Mark Lane Helen Markham interview

[Bud]

I was wondering if there is a complete transcript (or better yet, the
tape) of the telephone interview Mark Lane conducted with Helen Markham.
I`ve seen excerpts but not the entire discussion from start to finish. Can
anyone help? And no, Tony, snide comments do not constitute "help".

[John McAdams]

20H571

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=142133

The tape is in the National Archives in College Park. You could hire
an outside contractor whom they would recommend to make a copy.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[David Von Pein]

This is the most I've seen of the interview:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt

Addendum (just for fun):
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vincent-bugliosi-vs-mark-lane.html

[David Von Pein]

Oh, I now see that John M. has linked to the whole thing (Markham
Exhibit No. 1). I had never seen that before.

Good gosh, there's a lot of stuff in those 26 volumes, isn't there?

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0296a.htm

[Bud]

On Mar 14, 10:44 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:

> On 14 Mar 2013 22:36:04 -0400, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > I was wondering if there is a complete transcript (or better yet, the
> >tape) of the telephone interview Mark Lane conducted with Helen Markham.
> >I`ve seen excerpts but not the entire discussion from start to finish. Can
> >anyone help? And no, Tony, snide comments do not constitute "help".
>
> 20H571
>

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...

>
> The tape is in the National Archives in College Park.  You could hire
> an outside contractor whom they would recommend to make a copy.
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Thanks .John. Kinda surprising the tape isn`t available online.

[Bud]

On Mar 14, 10:47 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> This is the most I've seen of the interview:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt

Thanks David, I found that one, but it`s missing quite a bit. I wanted
the whole thing to compare with Lane`s assertions before he produced the
tape. .John has provided a link to what looks like a full version. It
already answered one question I had, I was wondering why Markham said that
she had never heard that lady on the tape, the transcripts I had seen were
only Lane and Markham. It seems early on their was a woman operator on the
line. This version will suit my purposes, when I have time I`ll compare
the transcript with Lane`s testimony and see how many lies he told in his
testimony under oath, and in his book "Rush to Judgment". And then I`ll
present them to Ben to watch him dance.

> Addendum (just for fun):http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vincent-bugliosi-vs-mark-lan...

[mainframetech]

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


Interesting. It may be that Lane wanted to tie up the man Markham saw
with the man that Acquilla Clemmons saw reloading his gun after the
shooting of Tippit. A short, heavy ('chunky') man, similar to the man
driving the Nash Rambler that Oswald was seen getting into by 5 people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaCCd0hzLsY

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Where did Mark Lane say the short, heavvy man was similar to the man
driving the Nash Rambler? Which book was that from or was it in his
testimony? Please cite and quote that.

[Bud]

<snicker> The nonsense you pretend to believe...

[Walt]

On Mar 14, 9:44 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:

> On 14 Mar 2013 22:36:04 -0400, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > I was wondering if there is a complete transcript (or better yet, the
> >tape) of the telephone interview Mark Lane conducted with Helen Markham.
> >I`ve seen excerpts but not the entire discussion from start to finish. Can
> >anyone help? And no, Tony, snide comments do not constitute "help".
>
> 20H571
>

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...

>
> The tape is in the National Archives in College Park.  You could hire
> an outside contractor whom they would recommend to make a copy.
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

John, You provided a link to the questiong of helen Markham......READ what
that says.......

Lane isn't responsible for what you call a "factoid" Helen Marham herself
said that a newspaper had quoted her as saying that Tippit's Killer was
"short" and "kinda heavy" with bushy black hair.

I seriously doubt that any reporter would conjure up a description of the
killer out of thin air. Anybody with an ounce of commonsense can see that
Markham was lying. There's no doubt about that.

There's also no doubt that Markham had been threatened and was scared to
death and that's why she was desperately lying. So instead of focusing on
Mark Lane...... Who was NOT lying ( They would have loved to have nailed
him on a perjury charge to get him out of their hair) You should be asking
yourself..... WHO threatened this important witness??

[John McAdams]

On 15 Mar 2013 22:16:37 -0400, Walt <papakoc...@evertek.net>
wrote:

>On Mar 14, 9:44=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 14 Mar 2013 22:36:04 -0400, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > I was wondering if there is a complete transcript (or better yet, the
>> >tape) of the telephone interview Mark Lane conducted with Helen Markham.

>> >I`ve seen excerpts but not the entire discussion from start to finish. C=

>an
>> >anyone help? And no, Tony, snide comments do not constitute "help".
>>
>> 20H571
>>
>> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
>>

>> The tape is in the National Archives in College Park. =A0You could hire

>> an outside contractor whom they would recommend to make a copy.
>>
>> .John
>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>John, You provided a link to the questiong of helen Markham......READ what
>that says.......
>
>Lane isn't responsible for what you call a "factoid" Helen Marham herself
>said that a newspaper had quoted her as saying that Tippit's Killer was
>"short" and "kinda heavy" with bushy black hair.
>

The problem is that there is no newspaper article saying that.

Markham apparently went along with what Lane said, apparently using
the "whatever" principle. I doubt she even knew everthing the papers
wrote about her.

If you want to bail out Lane, produce the newspaper article.

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

But you won't notice how many times Markham lied or contradicted
herself. If Markham makes any mistakes you'll say she was being misled
by Mark Lane. But if Mark Lane gets anything wrong you'll call him a
liar. That's the MO of the WC defenders.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/15/2013 11:38 AM, Bud wrote:

Not surprising at all to real researchers. It's called cover-up. When I
went to tne National Archives in College Park to listen to the HSCA tape
of the DPD dictabelt the staff took it off the public shelf and put it
in a vault and said the public was not allowed to hear it.

[Anthony Marsh]

As I said before and you just proved, most WC defenders do not even know
what is in it.
Every time I say this the WC defenders deny it and ask for some proof.
Then I show them your message and they deny you said it.

[Anthony Marsh]

Where's your list of 100 Bugliosi lies?

[John McAdams]

On 15 Mar 2013 22:20:23 -0400, Anthony Marsh

I had no trouble listening to the Lane interview of Markham at NA II
in College Park.

[John McAdams]

On 15 Mar 2013 22:20:02 -0400, Anthony Marsh

But Lane does have a long history of lying.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane

I don't call most conspiracy authors liars, since virtually all are
sincere (if misguided). But Lane just flatly lies.

[Anthony Marsh]

Why do you assume that they would allow that? Don't you understand how a
cover-up works? When I asked for a copy of the HSCA tape they said it was
locked up in a vault and they would not make a copy for me. They don't
have to obey the FOIA. We don't have a President with enough power to
force them to obey the law.

[mainframetech]

Marsh...what part of " It may be that Lane wanted..." do you not
understand? I made no quote of Lane's words, and I made it clear that
I was speculating as to his purpose. And I try to make my quotes to
be from testimony where possible, and not people's books.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

Mark Lane Addendum:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-85.html#In-The-WC-Volumes

[Walt]

On Mar 15, 10:38 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Mar 14, 10:47 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > This is the most I've seen of the interview:
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
>
>   Thanks David, I found that one, but it`s missing quite a bit. I wanted
> the whole thing to compare with Lane`s assertions before he produced the
> tape. .John has provided a link to what looks like a full version. It
> already answered one question I had, I was wondering why Markham said that
> she had never heard that lady on the tape, the transcripts I had seen were
> only Lane and Markham. It seems early on their was a woman operator on the
> line.

Either way Markham was lying....... You know she had heard the woman
operators voice before because she was on the line when Markham answer the
call......

Markham was attempting to say she had never talked to Mark Lane ....Until
the attorney asked her if it wasn't her voice, and then she was forced to
admit that the it was her voice, but then she immediately starting denying
that she had talked to that ma ( Mark Lane) You're a drowning man
grasping at straws Buddy boy.......

[mainframetech]

LOL! So now you can read minds and know what I "pretend to
believe"...:) Perhaps you need to look into your own beliefs and worry
less about mine. After all, you've professed to be a complete believer in
the WC wacko theories.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

As I said before and you just proved, most WC defenders do not even
know what is in it.

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

I have never once claimed to have read every single page of all 26 WC
volumes. I'm constantly finding stuff in there that is "new" to me.
And I'd bet my next CIA Disinformation check that Tony Marsh has found
"new" stuff in the WCR and 26 WC volumes himself over the last few
years. Right, Tony? Or do you want to claim that you've read every
single page of every single WC volume? I'm doubting that ANYONE has
ever done that. Not even Jim Garrison or Mark Lane.

But I've certainly read enough of the WCR and supporting volumes and
testimony to know one thing for sure:

Lee Oswald killed two men in Dallas in Nov. of '63.

Are you still attempting to dodge the above fact after all these
years, Tony?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-85.html#In-The-WC-Volumes

[David Von Pein]

TONY MARSH ASKED:

Where's your list of 100 Bugliosi lies?

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

I haven't even found the FIRST Bugliosi lie yet, Tony. You've got 100
of them, eh? I'd love to see that list. Can I see it?

I have found several VB "mistakes", however:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/errors-in-reclaiming-history.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/reclaiming-history-errors.html

[Anthony Marsh]

Where did you get the idea that's why Mark Lane wanted? You just made it
up.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/15/2013 10:24 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 15 Mar 2013 22:20:02 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/15/2013 11:38 AM, Bud wrote:
>>> On Mar 14, 10:47 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> This is the most I've seen of the interview:
>>>>
>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
>>>
>>> Thanks David, I found that one, but it`s missing quite a bit. I wanted
>>> the whole thing to compare with Lane`s assertions before he produced the
>>> tape. .John has provided a link to what looks like a full version. It
>>> already answered one question I had, I was wondering why Markham said that
>>> she had never heard that lady on the tape, the transcripts I had seen were
>>> only Lane and Markham. It seems early on their was a woman operator on the
>>> line. This version will suit my purposes, when I have time I`ll compare
>>> the transcript with Lane`s testimony and see how many lies he told in his
>>> testimony under oath, and in his book "Rush to Judgment". And then I`ll
>>> present them to Ben to watch him dance.
>>>
>>>> Addendum (just for fun):http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vincent-bugliosi-vs-mark-lan...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> But you won't notice how many times Markham lied or contradicted
>> herself. If Markham makes any mistakes you'll say she was being misled
>> by Mark Lane. But if Mark Lane gets anything wrong you'll call him a
>> liar. That's the MO of the WC defenders.
>>
>>
>
> But Lane does have a long history of lying.
>

WC defenders have a very long history of lying about Mark Lane.

> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
>
> I don't call most conspiracy authors liars, since virtually all are
> sincere (if misguided). But Lane just flatly lies.
>

Many WC defenders just flat out lie.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not my point. Someone said something about making a copy.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/15/2013 10:19 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 15 Mar 2013 22:16:37 -0400, Walt <papakoc...@evertek.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 14, 9:44=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>> On 14 Mar 2013 22:36:04 -0400, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was wondering if there is a complete transcript (or better yet, the
>>>> tape) of the telephone interview Mark Lane conducted with Helen Markham.
>>>> I`ve seen excerpts but not the entire discussion from start to finish. C=
>> an
>>>> anyone help? And no, Tony, snide comments do not constitute "help".
>>>
>>> 20H571
>>>
>>> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
>>>
>>> The tape is in the National Archives in College Park. =A0You could hire
>>> an outside contractor whom they would recommend to make a copy.
>>>
>>> .John
>>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>> John, You provided a link to the questiong of helen Markham......READ what
>> that says.......
>>
>> Lane isn't responsible for what you call a "factoid" Helen Marham herself
>> said that a newspaper had quoted her as saying that Tippit's Killer was
>> "short" and "kinda heavy" with bushy black hair.
>>
>
> The problem is that there is no newspaper article saying that.
>

So you're calling Helen Marham a liar. Why is it that you WC defenders
always fall back on calling all the witnesses liars?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/15/2013 10:16 PM, Walt wrote:
> On Mar 14, 9:44 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 14 Mar 2013 22:36:04 -0400, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I was wondering if there is a complete transcript (or better yet, the
>>> tape) of the telephone interview Mark Lane conducted with Helen Markham.
>>> I`ve seen excerpts but not the entire discussion from start to finish. Can
>>> anyone help? And no, Tony, snide comments do not constitute "help".
>>
>> 20H571
>>
>> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
>>
>> The tape is in the National Archives in College Park. You could hire
>> an outside contractor whom they would recommend to make a copy.
>>
>> .John
>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> John, You provided a link to the questiong of helen Markham......READ what
> that says.......
>
> Lane isn't responsible for what you call a "factoid" Helen Marham herself
> said that a newspaper had quoted her as saying that Tippit's Killer was
> "short" and "kinda heavy" with bushy black hair.
>

McAdams must think that Mark Lane badgered her into saying that.

> I seriously doubt that any reporter would conjure up a description of the
> killer out of thin air. Anybody with an ounce of commonsense can see that
> Markham was lying. There's no doubt about that.
>

Hey, how do you know the reporter wasn't in on the conspiracy with Mark
Lane to make up a phony story? Yeah, that's it.

> There's also no doubt that Markham had been threatened and was scared to
> death and that's why she was desperately lying. So instead of focusing on
> Mark Lane...... Who was NOT lying ( They would have loved to have nailed
> him on a perjury charge to get him out of their hair) You should be asking
> yourself..... WHO threatened this important witness??
>

He's not allowed to ask questions like this, he's a WC defender, not a
dissenter.

[Sandy McCroskey]

By saying you only "pretend" to believe the silly things you profess to
believe, Bud is crediting you with having, deep down inside, more sense
than your own statements evince.

Perhaps, though, that is giving you too much credit.

/sm

[Bud]

Did you tell them you weren`t the public?

[Bud]

On Mar 15, 10:20 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 3/15/2013 11:38 AM, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 14, 10:47 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> This is the most I've seen of the interview:
>
> >>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
>
> >    Thanks David, I found that one, but it`s missing quite a bit. I wanted
> > the whole thing to compare with Lane`s assertions before he produced the
> > tape. .John has provided a link to what looks like a full version. It
> > already answered one question I had, I was wondering why Markham said that
> > she had never heard that lady on the tape, the transcripts I had seen were
> > only Lane and Markham. It seems early on their was a woman operator on the
> > line. This version will suit my purposes, when I have time I`ll compare
> > the transcript with Lane`s testimony and see how many lies he told in his
> > testimony under oath, and in his book "Rush to Judgment". And then I`ll
> > present them to Ben to watch him dance.
>
> >> Addendum (just for fun):http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vincent-bugliosi-vs-mark-lan...
>
> But you won't notice how many times Markham lied or contradicted
> herself.

It doesn`t matter much. She is just a waitress who isn`t used to this
sort of grilling. She is confused and flustered. She gave CTers plenty to
focus on to ignore that she said she was sure she saw Oswald kill Tippit.
That was the only information she gave that really counted, and quite a
few people back her up on this. But it`s a free country, you guys don`t
have to believe she saw Oswald there. You can keep your "Oswald was a
patsy" fantasies alive if you like. You can even believe Lane is an honest
researcher interested in the truth.

> If Markham makes any mistakes you'll say she was being misled
> by Mark Lane.

Of course, this is obviously what he set out to do, play up any
discrepancies.

> But if Mark Lane gets anything wrong you'll call him a
> liar.

I don`t think he outright lies very often, but he is always deceitful
and dishonest. Like it may be true that Markham allowed that the man she
saw was a little bit heavy, but it is also true that she gave a weight
range of 100 to 150 pounds. It might be true that she allowed that the
man`s hair was a little bushy, but she went on to explain that what she
meant by that was that it need combing. Lane represents this up as
something inconsistent with a man with a receding hairline. There things
are done purposely, and the purpose is deceit.

> That's the MO of the WC defenders.

Yes, weighing information correctly. If everyone could do it there
wouldn`t be conspiracy mongers. But they must keep the idea alive (at
least in their own minds) that Oswald was a patsy.

[mainframetech]

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-85.htm...

Interesting. Make a statement and then call it a fact. That's how
legends are built...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

Marsh...I repeat, just to correct your continuing error. When someone
says "it may be that..." they are suggesting what the other person MAY
have meant, and there was NO intent to read minds. It is entirely the
artifice of the speaker.

Chris

[Ace Kefford]

On Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:36:04 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> I was wondering if there is a complete transcript (or better yet, the
>
> tape) of the telephone interview Mark Lane conducted with Helen Markham.
>
> I`ve seen excerpts but not the entire discussion from start to finish. Can
>
> anyone help? And no, Tony, snide comments do not constitute "help".

Way, way back when I first started reading about the assassination and
thoroughly approached things from a conspiracy end, Lane's shameful
handling and of Helen Markham, his deceptive reporting of it, and his
pathetic attempts to hide the transcript based on false evoking of
doctrines protecting an attorneys work product and the attorney-client
privileged convinced me that he could not be trusted, and in fact was not
seeking the truth.

[Bud]

On Mar 16, 12:15 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 15, 3:48 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 11:40 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 14, 10:56 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Oh, I now see that John M. has linked to the whole thing (Markham
> > > > Exhibit No. 1). I had never seen that before.
>
> > > > Good gosh, there's a lot of stuff in those 26 volumes, isn't there?
>
> > > >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0...
>
> > >   Interesting.  It may be that Lane wanted to tie up the man Markham saw
> > > with the man that Acquilla Clemmons saw reloading his gun after the
> > > shooting of Tippit.  A short, heavy ('chunky') man, similar to the man
> > > driving the Nash Rambler that Oswald was seen getting into by 5 people.
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaCCd0hzLsY
>
> > > Chris
>
> >  <snicker> The nonsense you pretend to believe...
>
>    LOL!  So now you can read minds and know what I "pretend to
> believe"...:)

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

> Perhaps you need to look into your own beliefs and worry
> less about mine.  After all, you've professed to be a complete believer in
> the WC wacko theories.

Not complete, but their conclusions were sound.

> Chris

[Bud]

On Mar 16, 12:14 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> On Mar 15, 10:38 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 14, 10:47 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > This is the most I've seen of the interview:
>
> > >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
>
> >   Thanks David, I found that one, but it`s missing quite a bit. I wanted
> > the whole thing to compare with Lane`s assertions before he produced the
> > tape. .John has provided a link to what looks like a full version. It
> > already answered one question I had, I was wondering why Markham said that
> > she had never heard that lady on the tape, the transcripts I had seen were
> > only Lane and Markham. It seems early on their was a woman operator on the
> > line.
>
> Either way Markham was lying....... You know she had heard the woman
> operators voice before because she was on the line when Markham answer the
> call......
>
> Markham was attempting to say she had never talked to Mark Lane ....Until
> the attorney asked her if it wasn't her voice, and then she was forced to
> admit that the it was her voice, but then she immediately starting denying
> that she had talked to that ma ( Mark Lane)  You're a drowning man
> grasping at straws Buddy boy.......

You are making a big deal out of nothing, to divert away from the
information she supplied that implicated your precious patsy. I don`t know
the reason why or how it came to pass that she denied that phone
interview, but it is clear the reasons are entirely of her own making, and
nobody elses. It is also clear what a waste of time it would be to have a
witness like Markham try to follow a script when she struggles to relate
actual events she was a part of.

What devious reason would motivate her to deny the interview? Reading
the transcript from the phone interview it does little harm to anything
she said elsewhere, either her affidavit or what she related to the WC.
Theres no deceit on her part, but there is on Lane`s. This is why Lane
balked at supplying the tape, he knew that how he represented the
conversation and how it appears in context are two entirely different
things.

