Mark Lane vs. the record

[Jean Davison]

Lane testified that when he interviewed Helen Markham, "She
said--when I asked her how she could identify [Oswald] -- she indicated
she was able to identify him because of his clothing, a gray jacket and
dark trousers. And this was the basis for her identification ..."
(II,51)

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0030a.htm

The transcript of the interview shows that Markham said no such
thing. (It doesn't even make sense, since Oswald wasn't wearing a jacket
in the lineup.)

Here's what Markham *actually* told Lane about how she ID-ed
him:

QUOTE:

Lane: So, you must have been terribly upset, uh, at that time. Do you
think it is possible you might have made a mistake in terms of
identifying Oswald?

Markham: No, uh, no.

L: You were not that upset.

M: No, cause I had to be sure. They wanted to know right now, you
know. I knew as quick.

L: Yes.

M: I said I’ve got to be sure, I want to be sure.

L: Yeh.

M: So, I had them to turn him, you know.

L: Yeh.

M: And they turned him, and it was him.

L: Yeh.

M: I could see him cause I looked right in here.

L: Yeh, well you saw him for a little while when he came walking
toward you.

M: I saw him in the eyes. It was him.

UNQUOTE
(XX, 587-8)

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0304a.htm

Jean

[Bud]

On Mar 16, 10:18 pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>        Lane testified that when he interviewed Helen Markham, "She
> said--when I asked her how she could identify [Oswald] -- she indicated
> she was able to identify him because of his clothing, a gray jacket and
> dark trousers.  And this was the basis for her identification ..."
> (II,51)
>

> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2...

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0...
>
>                                               Jean

Nice find, Jean. Of course finding deceit in Mark Lane`s words is like
finding sand at the beach. Let me try my hand it, here is a small except
of Lane`s testimony before the WC...

"I spoke with the deponent, the eyewitness, Helen Louise Markham, and
Mrs. Markham told me Miss or Mrs, I didn't ask her if she was married--
told me that she was a hundred feet away from the police car, not the 50
feet which appears in the affidavit. She gave to me a more detailed
description of the man who she said shot Officer Tippit. She said he was
short, a little on the heavy side, and his hair was somewhat bushy. I
think it is fair to state that an accurate description of Oswald would be
average height, quite slender, with thin and receding hair."

Lets examine a few portions of this and compare it with actual
conversation between Lane and Markham. First this portion...

"...told me that she was a hundred feet away from the police car, not
the 50 feet which appears in the affidavit."

Did Markham state as fact that she was 100 feet away as Lane represents
her?

From the transcript of the telephone call...

Lane: Were you about 100 feet away would you say?

Markham: I`d say that.

So she only offered an approximation, which Lane transformed into a
statement of fact. (I`ll leave aside the dishonesty of offering a distance
by Lane, is 10th street a four lane highway that would be 100 feet catty
corner across? And if Lane wanted to know the distances involved he could
go to the location and measure it instead of implying that her giving two
separate and differing guesses was meaningful). Continuing...

"She gave to me a more detailed description of the man who she said shot
Officer Tippit."

What good are descriptions given after she already identified Oswald as
the man she saw kill Tippit? The descriptions she gave at the scene were
to try and catch the assailant, what good are descriptions months after he
is caught? Hell, she can just get a picture of Oswald then and describe
what she is looking at. Continuing...

" She said he was short, a little on the heavy side, and his hair was
somewhat bushy."

From the telephone conversation...

Lane: Did you say that he was short, a little bit on the heavy side and
had slightly bushy hair?

Markham: Um, no I did not.

Continuing...

"I think it is fair to state that an accurate description of Oswald
would be average height, quite slender, with thin and receding hair."

