03-01-2021, 08:10 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-01-2021, 08:17 PM by Milo Reech.)
We now turn from echoes reverberating out of the past to the FBI's version of the literary creature known as the unreliable narrator. The reference is to a special agent as author of reports, which consist of paraphrases, indirect quotations, mutilated information, unilateral interpolations & arbitrary content. What you will not find is a direct statement from the witness that is the subject of the report.
Therefore the Jaunuary 23, 1964 report that contains the words, "...made a turn in a northerly direction and proceeded behind Ballew’s Texaco Service Station where the individual discarded a jacket which was later recovered by the Dallas Police Department," is a red herring.
The last part -- "where the individual discarded a jacket which was later recovered by the Dallas Police Department" -- was interpolated as descriptive surplusage by SAs to serve a purpose. It had the side effect of implying that Patterson witnessed this event, but there is no reason to believe this was the case. No such statement by Patterson appears in this report or anywhere else.
The FBI radiogram Myers refers to indeed contains an employee's note that "Patterson did identify Oswald and also saw him discard his zipper jacket,” but this was an internal communique. It smacks of some lower echelon SA scrambling to reassure a superior on both points. [attached]
It did not carry the weight of conviction, because the FBI's subsequent letter to WC does not mention anything relative to Patterson as a witness to the jacket dumping despite a whole page devoted to the subject of what he saw. [1459a p.2 attached]
Perhaps the facts were too negative to overcome, such as the jacket's size and dry cleaning number. It was too big for LHO, and he did not take his clothing to a dry cleaner, which couldn't be located anyway.
Despite Myers' assertion that "the Commission wanted to use Patterson statement in their report," the Warren Report does not name Patterson as a witness to the jacket's discard, or anyone else. [WR "Oswald's Jacket" pp.175-6]
A nice try to get Westbrook off the hook, but it doesn't work.
Therefore the Jaunuary 23, 1964 report that contains the words, "...made a turn in a northerly direction and proceeded behind Ballew’s Texaco Service Station where the individual discarded a jacket which was later recovered by the Dallas Police Department," is a red herring.
The last part -- "where the individual discarded a jacket which was later recovered by the Dallas Police Department" -- was interpolated as descriptive surplusage by SAs to serve a purpose. It had the side effect of implying that Patterson witnessed this event, but there is no reason to believe this was the case. No such statement by Patterson appears in this report or anywhere else.
The FBI radiogram Myers refers to indeed contains an employee's note that "Patterson did identify Oswald and also saw him discard his zipper jacket,” but this was an internal communique. It smacks of some lower echelon SA scrambling to reassure a superior on both points. [attached]
It did not carry the weight of conviction, because the FBI's subsequent letter to WC does not mention anything relative to Patterson as a witness to the jacket dumping despite a whole page devoted to the subject of what he saw. [1459a p.2 attached]
Perhaps the facts were too negative to overcome, such as the jacket's size and dry cleaning number. It was too big for LHO, and he did not take his clothing to a dry cleaner, which couldn't be located anyway.
Despite Myers' assertion that "the Commission wanted to use Patterson statement in their report," the Warren Report does not name Patterson as a witness to the jacket's discard, or anyone else. [WR "Oswald's Jacket" pp.175-6]
A nice try to get Westbrook off the hook, but it doesn't work.