A Lot Of Racket About One Ditched Jacket

[Martin Weidmann]

The problem for you is that your entire premise relies on Frazier being absolutely correct, regarding the color of the jacket Oswald was wearing Thursday evening.  If Frazier is off, then your point is invalid.  And we already know just how unreliable Frazier has been and still is.

The problem for you is that your entire premise relies on Roberts being absolutely correct, regarding the jacket.  If Roberts is off, then your point is invalid.  And we already know, from her employer, just how unreliable Roberts was.

[John Iacoletti]

If officer Baker can mistake a shirt for a jacket than Roberts, who had poor eye sight, could just as easily have done the same.

That’s a really good point. Whaley too.

[Bill Chapman]

How is my opinion relevant to your claim about what “we know”?

My opinion is that all witness testimony is unreliable. But can you answer my question? Knowledge is different from opinion.

My opinion is that all witness testimony is unreliable
_Does that include CTer/JAQer/OAKer fav Arnold Rowland, by any chance?


 

[Jerry Freeman]

Your point here is moot.

Your point everywhere always is.

[Richard Smith]

Earlene Roberts has Oswald zipping up a jacket as he went out the door.  Nothing about "kind of" zipping up a jacket.


Which is far more than you have when arguing that Oswald was not wearing a jacket as he went out the door.

It's the typical dishonest and desperate contrarian attempt to create fake doubt by any means.  Like the endlessly repeated false claim that there is somehow doubt in Marina's WC testimony that she saw a rifle in the blanket. 

[Richard Smith]

If officer Baker can mistake a shirt for a jacket than Roberts, who had poor eye sight, could just as easily have done the same.
So, no, it's not far more than arguing that Oswald was not wearing a jacket as he went out the door.

I can see why you stick to playing the contrarian.  You think Oswald could somehow "zip up" his shirt?  This was a bit before the disco era.  Roberts is adamant on the point that he zipped up his jacket.  There was no zipper on his shirt.  There was a zipper on the jacket. 

Mr. BALL. It was a zippered jacket, was it?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it,
he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
Mr. BALL. He was zipping it up as he went out the door?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes.

[John Iacoletti]

It's the typical dishonest and desperate contrarian attempt to create fake doubt by any means.  Like the endlessly repeated false claim that there is somehow doubt in Marina's WC testimony that she saw a rifle in the blanket.

No, it’s real doubt about something that isn’t even evidence to begin with.

[Bill Chapman]

Weidmann

Total BS
_ You should at least try to cut down on that sort of thing , even though it suits you

Roberts admitted that she wasn't paying much attention as she was concentrating on the television.
This means she had her back turned towards the living room where Oswald walked from his room to the front door.
_LOL. 'Admitted', or merely 'said'? Not like you're trying to depict Earlene as being involved in something sinister.
_ And are you claiming Roberts was unable to turn her head?

Add to this that witness testimony is highly unreliable
_ Would that happen to include Arnold Rowland's by any chance?

And that Roberts, according to Mrs Johnson, was known to make up stuff
_ Mrs Johnson. Wasn't she a bit of a busybody? I think I heard something along those lines.
 
And what you are left with is nothing conclusive, whether you like it or not.
_What we are left with is six decades of CTer wash, rinse and repeat

If officer Baker can mistake a shirt for a jacket than Roberts, who had poor eye sight, could just as easily have done the same.
Earlene was not in a poorly-lit hallway

Roberts, who had poor eye sight
_ LOL... Are you claiming her glasses were also weak?