In the telephone conversation Markham offers an estimation of the man`s
weight... "Um, say around 100, maybe 150". And she gave her assessment of
the man`s hair, which wasn`t inconsistent at all with a receding
hairline... "Well, you wouldn`t say it hadn`t been combed you know or
anything". All in all Lane can sure pack a lot of deceit into a very small
portion of testimony. Is it any wonder why the WC wanted the *actual*
conversation?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/16/2013 10:18 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
> Lane testified that when he interviewed Helen Markham, "She
> said--when I asked her how she could identify [Oswald] -- she indicated
> she was able to identify him because of his clothing, a gray jacket and
> dark trousers. And this was the basis for her identification ..."
> (II,51)
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0030a.htm
>
> The transcript of the interview shows that Markham said no such
> thing. (It doesn't even make sense, since Oswald wasn't wearing a jacket
> in the lineup.)
>

She didn't identify him in the lineup at first.

Mr. Ball.
Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these
four men?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Mr. Ball.
You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question
before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. Markham.
From their face, no.
Mr. Ball.
Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. Markham.
I didn't know nobody.
Mr. Ball.
I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look
like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. Markham.
No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. Ball.
No one of the four?
Mrs. Markham.
No one of them.
Mr. Ball.
No one of all four?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Was there a number two man in there?
Mrs. Markham.
Number two is the one I picked.
Mr. Ball.
Well, I thought you just told me that you hadn't--
Mrs. Markham.
I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing.
Mr. Ball.
No. I wanted to know if that day when you were in there if you saw
anyone in there--
Mrs. Markham.
Number two.
Mr. Ball.
What did you say when you saw number two?
Mrs. Markham.
Well, let me tell you. I said the second man, and they kept asking
me which one, which one. I said, number two. When I said number two, I
just got weak.
Mr. Ball.
What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. Markham.
Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
Mr. Ball.
You recognized him from his appearance?
Mrs. Markham.
I asked--I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I
had cold chills just run all over me.
Mr. Ball.
When you saw him?
Mrs. Markham.
When I saw the man. But I wasn't sure, so, you see, I told them I
wanted to be sure, and looked, at his face is what I was looking at,
mostly is what I looked at, on account of his eyes, the way he looked at
me. So I asked them if they would turn him sideways. They did, and then
they turned him back around, and I said the second, and they said, which
one, and I said number two. So when I said that, well, I just kind of
fell over. Everybody in there, you know, was beginning to talk, and I
don't know, just--
Mr. Ball.
Did you recognize him from his clothing?
Mrs. Markham.
He had on a light short jacket, dark trousers. I looked at his
clothing, but I looked at his face, too.
Mr. Ball.
Did he have the same clothing on that the man had that you saw
shoot the officer?
Mrs. Markham.
He had, these dark trousers on.
Mr. Ball.
Did he have a jacket or a shirt? 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.
Mr. Ball.
Did you tell the police that?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, I did.
Mr. Ball.
Did any man in the lineup have a jacket on?
Mrs. Markham.
I can't remember that.
Mr. Ball.
Did this number two man that you mentioned to the police have any
jacket on when he was in the lineup?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Mr. Ball.
What did he have on?
Mrs. Markham.
He had on a light shirt and dark trousers.

(Representative Ford is now in the Commission hearing room.)

Mr. Ball.
Did you recognize the man from his clothing or from his face?
Mrs. Markham.
Mostly from his face.
Mr. Ball.
Were you sure it was the same man you had seen before?
Mrs. Markham.
I am sure.
Mr. Ball.
Now, what time of day was it that you saw this man in the lineup?
Mrs. Markham.
I would say it was four, a little after.
Mr. Ball.
That was four in the afternoon?
Mrs. Markham.
I was so upset I couldn't even tell you the time. In fact, I wasn't
interested in the time.
Mr. Ball.
Yes.
Mr. Dulles.
Could I ask just one question?
Mr. Ball.
Yes.
Mr. Dulles.
You referred to his eyes; they were rather striking. Can you give
any impression of how his eyes looked to you? I realize that is a very
vague question.
Mrs. Markham.
Yes. He looked wild. They were glassy looking, because I could see--
Mr. Dulles.
He had no glasses on?
Mrs. Markham.
No. When we looked at each other, he just stared, just like that. I
just don't know. I just seen him--I would know the man anywhere, I know
I would.
Mr. Dulles.
Thank you.

