The Bus Stop Farce

[Martin Weidmann]

The Warren Commission was not a court of law and LHO was not on trial. There are three levels of proof: Preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

In my opinion your doubt about LHO leaving the rooming house with a jacket is not reasonable. The witnesses who saw LHO during the time period in question said he was wearing a jacket. Your doubt stems from Frazier’s account of the afternoon of 11/21/63. A reasonable way to decide would weigh the evidence on each side of the discrepancy and conclude that Frazier must have been mistaken. It is his account vs all the evidence to the contrary.

I am not going to argue the evidence again with you. We have already done that and it is ridiculous to keep doing it over and over and over and over again.

The Warren Commission was not a court of law and LHO was not on trial.

And yet, the WC and the LNs have no problem declaring him guilty anyway. Go figure...

There are three levels of proof: Preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a criminal case there is only one standard; beyond a reasonable doubt

In my opinion your doubt about LHO leaving the rooming house with a jacket is not reasonable.

And when everything else fails, just say your opponent is unreasonable.... Pathetic.

The witnesses who saw LHO during the time period in question said he was wearing a jacket.

There is only one witness who saw Oswald leave the rooming house. Your belief that this witness (Earlene Roberts) could not have been mistaken, but Frazier could have been is what is really unreasonable and exposes your agenda.

Your doubt stems from Frazier’s account of the afternoon of 11/21/63.

Not only that. Frazier did say that he saw Oswald wear a grey jacket during the trip to Irving on Thursday, yes. But that's not all of it. Marina confirmed Oswald only had two jackets and no other jacket belonging to Oswald was ever found. Given the fact that CE 163 was later found at the TSBD, it is logical to conclude that Frazier must have seen CE 162 on Thursday.

A reasonable way to decide would weigh the evidence on each side of the discrepancy and conclude that Frazier must have been mistaken. It is his account vs all the evidence to the contrary.

No it isn't. Calling something reasonable doesn't make it so. It's Frazier's testimony vs Roberts' testimony. What you are doing is first determining that Oswald did in fact kill Tippit and then you start looking for evidence to support that conclusion. That's what the WC also did. That however is circular logic. In the real world an investigation is conducted on the basis of exclusion. Eliminate the suspects who could not have done it and you end up - hopefully - with the most likely suspect. In this case, Frazier's testimony stands in the way of a simple conclusion that Roberts, as the only person who saw Oswald leave the rooming house, was correct in what she said.

If witnesses say that Tippit's killer was wearing a jacket, when it is unclear how the grey jacket could have been at the rooming house for Oswald to put on, it is possible that the witnesses of Tippit's murder were mistaken in their identification of Oswald. It wouldn't be the first time that eye witnesses are wrong. In fact, it is IMO a statistical near impossibility that all the witnesses called to identify Oswald in a line up would indeed pick the same man, unless they were influenced in some way.

I know from first hand that identification of a suspect isn't easy. Some years ago I witnessed a street robbery at short distance. I noticed the man before it happened and thought I had seen him pretty well, but when police asked me to identify him I wasn't certain enough to do so. Yet here we have at least six people who only saw the suspect briefly and they all are positive Oswald was the man they saw.... I don't believe it for a second.
 
I am not going to argue the evidence again with you.

You don't have to. It's not going to change anything. Regardless of how much evidence I provide for the grey jacket being in Irving on Thursday evening, nothing I say will ever change your mind. You'll just dismiss it out of hand, which is always the LNs last resort to get out of a tricky situation. On the other hand, I have asked for evidence to show that the time line I presented was wrong, and nothing happened, except ridicule and dismissal of course.

So, please don't pretend any more that you are looking at the evidence honestly, and are trying to learn something, when in fact you don't want to know and are biased as hell.

[Charles Collins]

The Warren Commission was not a court of law and LHO was not on trial.

And yet, the WC and the LNs have no problem declaring him guilty anyway. Go figure...