[Walt]

On Mar 15, 9:19 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 15 Mar 2013 22:16:37 -0400, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 14, 9:44=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:

> >> On 14 Mar 2013 22:36:04 -0400, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > I was wondering if there is a complete transcript (or better yet, the
> >> >tape) of the telephone interview Mark Lane conducted with Helen Markham.

> >> >I`ve seen excerpts but not the entire discussion from start to finish. C=

> >an
> >> >anyone help? And no, Tony, snide comments do not constitute "help".
>

> >> 20H571
>
> >>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
>
> >> The tape is in the National Archives in College Park. =A0You could hire

> >> an outside contractor whom they would recommend to make a copy.
>
> >> .John
> >> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

> >John, You provided a link to the questiong of helen Markham......READ what
> >that says.......
>
> >Lane isn't responsible for what you call a "factoid"  Helen Marham herself
> >said that a newspaper had quoted her as saying that Tippit's Killer was
> >"short" and "kinda heavy" with bushy black hair.
>

> The problem is that there is no newspaper article saying that.

Simply because you haven't seen that newspaper doesn't mean ity doesn't
exist...... Mark Lane said he had read the story, and Helen Markham agree
that it was in a newspaper .... But Helen said the reporter lied....

> Markham apparently went along with what Lane said

Ha,ha,ha,..... What a silly thing to say......The entire transcript is one
long denial and she only went along with Lane when she was caught in a
lie.....

apparently using the "whatever" principle.  I doubt she even knew
everthing the papers wrote about her.

You're squirmin, John.......

>
> If you want to bail out Lane, produce the newspaper article.
>
> .John

Your deception is palpable..........

[John McAdams]

On 16 Mar 2013 11:54:42 -0400, Walt <papakoc...@evertek.net>
wrote:

>On Mar 15, 9:19�pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 15 Mar 2013 22:16:37 -0400, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >John, You provided a link to the questiong of helen Markham......READ what
>> >that says.......
>>
>> >Lane isn't responsible for what you call a "factoid" �Helen Marham herself
>> >said that a newspaper had quoted her as saying that Tippit's Killer was
>> >"short" and "kinda heavy" with bushy black hair.
>>
>> The problem is that there is no newspaper article saying that.
>
>
>Simply because you haven't seen that newspaper doesn't mean ity doesn't
>exist...... Mark Lane said he had read the story, and Helen Markham agree
>that it was in a newspaper .... But Helen said the reporter lied....
>

Not only have *I* not seen the article, nobody has been able to
produce it.

If you believe it, produce it. It's not that hard to get the
TIMES-HERALD and the DALLAS MORNING NEWS for the days following the
assassination. A lot of libraries have them on microfilm.

And you can search massive databases of other newspapers.

So show me the article.

>
>> Markham apparently went along with what Lane said
>
>Ha,ha,ha,..... What a silly thing to say......The entire transcript is one
>long denial and she only went along with Lane when she was caught in a
>lie.....
>

Lane lied about what she said.

Have you not read the entire thing, an then noted how Lane described
it?

She was not "caught in a lie." She didn't remember talking to Lane,
which would not be suprising.

>apparently using the "whatever" principle. �I doubt she even knew
>everthing the papers wrote about her.
>
>You're squirmin, John.......
>

You are trying to evade the fact that Lane, flatly and intentionally,
misrepresented what Markham said.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Walt]

On Mar 15, 9:19 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 15 Mar 2013 22:16:37 -0400, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> >On Mar 14, 9:44=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >> On 14 Mar 2013 22:36:04 -0400, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > I was wondering if there is a complete transcript (or better yet, the
> >> >tape) of the telephone interview Mark Lane conducted with Helen Markham.
> >> >I`ve seen excerpts but not the entire discussion from start to finish. C=
> >an
> >> >anyone help? And no, Tony, snide comments do not constitute "help".
>
> >> 20H571
>
> >>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
>
> >> The tape is in the National Archives in College Park. =A0You could hire
> >> an outside contractor whom they would recommend to make a copy.
>
> >> .John
> >> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

> >John, You provided a link to the questiong of helen Markham......READ what
> >that says.......
>
> >Lane isn't responsible for what you call a "factoid"  Helen Marham herself
> >said that a newspaper had quoted her as saying that Tippit's Killer was
> >"short" and "kinda heavy" with bushy black hair.
>
> The problem is that there is no newspaper article saying that.
>

> Markham apparently went along with what Lane said, apparently using

> the "whatever" principle.  I doubt she even knew everthing the papers
> wrote about her.
>

> If you want to bail out Lane, produce the newspaper article.
>
> .John

John, I posted you're reply in the Alt Conspriracy NG..... I 'm very
angry at your hypocrisy, and I know you are biased in the use of your
ability to silence anybody who disagrees with you.......So.. Come on
over to the American NG where free speech is still allowed, and lets
discuss this........

[John McAdams]

On 16 Mar 2013 12:01:33 -0400, Walt <papakoc...@evertek.net>
wrote:

You are reverting to the old Walt, who can't discuss anything without
turning abusive.

If you don't have the guts to reply here, everybody will know that you
have no plausible answer.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Walt]

Keep in mind that the testimonies were extracted from the witnesses
by the cover up artists of LBJ's SBRC.

[Walt]

Precisely!..... I give you the legend of the Warren Report as as a
grand example......



>
> Chris

[Walt]

On Mar 16, 10:42 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 12:14 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 10:38 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 14, 10:47 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > This is the most I've seen of the interview:
>
> > > >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
>
> > >   Thanks David, I found that one, but it`s missing quite a bit. I wanted
> > > the whole thing to compare with Lane`s assertions before he produced the
> > > tape. .John has provided a link to what looks like a full version. It
> > > already answered one question I had, I was wondering why Markham said that
> > > she had never heard that lady on the tape, the transcripts I had seen were
> > > only Lane and Markham. It seems early on their was a woman operator on the
> > > line.
>
> > Either way Markham was lying....... You know she had heard the woman
> > operators voice before because she was on the line when Markham answer the
> > call......
>
> > Markham was attempting to say she had never talked to Mark Lane ....Until
> > the attorney asked her if it wasn't her voice, and then she was forced to
> > admit that the it was her voice, but then she immediately starting denying
> > that she had talked to that ma ( Mark Lane)  You're a drowning man
> > grasping at straws Buddy boy.......
>
>   You are making a big deal out of nothing, to divert away from the
> information she supplied that implicated your precious patsy.

So now you admit that Lee was a patsy......Well that's a start.

> I don`t know the reason why or how it came to pass that she denied that phone interview, but it is clear the reasons are entirely of her own making,

Your problem is ...you can't read or reason..... Many times during
the convrsation Markham alludes to the man who was the "police from
city Hall" as the man who told he not to talk to reporters

>and nobody elses. It is also clear what a waste of time it would be to have a witness like Markham try to follow a script >when she struggles to relate actual events she was a part of.

Follow a script??.... Bingo, nice of you to admit that..... And you're
exactly right, The slimey WC lawyers desperately wanted her to follow the
script, but she simply couldn't do that.... Reality kept getting in the
way.... and they never were able to get her to back away from her
statement that she sw Tippit shot at about 1:06.

>
>   What devious reason would motivate her to deny the interview?

Devious reason?......Nothing devious on Markham's part ...She was scared
to death that she was going to be arrested and go to jail for ignoring
Henry Wades threat of sending her to jail if she talked to reporters.

> Reading the transcript from the phone interview it does little harm to anything she said elsewhere, either her affidavit or >what she related to the WC. Theres no deceit on her part, but there is on Lane`s.

OMG!..... Didn't you just write this ...."I don`t know the reason why or

how it came to pass that she denied that phone interview, but it is clear
the reasons are entirely of her own making,"

> This is why Lane balked at supplying the tape, he knew that how he represented the conversation and how it appears >in context are two entirely different things.

You've read the transcript..... Is your ability to understand what
you read on par with a mule?

[Ben Holmes]

In article <0s59k89f899p3auaf...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...

>
>On 16 Mar 2013 12:01:33 -0400, Walt <papakoc...@evertek.net>
>wrote:
>

>>On Mar 15, 9:19?pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>>> On 15 Mar 2013 22:16:37 -0400, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The problem is that there is no newspaper article saying that.
>>>
>>> Markham apparently went along with what Lane said, apparently using

>>> the "whatever" principle. ?I doubt she even knew everthing the papers

>>> wrote about her.
>>>
>>> If you want to bail out Lane, produce the newspaper article.
>>>
>>> .John
>>
>>John, I posted you're reply in the Alt Conspriracy NG..... I 'm very
>>angry at your hypocrisy, and I know you are biased in the use of your
>>ability to silence anybody who disagrees with you.......So.. Come on
>>over to the American NG where free speech is still allowed, and lets
>>discuss this........
>>
>
>You are reverting to the old Walt, who can't discuss anything without
>turning abusive.
>
>If you don't have the guts to reply here, everybody will know that you
>have no plausible answer.
>
>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

The problem, of course, is that replies can be censored by you for any
reason, and clearly have been in the past.

People who cannot stand the heat of a completely free forum must not
believe that they have the truth on their side...

Or the evidence...


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

[John McAdams]

On 16 Mar 2013 21:55:04 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
wrote:

If you *actually* have any evidence, then post it.

But you don't know how to debate evidence without calling people
liars, then don't bother.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/16/2013 12:00 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 16 Mar 2013 11:54:42 -0400, Walt <papakoc...@evertek.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 15, 9:19 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>>> On 15 Mar 2013 22:16:37 -0400, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John, You provided a link to the questiong of helen Markham......READ what
>>>> that says.......
>>>
>>>> Lane isn't responsible for what you call a "factoid" Helen Marham herself
>>>> said that a newspaper had quoted her as saying that Tippit's Killer was
>>>> "short" and "kinda heavy" with bushy black hair.
>>>
>>> The problem is that there is no newspaper article saying that.
>>
>>
>> Simply because you haven't seen that newspaper doesn't mean ity doesn't
>> exist...... Mark Lane said he had read the story, and Helen Markham agree
>> that it was in a newspaper .... But Helen said the reporter lied....
>>
>
> Not only have *I* not seen the article, nobody has been able to
> produce it.
>
> If you believe it, produce it. It's not that hard to get the
> TIMES-HERALD and the DALLAS MORNING NEWS for the days following the
> assassination. A lot of libraries have them on microfilm.
>

Excuse me? I know the burden of proof is on him since he made the claim,
but if you also make a claim then the burden of proof also falls on you
for YOUR claim. You said it is not that hard to get the newspapers for
that timeframe and produce the story. So why can't YOU if it indeed is not
that hard?

[John McAdams]

On 16 Mar 2013 21:57:12 -0400, Anthony Marsh

You want me to put online a news story of Markham *not* saying what
Lane said she says?

I could easily do that, but you would just claim it's in some other
story.

So why don't you quit being snotty, and just admit that Lane lied?

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

In fact it was the only reason that Mark Lane had for seeking out Markham.
Because he had read the story and noticed that her story seemed at odds
with the physical appearance of Oswald. If the story had never existed
then Mark Lane would never have known to seek her out and there would
never have been any controversy. But McAdams can't figure that out.

>
>> Markham apparently went along with what Lane said
>
> Ha,ha,ha,..... What a silly thing to say......The entire transcript is one
> long denial and she only went along with Lane when she was caught in a
> lie.....
>
> apparently using the "whatever" principle. I doubt she even knew
> everthing the papers wrote about her.
>

Could she even read a newspaper? Did she ever read that newspaper?

> You're squirmin, John.......
>
>>
>> If you want to bail out Lane, produce the newspaper article.
>>
>> .John
>
> Your deception is palpable..........
>

And he claimed that it would be easy to find the newspaper article. Like
every local library has the Dallas Morning News on microfiche. He
certainly has the big bucks to buy it himself, but he won't. Because that
would be research.

[John McAdams]

On 16 Mar 2013 21:59:23 -0400, Anthony Marsh

<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 3/16/2013 11:54 AM, Walt wrote:
>> On Mar 15, 9:19 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>>> On 15 Mar 2013 22:16:37 -0400, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is that there is no newspaper article saying that.
>>
>>
>> Simply because you haven't seen that newspaper doesn't mean ity doesn't
>> exist...... Mark Lane said he had read the story, and Helen Markham agree
>> that it was in a newspaper .... But Helen said the reporter lied....
>>
>
>In fact it was the only reason that Mark Lane had for seeking out Markham.
>Because he had read the story and noticed that her story seemed at odds
>with the physical appearance of Oswald. If the story had never existed
>then Mark Lane would never have known to seek her out and there would
>never have been any controversy. But McAdams can't figure that out.
>

You can't figure out that Lane lied about that.

>>
>>> Markham apparently went along with what Lane said
>>
>> Ha,ha,ha,..... What a silly thing to say......The entire transcript is one
>> long denial and she only went along with Lane when she was caught in a
>> lie.....
>>
>> apparently using the "whatever" principle. I doubt she even knew
>> everthing the papers wrote about her.
>>
>
>Could she even read a newspaper? Did she ever read that newspaper?
>
>> You're squirmin, John.......
>>
>>>
>>> If you want to bail out Lane, produce the newspaper article.
>>>
>>> .John
>>
>> Your deception is palpable..........
>>
>
>And he claimed that it would be easy to find the newspaper article. Like
>every local library has the Dallas Morning News on microfiche. He
>certainly has the big bucks to buy it himself, but he won't. Because that
>would be research.
>

Marquette's library has the MORNING NEWS for the days following the
assassination, and it's not there.

Do you think you can simply *posit* that such a story exists, and that
counts as evidence?

Show us the damn story!

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Exactly. So Oswald was short, stocky and had bushy hair. Perfect.

>
> What devious reason would motivate her to deny the interview? Reading

Maybe because the cops told her not to talk to anyone?

> the transcript from the phone interview it does little harm to anything
> she said elsewhere, either her affidavit or what she related to the WC.
> Theres no deceit on her part, but there is on Lane`s. This is why Lane
> balked at supplying the tape, he knew that how he represented the
> conversation and how it appears in context are two entirely different
> things.
>

What does harm is when she commits perjury and denies even talking to
Mark Lane. Some witness you got there.

[timstter]

On Mar 16, 3:21 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 3/15/2013 10:24 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 15 Mar 2013 22:20:02 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> > <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> >> On 3/15/2013 11:38 AM, Bud wrote:
> >>> On Mar 14, 10:47 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>> This is the most I've seen of the interview:
>
> >>>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
>
> >>>     Thanks David, I found that one, but it`s missing quite a bit. I wanted
> >>> the whole thing to compare with Lane`s assertions before he produced the
> >>> tape. .John has provided a link to what looks like a full version. It
> >>> already answered one question I had, I was wondering why Markham said that
> >>> she had never heard that lady on the tape, the transcripts I had seen were
> >>> only Lane and Markham. It seems early on their was a woman operator on the

> >>> line. This version will suit my purposes, when I have time I`ll compare

> >>> the transcript with Lane`s testimony and see how many lies he told in his
> >>> testimony under oath, and in his book "Rush to Judgment". And then I`ll
> >>> present them to Ben to watch him dance.
>
> >>>> Addendum (just for fun):http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vincent-bugliosi-vs-mark-lan...
>

> >> But you won't notice how many times Markham lied or contradicted

> >> herself. If Markham makes any mistakes you'll say she was being misled
> >> by Mark Lane. But if Mark Lane gets anything wrong you'll call him a
> >> liar. That's the MO of the WC defenders.
>
> > But Lane does have a long history of lying.
>
> WC defenders have a very long history of lying about Mark Lane.
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
>
> > I don't call most conspiracy authors liars, since virtually all are
> > sincere (if misguided).  But Lane just flatly lies.
>
> Many WC defenders just flat out lie.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > .John

>
> > --
> > The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Mark Lane flat out lies on many matters.

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[Anthony Marsh]

Excuse me, but it wasn't a transcript. It was a tape recording he had
made while talking to Markham. And Markham had denied even talking to
him. She had even denied it was her voice on the tape. She had been
warned by the FBI to talk to no one about the case.

[Anthony Marsh]

It's called Begging the Question.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/16/2013 11:21 AM, Bud wrote:
> On Mar 15, 10:20 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 3/15/2013 11:38 AM, Bud wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 14, 10:47 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> This is the most I've seen of the interview:
>>
>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
>>
>>> Thanks David, I found that one, but it`s missing quite a bit. I wanted
>>> the whole thing to compare with Lane`s assertions before he produced the
>>> tape. .John has provided a link to what looks like a full version. It
>>> already answered one question I had, I was wondering why Markham said that
>>> she had never heard that lady on the tape, the transcripts I had seen were
>>> only Lane and Markham. It seems early on their was a woman operator on the
>>> line. This version will suit my purposes, when I have time I`ll compare
>>> the transcript with Lane`s testimony and see how many lies he told in his
>>> testimony under oath, and in his book "Rush to Judgment". And then I`ll
>>> present them to Ben to watch him dance.
>>
>>>> Addendum (just for fun):http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vincent-bugliosi-vs-mark-lan...
>>
>> But you won't notice how many times Markham lied or contradicted
>> herself.
>
> It doesn`t matter much. She is just a waitress who isn`t used to this
> sort of grilling. She is confused and flustered. She gave CTers plenty to
> focus on to ignore that she said she was sure she saw Oswald kill Tippit.

I think you are being a little too kind. You don't tell us what her IQ
was. You don't tell us that she couldn't pick out Oswald in the lineup.

> That was the only information she gave that really counted, and quite a
> few people back her up on this. But it`s a free country, you guys don`t
> have to believe she saw Oswald there. You can keep your "Oswald was a
> patsy" fantasies alive if you like. You can even believe Lane is an honest
> researcher interested in the truth.
>

I guess it doesn't matter to you that she described someone other than
Oswald.

If you assume that Oswald shot Tippit as I do, that makes her a terrible
witness.

>> If Markham makes any mistakes you'll say she was being misled
>> by Mark Lane.
>
> Of course, this is obviously what he set out to do, play up any
> discrepancies.
>

No, he merely picked up on what she told the reporters.

>> But if Mark Lane gets anything wrong you'll call him a
>> liar.
>
> I don`t think he outright lies very often, but he is always deceitful
> and dishonest. Like it may be true that Markham allowed that the man she
> saw was a little bit heavy, but it is also true that she gave a weight
> range of 100 to 150 pounds. It might be true that she allowed that the

Where does she say 100 to 150 pounds? Is 150 pounds on the heavy side?

> man`s hair was a little bushy, but she went on to explain that what she
> meant by that was that it need combing. Lane represents this up as

Quote where she said that. Not much hair to comb.

> something inconsistent with a man with a receding hairline. There things
> are done purposely, and the purpose is deceit.
>

So now you are claiming that Oswald had a receding hairline?
Were the reporters being deceitful when asking for her story?

>> That's the MO of the WC defenders.
>
> Yes, weighing information correctly. If everyone could do it there
> wouldn`t be conspiracy mongers. But they must keep the idea alive (at
> least in their own minds) that Oswald was a patsy.
>

Hiding evidence.
Not reading the WC.

[Anthony Marsh]

What? What kind of silly question is that? They knew I was a researcher.
That's why we were there.