> Here's what Markham *actually* told Lane about how she ID-ed
> him:
>
> QUOTE:
>
> Lane: So, you must have been terribly upset, uh, at that time. Do you
> think it is possible you might have made a mistake in terms of
> identifying Oswald?
>
> Markham: No, uh, no.
>
> L: You were not that upset.
>
> M: No, cause I had to be sure. They wanted to know right now, you
> know. I knew as quick.
>
> L: Yes.
>

> M: I said I�ve got to be sure, I want to be sure.

>
> L: Yeh.
>
> M: So, I had them to turn him, you know.
>
> L: Yeh.
>
> M: And they turned him, and it was him.
>
> L: Yeh.
>
> M: I could see him cause I looked right in here.
>
> L: Yeh, well you saw him for a little while when he came walking
> toward you.
>
> M: I saw him in the eyes. It was him.
>
> UNQUOTE
> (XX, 587-8)
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0304a.htm
>
> Jean
>

Yes, she based it on the glassy stare Oswald gave her:

Mr. Dulles.
You referred to his eyes; they were rather striking. Can you give
any impression of how his eyes looked to you? I realize that is a very
vague question.
Mrs. Markham.
Yes. He looked wild. They were glassy looking, because I could see--
Mr. Dulles.
He had no glasses on?
Mrs. Markham.
No. When we looked at each other, he just stared, just like that. I
just don't know. I just seen him--I would know the man anywhere, I know
I would.
Mr. Dulles.
Thank you.

One of the typical problems with lineups.

[Jean Davison]

Amen to that, Bud.

Yes, Lane brought up "100 feet," Markham didn't. Leading
the witness.

From her testimony:

QUOTE:

Mr. BALL. How far away from the police car do you think you were on
the corner when you saw the shooting?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, I wasn't too far.
Mr. BALL. Can you estimate it in feet? Don't guess.
Mrs. MARKHAM. I would just be afraid to say how many feet because I am
a bad judgment on that.

UNQUOTE

Imagine the howls if Ball had asked, "Were you about 30
feet away, would you say?"

>Continuing...
>
>   "She gave to me a more detailed description of the man who she said shot
> Officer Tippit."
>
>   What good are descriptions given after she already identified Oswald as
> the man she saw kill Tippit? The descriptions she gave at the scene were
> to try and catch the assailant, what good are descriptions months after he
> is caught? Hell, she can just get a picture of Oswald then and describe
> what she is looking at. Continuing...
>
>  " She said he was short, a little on the heavy side, and his hair was
> somewhat bushy."
>
>   From the telephone conversation...
>
>   Lane: Did you say that he was short, a little bit on the heavy side and
> had slightly bushy hair?
>
>   Markham: Um, no I did not.
>
>   Continuing...
>
>   "I think it is fair to state that an accurate description of Oswald
> would be average height, quite slender, with thin and receding hair."
>
>   In the telephone conversation Markham offers an estimation of the man`s
> weight... "Um, say around 100, maybe 150". And she gave her assessment of
> the man`s hair, which wasn`t inconsistent at all with a receding
> hairline... "Well, you wouldn`t say it hadn`t been combed you know or
> anything". All in all Lane can sure pack a lot of deceit into a very small
> portion of testimony. Is it any wonder why the WC wanted the *actual*
> conversation?

And is it any wonder that Lane didn't want to give up the
tape?

Good points as usual, Bud. Thank you.

Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/18/2013 9:42 AM, Jean Davison wrote:
> On Mar 17, 9:05 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 10:18 pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Lane testified that when he interviewed Helen Markham, "She
>>> said--when I asked her how she could identify [Oswald] -- she indicated
>>> she was able to identify him because of his clothing, a gray jacket and
>>> dark trousers. And this was the basis for her identification ..."
>>> (II,51)
>>
>>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2...
>>
>>> The transcript of the interview shows that Markham said no such
>>> thing. (It doesn't even make sense, since Oswald wasn't wearing a jacket
>>> in the lineup.)
>>
>>> Here's what Markham *actually* told Lane about how she ID-ed
>>> him:
>>
>>> QUOTE:
>>
>>> Lane: So, you must have been terribly upset, uh, at that time. Do you
>>> think it is possible you might have made a mistake in terms of
>>> identifying Oswald?
>>
>>> Markham: No, uh, no.
>>
>>> L: You were not that upset.
>>
>>> M: No, cause I had to be sure. They wanted to know right now, you
>>> know. I knew as quick.
>>
>>> L: Yes.
>>

>>> M: I said I?ve got to be sure, I want to be sure.