There are three levels of proof: Preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a criminal case there is only one standard; beyond a reasonable doubt

In my opinion your doubt about LHO leaving the rooming house with a jacket is not reasonable.

And when everything else fails, just say your opponent is unreasonable.... Pathetic.

The witnesses who saw LHO during the time period in question said he was wearing a jacket.

There is only one witness who saw Oswald leave the rooming house. Your belief that this witness (Earlene Roberts) could not have been mistaken, but Frazier could have been is what is really unreasonable and exposes your agenda.

Your doubt stems from Frazier’s account of the afternoon of 11/21/63.

Not only that. Frazier did say that he saw Oswald wear a grey jacket during the trip to Irving on Thursday, yes. But that's not all of it. Marina confirmed Oswald only had two jackets and no other jacket belonging to Oswald was ever found. Given the fact that CE 163 was later found at the TSBD, it is logical to conclude that Frazier must have seen CE 162 on Thursday.

A reasonable way to decide would weigh the evidence on each side of the discrepancy and conclude that Frazier must have been mistaken. It is his account vs all the evidence to the contrary.

No it isn't. Calling something reasonable doesn't make it so. It's Frazier testimony vs Roberts' testimony. What you are doing is first determining that Oswald did in fact kill Tippit and then you start looking for evidence to support that conclusion. That's what the WC also did. That however is circular logic. In the real world an investigation is conducted on the basis of exclusion. Eliminate the suspects who could not have done it and you end up - hopefully - with the most likely suspect. In this case, Frazier's testimony stands in the way of a simple conclusion that Roberts, as the only person who saw Oswald leave the rooming house, was correct in what she said.

If witnesses say that Tippit's killer was wearing a jacket, when it is unclear how the grey jacket could have been at the rooming house for Oswald to put on, it is possible that the witnesses of Tippit's murder were mistaken in their identification of Oswald. It wouldn't be the first time that eye witnesses are wrong. In fact, it is IMO a statistical near impossibility that all the witnesses called to identify Oswald in a line up would indeed pick the same man.

I know from first hand that identification of a suspect isn't that easy. Some years ago I witnessed a street robbery at short distance. I noticed the man before it happened and thought I had seen him pretty well, but when police asked me to identify him I wasn't certain enough to do so. Yet here we have at least six people who only saw the suspect briefly and they all are positive Oswald was the man they so.... I don't believe it for a second.
 
I am not going to argue the evidence again with you.

You don't have to. It's not going to change anything. Regardless of how much evidence I provide for the grey jacket being in Irving on Thursday evening, nothing I say will ever change your mind. You'll just dismiss it out of hand, which is always the LNs last resort to get out of a tricky situation. On the other hand, I have asked for evidence to show that the time line I presented was wrong, and nothing happened, except ridicule and dismissal of course.

So, please don't pretend any more that you are looking at the evidence honestly, and are trying to learn something, when in fact you don't want to know and are biased as hell.

Not only that. Frazier did say that he saw Oswald wear a grey jacket during the trip to Irving on Thursday, yes. But that's not all of it. Marina confirmed Oswald only had two jackets and no other jacket belonging to Oswald was ever found. Given the fact that CE 163 was later found at the TSBD, it is logical to conclude that Frazier must have seen CE 162 on Thursday.


But Frazier didn't identify CE 162 as what LHO was wearing on Thursday afternoon to Irving.

Here is a photo of CE 151:




And here is a photo of CE 162:




What I believe happened is that Frazier saw LHO wearing CE 151 on Thursday afternoon and mistakenly thought it was a jacket. It does have a similar appearance when compared with CE 162.

And guess what. It appears that William Whaley made a similar mistake. When shown CE 162, he identified it as what LHO was wearing in Whaley's cab on 11/22/63.

