Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Dan O'meara]

A closer analysis of Frazier's testimony regarding what Oswald was wearing that morning.

Frazier is shown the dark blue jacket (CE 163) that was found in the TSBD and is asked if he recognises it. For some reason Ball describes it as a "gray blue" jacket.



Mr. BALL - I have here Commission's 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have.

It doesn't get much more straight-forward than that. Not only isn't it the jacket Oswald wore to work that morning, it's a jacket Frazier is completely unfamiliar with. It must be remembered, Frazier is in the company of Oswald quite a number of times taking him to and from Irving. He is sat right next to him at a time Oswald would most likely be wearing his jacket - before and after work.
Frazier has never seen the jacket before (to the best of his knowledge)

So what was Oswald wearing to work that day?

Mr. BALL - On that day you did notice one article of clothing, that is, he had a jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What color was the jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning.
Mr. BALL - Did it have a zipper on it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it was one of the zipper types.

The one item of clothing Frazier specifically remembers is Oswald's gray jacket. A zipper jacket. In this part of his testimony we see the first of three times Frazier makes the point he had seen Oswald wearing this jacket before. He is unequivocal that this was the jacket Oswald had on that morning - "and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning."

A curious thing happens at this point in the questioning. Ball asks - "It isn't one of these two zipper jackets we have shown?" - to which Frazier replies - "No, sir"
There are two jackets in evidence that are thought to be Oswald's - the dark blue one (CE 163) and a light grey one (CE 162)
As we have seen, CE 163 was introduced into the hearing and given to Frazier to look at. However, at no point in proceedings is CE 162 introduced. It is never mentioned and Frazier is never asked to give an opinion about it so I find Ball's mention of two zipper jackets quite baffling.
Frazier is then asked about Oswald's pants but he makes the point he can't really remember what else he had on:

Mr. BALL - You are not able to tell us then anything or are you able to tell us, describe any of the clothing he had on that day, except this gray jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - That is the only thing you can remember?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

Frazier reiterates that he is only sure about the gray jacket. The testimony is about to move on to the bag Oswald was carrying that day but Ball wants more details about the gray jacket:

Mr. BALL - I have here a paper sack which is Commission's Exhibit 364. That gray jacket you mentioned, did it have any design in it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - Was it light or dark gray?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was light gray.
Mr. BALL - You mentioned it was woolen.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Long sleeves?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

Here we find out it was a long-sleeved, light gray jacket. It is a zippered, long-sleeved, light gray jacket that Oswald was wearing to work that morning. Ball wants even more detail but Frazier isn't sure:

Mr. BALL - Buttoned sleeves at the wrist, or do you remember?
Mr. FRAZIER - To be frank with you, I didn't notice that much about the jacket, but I had seen him wear that gray woolen jacket before.
Mr. BALL - You say it had a zipper on it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

Although Frazier can't confirm whether or not there were buttons on the wrist he states for the second time that he had seen Oswald wearing the jacket before.  There can be little doubt what jacket Oswald wore to work that morning and it most certainly was not the dark blue jacket subsequently found at the TSBD.

Towards the end of his questioning Frazier is asked about the Thursday he dropped Oswald off:

Mr. BALL - On Thursday afternoon when you went home, drove on home, did he carry any package with him?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he didn't
Mr. BALL - Did he have a jacket or coat on him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What kind of a jacket or coat did he have?
Mr. FRAZIER - That, you know, like I say gray jacket.
Mr. BALL - That same gray jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Now, I can be frank with you, I had seen him wear that jacket several times, because it is cool type like when you keep a jacket on all day, if you are working on outside or something like that, you wouldn't go outside with just a plain shirt on.

For the third time Frazier states he had seen Oswald wearing this jacket before and that he was wearing it when he dropped him off on Thursday. The same jacket he was wearing Friday morning which is why an extensive search of the Paine house never turned up this light gray, long-sleeved, zippered jacket.
It should also be remembered that nobody saw Oswald leave the TSBD.
Nobody saw what he was wearing.
And this jacket was never found in the TSBD so it is safe to assume that when Oswald left the TSBD that day he was wearing his light gray jacket.