Minor point, but there is a slight difference between the distance from
Markham to the police car versus to the shooter.

And when he did it proved that he was telling the truth about what Helen
Markham said and showed that some people here were not admitting what
Markham actually said and falsely calling Mark Lane a liar just to score
political points in defense of the WC.

> Good points as usual, Bud. Thank you.
>

The usual garbage from the usual suspects.

> Jean
>
>
>
>

[Jean Davison]

So you claim, but can you back it up? Of course not.
Quote Markham ID-ing Oswald by his clothing, as Lane testified.

Let the tap dance begin!

Jean

[Bud]

You mean Oswald? He moved towards her after killing Tippit.

It also showed that he was being deceitful and dishonest the way he
portrayed the information to the WC. That is what he wished to hide by
not producing the material.

>and showed that some people here were not admitting what
> Markham actually said and falsely calling Mark Lane a liar just to score
> political points in defense of the WC.

Who took such a stance before Lane produced the material?

> >            Good points as usual, Bud.  Thank you.
>
> The usual garbage from the usual suspects.

Jean liked it and you didn`t. Perfect!

> > Jean

[Bud]

<snicker> "except"? This is why Sandy drinks before reading my
contributions.

This is terrible in my opinion. What is an estimate but a guess? If
they wanted to get an idea how far away she was they should have just
taken her there and gotten real, usable information. Putting her on the
spot to come up with this information is pretty silly.

> Mrs. MARKHAM. I would just be afraid to say how many feet because I am
> a bad judgment on that.
>
> UNQUOTE
>
>               Imagine the howls if Ball had asked, "Were you about 30
> feet away, would you say?"

I suspect that had Lane asked Markham that she would have replied the
same as she did when he offered 100 feet.

But Lane is a master of deceit, he has a real knack for phrasing
information dishonestly. If I were to read something like...

"[Markham] told me that she was a hundred feet away from the police

car, not the 50 feet which appears in the affidavit."

...I would likely take that to mean that she had overruled the previous
information and replaced it with information that she felt was more
accurate. His phrasing is both factually correct and misleading.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <c0000796-f228-4179...@l9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison says...

>
>On Mar 18, 2:06=A0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 3/18/2013 9:42 AM, Jean Davison wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 17, 9:05 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mar 16, 10:18 pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Lane testified that when he interviewed Helen Markham=
>, "She
>> >>> said--when I asked her how she could identify [Oswald] -- she indicat=
>ed
>> >>> she was able to identify him because of his clothing, a gray jacket a=
>nd
>> >>> dark trousers. =A0And this was the basis for her identification ..."
>> >>> (II,51)
>>
>> >>>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2.=
>..
>>
>> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The transcript of the interview shows that Markham=
> said no such
>> >>> thing. =A0(It doesn't even make sense, since Oswald wasn't wearing a =
>jacket
>> >>> in the lineup.)
>>
>> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Here's what Markham *actually* told Lane about ho=

>w she ID-ed
>> >>> him:
>>
>> >>> QUOTE:
>>

>> >>> Lane: So, you must have been terribly upset, uh, at that time. =A0Do =

>you
>> >>> think it is possible you might have made a mistake in terms of
>> >>> identifying Oswald?
>>
>> >>> Markham: No, uh, no.
>>
>> >>> L: You were not that upset.
>>

>> >>> M: No, cause I had to be sure. =A0They wanted to know right now, you
>> >>> know. =A0I knew as quick.

