Lee Oswald's Trip To His Roominghouse
David Von Pein
I was recently watching the DVD of the 1978 Mel Stuart-directed
television movie "Ruby And Oswald", which is a film that does a very
nice job of sticking to the known facts in evidence regarding the
timeline of events surrounding the assassination and the days that
followed 11/22/63, and I took note of something quite interesting
during the scene which has Lee Harvey Oswald (played by Frederic
Forrest) rushing into the roominghouse on Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff
at approximately 1:00 PM CST on November 22nd:
During the re-created scene of Oswald's probable movements and actions
while inside his small rented room, actor Forrest hurriedly goes into
the bedroom, closes the door, takes a light windbreaker jacket (like
Oswald's) out of a closet, puts the jacket on, adjusts the collar of
the jacket a little bit, zips the jacket up about halfway (which is
something, btw, that housekeeper Earlene Roberts said that Oswald
didn't do until after he came out of his room or just as he was coming
out of the room), opens a dresser drawer, pulls a revolver out of the
drawer, closes the drawer, stuffs the gun into the waist of his pants,
pulls the jacket back down over his waistband to hide the gun, opens
the bedroom door, exits the room, and closes the door behind him.
The total time that it took for Forrest to accomplish all of the above
actions -- 22 seconds.
The only thing that director Mel Stuart probably should have had
Forrest do differently while he was performing this bedroom re-
creation is to have the actor grab a handful of extra bullets from a
dresser drawer when he was also retrieving the revolver, because it's
doubtful whether the real Oswald was carrying 9 or 10 bullets in his
pants pocket when he went to work with Wesley Frazier from Irving on
the morning of the assassination (seeing as how he didn't have his
revolver with him that morning at all).
Another thing that might have added a few more seconds to the total
time that Oswald spent in his room is the possible need to physically
load his .38 Smith & Wesson revolver with some bullets. Although it's
quite possible, of course, that the gun was already loaded with
bullets before Oswald ever entered the room that day. No one can know
that detail for certain.
So, even if we were add a total of 10, 20, or even 30 full seconds
onto Frederic Forrest's roominghouse re-creation to account for some
additional time required for him to grab a handful of bullets from a
drawer (or elsewhere in the room) and to possibly put a few bullets in
the chamber of the gun, the total time that Forrest would have spent
inside that bedroom would still have been less than 1 minute (and only
32 seconds, total, if we were to add only 10 seconds, which seems like
a reasonable amount of time for a man to pick up a few bullets and put
them in his pocket).
Now, granted, this "re-creation" performed by Frederic Forrest in Mel
Stuart's 1978 TV-movie doesn't "prove" a darn thing with respect to
the real Oswald's actions in November 1963. I'll readily admit that
fact.
But what it does do is to place on film a reconstruction of an event
that is purported to have taken place on November 22, 1963, by Lee
Harvey Oswald....an event that I don't think anyone has re-created on
film elsewhere in other movies or TV shows or documentaries.
And, IMO, Forrest's re-creation of Oswald's alleged movements and post-
assassination actions after arriving at the Beckley roominghouse are
probably very close to the precise movements made by the real Lee
Oswald on 11/22/63.
And the key, IMO, is the fact that all of those actions that Oswald
needed to perform after going into his bedroom could easily be
accomplished in well under one minute (and probably well under 45
seconds, even when adding a few more seconds for Oswald's needed
bullet-grabbing), as proven by actor Frederic Forrest, who did perform
such an approximate re-creation of LHO's actions in less than 25
seconds.
The "How Long Was Oswald In His Room On November 22nd?" topic has come
up at these forums multiple times in the past, and I have added my two
cents to the debate many times, such as the following examples:
"The best guess is that [Lee] Oswald left his roominghouse at
approx. 1:03 or 1:04 PM (CST). My guess is it was even earlier than
that; because there's no way in hell he was fiddling around in that
shoebox of a room for "3 or 4 minutes", per Mrs. [Earlene] Roberts'
account. There would be absolutely no reason (logically-speaking) for
Oswald to have been in that room for more than 30 seconds at most. Was
Earlene Roberts lying? Of course she wasn't. But people have a habit
of stretching out time estimates to (incorrect) lengthier guesses when
they're asked to re-create "timelines"." -- DVP; 06/30/2006
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d9456c10c7229bbd
"I'd still be willing to bet that Oswald was not in that tiny
room for "3 to 4 minutes" either. One minute tops. I don't KNOW this
to be so, quite obviously. But, as stated before, people are
notoriously rotten at gauging precise times and timelines. And Mrs.