[Martin Weidmann]

A closer analysis of Frazier's testimony regarding what Oswald was wearing that morning.

Frazier is shown the dark blue jacket (CE 163) that was found in the TSBD and is asked if he recognises it. For some reason Ball describes it as a "gray blue" jacket.



Mr. BALL - I have here Commission's 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have.

It doesn't get much more straight-forward than that. Not only isn't it the jacket Oswald wore to work that morning, it's a jacket Frazier is completely unfamiliar with. It must be remembered, Frazier is in the company of Oswald quite a number of times taking him to and from Irving. He is sat right next to him at a time Oswald would most likely be wearing his jacket - before and after work.
Frazier has never seen the jacket before (to the best of his knowledge)

So what was Oswald wearing to work that day?

None of this explains the fact that CE 163 was the jacket found in the Domino room at the TSBD, after Kennedy was killed.
Oswald never returned to the TSBD, so how did that jacket get there?

Mr. BALL - On that day you did notice one article of clothing, that is, he had a jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What color was the jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning.
Mr. BALL - Did it have a zipper on it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it was one of the zipper types.

The one item of clothing Frazier specifically remembers is Oswald's gray jacket. A zipper jacket. In this part of his testimony we see the first of three times Frazier makes the point he had seen Oswald wearing this jacket before. He is unequivocal that this was the jacket Oswald had on that morning - "and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning."

A curious thing happens at this point in the questioning. Ball asks - "It isn't one of these two zipper jackets we have shown?" - to which Frazier replies - "No, sir"

And that's the conudrum. According to Marina, Oswald had only two jackets, yet Frazier dismisses both CE 162 and CE 163 as the jacket he saw Oswald wear that Friday morning. It most certainly doesn't justify the conclusion that Oswald was wearing CE 162 that morning. In fact, with CE 163 being found at the TSBD the most likely jacket, despite Frazier's failure to identify it, is in fact CE 163

There are two jackets in evidence that are thought to be Oswald's - the dark blue one (CE 163) and a light grey one (CE 162)
As we have seen, CE 163 was introduced into the hearing given to Frazier to look at. However, at no point in proceedings is CE 162 introduced. It is never mentioned and Frazier is never asked to give an opinion about it so I find Ball's mention of two zipper jackets quite baffling.

And yet they must both have been in the room, because how else could Frazier dismiss them both as the jacket he had seen?

Frazier is then asked about Oswald's pants but he makes the point he can't really remember what else he had on:

Mr. BALL - You are not able to tell us then anything or are you able to tell us, describe any of the clothing he had on that day, except this gray jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - That is the only thing you can remember?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

Frazier reiterates that he is only sure about the gray jacket. The testimony is about to move on to the bag Oswald was carrying that day but Ball wants more details about the gray jacket:

Mr. BALL - I have here a paper sack which is Commission's Exhibit 364. That gray jacket you mentioned, did it have any design in it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - Was it light or dark gray?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was light gray.
Mr. BALL - You mentioned it was woolen.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Long sleeves?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

Here we find out it was a long-sleeved, light gray jacket. It is a zippered, long-sleeved, light gray jacket that Oswald was wearing to work that morning. Ball wants even more detail but Frazier isn't sure:

Mr. BALL - Buttoned sleeves at the wrist, or do you remember?
Mr. FRAZIER - To be frank with you, I didn't notice that much about the jacket, but I had seen him wear that gray woolen jacket before.
Mr. BALL - You say it had a zipper on it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

Although Frazier can't confirm whether or not there were buttons on the wrist he states for the second time that he had seen Oswald wearing the jacket before.  There can be little doubt what jacket Oswald wore to work that morning and it most certainly was not the dark blue jacket subsequently found at the TSBD.

There can be little doubt what jacket Oswald wore to work that morning and it most certainly was not the dark blue jacket subsequently found at the TSBD.

And this is where fact becomes opinion and speculation.