>>
>> >>> L: Yes.
>>
>> >>> M: I said I?ve got to be sure, I want to be sure.
>>
>> >>> L: Yeh.
>>
>> >>> M: So, I had them to turn him, you know.
>>
>> >>> L: Yeh.
>>
>> >>> M: And they turned him, and it was him.
>>
>> >>> L: Yeh.
>>
>> >>> M: I could see him cause I looked right in here.
>>

>> >>> L: =A0Yeh, well you saw him for a little while when he came walking
>> >>> toward you.
>>
>> >>> M: I saw him in the eyes. =A0It was him.
>>
>> >>> UNQUOTE
>> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (XX, 587-8)
>>
>> >>>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0.=
>..
>>
>> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
>=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Jean
>>
>> >> =A0 =A0Nice find, Jean. Of course finding deceit in Mark Lane`s words =

>is like
>> >> finding sand at the beach.
>>

>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Amen to that, Bud.

>>
>> >> Let me try my hand it, here is a small except
>> >> of Lane`s testimony before the WC...
>>

>> >> =A0 "I spoke with the deponent, the eyewitness, Helen Louise Markham, =
>and
>> >> Mrs. Markham told me Miss or Mrs, I didn't ask her if she was married-=
>-
>> >> told me that she was a hundred feet away from the police car, not the =

>50
>> >> feet which appears in the affidavit. She gave to me a more detailed

>> >> description of the man who she said shot Officer Tippit. She said he w=

>as
>> >> short, a little on the heavy side, and his hair was somewhat bushy. I

>> >> think it is fair to state that an accurate description of Oswald would=

> be
>> >> average height, quite slender, with thin and receding hair."
>>

>> >> =A0 =A0Lets examine a few portions of this and compare it with actual

>> >> conversation between Lane and Markham. First this portion...
>>

>> >> =A0 =A0"...told me that she was a hundred feet away from the police ca=

>r, not
>> >> the 50 feet which appears in the affidavit."
>>

>> >> =A0 =A0Did Markham state as fact that she was 100 feet away as Lane re=
>presents
>> >> her?
>>
>> >> =A0 =A0From the transcript of the telephone call...
>>
>> >> =A0 =A0Lane: Were you about 100 feet away would you say?
>>
>> >> =A0 =A0Markham: I`d say that.
>>
>> >> =A0 =A0So she only offered an approximation, which Lane transformed in=
>to a
>> >> statement of fact. (I`ll leave aside the dishonesty of offering a dist=
>ance
>> >> by Lane, is 10th street a four lane highway that would be 100 feet cat=
>ty
>> >> corner across? And if Lane wanted to know the distances involved he co=
>uld
>> >> go to the location and measure it instead of implying that her giving =

>two
>> >> separate and differing guesses was meaningful).
>>

>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Yes, Lane brought up "100 feet," Markham didn't=
>. =A0Leading

>> > the witness.
>>
>> Minor point, but there is a slight difference between the distance from
>> Markham to the police car versus to the shooter.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0From her testimony:

>>
>> > QUOTE:
>>
>> > Mr. BALL. How far away from the police car do you think you were on
>> > the corner when you saw the shooting?
>> > Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, I wasn't too far.
>> > Mr. BALL. Can you estimate it in feet? Don't guess.
>> > Mrs. MARKHAM. I would just be afraid to say how many feet because I am
>> > a bad judgment on that.
>>
>> > UNQUOTE
>>

>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Imagine the howls if Ball had asked, "We=

>re you about 30
>> > feet away, would you say?"
>>
>> >> Continuing...
>>

>> >> =A0 =A0"She gave to me a more detailed description of the man who she =
>said shot
>> >> Officer Tippit."
>>
>> >> =A0 =A0What good are descriptions given after she already identified O=
>swald as
>> >> the man she saw kill Tippit? The descriptions she gave at the scene we=
>re
>> >> to try and catch the assailant, what good are descriptions months afte=
>r he
>> >> is caught? Hell, she can just get a picture of Oswald then and describ=

