“The jacket that Oswald was wearing at the time of the slaying of Tippit was a light-gray jacket….The jacket that was subsequently found in a parking lot and identified as Oswald’s was a light-gray one.“ ( Report, pg. 653 )

Another lie. The jacket found was identified as a white one. I’ll get into that later.

With regard to Commission Exhibit 162, the Commission printed all of its photographic evidence in black and white. In doing so, it could claim that the jacket in the photograph was gray. But years later, color photographs were released of the jacket showing the color to be tan.

Even with the change of color, the Warren Commission apologists continue to call this jacket gray and contended that it belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald.

The Commission concluded that Oswald was wearing this jacket at the time of the Tippit murder. It’s finding was based on 1.) the jacket being described and identified by witnesses at or near the scene, 2.) its finding by Captain W.R. Westbrook of the Dallas Police minutes after the shooting under a parked car about a half a block from the murder scene and 3.) its identification by Marina Oswald as having been her husband’s.

But a closer examination of the evidence indicates that 1.) the witnesses identifications of the killer’s jacket do NOT match the jacket in evidence and those witnesses could not identify CE 162 as the jacket they saw, 2.) the jacket was NOT found by Captain Westbrook, 3.) Oswald’s ownership of the jacket was never established beyond a reasonable doubt and 4.) Witness testimony showed the jacket was nowhere near the Tippit murder scene.

No chain of custody documentation exists for the jacket

Central to the discovery of evidence in a murder case is the establishing of who found the evidence. This is the foundation for the creation of a “chain of custody” of the evidence. It is imperative for a witness or the discoverer of evidence to mark that evidence for future identification.

The idea behind recording the chain of custody is to establish that the alleged evidence is in fact related to the alleged crime, rather than having, for example, been “planted” fraudulently to make someone appear guilty.

The documentation of evidence is key for maintaining a chain of custody because everything that is done to the piece of evidence must be listed and whoever came in contact with that piece of evidence is accountable for what happens to it.

The Commission credits Capt. W.W. Westbrook with finding the jacket without evidence that he did

The Commission credited Captain W R Westbrook of the Dallas Police with finding the jacket.

“Westbrook walked through the parking lot behind the service station and found a light-colored jacket lying under the rear of one of the cars. Westbrook identified Commission Exhibit 162 as the light-colored jacket which he discovered underneath the automobile.” ( Report, pg. 175 )

But in his testimony, Westbrook denied having been the one who found it. He claimed that someone, who may or may not have been a police officer, pointed it out to him. ( 7 H 115 )

The Report also does not mention that another police officer, T.A. Hutson, witnessed the discovery of the jacket:
“…while we were searching the rear of the house in the 400 block of East Jefferson…a white jacket was picked up by another officer. I observed him as he picked it up and it was stated that this was probably the suspect’s jacket…” ( 7 H 30-33 )

Hutson testified that he did not know who the officer was who picked it up. ( 7 H 33 )

Robert Brock, a mechanic at the Ballew Texaco Station who helped search the parking lot told the FBI that ” a Dallas, Texas police officer, name unknown, had located a jacket underneath a 1954 Oldsmobile which was parked in parking space # 17.” ( 19 H 182 )

Jacket not mentioned in any police report

In his written report of December 3, 1963, Hutson failed to mention the finding of this jacket. ( 24 H 239-240 ) Likewise, Westbrook failed to mention the jacket in his report. ( ibid., pg. 246 )

In fact, there is no report from any police officer who claimed to have found the jacket or was present when the jacket was found.

According to the transcript of the police radio broadcasts, the first mention of the discovery of the jacket comes from Dallas unit # 279, Officer J.T. Griffin of the second platoon, Traffic Division at 1:25 pm. ( 20 H 490 )

The second platoon consisted of 12 motorcycle officers including J.T. Griffin and T.A. Hutson. ( 19 H 131 )
If Griffin found the jacket, how could Hutson not know him if they were part of the same 12 man platoon ?

And why didn’t Griffin make a report of the jacket ?

Dallas Police Captain George M. Doughty told the FBI that it was Westbrook who found the jacket “on an open parking lot west of Patton St”. ( CD 205, pg. 206 )

But the transcript of the police broadcasts show that Westbrook ( Unit # 550 ) was at the library at Marsalis just before 1:40 pm and did not know that the jacket had been recovered.

This evidence means that Westbrook was NOT present when the jacket was discovered.

Westbrook never marked jacket

In addition, there are only two sets of initials from the Dallas Police on the jacket: those of Capt. Doughty and Sgt. W.E. “Pete” Barnes. Westbrook’s initials are not on it. The other intitals of Cunningham, Killion, Gallagher and Stombaugh are all FBI agents.

