And yet another post goes by without a reasonable explanation for why Oswald ditched his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson.
By the way, Sam Guinyard positively identified the man running with a gun as Lee Oswald. He also positively identified the jacket in evidence (CE-162) as the jacket worn by Oswald as Oswald fled down Patton with a gun.
You see, for every jacket discrepancy witness you have, I have three more that identified Oswald and stated he was wearing a jacket. See my Youtube interview.
Give it up already.
And yet another post goes by without a reasonable explanation for why Oswald ditched his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson.You want me to speculate about something you assume happened? No thank you!
By the way, Sam Guinyard positively identified the man running with a gun as Lee Oswald. And every witness is always 100% correct in everything he or she says? Is that what you are saying?
He also positively identified the jacket in evidence (CE-162) as the jacket worn by Oswald as Oswald fled down Patton with a gun. Now that's really impressive, seeing a jacket from the other side of the street and being able to identify it months later to the exclusion of all other jackets. Or is that what really happened? Let's have a look;
Mr. BALL. Now, the next exhibit here is Commission Exhibit No. 162; have you ever seen this before?
Mr. GUINYARD. That's the jacket.
Mr. BALL. This is a gray jacket?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; that's the gray jacket.
Mr. BALL. It has a zipper on it?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes.
Mr. BALL. You say that's the jacket?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; that he had on in Oak Cliff when he passed the lot.
Mr. BALL. That the man with the pistol had on?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes, sir.
Well that's a "rock solid" identification of a particular jacket alright.
Get real, will ya! At best it's a recoginition of the type of jacket. And even if Guinyard was right about CE 162 being the jacket he saw, Roberts contradicts him by testifying that the jacket she saw was darker than CE 162.
When you cherry pick witness evidence it might be useful if that same evidence isn't contradicted by another witness. And, of course, if Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket, Guinyard's identification has to be erroneous as well!
You see, for every jacket discrepancy witness you have, I have three more that identified Oswald and stated he was wearing a jacket. Except that if the gray jacket was in Irving, and Oswald didn't have enough time to get to 10th/Patton, those witnesses of yours were wrong in their identification of Oswald. It does happen that witnesses are wrong. You know that, don't you?
The Innocence Project states that "Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing."[2] This non-profit organization uses DNA evidence to reopen criminal convictions that were made before DNA testing was available as a tool in criminal investigations.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identificationAnd you consider yourself to be a serious researcher? Yeah right!
See my Youtube interview.[/b]
Your Youtube interview is pure propaganda, filled with assumptions, misrepresentations and half truths.
Btw... what happened to the gray jacket that Frazier saw Oswald wearing to Irving on Thursday evening?