Towards the end of his questioning Frazier is asked about the Thursday he dropped Oswald off:

Mr. BALL - On Thursday afternoon when you went home, drove on home, did he carry any package with him?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he didn't
Mr. BALL - Did he have a jacket or coat on him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What kind of a jacket or coat did he have?
Mr. FRAZIER - That, you know, like I say gray jacket.
Mr. BALL - That same gray jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Now, I can be frank with you, I had seen him wear that jacket several times, because it is cool type like when you keep a jacket on all day, if you are working on outside or something like that, you wouldn't go outside with just a plain shirt on.

For the third time Frazier states he had seen Oswald wearing this jacket before and that he was wearing it when he dropped him off on Thursday. The same jacket he was wearing Friday morning which is why an extensive search of the Paine house never turned up this light gray, long-sleeved, zippered jacket.

That's one hell of an assumption. How do you know that the grey jacket wasn't found during the first search of the Paine house?
The answer is that you only assume it. The backyard photos were officially not found until the second search of the Paine house, the one with the warrant, yet on Friday evening Michael Paine was shown a BT photo by an FBI agent and Fritz confronted Oswald with a photo on Saturday morning, hours before the photos were allegedly found.

I find it somewhat remarkable that the white jacket that was found at the parking lot, somehow became a grey jacket with initials on it from officers who were not in the chain of custody (and no initials of the unidentified officers that were) would end up only being submitted to the Identification Bureau after the officers had returned of their first search of the Paine house.

It should also be remembered that nobody saw Oswald leave the TSBD.
Nobody saw what he was wearing.
And this jacket was never found in the TSBD so it is safe to assume that when Oswald left the TSBD that day he was wearing his light gray jacket.

What are you rambling on about? His jacket was in fact found at the TSBD. It just wasn't CE 162.

This is where your concocted story goes off the rails. You have Oswald going to the TSBD on Friday morning wearing a grey jacket (CE 162), you then have him leaving the TSBD wearing the same jacket, despite witness testimony that he wasn't wearing a jacket, yet at the TSBD another jacket (CE 163) is later found. Does this make sense to you?

[Dan O'meara]

None of this explains the fact that CE 163 was the jacket found in the Domino room at the TSBD, after Kennedy was killed.
Oswald never returned to the TSBD, so how did that jacket get there?

At no point have I put this analysis forward as an explanation of why CE 163 was found in the TSBD.
The only way it relates to that aspect of the case is that Frazier is unequivocal that CE 163 is not the jacket Oswald was wearing that morning. He couldn't be any clearer. Frazier is completely unfamiliar with this jacket, as far as he is concerned he's never even seen Oswald wearing it before, let alone on the morning of the assassination.
To dismiss Frazier's testimony on this point just because it doesn't agree with your explanation of how CE 163 ended up in the TSBD is unwarranted.
If Frazier's testimony regarding CE 163 means anything, it means there has to be another explanation as to how CE 163 ended up there. No other reasonable conclusion can be drawn if Frazier's testimony is accepted.

And that's the conudrum. According to Marina, Oswald had only two jackets, yet Frazier dismisses both CE 162 and CE 163 as the jacket he saw Oswald wear that Friday morning. It most certainly doesn't justify the conclusion that Oswald was wearing CE 162 that morning. In fact, with CE 163 being found at the TSBD the most likely jacket, despite Frazier's failure to identify it, is in fact CE 163

And yet they must both have been in the room, because how else could Frazier dismiss them both as the jacket he had seen?

The conundrum is that CE 162 is never introduced into the hearing. It is never mentioned. Frazier is never asked to look at it so he never gets a chance to dismiss it. CE 163 is introduced, this is in the transcript of the hearing, and Frazier dismisses it out of hand as the jacket wore that morning.
We can assume and speculate all we want - maybe Ball misspoke - but the fact remains, at no point is CE 162 mentioned during Frazier's questioning. That is a fact.

There can be little doubt what jacket Oswald wore to work that morning and it most certainly was not the dark blue jacket subsequently found at the TSBD.