>e
>> >> what she is looking at. Continuing...
>>

>> >> =A0 " She said he was short, a little on the heavy side, and his hair =
>was
>> >> somewhat bushy."
>>
>> >> =A0 =A0From the telephone conversation...
>>
>> >> =A0 =A0Lane: Did you say that he was short, a little bit on the heavy =

>side and
>> >> had slightly bushy hair?
>>

>> >> =A0 =A0Markham: Um, no I did not.
>>
>> >> =A0 =A0Continuing...
>>
>> >> =A0 =A0"I think it is fair to state that an accurate description of Os=

>wald
>> >> would be average height, quite slender, with thin and receding hair."
>>

>> >> =A0 =A0In the telephone conversation Markham offers an estimation of t=
>he man`s
>> >> weight... "Um, say around 100, maybe 150". And she gave her assessment=

> of
>> >> the man`s hair, which wasn`t inconsistent at all with a receding
>> >> hairline... "Well, you wouldn`t say it hadn`t been combed you know or

>> >> anything". All in all Lane can sure pack a lot of deceit into a very s=

>mall
>> >> portion of testimony. Is it any wonder why the WC wanted the *actual*
>> >> conversation?
>>

>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0And is it any wonder that Lane didn't want to gi=

>ve up the
>> > tape?
>>
>> And when he did it proved that he was telling the truth about what Helen
>> Markham said and showed that some people here were not admitting what
>> Markham actually said and falsely calling Mark Lane a liar just to score
>> political points in defense of the WC.
>
>
> So you claim, but can you back it up? Of course not.
>Quote Markham ID-ing Oswald by his clothing, as Lane testified.
>
> Let the tap dance begin!
>
>Jean
>

Marsh dances the side-step-shuffle best but who knows, perhaps he also
does the tap. He was a liberal arts major you know.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

Is there such a thing as a Conservative arts major? Well, maybe at the
Pat Robertson University.

> Bill Clarke
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/18/2013 7:59 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Mar 18, 9:42 am, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 17, 9:05 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 16, 10:18 pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Lane testified that when he interviewed Helen Markham, "She
>>>> said--when I asked her how she could identify [Oswald] -- she indicated
>>>> she was able to identify him because of his clothing, a gray jacket and
>>>> dark trousers. And this was the basis for her identification ..."
>>>> (II,51)
>>
>>>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2...
>>
>>>> The transcript of the interview shows that Markham said no such
>>>> thing. (It doesn't even make sense, since Oswald wasn't wearing a jacket
>>>> in the lineup.)
>>
>>>> Here's what Markham *actually* told Lane about how she ID-ed
>>>> him:
>>
>>>> QUOTE:
>>
>>>> Lane: So, you must have been terribly upset, uh, at that time. Do you
>>>> think it is possible you might have made a mistake in terms of
>>>> identifying Oswald?
>>
>>>> Markham: No, uh, no.
>>
>>>> L: You were not that upset.
>>
>>>> M: No, cause I had to be sure. They wanted to know right now, you
>>>> know. I knew as quick.
>>
>>>> L: Yes.
>>

>>>> M: I said I�ve got to be sure, I want to be sure.

If they meant exactly the same thing why would they be two separate
words? Can't afford a dictionary? Google it.

> they wanted to get an idea how far away she was they should have just
> taken her there and gotten real, usable information. Putting her on the
> spot to come up with this information is pretty silly.
>

Pinning down a screwball like Markham is not an easy job.
They can't impeach their own witness if they want to convict their suspect.

[Anthony Marsh]

I didn't say that Markam identified Oswald by his clothes. How could she
when he was only wearing a T-shirt? She identified him by his glassy
stare at her.

[Sandy McCroskey]

I would like to note as well that only 6 percent of scientists are
Republicans, according to a recent Pew poll.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/only-six-percent-of-scien_n_229382.html
<quote>Nine percent of scientists said they were "conservative" while 52
percent described themselves as "liberal," and 14 percent "very
liberal." The corresponding figures for the general public were 37, 20
and 5 percent.</quote>

/sm

[Jean Davison]

Ah, the side-step shuffle! I didn't claim that YOU said Markham
ID-ed him by his clothes. Mark Lane testified that Markham indicated she

"was able to identify him because of his clothing, a gray jacket and dark

trousers." (II,51) That statement by Lane is false, isn't it? Will you
answer that question directly, yes or no, or will you dance some more?

