Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket  (Read 186822 times)

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1845
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #424 on: February 09, 2018, 02:25:56 PM »
Advertisement
Westbrook then takes the jacket, not leaving it in situ, so that when W.E. Barnes of the crime lab arrives there is nothing to photograph but a parked car.

Somehow sounds familiar, doesn't it? Evidence being presented that was found by somebody we don't know and was never photographed in situ.

At the time, they were looking for someone who just killed a police officer moments earlier.  They weren't concerned with "photographing the jacket in situ".

What they were worried about is grabbing the jacket to see if there was anything inside which might lead them to the guy who just shot a fellow officer in the head.

Some of you guys lack the ability to place yourself in their shoes and trying to understand what they were going through at the time.

Now, do you have any evidence whatsoever, I mean any little thing at all, which points to anyone other than Lee Oswald in the shooting death of J.D. Tippit?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #424 on: February 09, 2018, 02:25:56 PM »


Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1845
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #425 on: February 09, 2018, 03:04:28 PM »
Flat on your face beside BB.

We're discussing evidence (or lack of ) not why the DPD screwed up crime scenes.

How about you?  Do you have any evidence to show which supports the idea that anyone other than Lee Oswald killed J.D. Tippit?  Maybe you can help Weidmann out.  Can you post evidence which points to someone else not named Lee Oswald?

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #426 on: February 09, 2018, 03:07:37 PM »

"Some of you guys lack the ability to place yourself in their shoes and trying to understand what they were going through at the time."

No truer words have ever been typed.

Said one clown to another.....

Pathetic insults and patronizing replies do not alter the facts.

Westbrook belonged to the DPD personnel office, for crying out loud. He was not hunting a killer and had no business handling evidence. He was with FBI agent Barrett following the events as they unfolded.

And even if he wanted to search the jacket, that's still no reason to remove the jacket from the scene before W.E. Barnes of the crime lab got there. Those guys were supposed to be professionals and regardless "what they were going through", they should have acted that way instead of making pathetic excuses afterwards.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #426 on: February 09, 2018, 03:07:37 PM »


Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5387
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #427 on: February 09, 2018, 03:19:29 PM »
Said one clown to another.....

Pathetic insults and patronizing replies do not alter the facts.

Westbrook belonged to the DPD personnel office, for crying out loud. He was not hunting a killer and had no business handling evidence. He was with FBI agent Barrett following the events as they unfolded.

And even if he wanted to search the jacket, that's still no reason to remove the jacket from the scene before W.E. Barnes of the crime lab got there. Those guys were supposed to be professionals and regardless "what they were going through", they should have acted that way instead of making pathetic excuses afterwards.

Martin has watched too many episodes of CSI.  This happened in 1963.  Police investigations were a lot different then.  But that kind of lazy, defense attorney argument creates no doubt of Oswald's guilt.  It's just a way to extend the discussion by distracting from the evidence.

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #428 on: February 09, 2018, 03:22:46 PM »

Wow Marty you seem a little puckered up this morning, relax.

So they weren't so professional, ok I agree. Now what? Does that mean we throw the baby out with the bath water?

Does that mean we throw the baby out with the bath water?

What baby would that be? Is there a baby left to throw out?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #428 on: February 09, 2018, 03:22:46 PM »


Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #429 on: February 09, 2018, 03:32:08 PM »

Martin has watched too many episodes of CSI.  This happened in 1963.  Police investigations were a lot different then.  But that kind of lazy, defense attorney argument creates no doubt of Oswald's guilt.  It's just a way to extend the discussion by distracting from the evidence.


Martin has watched too many episodes of CSI. 

A fool's argument.

This happened in 1963.  Police investigations were a lot different then.

I agree... they were far more a rush to judgment then.... especially in Texas

It's just a way to extend the discussion by distracting from the evidence.

What evidence?..... There is none, stupid! All you've got is Westbrook's scouts honor!

You've got a half blind woman who was concentrating more on getting the TV to work, claiming Oswald (who she only could have seen in the blink of an eye) left the roominghouse wearing a jacket, but when she is shown CE 162 she says the jacket she saw was darker...... as in darker, like perhaps his shirt? Remember officer Baker making the same mistake in the 2nd floor lunchroom?

Then you've got a jacket allegedly found under a car, described by two officers who saw it in broad daylight as being white.

And you've got a gray jacket suddenly showing up at the police station but nobody can tell us where it came from or who brought it in. What we do know is that it is initialed by two officers who did not find or see it at the car park and did not handle it until it got to the station....
« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 02:13:08 PM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1845
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #430 on: February 09, 2018, 03:36:14 PM »
Said one clown to another.....

Pathetic insults and patronizing replies do not alter the facts.

Westbrook belonged to the DPD personnel office, for crying out loud. He was not hunting a killer and had no business handling evidence. He was with FBI agent Barrett following the events as they unfolded.

And even if he wanted to search the jacket, that's still no reason to remove the jacket from the scene before W.E. Barnes of the crime lab got there. Those guys were supposed to be professionals and regardless "what they were going through", they should have acted that way instead of making pathetic excuses afterwards.


Quote
Westbrook belonged to the DPD personnel office, for crying out loud. He was not hunting a killer and had no business handling evidence.

You're not making sense.  You've argued that someone other than Westbrook picked up the jacket from underneath the car.

Therefore, once Westbrook "handled" the evidence, it had already been picked up by another and it makes no sense to criticize him for the jacket being picked up off the ground.

By the way, do you have ANY thing at all to post which suggests that someone other than Lee Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit?

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1845
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #431 on: February 09, 2018, 03:37:58 PM »
How about you?  Do you have any evidence to show which supports the idea that anyone other than Lee Oswald killed J.D. Tippit?  Maybe you can help Weidmann out.  Can you post evidence which points to someone else not named Lee Oswald?

I don't entertain a specific theory.

You do and your evidence is as weak as can be.

I'm surprised this has to be explained to you over and over.

Translation:  No.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #431 on: February 09, 2018, 03:37:58 PM »