.
If that isn't reasonable doubt, then what is?