I believe that LHO wore CE 151 to Irving on 11/21 and wore it again to work on Friday 11/22. Linnie Mae said she remembered the shirt as being solid in color vs the pattern of the shirt LHO was arrested in. Brennan saw a light colored shirt on the shooter. And Bledsoe saw a ripped sleeve.

[Bill Chapman]

These and many other of those old WC images need to have proper brightness/contrast values applied.
---------------------
Randle saw just part of the shirt under a bulky jacket at a distance through a screened window on a dull rainy morning. A relatively small-patterned shirt design btw. You and your detractors need to brush up on witness testimony before attacking others here unless you want to construct a personal narrative based on speculation and conjecture.

[Martin Weidmann]

Not only that. Frazier did say that he saw Oswald wear a grey jacket during the trip to Irving on Thursday, yes. But that's not all of it. Marina confirmed Oswald only had two jackets and no other jacket belonging to Oswald was ever found. Given the fact that CE 163 was later found at the TSBD, it is logical to conclude that Frazier must have seen CE 162 on Thursday.


But Frazier didn't identify CE 162 as what LHO was wearing on Thursday afternoon to Irving.

Here is a photo of CE 151:




And here is a photo of CE 162:




What I believe happened is that Frazier saw LHO wearing CE 151 on Thursday afternoon and mistakenly thought it was a jacket. It does have a similar appearance when compared with CE 162.

And guess what. It appears that William Whaley made a similar mistake. When shown CE 162, he identified it as what LHO was wearing in Whaley's cab on 11/22/63.

I believe that LHO wore CE 151 to Irving on 11/21 and wore it again to work on Friday 11/22. Linnie Mae said she remembered the shirt as being solid in color vs the pattern of the shirt LHO was arrested in. Brennan saw a light colored shirt on the shooter. And Bledsoe saw a ripped sleeve.

But Frazier didn't identify CE 162 as what LHO was wearing on Thursday afternoon to Irving.

How could he? They never showed CE 162 to him for identification during his testimony.

What I believe happened is that Frazier saw LHO wearing CE 151 on Thursday afternoon and mistakenly thought it was a jacket.

The drive from the TSBD to Irving took at least 20 minutes. Are you really trying to tell me that Frazier would not notice what Oswald, who was sitting next to him, was wearing and would mistake a shirt for a jacket? Really?

And guess what. It appears that William Whaley made a similar mistake. When shown CE 162, he identified it as what LHO was wearing in Whaley's cab on 11/22/63.

Whaley's observation isn't really reliable. He thought Oswald was wearing two jackets (CE 162 and CE 163) when he was wearing none.

Mr. BALL. Here is Commission No. 162 which is a gray jacket with zipper.
Mr. WHALEY. I thank that is the jacket he had on when he rode with me in the cab.
Mr. BALL. Look something like it?
And here is Commission Exhibit No. 163, does this look like anything he had on?
Mr. WHALEY. He had this one on or the other one.
Mr. BALL. That is right.
Mr. WHALEY. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt.

So much for Whaley's "identification" of CE 162. And you also kinda failed to mention that Whaley also identified CE 150 as the shirt Oswald was wearing, when - according to you he was actually wearing CE 151. I say again; all this shows is that witness observations are not always 100% correct!

Mr. BALL. I have some clothing here. Commission Exhibit No. 150, does that look like the shirt?
Mr. WHALEY. That is the shirt, sir, it has my initials on it.
Mr. BALL. In other words, this is the shirt the man had on?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; that is the same one the FBI man had me identify.
Mr. BALL. This is the shirt the man had on who took your car at Lamar and Jackson?
Mr. WHALEY. As near as I can recollect as I told him. I said that is the shirt he had on because it had a kind of little stripe in it, light-colored stripe. I noticed that.


Linnie Mae said she remembered the shirt as being solid in color vs the pattern of the shirt LHO was arrested in.

From her testimony it becomes clear she wasn't certain about the shirt at all.

