A hole in Bledsoe's story?

[Lance Payette]

Sadly, this image speaks the truth. What does it say about us? Maybe that we should honestly reconsider our prejudices? I think that a lot of the conspiracy theory books, movies, etc have also been sold based on the idea of appealing to the general public’s natural distrust of the people in power in the government. Not that I think we should blindly trust them. We do in this country have the right to publicly question things. It is just I believe that the attitude of “I will never believe anything the government tells me” is apparently way too common. Ask the questions, because that is being responsible. But at some point in time, after the questions have all been answered, the attitude (prejudice) becomes obvious and ridiculous. I think this hole in the shirt idea is a good example.

You make a valid point, but I believe the issue with threads like this is somewhat different. I think most Americans, including those with a skeptical view of government and official explanations (including me) would look at a thread such as this (and most threads on JFKA forums), roll their eyes, and say “Oh, Jesus, come on ….”

A couple of years ago, I read an excellent scholarly book that examined numerous conspiracy theories throughout U.S. history. For example, it was once widely believed that the Pearl Harbor attack was known in advance but FDR’s administration did nothing because they wanted an excuse for the U.S. to enter WW2, contrary to strong public opinion at the time.

The author’s point was that, in every case, there was government malfeasance, dissembling and cover-up. It had nothing to do with the supposed conspiracy but served as the basis for conspiracy theorizing. The theorizing was completely wrong, but the government malfeasance, dissembling and cover-up had fueled it. I happen to believe the JFKA is pretty much the same.

So this why, at a 30,000-foot level, a large percentage of the public has a general suspicion of the official explanation for the JFKA and a willingness to entertain a conspiracy in general terms. As my best friend says, “I think the Bay of Pigs had something to do with it.” That’s the level of his interest and knowledge in the JFKA: Yeah, there was probably more to it than just Oswald.

Not so with threads like this and Conspiracy Thinking in general. It’s a particular conspiracy-prone mindset that is thoroughly documented in the psychological and sociological literature. Those with this mindset aren't necessarily unintelligent, delusional or otherwise aberrant, but they are, compared to others, simply not thinking clearly.

My citations to the literature were, by far, my most detested posts at the Ed Forum. Play the game and debate the SBT ad nauseam and all is well; you're a Lone Nutter and thus Not One of Us, but at least you’re playing the game and pretending the our goofy arguments are worthy of debate. You’re ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that Conspiracy Thinking is fundamentally irrational. “You’re simply not thinking clearly” makes a CTer apoplectic, but it’s usually the truth.

I enjoy exposing specific Conspiracy Factoids from time to time because it exercises my brain and research skills, but continually engaging with CTers on issues like the one on this thread seems to me kind of pointless unless one just finds it entertaining.

[Dan O'meara]

Sadly, this image speaks the truth. What does it say about us? Maybe that we should honestly reconsider our prejudices? I think that a lot of the conspiracy theory books, movies, etc have also been sold based on the idea of appealing to the general public’s natural distrust of the people in power in the government. Not that I think we should blindly trust them. We do in this country have the right to publicly question things. It is just I believe that the attitude of “I will never believe anything the government tells me” is apparently way too common. Ask the questions, because that is being responsible. But at some point in time, after the questions have all been answered, the attitude (prejudice) becomes obvious and ridiculous. I think this hole in the shirt idea is a good example.

Ironically, this "hole in the shirt idea" shows me what this forum could actually be.
The Secret Service taking the shirt out to Bledsoe is really weird. I'm just a layman regarding the justice system, but I find this incredibly strange and worthy of questioning.
So, Martin questions the hole in the shirt.
I went to Pat Speer's website and he covers this issue in great detail. The argument he puts forward is very compelling.
But then John puts forward a more superior argument.
I find John's presentation more convincing and now agree that the hole was in the shirt when Oswald was arrested.
This is how it should be.

"...after the questions have all been answered..."

You really think all the questions have been answered?
Even on this tiny detail of the case?
Why did Sorrels take the shirt out to Bledsoe?
Was this the shirt Oswald was wearing when Bledsoe saw him on the bus?
I don't think either of these questions have been answered satisfactorily.

[Charles Collins]

Ironically, this "hole in the shirt idea" shows me what this forum could actually be.
The Secret Service taking the shirt out to Bledsoe is really weird. I'm just a layman regarding the justice system, but I find this incredibly strange and worthy of questioning.
So, Martin questions the hole in the shirt.
I went to Pat Speer's website and he covers this issue in great detail. The argument he puts forward is very compelling.
But then John puts forward a more superior argument.
I find John's presentation more convincing and now agree that the hole was in the shirt when Oswald was arrested.
This is how it should be.

"...after the questions have all been answered..."

You really think all the questions have been answered?
Even on this tiny detail of the case?
Why did Sorrels take the shirt out to Bledsoe?
Was this the shirt Oswald was wearing when Bledsoe saw him on the bus?
I don't think either of these questions have been answered satisfactorily.