[Walt]

On Mar 16, 11:03 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 16 Mar 2013 12:01:33 -0400, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net>

So it's your position that the newspaper story never existed, is that
right John?

OK... fair enough....Then answer these questions.... How do you
account for the fact that both Lane and Markham had read that
newspaper story? Are you saying Lane made it up out of whole cloth
and there never was such a story?

Markham said she had read it but newspapers just print whatever they
think is interesting.


If you don't have the guts to answer the questions averybody will know
that you're lacking.....





>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 16 Mar 2013 22:10:16 -0400, Walt <papakoc...@evertek.net>
wrote:

>On Mar 16, 11:03�am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 16 Mar 2013 12:01:33 -0400, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mar 15, 9:19�pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> >> On 15 Mar 2013 22:16:37 -0400, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> The problem is that there is no newspaper article saying that.
>>
>> >> Markham apparently went along with what Lane said, apparently using
>> >> the "whatever" principle. �I doubt she even knew everthing the papers
>> >> wrote about her.
>>
>> >> If you want to bail out Lane, produce the newspaper article.
>>
>> >> .John
>>
>> >John, I posted you're reply in the Alt Conspriracy NG..... I 'm very
>> >angry at your hypocrisy, and I know you are biased in the use of your
>> >ability to silence anybody who disagrees with you.......So.. Come on
>> >over to the American NG where free speech is still allowed, and lets
>> >discuss this........
>>
>> You are reverting to the old Walt, who can't discuss anything without
>> turning abusive.
>>
>> If you don't have the guts to reply here, everybody will know that you
>> have no plausible answer.
>
>So it's your position that the newspaper story never existed, is that
>right John?
>

That's right. If it existed, somebody would have been able to produce
it by now.

>OK... fair enough....Then answer these questions.... How do you
>account for the fact that both Lane and Markham had read that
>newspaper story? Are you saying Lane made it up out of whole cloth
>and there never was such a story?
>

Wrong assumption. Neither had read such a story.

If Lane was not flatly lying, he may have simply been mixed up. But I
wouldn't put flatly lying beyond him.

>Markham said she had read it but newspapers just print whatever they
>think is interesting.
>

That's a generic response to being told something that you know is
untrue.

Since you think the story existed, do you accept Markham's *denial*
that she ever said that?

Or is she telling the truth when convenient for you, and lying when
it's convenient for you?

>
>If you don't have the guts to answer the questions averybody will know
>that you're lacking.....
>

Produce the story, if you think it existed.

You know you can't, and you are just bluffing. That's not a decent
way to deal with an issue.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[mainframetech]

I leave you with your sounds.
>
Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/16/2013 12:20 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> TONY MARSH ASKED:
>
> Where's your list of 100 Bugliosi lies?
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
> I haven't even found the FIRST Bugliosi lie yet, Tony. You've got 100
> of them, eh? I'd love to see that list. Can I see it?
>

It's been posted hundreds of times, but maybe you were away at the time.
Certainly you can't look it up on Google.

> I have found several VB "mistakes", however:
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/errors-in-reclaiming-history.html
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/reclaiming-history-errors.html
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/16/2013 12:20 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>

> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> As I said before and you just proved, most WC defenders do not even
> know what is in it.
>
>

> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
> I have never once claimed to have read every single page of all 26 WC
> volumes. I'm constantly finding stuff in there that is "new" to me.
> And I'd bet my next CIA Disinformation check that Tony Marsh has found
> "new" stuff in the WCR and 26 WC volumes himself over the last few

> years. Right, Tony? Or do you want to claim that you've read every

Au contraire. I have found NEW things by reading the internal memos and
documents which the WC did not publish.

> single page of every single WC volume? I'm doubting that ANYONE has
> ever done that. Not even Jim Garrison or Mark Lane.
>
> But I've certainly read enough of the WCR and supporting volumes and
> testimony to know one thing for sure:
>
> Lee Oswald killed two men in Dallas in Nov. of '63.
>
> Are you still attempting to dodge the above fact after all these
> years, Tony?
>

I is not a fact just because you think it is.

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-85.html#In-The-WC-Volumes
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/16/2013 12:14 AM, Walt wrote:

> On Mar 15, 10:38 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Mar 14, 10:47 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This is the most I've seen of the interview:
>>
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
>>
>> Thanks David, I found that one, but it`s missing quite a bit. I wanted
>> the whole thing to compare with Lane`s assertions before he produced the
>> tape. .John has provided a link to what looks like a full version. It
>> already answered one question I had, I was wondering why Markham said that
>> she had never heard that lady on the tape, the transcripts I had seen were
>> only Lane and Markham. It seems early on their was a woman operator on the
>> line.
>

> Either way Markham was lying....... You know she had heard the woman
> operators voice before because she was on the line when Markham answer the
> call......
>
> Markham was attempting to say she had never talked to Mark Lane ....Until
> the attorney asked her if it wasn't her voice, and then she was forced to
> admit that the it was her voice, but then she immediately starting denying
> that she had talked to that ma ( Mark Lane) You're a drowning man
> grasping at straws Buddy boy.......
>

In fact she denied at first that it was her voice.

Mr. Liebeler.
How do you explain the fact that the woman's voice on this tape
recording is your voice?
Mrs. Markham.
I never heard that.

[Walt]

On Mar 16, 11:00 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 16 Mar 2013 11:54:42 -0400, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 15, 9:19 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >> On 15 Mar 2013 22:16:37 -0400, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >John, You provided a link to the questiong of helen Markham......READ what
> >> >that says.......
>
> >> >Lane isn't responsible for what you call a "factoid"  Helen Marham herself
> >> >said that a newspaper had quoted her as saying that Tippit's Killer was
> >> >"short" and "kinda heavy" with bushy black hair.
>
> >> The problem is that there is no newspaper article saying that.
>
> >Simply because you haven't seen that newspaper doesn't mean ity doesn't
> >exist......  Mark Lane said he had read the story, and Helen Markham agree
> >that it was in a newspaper ....  But Helen said the reporter lied....
>
> Not only have *I* not seen the article, nobody has been able to
> produce it.
>
> If you believe it, produce it.  It's not that hard to get the
> TIMES-HERALD and the DALLAS MORNING NEWS for the days following the
> assassination.  A lot of libraries have them on microfilm.

Have you checked Paris??.... Markham said one of the reporters she talked
to was from Paris, France.....and I believe Mark Lane was in New York so
it's possible that the story was published in a Paris newspaper. I really
don't see how you can honestly deny the obvious, which is; The story was
published because both Lane and Markham said that they had read it.

[John McAdams]

On 16 Mar 2013 22:22:37 -0400, Walt <papakoc...@evertek.net>
wrote:

>On Mar 16, 11:00�am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 16 Mar 2013 11:54:42 -0400, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Simply because you haven't seen that newspaper doesn't mean ity doesn't
>> >exist...... �Mark Lane said he had read the story, and Helen Markham agree
>> >that it was in a newspaper .... �But Helen said the reporter lied....
>>
>> Not only have *I* not seen the article, nobody has been able to
>> produce it.
>>
>> If you believe it, produce it. �It's not that hard to get the
>> TIMES-HERALD and the DALLAS MORNING NEWS for the days following the
>> assassination. �A lot of libraries have them on microfilm.
>
>Have you checked Paris??.... Markham said one of the reporters she talked
>to was from Paris, France.....and I believe Mark Lane was in New York so
>it's possible that the story was published in a Paris newspaper. I really
>don't see how you can honestly deny the obvious, which is; The story was
>published because both Lane and Markham said that they had read it.
>

Have your library get the Paris papers on microfilm.

Do you think Markham could read French?

In fact, could Lane?

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[David Von Pein]

TONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "Markham...even denied it was her voice on the tape." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Dead wrong. That's only what Mark Lane wanted his audience of
conspiracy-thirsty fans to believe, as he attempted to make Markham
look like an even bigger idiot by not giving the audience the complete
story about the female voices heard on the tape recording of the Lane/
Markham interview.

According to Lane, Markham seemed to be saying she couldn't recognize
her own voice. But she knew the OPERATOR'S voice wasn't hers (and this
is brought out in Markham's Warren Commission testimony).

And when she said in her WC testimony--"this lady never talked to me"--
she obviously had just simply forgotten that she had talked briefly
with the female operator when she testified in front of the
Commission.

Just listen to how Mark Lane tries to make Mrs. Markham look like an
even bigger boob in this December 4, 1964, appearance at Beverly Hills
High School, wherein he doesn't bother to tell the large audience that
there WAS, in fact, another woman's voice on that tape:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-85.html#Lane-Vs-Markham

[Bud]

On Mar 16, 9:55 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <0s59k89f899p3auaf1n74sjq0bou8ip...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 16 Mar 2013 12:01:33 -0400, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net>

What would be the point of going to the nuthouse to discuss the case
with you. All you do is either attempt to drown out your opponents with ad
hominem, or if that fails, killfilter them.

[Bud]

Learn to read, I said *your* precious patsy. Thats what the game you
play is all about, believing anything you need to to pretend that is a
viable idea.

> >  I don`t know the reason why or how it came to pass that she denied that phone interview, but it is clear the reasons are entirely of her own making,
>
> Your problem is ...you can't read or reason.....  Many times during
> the convrsation Markham alludes to the man who was the "police from
> city Hall" as the man who told he not to talk to reporters

What does that have to do with her denying she talked to Lane on
the telephone?

> >and nobody elses. It is also clear what a waste of time it would be to have a witness like Markham try to follow a script >when she struggles to relate actual events she was a part of.
>
> Follow a script??....  Bingo, nice of you to admit that.....

This is why you can`t be trusted to get any information right. You
read it, and it becomes something else.

> And you're
> exactly right, The slimey WC lawyers desperately wanted her to follow the
> script, but she simply couldn't do that....  Reality kept getting in the
> way.... and they never were able to get her to back away from her
> statement that she sw Tippit shot at about 1:06.

Unfortunately you don`t have anything to back your ideas up with. You
"figure" this is what happened, and the reason you do is because this is
what is necessary to believe Oswald is innocent, that everyone was out to
get him. It`s a silly idea. And you have already shown that that is your
goal when you admitted that at one time you wanted to believe Brennan was
telling the truth, but then you came up with a different angle where you
could portray the information he supplied as exonerating Oswald. That is
the game.

> >   What devious reason would motivate her to deny the interview?
>
> Devious reason?......Nothing devious on Markham's part ...She was scared
> to death that she was going to be arrested and go to jail for ignoring
> Henry Wades threat of sending her to jail if she talked to reporters.

She was talking to Lane. She said she had talked to reporters in her
discussion with Lane.

And you claim their is no deviousness on Markhman`s part, she is
just lying. This makes sense to you?

> > Reading the transcript from the phone interview it does little harm to anything she said elsewhere, either her affidavit or >what she related to the WC. Theres no deceit on her part, but there is on Lane`s.
>
> OMG!..... Didn't you just write this ...."I don`t know the reason why or
> how it came to pass that she denied that phone interview, but it is clear
> the reasons are entirely of her own making,"

"transcript from the phone interview". She denied the call in her
testimony before the WC. The *phone* interview conducted by Lane did
little or no harm to what she told the WC, it was pretty consistent,
especially on the only real point that matters, that she saw Oswald kill
Tippit.

> > This is why Lane balked at supplying the tape, he knew that how he represented the conversation and how it appears >in context are two entirely different things.
>
> You've read the transcript.....  Is your ability to understand what
> you read on par with a mule?

I`d ask you the same thing since you can`t seem to tell the difference
between what Mark Lane represented what Markham related to be and the
actual transcript of the discussion.

[Bud]

Can you quote her saying these things?

> >    What devious reason would motivate her to deny the interview? Reading
>
> Maybe because the cops told her not to talk to anyone?

Yet she is.

> > the transcript from the phone interview it does little harm to anything
> > she said elsewhere, either her affidavit or what she related to the WC.
> > Theres no deceit on her part, but there is on Lane`s.  This is why Lane
> > balked at supplying the tape, he knew that how he represented the
> > conversation and how it appears in context are two entirely different
> > things.
>
> What does harm is when she commits perjury and denies even talking to
> Mark Lane. Some witness you got there.

When was Markham convicted of perjury?

And I don`t think you understand the law, there is a basic tenet
called "intent". You`d have to show that Markham was intentionally
being deceptive. Good luck with that.

[Bud]

I don`t know of any correlation between IQ and recognizing people
that you saw before, do you? In fact this might be something a
waitress could do better than most people, a skill honed on the job.

> > That was the only information she gave that really counted, and quite a
> > few people back her up on this. But it`s a free country, you guys don`t
> > have to believe she saw Oswald there. You can keep your "Oswald was a
> > patsy" fantasies alive if you like. You can even believe Lane is an honest
> > researcher interested in the truth.
>
> I guess it doesn't matter to you that she described someone other than
> Oswald.

You are just saying stuff, you aren`t showing that any information
she related rules out Oswald as the person she saw.

> If you assume that Oswald shot Tippit as I do, that makes her a terrible
> witness.

She is actually a great witness in a lot of ways. Had this gone to trail
she would have likely been identified with by members of the jury. They
would see she was just someone doing the best she could, a victim of
circumstance who just happened to see a murder and the murderer. All these
tricks some Jewish New York lawyer like Lane might pull in front of a
homegrown jury would likely backfire, and get Markham sympathy as the jury
might see her as being picked on. As it is it didn`t get to trial, so we
have a witness who says she looked long and hard at Oswald and was certain
it was he that she saw.

> >> If Markham makes any mistakes you'll say she was being misled
> >> by Mark Lane.
>
> >    Of course, this is obviously what he set out to do, play up any
> > discrepancies.
>
> No, he merely picked up on what she told the reporters.

He may have saw this in a newspaper. But the reason he called her was to
exploit what he saw as differences between Oswald and this description.
Hence, "play up any discrepancies".

> >> But if Mark Lane gets anything wrong you'll call him a
> >> liar.
>
> >    I don`t think he outright lies very often, but he is always deceitful
> > and dishonest. Like it may be true that Markham allowed that the man she
> > saw was a little bit heavy, but it is also true that she gave a weight
> > range of 100 to 150 pounds. It might be true that she allowed that the
>
> Where does she say 100 to 150 pounds?

Try reading the transcript.

> Is 150 pounds on the heavy side?
>
> > man`s hair was a little bushy, but she went on to explain that what she
> > meant by that was that it need combing. Lane represents this up as
>
> Quote where she said that. Not much hair to comb.

Read the transcript. I wouldn`t mind fetching it, but you can`t cut
and past the version .John produced, I don`t think.

> > something inconsistent with a man with a receding hairline. There things
> > are done purposely, and the purpose is deceit.
>
> So now you are claiming that Oswald had a receding hairline?

Lane did. Do I need to take you by the hand on everything?

> Were the reporters being deceitful when asking for her story?

Has what to do with what?

> >> That's the MO of the WC defenders.
>
> >    Yes, weighing information correctly. If everyone could do it there
> > wouldn`t be conspiracy mongers. But they must keep the idea alive (at
> > least in their own minds) that Oswald was a patsy.
>
> Hiding evidence.
> Not reading the WC.

Riding a bike.
Eating lunch.

"What are random utterances seen on the internet"?

[Walt]

On Mar 16, 8:58 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 16 Mar 2013 21:57:12 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
>
>
> <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On 3/16/2013 12:00 PM, John McAdams wrote:

> >> On 16 Mar 2013 11:54:42 -0400, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net>

Are you serious??...... Do you really believe that Mark Lane just conjured
up a story in which Helen Markham say that Tippit's killer was "Short" and
"kinda heavy" with dark bushy hair??? And then after he invented that
story Helen Markham would acknowledge that she had read it but the
reporter was a liar.....

I gotta tell ya John,.....the average grade school student won't believe
such a silly idea.


>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Walt]

Didn't Markham say the weight was 150 to 160 pounds.... if "short was
5'6" then 160 would make the man "stocky" just as she described him.

[Walt]

On Mar 16, 9:24 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 16 Mar 2013 22:22:37 -0400, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net>

Acctually John, I thought that you might be smart enough to imagine that
Helen Markham thought that "Paris" was only a city in France....and it
wouldn't have occurred to her the reporter was from "Paris" Texas..... I
should have known...

[Anthony Marsh]

IQ might have something to do with admissibility or competence of
witness testimony.
I like your point that waitresses are expert witnesses.

>>> That was the only information she gave that really counted, and quite a
>>> few people back her up on this. But it`s a free country, you guys don`t
>>> have to believe she saw Oswald there. You can keep your "Oswald was a
>>> patsy" fantasies alive if you like. You can even believe Lane is an honest
>>> researcher interested in the truth.
>>
>> I guess it doesn't matter to you that she described someone other than
>> Oswald.
>
> You are just saying stuff, you aren`t showing that any information
> she related rules out Oswald as the person she saw.
>

I am not ruling out Oswald as the person she saw. I am just pointing out
why Mark Lane thought she was an unreliable witness.

>> If you assume that Oswald shot Tippit as I do, that makes her a terrible
>> witness.
>
> She is actually a great witness in a lot of ways. Had this gone to trail
> she would have likely been identified with by members of the jury. They
> would see she was just someone doing the best she could, a victim of
> circumstance who just happened to see a murder and the murderer. All these
> tricks some Jewish New York lawyer like Lane might pull in front of a
> homegrown jury would likely backfire, and get Markham sympathy as the jury
> might see her as being picked on. As it is it didn`t get to trial, so we
> have a witness who says she looked long and hard at Oswald and was certain
> it was he that she saw.

So you mean that they would find Oswald not guilty because she couldn't
identify him in the line-up?
But she did see him on TV.

>
>>>> If Markham makes any mistakes you'll say she was being misled
>>>> by Mark Lane.
>>
>>> Of course, this is obviously what he set out to do, play up any
>>> discrepancies.
>>
>> No, he merely picked up on what she told the reporters.
>
> He may have saw this in a newspaper. But the reason he called her was to
> exploit what he saw as differences between Oswald and this description.
> Hence, "play up any discrepancies".
>

You guys keep playing this straw man argument game. No one said he read
it in a newspaper.

>>>> But if Mark Lane gets anything wrong you'll call him a
>>>> liar.
>>
>>> I don`t think he outright lies very often, but he is always deceitful
>>> and dishonest. Like it may be true that Markham allowed that the man she
>>> saw was a little bit heavy, but it is also true that she gave a weight
>>> range of 100 to 150 pounds. It might be true that she allowed that the
>>
>> Where does she say 100 to 150 pounds?
>
> Try reading the transcript.
>

It's not on her WC testimony.
That's why I asked you to QUOTE it. Which you are not able to do.