Jean

[Bud]

> >>>> M: I said I’ve got to be sure, I want to be sure.

<snicker> This is one of your better ideas, that there can only be
one word for anything.

>Can't afford a dictionary? Google it.
>
> > they wanted to get an idea how far away she was they should have just
> > taken her there and gotten real, usable information. Putting her on the
> > spot to come up with this information is pretty silly.
>
> Pinning down a screwball like Markham is not an easy job.

It doesn`t make it any easier when you say things like "provide an
estimate, but don`t guess".

> They can't impeach their own witness if they want to convict their suspect.

It easier to pick fly shit out of salt than pepper.

[Anthony Marsh]

>>>>>> M: I said I�ve got to be sure, I want to be sure.

You have a logical fallacy there.

>> Can't afford a dictionary? Google it.
>>
>>> they wanted to get an idea how far away she was they should have just
>>> taken her there and gotten real, usable information. Putting her on the
>>> spot to come up with this information is pretty silly.
>>
>> Pinning down a screwball like Markham is not an easy job.
>
> It doesn`t make it any easier when you say things like "provide an
> estimate, but don`t guess".
>

I think he knew what he meant to say.

[Walt]

On Mar 17, 9:05 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:

Valid point...... Sooooo, What was the description that Markham gave
the police at the scene of Tippit's murder?

Here it is:....quote...."A white male about thirty, five feet eight
inches,black hair,slender,wearing a white jacket, a white shirt and
dark slacks....unquote.

Does this description fit Lee Oswald.... Did he have black hair?
Was he wearing a white shirt? Was he about thirty? Was he five feet
eight inches tall?

The description broadcast over the police radio could have fit at
least a dozen young men in the area that afternoon.

[Bud]

In some photos his hair looks dark.

> Was he wearing a white shirt?

He had a white t-shirt on. With the brown shirt unbuttoned this is
what she could have seen.

> Was he about thirty?

You think she could determine his date of birth by looking at him?

> Was he five feet
> eight inches tall?

Give or take an inch.

All in all, nothing there rules out that it was Oswald she saw.

> The description broadcast over the police radio could have fit at
> least a dozen young men in the area that afternoon.

<snicker> You really aren`t cut out for this, are you? You think
anyone can give a description that narrows it down to a unique
individual?

[Walt]

Thank You.... for impugning your own witness. You are the guy who claims
that the killer was Oswald because Helen Markham described him ....aren't
you?... Yes, I'm sure that was you. So I've just presented her
description and you now say we can't believe her..... You're not cut out
for this are Buddy boy?

[David Von Pein]

Walt,

Bud was talking about a witness not being able to narrow it down to a
single individual via a verbal identification based on general
characteristics--like clothing, height, weight, eye color, hair color,
etc.

That kind of description nearly always could apply to many people in a
big city. The only way a witness could narrow it down to any single
individual would be if the witness KNEW the suspect on sight--and
therefore could tell the police: The person you're looking for is
named Lee Oswald. Otherwise, descriptions put out by the police will
always be general ones. (Isn't it fairly obvious that this is what Bud
was talking about earlier?)

But at City Hall, Markham made a positive ID of the man she earlier
saw kill Tippit. She said Oswald was the murderer. That narrows it
down to just one.

=====================================

MARK LANE -- "You must have been terribly upset, uh, at that time. Do

you think it is possible you might have made a mistake in terms of
identifying Oswald?"

HELEN MARKHAM -- "No, uh, no."

LANE -- "You were not that upset."

MARKHAM -- "No, cause I had to be sure. They wanted to know right now,
you know. .... I said I've got to be sure, I want to be sure. .... So,
I had them to turn him, you know. .... And they turned him, and it was
him. .... I saw him in the eyes. It was him."

