Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Bill Brown]

Just repeating the same statement and question and expecting a different result is foolish.

If Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket he also could not have ditched it somewhere.

So me proof positive that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket!

Lame.

Show me proof positive Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket!

Fair enough?

[Gerry Down]

Oswald pulled a gun on an officer inside the Texas Theatre and tried to shoot him. That alone is the proof Oswald shot Kennedy.

[Dan O'meara]

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?

We can assume that.

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?

"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."

This is incorrect. Frazier is clear that Oswald was wearing a light grey jacket to work that morning. We must assume it is the same grey jacket he was wearing when Frazier dropped him off. This makes sense. What doesn't make sense is your assertion that Oswald swapped jackets while he was in Irving.
Instead of acknowledging your error you ask how CE 163 ends up in the domino room. What has that got to do with the jacket Frazier saw Oswald wearing on Friday morning? The answer is - it doesn't have anything to do with it.

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.

As I said, nobody saw Oswald leaving the TSBD. So what if Reid saw him upstairs with no jacket. It doesn't mean anything. I don't see why you would even bring that up.

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.

I never said anything about McWatters identifying Oswald. McWatters testifies that the man he gave the transfer ticket to was wearing a jacket. Oswald had that transfer ticket it on him. It is not a stretch to assume Oswald was that man and that he was wearing a jacket. What else makes sense? That the transfer ticket was planted on him? That the investigating authorities wanted to frame him for an aborted bus ride?
Whaley testifies Oswald was wearing a jacket. Unbelievably you argue this could not have been the case if Oswald left the TSBD without a jacket!! The point is surely that Oswald left the TSBD with a jacket on as the bus driver who gave out the transfer ticket that was discovered in Oswald's possession described the man as wearing a jacket. As did the taxi driver who took Oswald home.
Why do you believe Oswald left the TSBD without a jacket? What do you base that on?

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?

We can assume Oswald was wearing a jacket when he entered the rooming house because Whaley confirms he was wearing a jacket when he got in the taxi. There is no reason to assume Oswald didn't take his jacket from the TSBD when he left. There is no reason to assume he got rid of it between the taxi and his room. We must assume he entered the house wearing a jacket which Roberts mistook for some kind of shirt.
The reason we can have more confidence in Roberts' observation that he left the house wearing a jacket is that she specifically recalls Oswald trying to zip it up:

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.

We can even assume why he was trying to zip it up before he left the house - because he had a gun tucked in his trouser belt.

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.

It is speculation based on eye-witness testimony.
McWatters
Whaley
Roberts
Do you have a better fit for the eye-witness testimony.
Remember, there is no reason to assume Oswald left the TSBD without his jacket.
And remember, you are wrong about Oswald wearing the blue/grey jacket to work that morning.

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.

It isn't a fact he wasn't wearing the jacket in the Texas Theater??
Really??
Whatever the case, I'd be interested to know why you assume Oswald left the TSBD without his jacket.

[Dan O'meara]

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.

I don't know much about the tapes but aren't they synchronised to 12:30 PM by the shooting.
From memory I'm aware of a few individuals who independently note the time of the assassination as 12:30 PM (pretty sure Kellerman is one) and the first transmission at 12:30 PM on the tapes is a clear reference to the assassination.

[Gerry Down]

I don't know much about the tapes but aren't they synchronised to 12:30 PM by the shooting.
From memory I'm aware of a few individuals who independently note the time of the assassination as 12:30 PM (pretty sure Kellerman is one) and the first transmission at 12:30 PM on the tapes is a clear reference to the assassination.

Nope. The officer doing the radio broadcasts occasionally has to call out the time. He looks at the clock and calls the time. So a call for 1:15 could either be 1 second after 1:15 or 59 seconds after 1:15. This all throws the timing off. Plus it was never checked if the clock the officer was reading from was correct.

[Bill Brown]

I don't know much about the tapes but aren't they synchronised to 12:30 PM by the shooting.
From memory I'm aware of a few individuals who independently note the time of the assassination as 12:30 PM (pretty sure Kellerman is one) and the first transmission at 12:30 PM on the tapes is a clear reference to the assassination.

Dan, you should post more often.   

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

No I am not missing the point. There is no mistake about what Bowles said;

A master clock on the telephone room wall was connected to the City Hall system. This clock reported "official" time. Within the dispatcher's office there were numerous other time giving and time recording devices, both in the telephone room and in the radio room. Telephone operators and radio operators were furnished "Simplex" clocks. Because the hands often worked loose,they indicated the incorrect time.

[Note: "Official time" is not "real time"]

However, their purpose was to stamp the time, day and date on incoming calls. While they were reliable at this, they were not synchronized as stated in the Committee report. Therefore, it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock. Accordingly, at "exactly" 10:10, various clocks could be stamping from 10:08 to 10:12, for example.

When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. During busy periods this was not readily done.

There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time." The Committee Report stated that the Dallas Police Communications system was recorded by continuously operating recorders. That statement is incorrect. Channel 1 was recorded on a Dictaphone A2TC, Model 5, belt or loop recorder. Channel 2 was recorded on a Gray "Audograph" flat disk recorder. Both were duplex units with one recording and one on standby for when the other unit contained a full recording. Both units were sound activated.

So, a master clock on the telephone room wall reported "official" time (not "real time")
The clocks used by the dispatchers indicated the incorrect time which could differ as much as two minutes either way from the "official" time.
When clocks were out of synchronization they needed adjustments, but during busy periods this was not readily done.
And the recording devices were sound activated, so there can never be a continuous recording to verify the dispatcher's time with "official" time or even "real" time.

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

However, the point is... the tapes could be off slightly one direction or the other.