And this is where fact becomes opinion and speculation.

You've taken this out of context.
It is clearly referring to Frazier's testimony, which is unequivocal - Oswald wore a light gray, long-sleeved zipper jacket to work that morning. This cannot be denied. Frazier's testimony is emphatic on this point. To sweep away all of his testimony, his multiple references to knowing this jacket, is tantamount to saying he is perjuring himself. He could not be any clearer. There is no ambiguity, no ambivalence, no doubt. His testimony is clear.

That's one hell of an assumption. How do you know that the grey jacket wasn't found during the first search of the Paine house?
The answer is that you only assume it. The backyard photos were officially not found until the second search of the Paine house, the one with the warrant, yet on Friday evening Michael Paine was shown a BT photo by an FBI agent and Fritz confronted Oswald with a photo on Saturday morning, hours before the photos were allegedly found.

Is that the sound of metallic headgear being donned I hear.
What are you saying? You have some kind of proof the jacket was found at the Paine house? Oh, you don't? You're suggesting the evidence was (drum roll) planted?
Here's why it's not an assumption - Frazier testifies that Oswald was wearing the same jacket on Friday morning that he was wearing on Thursday when he dropped him off. He is certain of it. He qualifies it by saying, for the third time, how familiar he is with the jacket.
Unless Frazier was part of the (drum roll) conspiracy to frame Oswald's jacket 

Your inability to accept straight-forward testimony in favour of Tinfoil  speaks volumes.

I find it somewhat remarkable that the white jacket that was found at the parking lot, somehow became a grey jacket with initials on it from officers who were not in the chain of custody (and no initials of the unidentified officers that were) would end up only being submitted to the Identification Bureau after the officers had returned of their first search of the Paine house.

I've heard you say this before. What is it about the initials you find so objective?
It is something I'm genuinely interested in.

What are you rambling on about? His jacket was in fact found at the TSBD. It just wasn't CE 162.

Again, you're taking things out of context.
When I say "this jacket" I am clearly referring to the light gray, long-sleeved, zippered jacket Frazier identified, this was never found in the TSBD.
It's a really desperate move on your behalf.

This is where your concocted story goes off the rails. You have Oswald going to the TSBD on Friday morning wearing a grey jacket (CE 162), you then have him leaving the TSBD wearing the same jacket, despite witness testimony that he wasn't wearing a jacket, yet at the TSBD another jacket (CE 163) is later found. Does this make sense to you?

"You have Oswald going to the TSBD on Friday morning wearing a grey jacket..."

Frazier has Oswald going into work wearing a light grey jacket. He is emphatic about it. There can be no doubt about it.

"...you then have him leaving the TSBD wearing the same jacket, despite witness testimony that he wasn't wearing a jacket..."

Please cite the witness who saw Oswald leaving the TSBD without a jacket.

Does it make sense to you that Frazier emphatically denies Oswald was wearing CE 163 that morning, that he emphatically identifies a light grey, long-sleeved, zippered jacket, that he identifies this same  light grey, long-sleeved, zippered jacket as the one Oswald was wearing on Thursday night and that this is the jacket found in the TSBD??

Does Frazier lying about it make sense? That the authorities discovered it at the Paine's then planted it, does that make sense?

[Bill Chapman]

Both Linnie & Buell said the jacket had wide sleeves
Linnie said the jacket was closer to the blue gray one (163)

Mr. BALL. Well, this one is gray but of these two the jacket I last showed you is Commission Exhibit No. 162, and this blue gray is 163, now if you had to choose between these two?
Mrs. RANDLE. I would choose the dark one.
Mr. BALL. You would choose the dark one?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Which is 163, as being more similar to the jacket he had?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; that I remember. But I, you know, didn't pay an awful lot of attention to his jacket. I remember his T-shirt and the shirt more so than I do the jacket.
Mr. BALL. The witness just stated that 163 which is the gray-blue is similar to the jacket he had on. 162, the light gray jacket was not.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.