>> Is 150 pounds on the heavy side?
>>
>>> man`s hair was a little bushy, but she went on to explain that what she
>>> meant by that was that it need combing. Lane represents this up as
>>
>> Quote where she said that. Not much hair to comb.
>
> Read the transcript. I wouldn`t mind fetching it, but you can`t cut
> and past the version .John produced, I don`t think.
>

Which version is that? Here is all her testimony:

Index of the Warren Commission Hearings

Testimony Of Mrs. Helen Markham

The Chairman.
The purpose of the session of the Commission is for the purpose of
taking testimony on the assassination of President Kennedy, and it is
our information that you have some evidence concerning it and we want to
ask you some questions concerning it. You are willing to testify, are you?
Mrs. Markham.
Do all I can.
The Chairman.
All right. Will you stand up and be sworn, please?
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you give before this Commission
will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?
Mrs. Markham.
I do.
The Chairman.
You may be seated. Mr. Ball will ask you the questions.
Mr. Ball.
Mrs. Markham, what is your address?
Mrs. Markham.
328 East Ninth.
Mr. Ball.
In Dallas, Tex.?
Mrs. Markham.
Dallas, Tex.
Mr. Ball.
Where were you born, Mrs. Markham?
Mrs. Markham.
Where was I born? Dallas.
Mr. Ball.
The Commission would like to know something of your past life and
experience, where you were born and your education so I will just ask
you a few questions like that.
Take it easy, this is just--
Mrs. Markham.
I am very shook up.
Mr. Ball.
This is a very informal little conference here.
Mrs. Markham.
Well, do you want me to tell you about my life?
Mr. Ball.
Yes. Just tell us briefly where you were born and where you went to
school and things of that kind.
Mrs. Markham.
I was born in Dallas, Dallas County. My father was a farmer. I was
very small when my mother died, I was 6 years old; and my brothers and I
were separated which they were put in the State orphans home, and I went
to live with my aunt.
Mr. Dulles.
Are your brothers older or younger?
Mrs. Markham.
I have one older than I. And I went to live with my aunt and uncle
in Grand Prairie. I went to Grand Prairie school.
Mr. Ball.
How far did you go through school?
Mrs. Markham.
Eighth grade.
Mr. Ball.
Then did you go to work?
Mrs. Markham.
No; I got married. I got married.
Mr. Ball.
How long were you married?
Mrs. Markham.
Me?
Mr. Ball.
I understand you are not married at the present time?
Mrs. Markham.
No. I am not married. I would have been married 25 years this past
July.
Mr. Ball.
Were you a housewife for a while while you were married?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes; I was.
Mr. Ball.
How many years?
Mrs. Markham.
Let me see, about 8 years.
Mr. Ball.
Did you have any children?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, I did.
Mr. Ball.
How many children did you have?
Mrs. Markham.
Well, I have five children.
Mr. Ball.
Do they live with you now or what?
Mrs. Markham.
I have one son who stays with me.
Mr. Ball.
What has been your work most of your life since you were divorced,
what kind of work have you done?
Mrs. Markham.
Waitress work.
Mr. Ball.
You have done waitress work?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, Sir.
Mr. Ball.
Where do you work now?
Mrs. Markham.
Eat Well Restaurant, 1404 Main Street, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. Ball.
Were you working there on November 22, 1963?
Mrs. Markham.
I was.
Mr. Ball.
What hours did you work?
Mrs. Markham.
I was due at work from 2:30 in the evening until 10:30 at night.
Mr. Ball.
Did you leave your home some time that morning to go to work?
Mrs. Markham.
That evening?
Mr. Ball.
Morning.
Mrs. Markham.
That morning?
Mr. Ball.
You left your home to go to work at some time, didn't you, that day?
Mrs. Markham.
At one.
Mr. Ball.
One o'clock?
Mrs. Markham.
I believe it was a little after 1.
Mr. Ball.
Where did you intend to catch the bus?
Mrs. Markham.
On Patton and Jefferson.
Mr. Ball.
Patton and Jefferson is about a block south of Patton and 10th
Street, isn't it?
Mrs. Markham.
I think so.
Mr. Ball.
Well, where is your home from Patton and Jefferson?
Mrs. Markham.
I had came--I come one block, I had come one block from my home.
Mr. Ball.
You were walking, were you?
Mrs. Markham.
I came from 9th to the corner of 10th Street.
Mr. Ball.
And you were walking toward Jefferson?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Tenth Street runs the same direction as Jefferson, doesn't it?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
It runs in a generally east and west direction?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
And Patton runs north and south?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir; up and down this way.
Mr. Ball.
So you were walking south toward Jefferson?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
You think it was a little after 1?
Mrs. Markham.
I wouldn't be afraid to bet it wasn't 6 or 7 minutes after 1.
Mr. Ball.
You know what time you usually get your bus, don't you?
Mrs. Markham.
1:15.
Mr. Ball.
So it was before 1:15?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, it was.
Mr. Ball.
When you came to the corner of Patton and 10th Street--first of
all, what side of the street were you walking on?
Mrs. Markham.
Now you have got me mixed up on all my streets. I was on the
opposite of where this man was.
Mr. Ball.
Well, you were walking along the street--
Mrs. Markham.
On the street.
Mr. Ball.
On Patton, you were going toward Jefferson?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
And you were on the right- or left-hand side of the street as you
were walking south?
Mrs. Markham.
That would be on the left.
Mr. Ball.
Your right.
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, it would be right.
Mr. Ball.
Right-hand side, wouldn't it? When you came to the corner did you
have to stop before you crossed 10th Street?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, I did.
Mr. Ball.
Why?
Mrs. Markham.
On account the traffic was coming.
Mr. Ball.
And you stopped there on the corner?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
That would be the northwest corner, wouldn't it?
Mrs. Markham.
Northwest corner.
Mr. Ball.
Is that right?
Mrs. Markham.
I believe it is. I believe it is the northwest corner.
Mr. Ball.
Did you see any man walking at that time?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes; I seen this man on the opposite side, across the street from
me. He was almost across Patton Street.
Mr. Ball.
Almost across Patton?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Walking in what direction?
Mrs. Markham.
I guess this would be south.
Mr. Ball.
Along 10th, east? Was it along 10th?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Walking away from you, wasn't he?
Mrs. Markham.
He was walking up 10th, away from me.
Mr. Ball.
To your left?
Mrs. Markham.
Well, he was on the opposite side of the street to me like that.
Mr. Ball.
Had he reached the curb yet?
Mrs. Markham.
Almost ready to get up on the curb.
Mr. Ball.
What did you notice then?
Mrs. Markham.
Well, I noticed a police car coming.
Mr. Ball.
Where was the police car when you first saw it?
Mrs. Markham.
He was driving real slow, almost up to this man, well, say this
man, and he kept, this man kept walking, you know, and the police car
going real slow now, real slow, and they just kept coming into the curb,
and finally they got way up there a little ways up, well, it stopped.
Mr. Ball.
The police car stopped?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
What about the man? Was he still walking?
Mrs. Markham.
The man stopped.
Mr. Ball.
Then what did you see the man do?
Mrs. Markham.
I saw the man come over to the car very slow, leaned and put his
arms just like this, he leaned over in this window and looked in this
window.
Mr. Ball.
He put his arms on the window ledge?
Mrs. Markham.
The window was down.
Mr. Ball.
It was?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Put his arms on the window ledge?
Mrs. Markham.
On the ledge of the window.
Mr. Ball.
And the policeman was sitting where?
Mrs. Markham.
On the driver's side.
Mr. Ball.
He was sitting behind the wheel?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Was he alone in the car?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes.
Mr. Ball.
Then what happened?
Mrs. Markham.
Well, I didn't think nothing about it; you know, the police are
nice and friendly, and I thought friendly conversation. Well, I looked,
and there were cars coming, so I had to wait. Well, in a few minutes
this man made--
Mr. Ball.
What did you see the policeman do?
Mrs. Markham.
See the policeman? Well, this man, like I told you, put his arms
up, leaned over, he just a minute, and he drew back and he stepped back
about two steps. Mr. Tippit--
Mr. Ball.
The policeman?
Mrs. Markham.
The policeman calmly opened the car door, very slowly, wasn't angry
or nothing, he calmly crawled out of this car, and I still just thought
a friendly conversation, maybe disturbance in the house, I did not know;
well, just as the policeman got--
Mr. Ball.
Which way did he walk?
Mrs. Markham.
Towards the front of the car. And just as he had gotten even with
the wheel on the driver's side--
Mr. Ball.
You mean the left front wheel?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes; this man shot the policeman.
Mr. Ball.
You heard the shots, did you?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
How many shots did you hear?
Mrs. Markham.
Three.
Mr. Ball.
What did you see the policeman do?
Mrs. Markham.
He fell to the ground, and his cap went a little ways out on the
street.
Mr. Ball.
What did the man do?
Mrs. Markham.
The man, he just walked calmly, fooling with his gun.
Mr. Ball.
Toward what direction did he walk?
Mrs. Markham.
Come back towards me, turned around, and went back.
Mr. Ball.
Toward Patton?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir; towards Patton. He didn't run. It just didn't scare him
to death. He didn't run. When he saw me he looked at me, stared at me. I
put my hands over my face like this, closed my eyes. I gradually opened
my fingers like this, and 1 opened my eyes, and when I did he started
off in kind of a little trot.
Mr. Ball.
Which way?
Mrs. Markham.
Sir?
Mr. Ball.
Which way?
Mrs. Markham.
Towards Jefferson, right across that way.
Mr. Dulles.
Did he have the pistol in his hand at this time?
Mrs. Markham.
He had the gun when I saw him.
Mr. Ball.
Did you yell at him?
Mrs. Markham.
When I pulled my fingers down where I could see, I got my hand
down, he began to trot off, and then I ran to the policeman.
Mr. Ball.
Before you put your hands over your eyes, before you put your hand
over your eyes, did you see the man walk towards the corner?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes.
Mr. Ball.
What did he do?
Mrs. Markham.
Well, he stared at me.
Mr. Ball.
What did you do?
Mrs. Markham.
I didn't do anything. I couldn't.
Mr. Ball.
Didn't you say something?
Mrs. Markham.
No, I couldn't.
Mr. Ball.
Or yell or scream?
Mrs. Markham.
I could not. I could not say nothing.
Mr. Ball.
You looked at him?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes.
Mr. Ball.
You looked at him
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir. He looked wild. I mean, well, he did to me.
Mr. Ball.
And you say you saw him fooling with his gun?
Mrs. Markham.
He had it in his hands.
Mr. Ball.
Did you see what he was doing with it?
Mrs. Markham.
He was just fooling with it. I didn't know what he was doing. I was
afraid he was fixing to kill me.
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.
Mr. Ball.
When you looked at the man, though, when he came toward the corner,
you were standing on one corner, were you?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir
Mr. Ball.
Where was he standing with reference to the other corner?
Mrs. Markham.
After he had shot--
Mr. Ball.
When he looked at you.
Mrs. Markham.
After he had shot the policeman?
Mr. Ball.
Yes.
Mrs. Markham.
He was standing almost even to that curb, not very far from the
curb, from the sidewalk.
Mr. Ball.
Across the street from you?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Did he look at you?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
And did you look at him?
Mrs. Markham.
I sure did.
Mr. Ball.
That was before you put your hands over your eyes?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir; and he kept fooling with his gun, and I slapped my hands
up to my face like this.
Mr. Ball.
And then you ran to the policeman?
Mrs. Markham.
After he ran off.
Mr. Ball.
In what hand did he have his gun, do you know, when he fired the
shots?
Mrs. Markham.
Sir, I believe it was his right. I am not positive because I was
scared.
Mr. Ball.
When he came down the street towards you, in what hand did he have
his gun?
Mrs. Markham.
He had it in both of them.
Mr. Ball.
He had it in both of them?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
When he went towards Jefferson you say he went at sort of a trot?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Did he cross Patton?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Dulles.
Were there many other, or other people in the block at that time,
or were you there with Officer Tippit almost alone?
Mrs. Markham.
I was out there, I didn't see anybody. I was there alone by myself.
Mr. Dulles.
I see. You didn't see anybody else in the immediate neighborhood?
Mrs. Markham.
No; not until everything was over--I never seen anybody until I was
at Mr. Tippit's side. I tried to save his life, which was I didn't know
at that time I couldn't do something for him.
Mr. Dulles.
Mr. Tippit, Officer Tippit, didn't say anything to you?
Mrs. Markham.
He tried to.
Mr. Dulles.
He tried to?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Dulles.
But he didn't succeed?
Mrs. Markham.
No, I couldn't understand. I was screaming and hollering and I was
trying to help him all I could, and I would have. I was with him until
they put him in the ambulance.
Mr. Ball.
Did you make an estimate of how far you were from this man with the
gun when he came--after the shooting, and when he came down to the
corner, did you make an estimate of that?
Mrs. Markham.
No. To anyone--
Mr. Ball.
We measured it the other day. We were out there, weren't we?
Mrs. Markham.
Now I couldn't tell you how many feet or nothing because I have
never had no occasions to measure that.
Mr. Dulles.
Was it further than this table, the length of this table?
Mrs. Markham.
It was across the street.
Mr. Dulles.
Across the street. It was two or three times the length of this table?
Mrs. Markham.
Across from the street. That was too close.
Mr. Ball.
We have a map coming from the FBI. We thought it would be here this
morning.
Mrs. Markham, you were taken to the Police Department, weren't you?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Immediately.
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Later that day they had a showup you went to?
Mrs. Markham.
A lineup?
Mr. Ball.
A lineup.
Mrs. Markham.
Yes.
Mr. Ball.
How many men were in the lineup?
Mrs. Markham.
I believe there were, now I am not positive, I believe there were
three besides this man.
Mr. Ball.
That would be four people altogether?
Mrs. Markham.
I believe that is correct.
Mr. Ball.
Were they of anywhere near similar build or size or coloring?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, they were all about the same height.
Mr. Ball.
Who were you in the lineup room with?
Mrs. Markham.
Who was I in the room where they had this man?
Mr. Ball.
Yes.
Mrs. Markham.
Policemen.
Mr. Ball.
More than one?
Mrs. Markham.
The room was full.
Mr. Ball.
It was. In this lineup room, the room was full of policemen.
Weren't there just one or two men with you?
Mrs. Markham.
One or two with me, but I don't know who they were.
Mr. Ball.
But there were other officers?
Mrs. Markham.
There were all policemen sitting in the back of me, and aside of me.
Mr. Ball.
In this room?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir. They were doing something.
Mr. Ball.
Before you went into this room were you shown a picture of anyone?
Mrs. Markham.
I was not.
Mr. Ball.
Did you see any television?
Mrs. Markham.
I did not.
Mr. Ball.
Did a police officer say anything to you before you went in there,
to tell you--
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Mr. Ball.
That he thought "We had the right man," or something of that sort?
Anything like that?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Mr. Ball.
No statement like that?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Did anybody tell you that the man you were looking for would be in
a certain position in the lineup, or anything like that?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
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.
Mr. Ball.
I have here an exhibit, Commission Exhibit 162, a jacket. Did you
ever see this before?
Mrs. Markham.
No; I did not.
Mr. Ball.
Does it look like, anything like, the jacket the man had on?
Mrs. Markham.
It is short, open down the front. But that jacket it is a darker
jacket than that, I know it was.
Mr. Ball.
You don't think it was as light a jacket as that?
Mrs. Markham.
No, it was darker than that, I know it was. At that moment I was so
excited--
Mr. Ball.
I show you a shirt here, which is Exhibit 150. Did you ever see a
shirt the color of this?
Mrs. Markham.
The shirt that this man had, it was a lighter looking shirt than that.
Mr. Ball.
The man who shot Tippit?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir; I think it was lighter.
Mr. Ball.
All right. I have some pictures here that I would like to show you.
I have Exhibits 521 and 522, which have been marked as Exhibits. Here is
one picture, 521. Do you recognize that as the sign down?
Mrs. Markham.
This is the corner of Patton and 10th.
Mr. Ball.
Patton and 10th.
Mrs. Markham.
This is on the corner of Patton and 10th.
Mr. Ball.
Yes. Was the man anywhere near that corner when you saw him?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, he was.
Mr. Ball.
After the shooting?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir; he was.
Mr. Ball.
All right. Now, take this pen and put an X as to the point when he
looked at you and you looked at him.
Mrs. Markham.
He was right along here.
Mr. Ball.
Put an X.
Mrs. Markham.
I don't know. I am too nervous.
Mr. Ball.
At the time the man was standing at X in this picture, at this
location, which is shown in 521, where were you?
Mrs. Markham.
I was on the opposite corner, across over here, like this.
Mr. Ball.
Were you as close to the curb as--were you close to the curb at
that time?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, I was.
Mr. Dulles.
Where was the car, where this car is?
Mr. Ball.
No, I have another picture I will show her. I have here Exhibit
522; do you recognize the white house in the picture?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes.
Mr. Ball.
And the driveway next to it?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Does that show the location of the police car at the time it stopped?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir. That is the big old white house, 404.
Mr. Ball.
That is right.
Mrs. Markham.
10th Street, and this driveway and this house.
Mr. Dulles.
Will you give us an idea, Mr. Ball, as to where she said she was on
this picture? Was she over here?
Mr. Ball.
We have a picture. There is a booklet here that has been prepared
by a succession of witnesses. We have a general diagram here which I
will show the witness at this time.
Mrs. Markham, there is a diagram here which shows 10th Street going
in an easterly and westerly direction, Patton running north and south.

(Marked Commission Exhibit No. 523 for identification.)

Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Do you understand that?
Mrs. Markham.
This would be the corner I would be at.
Mr. Ball.
No, this would be Patton. This is north and south. Jefferson is
down here. Can you locate yourself?
Mrs. Markham.
This is 10th?
Mr. Ball.
That is 10th.
Mrs. Markham.
And this Patton?
Mr. Ball.
That is right.
Mrs. Markham.
I was standing on the corner of 10th and Patton.
Mr. Ball.
That is right. But which corner?
Mrs. Markham.
Northeast corner is where I was standing.
Mr. Ball.
Northeast or northwest? This would be northeast and this would be
northwest. Here is where the squad car would be. Right there. Here is 404.
Mrs. Markham.
It would be this corner then.
Mr. Ball.
Well, that is northeast and that is northwest. Were you
kitty-cornered?
Mrs. Markham.
I was kitty-cornered from it like this.
Mr. Ball.
Like that?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Well, this is northwest, this is northeast, southeast, southwest,
and here is the car. We are going down the street now.
Mrs. Markham.
It would be this--that would be on the opposite side.
Mr. Ball.
That is right. Look at a number on that and tell me where you were
standing.
Mrs. Markham.
I was standing right at the curb.
Mr. Ball.
Do you see a number?
Mrs. Markham.
Number 5.
Mr. Ball.
Number 5 on this diagram would be indicating the place where you
would be standing, is that right?
Mrs. Markham.
I was standing on the opposite corner from that.
Mr. Ball.
I know, but I have got to get you to tell me where you were
standing. Picture yourself going down Patton towards Jefferson.
Mrs. Markham.
Going down Patton?
Mr. Ball.
You were coming from this direction. Your home was up here.
Mrs. Markham.
I was coming down Patton. It would be this corner.
Mr. Ball.
That corner, all right. Take this pen and show your course down the
sidewalk.
Mrs. Markham.
Just draw it right on it?
Mr. Ball.
Down to where you stood.
Mrs. Markham.
Right on the edge.
Mr. Ball.
Is there a number there that shows where you were?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes.
Mr. Ball.
Near 5, is that right?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes.
Mr. Dulles.
That is the northwest corner?
Mr. Ball.
Northwest corner; that is the northwest corner. Here is a picture.
Do you recognize that?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
That is picture number 3 in the booklet. Does that show where you
were?

(Marked Commission Exhibit No. 524 for identification.)

Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Where was the man shot?
Mrs. Markham.
Right here.
Mr. Ball.
Put a mark where you first saw him. Mark that A. Then he went which
direction down the street?
Mrs. Markham.
He went this way.
Mr. Ball.
In other words, he went in a direction-draw a line and then put an
arrow showing what direction.
Mrs. Markham.
From here--
Mr. Ball.
Yes.
Mrs. Markham.
Right on down the side.
Mr. Ball.
Make a mark and put an arrow. That was the direction he was walking?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
The police car had not come into sight yet?
Mrs. Markham.
That is right.
Mr. Ball.
Put an X where the police car was when you first saw it, put an X
there and we will mark that B. Now, after the shooting, where was the
man when you looked at him?
Mrs. Markham.
He turned and came back this way.
Mr. Ball.
Where did he stand and look at you?
Mrs. Markham.
Right here.
Mr. Ball.
Put a mark there. We will mark that C. Where were you standing when
he was looking at you?
Mrs. Markham.
The same position.
Mr. Ball.
The same position as the girl shown on this picture?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Is that your picture?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
That is you there in that picture?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Did you stand there for the photographer to show him where you were
standing?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
I would like to offer into evidence the diagram in this book,
together with the picture which illustrates the diagram.
The Chairman.
Under what numbers?
Mr. Ball.
As 523, which is the diagram, and 524, which is the picture.
The Chairman.
They may be admitted.

(The documents identified as Commission Exhibits Nos. 521-524 were
received in evidence.)

Mr. Ball.
You went out there in picture number 3. Now, Mr. Dulles, I think
this will explain it.
Mr. Dulles.
Yes, Mr. Ball.
Mr. Ball.
I have some other pictures here that might illustrate. Do you
recognize this?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes.
Mr. Ball.
You were here the time the picture was taken?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
You told the parties where to put the squad car?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Does this show the place where the police car was when this happened?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
The place at the arrow?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
It shows a corner.
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
On the picture make a mark where the man was when he came back and
looked at you.
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir. He was a little behind this.
Mr. Ball.
Just make an X there in general.
Mrs. Markham.
That is supposed to be on the sidewalk.
Mr. Ball.
I would like to have this marked as Commission Exhibit 525. The X
marks the position of the man who did the shooting on the corner after
the shooting, and the arrow points to the squad car. Here is another
picture marked 4 in this book which I will mark as Commission Exhibit
526. Is that you in the picture?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
You went out there the day the picture was taken?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Is that where you were standing?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Is that where you were when you saw the shooting?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Did you move from that place from the time of the shooting until
the time you saw the man on the corner?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Mr. Dulles.
I wonder, Mrs. Markham, if you would repeat for me, I would like to
hear it, and Congressman Ford would like to hear it, the scene that you
saw where the man now known to be Oswald went up and put his arms on the
door of the police car, as I understand it.
Mrs. Markham.
Yes.
Mr. Dulles.
Would you tell that once again. I would like to hear it again.
Mrs. Markham.
He calmly walked to the car. He wasn't in no hurry.
Mr. Dulles.
May I ask, was he called, were there any words that you heard?
Mrs. Markham.
No, I did not. I seen the police car stop.
Mr. Dulles.
You didn't hear the policeman say, "Come here," or anything of that
kind?
Mrs. Markham.
No.
Mr. Dulles.
He might have done it, but you didn't hear it?
Mrs. Markham.
That is right. And the man went over to the car, put his hands on
the window--
Mr. Dulles.
The window was open?
Mrs. Markham.
Leaned over like this.
Mr. Dulles.
Let me see. Was that on the right-hand side of the car, or where
the driver was?
Mrs. Markham.
It was on the opposite side of the car.
Mr. Dulles.
Opposite side of the car from the driver, yes.
Mrs. Markham.
Yes. The window was down, and I know it was down, I know, and he
put his arms and leaned over, I don't know what they were talking about,
I didn't hear it. Then he stepped back in a few minutes, stepped back
two steps.
Mr. Dulles.
He stepped back two steps from the car?
Mrs. Markham.
Just stepped back twice. Mr. Tippit, of course, the policeman-I
didn't know it was Mr. Tippit--
Mr. Dulles.
Yes.
Mrs. Markham.
He calmly opened the door. He calmly crawled out like he wasn't angry.
Mr. Dulles.
Did he have a weapon in his hands?
Mrs. Markham.
I didn't see one.
Mr. Dulles.
And what happened?
Mrs. Markham.
He was just calmly walking to the front of the car and when he got
even with the wheel on the driver's side, front, you know, that man shot
him.
Mr. Dulles.
Did you see him draw his revolver?
Mrs. Markham.
He shot him like this.
Mr. Dulles.
I see.
Mr. Ball.
Like this, you mean from the hip or from the waist?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes. In the wink of your eye, before you could ever--just like
that. It didn't seem like it bothered him, disturbed him.
Mr. Dulles.
The policeman hadn't made, as far as you could see, any menacing
gestures toward him? He wasn't trying to grab him or anything of that kind?
Mrs. Markham.
No. He was very calm, very. I would say like in slow motion, you
know, like he was getting out to talk with the man, or go in the house
for disturbance or something, I don't know.
Mr. Ball.
He shot across the hood of the car?
Mrs. Markham.
Across the hood.
Mr. Ball.
The policeman was in the street, walking in the street around to
the front of the car?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes.
Mr. Dulles.
The policeman then got out on the opposite side of where Oswald was?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, I guess he was coming around.
Representative Ford.
It appeared as though he was walking around the front of the car?
Mrs. Markham.
He had started around, and then he was going over to the man.
Mr. Ball.
He had only reached the left front wheel though when he was shot?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
And he fell into the street?
Mrs. Markham.
He fell into the street, his hat fell off his head. He didn't fall,
just clumped down like that.
Representative Ford.
Did the man with the gun move at all as the officer started to go
around the car?
Mrs. Markham.
No. He didn't move. I mean, walked back or anything like that, no,
sir.
Representative Ford.
He didn't appear to run?
Mrs. Markham.
No. I didn't know anything was-going to happen. If I had I would
have kept walking, not walking, running.
Mr. Dulles.
He had walked slowly around the car to meet the other man?
Mrs. Markham.
The policeman was.
Mr. Dulles.
Slow?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Was there a pool of blood where Mr. Tippit fell in the street?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
I show you this picture, Exhibit 533 (remembered as Exhibit 527,
see p. 321). Will you look at that picture and tell me whether it shows
the approximate position where Mr. Tippit fell after he was shot?
Mrs. Markham.
He fell right out this way.
Mr. Ball.
Look at the discoloration in the street. Is that anywhere near
where Tippit fell?
Mrs. Markham.
It don't seem to me it was out that far.
Mr. Ball.
It doesn't?
Mrs. Markham.
It seemed like to me it was over this way because he fell this way.
Mr. Ball.
He fell this way? These people can't see what you are showing here.
Here is the pool of blood. Which way do you think he fell?
Mrs. Markham.
See the wheel would be right down under here, back right this way.
He fell this way.
Mr. Ball.
Into the street?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, and his head was like this, you know, it was laying like this.
Mr. Dulles.
Is this splotch out here in front of the car the pool of blood?
Mr. Ball.
Out to the left.
Mrs. Markham.
It seems to me it ought to be here.
Mr. Ball.
But there was a pool of blood?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
I will pass this out to the Commissioners.
Representative Ford.
May I ask this, Mr. Ball, the place where you pointed, where you
thought the pool of blood different from where it is shown on here was
only a matter of what, a foot or two?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir; just about a little, back a little. It seems his hat was
this way.
Representative Ford.
So it is a difference of a foot or two, at the most?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes.
Mr. Ball.
That is right.
Mr. Dulles.
Could you see the blood at this time or just see him fall? Did you
actually see blood?
Mrs. Markham.
Did I actually see it, sir? I was there.
Mr. Dulles.
I know you were there.
Mrs. Markham.
I was standing over it.
Mr. Dulles.
You were standing right over the officer?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes. Just as soon as, just as quick as I could get to him; and the
blood was coming from here like this and like that, in an oval shape. It
did not splutter on his face too much, his mouth. It was here, coming
out here.
Representative Ford.
The blood was?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, just gushes. I had my workshoes in my hand. I laid them up on
the squad car. I had my purse, which I can't remember where I put it,
but this, I had a head scarf around my head, I had my coat on.
Mr. Ball.
I would like to offer all of these into evidence at this time, up
to 526, inclusive.
The Chairman.
They may be received.

(The items identified as Commission Exhibits Nos. 525 and 526 were
received in evidence.)

The Chairman.
Mr. Dulles, will you preside in my absence, please. I must attend a
session of the Court.
Mr. Dulles.
I will, sir.

(The Chairman left the hearing room at this point.)

Mr. Ball.
Mrs. Markham, the police car, did the police car go beyond the man
who was walking along the sidewalk, or did it stop opposite him?
Mrs. Markham.
Almost even with him.
Mr. Ball.
And when the police car stopped, did the man stop?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir; and walked over to the policeman.
Mr. Ball.
The police car was going in the same direction as the man?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes. sir.
Mr. Ball.
And caught up with him?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes. sir.
Mr. Ball.
Mrs. Markham, do you know a man named Mark Lane?
Mrs. Markham.
No; I do not.
Mr. Ball.
Did you ever hear of the name?
Mrs. Markham.
Did not.
Mr. Ball.
Did you ever talk to a New York lawyer who says he was from New York?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Did you ever talk to a lawyer who was investigating the case in
behalf of the deceased man, Lee Oswald?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Did you ever talk to a man who said he was representing the mother
of Lee Oswald?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Mr. Ball.
You don't remember ever talking to a man named Mark Lane?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Mr. Ball.
In an appearance before this Commission, a man named Mark Lane has
testified this way. Let me read it to you. That was on Wednesday, March
4, 1964, Vol. II of a public hearing before this Commission, page 51.
This is what he said:
"I spoke with the deponent"-he is talking about an affidavit that
you made to the Dallas Police Department-"l 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 she was 100 feet away from
the police car, not the 50 feet which appears in the affidavit."
Do you recall ever stating that to Mr. Lane or anyone else?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir; no, sir.
Mr. Ball.
He testified: "She gave 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." Did you say that to Mark
Lane?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir; I don't even know the man.
Mr. Ball.
Or anybody else?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Did you ever tell anyone that the man who shot Tippit was short, a
little on the heavy side, and his hair was somewhat bushy?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Was the man, is it your memory now that the man who shot Tippit was
short, a little on the heavy side?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir. He wasn't too heavy.
Mr. Ball.
Is it your memory that his hair was bushy?
Mrs. Markham.
It wasn't so bushy. It was, say, windblown or something. What I
mean, he didn't have a lot of hair.
Mr. Ball.
He didn't have a lot of hair?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir; that I could see. I don't even know that man; I never
talked to nobody.
Representative Ford.
You didn't talk to him by telephone or any other means?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Representative Ford.
Did you ever get an anonymous phone call from a person who asked
you these questions?
Mrs. Markham.
No.
Mr. Ball.
Now, he also says, and he testified as follows:
"Helen Markham said to me she was taken to the police station on
that same day, that she was very upset. She, of course, had never seen
anyone killed in front of her eyes before, and in the police station she
identified Oswald as the person who had shot Officer Tippit in the
lineup, including three other persons. She said no one pointed Oswald
out to her, and she said she was just shown four people, and she picked
Oswald. She said when he asked her how she could identify him, she said
she was able to identify him because of his clothing, a gray jacket and
dark trousers."
Did you ever make that statement to him?
Mrs. Markham.
I did not, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Or to anyone else?
Mrs. Markham.
Not to anybody.
Mr. Ball.
When you identified Oswald--it was the number 2 man--were you told
the number 2 man whom you identified in the lineup?
Mrs. Markham.
No, I was not.
Mr. Ball.
Were you ever told his name?
Mrs. Markham.
No.
Mr. Ball.
Ever told his name later?
Mrs. Markham.
Nobody, nobody told me nothing.
Mr. Ball.
Well, the man that you identified as the number 2 man in the lineup
in the police station, you identified him as the man you had seen shoot
Officer Tippit?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, I did.
Mr. Ball.
Did you identify him because of his clothing that he had on at that
time in the lineup.
Mrs. Markham.
Just like I told you. I mostly looked at his face, his eyes, and
his clothing, too.
Mr. Ball.
He said here you were able to identify him, Mark Lane testified
that you told him you were able to identify him because of his clothing,
a gray jacket. First, did the man in the lineup have a gray jacket on?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Mr. Ball.
What did he have on?
Mrs. Markham.
He had on this light shirt, dark trousers.
Mr. Dulles.
You have considered your answers very carefully, have you, on this
point?
Mrs. Markham.
I am doing my best.
Mr. Dulles.
Yes, I know you are, and you are quite sure you never talked to
anyone who purported to be Mr. Lane?
Mrs. Markham.
Never in my life. I talked to two men, and this man who told me he
was from Paris, France. He came down on my job. I was scared to death. I
wasn't going to talk to him. I work for a Greek.
Mr. Dulles.
Let's get this a little more clearly, Mrs. Markham. You say you
talked with someone who came from France?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes.
Mr. Dulles.
Did he represent a French newspaper?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes.
Mr. Dulles.
You don't know what newspaper?
Mrs. Markham.
No. He told--you see, I didn't understand this man, but my boss could.
Mr. Dulles.
He came to you in the restaurant?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes. And I was scared, which I was scared of everybody. I was upset
and trying to work, too, and he was--he come to me and he asked for me
and, of course, they knew who I was because I was there so long.
Mr. Dulles.
When was that?
Mrs. Markham.
I don't recall the date.
Mr. Dulles.
Was it 2 or 3 days after the assassination or was it right after?
Mrs. Markham.
It was quite some time after.
Mr. Dulles.
Some time after?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes.
Mr. Dulles.
A week or more, maybe?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes.
Representative Ford.
Can you describe this man?.
Mrs. Markham.
He had-he was dark complected, very nice man, black horn-rimmed
glasses, blackheaded, and he was build kind of--
Mr. Dulles.
What did he ask you--excuse me.
Representative Ford.
Was he tall or short, heavy set?
Mrs. Markham.
About medium, I guess. I didn't pay much attention to the man.
Representative Ford.
Did he have an accent?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, he did.
Representative Ford.
Was it difficult for you to understand him because of this accent?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes. This is what this man told me. He told me he told my boss and
my boss also told me, my boss stood right beside me.
Representative Ford.
Did he speak in English with an accent?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes. But this man told me the Government sent him.
Representative Ford.
Did he identify which government?
Mrs. Markham.
He had--he showed me who he was. He was a news reporter.
Mr. Dulles.
Did he say whether he was a foreigner or an American citizen?
Mrs. Markham.
I can't remember. I was too scared. But he did show me his
identification, his picture and everything. The Government had sent him
to me, which he was coming to Washington. He was supposed to be here,
and then back somewhere in Dallas, I think he told me.
Mr. Dulles.
Could you recall the questions he asked you?
Mrs. Markham.
He just asked me very few questions. This man asked me about if the
police had taken me down to the police station and did I see anything
after I went into the police station, hear any TV, or see any TV, any
radio, newspapers, or anybody talked to me, and I said they did not.
Representative Ford.
Did your employer listen to the questions and answers?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, James Gambolis listened to it.
Mr. Dulles.
We will take a moment's recess.

(A short recess was taken.)

Mr. Ball.
On the 22d of November, 1963, that is the day of the shooting, did
you talk to an FBI agent named Odum? Do you remember?
Mrs. Markham.
I talked to some people, men, down at the police station.
Mr. Ball.
That is right. He says that you described the man who shot Tippit
as a white male, about 18, black hair, red complexion, wearing black
shoes, tan jacket, and dark trousers. Do you remember that?
Mrs. Markham.
I never said anything about his shoes because I never did look at
his feet.
Mr. Ball.
Did you say about 18?
Mrs. Markham.
I said he was young looking.
Mr. Ball.
Did you give that age, 18?
Mrs. Markham.
No, I don't believe I did.
Mr. Ball.
Did you say he had black hair?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
You thought he was black-haired?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, that is what I told him. I thought he was black-haired. I
remember saying that.
Mr. Ball.
Red complexion?
Mrs. Markham.
No, not red complexioned.
Mr. Ball.
You didn't say that?
Mr. Dulles.
Mrs. Markham, did you say you talked to two persons, one person
whom you are now describing from a foreign newspaper, and one other?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes.
Mr. Dulles.
Who was the other one with whom you talked?
Mrs. Markham.
I don't recall. He was a newspaper reporter by Life magazine.
Mr. Dulles.
Life magazine?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes. I remember, which they did print the picture in Life magazine.
Mr. Dulles.
And Life magazine printed what you told them?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes.
Mr. Dulles.
And printed it accurately as far as you recall?
Mrs. Markham.
Very little of what I told him did he put in.
Mr. Dulles.
What they put in was accurate more or less?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes.
Representative Ford.
It coincided with what you told him?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, just a little old paragraph or two.
Mr. Dulles.
Except for those two persons, you don't recall talking with anyone
about your testimony or your appearance in the lineup?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Mr. Dulles.
Just those two?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Just a few more questions, Mrs. Markham. You ran immediately over
to where the police officer was lying in the street?
Mrs. Markham.
I did.
Mr. Ball.
Was he alive?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Did he say anything?
Mrs. Markham.
He was trying to, but he just couldn't. I just couldn't make out
what he was trying to say.
Mr. Ball.
Did some man come up immediately thereafter?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes.
Mr. Ball.
What kind of a car did he have?
Mrs. Markham.
Not immediately.
Mr. Ball.
Soon?
Mrs. Markham.
Soon.
Mr. Ball.
In a pickup truck?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes. I very frankly remembered this truck, but I remember it the
way it took off.
Mr. Ball.
He stopped though, didn't he?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes.
Mr. Ball.
That is the man who called over the police radio, wasn't he?
Mrs. Markham.
I don't recall.
Mr. Ball.
What did he look like, the man in the pickup truck?
Mrs. Markham.
This man had a hat on. I thought he was a policeman.
Mr. Ball.
A dark man, looked somewhat Spanish?
Mrs. Markham.
I don't recall. I was screaming and crying and trying to get help,
begging for somebody to help me.
Mr. Ball.
When did you start screaming?
Mrs. Markham.
I started screaming by the time I left where I was standing and
screamed plumb across the street.
Mr. Ball.
Do you remember what you said?
Mrs. Markham.
"The man has killed a policeman," I remember, "Somebody help. He
has killed him, he has killed him," I was saying that, I was pulling my
hair almost. It is a wonder he did not turn and kill me, really it was.
Mr. Ball.
Did you see Mr. Scoggins?
Mrs. Markham.
I don't remember--
Mr. Ball.
The taxicab driver.
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, I saw the taxicab driver.
Mr. Ball.
Where was the taxicab?
Mrs. Markham.
Parked on Patton.
Mr. Ball.
On Patton?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Did you see the man later, did you see him before the shooting?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, he was sitting in his cab.
Mr. Ball.
He was. Then you saw him afterward, didn't you?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Those are all the questions I have of this witness. Do you have
something additional?
Mrs. Markham.
Believe me, it was just like--
Mr. Dulles.
I believe Mr. Ford would like to have the witness repeat what she
saw the man, now known as Oswald, do after the shooting. Will you just
repeat that for Congressman Ford?
Mrs. Markham.
After he shot the policeman--
Mr. Dulles.
After he shot the policeman.
Mrs. Markham.
After he shot the policeman he turned around, came back around
toward Patton Street. He wasn't he didn't seem to be in a no hurry. I
thought he hadn't done anything, and he was fooling with his gun in his
hands, and he seen me, and he stops.
Mr. Dulles.
He stopped?
Mrs. Markham.
When he saw me. That is the reason we were looking at each other.
Mr. Dulles.
He hadn't seen you before so far as you could tell?
Mrs. Markham.
I put my hands over my face and closed my eyes, because I knew he
was going to kill me. I couldn't scream, I couldn't holler. I froze.
Mr. Dulles.
I think you testified about that then he began to run slowly.
Mrs. Markham.
Then-
Mr. Dulles.
Was that after he saw you?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes; after I put my hands up, and when I had opened my fingers and
my eyes and slowly pulled them down, he was trotting off.
Mr. Dulles.
Trotting off?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir. He wasn't out of sight when I started running to this
police car. He was not out of sight.
Mr. Dulles.
You didn't see which way he turned at the end of this run?
Mrs. Markham.
No; he cut across like this, across Patton, and went out like that.
Mr. Dulles.
Like this means to the right or to the left?
Mrs. Markham.
It means to the right, sir.
Mr. Belin.
To his right, to the man's right, as he was running?
Mrs. Markham.
He ran back, turned and came back down 10th to Patton Street. He
cut across Patton Street like this.
Mr. Belin.
Heading toward what street?
Mrs. Markham.
Toward Jefferson; yes, sir. Then he was still in sight when I began
to scream and holler and run to this police car, well, to Mr. Tippit.
Mr. Dulles.
Thank you.
Mr. Ball.
Are there any more questions? You can be excused, Mrs. Markham.
Mr. Dulles.
Do you have any questions you would like to ask, Mr. Attorney General?
Mr. Carr.
No; I have not.
Mr. Dulles.
Could you wait for just a moment. We are sorry to detain you. There
is something that might come up with the next witness, and we might wish
to ask you another question. I do not think we will. We are very
grateful to you, Mrs. Markham.
Mr. Ball.
Exhibit previously marked "533," which is the squad car, Tippit,
showing the street and blood spot in the street, I would like to have
marked as "Exhibit 527." It was marked by mistake.
Mr. Dulles.
Is that our last exhibit?
Mr. Ball.
That is our last exhibit, 527 is our last exhibit now.