I was shocked to find that Doughty was never called to give testimony, never asked to give an affidavit and during his testimony, Barnes was never asked a question about the jacket.

That’s your official chain of custody: no documentation made , no one knows who found it, the officer who they said found it said he didn’t and he didn’t mark it, and the Dallas Police officers in whose possession it was were never asked about it.

That’s some chain of custody.

Evidence ?

If CE 162 is legitimate, it was in the hands of the Dallas Police 20 minutes before Oswald was arrested. But the police never confronted him with the jacket.

If they had the jacket and suspected that he had worn it during the Tippit murder, why didn’t they let him wear it during the police lineups when he was complaining about not having a jacket to wear ? ( Report, pg. 625 )

It certainly would have been to their advantage and helped the witnesses identify him.

And why didn’t the police show the CE 162 jacket to the witnesses who came to view the lineups ?

Of course it makes sense that they wouldn’t have done that if they 1.) knew it wasn’t the jacket the Tippit killer was wearing or 2.) they didn’t have it in their possession.

During his interrogation, Oswald told Capt. Fritz that he had gone to his apartment to change his shirt and trousers. ( Report. 604-605 )

Fritz never asked him about wearing a jacket. Why not ?

In fact, during the lineups and the interrogation, the Dallas Police acted as though there was no jacket, grey, tan or white.

A weak case of ownership

“The jacket belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald. Marina Oswald stated that her husband owned only two jackets, one blue and the other grey. The blue jacket was found in the Texas School Book Depository and was identified by Marina Oswald as her husband’s. Marina Oswald also identified Commission Exhibit 162, the jacket found by Captain Westbrook, as her husband’s second jacket.” ( Report, pg. 175 )

More lies. An unsupported identification by Marina Oswald, who changed her testimony on other matters, is hardly enough to make a case for ownership. We’ll get to her credibility as a witness later.

Even though she admitted that he owned a grey and a blue jacket, she “cannot recall that Oswald ever sent either of these jackets to a laundry or cleaners anywhere. She said she can recall washing them herself.” ( CE 1843 , 23 H 521 )

If there was ever evidence that proved CE 162 was not Oswald’s jacket, it was the laundry tags.

The laundry tags

CE 162 contains two laundry tags, a dry cleaning tag marked “B9738” on the bottom of the jacket and a laundry tag marked “030” on the collar.

Usually items made of fabric that is washable are not dry cleaned while items that are dry cleaned are clearly marked “dry clean only, do not wash.”

A reason for having two tags may have been that the laundry that the jacket had been taken to didn’t do dry cleaning and instead, “farmed out” its dry cleaning to another establishment. The laundry would tag the jacket to identify the customer who owned it and when it got to the dry cleaners, they would then tag it identifying it has belonging to the laundry so it could be returned there when finished.

Hence, the two tags. But that’s just my opinion.

If Marina identified the grey jacket as Oswald’s and said she washed it herself, how could she not have seen the tags when she washed it ?

And if she recognized them, why didn’t she identify it by the tags ?

The FBI fails to find the laundry

The FBI tried to trace the tags and found that the B9738 tag had been printed by a Tag-O-Lectric tagging machine and the 030 tag had been printed with a National Laundry tagging machine. ( CD 868, pg. 1 )

Their investigation covered 424 laundries in the Dallas-Fort Worth area and another 293 in the New Orleans area. Not only was the FBI unable to locate the origin of the laundry marks, they were unable to establish that Oswald ever took the jacket to any of those cleaners.

In effect, their failure to connect the jacket with a laundry weakened their case that the jacket belonged to Oswald.

In addition, their investigation showed that none of Oswald’s other clothing contained any tags from a laundry, and thus there was no evidence that Oswald ever used a a laundry or dry cleaning service. ( CD 868, pg. 5 )

Not satisfied with the outcome of their investigation and hellbent to prove Oswald guilty for the murder of Tippit, the FBI turned their efforts onto the manufacturer of the jacket, Maurice Holman.

They were hoping the manufacturer could tell them where the jacket was purchased, but they found out that the jacket was sold almost exclusively on the West Coast, with the exception of one large department store in Philadelphia.

There’s no evidence that Oswald had ever been to Philadelphia and the only time he was on the West Coast was when he was wearing fatigues in the Marine Corps.

Why did this long, exhaustive and unsuccessful effort to link the tan jacket to Oswald fail to do so ? Was it just impossible to trace or was it that the jacket belonged to someone else ?

The white jacket

Initial police broadcasts described the Tippit killer as wearing a white jacket. These broadcasts were based on the descriptions given by Helen Markham and Barbara Davis to Officer J.M. Poe.

On my youtube channel I have a video from which the above photo was taken, showing a Dallas Police officer with the jacket found. The jacket appears to be white and after haggling with experts in the field of light, shadows and photography, I decided to do a little test of my own.

Behind the jacket to the right is a 1959 Oldsmobile. I took the exterior color chart for the ’59 Olds and changed it to greyscale. I found that only two colors available on that year Oldsmobile could come close to the jacket.

They were Crystal Green and Polaris White. ( red stars )

Unless the jacket in the picture was light green, it was white.

More evidence that the jacket recovered was white comes from the transcript of the Dallas Police broadcasts. At 1:25 PM, motorcycle officer J.T. Griffin ( 279 ) reports that they “got his white jacket… he had a white jacket on… we believe this is it.” ( 17 H 411 )

Officer T.A. Hutson was present when the jacket was found and also described it as white.
…a white jacket was picked up by another officer. I observed him as he picked it up and it was stated that this was probably the suspect’s jacket…” ( 7 H 30-33 )

That’s two police officers describing a jacket that they’re looking at with their own two eyes. Corrobortaing evidence. One has the jacket in his possession.

They described it as white. Not tan, not grey.

This is not an error they could have made.

The Dallas Police coverup

On November 28, 1963, the Dallas Police released evidence to FBI Agent Vincent E. Drain. Among those items listed on the evidence sheet was the “grey” jacket.

A comparison of the Dallas Police and FBI copies of that sheet indicate that the Dallas Police covered up when it was submitted. The FBI copy, found on page 253 in Volume 24, has a Dallas Police notation covering over the time and date when the evidence was submitted. ( red circle )

Its notation said, “This is a list of evidence that was released to the FBI from our crime lab 11-28-63.”

But the Dallas Police copy ( above, right ) notes the time and date as 3pm on November 22, 1963.
It’s obvious that the Dallas Police tried to cover up when the jacket was found. There may have been a reason for that.

The Witnesses

Two witnesses described the jacket that the killer wore as a white jacket: Helen Markham and Barbara Jean Davis. When shown the CE 162 jacket, Mrs. Markham said that she had never seen it before ( 3 H 312 ) and Mrs. Davis, when asked if it was the jacket worn by Tippit’s killer replied, “No.”( 3 H 347 )

Domingo Benavides identified Oswald’s BLUE jacket ( CE 163 ) as the one the killer wore. ( 6 H 453 )

Cab driver William Scoggins failed to identify CE 162 as the jacket he saw. ( 3 H 328 )

Virginia Davis was never asked to identify CE 162 as the jacket the killer wore.

Ted Callaway failed to identify CE 162 as the jacket the man with the gun was wearing. ( 3 H 356 )

William Arthur Smith identified CE 162 as the jacket the killer wore, but remembered that it was “..a sport coat of some kind….” ( 7 H 85 )

Commission fails to report six witnesses who failed to identify jacket

The Commission failed to mention in its Report that six witnesses had failed to positively identify the jacket in evidence as the jacket the killer wore.

The Commission ignored the fact that two witnesses remembered the jacket as a sport coat or sport jacket although it was impossible for anyone to confuse the jacket in evidence as a sport coat.

Only Sam Guinyard, who lied under oath, identified the jacket CE 162 as the jacket the man with the gun wore.

Because the witnesses’ descriptions of the jacket were so wide ranging, the Commission was forced to admit that “the eyewitnesses vary in their identification of the jacket” ( Report, 175-176 )

The Commission failed to report, however, that witnesses had described the jacket as a sport jacket, dark in color and of a rough fabric, all descriptions that did not match the jacket in evidence.

In addition, three witnesses who were not at the Tippit murder scene were asked to identify the “gray” jacket.

Commission fails to report 10 of 11 witnesses failed to identify tannish-grey jacket.

William Whaley identified the jacket as the one Oswald was wearing in his cab before he got to his roominghouse, where he actually put it on. ( 2 H 260 )

Housekeeper Earlene Roberts failed to identify the jacket as the one Oswald put on when he left his room, testifying that Oswald’s jacket was darker. ( 6 H 439 )

Buell Wesley Frazier, a co-worker who gave Oswald rides to Irving on Friday nights, was unable to recognize the jacket as being Oswald’s. ( 2 H 238 )

The Commission failed to report that ten of the eleven witnesses who were asked to identify CE 162 either failed to identify it as the jacket the killer wore or could not recognize the jacket as having been Oswald’s.