[Dan O'meara]

Both Linnie & Buell said the jacket had wide sleeves
Linnie said the jacket was closer to the blue gray one (163)

Mr. BALL. Well, this one is gray but of these two the jacket I last showed you is Commission Exhibit No. 162, and this blue gray is 163, now if you had to choose between these two?
Mrs. RANDLE. I would choose the dark one.
Mr. BALL. You would choose the dark one?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Which is 163, as being more similar to the jacket he had?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; that I remember. But I, you know, didn't pay an awful lot of attention to his jacket. I remember his T-shirt and the shirt more so than I do the jacket.
Mr. BALL. The witness just stated that 163 which is the gray-blue is similar to the jacket he had on. 162, the light gray jacket was not.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.

What do you think about my analysis of Frazier's testimony?

[Dan O'meara]

When Ball talked to Helen Markham he actually showed her the 162 jacket:

Mr. BALL. I have here an exhibit, Commission Exhibit 162, a jacket. Did you ever see this before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No; I did not.
Mr. BALL. Does it look like, anything like, the jacket the man had on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It is short, open down the front. But that jacket it is a darker jacket than that, I know it was.
Mr. BALL. You don't think it was as light a jacket as that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, it was darker than that, I know it was. At that moment I was so excited--

That sucked big time!

I wonder what happened to the jacket she saw Oswald wearing when he shot Tippit.
Because she identified Oswald as the shooter:

Mr. BALL. When you identified Oswald--it was the number 2 man--were you told the number 2 man whom you identified in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, I was not.
Mr. BALL. Were you ever told his name?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No.
Mr. BALL. Ever told his name later?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Nobody, nobody told me nothing.
Mr. BALL. Well, the man that you identified as the number 2 man in the lineup in the police station, you identified him as the man you had seen shoot Officer Tippit?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, I did.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify him because of his clothing that he had on at that time in the lineup.
Mrs. MARKHAM. Just like I told you. I mostly looked at his face, his eyes, and his clothing, too.

And she is definite he had a light, short jacket on:

Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light short jacket, dark trousers. I looked at his clothing, but I looked at his face, too.
Mr. BALL. Did he have the same clothing on that the man had that you saw shoot the officer?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had, these dark trousers on.
Mr. BALL. Did he have a jacket or a shirt? The man that you saw shoot Officer Tippit and run away, did you notice if he had a jacket on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had a jacket on when he done it.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a jacket, what general color of jacket?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It was a short jacket open in the front, kind of a grayish tan.

I wonder what happened to that jacket?
Because Oswald wasn't wearing it in the Texas Theater..
I wonder where it went.
Just like I wonder where the jacket went that Earlene Roberts is absolutely certain Oswald was wearing when he left the rooming house.
Where do you think that jacket went Otto?
Because Oswald didn't have it with him in the Theater.

Or did he?

[Martin Weidmann]

At no point have I put this analysis forward as an explanation of why CE 163 was found in the TSBD.
The only way it relates to that aspect of the case is that Frazier is unequivocal that CE 163 is not the jacket Oswald was wearing that morning. He couldn't be any clearer. Frazier is completely unfamiliar with this jacket, as far as he is concerned he's never even seen Oswald wearing it before, let alone on the morning of the assassination.

To dismiss Frazier's testimony on this point just because it doesn't agree with your explanation of how CE 163 ended up in the TSBD is unwarranted.

If Frazier's testimony regarding CE 163 means anything, it means there has to be another explanation as to how CE 163 ended up there. No other reasonable conclusion can be drawn if Frazier's testimony is accepted.

The conundrum is that CE 162 is never introduced into the hearing. It is never mentioned. Frazier is never asked to look at it so he never gets a chance to dismiss it. CE 163 is introduced, this is in the transcript of the hearing, and Frazier dismisses it out of hand as the jacket wore that morning.
We can assume and speculate all we want - maybe Ball misspoke - but the fact remains, at no point is CE 162 mentioned during Frazier's questioning. That is a fact.