Roberts certainly didn't have a stopwatch on Oswald; nor would she
have had any particular REASON to take note of exactly how long Oswald
stayed in his room. Her "3 to 4 minutes" is an estimate, and nothing
more. Next up from Walt I fully expect to see him claiming that J.D.
Tippit was shot at 12:50 PM, or maybe 12:55. It seems to get earlier
with each passing hunk of kookshit he spouts." -- DVP; 08/16/2006
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/feff32649a08fe33
"It's always been my theory (yes, it's a guess, but a good one,
IMO) that Oswald was not in that shoebox-sized room of his on Beckley
for any "3 to 4 minutes" (as ESTIMATED by Mrs. Roberts, who was the
only witness to Oswald's coming in and going out again around 1:00 PM
on 11/22/63). Why on this Earth would Oswald, who was undoubtedly in a
"hurry" (per Roberts herself), spend 3 to 4 minutes in that closet of
a room just to grab his pistol and some bullets?" -- DVP; 08/02/2007
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/40971e54d64656ec
"There's no chance in hell that Oswald spent "3 to 4 minutes" in
that closet/room. No way. I'll never buy that part of Roberts'
account; and this gives [Oswald] more time to reach 10th St., via my
version, which is much more sensible than Roberts'." -- DVP;
09/02/2007
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/33c400e838fbe27f
"The walk back to LHO's roominghouse was re-created by WC
counsel members, and it took 5 minutes and 45 seconds....which would
have placed Oswald back home at approx. 12:59:45 PM. He was probably
in that shoebox of a room for no more than 1 minute (tops), and
probably (IMO) closer to only 30 seconds (Earlene Roberts' "3 to 4
minutes" testimony notwithstanding), which would have given Oswald
ample time to travel the 0.85 of a mile to Tenth Street to kill
Officer Tippit. The trip from 1026 Beckley to the Tippit murder site
on 10th St. has been re-created several times by different people
(with varying results, depending upon the pace, of course), and the
excursion has taken as little as 11 minutes." -- DVP; 11/08/2007
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/da9ac1706cdd917d
"IMO, Oswald was in that room for no more than 1 minute --
tops." -- DVP; 03/17/2008
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1697196b7607382b
"I'll maintain until the cows come home that it's very unlikely
that Oz stayed in that shoebox of a room for any 3-4 minutes that day.
No way. No how." -- DVP; 04/24/2008
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/679eb16f02238b52
"I'll always be of the opinion that Mrs. Roberts was incorrect
when she said that Lee was in his crackerbox of a room for "3 or 4
minutes". There was simply no reason under the moon for him to be in
that room for more than 1 minute--tops." -- DVP; 07/28/2008
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e8c1801145f96b3f
And while it's true that housekeeper Earlene Roberts testified to the
Warren Commission on April 8, 1964, that Oswald "went on to his room
and stayed about 3 or 4 minutes", it's also a fact that Mrs. Roberts
also said that Oswald was in his room "just long enough, I guess, to
go in there and get a jacket and put it on".
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/robertse.htm
http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
Ray
"I'll always be of the opinion that Mrs. Roberts was incorrect
when she said that Lee was in his crackerbox of a room for "3 or 4
minutes". There was simply no reason under the moon for him to be in
that room for more than 1 minute--tops." -- DVP; 07/28/2008
Similar Ostrich-style arguments can be found in key sections of the
Warren Report and VB's book.
When the EVIDENCE flatly contradicts their preconceived conclusion,
they conclude that
THE EVIDENCE IS WRONG.
David Von Pein
Perhaps Ray missed this key hunk of WC testimony from Mrs. Earlene Roberts
(which are words spoken by Roberts IMMEDIATELY after her "3 or 4 minutes"
comments -- immediately!):
"...just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and
put it on and he went out zipping it." -- E. Roberts
Here's the whole WC exchange (for context):
Mr. BALL -- "How long did he [Oswald] stay in the room?"
Mrs. ROBERTS -- "Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes -- just long enough, I
guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out
zipping it."
I guess, therefore, if we're to take BOTH of those time-related
observations to heart, Mrs. Roberts was of the opinion that it would take
a person "3 or 4 minutes" to grab a jacket from a closet-sized room and
put it on.
That's odd, though, because that activity only takes me about 10 seconds.
How about you guys?
yeuhd
> Similar Ostrich-style arguments can be found in key sections of the
> Warren Report and VB's book.
>
> When the EVIDENCE flatly contradicts their preconceived conclusion,
> they conclude that
> THE EVIDENCE IS WRONG.
It is any jury's duty — including the jury of history — to weigh ALL
evidence, and determine which evidence is reliable and which is not.
Earlene Roberts' recollection is only one piece of evidence. We know from
that same testimony that her attention was focused on getting the
television set to work when Oswald entered. Nowhere in her testimony does
she say that she looked at a watch or clock at the time Oswald entered or
exited. The only difference Roberts saw in Oswald when he left his bedroom
was that he had put on a jacket. Nothing was found on Oswald at his arrest
that he would have had to retrieve from his room other than his pistol and
the bullets in his pockets. All of those actions can be performed in less
than a minute. Given that Oswald was "all but running" when he entered,
it's likely that he acted as quickly as possible in his room.
James K. Olmstead
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7d7b6e65-4e62-4def...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
What we can or can not do does not matter in this. The testimony of the
only eyewitness said it took "3 or 4 minutes". This testimony is
critical, because of the critical time element, to put Oswald at murder
scene of Officer Tippit, there are those that can't accept Robert's
testimony at face value.
jko
William Yates
How does "maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes" equal 3 or 4 minutes?
Ray
The only difference Roberts saw in Oswald when he left his bedroom was
that he had put on a jacket.
Did she check his underwear?
He said he changed his shirt and trousers, and as far as I know, no
one has ever proven that he did not.
James K. Olmstead
"William Yates" <william_...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:F6ednbsQgcOuB2jV...@earthlink.com...
It's a maybe....I just cut and pasted the quoted "3 or 4
minutes"......that's why the "'s are around what I wrote.
Nothing concerning Oswald's actions are in stone concerning "testimony"
however one has to object to cutting 180 plus or minus seconds down to
18.......
jko
David Von Pein
>>> "The testimony of the only eyewitness said it took "3 or 4 minutes"."
<<<
And in the very same breath, Earlene Roberts' "3 or 4 minutes" becomes
"...just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it
on and he went out zipping it."
Who takes 240 seconds to put a jacket on?
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 14, 1:19 pm, Ray <j.raymondcarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Similar Ostrich-style arguments can be found in key sections of the
>> Warren Report and VB's book.
>>
>> When the EVIDENCE flatly contradicts their preconceived conclusion,
>> they conclude that
>> THE EVIDENCE IS WRONG.
>
> It is any jury's duty — including the jury of history — to weigh ALL
> evidence, and determine which evidence is reliable and which is not.
The jury is never given ALL the evidence. Only what is admissible and
admitted.
> Earlene Roberts' recollection is only one piece of evidence. We know from
> that same testimony that her attention was focused on getting the
> television set to work when Oswald entered. Nowhere in her testimony does
> she say that she looked at a watch or clock at the time Oswald entered or
> exited. The only difference Roberts saw in Oswald when he left his bedroom
> was that he had put on a jacket. Nothing was found on Oswald at his arrest
> that he would have had to retrieve from his room other than his pistol and
What about the jacket? Oswald left the TSBD sans jacket and had left his
other jacket behind which was found in the TSBD days later.
> the bullets in his pockets. All of those actions can be performed in less
> than a minute. Given that Oswald was "all but running" when he entered,
> it's likely that he acted as quickly as possible in his room.
>
OK. So what? Twice as slow or twice as fast is not going to make it less
likely or more likely that Oswald shot Tippit.
Anthony Marsh
Again, just stop trying to manipulate eyewitness testimony. Most of it
is worthless.
yeuhd
> yeuhd wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 1:19 pm, Ray <j.raymondcarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Similar Ostrich-style arguments can be found in key sections of the
> >> Warren Report and VB's book.
>
> >> When the EVIDENCE flatly contradicts their preconceived conclusion,
> >> they conclude that
> >> THE EVIDENCE IS WRONG.
>
> > It is any jury's duty — including the jury of history — to weigh ALL
> > evidence, and determine which evidence is reliable and which is not.
>
> The jury is never given ALL the evidence. Only what is admissible and
> admitted.
