Youtube Interview I Did, Tippit Case

[Bill Chapman]

So, half blind Earlene first tells us that her powers to observe details are, to say the least, poor, as she couldn't say a damned thing about the shirt she saw Oswald wearing as he came in, and then she tells us he got and put on a zipper jacket.

What happened? Did her powers of observation suddenly improve, despite the fact that she was concentrating on getting the television to work and couldn't have seen Oswald for any longer than a couple of seconds as he walked behind her back from his room to the front door?

'half blind Earlene'
LOL. Good thing she was only half-blind.

[Martin Weidmann]

"I seriously doubt that he did leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket"

What is the basis for this serious doubt?

The fact that Frazier testified that Oswald was wearing a gray jacket to Irving on Thursday evening. According to Marina, Oswald only had one gray jacket. If Oswald took that jacket to Irving on Thursday, there is no way for it to get to the roominghouse the next day for Oswald to put on.

A second reason is the obvious unreliability of Earlene Roberts as a witness. She claims to have seen a police car that apparently didn't exist, her employer called her an inventor of stories, she had poor eye sight and was concentrating on getting the television to work, with he back turned to the living room, leaving her unable to provide any detail of the shirt Oswald was wearing as he came into the house.

[Dan O'meara]

That's a great question, Dan.  One that you will never get a REASONABLE answer to.

Earlene Roberts was very specific when she said Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he went out the door.  On 11/22/63, she also told a reporter that Oswald left the house wearing a short grey coat.

I was interested because of the testimony of Mrs Johnson:

Mrs. JOHNSON. No; after these officers came in, well, then she began to tell them that he did come rushing in and she had gotten a phone call or had made one, anyway, she was on the phone--no, there was someone called her, that's what she said, said someone called her and she says, "Did you know that the President had been assassinated" and she says, "Why, no" and she says, "Well, it's on the television now" and she says, "I will run and turn it on" and she run in and turned this television on to get this information and this Oswald walked in hurriedly and she said, she said to him, "You seem to be in a hurry." She was the only one in that place. She said he didn't say a word but went on in his room and she said he changed his little zip-up coat, way I understand it, and just went right back out. He evidently got the gun; now, we don't know.
Mr. BALL. Did she tell the officers that?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yeah, she told the officers that.

She confirms that Roberts told the police Oswald had changed into his "little zip-up coat". It's not a detail she brought up months later, it's something she told officers on the day.
I can't think why Roberts would mention this if it didn't happen.

[Martin Weidmann]

Of course you do.  You don't want to have to explain why Oswald ditched his jacket between the rooming house and the shoe store.

More than anything else, this is what I use as my litmus test to find out exactly how determined one is at finding the truth versus just playing defense attorney games.  It is okay to believe there was some sort of conspiracy.  It is kay to believe that Oswald was framed and evidence was planted.  I mean, it's ludicrous, but it's okay.  But to deny that Oswald left the rooming house in a jacket proves to me that one is not interested in getting at the truth.

Of course you do.  You don't want to have to explain why Oswald ditched his jacket between the rooming house and the shoe store.

You mean, just like you don't want to explain how it can be that Frazier saw Oswald wear a gray jacket to Irving?
Why in the world should I have to explain why Oswald ditched a jacket when it is only your assumption that he did?

More than anything else, this is what I use as my litmus test to find out exactly how determined one is at finding the truth versus just playing defense attorney games.  It is okay to believe there was some sort of conspiracy.  It is kay to believe that Oswald was framed and evidence was planted.  I mean, it's ludicrous, but it's okay.  But to deny that Oswald left the rooming house in a jacket proves to me that one is not interested in getting at the truth.

BS. I did not deny that Oswald left the rooming house in a jacket. I said I seriously doubt it and I do so based on the conflicting evidence. Your actual litmus test is a very simple one; anyone who agrees with you passes the test and anyone who doesn't, does not.

What you call "playing defense attorney games" is actually testing the veracity and validity of the evidence. I don't claim Oswald is innocent or guilty, nor have I ever claimed that he was framed and/or part of a conspiracy. All I am doing is trying to figure out what actually happened by examining the all evidence. And when LNs, like you, feel the need to misrepresent the evidence red flags go up.

If you were really convinced about the strength of your case, you should be able to defend it, even under what you may consider to be unreasonable scrutiny. Complaining instead about people like me not being interested in the truth is a massive sign of weakness.

But to deny that Oswald left the rooming house in a jacket proves to me that one is not interested in getting at the truth.

What truth? You mean your truth, right? You are the one who ignores the obvious discrepancy between what Roberts says about the jacket and what Frazier said. You are the one who ignores the obvious unreliability of Roberts. It's a hell of a way to get to the truth when you simply ignore evidence you don't like.

[Martin Weidmann]

That's a great question, Dan.  One that you will never get a REASONABLE answer to.

Earlene Roberts was very specific when she said Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he went out the door.  On 11/22/63, she also told a reporter that Oswald left the house wearing a short grey coat.

She was also very specific about a police car in front of the house.

[Martin Weidmann]

I was interested because of the testimony of Mrs Johnson:

Mrs. JOHNSON. No; after these officers came in, well, then she began to tell them that he did come rushing in and she had gotten a phone call or had made one, anyway, she was on the phone--no, there was someone called her, that's what she said, said someone called her and she says, "Did you know that the President had been assassinated" and she says, "Why, no" and she says, "Well, it's on the television now" and she says, "I will run and turn it on" and she run in and turned this television on to get this information and this Oswald walked in hurriedly and she said, she said to him, "You seem to be in a hurry." She was the only one in that place. She said he didn't say a word but went on in his room and she said he changed his little zip-up coat, way I understand it, and just went right back out. He evidently got the gun; now, we don't know.
Mr. BALL. Did she tell the officers that?

Mrs. JOHNSON. Yeah, she told the officers that.

She confirms that Roberts told the police Oswald had changed into his "little zip-up coat". It's not a detail she brought up months later, it's something she told officers on the day.
I can't think why Roberts would mention this if it didn't happen.

Dan,

It may well be that Roberts did indeed believe that Oswald walked out wearing a jacket, but that doesn't automatically mean that she was correct. Officer Baker thought that Oswald was wearing a jacket during the lunchroom encounter and taxi driver Whaley thought that the man he drove to Beckley street was wearing two jackets.

The irony of the LN hypocrisy is that when it comes to Buell Frazier, they will question anything he said about the paper bag Oswald was wearing. They call him mistaken and come up with all sorts of "reasons" why Frazier couldn't have seen the bag clear enough. The reason for this is that Frazier is saying something they don't like. But when it comes to Roberts, who says what they want to hear, her words as somehow written in stone, regardless of the serious problems there are with her credibility.

[Bill Chapman]

So, half blind Earlene first tells us that her powers to observe details are, to say the least, poor, as she couldn't say a damned thing about the shirt she saw Oswald wearing as he came in, and then she tells us he got and put on a zipper jacket.

What happened? Did her powers of observation suddenly improve, despite the fact that she was concentrating on getting the television to work and couldn't have seen Oswald for any longer than a couple of seconds as he walked behind her back from his room to the front door?

'She couldn't say a damn thing about about the shirt'
But saw it was a shirt, not a jacket

'couldn't have seen Oswald for any longer than a couple of seconds'
Does it take you even a 'couple of seconds' to realize that this figure is wearing jacket?
Okay, I'll wait..


Blurred to mimic Earlene's possible eyesight

[Bill Brown]

And for what it's worth, I have never called myself an expert and I did not ask the interviewer to call me one.

Now that I have that out of the way, I kind of am an expert on the Tippit murder.

You can be, too: