The Bus Stop Farce

[Martin Weidmann]

That explains how CE 163 could have gotten to the TSBD. It doesn’t destroy the idea that Wesley Frazier could have been mistaken about the jacket on Thursday evening. Your idea hinges on that one item though.

By the way, when shown CE 150 Linnie Mae Randle said:

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.

And FWIW, CE 151 is a solid color.

It doesn’t destroy the idea that Wesley Frazier could have been mistaken about the jacket on Thursday evening. 

Please explain how Frazier could have been mistaken about seeing Oswald wearing a grey jacket to Irving on Thursday evening?

Your idea hinges on that one item though.

Once again, it's not my idea. I have no horse in this race, either way. If Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit so be it. But it needs to be proven, which is why I am constantly challenging the evidence used by the WC. I have always stated that, as far as Kennedy is concerned, Oswald must have been involved in some way because you simply can not frame an innocent man in the way some CTs suggest it was done.

Having said that, here we have two conflicting stories from two witnesses and it was never resolved. On the one hand we have Roberts claiming (based on her observation of a zipping action) that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket which (by elimination of CE 163) could only be CE 162 and on the other hand we have Frazier saying he saw Oswald wearing a grey jacket which (by the same elimination of CE 163) can only be CE 162 to Irving on Thursday evening.

Both witnesses can not be right. The consequence of Frazier being right is massive as far as the WC narrative goes, which IMO is exactly the reason why the WC never pursued the matter further. Just like they did nothing with the Stroud letter about what Dorothy Garner said and the lack if chain of custody for CE399). You can't find something you don't like if you are not looking for it, right?

For me, there are two major problems with the claim that Oswald killed Tippit, notwithstanding the witness identifactions. First of all, if Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket than he couldn't be wearing one when Tippit was killed and, secondly, if Oswald left the rooming house at just past 1 pm and the fastest route to get to 10th street takes 11 minutes to walk, he couldn't have been there between 1.06 and 1.10, which is when the most reliable time line suggests Tippit was really shot.

Having said all this, it is not for me to argue that Oswald didn't kill Tippit. I have reasonable doubt about that (and many other things) and it's the evidence that is supposed to pursuade me that he did. So, where is that evidence?

[Martin Weidmann]

You didn’t follow my instructions. Here is a cut and paste from the link:

674....
“Comparison photographs of orange-yellow cotton fibers found on the C2766 rifle and orange-yellow cotton fibers from Commission Exhibit No. 151.”


The next item (675) is for CE 150.

That's not what I saw. Why don't you simply provide the link to that page?

[Jerry Freeman]

Far more interesting would be if you could explain why Oswald would run to such a location in the first place?

I am from Dallas and have mentioned several times here on the forum that I have walked the  proposed 'Oswald route' a couple of times. Unbeknownst to most here...there is a high school along the way on Patton. Adamson High occupies the entire corner of Davis and Patton. I would think that someone/anyone gazing out one of the windows at that time would have noticed this well publicized wayward behavior and mentioned it long ago..."Hey I/we saw this guy in a grey jacket walking down the street that afternoon just like the newspapers said!"
So...we await the ridiculous responses ---Oswald must have slithered another way.
The news about JFK spread rapidly in the schools and regular classes were largely in pandemonium.

[Charles Collins]

That's not what I saw. Why don't you simply provide the link to that page?

I did:

Try this link and scroll down to 674 and read the description (that is where it says it). Then you can view 674 on the link I provided. I should have done this to begin with, my mistake.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-WARRENCOMMISSIONHEARINGS-17/pdf/GPO-WARRENCOMMISSIONHEARINGS-17.pdf

It is the description in the table of contents. Page 19 of the pdf if I remember correctly. As I said earlier just scroll down to 674. You must have gone all the way to the exhibit photo and skipped the table of contents.

[Charles Collins]

It doesn’t destroy the idea that Wesley Frazier could have been mistaken about the jacket on Thursday evening. 

Please explain how Frazier could have been mistaken about seeing Oswald wearing a grey jacket to Irving on Thursday evening?

Your idea hinges on that one item though.

Once again, it's not my idea. I have no horse in this race, either way. If Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit so be it. But it needs to be proven, which is why I am constantly challenging the evidence used by the WC. I have always stated that, as far as Kennedy is concerned, Oswald must have been involved in some way because you simply can not frame an innocent man in the way some CTs suggest it was done.

Having said that, here we have two conflicting stories from two witnesses and it was never resolved. On the one hand we have Roberts claiming (based on her observation of a zipping action) that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket which (by elimination of CE 163) could only be CE 162 and on the other hand we have Frazier saying he saw Oswald wearing a grey jacket which (by the same elimination of CE 163) can only be CE 162 to Irving on Thursday evening.

Both witnesses can not be right. The consequence of Frazier being right is massive as far as the WC narrative goes, which IMO is exactly the reason why the WC never pursued the matter further. Just like they did nothing with the Stroud letter about what Dorothy Garner said and the lack if chain of custody for CE399). You can't find something you don't like if you are not looking for it, right?

For me, there are two major problems with the claim that Oswald killed Tippit, notwithstanding the witness identifactions. First of all, if Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket than he couldn't be wearing one when Tippit was killed and, secondly, if Oswald left the rooming house at just past 1 pm and the fastest route to get to 10th street takes 11 minutes to walk, he couldn't have been there between 1.06 and 1.10, which is when the most reliable time line suggests Tippit was really shot.

Having said all this, it is not for me to argue that Oswald didn't kill Tippit. I have reasonable doubt about that (and many other things) and it's the evidence that is supposed to pursuade me that he did. So, where is that evidence?

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.

[Bill Chapman]

Buell wasn't paying attention. Randle identified the blue-gray jacket as the one being worn by Oswald that morning. That jacket was later found in the TSBD.

OH Lee, as viewed by Earlene's one good eyeball, zipped up a jacket (that wasn't the blue-gray one) as he left the safe-house at speed. Several ppl, who presumedly had at least one good eyeball apiece, ID'd Oswald as wearing a jacket (that wasn't the blue-gray one) @Tippit. A jacket (that wasn't the blue-gray one) was found under a car near the scene. Oswald was not seen again wearing any jacket, let alone the blue-gray one).

But he was wearing the same shirt he wore to work that morning when he was caught with his pants down (so-to-speak) at the Texas Theatre, where he took it upon himself to announce that the movie was 'all over now', then promptly initiated fisticuffs & tried to kill more cops... along with belching 'I am not resisting arrest' as he resisted arrest.

[Bill Chapman]

I did:

It is the description in the table of contents. Page 19 of the pdf if I remember correctly. As I said earlier just scroll down to 674. You must have gone all the way to the exhibit photo and skipped the table of contents.

One often has to scroll both ways (<< 19 >>) while searching for precise pages in PDFs I find. The originating document might be the culprit as regards page numbering.
 

[Walt Cakebread]

All it says there is that fibers from a shirt, item C11, matched fibers on the rifle. There is no mention of two shirts, just one...

You are correct.....Stambaugh received only ONE shirt on Saturday 11-23-63 and that was CE 150 .....And it was THAT shirt that he said the tuft of fibers from the rifle matched.   

CE 150 was the arrest shirt.....But it was NOT the shirt that Lee was wearing at the TSBD that morning.  Lee had changed his clothes in his rooming house room at 1:00 pm BEFORE he went to the Texas theater.   If Lee had had the carcano against his shoulder at the time of the coup d e'tat the fibers should have matched the shirt he was wearing at the TSBD that morning...and the shirt he had left in his room .