Mr. BALL. How was Lee dressed that morning?
Mrs. RANDLE. He had on a white T-shirt, I just saw him from the waist up, I didn't pay any attention to his pants or anything, when he was going with the package. I was more interested in that. But he had on a white T-shirt and I remember some sort of brown or tan shirt and he had a gray jacket, I believe.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket. I will show you some clothing here. First, I will show you a gray jacket. Does this look anything like the jacket he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. That morning?
Mrs. RANDLE. Similar to that. I didn't pay an awful lot of attention to it.
Mr. BALL. Was it similar in color?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; I think so. It had big sleeves.
Mr. BALL. Take a look at these sleeves. Was it similar in color?
Mrs. RANDLE. I believe so.
Mr. BALL. What is the Commission Exhibit on this jacket?
Mrs. RANDLE. It was gray, I am not sure of the shade.
Mr. BALL. 163.
I will show you another shirt which is Commission No. 150.
Does this look anything like the shirt he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well now, I don't remember it being that shade of brown. It could have been but I was looking through the screen and out the window but I don't remember it being exactly that. I thought it was a solid color.

The WC lawyer only showed her CE 150 (Oswald's arrest shirt), but not CE 151, so all Linnie Mae could provide is a vagie recollection.

Brennan saw a light colored shirt on the shooter.

After checking out the link to the fiber photos, I looked into your claim that matching fibers of both CE 150 and CE 151 were found on the rifle. Your claim was incorrect. The FBI only examined one shirt, they marked as C 11. That same marking is mentioned on all the fiber photos. C 11 became Warren Commission Exhibit 150, the shirt Oswald was arrested in. If Brennan saw the killer wearing a light colored shirt fibers from that shirt should have been on the rifle. They were not.

And Bledsoe saw a ripped sleeve.

Again, Bledsoe saw a damaged sleeve on the shirt Oswald was arrested in. I have already shown you her testimony in which she said they brought the shirt to her home. Here it is again.

Mr. BALL - Now, I have got a piece of clothing here, which is marked---
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - Commission Exhibit 150.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - This is a shirt.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Because they brought it out to the house and showed it.
Mr. BALL - I know. What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, because I can recognize it.
Mr. BALL - Recognize it as what?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes, sir; see there?
Mr. BALL - Yes. You tell me what do you see here? What permits you to recognize it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I recognize---first thing I notice the elbow is out and then I saw---when the man brought it out and let me see it?
Mr. BALL - No, I am talking about---I am showing you this shirt now, and you said, "That is it." You mean---What do you mean by "that is it"?

The question is of course how Bledsoe could have seen the damage of the sleeve on CE 150 on the bus, when Oswald wasn't wearing that shirt that morning?

I have a theory about how Bledsoe became aware of the damage to the sleeve, but I won't bother you with it, at least not for now.

[Charles Collins]

But Frazier didn't identify CE 162 as what LHO was wearing on Thursday afternoon to Irving.

How could he? They never showed CE 162 to him for identification during his testimony.

What I believe happened is that Frazier saw LHO wearing CE 151 on Thursday afternoon and mistakenly thought it was a jacket.

The drive from the TSBD to Irving took at least 20 minutes. Are you really trying to tell me that Frazier would not notice what Oswald, who was sitting next to him, was wearing and would mistake a shirt for a jacket? Really?

And guess what. It appears that William Whaley made a similar mistake. When shown CE 162, he identified it as what LHO was wearing in Whaley's cab on 11/22/63.

Whaley's observation isn't really reliable. He thought Oswald was wearing two jackets (CE 162 and CE 163) when he was wearing none.

Mr. BALL. Here is Commission No. 162 which is a gray jacket with zipper.
Mr. WHALEY. I thank that is the jacket he had on when he rode with me in the cab.
Mr. BALL. Look something like it?
And here is Commission Exhibit No. 163, does this look like anything he had on?
Mr. WHALEY. He had this one on or the other one.
Mr. BALL. That is right.
Mr. WHALEY. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt.