You've taken this out of context.
It is clearly referring to Frazier's testimony, which is unequivocal - Oswald wore a light gray, long-sleeved zipper jacket to work that morning. This cannot be denied. Frazier's testimony is emphatic on this point. To sweep away all of his testimony, his multiple references to knowing this jacket, is tantamount to saying he is perjuring himself. He could not be any clearer. There is no ambiguity, no ambivalence, no doubt. His testimony is clear.

Is that the sound of metallic headgear being donned I hear.
What are you saying? You have some kind of proof the jacket was found at the Paine house? Oh, you don't? You're suggesting the evidence was (drum roll) planted?
Here's why it's not an assumption - Frazier testifies that Oswald was wearing the same jacket on Friday morning that he was wearing on Thursday when he dropped him off. He is certain of it. He qualifies it by saying, for the third time, how familiar he is with the jacket.
Unless Frazier was part of the (drum roll) conspiracy to frame Oswald's jacket 

Your inability to accept straight-forward testimony in favour of Tinfoil  speaks volumes.

I've heard you say this before. What is it about the initials you find so objective?
It is something I'm genuinely interested in.

Again, you're taking things out of context.
When I say "this jacket" I am clearly referring to the light gray, long-sleeved, zippered jacket Frazier identified, this was never found in the TSBD.
It's a really desperate move on your behalf.

"You have Oswald going to the TSBD on Friday morning wearing a grey jacket..."

Frazier has Oswald going into work wearing a light grey jacket. He is emphatic about it. There can be no doubt about it.

"...you then have him leaving the TSBD wearing the same jacket, despite witness testimony that he wasn't wearing a jacket..."

Please cite the witness who saw Oswald leaving the TSBD without a jacket.

Does it make sense to you that Frazier emphatically denies Oswald was wearing CE 163 that morning, that he emphatically identifies a light grey, long-sleeved, zippered jacket, that he identifies this same  light grey, long-sleeved, zippered jacket as the one Oswald was wearing on Thursday night and that this is the jacket found in the TSBD??

Does Frazier lying about it make sense? That the authorities discovered it at the Paine's then planted it, does that make sense?

At no point have I put this analysis forward as an explanation of why CE 163 was found in the TSBD.

You seem confused. I never said that your "analysis" offered such an explanation. My point is that your "analysis" simply ignored CE 163 being found at the TSBD as if it is of no importance.

The only way it relates to that aspect of the case is that Frazier is unequivocal that CE 163 is not the jacket Oswald was wearing that morning. He couldn't be any clearer. Frazier is completely unfamiliar with this jacket, as far as he is concerned he's never even seen Oswald wearing it before, let alone on the morning of the assassination.

Regardless of Frazier saying this, Oswald only had two jackets. How likely is it that he never wore CE 163 to work. What are the odds?

To dismiss Frazier's testimony on this point just because it doesn't agree with your explanation of how CE 163 ended up in the TSBD is unwarranted.

I don't dismiss Frazier's testimony at all.

If Frazier's testimony regarding CE 163 means anything, it means there has to be another explanation as to how CE 163 ended up there. No other reasonable conclusion can be drawn if Frazier's testimony is accepted.

That's a "reasonable conclusion" to you? Really? The only way that the presence of CE 163 in the TSBD can be explained is that Oswald wore it at least once to work, don't you think? Or do you think it's normal for a jacket to just show up at a place of work?. What other "reasonable" explanation, than Oswald wearing that jacket to work, can there be? Perhaps that Marina or Ruth Paine put it there? Give me a break. 

The conundrum is that CE 162 is never introduced into the hearing. It is never mentioned. Frazier is never asked to look at it so he never gets a chance to dismiss it. CE 163 is introduced, this is in the transcript of the hearing, and Frazier dismisses it out of hand as the jacket wore that morning. We can assume and speculate all we want - maybe Ball misspoke - but the fact remains, at no point is CE 162 mentioned during Frazier's questioning. That is a fact.

It is true that CE 162 is not mentioned by it's evidence number (which is somewhat strange, if you ask me. Why show one jacket and not the other?) but that doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Frazier is never asked to look at it

Really? So when Ball asks him about the two jackets "we have shown", he's talking about CE 163 and what other jacket?

