No, my point stands. Whether he had the tattered brown shirt on or not, he still was in a messed-up T-shirt and had a cut-up forehead and was screaming about how unfair the lineup is.
Whether he had the tattered brown shirt on or not
How is that a problem, you keep using circular logic and assuming eyewitnesses make decisions based on the Oswald we know, but from their POV the man who was wearing the brown shirt could have simply been a bum they grabbed to fill the line-up.
he still was in a messed-up T-shirt
In what way was his T-shirt messed up, the fact that in those line-ups Oswald wasn't wearing the jacket and brown shirt gave him a distinct advantage.
and had a cut-up forehead
What's that got to do with the price of fish, this assumption that Oswald having a scratch on his head made eyewitnesses pick him is simply absurd but having a different appearance from when they saw Oswald earlier, again gave Oswald an advantage.
and was screaming about how unfair the lineup is.
Because Oswald had eyes, he could see the other people in the line-up and knew that they were all about the same size and build and dressed different to each other, therefore everyone had an equal chance but Oswald knowing that he was seen by multiple people at the scene of the crime, simply used this as a tactic for the inevitable trial.
But let's get serious, if Oswald was truly innocent why would he even say anything?
JohnM
