Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket

[Tim Nickerson]

I am not sure I understand this It is certainly possible that an item, whose chain of evidence is not known, may indeed be the original item in question. Is that what you are saying?

I'm saying that sometimes items can be admitted into courts of law as evidence without presenting a chain of custody. If an item is readily identifiable or has been made readily identifiable, then establishing a chain of custody is unnecessary. For items that don't fall into that category or are not self-identifying, a chain of custody may be required. However, even an imperfect chain of custody will rarely, if ever, keep non-fungible items from being admitted as evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

The FBI checked every dry cleaner in the Dallas area (over 400) and every dry cleaner in New Orleans (250 plus) and could NOT match the laundry tag to LHO.

The LN lame-excuse-du-jour for that is that Oswald "must have" got the jacket from a thrift store which "must have" gotten the jacket from a person who laundered it somewhere other than in the Dallas or New Orleans areas.

Because they want to cling to the conclusion that it was Oswald's jacket despite there being no evidence for that whatsoever.

[Howard Gee]

Straight out of the LN playbook.  If a piece of "evidence" can't be authenticated, then make an appeal to a strawman of "vast conspirators" and hope that will distract everyone from noticing your unauthenticated evidence.

Then never actually explain how a jacket in a parking lot is evidence of murder in the first place...

Actually, it's straight out of the common sense playbook.

It's sad, but not surprising, that the Saint Oz fanbois don't see the significance of the jacket being found BEFORE their hero was arrested.

But you can bet your azz if his landlady reported he was not wearing a jacket when he left the boarding house, or if he was wearing or had a jacket with him when arrested in the theater, the fanbois would say that's exculpatory evidence.

And in this matter, the fanbois would be right. It would be exculpatory evidence. It would be hard to imagine Saint Oz wearing two jackets. 

However, in the real world, the jacket was found before he was arrested and before his landlady reported he was wearing a jacket when he left his room.

So the cops got real lucky planting the jacket.

And they got 'hit the lottery' lucky when fibers in the jacket just happened to match the shirt Saint Oz was wearing.

TOO MUCH COMMON SENSE FOR THE SAINT OZ FANBOIS TO HANDLE

[John Iacoletti]

Actually, it's straight out of the common sense playbook.

"common sense" is what you appeal to when you don't have actual evidence for what you believe.

But you can bet your azz if his landlady reported he was not wearing a jacket when he left the boarding house, or if he was wearing or had a jacket with him when arrested in the theater, the fanbois would say that's exculpatory evidence.

Another strawman argument.  How predictable. 

And in this matter, the fanbois would be right. It would be exculpatory evidence. It would be hard to imagine Saint Oz wearing two jackets. 

William Whaley didn't have any problem imagining that.

However, in the real world, the jacket was found before he was arrested and before his landlady reported he was wearing a jacket when he left his room.

Yeah, and that's supposed to demonstrate what, exactly?

So the cops got real lucky planting the jacket.

Who said the cops planted the jacket?  Do you have any good reason to believe that CE 162

a) was the jacket found in the parking lot?
b) belonged to Oswald?
c) demonstrates anything at all about who killed Tippit?

[Howard Gee]

You LNers seem to have no regard for our justice system as you seem to spit on all our rights and processes.

I for one (and I am sure other CTers feel the same way) am not here to defend LHO, but rather our justice system. You cannot accuse people of murder and then provide no evidence to support it.

LMAO @ 'There is no evidence' Carpio: defender of truth, justice, and the American way.

It's a good thing you're not here to defend Saint Oz because the hysterical 'there is no evidence' mantra is failing miserably.

[Mike Orr]

Maybe the White jacket belonged to the person who killed J.D. Tippit . Once again , that was a hell of a shot by Oswald to shoot Tippit from the Texas Theater and of course they would tie him in to the assassination of JFK, which of course was another hell of a shot since Oswald was in the breakroom at the TSBD . LNers , give it up ! You didn't have a case back then and you don't have a case now ! Give it up ! I would hate to get your take on 9/11 and the first 3 concrete and steel buildings to collapse , Ever , and building 7 was not ever hit by a plane as it fell into it's own footprints as did both of the "Twin Towers" as in just like a Controlled Demolition !!!!!

[Howard Gee]

I knew the significance of the jacket being found before Saint Oz was arrested would be lost on his fanboi cult.

The fanboi droolers are so predictable.

[John Iacoletti]

I knew the significance of the jacket being found before Saint Oz was arrested would be lost on his fanboi cult.

The fanboi droolers are so predictable.

LOL.  Something isn't "significant" just because the cowardly troll boy wants it to be.  Answer the question, Howard:

Do you have any good reasons to believe that CE 162

a) was the jacket found in the parking lot?
b) belonged to Oswald?
c) demonstrates anything at all about who killed Tippit?

Here's your chance to show that you have something other than schoolboy insults.