Obviously I am talking about the evidence available to a jury. And in
this case, I think that all the evidence that we have about Oswald's
brief return to his boarding house on Nov. 22 would have been
admissible in court. Or to put it another way, I don't see any
evidence (eyewitness evidence or physical evidence) that would not
have been admissible in court.
> > Earlene Roberts' recollection is only one piece of evidence. We know from
> > that same testimony that her attention was focused on getting the
> > television set to work when Oswald entered. Nowhere in her testimony does
> > she say that she looked at a watch or clock at the time Oswald entered or
> > exited. The only difference Roberts saw in Oswald when he left his bedroom
> > was that he had put on a jacket. Nothing was found on Oswald at his arrest
> > that he would have had to retrieve from his room other than his pistol and
>
> What about the jacket? Oswald left the TSBD sans jacket and had left his
> other jacket behind which was found in the TSBD days later.
Yes, what about the jacket? I said he went into his room and put a
jacket on. What point are you making about his other jacket, the one
he left behind at the TSBD?
> > the bullets in his pockets. All of those actions can be performed in less
> > than a minute. Given that Oswald was "all but running" when he entered,
> > it's likely that he acted as quickly as possible in his room.
>
> OK. So what? Twice as slow or twice as fast is not going to make it less
> likely or more likely that Oswald shot Tippit.
Since you have said elsewhere in this forum that you agree that Oswald
shot Tippit, I'm not sure what your point is. This isn't an argument
with you, it's an argument with those who claim that Oswald didn't
have enough time to shoot Tippit at the time and place that he did.
They use Earlene Roberts's eyewitness testimony without considering
the reliability of the witness, the overall circumstances under which
the incident occurred, the time that passed between the incident and
the witness's testimony, extrinsic evidence that challenges the
eyewitness's statements, etc. And as David Von Pein pointed out above,
they also ignore the witness's own equivocation.
yeuhd
> He said he changed his shirt and trousers, and as far as I know, no
> one has ever proven that he did not.
As Vincent Bugliosi writes,
"There is no unanimity as to what type or color of shirt Oswald was
wearing at the time of the assassination, as opposed to when he was
arrested.…
"Strong evidence that Oswald was wearing the same shirt at the time of
his arrest as at the time he shot Kennedy is the Warren Commission
testimony of Mary E. Bledsoe, Oswald’s former landlady, who identified
Exhibit No. 150 [the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested] as being
the shirt she saw Oswald wearing on the Marsalis bus, remembering the
shirt being brown, but mostly identifying it because of a hole in the
right elbow area, which Exhibit No. 150 has.…
"One of the strongest pieces of evidence (though not conclusive, since
Oswald could have transferred the
bus transfer pass from one shirt to another) that Oswald was wearing
the same shirt at the time he shot Kennedy as he was wearing at the
time he was arrested is that the bus transfer, number 004459, given to
him by the bus driver Cecil J. McWatters shortly after the shooting in
Dealey Plaza, was found in his shirt pocket at the time of his
arrest."
Captain Fritz's handwritten notes of Oswald's interrogation record
that Oswald claimed he took off a "long sleeve red sh[irt]" at his
rooming house. However, among the differing descriptions of what shirt
Oswald wore that day before he arrived at the rooming house, *none*
described him as wearing a red shirt.
James K. Olmstead
Oswald according to the only eye witness.....it's only a estimate of time, however
you nor any other person knows how long it actually took. Regardless if you like
it or not, the eyewitness time account was made in her testimony.
Oswald according to notes presented did enter and leave the rooming house, however
you can't pinpoint the time he spent there beyond the estimate of the only eyewitness
no matter how many re-enactments are done.
Confirm that he did not change his pants, shirt or both.
Confirm that he put on the found jacket (which you can't prove was his) btw
according to Marina his white jacket was at the Paines)
Confirm that "long enough" was only 18 seconds for Oswald.....not some actor.
jko
Anthony Marsh
Putting the jacket on was not the only thing Oswald did.
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 16, 12:21 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> yeuhd wrote:
>>> On Oct 14, 1:19 pm, Ray <j.raymondcarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Similar Ostrich-style arguments can be found in key sections of the
>>>> Warren Report and VB's book.
>>>> When the EVIDENCE flatly contradicts their preconceived conclusion,
>>>> they conclude that
>>>> THE EVIDENCE IS WRONG.