So much for Whaley's "identification" of CE 162. And you also kinda failed to mention that Whaley also identified CE 150 as the shirt Oswald was wearing, when - according to you he was actually wearing CE 151. I say again; all this shows is that witness observations are not always 100% correct!

Mr. BALL. I have some clothing here. Commission Exhibit No. 150, does that look like the shirt?
Mr. WHALEY. That is the shirt, sir, it has my initials on it.
Mr. BALL. In other words, this is the shirt the man had on?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; that is the same one the FBI man had me identify.
Mr. BALL. This is the shirt the man had on who took your car at Lamar and Jackson?
Mr. WHALEY. As near as I can recollect as I told him. I said that is the shirt he had on because it had a kind of little stripe in it, light-colored stripe. I noticed that.


Linnie Mae said she remembered the shirt as being solid in color vs the pattern of the shirt LHO was arrested in.

From her testimony it becomes clear she wasn't certain about the shirt at all.

Mr. BALL. How was Lee dressed that morning?
Mrs. RANDLE. He had on a white T-shirt, I just saw him from the waist up, I didn't pay any attention to his pants or anything, when he was going with the package. I was more interested in that. But he had on a white T-shirt and I remember some sort of brown or tan shirt and he had a gray jacket, I believe.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket. I will show you some clothing here. First, I will show you a gray jacket. Does this look anything like the jacket he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. That morning?
Mrs. RANDLE. Similar to that. I didn't pay an awful lot of attention to it.
Mr. BALL. Was it similar in color?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; I think so. It had big sleeves.
Mr. BALL. Take a look at these sleeves. Was it similar in color?
Mrs. RANDLE. I believe so.
Mr. BALL. What is the Commission Exhibit on this jacket?
Mrs. RANDLE. It was gray, I am not sure of the shade.
Mr. BALL. 163.
I will show you another shirt which is Commission No. 150.
Does this look anything like the shirt he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well now, I don't remember it being that shade of brown. It could have been but I was looking through the screen and out the window but I don't remember it being exactly that. I thought it was a solid color.

The WC lawyer only showed her CE 150 (Oswald's arrest shirt), but not CE 151, so all Linnie Mae could provide is a vagie recollection.

Brennan saw a light colored shirt on the shooter.

After checking out the link to the fiber photos, I looked into your claim that matching fibers of both CE 150 and CE 151 were found on the rifle. Your claim was incorrect. The FBI only examined one shirt, they marked as C 11. That same marking is mentioned on all the fiber photos. C 11 became Warren Commission Exhibit 150, the shirt Oswald was arrested in. If Brennan saw the killer wearing a light colored shirt fibers from that shirt should have been on the rifle. They were not.

And Bledsoe saw a ripped sleeve.

Again, Bledsoe saw a damaged sleeve on the shirt Oswald was arrested in. I have already shown you her testimony in which she said they brought the shirt to her home. Here it is again.

Mr. BALL - Now, I have got a piece of clothing here, which is marked---
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - Commission Exhibit 150.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - This is a shirt.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Because they brought it out to the house and showed it.
Mr. BALL - I know. What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, because I can recognize it.
Mr. BALL - Recognize it as what?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes, sir; see there?
Mr. BALL - Yes. You tell me what do you see here? What permits you to recognize it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I recognize---first thing I notice the elbow is out and then I saw---when the man brought it out and let me see it?
Mr. BALL - No, I am talking about---I am showing you this shirt now, and you said, "That is it." You mean---What do you mean by "that is it"?

The question is of course how Bledsoe could have seen the damage of the sleeve on CE 150 on the bus, when Oswald wasn't wearing that shirt that morning?

I have a theory about how Bledsoe became aware of the damage to the sleeve, but I won't bother you with it, at least not for now.

I believe that Frazier was shown CE 162 but am not able to look into it right now.