Why did Sorrels take the shirt out to Bledsoe?

What is your source that Sorrels took the shirt out to Bledsoe? Just Bledsoe's testimony? Or is there something else that corroborates it?

[Charles Collins]

Ironically, this "hole in the shirt idea" shows me what this forum could actually be.
The Secret Service taking the shirt out to Bledsoe is really weird. I'm just a layman regarding the justice system, but I find this incredibly strange and worthy of questioning.
So, Martin questions the hole in the shirt.
I went to Pat Speer's website and he covers this issue in great detail. The argument he puts forward is very compelling.
But then John puts forward a more superior argument.
I find John's presentation more convincing and now agree that the hole was in the shirt when Oswald was arrested.
This is how it should be.

"...after the questions have all been answered..."

You really think all the questions have been answered?
Even on this tiny detail of the case?
Why did Sorrels take the shirt out to Bledsoe?
Was this the shirt Oswald was wearing when Bledsoe saw him on the bus?
I don't think either of these questions have been answered satisfactorily.

Why did Sorrels take the shirt out to Bledsoe?

Here’s a snippet from “Reclaiming History” by Vincent Bugliosi:

Earlier, when the FBI first showed Mrs. Bledsoe the shirt, she said, “No, no. That is not the shirt” Oswald was wearing. But the FBI report of the December 4, 1963, interview by Special Agents Carl Brown and Robert Butler goes on to say, “She then inquired as to whether the shirt had a ragged elbow. Upon further examination of the shirt, she observed a hole in the right elbow of the shirt, at which time she quickly stated, ‘Yes, yes. This is the shirt.’”


So it appears that your question should be: Why did the FBI agents take the shirt out to Bledsoe? I haven’t searched for their report. But it should be available as part of the records. My guess is that they wanted to find out if she remembered what the shirt LHO was wearing on the bus looked like. And they already had some fiber evidence that suggested that CE 150 was the shirt. If Bugliosi got things right, she apparently did remember a ragged elbow. Bugliosi addressed the question and gave it a thorough investigation. You can read it in his book starting on page 4724 on my Kindle version as viewed on my iPad. Or just search for CE 150 and it shows up as result number 12.

[Martin Weidmann]

Why did Sorrels take the shirt out to Bledsoe?

Here’s a snippet from “Reclaiming History” by Vincent Bugliosi:

Earlier, when the FBI first showed Mrs. Bledsoe the shirt, she said, “No, no. That is not the shirt” Oswald was wearing. But the FBI report of the December 4, 1963, interview by Special Agents Carl Brown and Robert Butler goes on to say, “She then inquired as to whether the shirt had a ragged elbow. Upon further examination of the shirt, she observed a hole in the right elbow of the shirt, at which time she quickly stated, ‘Yes, yes. This is the shirt.’”


So it appears that your question should be: Why did the FBI agents take the shirt out to Bledsoe? I haven’t searched for their report. But it should be available as part of the records. My guess is that they wanted to find out if she remembered what the shirt LHO was wearing on the bus looked like. And they already had some fiber evidence that suggested that CE 150 was the shirt. If Bugliosi got things right, she apparently did remember a ragged elbow. Bugliosi addressed the question and gave it a thorough investigation. You can read it in his book starting on page 4724 on my Kindle version as viewed on my iPad. Or just search for CE 150 and it shows up as result number 12.

Let's just have a look at Bledsoe's confusing testimony;

Mr. BALL - Now, I have got a piece of clothing here, which is marked---
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - Commission Exhibit 150.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - This is a shirt.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Because they brought it out to the house and showed it.

Does Bledsoe recognize the shirt because she saw Oswald wearing it or because it was brought to her house?

Mr. BALL - I know. What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, because I can recognize it.
Mr. BALL - Recognize it as what?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes, sir; see there?
Mr. BALL - Yes. You tell me what do you see here? What permits you to recognize it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I recognize---first thing I notice the elbow is out and then I saw---when the man brought it out and let me see it?

So, she recognizes the shirt because "the man brought it out and let me see it"? She doesn't recognize the shirt because she saw Oswald wear it?

So, Ball tries again

Mr. BALL - No, I am talking about---I am showing you this shirt now, and you said, "That is it." You mean---What do you mean by "that is it"?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is the one he had out there that day?
Mr. BALL - Who had it out there?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Some Secret Service man.
Mr. BALL - He brought it out. Now, I am---you have seen this shirt then before?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - It was brought out by the Secret Service man and shown to you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.

Bledsoe still seems to be sticking by her statement that she recognized the shirt because it was brought to her home and shown to her

Mr. BALL - Had you ever seen the shirt before that?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well---
Mr. BALL - Have you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No; he had it on, though.
Mr. BALL - Who had it on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oswald.
Mr. BALL - Oswald had it on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oswald had it on.

Now it really gets confusing. When asked if she had seen the shirt before it was brought to her home, she answers "no; he had it on though". Does this make sense?