>>> It is any jury's duty — including the jury of history — to weigh ALL
>>> evidence, and determine which evidence is reliable and which is not.
>> The jury is never given ALL the evidence. Only what is admissible and
>> admitted.
>
> Obviously I am talking about the evidence available to a jury. And in
> this case, I think that all the evidence that we have about Oswald's
> brief return to his boarding house on Nov. 22 would have been
> admissible in court. Or to put it another way, I don't see any
> evidence (eyewitness evidence or physical evidence) that would not
> have been admissible in court.
>
The jury of history, we, are not bound by the rules of evidence in the
court case which Oswald never got.
>>> Earlene Roberts' recollection is only one piece of evidence. We know from
>>> that same testimony that her attention was focused on getting the
>>> television set to work when Oswald entered. Nowhere in her testimony does
>>> she say that she looked at a watch or clock at the time Oswald entered or
>>> exited. The only difference Roberts saw in Oswald when he left his bedroom
>>> was that he had put on a jacket. Nothing was found on Oswald at his arrest
>>> that he would have had to retrieve from his room other than his pistol and
>> What about the jacket? Oswald left the TSBD sans jacket and had left his
>> other jacket behind which was found in the TSBD days later.
>
>
> Yes, what about the jacket? I said he went into his room and put a
Yes, what about the jacket? If he left his other jacket in the TSBD, he
decided to wear the one from his room at the rooming house.
Unless he had another jacket that we didn't know about, there is no
possibility and no descriptions from witnesses of Oswald wearing a
jacket before he went to his room. So that makes it perfectly
understandable that his landlady might notice the no jacket/jacket change.
If he had put it on before leaving his room his landlady might not be
able to see any difference in what shirt(s) he was wearing.
> jacket on. What point are you making about his other jacket, the one
> he left behind at the TSBD?
>
>
>>> the bullets in his pockets. All of those actions can be performed in less
>>> than a minute. Given that Oswald was "all but running" when he entered,
>>> it's likely that he acted as quickly as possible in his room.
>> OK. So what? Twice as slow or twice as fast is not going to make it less
>> likely or more likely that Oswald shot Tippit.
>
>
> Since you have said elsewhere in this forum that you agree that Oswald
> shot Tippit, I'm not sure what your point is. This isn't an argument
> with you, it's an argument with those who claim that Oswald didn't
> have enough time to shoot Tippit at the time and place that he did.
Fine, debunk away. But some of your assumptions may not be correct and
some may be irrelevant.
> They use Earlene Roberts's eyewitness testimony without considering
> the reliability of the witness, the overall circumstances under which
> the incident occurred, the time that passed between the incident and
> the witness's testimony, extrinsic evidence that challenges the
> eyewitness's statements, etc. And as David Von Pein pointed out above,
> they also ignore the witness's own equivocation.
>
And that's not the half of it!
yeuhd
> Oswald according to the only eye witness.....it's only a estimate of time, however
> you nor any other person knows how long it actually took. Regardless if you like
> it or not, the eyewitness time account was made in her testimony.
And eyewitness testimony is often the least reliable type of evidence.
There is other evidence available about how and when Oswald went back
to his rooming house.
> Confirm that he did not change his pants, shirt or both.
Confirm that he DID change his pants, shirt, or both. Earlene Roberts,
whose testimony you adhere to strictly, saw Oswald go in his room
without a jacket. When he came back out he was zipping up a jacket. In
other words, she saw what clothing he was wearing both times. The only
thing she saw different was that he had put a jacket on (he was in his
room "just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and
put it on and he went out zipping it").
In other words, to paraphrase you above — regardless if you like it or
not, the eyewitness clothing account was made in her testimony.
> Confirm that he put on the found jacket (which you can't prove was his)
Commission Exhibit 162, the jacket found in the parking lot along
Jefferson which Oswald was seen going through minutes earlier:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0272b.htm
Color photo of CE 162:
http://media.nara.gov/media/images/33/34/33-3306a.gif
From the Warren Commission testimony of Marina Oswald:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh1/html/WC_Vol1_0067a.htm
Mr. RANKIN. [Commission Exhibit] 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's — an old shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Sort of a jacket?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
From the Warren Commission testimony of Helen Markham, who identified
Oswald as shooting Tippit:
Mr. BALL. The man that you saw shoot Officer Tippit and run away, did
you notice if he had a jacket on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had a jacket on when he done it.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a jacket, what general color of jacket?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It was a short jacket open in the front, kind of a
grayish tan.