Mr. FRAZIER - It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning.
Mr. BALL - Did it have a zipper on it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it was one of the zipper types.
Mr. BALL - It isn't one of these two zipper jackets we have shown?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.

maybe Ball misspoke

Yeah right. And maybe he didn't!

You've taken this out of context.
It is clearly referring to Frazier's testimony, which is unequivocal - Oswald wore a light gray, long-sleeved zipper jacket to work that morning. This cannot be denied. Frazier's testimony is emphatic on this point. To sweep away all of his testimony, his multiple references to knowing this jacket, is tantamount to saying he is perjuring himself. He could not be any clearer. There is no ambiguity, no ambivalence, no doubt. His testimony is clear.

How can it be taken out of context when I just quoted you verbatim. I don't sweep away all of his testimony. I just don't cherry-pick like you do. Yes, Frazier said that he had never seen CE 163 before and yes, he said that Oswald was wearing a light gray jacket on Friday morning, but he also said that it was woolen (which CE 162 isn't) and when Ball asked him "It isn't one of these two zipper jackets we have shown?" Frazier answered "No Sir". Your willingness to overlook parts of Frazier's testimony that do not fit with your little theory is amazing.

Is that the sound of metallic headgear being donned I hear.

Another insult, just because you don't like what I write? Really....

What are you saying? You have some kind of proof the jacket was found at the Paine house? Oh, you don't? You're suggesting the evidence was (drum roll) planted?

I'm not saying anything more than I find it somewhat remarkable how DPD collected and handled the physical pieces of evidence. It is a fact that Micheal Paine was shown a BY photo on Friday evening, yet the DPD claimed to have found them on Saturday afternoon. It is a fact that the officer who called in they had  found a jacket under a car described it as white. It is a fact that there is no chain of custody for the jacket and the initials on it are from officers who were not present when the jacket was found. It is a fact that Detective Hill did not put his initial on the revolver until about 4 PM when he walked into the personnel room and told the other men there this was Oswald's revolver. In his testimony he added that he explained that Carroll told him it was Oswald's revolver, which means Hill had no first hand knowledge. It is a fact that Detective Bentley said on television that he took Oswald's wallet from him in the car after leaving the Texas Theater and that it contained a creditcard and a drivers license. No word about a second ID in the name of Hidell, yet the wallet given to Detective Rose at the police station (again by an unknown officer) did not contain a credit card or a drivers license, but it did contain a second ID in the name of Hidell. No report about the wallet exists and there is no chain of custody for the wallet. I could go on and on. To ignore all that and dismiss it as simple errors is ignoring the fact that pratically all rules of evidence were being violated.

Here's why it's not an assumption - Frazier testifies that Oswald was wearing the same jacket on Friday morning that he was wearing on Thursday when he dropped him off. He is certain of it. He qualifies it by saying, for the third time, how familiar he is with the jacket.

No. Frazier does not testify that Oswald was wearing the same jacket on Friday that he was wearing on Thursday. You are making that up. The fact is that Ball asked him if it was one of the two jackets they had shown him and Frazier said NO.

Unless Frazier was part of the (drum roll) conspiracy to frame Oswald's jacket 
Your inability to accept straight-forward testimony in favour of Tinfoil  speaks volumes.

And there is the classic LN ridicule. Do you really think you can win an argument by being condescending?

I've heard you say this before. What is it about the initials you find so objective?
It is something I'm genuinely interested in.

What I have written is self-evident. At least two officers handled the jacket and thus were in the chain of custody, yet they never initialed the jacket. The initials that are there of those of men who were not present when the jacket was found. As they are not in the chain of custody, what are their initials doing on the jacket?

Again, you're taking things out of context.
When I say "this jacket" I am clearly referring to the light gray, long-sleeved, zippered jacket Frazier identified, this was never found in the TSBD.
It's a really desperate move on your behalf.