(The item identified as Commission Exhibit No. 527 was received in
evidence.)

Mr. Dulles.
You might stand for just a moment, Mr. Scoggins. The witnesses are
sworn before they can give testimony before this Commission.
Do you swear, Mr. Scoggins, that the testimony that you will give
before this Commission is the truth, the whole truth, so help you God?
Mr. Scoggins.
To the best of my knowledge; yes.
Mr. Dulles.
Be seated, please. Mr. Scoggins. The Commission is taking
testimony, and the Chief Justice asked me to preside in his absence, he
has to be away in the Court this morning.
The purpose of today's hearing is to hear your testimony and that
of certain others who were in the vicinity of the shooting of Officer
Tippit, and we will want your testimony on that particular point this
morning.
Will you proceed?
Mr. Ball.
Mr. Belin is going to examine this witness.
Mr. Dulles.
Mr. Belin will carry on the examination on behalf of the Commission.
Will you proceed, please?

Source:
Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. III, p. 305.
This page has been built by RTF2HTML, 1996

Index of the Warren Commission Hearings

Testimony Of Helen Markham Resumed

Mr. Dulles.
You were sworn when you previously were before us, and this
testimony of yours will be covered by the oath you previously have
given. Will you be seated?
Mr. Ball.
I have two Commission Exhibits, 535 and 536. I will show them to
you, Mrs. Markham, and I will ask you if you have ever seen the man who
is pictured there, whose picture is shown on these two exhibits.
Mrs. Markham.
No.
Mr. Ball.
Never have seen him before. Do you think he might have been one of
the men you talked to before?
Mrs. Markham.
No, no.
Mr. Ball.
They are pictures of the same man.
Mrs. Markham.
No.
Mr. Dulles.
We are inquiring whether you had ever seen him after the
assassination.
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, I know. No; not this man. This man I have never seen--I have
never seen this man in my life.
Mr. Ball.
I have no further questions.
Mr. Dulles.
Do you know who he is?
Mrs. Markham.
No; I don't. It is just a picture of a man; I don't know him.
Mr. Dulles.
Mr. Ball, do you have any further questions?
Mr. Ball.
No further questions.
Representative Ford.
Have you ever had any difficulty with the law, Mrs. Markham?
Mrs. Markham.
No.
Representative Ford.
None whatsoever?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Representative Ford.
Traffic violations?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Mr. Dulles.
You are lucky.
Mrs. Markham.
I have never been in trouble.
Representative Ford.
No difficulties whatsoever with the law?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Mr. Ball.
That is all, Mrs. Markham. You can be excused.
Mr. Dulles.
Thank you very much, Mrs. Markham.
Mr. Ball.
I offer Exhibits 535 and 536 in evidence at this time.
Mr. Dulles.
They will be received.

(The items identified as Commission Exhibits Nos. 535 and 536 were
received in evidence.)

Mr. Ball.
They were taken from a newspaper, they were taken from newspaper
accounts which purported to be, to show, the picture of a man named Mark
Lane.
Mr. Dulles.
Yes, because he appeared before this Commission, did he not?
Mr. Ball.
Yes.
Mr. Dulles.
Mr. Redlich, can you identify him? Were you present when Mr. Lane
appeared before this Commission?
Mr. Redlich.
Yes; I was.
Mr. Dulles.
Can you identify these pictures as pictures of Mr. Lane?
Mr. Redlich.
Yes; I can identify these as pictures of Mr. Lane. I would also
like for the record to indicate where they came from. Commission Exhibit
No. 535 is taken from--Commission Exhibit 536 came from the San
Francisco Chronicle, and dated February 8, 1964, and purports to be a
photograph of Mark Lane.
Commission No. 535 is a photograph from a newspaper clipping which
was in the Commission files, and it is an Associated Press photograph,
and appeared, it is taken from the New York Herald Tribune of March 5,
1964, and purports to be a photograph of Mark Lane. I have met Mr. Lane
once or twice prior to his appearance before this Commission, and I was
present during his testimony before this Commission.
Mr. Dulles.
You identify these as pictures of Mr. Lane?
Mr. Redlich.
These are photographs of Mark Lane.
Mr. Dulles.
And these Exhibits 535 and 536 were the exhibits which were
presented to Mrs. Markham?
Mr. Belin.
I think the record should show how they were presented. They were
clipped out so there was not any writing or anything to indicate whom
they were pictures of on their face.
Mr. Dulles.
That is on the record.
Mrs. Markham, there is a short question that Congressman Ford
wanted to put to you.
Representative Ford.
What kind of eyesight do you have, Mrs. Markham?
Mrs. Markham.
I have always had good eyesight.
Representative Ford.
Do you wear glasses?
Mrs. Markham.
No; I don't.
Representative Ford.
Have your eyes tested recently?
Mrs. Markham.
No; I haven't. I have no cause to.
Representative Ford.
You have never worn glasses in your lifetime?
Mrs. Markham.
No.
Mr. Dulles.
Are you farsighted, nearsighted, or neither, just good-sighted?
Mrs. Markham.
Just good-sighted. I did a lot of writing and a cashier and
everything. I see pretty-good.
Representative Ford.
If you go to a movie can you see the picture easily and well?
Mrs. Markham.
Oh, yes; yes, sir; real well.
Representative Ford.
You can see things at a distance quite well?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir. I have never had glasses.
Representative Ford.
Thank you very much.

Source:
Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. III, p. 340.
This page has been built by RTF2HTML, 1996

Index of the Warren Commission Hearings

Testimony Of Helen Markham
The testimony of Helen Markham was taken at 10 a.m., on July 23, 1964,
in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and
Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant
counsel of the President's Commission.

Mr. Liebeler.
Will you stand and take the oath, please? Do you solemnly swear the
testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mrs. Markham.
I do.
Mr. Liebeler.
My name is Wesley J. Liebeler [spelling] L-i-e-b-e-l-e-r. I am an
attorney on the staff of the President's Commission investigating the
assassination of President Kennedy. I have been authorized to take your
testimony for the Commission pursuant to authority granted it by the
President in Executive Order No. 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and
joint resolution of Congress No. 137. I think you are somewhat familiar
with the proceedings of the Commission because you have already
testified before the Commission in Washington; is that right?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes; but you know, I don't know nothing about the
Kennedys--President Kennedy.
Mr. Liebeler.
I understand you were there when Oswald shot Officer Tippit?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes; that's right.
Mr. Liebeler.
Since you are familiar with the Commission's procedure, I'll just
go right into your testimony. I wanted to ask you some questions about
some of the things you told the Commission when you appeared before it
on March 26, 1964, when Mr. Ball took your testimony before the Commission.
Mrs. Markham.
Yes.
Mr. Liebeler.
Do you remember at that time that Mr. Ball asked you the question,
"Did you ever talk to a New York lawyer who said he was from New York?"
And that you answered, "No, sir." Mr. Ball then asked you, "Did you ever
talk to a lawyer who was investigating the case on behalf of the
deceased man, Lee Oswald?" Your answer was, "No, sir." Mr. Ball asked,
"Did you ever talk to a man who said he was representing the mother of
Lee Oswald?" And you answered, "No, sir." And then Mr. Ball asked you,
"You don't remember ever talking to a man named Mark Lane?" And then you
answered, No, sir."
Mrs. Markham.
Right.
Mr. Liebeler.
Do you remember giving that testimony at that time?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Liebeler.
Have you ever talked to Mark Lane?
Mrs. Markham.
No; I haven't--I haven't never seen the man in my life.
Mr. Liebeler.
Have you ever talk to Mark Lane on the telephone?
Mrs. Markham.
No.
Mr. Liebeler.
And you remember that Congressman Ford specifically, and Mr.
Dulles, asked you whether or not you had talked to Mark Lane on the
telephone and you told them at that time that you had not talked to Mark
Lane?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir; I have never seen the man. If he was to come in here I
wouldn't know who he was.
Mr. Liebeler.
Now, aside from the fact you have never seen the man, you also told
the Commission when you were in Washington that you had never talked to
him over the telephone?
Mrs. Markham.
Right.
Mr. Liebeler.
Have you talked to Mark Lane over the telephone since you were in
Washington, before today?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Mr. Liebeler.
You have never talked to Mark Lane over the telephone?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir; no, sir. Now, the old lady, and they told me were
reporters, came to my house.
Mr. Liebeler.
Right, but you have no recollection of ever talking yourself?
Mrs. Markham.
I never even talked to her even.
Mr. Liebeler.
Well, now, I'll tell you very frankly, that we have a tape
recording of a conversation that purports to be a conversation between
you and Mark Lane on the telephone and I have a transcript which we will
mark as Markham Exhibit No. 1----
Mrs. Markham.
Let me tell you now----
Mr. Liebeler.
I ask you to read the transcript and I will make arrangements----I
hadn't thought you would be here until 1 o'clock this afternoon, so I
don't have a tape recorder here, but I think I can have the Secret
Service bring one over. Would you like to hear the tape, so you can tell
us whether or not that is your voice?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes; sure.
Mr. Liebeler.
Let me make arrangements then to have the Secret Service bring the
tape recorder on over and we will see if it is your voice.
Mrs. Markham.
I am going to tell you this, now, there was someone--let me tell
you this--there was someone one day-- this was all to me--I was scared,
and I was, you know, frightened, and one day--now, this brings me
back--the memories [referring to the transcript heretofore mentions].
One day on my job there was someone that called, but he told me he was
from the city.
Mr. Liebeler.
From here in Dallas?
Mrs. Markham.
That's right; the city hall down here, and this man told me he
was---now, I can tell you what he told me he was--he said he was Captain
Fritz--over this telephone--Capt. Will Fritz and I know you are familiar
with him, maybe. Now, he said he was Captain Fritz with the police
department of the city of Dallas.
Mr. Liebeler.
Well, this transcript indicates that someone called a number, a
telephone number---do you remember the telephone number at your office
where you worked; were you working?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes; I was working down here on Main Street.
Mr. Liebeler.
Do you know what the telephone down there is?
Mrs. Markham.
No; I have really forgotten it, but it was over this office phone.
It's a Riverside 8 number.
Mr. Liebeler.
Is there such a number as Matthew 7-6797?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Mr. Liebeler.
Or is there such a number as MA 7-6797, is there such a number as
that that you know of?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Mr. Liebeler.
This transcript here indicates that some gentleman called this
number here, Matthew 7-6797.
Mrs. Markham.
My number at home is Whitehall and this number that I worked at was
Riverside 8.
Mr. Liebeler.
Well, I think what we should do is have the Secret Service bring a
tape recorder here, because I want you to listen to this conversation,
and if it is not your voice, we certainly want to know that.
Mrs. Markham.
Sure, and this man--what this man told me--he told me he was from
the Dallas Police Department and he said it was concerning the Oswalds
and they had to get a little more information from me.
Mr. Liebeler.
Well, let me call the Secret Service.
Mrs. Markham.
And listen, that was the only call that I know of. You see, I kept
racking my brain thinking back, you know.
Mr. Liebeler.
Why don't we suspend momentarily and as soon as the Secret Service
man brings the tape recorder over here, which should be within a short
time, a half an hour, we will play the tape.
Mrs. Markham.
All right.

(At this point the proceedings were recessed and resumed at 11:40 a.m.,
as follows:)

Mr. Liebeler.
This is Mr. John Joe Howlett with the Secret Service and he has
brought over the tape recorder and has put the tape on it and we will
continue with your deposition, Mrs. Markham. Mr. Howlett, with the U.S.
Secret Service, will operate the tape recorder and I will ask you, Mrs.
Markham, to listen, to this conversation and tell us whether or not this
is an accurate reflection of a conversation that you had over the
telephone some time ago?
The Court Reporter.
How much of this tape recording do you want on the record here?
Mr. Liebeler.
I don't want any of this on the record now; however, I will give
you, Mrs. Markham, a transcript of this telephone conversation to review
and follow along, if you will. This memorandum consists of 29 pages
appearing on the letterhead of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
dated July 16, 1964, and I want you to see if that is not in fact a
transcript, a typed copy of what is on this tape.
Mrs. Markham.
Yes; I'll watch this.

(At this point Mr. Howlett proceeded to play the tape recording of the
telephone conversation heretofore referred to and when the witness, Mrs.
Markham, began to indicate reactions to the recorded conversation, the
reporter resumed recording same as hereinafter shown and the record here
begins with the question and answer at the time Mrs. Markham began
indicating her reactions.)

"Mr. LANE. I wonder if you would be good enough to tell me--I have
your affidavit which you gave the police on that date.
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
"Mr. LANE. And I have read that, of course, and I wonder if you
would be good enough to talk to me?"
Mr. Liebeler.
You are shaking your head, as you listen to this tape recorder,
Mrs. Markham.
John Joe, let's stop the recorder for a moment. What do you mean to
indicate by that?
Mrs. Markham.
I never talked to that man.
Mr. Liebeler.
Is that not your voice on the tape?
Mrs. Markham.
I can't tell about my voice, but that man--I never talked to no
woman or no man like that.
Mr. Liebeler.
Well, we will play the recording some more, and are you following
it along, Mrs. Markham?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes; I am right here.
Mr. Liebeler.
And does this memorandum appear to be an accurate and exact
transcript of the recording?
Mrs. Markham.
That man--whoever that man is--I don't know, but it says, "Mark
Lane." No, sir--I'll tell the truth (raising right hand) and those words
that he's saying--that's nothing like the telephone call I got--nothing.
Mr. Liebeler.
Let's continue with the recording and see if you recognize your
voice here on the tape.

"Mr. LANE. Tell me the description of the man whom you saw.
"Mrs. MARKHAM. This is an office business phone and I just can't
tell you that. I don't have the time to.
"Mr. LANE. Well, could you just give me one moment and tell me--I
read where you told some of the reporters that he was short and stocky
and had bushy hair.
"Mrs. MARKHAM. No, no; I did not say that.
"Mr. LANE. You did not say that?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
"Mr. LANE. Would you say that he was stocky?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. He was short.
"Mr. LANE. He was short?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.
"Mr. LANE. And was he a little on the heavy side?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Not too heavy.
"Mr. LANE. Not too heavy, but slightly heavy?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, he was--no--he didn't look too heavy.
"Mr. LANE. He wasn't too heavy and would you say that he had a
rather bushy kind of hair?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes; that's my voice.

"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; just a little bit bushy.
"Mr. LANE. It was a little bit bushy?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.
"Mr. LANE. Yes. Was there anybody else around when you saw this happen?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir; I didn't see anyone.
"Mr. LANE. There was no one else there. Did you ever have a chance
to see Mr. Oswald when he was alive, I mean after he was arrested, did
they bring you down to look at him?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. I saw him on the lineup.
"Mr. LANE. Yes. Did he look anything like the man who shot Oswald?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. I identified him.
"Mr. LANE. You identified him as the man who did shoot him. Did
anyone point him out to you at that time as the man?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. In the lineup?
"Mr. LANE. Yes.
"Mrs. MARKHAM. No; they did not.
"Mr. LANE. Did they tell you who it might be?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. They didn't tell me one thing.
"Mr. LANE. No. Do you recall what the gentleman was wearing who
shot Officer Tippit?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
"Mr. LANE. How was he dressed?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light gray looking jacket.
"Mr. LANE. Yes.
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Kind of dark trousers.
"Mr. LANE. Dark trousers?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Uh-huh.
"Mr. LANE. And did you see what color shirt?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. No; I could not.
"Mr. LANE. The jacket was open or closed?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir; it was zipped up a little bit--the neck
was closed--pretty close too.
"Mr. LANE. Well, as I said, I have read your affidavit and it
indicates the police car stopped and then this man walked over to it and
leaned on it and placed his arms up against the car.
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Up in the window.
"Mr. LANE. In the window?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.
"Mr. LANE. You didn't see the police officer call him over, did you?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; I seen the police car stop--I seen it all.
"Mr. LANE. I beg your pardon?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir; I seen the police car stop.
"Mr. LANE. You heard the police car stop?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. I seen it.
"Mr. LANE. You saw it stop and then Oswald or this gentleman,
whoever it was, walked over to the car?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir; he walked over to the car.
"Mr. LANE. You didn't see the officer call him over, though, did you?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. He rolled down the window.
"Mr. LANE. He did what?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. He rolled down his window.
"Mr. LANE. The officer rolled down the window?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; uh-huh.
"Mr. LANE. Of course, you didn't put that in your affidavit.
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Sir?
"Mr. LANE. That was not in your affidavit.
"Mrs. MARKHAM. It should have been.
"Mr. LANE. It should have been--you told that to the officers?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir; he had to have the window rolled down,
because, you see, he leaned over in the window.
"Mr. LANE. I see. Now, did you tell the officers at the police
station when they questioned you, the description of the man who shot
Tippit?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. I told them that at the scene of the murder.
"Mr. LANE. You told the officers the description?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
"Mr. LANE. Did you say that he was short and a little bit on the
heavy side and had slightly bushy hair?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. No; I did not. They didn't ask me that.
"Mr. LANE. They never asked you his description?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; they asked what he was wearing.
"Mr. LANE. Just what he was wearing?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
"Mr. LANE. But they never asked you how he was built or anything
like that?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
"Mr. LANE. Well, you went to the police station where they took
your affidavit, right?
" Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes."
Mr. Liebeler.
Now, you are shaking your head at this point. Miss Reporter, you
are taking the transcript down.
The Reporter.
Yes.
Mr. Liebeler.
Now, at this point you were shaking your head, what do you mean by
that?
Mrs. Markham.
This man--I have never talked with. This lady was never on the
telephone. This man that called me like I told you, he told me he was
from the city hall, the police department, the police department of the
city hall.
Mr. Liebeler.
Well, now, do you remember having this conversation with somebody?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes; I do, but he told me he was from the police department of city
hall and he had to get some information, a little more information from
me. That was my boss that told me the one that said, "Wait a minute,"
that was my boss, Mr. Sam Gambolus.
Mr. Liebeler.
And you received this call at the place where you work?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes.
Mr. Liebeler.
Do you remember specifically that when the telephone calls started,
that this man told you he was from the city hall of the police department?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir; yes, sir; right. Because you see--- I had got a call from
a man, but it was--I found out later, because the lady had called me
back, it was from Mr. Tippit's sister, and I had told them that I
couldn't talk, you know, I was busy on my job and this man told me that
he was from the police department of the city hall and he had to get a
little more information and it wouldn't take much of my time, and so I
got permission from this boss, Mr. Gambolus, to talk with this man. Now,
he told me that.
Mr. Liebeler.
Now, did he tell you he was from the police department?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Liebeler.
Now, on this tape recording right here, this man is asking you what
the police did.
Mrs. Markham.
I know it.
Mr. Liebeler.
And he said they--the police took you and took your affidavit.
Mrs. Markham.
That man--I have never talked to that man. I talked to a man that
was supposed to have been from the police department of the city hall.
Mr. Liebeler.
Do you recognize this as the voice of the man you talked to?
Mrs. Markham.
No; it is not.
Mr. Liebeler.
This is not the same voice?
Mrs. Markham.
No.