From the Warren Commission testimony of Virginia Davis, who identified
Oswald as crossing her lawn with a gun in hand shortly after she heard
shots fired outside:
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs. DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.
From the Warren Commission testimony of Ted Callaway, who identified
Oswald as fleeing the Tippit shooting scene along Patton with gun in
hand:
Mr. BALL. What kind — when you talked to the police officers before
you saw this man [Oswald, in the police lineup], did you give them a
description of the clothing he had on?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light
tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair
complexion, dark hair.
. . . . .
Mr. DULLES. May I ask what course he was taking when you last saw
him?
Mr. CALLAWAY. He was going west on Jefferson Street.
From an FBI interview with Mary Brock, who identified Oswald as going
through a used car lot by her service station on Jefferson, where the
jacket was found minutes later:
"She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as
approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light-colored
complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast
pace, wearing a light-colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.
… She advised she informed them [two people from the used car lot]
that the individual proceeded north behind the Texaco station and she
last observed him in the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco
Service Station."
From the Warren Commission testimony of Dallas police Captain W.R.
Westbrook, who was in the used car lot when the jacket was found:
Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket you found?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir.
> btw
> according to Marina his white jacket was at the Paines)
Please quote from Marina Oswald's testimony where she said that Lee's
white jacket was at the Paines'.
Bud
Bud
Confirm that Robert`s guess at how long Oswald was in the room was
anywhere near accurate. The point is, if time is an issue to get Oswald to
the Tippit murder scene where witnesses place him, it is possible that
Robert`s guess was high, and some time can be gained to allow Oswald to
have time to get there. It certainly weakens CT attempts to use timing as
some kind of alibi for Oswald in the Tippit slaying.. As you know, James,
to use an alibi defense, the defendant has to show he was elsewhere when
the crime was committed. Mushy timetables that rely on the guesses of
witnesses about the time could never establish a person`s whereabouts at a
specific time.
> jko
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 14, 10:16 pm, yeuhd <NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The only difference Roberts saw in Oswald when he left his bedroom was
> that he had put on a jacket.
>
That's not even what she said. She was not paying attention to what
Oswald was wearing.
> Did she check his underwear?
>
> He said he changed his shirt and trousers, and as far as I know, no
> one has ever proven that he did not.
>
Does not prove it to be a fact. But descriptions from others suggest he
did.
James K. Olmstead
"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ec1e0a0-d967-44dd...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 16, 4:50 pm, "James K. Olmstead" <jolmst...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> Oswald according to the only eye witness.....it's only a estimate of time, however
> you nor any other person knows how long it actually took. Regardless if you like
> it or not, the eyewitness time account was made in her testimony.
And eyewitness testimony is often the least reliable type of evidence.
There is other evidence available about how and when Oswald went back to
his rooming house.
Fully agree....which is why you must look at each of the testimonys you
use below.......however none of those witnesses were at the rooming house.
> Confirm that he did not change his pants, shirt or both.
Confirm that he DID change his pants, shirt, or both. Earlene Roberts,
whose testimony you adhere to strictly, saw Oswald go in his room without
a jacket. When he came back out he was zipping up a jacket. In other
words, she saw what clothing he was wearing both times. The only thing she
saw different was that he had put a jacket on (he was in his room "just
long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he
went out zipping it").
Trouble is Marina indicates Oswald wore his white jacket home (Paines) but
did not have it on that Friday. That's testimony you ignore. As to
changing, we don't know because any "statements" made by Oswald were not
offically recorded, so we have the "red shirt" problem from the notes.
In other words, to paraphrase you above — regardless if you like it or
not, the eyewitness clothing account was made in her testimony.
Yes it was made, however I would have to go back and check, Roberts didn't
mention the jacket at first, if I remember right.
> Confirm that he put on the found jacket (which you can't prove was his)
Commission Exhibit 162, the jacket found in the parking lot along
Jefferson which Oswald was seen going through minutes earlier:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0272b.htm
This does not prove it was his....it's an exhibit of the presented jacket.
Color photo of CE 162:
http://media.nara.gov/media/images/33/34/33-3306a.gif
From the Warren Commission testimony of Marina Oswald:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh1/html/WC_Vol1_0067a.htm
Mr. RANKIN. [Commission Exhibit] 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's — an old shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Sort of a jacket?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Since when is "an old shirt"......"sort of a jacket" indication that this
is the jacket owned by Oswald and worn, either Thursday or Friday?