Mr. BALL - Now, what is there about the shirt that makes you believe that this is the shirt that Oswald had on when he was on the bus? What is there about it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, let's see the front of it. Yes See all this [indicating]? I remember that.
Mr. BALL - Tell me what you see there?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I saw the---no; not so much that. It was done after---that is part I recognize more than anything.
Mr. BALL - You are pointing to a hole in the right elbow?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.

So, some five months after the assassination, she still does not really recognize the shirt as the one Oswald was wearing. All she really remembers is the hole in the right elbow. And that's a positive identification? Really?

[John Mytton]

Let's just have a look at Bledsoe's confusing testimony;

Mr. BALL - Now, I have got a piece of clothing here, which is marked---
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - Commission Exhibit 150.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - This is a shirt.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Because they brought it out to the house and showed it.

Does Bledsoe recognize the shirt because she saw Oswald wearing it or because it was brought to her house?

Mr. BALL - I know. What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, because I can recognize it.
Mr. BALL - Recognize it as what?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes, sir; see there?
Mr. BALL - Yes. You tell me what do you see here? What permits you to recognize it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I recognize---first thing I notice the elbow is out and then I saw---when the man brought it out and let me see it?

So, she recognizes the shirt because "the man brought it out and let me see it"? She doesn't recognize the shirt because she saw Oswald wear it?

So, Ball tries again

Mr. BALL - No, I am talking about---I am showing you this shirt now, and you said, "That is it." You mean---What do you mean by "that is it"?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is the one he had out there that day?
Mr. BALL - Who had it out there?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Some Secret Service man.
Mr. BALL - He brought it out. Now, I am---you have seen this shirt then before?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - It was brought out by the Secret Service man and shown to you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.

Bledsoe still seems to be sticking by her statement that she recognized the shirt because it was brought to her home and shown to her

Mr. BALL - Had you ever seen the shirt before that?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well---
Mr. BALL - Have you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No; he had it on, though.
Mr. BALL - Who had it on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oswald.
Mr. BALL - Oswald had it on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oswald had it on.

Now it really gets confusing. When asked if she had seen the shirt before it was brought to her home, she answers "no; he had it on though". Does this make sense?

Mr. BALL - Now, what is there about the shirt that makes you believe that this is the shirt that Oswald had on when he was on the bus? What is there about it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, let's see the front of it. Yes See all this [indicating]? I remember that.
Mr. BALL - Tell me what you see there?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I saw the---no; not so much that. It was done after---that is part I recognize more than anything.
Mr. BALL - You are pointing to a hole in the right elbow?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.

So, some five months after the assassination, she still does not really recognizes the shirt as the one Oswald was wearing. All she really remembers is the hole in the right elbow. And that's a positive identification? Really?

So, some five months after the assassination, she still does not really recognizes the shirt as the one Oswald was wearing.

Even if that is true, so what!

1) Oswald had the bus transfer proving he was on the bus.
2) Bledsoe and McWatters corroborated testimony on specific details prove Bledsoe was on the bus.
3) Bledsoe's next day affidavit contained details which I never found being released to the public.
4) IIRC not one employee remembered that Oswald was wearing that shirt, suggesting he was just insignificant.
5) FBI's Stomberg testified that while the fibers were fresh, the exact time they were placed on the rifle could not be determined.
6) Oswald was wearing the shirt at the time of his arrest proving he was in possession of the shirt.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Even if that is true, so what!

1) Oswald had the bus transfer proving he was on the bus.
2) Bledsoe and McWatters corroborated testimony on specific details prove Bledsoe was on the bus.
3) Bledsoe's next day affidavit contained details which I never found being released to the public.
4) IIRC not one employee remembered that Oswald was wearing that shirt, suggesting he was just insignificant.
5) FBI's Stomberg testified that while the fibers were fresh, the exact time they were placed on the rifle could not be determined.
6) Oswald was wearing the shirt at the time of his arrest proving he was in possession of the shirt.

JohnM

What's your point?

Of course Oswald was wearing the shirt at the time of his arrest.

So, why was it so important to place him on a bus wearing that particular shirt?

You are not getting any of this, aren't you?

[John Mytton]

What's your point?

Of course Oswald was wearing the shirt at the time of his arrest.

So, why was it so important to place him on a bus wearing that particular shirt?

You are not getting any of this, aren't you?

What's your point?

It's your thread, that you started with a plethora of mistakes and wrong assumptions which BTW you never acknowledged, and now it's my problem? Seriously?

Of course Oswald was wearing the shirt at the time of his arrest.

Whew, at least you got something right!

So, why was it so important to place him on a bus wearing that particular shirt?

The authorities were in the process of accumulating an excess of evidence to determine Oswald's flight from the scene of his crime.

You are not getting any of this, aren't you?

Apparently not? Besides this clear diversion and the facts that I have already stated, please explain to me why you believe Oswald wearing the brown shirt on the bus was so important?

JohnM