Mr. Liebeler.
How do you explain the fact that the woman's voice on this tape
recording is your voice?
Mrs. Markham.
I never heard that.

Mr. Liebeler.
You never heard the man's voice before?
Mrs. Markham.
And I never heard this lady's voice before--this is the first time.
Mr. Liebeler.
Do you have any doubt in your mind at all that the lady's voice on
the tape now is your voice?
Mrs. Markham.
It is my voice, but this man told me he was from the city police.
Mr. Liebeler.
Did it occur to you as you were talking to him--when he said for
example, on the tape here just a few minutes ago, did you tell the
officers--you told this person you were talking to on this tape that
you-saw the police car stop and that this man walked over to the car and
that the officer had rolled the window down and this man's voice said
you did not put in the affidavit that you had seen the officer roll the
window down.
Mrs. Markham.
Man, I have never heard such a thing as this.
Mr. Liebeler.
At the bottom of page 6 he says, "I see. Now, did you tell the
officers at the police station, when they questioned you, the
description of the man who shot Tippit?"
You couldn't have thought was from the police department if he was
asking you what you were telling the police before---do you agree with me?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes; but he told me he was from the police department and he had to
get some information from me and I wanted to get back to my work.
Mr. Liebeler.
So, it is your testimony that even though you engaged in this
conversation here, the man--when he started out, he told you that he was
from the police department; is that right?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir; I wouldn't have never talked to this man. Just like if I
get a telephone call I say, "You know where I am at, come down to see
me." He told me he was from the police department and this lady never
talked to me.
Mr. Liebeler.
Which lady is that?
Mrs. Markham.
On this tape.
Mr. Liebeler.
Which lady on the tape?
Mrs. Markham.
It was a woman talking.
Mr. Liebeler.
The lady's voice that was talking on the tape here?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes.
Mr. Liebeler.
I thought that was your voice?
Mrs. Markham.
Not at the first there.
Mr. Liebeler.
Not at the first--you mean the telephone operator, the one that was
the telephone operator? The tape here indicates that the long-distance
telephone operator or some telephone operator called you to the
telephone and a man answered the telephone.
Mrs. Markham.
No; my boss called me to the telephone.
Mr. Liebeler.
So, when you came to the telephone it was this man on the telephone
and he told you that he was from the police department?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Liebeler.
And then you engaged in this telephone conversation?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes; he certainly did.
Mr. Liebeler.
So that, in fact, your testimony is that you had never had anybody
introduce themselves to you as Mark Lane?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Mr. Liebeler.
And you haven't talked to him over the telephone?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir; and so help me [raising right hand] I did not.
Mr. Liebeler.
You don't have any doubt, however, that you did engage in this
particular conversation, except that you are having trouble at the
beginning and end of it because you said that the man told you that he
was from the police department when he called?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir ; he certainly did. I know he did.
Mr. Liebeler.
Did you ever tell anybody that this man who shot Officer Tippit was
short and stocky and had bushy hair?
Mrs. Markham.
No. [Handed instruments to Mr. Liebeler.]
Mr. Liebeler.
You have brought a couple of pieces of paper here that you want me
to look at?
Mrs. Markham.
Please--this here doesn't make sense and let me show you--I don't
know what to think about it, but I got this, but my daughter wouldn't
let me have it because I was very upset at the time and I don't know
what it even means.
Mr. Liebeler.
Let the record show that the witness has handed me a piece of
paper, a single sheet of paper enclosed in an envelope of the
Statler-Hilton Hotel in Dallas and postmarked Dallas, Tex., July 11,
1964, and addressed to Mrs. Helen Markham at 328 East Ninth Street in
Dallas, and the letter has a return address of P.O. Box 2897, Dallas 21,
Tex. It is dated July 10, 1964, and it is addressed to Mrs. Markham and
it says, "At your convenience, would you kindly call me Saturday or any
weekday morning between 9 a.m. and 12 noon. I would like the opportunity
of discussing a matter which I believe will be mutually profitable.
Sincerely, James Kerr."
We will mark the envelope and the letter as Markham Deposition
Exhibit No. 2. I have marked the letter as indicated and I have put my
initials on it and would you put your initials on it, Mrs. Markham, so
we don't have any trouble identifying it in the future.
Mrs. Markham.
Just my initials?
Mr. Liebeler.
Yes; just your initials.

(Mrs. Markham initials instrument referred to.)

Mr. Liebeler.
Now, did you ever call this Mr. Kerr?
Mrs. Markham.
Now, where at--there wasn't no telephone or nothing. It gives a
post office box is all I saw.
Mr. Liebeler.
You never looked the telephone number up in the book or anything
like that?
Mrs. Markham.
No; I didn't. There are so many Kerrs---you never know who it is.
Mr. Liebeler.
Now, the envelope has the telephone listing on it--RI 9-3195; did
you notice that?
Mrs. Markham.
Well, I called that number off of that.
Mr. Liebeler.
Do you remember whose number that is?
Mrs. Markham.
No; I believe it was either the police department--I don't know,
but I called.
Mr. Liebeler.
You also have a telegram you want me to look at?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes; I do.
Mr. Liebeler.
You never did talk to this Mr. Kerr; is that right?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir; that's all I've gotten. I want you to see what you think
about that.
Mr. Liebeler.
The witness has produced a telegram dated July 21, apparently 1964,
and addressed to her, which reads as follows:
"Dear Mrs. Markham:
"The United States Information Agency is preparing a televised
report on the findings of the Warren Commission.
"To aid us in our objectives, we have requested the on-camera
presence of President Johnson, the Commission members and selected
witnesses who have given testimony here in Washington. We would like to
request your cooperation in appearing on our program. In our opinion,
your presence and perhaps a statement of your feeling and of your
feelings in truthful note and fashion will serve to alleviate the
tension and misgivings following the death of Officer Tippit and, of
course, the other Dallas tragedies. I would be most anxious to have your
reaction and will contact you personally concerning our request.
"I look forward to talking with you.
"Sincerely, Buck Richard Pennington, Producer, Television Service:
U.S. Information Agency, Washington 25, D.C., phone Worth 2-0319."
When did you receive this?
Mrs. Markham.
Well----
Mr. Howlett.
Just a moment, I talked to Mrs. Markham about this--she called me
on the telephone about that. The U.S. Information Agency is a legitimate
Government organization and they are planning to do this. They have
contacted us to assist them in the location of some witnesses and we
checked with our office in Washington and they came back and told us it
was a legitimate venture, but we were, the Secret Service, was engaged
with the Commission and we wouldn't be able to help, but it is supposed
to be a legitimate operation.
Mr. Liebeler.
So, you have discussed this with Agent Howlett, is that right, as
he indicated?
Mrs. Markham.
Now, this man--Buck Pennington?
Mr. Liebeler.
Yes.
Mrs. Markham.
He called me right after I got this telegram and whatever you
think--he wanted me to come up there Monday or Tuesday. Do you think it
would be all right?
Mr. Liebeler.
Well, neither one of us is in a position to give you any advice on
that at all, Mrs. Markham.
Mrs. Markham.
Well, who do I go to? I don't want to do something wrong. I've done
talked to somebody, I didn't know who I was talking to.
Mr. Liebeler.
I suggest you write a little note to Mr. Rankin, general counsel of
the Commission's staff in Washington and ask him what he thinks you
should do.
Mrs. Markham.
Would you write that address down?
Mr. Liebeler.
Would you give her that address, Joe? Afterward.
Mr. Howlett.
That's Mr. Rankin's address in Washington?
Mr. Liebeler.
Yes.
Mrs. Markham.
I don't know if it would be all right to go up there and do that or
not.
Mr. Liebeler.
Well, why don't you write to Mr. Rankin and he will handle that
aspect of it.
Now, I want to mark this transcript, Mrs. Markham, and we have
listened to the tape--not all the way through, but part of the way
through, to about page 6, and you followed it through to that extent,
have you not?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes.
Mr. Liebeler.
And you are satisfied that to the extent we have listened to the
tape, that it is accurately set forth in this memorandum?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes.
Mr. Liebeler.
Is that correct?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes; but that man is wrong. Why would anybody want to do anything
like that?
Mr. Liebeler.
Would you put your initials on that memorandum, please?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes; may I use a pencil?
Mr. Liebeler.
Yes.
Mrs. Markham.
I just wrote Markham down there.
Mr. Liebeler.
All right. Thank you very much, Mrs. Markham. I don't have any
other questions at this time.
Mrs. Markham.
Well, that just worries me.
Mr. Liebeler.
Well, we will have to do further investigation into this.
Mrs. Markham.
Because he told me he was from the police department. It never
dawned on me. You know, I was in a hurry to get back because I was going
to get fired if I didn't get back.
Mr. Liebeler.
Thank you very much, Mrs. Markham.
Mrs. Markham.
Well, will I get in any trouble over this?
Mr. Liebeler.
I don't think so, Mrs. Markham. I wouldn't worry about it. I don't
think anybody is going to cause you any trouble over that [referring to
the telegram].
Mrs. Markham.
That was dirty in that man doing that.
Mr. Liebeler.
Pardon?
Mrs. Markham.
That was dirty in that man doing that.
Mr. Liebeler.
Well, I would think that's right.
Mrs. Markham.
Well, he's not no better than Oswald--that's right.
Mr. Liebeler.
Thank you, Mrs. Markham, very much.

Source:
Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. VII, p. 499.
This page has been built by RTF2HTML, 1996

>>> something inconsistent with a man with a receding hairline. There things
>>> are done purposely, and the purpose is deceit.
>>
>> So now you are claiming that Oswald had a receding hairline?
>
> Lane did. Do I need to take you by the hand on everything?
>

So is it a fact that Oswald had a receding hairline?

>> Were the reporters being deceitful when asking for her story?
>
> Has what to do with what?
>

Why do you lay all the blame on Mark Lane?

>>>> That's the MO of the WC defenders.
>>
>>> Yes, weighing information correctly. If everyone could do it there
>>> wouldn`t be conspiracy mongers. But they must keep the idea alive (at
>>> least in their own minds) that Oswald was a patsy.
>>
>> Hiding evidence.
>> Not reading the WC.
>
> Riding a bike.
> Eating lunch.
>
> "What are random utterances seen on the internet"?
>

They're not random when they have a 45� slope.

[Anthony Marsh]

Did I offer a quote?

>>> What devious reason would motivate her to deny the interview? Reading
>>
>> Maybe because the cops told her not to talk to anyone?
>
> Yet she is.
>

And scared to death.

>>> the transcript from the phone interview it does little harm to anything
>>> she said elsewhere, either her affidavit or what she related to the WC.
>>> Theres no deceit on her part, but there is on Lane`s. This is why Lane
>>> balked at supplying the tape, he knew that how he represented the
>>> conversation and how it appears in context are two entirely different
>>> things.
>>
>> What does harm is when she commits perjury and denies even talking to
>> Mark Lane. Some witness you got there.
>
> When was Markham convicted of perjury?
>

Did the WC ever charge anyone with perjury? Not even Mark Lane.

> And I don`t think you understand the law, there is a basic tenet
> called "intent". You`d have to show that Markham was intentionally
> being deceptive. Good luck with that.
>

She had good reason to be deceptive after everyone warned her not to talk.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/17/2013 12:40 PM, Bud wrote:

She was denying it to get out of trouble for talking about the case.
That was the reason for her perjury.

Why are you covering up for Markham?

>>> This is why Lane balked at supplying the tape, he knew that how he represented the conversation and how it appears >in context are two entirely different things.
>>
>> You've read the transcript..... Is your ability to understand what
>> you read on par with a mule?
>
> I`d ask you the same thing since you can`t seem to tell the difference
> between what Mark Lane represented what Markham related to be and the
> actual transcript of the discussion.

Whose transcript?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/17/2013 12:31 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
>>>> "Markham...even denied it was her voice on the tape." <<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Dead wrong. That's only what Mark Lane wanted his audience of
> conspiracy-thirsty fans to believe, as he attempted to make Markham
> look like an even bigger idiot by not giving the audience the complete
> story about the female voices heard on the tape recording of the Lane/
> Markham interview.
>

Mr. Liebeler.
Have you ever talk to Mark Lane on the telephone?
Mrs. Markham.
No.
Mr. Liebeler.
And you remember that Congressman Ford specifically, and Mr.
Dulles, asked you whether or not you had talked to Mark Lane on the
telephone and you told them at that time that you had not talked to Mark
Lane?

> According to Lane, Markham seemed to be saying she couldn't recognize
> her own voice. But she knew the OPERATOR'S voice wasn't hers (and this
> is brought out in Markham's Warren Commission testimony).
>

Mr. Liebeler.
Is that not your voice on the tape?
Mrs. Markham.
I can't tell about my voice, but that man--I never talked to no
woman or no man like that.

> And when she said in her WC testimony--"this lady never talked to me"--
> she obviously had just simply forgotten that she had talked briefly
> with the female operator when she testified in front of the
> Commission.
>
> Just listen to how Mark Lane tries to make Mrs. Markham look like an
> even bigger boob in this December 4, 1964, appearance at Beverly Hills
> High School, wherein he doesn't bother to tell the large audience that
> there WAS, in fact, another woman's voice on that tape:
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-85.html#Lane-Vs-Markham
>

Markham couldn't even understand what a long-distance telephone operator
was. Again, the question of her IQ is highly relevant.

[Anthony Marsh]

Where did Mark Lane say he read it in the newspaper?

[Anthony Marsh]

And she also said that Mark Lane told her that he was Chief Curry
calling from the Police Department.

[Anthony Marsh]

Exactly who said it was in a newspaper?

>
>> OK... fair enough....Then answer these questions.... How do you
>> account for the fact that both Lane and Markham had read that
>> newspaper story? Are you saying Lane made it up out of whole cloth
>> and there never was such a story?
>>
>
> Wrong assumption. Neither had read such a story.
>
> If Lane was not flatly lying, he may have simply been mixed up. But I
> wouldn't put flatly lying beyond him.
>

Who said he read it in a newspaper?

>
>> Markham said she had read it but newspapers just print whatever they
>> think is interesting.
>>
>
> That's a generic response to being told something that you know is
> untrue.
>
> Since you think the story existed, do you accept Markham's *denial*
> that she ever said that?
>

Two different concepts. One is the newspaper story which may never have
existed. The other is talking to reporters, which she probably did.
Unless Lane was lying and heard it from the police.

> Or is she telling the truth when convenient for you, and lying when
> it's convenient for you?

Or maybe she's lying all the time.

[Anthony Marsh]

Neither of them said they read a newspaper story.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/16/2013 10:01 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 16 Mar 2013 21:59:23 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>> On 3/16/2013 11:54 AM, Walt wrote:
>>> On Mar 15, 9:19 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>>>> On 15 Mar 2013 22:16:37 -0400, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that there is no newspaper article saying that.
>>>
>>>

>>> Simply because you haven't seen that newspaper doesn't mean ity doesn't
>>> exist...... Mark Lane said he had read the story, and Helen Markham agree
>>> that it was in a newspaper .... But Helen said the reporter lied....
>>>
>>

>> In fact it was the only reason that Mark Lane had for seeking out Markham.
>> Because he had read the story and noticed that her story seemed at odds
>> with the physical appearance of Oswald. If the story had never existed
>> then Mark Lane would never have known to seek her out and there would
>> never have been any controversy. But McAdams can't figure that out.
>>
>
> You can't figure out that Lane lied about that.
>

He didn't lie. Someone lied by saying he read the story in the
newspaper. He never said that.

>>>
>>>> Markham apparently went along with what Lane said
>>>
>>> Ha,ha,ha,..... What a silly thing to say......The entire transcript is one
>>> long denial and she only went along with Lane when she was caught in a
>>> lie.....
>>>

>>> apparently using the "whatever" principle. I doubt she even knew
>>> everthing the papers wrote about her.
>>>
>>

>> Could she even read a newspaper? Did she ever read that newspaper?
>>
>>> You're squirmin, John.......

>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you want to bail out Lane, produce the newspaper article.
>>>>
>>>> .John
>>>

>>> Your deception is palpable..........
>>>
>>
>> And he claimed that it would be easy to find the newspaper article. Like
>> every local library has the Dallas Morning News on microfiche. He
>> certainly has the big bucks to buy it himself, but he won't. Because that
>> would be research.
>>
>
> Marquette's library has the MORNING NEWS for the days following the
> assassination, and it's not there.
>

Who said it was in the Dallas Morning News?

> Do you think you can simply *posit* that such a story exists, and that
> counts as evidence?
>

I never said it was in the newspaper.

> Show us the damn story!
>

What story?

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[David Von Pein]

Regardless of Markham's IQ, Mark Lane, in the Dec. 1964 audio I provided
previously, was definitely trying to make it look like Markham's voice was
the ONLY female voice on that tape. And that was misleading on Lane's
behalf.

[Bud]

Ah, you are using Lane`s method of assigning a position on a
witness.

> >>>     What devious reason would motivate her to deny the interview? Reading
>
> >> Maybe because the cops told her not to talk to anyone?
>
> >    Yet she is.
>
> And scared to death.

She was scared to talk to Lane? Where did she say that in the
conversation she had with him? Why didn`t she just hang up if she was
so afraid?

> >>> the transcript from the phone interview it does little harm to anything
> >>> she said elsewhere, either her affidavit or what she related to the WC.
> >>> Theres no deceit on her part, but there is on Lane`s.  This is why Lane
> >>> balked at supplying the tape, he knew that how he represented the
> >>> conversation and how it appears in context are two entirely different
> >>> things.
>
> >> What does harm is when she commits perjury and denies even talking to
> >> Mark Lane. Some witness you got there.
>
> >    When was Markham convicted of perjury?
>
> Did the WC ever charge anyone with perjury?