From the Warren Commission testimony of Helen Markham, who identified
Oswald as shooting Tippit:
Mr. BALL. The man that you saw shoot Officer Tippit and run away, did
you notice if he had a jacket on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had a jacket on when he done it.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a jacket, what general color of jacket?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It was a short jacket open in the front, kind of a
grayish tan.
"grayish tan" is not "white" and Markham's account is very questionable
over all, since her son may have been involved......DPD went to arrest
him and he fled, breaking his leg escaping.
From the Warren Commission testimony of Virginia Davis, who identified
Oswald as crossing her lawn with a gun in hand shortly after she heard
shots fired outside:
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs. DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.
"light-brown-tan" is not "white" and Davis has some problems with her
account.
From the Warren Commission testimony of Ted Callaway, who identified
Oswald as fleeing the Tippit shooting scene along Patton with gun in
hand:
Mr. BALL. What kind — when you talked to the police officers before
you saw this man [Oswald, in the police lineup], did you give them a
description of the clothing he had on?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light
tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair
complexion, dark hair.
"tannish gray windbreaker jacket" is not a "white" jacket.
. . . . .
Mr. DULLES. May I ask what course he was taking when you last saw
him?
Mr. CALLAWAY. He was going west on Jefferson Street.
From an FBI interview with Mary Brock, who identified Oswald as going
through a used car lot by her service station on Jefferson, where the
jacket was found minutes later:
"She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as
approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light-colored
complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast
pace, wearing a light-colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.
… She advised she informed them [two people from the used car lot]
that the individual proceeded north behind the Texaco station and she
last observed him in the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco
Service Station."
The location of the jacket....indicates the peson was headed back to
10th St from Jefferson, just down the block from the killing. Does not
make sense as any escape route.
From the Warren Commission testimony of Dallas police Captain W.R.
Westbrook, who was in the used car lot when the jacket was found:
Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket you found?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir.
No question that a "jacket" was found. The question is can it be proven to
be Oswald's and worn by him at that time.
> btw
> according to Marina his white jacket was at the Paines)
Please quote from Marina Oswald's testimony where she said that Lee's
white jacket was at the Paines'.
There was a long thread about this last year......would have to search the
threads. Not really interested in trying to add more to material already
argued.
jko
James K. Olmstead
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message news:491d3ee4-7b97-4b8d...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
The problem is that Oswald was killed before any "defense" could be
presented. If we go by the "notes"......he went to the movies by his own
admission. He was in fact arrested there so his "alibi" would stand as
his defense. One witness (not saying I support it) claims to have seen
him there at the time of the shooting.
jko
yeuhd
> Trouble is Marina indicates Oswald wore his white jacket home (Paines) but
> did not have it on that Friday. That's testimony you ignore.
No, Marina Oswald said that she did *not* see Oswald leave on Friday
morning, and did *not* know what jacket he wore on Friday morning.
Mr. RANKIN. When was the last time that you saw this jacket, Exhibit
163 [Oswald's blue jacket]?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember seeing it on the morning of November 22,
1963?
Mrs. OSWALD. The thing is that I saw Lee in the room, and I didn't see
him getting dressed in the room. That is why it is difficult for me to
say. But I told him to put on something warm on the way to work.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall whether the jacket, Exhibit 163, is
something that he put on in your presence at any time that day?
Mrs. OSWALD. Not in my presence.
Mr. RANKIN. And you didn't observe it on him at any time, then?
Mrs. OSWALD. No.
Mr. RANKIN. Is it possible that Exhibit 163 was worn by him that
morning without your knowing about it?
Mrs. OSWALD. Quite possible.
> As to
> changing, we don't know because any "statements" made by Oswald were not
> offically recorded, so we have the "red shirt" problem from the notes.
But *you* are the one who initially used Captain Fritz's notes to
*support* your argument. When I used those same notes, you disparage
them!
> "grayish tan" is not "white"
But the jacket in Exhibit 162 is *not* white. Look at the color photo,
and contrast the jacket's color with the white section of the color
control bar below the jacket, or the white cloth the jacket is on:
Anthony Marsh
Are you rehashing the fact that the WC lawyer showed the wrong jacket?
