Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Dan O'meara]

Here we go again.

You continue to go on and on about CE-162 even though I clearly said to forget about that jacket in evidence.

Forget Tenth and Patton.  Forget the jacket found underneath the car behind the Texaco station.  Why would Oswald ditch his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?

I would have thought the obvious interpretation of the evidence concerning the jacket is that Oswald wore the blue/gray jacket (CE-162) to work that day and that is the jacket he left behind. He went back to his rooming house and collected his light gray jacket.
What's the problem?

[Martin Weidmann]

I would have thought the obvious interpretation of the evidence concerning the jacket is that Oswald wore the blue/gray jacket (CE-162) to work that day and that is the jacket he left behind. He went back to his rooming house and collected his light gray jacket.
What's the problem?

The problem is that according to Frazier's testimony the light gray jacket (CE 162) was worn by Oswald during the trip on Thursday evening to Irving. The fact that he wore the blue/gray jacket (CE 163) to work on Friday morning, which means that the light gray jacket stayed behind at Irving.

So, how did the light gray jacket get from Irving to the rooming house?

Here we go again.

You continue to go on and on about CE-162 even though I clearly said to forget about that jacket in evidence.

Forget Tenth and Patton.  Forget the jacket found underneath the car behind the Texaco station.  Why would Oswald ditch his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?

BS. You can not assume that Oswald ditched a jacket unless you demonstrate first which of the two jackets he owned it was.
The blue/gray jacket was found at the TSBD and the light gray jacket was, according to Frazier, worn by Oswald to Irving on Thursday evening. There is no way that light gray jacket could have gotten from Irving to the rooming house.

How can Oswald ditch a jacket if he did not have one to put on in the first place?

[Martin Weidmann]

There's really nothing for us to discuss then.  You're in denial about the accuracy of the time stamps on the police tapes, without any evidence to suggest the tapes were not accurate (at least within one minute either way).

Just telling me that I am in denial about the accuracy of the time stamps doesn't make it so. It's a meaningless comment from somebody who clearly foolishly thinks he knows better than others. There is a preponderance of evidence that shows that the time line provided by the police tapes can not be correct, including a statement to the HSCA from the man in charge of the DPD dispatchers;

There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time." - J.C. Bowles

Easy.  Markham didn't leave home when she estimated she did.  I'll take the accuracy pf the police tapes versus an estimate by a witness.

You mean you prefer to believe police tapes because they fit in your narrative. Got it!

It's not only Markham's estimate, it's a chain of events that can be conclusively pieced together by using the testimony and statements of Markham, Benavides, Bowley, Callaway and Croy as well as documents. It all fits perfectly with one major exception; the time stamp calls on the police tapes.

I don't believe I said that.  I think I said a minute and a half to two minutes.

I went back and checked and you are right. I could have sworn you said two minutes, but it seems you said one minute.

If you listen to the actual police tapes (versus what you get on the McAdams site) you can hear Benavides attempt to key the mic several times without getting through (he didn't work it correctly).  These sounds can be heard for a complete minute at 1:15.

At some point during all of this, Bowley arrives, looks over Tippit's body and then eventually grabs the mic from Benavides.

Point being, Bowley didn't get on the mic right away because it was under the control of Benavides.

The shooting takes place at 1:14.  Benavides begins keying the mic around 1:15-1:16.  Bowley finally grabs the mic from Benavides at 1:17.

Not that it makes much difference. In fact it is beneficial to the time line I am working on.

The shooting takes place at 1:14.  Benavides begins keying the mic around 1:15-1:16.  Bowley finally grabs the mic from Benavides at 1:17.

Even this argument contradicts your own claims about Callaway. You've stated that it took Callaway less than 3 minutes after the shots to reach the scene. If the shooting took place at 1:14 you would have Callaway arriving at 1:17 which is when you claim Bowley made his (46 seconds long) call to the dispatcher. Callaway himself said that he wasn't sure if the dispatcher had been called, which can only mean that he did not see Bowley work the radio. In other words, if it took Callaway less than three minutes after the shots to get there (which I believe it did, because Croy's testimony confirms it), the following events must have already occured prior to 1:17;

The shooting at 1:14
Benavides waiting about 40 seconds to get out of his truck until the killer was out of sight on Patton (time estimate from one of your videos)
Benavides checking Tippit and trying to call the dispatcher (estimated at around 1:15)
Bowley arriving and parking a fair distance away so his daughter would not see, walking up to the scene and taking the radio from Benavides to make his 46 seconds call and leave the patrol car.(if Benavides keying the mic lasted one minute, than Bowley only had one minute to do it all, including making his call, before Callaway got there)


This alone shows beyond doubt that Benavides keying the mic could not have lasted a minute and it shows Bowley could not have made his radio call at 1:17, because Callaway would have been there by then, which in turn demonstrates that the time stamps on the radio recordings can not be correct!

