Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Bill Chapman]

The thing is Bill, I'm not offering up Whaley's testimony in isolation.
It is part of a narrative founded on Frazier's unequivocal identification of the jacket Oswald wore to work that morning.

Frazier is 100% certain Oswald was not wearing CE 163
Frazier is 100% certain Oswald was wearing a light grey, long sleeved zipper jacket to work that morning.
The same jacket he was wearing when he dropped him off at Irving on Thursday.

Frazier's unequivocal ID of the jacket is surely the kind of thing we should build our narrative on.
He rode to work with Oswald that morning. He sat right next to him.
He walked behind him as they went to the TSBD.
He was familiar with the jacket.
He was totally unfamiliar with CE 163.

I don't understand how you can brush off Frazier's testimony or why you would do that.
Regarding Oswald's jacket, Frazier's testimony is possibly the only testimony that is certain and definitive.
So, surely we start with this and then build on it.

Why don't you accept Frazier's testimony regarding Oswald's jacket?

Where did I say that I don't accept Buell's testimony? You're being overly defensive here.

If you want to hands-down accept the testimony of the guy who drove the killer to work (a fact that in itself is fraught with a potential world-of-hurt for Buell) then good luck with that. By the way, Buell has said that he didn't want to be seen as the guy who drove the suspect to the scene of the crime. Or words to that effect.

However, the fact remains that the bulkier jacket was found not only to be left behind in the TSBD, but also supported as the jacket Linnie saw Oswald wearing that AM in Irving.

[Bill Chapman]

Roberts did not say she saw Oswald carrying a jacket when he left so your misleading picture is irrelevant.

I did not say anything about Oswald leaving, let alone carrying a jacket. I'm replying to Dan's suggestion that Oswald might have taken his jacket off prior to being seen by Earlene. Thus her testimony of seeing him in shirt sleeves. You barged in with the charge that 5 seconds is not enough time to make a 'sound observation'. The image I posted disproves that unless you are really, really slow on the uptake. Which you appear to be in this instance.

[Martin Weidmann]

I did not say anything about Oswald leaving, let alone carrying a jacket. I'm replying to Dan's suggestion that Oswald might have taken his jacket off prior to being seen by Earlene. Thus her testimony of seeing him in shirt sleeves. You barged in with the charge that 5 seconds is not enough time to make a 'sound observation'. The image I posted disproves that unless you are really, really slow on the uptake. Which you appear to be in this instance.

I'm replying to Dan's suggestion that Oswald might have taken his jacket off prior to being seen by Earlene. Thus her testimony of seeing him in shirt sleeves.

Earlier Dan replied to one of your posts, which turned out to be addressed to me. Now a similar confusion happens again. This time you placed your reply to Dan under a quote from one of my posts. Could it be a lack of communication skills?

But I agree that Earlene Roberts would have seen Oswald carrying a jacket as he entered the house. She didn't see it because he wasn't carrying one.

You barged in with the charge that 5 seconds is not enough time to make a 'sound observation'.

The 5 seconds is not enough remark was about Oswald leaving the rooming house. That was made clear in my post. You're the one who seems to be confused or not paying attention

The image I posted disproves that unless you are really, really slow on the uptake. Which you appear to be in this instance.

It has already been established that your ramblings very often simply don't make sense are result in confusion.

Have a good time concocting another fairytale story with Dan 

[Alan Ford]

Sure, just like Marion Baker

Mr. BAKER - At that particular time I was looking at his face, and it seemed to me like he had a light brown jacket on and maybe some kind of white-looking shirt.

I still consider this weirdly bald-spotted fellow (in Hughes film) to be the real person of interest in the matters of
----------SN shooter
----------man encountered by Officer Baker
----------murderer of Officer Tippit

[Dan O'meara]

Where did I say that I don't accept Buell's testimony? You're being overly defensive here.

Without getting too 'pantomime' about - I've not said that you ever said you don't accept Frazier's testimony about the jacket.
It's just that...well...I get the strong impression (maybe I'm wrong here) that you are of the opinion Oswald wore CE 163 to work and left it behind in his rush to get out of the TSBD.
If so, by default, you do not accept Frazier's unequivocal testimony regarding what jacket Oswald wore to work that morning.
Not being defensive.
Just saying.

If you want to hands-down accept the testimony of the guy who drove the killer to work (a fact that in itself is fraught with a potential world-of-hurt for Buell) then good luck with that. By the way, Buell has said that he didn't want to be seen as the guy who drove the suspect to the scene of the crime. Or words to that effect.