Anthony Marsh
I seriously doubt that Oswald intended to go to the movies. The evidence
suggests that he ducked into the theater to avoid the police. Let's run
with your conspiracy notion that he was going to the theater to meet with
his DGI handler. Did the police write down the names of the other people
in the theater? Did they interview all of them? Did the ticket taker
remember seeing a Cuban enter just before Oswald?
> admission. He was in fact arrested there so his "alibi" would stand as
> his defense. One witness (not saying I support it) claims to have seen
> him there at the time of the shooting.
>
Alibi for what? There was plenty of time for him to have killed either the
President or Tippit before he was seen in the theater. No alibi that he
was there all morning and afternoon.
> jko
James K. Olmstead
On Oct 17, 4:31 pm, "James K. Olmstead" <jolmst...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> Trouble is Marina indicates Oswald wore his white jacket home (Paines) but
> did not have it on that Friday. That's testimony you ignore.
No, Marina Oswald said that she did *not* see Oswald leave on Friday
morning, and did *not* know what jacket he wore on Friday morning.
Marina didn't see Lee leave......so I never said she saw what he wore.
The point is she indicated that he wore it home on Thurs. There was a
long thread on this awhile back. We know that he did not wear that jacket
to work from those that saw him go to work.
Mr. RANKIN. When was the last time that you saw this jacket, Exhibit
163 [Oswald's blue jacket]?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember seeing it on the morning of November 22,
1963?
Mrs. OSWALD. The thing is that I saw Lee in the room, and I didn't see
him getting dressed in the room. That is why it is difficult for me to
say. But I told him to put on something warm on the way to work.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall whether the jacket, Exhibit 163, is
something that he put on in your presence at any time that day?
Mrs. OSWALD. Not in my presence.
Mr. RANKIN. And you didn't observe it on him at any time, then?
Mrs. OSWALD. No.
Mr. RANKIN. Is it possible that Exhibit 163 was worn by him that
morning without your knowing about it?
Mrs. OSWALD. Quite possible.
> As to
> changing, we don't know because any "statements" made by Oswald were not
> offically recorded, so we have the "red shirt" problem from the notes.
But *you* are the one who initially used Captain Fritz's notes to
*support* your argument. When I used those same notes, you disparage them!
I used Fritz's note because that's all there is.....there is no offical
record of what was asked or how any question was answered.
> "grayish tan" is not "white"
But the jacket in Exhibit 162 is *not* white. Look at the color photo, and
contrast the jacket's color with the white section of the color control
bar below the jacket, or the white cloth the jacket is on:
http://media.nara.gov/media/images/33/34/33-3306a.gif
The point is there were four or more shades mentioned.......and we all
know about the eyewitness considerations being off.
jko
Anthony Marsh
> "yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:842e0f5c-aaeb-427c...@l77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 17, 4:31 pm, "James K. Olmstead" <jolmst...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>> Trouble is Marina indicates Oswald wore his white jacket home (Paines) but
>> did not have it on that Friday. That's testimony you ignore.
>
> No, Marina Oswald said that she did *not* see Oswald leave on Friday
> morning, and did *not* know what jacket he wore on Friday morning.
>
> Marina didn't see Lee leave......so I never said she saw what he wore.
> The point is she indicated that he wore it home on Thurs. There was a
> long thread on this awhile back. We know that he did not wear that jacket
> to work from those that saw him go to work.
>
Wonderful. So how and when did his jacket get into the TSBD which they
found there later? You imagine that Oswald had left it there days before
the assassination? How many jackets did he have? One for each place,
work, rooming house, Irving, etc.?
Maybe because the lawyer was showing the WRONG exhibit?
Bud
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in messagenews:491d3ee4-7b97-4b8d...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
It`s only a problem when people try to devise defense strategies
without Oswald`s input.
> If we go by the "notes"......he went to the movies by his own
> admission.
Fritz`s notes? I don`t see him mentioning the movies in them.
> He was in fact arrested there so his "alibi" would stand as
> his defense.
For any murders committed at the time of his arrest. Not the
murders he had committed earlier that day.
> One witness (not saying I support it) claims to have seen
> him there at the time of the shooting.
Hell, there was more than one witness who claimed to have seen Oswald at
the time of the shooting, five people identified him as being at the scene
of the shooting. But I suppose you are referring to Burroughs. He had one
piece of important information and couldn`t manage to blurt it out to the
WC?
> jko