Look.  Bottom line.  You doubt the authentic time stamps of the police tapes.  I don't.  There's nothing to discuss, really.

Of course there is something to discuss because only one of us can be right. To determine which one that is, you need to be willing to look at all the evidence, and it seems you simply don't want to do that. You stubbornly keep insisting that the times on the police tapes are correct no matter how much evidence is presented that they were not. You even ignore, or at least try to play down, the fact that the man in charge of the radio dispatchers, J.C. Bowles, told the HSCA that the time calls on the recordings are not real time

Didn't you have a litmus test to find out exactly how determined one is at finding the truth?

[Dan O'meara]

The problem is that according to Frazier's testimony the light gray jacket (CE 162) was worn by Oswald during the trip on Thursday evening to Irving. The fact that he wore the blue/gray jacket (CE 163) to work on Friday morning, which means that the light gray jacket stayed behind at Irving.

So, how did the light gray jacket get from Irving to the rooming house?

FBI Report 12/2/63

"At about 4:45 PM, on November 21, 1963, FRAZIER and OSWALD departed the TSBD building, walked to FRAZIER'S car, and drove to Irving. OSWALD did not have a package and was not carrying anything with him at that time. As FRAZIER recalls, OSWALD was wearing a reddish shirt and a gray jacket, waist length."


From Frazier's WC testimony

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.
...
Mr. BALL - Was it light or dark gray?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was light grey.

It is clear that Frazier testifies to Oswald wearing a grey jacket to Irving on the evening of the 21st and that he was wearing a light grey jacket when he went to work on the morning of the 22nd.

Nobody recalls seeing Oswald leaving the TSBD so do not know what he was wearing.
McWaters recalls the man who got on the bus was wearing a "little old jacket".
Whaley testifes that Oswald was wearing "some type of jacket".

Is it the case the only person who believes Oswald was wearing a shirt when he got back to the rooming house was Earlene Roberts?
If this is indeed the case we can assume Roberts was mistaken as she wasn't paying attention and two people have already testified that Oswald was wearing a jacket before he reached his rooming house.

Oswald wore his light grey jacket to Irving on the 21st.
He wore the same jacket to work on the 22nd.
He left work wearing the same jacket.
He got back to his room wearing the same jacket.
He left his room wearing the same jacket.

BS. You can not assume that Oswald ditched a jacket unless you demonstrate first which of the two jackets he owned it was.
The blue/gray jacket was found at the TSBD and the light gray jacket was, according to Frazier, worn by Oswald to Irving on Thursday evening. There is no way that light gray jacket could have gotten from Irving to the rooming house.

How can Oswald ditch a jacket if he did not have one to put on in the first place?

Oswald entered the rooming house wearing his light grey jacket and left wearing the same jacket.
He was not wearing it in the Texas Theater

[Martin Weidmann]

FBI Report 12/2/63

"At about 4:45 PM, on November 21, 1963, FRAZIER and OSWALD departed the TSBD building, walked to FRAZIER'S car, and drove to Irving. OSWALD did not have a package and was not carrying anything with him at that time. As FRAZIER recalls, OSWALD was wearing a reddish shirt and a gray jacket, waist length."


From Frazier's WC testimony

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.
...
Mr. BALL - Was it light or dark gray?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was light grey.

It is clear that Frazier testifies to Oswald wearing a grey jacket to Irving on the evening of the 21st and that he was wearing a light grey jacket when he went to work on the morning of the 22nd.

Nobody recalls seeing Oswald leaving the TSBD so do not know what he was wearing.
McWaters recalls the man who got on the bus was wearing a "little old jacket".
Whaley testifes that Oswald was wearing "some type of jacket".