No. Wrong.... The tapes could not only be off, they were, simply because of the non-continuous recording, and the timeline of Callaway and the others I have just presented and which you (as expected) completely ignored shows that the time stamps on the recording can not be correct

YOU, in order to get your cop-killer off the hook, need them to be off by as much as eight minutes.

That's a pathetic exaggeration. I have no desire to get anybody of the hook but I am not about to take your word for it that he is guilty. So you can throw as many temper tantrums you like. They are meaningless to me.

My time line (you know the one you are not interested in because it is far closer to the truth than yours) has Callaway making his radio call at about 1:13 or 1:14, which means that the time stamps on the recording are at worst roughly 4,5 minutes off. You, on the other hand, have Bowley's watch being off by 7 minutes, the hospital clocks being off by 9 minutes and Markham being mistaken about when she left home by something like 6 minutes.

For your time line to be correct;

* Markham must either have been mistaken about the time she left home to catch her regular bus, or alternatively, a two and a half minute one block walk (as timed by the FBI) must have taken her 10 minutes or so
* Markham said she catched her regular bus, on Jefferson, at 1:15. From 10th to Jefferson it's another 2,5 minutes one block walk, which means that (in your scenario) she must have passed by the corner of 10th and Patton no later than 1:12 or 1:13, yet you have her still standing on the corner of 10th at 1:14 and thus missing her regular bus.
* Bowley' his watch must be wrong by at least five minutes, and he didn't notice it when he picked up his daughter from school
* Callaway (despite what you yourself claimed) must have taken at least 4 minutes or more to run the same block in order to arrive at the scene after Bowley made his radio call
* Croy who was less than 1,5 minute away (at 45 mph) must have taken at least 3 minutes to get van Zang/Colorado to the scene in order to see Callaway there, helping Bowley to put Tippit in the already arrived ambulance
* The clocks at Methodist Hospital must all be wrong and Detective Davenport must also be mistaken when he confirmed Tippit's DOA time at the Hospital as 1:15

In my timeline, everything fits except the time stamps on the DPD radio recordings.

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

[Martin Weidmann]

We can assume that.

"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."

This is incorrect. Frazier is clear that Oswald was wearing a light grey jacket to work that morning. We must assume it is the same grey jacket he was wearing when Frazier dropped him off. This makes sense. What doesn't make sense is your assertion that Oswald swapped jackets while he was in Irving.
Instead of acknowledging your error you ask how CE 163 ends up in the domino room. What has that got to do with the jacket Frazier saw Oswald wearing on Friday morning? The answer is - it doesn't have anything to do with it.

As I said, nobody saw Oswald leaving the TSBD. So what if Reid saw him upstairs with no jacket. It doesn't mean anything. I don't see why you would even bring that up.

I never said anything about McWatters identifying Oswald. McWatters testifies that the man he gave the transfer ticket to was wearing a jacket. Oswald had that transfer ticket it on him. It is not a stretch to assume Oswald was that man and that he was wearing a jacket. What else makes sense? That the transfer ticket was planted on him? That the investigating authorities wanted to frame him for an aborted bus ride?
Whaley testifies Oswald was wearing a jacket. Unbelievably you argue this could not have been the case if Oswald left the TSBD without a jacket!! The point is surely that Oswald left the TSBD with a jacket on as the bus driver who gave out the transfer ticket that was discovered in Oswald's possession described the man as wearing a jacket. As did the taxi driver who took Oswald home.
Why do you believe Oswald left the TSBD without a jacket? What do you base that on?

We can assume Oswald was wearing a jacket when he entered the rooming house because Whaley confirms he was wearing a jacket when he got in the taxi. There is no reason to assume Oswald didn't take his jacket from the TSBD when he left. There is no reason to assume he got rid of it between the taxi and his room. We must assume he entered the house wearing a jacket which Roberts mistook for some kind of shirt.
The reason we can have more confidence in Roberts' observation that he left the house wearing a jacket is that she specifically recalls Oswald trying to zip it up:

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.

We can even assume why he was trying to zip it up before he left the house - because he had a gun tucked in his trouser belt.

It is speculation based on eye-witness testimony.
McWatters
Whaley
Roberts
Do you have a better fit for the eye-witness testimony.
Remember, there is no reason to assume Oswald left the TSBD without his jacket.
And remember, you are wrong about Oswald wearing the blue/grey jacket to work that morning.

It isn't a fact he wasn't wearing the jacket in the Texas Theater??
Really??
Whatever the case, I'd be interested to know why you assume Oswald left the TSBD without his jacket.

Are you sure you're not a LN?

I'm sorry but I have to conclude that you and your assumptions have gone completely over the deep end. There is no point for me to confront you with facts. You clearly prefer to make up your own story.

This is incorrect. Frazier is clear that Oswald was wearing a light grey jacket to work that morning. We must assume it is the same grey jacket he was wearing when Frazier dropped him off.

Can you please show is where in his testimony is Frazier "clear that Oswald was wearing a light grey jacket to work that morning". You're the first LN who (to my knowledge) has ever claimed that and I can't find it in his testimony.

So, if you please would be so kind. Thanks in advance.

Unbelievably you argue this could not have been the case if Oswald left the TSBD without a jacket!! The point is surely that Oswald left the TSBD with a jacket on as the bus driver who gave out the transfer ticket that was discovered in Oswald's possession described the man as wearing a jacket. As did the taxi driver who took Oswald home.
Why do you believe Oswald left the TSBD without a jacket? What do you base that on?

Aren't you forgetting Bledsoe? You know the lady who said she saw Oswald on the bus and remembered it because he had a hole in a sleeve of his shirt (you know, the same hole the fibers are supposed to have come from that allegedly were found on the rifle). How can Bledsoe see a hole in Oswald's shirt sleeve when he was wearing a jacket?