Did you look at the table of contents description? It says CE 151. Could be a typographical error. But I don’t have evidence to say for sure either way.

[Martin Weidmann]

I believe that Frazier was shown CE 162 but am not able to look into it right now.

Did you look at the table of contents description? It says CE 151. Could be a typographical error. But I don’t have evidence to say for sure either way.

I believe that Frazier was shown CE 162 but am not able to look into it right now.

Well, I did check his entire testimony and CE 162 is not mentioned anywhere. It's one of the reasons why I doubt the WC's actions and findings.

They did a similar thing with Tomlinson. They had a perfect opportunity to get an identification of the bullet now in evidence as CE 399 from the man who actually found it and they never showed it to him when he testified. If fact, they only introduced the bullet into evidence after Tomlinson gave his testimony. And there are more examples of where the WC dropped the ball, either on purpose or due to sheer incompetence.


Did you look at the table of contents description? It says CE 151. Could be a typographical error.

Yes, it does say CE 151, but on the photos themselves all it says is C-11 (which later became CE 150). A typographical error is indeed the most likely explanation.

[Walt Cakebread]

But Frazier didn't identify CE 162 as what LHO was wearing on Thursday afternoon to Irving.

How could he? They never showed CE 162 to him for identification during his testimony.

What I believe happened is that Frazier saw LHO wearing CE 151 on Thursday afternoon and mistakenly thought it was a jacket.

The drive from the TSBD to Irving took at least 20 minutes. Are you really trying to tell me that Frazier would not notice what Oswald, who was sitting next to him, was wearing and would mistake a shirt for a jacket? Really?

And guess what. It appears that William Whaley made a similar mistake. When shown CE 162, he identified it as what LHO was wearing in Whaley's cab on 11/22/63.

Whaley's observation isn't really reliable. He thought Oswald was wearing two jackets (CE 162 and CE 163) when he was wearing none.

Mr. BALL. Here is Commission No. 162 which is a gray jacket with zipper.
Mr. WHALEY. I thank that is the jacket he had on when he rode with me in the cab.
Mr. BALL. Look something like it?
And here is Commission Exhibit No. 163, does this look like anything he had on?
Mr. WHALEY. He had this one on or the other one.
Mr. BALL. That is right.
Mr. WHALEY. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt.

So much for Whaley's "identification" of CE 162. And you also kinda failed to mention that Whaley also identified CE 150 as the shirt Oswald was wearing, when - according to you he was actually wearing CE 151. I say again; all this shows is that witness observations are not always 100% correct!

Mr. BALL. I have some clothing here. Commission Exhibit No. 150, does that look like the shirt?
Mr. WHALEY. That is the shirt, sir, it has my initials on it.
Mr. BALL. In other words, this is the shirt the man had on?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; that is the same one the FBI man had me identify.
Mr. BALL. This is the shirt the man had on who took your car at Lamar and Jackson?
Mr. WHALEY. As near as I can recollect as I told him. I said that is the shirt he had on because it had a kind of little stripe in it, light-colored stripe. I noticed that.


Linnie Mae said she remembered the shirt as being solid in color vs the pattern of the shirt LHO was arrested in.

From her testimony it becomes clear she wasn't certain about the shirt at all.

Mr. BALL. How was Lee dressed that morning?
Mrs. RANDLE. He had on a white T-shirt, I just saw him from the waist up, I didn't pay any attention to his pants or anything, when he was going with the package. I was more interested in that. But he had on a white T-shirt and I remember some sort of brown or tan shirt and he had a gray jacket, I believe.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket. I will show you some clothing here. First, I will show you a gray jacket. Does this look anything like the jacket he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. That morning?
Mrs. RANDLE. Similar to that. I didn't pay an awful lot of attention to it.
Mr. BALL. Was it similar in color?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; I think so. It had big sleeves.
Mr. BALL. Take a look at these sleeves. Was it similar in color?
Mrs. RANDLE. I believe so.
Mr. BALL. What is the Commission Exhibit on this jacket?
Mrs. RANDLE. It was gray, I am not sure of the shade.
Mr. BALL. 163.
I will show you another shirt which is Commission No. 150.
Does this look anything like the shirt he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well now, I don't remember it being that shade of brown. It could have been but I was looking through the screen and out the window but I don't remember it being exactly that. I thought it was a solid color.