Such a failure in reporting allowed the Commission to assert that “there is no doubt, however… that the man who killed Tippit was wearing a light-colored jacket.” ( Report, pg. 176 )

Witnesses put Oswald’s REAL grey jacket nowhere near the Tippit murder scene

Wesley Frazier told the FBI that on the evening before the assassination, he gave Oswald a ride to Irving and that Oswald was wearing “….a reddish shirt and a grey jacket, waist length”. ( CD 7, pg. 294 )

Marina Oswald confirmed that Lee was wearing the grey jacket when he arrived at the Paine residence on the evening of Thursday, November 21st ( 1 H 122 ).

Marina testified that she did not see Oswald dress on the morning of the 22nd, but she told him to “put on something warm on the way to work” and could only say that it was “quite possible” that Oswald wore his heavier BLUE jacket to work on the morning of the 22nd ( ibid. ).

The evidence, however, leaves little doubt that he did.

Randle: Oswald wore the blue jacket on the 22nd

Linnie Mae Randle, Frazier’s sister, testified that Oswald’s blue jacket ( CE 163 ) was the jacket he was wearing when he came to her house on the morning of the 22nd for a ride to work. ( 2 H 250 )

In addition, Randle’s testimony is supported by the fact that Oswald’s blue jacket was found in the Texas School Book Depository on December 16, 1963 when the “Domino Room” was being cleaned. ( CD 205, pg. 209 ).

If the witnesses are correct and Oswald wore his grey jacket to Irving on the evening of the 21st and switched jackets to the heavier blue jacket on the morning of the 22nd, then there’s no way his grey jacket could have ended up under an Oldsmobile in a parking lot.

It was at the Paine residence in Irving, where the Dallas Police were searching at around the same time Oswald’s “grey” jacket was being entered into evidence.

Coincidence ? Or is this what the Dallas Police tried to hide from the FBI ?

Detective Guy F. Rose led the search of the Paine residence on the afternoon of November 22nd. He testified that he ” called Captain Fritz on the phone and told him what I had found out there.” ( 7 H 229 )

Did he find the grey jacket ? If so, what happened to it ? Did it suffer the same fate as the white jacket ? Did they simply disappear into history like the 7.65 spent shell and the .38 automatic shells ?

The Commission never asked.

Conclusion

CE 162 is not grey, it is not Oswald’s and it was not found by Capt. Westbrook.

It was not sold in any of the cities where Oswald lived. The FBI searched 717 laundries in the Dallas-Fort Worth area and in New Orleans and could not connect the jacket with any laundry in those cities.

The witnesses who knew Oswald had never seen him wearing it. The housekeeper at his roominghouse who saw him that day could not identify it as the jacket he wore when he left.

When shown the jacket, ten of the eleven witnesses who saw Tippit’s killer during or immediately after the murder, described a jacket that was either darker or lighter.

Not CE 162.

The most uncredible Marina Oswald

The Commission’s only “proof” that the jacket belonged to Oswald was the identifcation by Marina. But for a couple of reasons, this identification is not on solid ground.

First of all, Marina’s testimony would have been inadmissible had Oswald gone to trial.

Secondly, she admitted that she made false statements to federal agents, thus damaging her credibility:
“Most of the questions were put to me by the FBI. I do not like them too much. I didn’t want to be too sincere with them. Though I was quite sincere and answered most of their questions. They questioned me a great deal and I was very tired of them.” ( 1 H 28 )

To the Warren Commission, Marina Oswald implied that she lied to the FBI agents because she disliked the FBI. How could anyone blame her ? She was held as a prisoner for two months while they questioned her.

One of those lies involved her preposterous claim that Oswald attempted to assassinate Richard Nixon at a time when Nixon was nowhere near Dallas. According to her version, only her restraining him in the bathroom prevented him from satisfying his bloodlust.

And although this story fell apart at every point, the Commission never questioned Marina’s credibility because it needed her to burn Oswald on the public record.

A final word

Under the circumstances, Marina’s allegations or identifications should not be accepted as truth unless they are backed up by convincing independent evidence.

In the case of CE 162, they are not.

The investigation of the laundry tags revealed that the owner of the CE 162 jacket was not from the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Neither was he from New Orleans.

In short, in spite of the FBI’s best efforts, there’s no evidence that the jacket is connected to Oswald.

The overwhelming evidence is conclusive that the tan CE 162 jacket 1.) DID NOT belong to Oswald and 2.) was NOT found by Capt. Westbrook.