Is it the case the only person who believes Oswald was wearing a shirt when he got back to the rooming house was Earlene Roberts?
If this is indeed the case we can assume Roberts was mistaken as she wasn't paying attention and two people have already testified that Oswald was wearing a jacket before he reached his rooming house.

Oswald wore his light grey jacket to Irving on the 21st.
He wore the same jacket to work on the 22nd.
He left work wearing the same jacket.
He got back to his room wearing the same jacket.
He left his room wearing the same jacket.

Oswald entered the rooming house wearing his light grey jacket and left wearing the same jacket.
He was not wearing it in the Texas Theater

It is clear that Frazier testifies to Oswald wearing a grey jacket to Irving on the evening of the 21st

Indeed and that could only have been CE 162, right?

and that he was wearing a light grey jacket when he went to work on the morning of the 22nd.

So how did they blue/grey jacket (CE 163) end up in the Domino room of the TSBD where it was found after the assassination?

Nobody recalls seeing Oswald leaving the TSBD so do not know what he was wearing.

The last person to see Oswald inside the TSBD after the assassination was Mrs Reid;

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what clothes he had on when you saw him?
Mrs. REID. What he was wearing, he had on a white T-shirt and some kind of wash trousers. What color I couldn't tell you.
Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission Exhibit, first 157 and then 158, and I will ask you if either or both look like they might have been the trousers that you saw him wear or can you tell?
Mrs. REID. I just couldn't be positive about that. I would rather not say, because I just cannot.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether he had any shirt or jacket on over his T-shirt?
Mrs. REID. He did not. He did not have any jacket on.

McWaters recalls the man who got on the bus was wearing a "little old jacket".
Whaley testifes that Oswald was wearing "some type of jacket".

But McWaters did not even identify Oswald was the man he had seen and Whaley actually said that his passenger was wearing two jackets, which was impossible if Oswald left the TSBD without a jacket.

Is it the case the only person who believes Oswald was wearing a shirt when he got back to the rooming house was Earlene Roberts?

Yes.

If this is indeed the case we can assume Roberts was mistaken as she wasn't paying attention and two people have already testified that Oswald was wearing a jacket before he reached his rooming house.

Why can we assume that Roberts was mistaken (because she wasn't paying attention) about what Oswald was wearing when he came in and why can't we assume that Roberts was mistaken (for the same reason) about Oswald leaving wearing a jacket? You are applying a double standard, why?

Oswald wore his light grey jacket to Irving on the 21st.
He wore the same jacket to work on the 22nd.
He left work wearing the same jacket.
He got back to his room wearing the same jacket.
He left his room wearing the same jacket.

Nice bit of speculation for which there is no evidence. But it does suggest that you have understood that the discrepancy between Roberts' and Frazier's testimony about the grey jacket is an evidentiary problem which requires some sort of explanation on how the grey jacket got from Irving (where it was on Thursday evening) to the rooming house on Friday 1:00 PM.

Oswald entered the rooming house wearing his light grey jacket and left wearing the same jacket. He was not wearing it in the Texas Theater

Assumes facts not in evidence.

[Bill Brown]

BS. You can not assume that Oswald ditched a jacket unless you demonstrate first which of the two jackets he owned it was.
The blue/gray jacket was found at the TSBD and the light gray jacket was, according to Frazier, worn by Oswald to Irving on Thursday evening. There is no way that light gray jacket could have gotten from Irving to the rooming house.

Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket, zipping it up as he went out the door.  Why did he ditch that jacket somewhere, anywhere, between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?  For once, give a reasonable explanation for this.

[Bill Brown]

Just telling me that I am in denial about the accuracy of the time stamps doesn't make it so. It's a meaningless comment from somebody who clearly foolishly thinks he knows better than others. There is a preponderance of evidence that shows that the time line provided by the police tapes can not be correct, including a statement to the HSCA from the man in charge of the DPD dispatchers;

There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time." - J.C. Bowles

You're missing the point.

Bowles' words tell us that the tapes could be off somewhat.  That's not even a guarantee, as you seem to believe it is.  However, the point is... the tapes could be off slightly one direction or the other.  YOU, in order to get your cop-killer off the hook, need them to be off by as much as eight minutes.  That's the point.

[Bill Brown]

I went back and checked and you are right. I could have sworn you said two minutes, but it seems you said one minute.

So then please stop misquoting me, which you seem to do once every couple months.