BS. The only one taking things out of context is you. CE 162 was never found at the TSBD simply because it wasn't there. Instead CE 163 was there. Your the desperate one who argues that Oswald wore CE 162 to work on Friday and CE 163 just magically appeared there. Talk about tinfoil!

"You have Oswald going to the TSBD on Friday morning wearing a grey jacket..."

Frazier has Oswald going into work wearing a light grey jacket. He is emphatic about it. There can be no doubt about it.

Stop offering your opinion as if it is fact. It isn't and you are wrong. Frazier has Oswald wearing a grey woolen jacket which was neither of the two jackets shown to him by Ball.

"...you then have him leaving the TSBD wearing the same jacket, despite witness testimony that he wasn't wearing a jacket..."

Please cite the witness who saw Oswald leaving the TSBD without a jacket.

Where did I say anything about witnesses seeing Oswald leave the TSBD? No such witness exists.

There are however witnesses that said he wasn't wearing a jacket, during the trip to the rooming house. Mrs Reid, who was the last person to see him in the TSBD, just before he left (if the WC is to be believed) said he was not wearing a jacket. Mrs Bledsoe said she saw a hole in the sleeve of his shirt, which she couldn't have done if he was wearing a jacket, and Mrs Roberts said that when Oswald entered the rooming house he was wearing a shirt.

Does it make sense to you that Frazier emphatically denies Oswald was wearing CE 163 that morning, that he emphatically identifies a light grey, long-sleeved, zippered jacket, that he identifies this same  light grey, long-sleeved, zippered jacket as the one Oswald was wearing on Thursday night and that this is the jacket found in the TSBD??

Does it make sense to you that CE 163 was found at the TSBD if Oswald didn't wear it? And why do you keep on ignoring that fact that Ball asked Frazier if it was one of the two jackets (we know he owned) and he said no. This alone tells us that you can not reasonably conclude that Oswald was wearing CD 162 on Friday morning, because that means you also have to conclude that Frazier must have been wrong when he answered Ball's question. And once you conclude that he must have been wrong, he could just as easily have been wrong about CE 163. You don't get to pick the parts of his testimony you like and ignore the rest.

Does Frazier lying about it make sense? That the authorities discovered it at the Paine's then planted it, does that make sense?

Who says Frazier was lying? Perhaps he was simply mistaken. And there isn't much in this case that makes sense, which is why I am looking at all the possibilities, which seems to be something you are not willing to do.

[Martin Weidmann]

I wonder what happened to the jacket she saw Oswald wearing when he shot Tippit.
Because she identified Oswald as the shooter:

Mr. BALL. When you identified Oswald--it was the number 2 man--were you told the number 2 man whom you identified in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, I was not.
Mr. BALL. Were you ever told his name?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No.
Mr. BALL. Ever told his name later?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Nobody, nobody told me nothing.
Mr. BALL. Well, the man that you identified as the number 2 man in the lineup in the police station, you identified him as the man you had seen shoot Officer Tippit?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, I did.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify him because of his clothing that he had on at that time in the lineup.
Mrs. MARKHAM. Just like I told you. I mostly looked at his face, his eyes, and his clothing, too.

And she is definite he had a light, short jacket on:

Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light short jacket, dark trousers. I looked at his clothing, but I looked at his face, too.
Mr. BALL. Did he have the same clothing on that the man had that you saw shoot the officer?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had, these dark trousers on.
Mr. BALL. Did he have a jacket or a shirt? The man that you saw shoot Officer Tippit and run away, did you notice if he had a jacket on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had a jacket on when he done it.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a jacket, what general color of jacket?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It was a short jacket open in the front, kind of a grayish tan.

I wonder what happened to that jacket?
Because Oswald wasn't wearing it in the Texas Theater..
I wonder where it went.
Just like I wonder where the jacket went that Earlene Roberts is absolutely certain Oswald was wearing when he left the rooming house.
Where do you think that jacket went Otto?
Because Oswald didn't have it with him in the Theater.

Or did he?

Because Oswald didn't have it with him in the Theater.

How do you know this? Was the Texas Theater searched? Or do you just assume that he didn't have a jacket with him?