It makes sense Frazier would want to diminish the size of the package Oswald was carrying as the investigating authorities would rightly find it difficult to believe Frazier didn't notice that Oswald was carrying a rifle-shaped package to work with him.
Frazier was also correct to believe that the very act of driving Oswald to work that morning was going to impact negatively on his life, and, as I understand it, it really did impact negatively on his life.
But that doesn't (IMO) extend to the description of what jacket Oswald had on that morning. And Frazier is definitive about what jacket Oswald had on that morning.
So, as far as accepting his testimony on this detail "hands-down", I don't see the problem.
And I don't see what bearing it has on Oswald's guilt as far as the assassination is concerned.

However, the fact remains that the bulkier jacket was found not only to be left behind in the TSBD, but also supported as the jacket Linnie saw Oswald wearing that AM in Irving.

The fact also remains that Frazier's testimony is definitive whilst Linnie Mae's is uncertain, to say the least.
As for CE 163 being left behind in the TSBD...it's a mystery.
All we can say, with confidence, is that it wasn't the jacket Oswald wore to work that morning.
That is, of course, if Frazier's testimony on the matter means anything.
And I believe it does.

Let's agree to disagree about it.

[Bill Chapman]

I'm replying to Dan's suggestion that Oswald might have taken his jacket off prior to being seen by Earlene. Thus her testimony of seeing him in shirt sleeves.

Earlier Dan replied to one of your posts, which turned out to be addressed to me. Now a similar confusion happens again. Could it be your lack of communication sleeves?

But I agree that Earlene Roberts would have seen Oswald carrying a jacket as he entered the house. She didn't see it because he wasn't carrying one.

You barged in with the charge that 5 seconds is not enough time to make a 'sound observation'.

The 5 seconds is not enough remark was about Oswald leaving the rooming house. That was made clear in my post. You're the one who seems to be confused or not paying attention

The image I posted disproves that unless you are really, really slow on the uptake. Which you appear to be in this instance.

It has already been established that your ramblings very often simply don't make sense are result in confusion.

Have a good time concocting another fairytale story with Dan 

I'm at odds with Dan in case you haven't noticed. Do try to either keep up or move along.

And no concocting of fairy tales necessary as Oswald has already been caught red-handed with his greasy little paws in the cookie jar:


BILL CHAPMAN

[Martin Weidmann]

I'm at odds with Dan in case you haven't noticed. Do try to keep up or move along.
And no concocting of fairy tales necessary as Oswald has already been caught red-handed
with his greasy little paws in the cookie jar:

BILL CHAPMAN

I'm at odds with Dan in case you haven't noticed.

Oh yes I have noticed. We actually both agree that Oswald left CE 163 at the TSBD after wearing it to work that Friday morning. We also agree that he did not enter the rooming house with a jacket either wearing or carrying it.

Dan's flawed conclusion that Oswald wore CE 162 to work on Friday and left the TSBD with it is extremely weak. It requires Reid, Bledsoe and Roberts to be wrong or "mistaken". It assumes that McWatters was indeed talking about Oswald as the man he saw wearing a jacket, when in fact McWatters never identified Oswald and it leaves completely unexplained that fact that CE 163 was later found at the TSBD. Just calling it a "mystery" and then ignore it simply won't do.

[Bill Chapman]

Without getting too 'pantomime' about - I've not said that you ever said you don't accept Frazier's testimony about the jacket.
It's just that...well...I get the strong impression (maybe I'm wrong here) that you are of the opinion Oswald wore CE 163 to work and left it behind in his rush to get out of the TSBD.
If so, by default, you do not accept Frazier's unequivocal testimony regarding what jacket Oswald wore to work that morning.
Not being defensive.
Just saying.

It makes sense Frazier would want to diminish the size of the package Oswald was carrying as the investigating authorities would rightly find it difficult to believe Frazier didn't notice that Oswald was carrying a rifle-shaped package to work with him.
Frazier was also correct to believe that the very act of driving Oswald to work that morning was going to impact negatively on his life, and, as I understand it, it really did impact negatively on his life.
But that doesn't (IMO) extend to the description of what jacket Oswald had on that morning. And Frazier is definitive about what jacket Oswald had on that morning.
So, as far as accepting his testimony on this detail "hands-down", I don't see the problem.
And I don't see what bearing it has on Oswald's guilt as far as the assassination is concerned.

The fact also remains that Frazier's testimony is definitive whilst Linnie Mae's is uncertain, to say the least.
As for CE 163 being left behind in the TSBD...it's a mystery.
All we can say, with confidence, is that it wasn't the jacket Oswald wore to work that morning.
That is, of course, if Frazier's testimony on the matter means anything.
And I believe it does.

Let's agree to disagree about it.

If you believe as I do that Oswald was trying to minimize the size of the package, including folding it in the back seat, then you'll surely agree that the larger, bulkier CE 163 jacket would be the go-to choice to effect that ruse. Buell would have no choice but to rail really hard in support for the less-bulky jacket  (remember he said 'the one with the bulky sleeves') in order to distance himself from any 'you-should-have-noticed' blame game.

And yes, we have arrived at a stalemate.