So you were just making up that she committed perjury.

> Not even Mark Lane.
>
> >    And I don`t think you understand the law, there is a basic tenet
> > called "intent". You`d have to show that Markham was intentionally
> > being deceptive. Good luck with that.
>
> She had good reason to be deceptive after everyone warned her not to talk.

Lane didn`t.

[Bud]

On Mar 17, 10:50 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

What kind of trouble?

> That was the reason for her perjury.

Where does she say she was worried about the ramifications of
talking with anyone?

Instead on non sequitors try addressing what I wrote.

> >>>   This is why Lane balked at supplying the tape, he knew that how he represented the conversation and how it appears >in context are two entirely different things.
>
> >> You've read the transcript.....  Is your ability to understand what
> >> you read on par with a mule?
>
> >    I`d ask you the same thing since you can`t seem to tell the difference
> > between what Mark Lane represented what Markham related to be and the
> > actual transcript of the discussion.
>
> Whose transcript?

I don`t know who owns it. If you want to participate in this
discussion I suggest you take the time to read it.

[Bud]

Fun to guess.

> I like your point that waitresses are expert witnesses.

In some areas, sure.

> >>> That was the only information she gave that really counted, and quite a
> >>> few people back her up on this. But it`s a free country, you guys don`t
> >>> have to believe she saw Oswald there. You can keep your "Oswald was a
> >>> patsy" fantasies alive if you like. You can even believe Lane is an honest
> >>> researcher interested in the truth.
>
> >> I guess it doesn't matter to you that she described someone other than
> >> Oswald.
>
> >    You are just saying stuff, you aren`t showing that any information
> > she related rules out Oswald as the person she saw.
>
> I am not ruling out Oswald as the person she saw. I am just pointing out
> why Mark Lane thought she was an unreliable witness.

The reason is because she gave information that implicated Oswald.
He is an activist who championed the idea that Oswald was innocent.
You really should get up to speed on the basics.

> >> If you assume that Oswald shot Tippit as I do, that makes her a terrible
> >> witness.
>
> >    She is actually a great witness in a lot of ways. Had this gone to trail
> > she would have likely been identified with by members of the jury. They
> > would see she was just someone doing the best she could, a victim of
> > circumstance who just happened to see a murder and the murderer. All these
> > tricks some Jewish New York lawyer like Lane might pull in front of a
> > homegrown jury would likely backfire, and get Markham sympathy as the jury
> > might see her as being picked on. As it is it didn`t get to trial, so we
> > have a witness who says she looked long and hard at Oswald and was certain
> > it was he that she saw.
>
> So you mean that they would find Oswald not guilty because she couldn't
> identify him in the line-up?

Where did I say that? Is this another one of those strawman thingys?

> But she did see him on TV.

But she did work at the Eat Well diner.

> >>>> If Markham makes any mistakes you'll say she was being misled
> >>>> by Mark Lane.
>
> >>>     Of course, this is obviously what he set out to do, play up any
> >>> discrepancies.
>
> >> No, he merely picked up on what she told the reporters.
>
> >    He may have saw this in a newspaper. But the reason he called her was to
> > exploit what he saw as differences between Oswald and this description.
> > Hence, "play up any discrepancies".
>
> You guys keep playing this straw man argument game. No one said he read
> it in a newspaper.

Lane: "I told her that somewhere it occurred to me that I had seen
an article in a newspaper in which she described the assailant of
Oswald as short, stocky, and with bushy hair--I'm sorry, the assailant
of Tippit--as being short, stocky, with bushy hair. And she said she
did talk to a reporter, she thinks, for one of the Dallas newspapers,
the Dallas Times-Herald or the Dallas Morning News--but that is the
only time she talked to anybody."

> >>>> But if Mark Lane gets anything wrong you'll call him a
> >>>> liar.
>
> >>>     I don`t think he outright lies very often, but he is always deceitful
> >>> and dishonest. Like it may be true that Markham allowed that the man she
> >>> saw was a little bit heavy, but it is also true that she gave a weight
> >>> range of 100 to 150 pounds. It might be true that she allowed that the
>
> >> Where does she say 100 to 150 pounds?
>
> >    Try reading the transcript.
>
> It's not on her WC testimony.

Probably not in her diary either.

> That's why I asked you to QUOTE it. Which you are not able to do.

Of course I can, I`m just not going to. I told you where to find it.
But keep looking in the phone book, or on billboards or anywhere else
it might strike you it could be.

Did you know that it`s possible to link to information?

> >>> something inconsistent with a man with a receding hairline. There things
> >>> are done purposely, and the purpose is deceit.
>
> >> So now you are claiming that Oswald had a receding hairline?
>
> >    Lane did. Do I need to take you by the hand on everything?
>
> So is it a fact that Oswald had a receding hairline?
>
> >> Were the reporters being deceitful when asking for her story?
>
> >    Has what to do with what?
>
> Why do you lay all the blame on Mark Lane?
>
> >>>> That's the MO of the WC defenders.
>
> >>>     Yes, weighing information correctly. If everyone could do it there
> >>> wouldn`t be conspiracy mongers. But they must keep the idea alive (at
> >>> least in their own minds) that Oswald was a patsy.
>
> >> Hiding evidence.
> >> Not reading the WC.
>
> >     Riding a bike.
> >     Eating lunch.
>
> >    "What are random utterances seen on the internet"?
>
> They're not random when they have a 45° slope.

"What is Tom Cruise`s forehead?"

[Walt]

Hey Mr KIA......Perhaps you should read ......Helen Markham Exhibit
1 .......Pages 25 and 26..........

[Walt]

It's truly a pity that we can't have an honest debate about Helen
Markham.

I believe most readers would agree that she was such a scatter brained
liar that her statements can be used both by both the pro and con
sides to bolster some point.

However..... there's no HONEST way to deny that she knew what time it
was when she saw Tippit murdered. She said that the shooting
happened at about 1:06 as she was on her way to catch a 1:12 bus to
take her to work.

[Anthony Marsh]

Where does the tape itself indicate that the woman's voice was Markham's
when in context it is clearly the operator's?
You do realize, I hope, that she eventually admitted that it was her
voice on the tape? Why do you keep denying things after the person in
question has already admitted them?
Am I allowed to say that you are misleading?

[Bud]

On Mar 18, 1:00 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 10:35 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Regardless of Markham's IQ, Mark Lane, in the Dec. 1964 audio I provided
> > previously, was definitely trying to make it look like Markham's voice was
> > the ONLY female voice on that tape. And that was misleading on Lane's
> > behalf.
>
> It's truly a pity that we can't have an honest debate about Helen
> Markham.

I`d be willing to, but why would I debate Jean Davison about this?

> I believe most readers would agree that she was such a scatter brained
> liar that her statements can be used both by both the pro and con
> sides to bolster some point.

Then you would agree that Lane was dishonest to only mention only
the things that supported his viewpoints to the WC.

> However..... there's no HONEST way to deny that she knew what time it
> was when she saw Tippit murdered.

Did she wear a watch? Did she check it at the time of the murder?

>  She said that the shooting
> happened at about 1:06 as she was on her way to catch a 1:12 bus to
> take her to work.

You are making things up again.

[Bud]

Ok Walt, lets hear your version. Markham sees the murder, then views a
line-up which contains skinny, average height with a receding hairline
Oswald, then sometime *after* she sees Oswald in the line-up she describes
him to a reporter as short, heavy with bushy hair? How does this happen?

> > .John
> > --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

How can she hang up on the Chief of Police?

>>>>> the transcript from the phone interview it does little harm to anything
>>>>> she said elsewhere, either her affidavit or what she related to the WC.
>>>>> Theres no deceit on her part, but there is on Lane`s. This is why Lane
>>>>> balked at supplying the tape, he knew that how he represented the
>>>>> conversation and how it appears in context are two entirely different
>>>>> things.
>>
>>>> What does harm is when she commits perjury and denies even talking to
>>>> Mark Lane. Some witness you got there.
>>
>>> When was Markham convicted of perjury?
>>
>> Did the WC ever charge anyone with perjury?
>
> So you were just making up that she committed perjury.
>

I said she committed perjury. She was not prosecuted.
You say Oswald killed Kennedy. He was not prosecuted.

[Walt]

On Mar 16, 8:55 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <0s59k89f899p3auaf1n74sjq0bou8ip...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 16 Mar 2013 12:01:33 -0400, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net>
> >wrote:

>
> >>On Mar 15, 9:19?pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >>> On 15 Mar 2013 22:16:37 -0400, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>> The problem is that there is no newspaper article saying that.
>

> >>> Markham apparently went along with what Lane said, apparently using

> >>> the "whatever" principle. ?I doubt she even knew everthing the papers

> >>> wrote about her.
>
> >>> If you want to bail out Lane, produce the newspaper article.
>
> >>> .John
>
> >>John, I posted you're reply in the Alt Conspriracy NG..... I 'm very
> >>angry at your hypocrisy, and I know you are biased in the use of your
> >>ability to silence anybody who disagrees with you.......So.. Come on
> >>over to the American NG where free speech is still allowed, and lets
> >>discuss this........
>
> >You are reverting to the old Walt, who can't discuss anything without
> >turning abusive.
>
> >If you don't have the guts to reply here, everybody will know that you
> >have no plausible answer.
>

> >.John
> >--------------
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> The problem, of course, is that replies can be censored by you for any
> reason, and clearly have been in the past.

That's correct..... And it's frustrating to present a counterpoint to
a LNer's post only to have the counterpoint thrown in the trash can.



>
> People who cannot stand the heat of a completely free forum must not
> believe that they have the truth on their side...
>
> Or the evidence...
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com

[Walt]

On Mar 16, 9:24 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 16 Mar 2013 22:22:37 -0400, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net>
> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 16, 11:00 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >> On 16 Mar 2013 11:54:42 -0400, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Simply because you haven't seen that newspaper doesn't mean ity doesn't
> >> >exist......  Mark Lane said he had read the story, and Helen Markham agree
> >> >that it was in a newspaper ....  But Helen said the reporter lied....
>
> >> Not only have *I* not seen the article, nobody has been able to
> >> produce it.
>
> >> If you believe it, produce it.  It's not that hard to get the
> >> TIMES-HERALD and the DALLAS MORNING NEWS for the days following the
> >> assassination.  A lot of libraries have them on microfilm.
>

> >Have you checked Paris??....  Markham said one of the reporters she talked
> >to was from Paris, France.....and I believe Mark Lane was in New York so
> >it's possible that the story was published in a Paris newspaper.  I really
> >don't see how you can honestly deny the obvious, which is;  The story was
> >published because both Lane and Markham said that they had read it.
>

> Have your library get the Paris papers on microfilm.
>
> Do you think Markham could read French?

Ha,ha,ha..... I seriously doubt that she could read English.... And it's
a terrible pity that LBJ's SBRC were forsced to accept her as their
primary witness to the Tippit murder. They had several good witnesses
availble who had seen the murder of Tippit but they didn't want to call
Dom Benevides (for example) even though he was much closer to the
shooting and saw he gunman's face from only 20 feet away. Dom Benevides
would have gave them a description of Tippit's killer that DID NOT match
Lee Oswald.... and since their goal was to find that Lee Oswald was the
killer and he had no accomplices, or motive.....they had no choice but to
use a lying low IQ scatterbrain as the prime witness.

In reading the testimony of Helen Markham, I can feel sympathy for the
lawyers who were trying to get Markham on the record as saying that she
was sure that the man who shot Tippit was Lee Oswald.... I don't think
they ever really established that..... Hells Bells it took them a half
hour of coaxing and prodding just to get her to say that she was on the NW
corner of the intersection of 10th and Patton at 1:06 when she saw Tippit
shot. It appears that she didn't even know the basic directions of N S E
W...........Her testimony alone could provide endless hours of LN/ CT
debates....

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/cf364aa428f751ad/978ecc61fca3cd77?#978ecc61fca3cd77

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Where does the tape itself indicate that the woman's voice was
Markham's when in context it is clearly the operator's? You do
realize, I hope, that she eventually admitted that it was her voice on
the tape? Why do you keep denying things after the person in question
has already admitted them? Am I allowed to say that you are
misleading?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm not "misleading" anybody on this particular matter. But YOU
certainly are, Tony. Markham never admitted that the OPERATOR'S voice
was her OWN voice.

Sure, Markham admitted that HER voice on the tape was HER voice, yes.
But when Markham said "not at the first there" in her WC testimony,
Mark Lane was most definitely trying to make it appear to his eager
audience of CTers that the voice Markham was referring to was
Markham's OWN voice, instead of explaining that the first voice
Markham heard on the tape was the voice of the telephone operator.

Can there be any doubt that that is exactly what Lane did at Beverly
Hills High School on 12/4/64? And, of course, he succeeded completely,
because he never told the crowd that there was a second female voice
on that tape, as he attempted to make Markham look even more foolish.

The audience would have to read Markham's WC testimony to know that
there was a second female voice on the tape. Or they'd have to read
the transcript at 20 H 571. Because Mark Lane sure as hell wasn't
going to tell them.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-85.html#Lane-Vs-Markham

[Bud]

You think Lane was the Chief of Police?

And FYI, in those days you could drop the receiver back in the
cradle and hang up on anyone.

> >>>>> the transcript from the phone interview it does little harm to anything
> >>>>> she said elsewhere, either her affidavit or what she related to the WC.
> >>>>> Theres no deceit on her part, but there is on Lane`s.  This is why Lane
> >>>>> balked at supplying the tape, he knew that how he represented the
> >>>>> conversation and how it appears in context are two entirely different
> >>>>> things.
>
> >>>> What does harm is when she commits perjury and denies even talking to
> >>>> Mark Lane. Some witness you got there.
>
> >>>     When was Markham convicted of perjury?
>
> >> Did the WC ever charge anyone with perjury?
>
> >    So you were just making up that she committed perjury.
>
> I said she committed perjury.

Yah, you were wrong.

>She was not prosecuted.

It would be a waste of time. They could never convict her.

> You say Oswald killed Kennedy.

He did.

> He was not prosecuted.

He couldn`t live up to the requirements.

[David Von Pein]

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0305b.htm

ADDITIONAL RANDOM OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE MARK LANE/HELEN MARKHAM
INTERVIEW:

There are two places in the transcript of the interview which provide
good indications at just how lousy some human beings are at estimating
TIME intervals:

At one point in her March 1964 telephone interview with Mark Lane,
Markham tells Lane that she remained on the corner of Tenth & Patton
for "two minutes" after the shooting had occurred [20 H 581]. And she
also implies that Oswald was STILL IN HER SIGHT after the two-minute
period had passed [20 H 582], because she says that Oswald was still
in sight when she left the corner to go to Tippit's side. And she
claims she didn't leave the corner for "about, uh, two minutes I
imagine" following the shooting.

But, of course, there's no way that Oswald was still in sight of Mrs.
Markham for two solid minutes after Officer Tippit was killed. She was
merely incorrect in her time estimate. Just like she was incorrect
when she said the shooting took place at 1:06 PM.

But, of course, she also told Bardwell Odum of the FBI that the murder
had taken place "possibly around 1:30 PM" (quoting from Odum's FBI
report of 11/22/63, in Commission Ducument No. 5, page 79):

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=82

So it would certainly seem, based on what she told Odum, that Mrs.
Markham was anything BUT sure that Tippit was killed at precisely 1:06
PM. (Unless conspiracy theorists want to claim that "possibly around
1:30 PM" is somehow the same thing as exactly "1:06 PM".)

Another place in the Lane/Markham interview where Mrs. Markham is way
off in estimating a time interval is on Page 20 of the transcript [at
20 H 590], when Markham tells Mark Lane that "about 20 minutes" had
elapsed after Tippit was shot before the first person (besides
herself) had come out to the street to see what was happening.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0305b.htm

Helen's "about 20 minutes" estimate is hilarious, seeing as how we
know that Domingo Benavides and T.F. Bowley and Ted Callaway (and even
various policemen and the ambulance drivers) were on the scene prior
to twenty minutes having elapsed.

In these "time" instances, Helen Markham is just like many other
people -- they just do not estimate times or time intervals very well.

But Mrs. Markham was quite clear when the subject of positively
identifying Lee Harvey Oswald as J.D. Tippit's killer comes up in her
interview with Mr. Lane. I imagine the conspiracy theorists just hate
this part of the Lane/Markham interview [at 20 H 587-588]:

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

----------------

This particular section of the interview is also quite interesting
[starting at 20 H 595]:

MARK LANE -- "Did you tell any reporter that the person that shot
Tippit was short, stocky, and had bushy hair?"

HELEN MARKHAM -- "I did not."

LANE -- "You don't remember telling it? Because one of the reporters
reported that in the newspaper."

MARKHAM -- "Yes, I read that."

LANE -- "You read that. What paper was that, you recall?"

MARKHAM -- "Uh, I believe it was in the Herald."

LANE -- "The Herald?"

MARKHAM -- "I believe, it might have been the News."

LANE -- "It was one of the Dallas papers, uh?"

MARKHAM -- "Yes, sir."

LANE -- "And, do you know what day that was?"

MARKHAM -- "No, sir."

LANE -- "That was shortly after, though, wasn't it?"

MARKHAM -- "Yes, sir. They gave my address, name, and everything."

LANE -- "Yeh, and they had you quoted as saying that he was short,
stocky, and had bushy hair."

MARKHAM -- "Well, they're just not right."

LANE -- "But that's what they said though."

MARKHAM -- "I know it. They can put anything in papers."

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0308a.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/18/2013 8:41 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/cf364aa428f751ad/978ecc61fca3cd77?#978ecc61fca3cd77
>
>
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> Where does the tape itself indicate that the woman's voice was
> Markham's when in context it is clearly the operator's? You do
> realize, I hope, that she eventually admitted that it was her voice on
> the tape? Why do you keep denying things after the person in question
> has already admitted them? Am I allowed to say that you are
> misleading?
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I'm not "misleading" anybody on this particular matter. But YOU
> certainly are, Tony. Markham never admitted that the OPERATOR'S voice
> was her OWN voice.
>

That's not what I asked. Nice dodge. Change the topic.

> Sure, Markham admitted that HER voice on the tape was HER voice, yes.
> But when Markham said "not at the first there" in her WC testimony,
> Mark Lane was most definitely trying to make it appear to his eager
> audience of CTers that the voice Markham was referring to was
> Markham's OWN voice, instead of explaining that the first voice
> Markham heard on the tape was the voice of the telephone operator.
>

He was showing that Markham was a scatterbrain and confused and couldn't
even recognize her own voice.

> Can there be any doubt that that is exactly what Lane did at Beverly
> Hills High School on 12/4/64? And, of course, he succeeded completely,
> because he never told the crowd that there was a second female voice
> on that tape, as he attempted to make Markham look even more foolish.
>
> The audience would have to read Markham's WC testimony to know that
> there was a second female voice on the tape. Or they'd have to read
> the transcript at 20 H 571. Because Mark Lane sure as hell wasn't
> going to tell them.
>

How in the world would that audience have read her testimony? You didn't
and you're supposed to be an expert. As I said before, most WC defenders
have not even read the Warren Commission evidence.

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-85.html#Lane-Vs-Markham
>