The WC lawyer only showed her CE 150 (Oswald's arrest shirt), but not CE 151, so all Linnie Mae could provide is a vagie recollection.

Brennan saw a light colored shirt on the shooter.

After checking out the link to the fiber photos, I looked into your claim that matching fibers of both CE 150 and CE 151 were found on the rifle. Your claim was incorrect. The FBI only examined one shirt, they marked as C 11. That same marking is mentioned on all the fiber photos. C 11 became Warren Commission Exhibit 150, the shirt Oswald was arrested in. If Brennan saw the killer wearing a light colored shirt fibers from that shirt should have been on the rifle. They were not.

And Bledsoe saw a ripped sleeve.

Again, Bledsoe saw a damaged sleeve on the shirt Oswald was arrested in. I have already shown you her testimony in which she said they brought the shirt to her home. Here it is again.

Mr. BALL - Now, I have got a piece of clothing here, which is marked---
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - Commission Exhibit 150.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - This is a shirt.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Because they brought it out to the house and showed it.
Mr. BALL - I know. What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, because I can recognize it.
Mr. BALL - Recognize it as what?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes, sir; see there?
Mr. BALL - Yes. You tell me what do you see here? What permits you to recognize it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I recognize---first thing I notice the elbow is out and then I saw---when the man brought it out and let me see it?
Mr. BALL - No, I am talking about---I am showing you this shirt now, and you said, "That is it." You mean---What do you mean by "that is it"?

The question is of course how Bledsoe could have seen the damage of the sleeve on CE 150 on the bus, when Oswald wasn't wearing that shirt that morning?

I have a theory about how Bledsoe became aware of the damage to the sleeve, but I won't bother you with it, at least not for now.

Mr. BALL - Now, I have got a piece of clothing here, which is marked---
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - Commission Exhibit 150.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - This is a shirt.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BMLEDSOE - Because they brought it out to the house and showed it.
Mr. BALL - I know. What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, because I can recognize it.
Mr. BALL - Recognize it as what?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes, sir; see there?
Mr. BALL - Yes. You tell me what do you see here? What permits you to recognize it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I recognize---first thing I notice the elbow is out and then I saw---when the man brought it out and let me see it?
Mr. BALL - No, I am talking about---I am showing you this shirt now, and you said, "That is it." You mean---What do you mean by "that is it"?

The question is of course how Bledsoe could have seen the damage of the sleeve on CE 150 on the bus, when Oswald wasn't wearing that shirt that morning?

How could Lee have removed that shirt in his room and put it in the dresser drawer at 1:00 pm , if he wasn't wearing it???)

I doubt that Mrs Bledsoe saw Lee Oswald on the Mc Watter's bus.....She clearly says that the FBI BROUGHT THE SHIRT ( The shirt from Lee's dresser at the rooming house, NOT the arrest shirt) out to her residence and displayed it to her.

[Bill Chapman]

Mr. BALL - You are indicating a sleeve of a shirt?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - It was unraveled?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Was a hole in it

[…]

Mr. BALL - Now, what color shirt did he have on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - He had a brown shirt.
Mr. BALL - And unraveled?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Hole in his sleeve right here [indicating].
Mr. BALL - Which is the elbow of the sleeve? That is, you pointed to the elbow?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, it is.
Mr. BALL - And that would be which elbow, right or left elbow?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Right.

[…]

Mr. BALL - Commission Exhibit 150.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.