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0304a.htm

====================================

[Bud]

By applying reality? What description could she give that would
narrow it down to Oswald only, and rule out everyone else? Isn`t that
what you were asking for?

>  You are the guy who claims
> that the killer was Oswald because Helen Markham described him ....

Not at all. Again you show why you are not the person to be second
guessing this investigation. I claim the killer was Oswald because the
preponderance of evidence shows this is so. And I don`t expect much
from the initial description, the actual identification is worth much
more. You have never been able to show that witnesses who see people
briefly under these sorts of situations can use descriptive words that
positively match the suspect they`ve seen. That doesn`t mean they
can`t say "That is the man I saw before" when that person is presented
to them.

>aren't
> you?...  Yes, I'm sure that was you.

thats the problem, you are wrong about all the things you are sure
of.

>  So I've just presented her
> description and you now say we can't believe her.....

The description given at the scene a just a rough tool in order to
narrow down the search for the suspect. You have the silly notion that
they are a precise tool used to narrow it down to a specific
individual.

>You're not cut out
> for this are Buddy boy?

You are only showing you have no idea how to look at the information
available.

[Walt]

Full of baloney , Tony wrote: "I didn't say that Markam identified

Oswald by his clothes. How could she when he was only wearing a T-
shirt? "

Tony the line up that Markham viewed occurred at about 4:30 pm 11 /22/
63. ....Approximately 3 1/2 hours after she saw Tippit murdered. At
that time Lee was still dressed in the clothes that he had put on in
his room at 1:00 pm. He was wearing dark gray trousers and a tawny
gray colored shirt over a white tee shirt.

Mr. Ball.
Did this number two man that you mentioned to the police have
any
jacket on when he was in the lineup?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Mr. Ball.
What did he have on?
Mrs. Markham.
He had on a light shirt and dark trousers.




>
>

[Walt]

On Mar 22, 1:07 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Walt,
>
> Bud was talking about a witness not being able to narrow it down to a
> single individual via a verbal identification based on general
> characteristics--like clothing, height, weight, eye color, hair color,
> etc.
>
> That kind of description nearly always could apply to many people in a
> big city. The only way a witness could narrow it down to any single
> individual would be if the witness KNEW the suspect on sight--and
> therefore could tell the police: The person you're looking for is
> named Lee Oswald. Otherwise, descriptions put out by the police will
> always be general ones. (Isn't it fairly obvious that this is what Bud
> was talking about earlier?)
>
> But at City Hall, Markham made a positive ID

Oh you mean THIS "positive" ID??

Mr. Ball.
Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?

Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Mr. Ball.

You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question
before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. Markham.
From their face, no.
Mr. Ball.
Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. Markham.
I didn't know nobody.
Mr. Ball.
I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look
like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. Markham.
No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. Ball.
No one of the four?
Mrs. Markham.
No one of them.
Mr. Ball.
No one of all four?

Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Mr. Ball.

Was there a number two man in there?
Mrs. Markham.
Number two is the one I picked.

Number two is the one I PICKED

Notice that Markham said that she "picked" #2 .....Not that she
IDENTIFIED #2 ....as if it was a guessing game and she was supposed to
pick the right man.

It seems to me that Helen Markham was just guessing....and was in a panic
for fear that she wouldn't "pick" the man they wanted her to "PICK"

of the man she earlier
> saw kill Tippit. She said Oswald was the murderer. That narrows it
> down to just one.
>
> =====================================
>
> MARK LANE -- "You must have been terribly upset, uh, at that time. Do
> you think it is possible you might have made a mistake in terms of
> identifying Oswald?"
>
> HELEN MARKHAM -- "No, uh, no."
>
> LANE -- "You were not that upset."
>
> MARKHAM -- "No, cause I had to be sure. They wanted to know right now,
> you know. .... I said I've got to be sure, I want to be sure. .... So,
> I had them to turn him, you know. .... And they turned him, and it was
> him. .... I saw him in the eyes. It was him."
>

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0...
>
> ====================================