Re: Mark Lane vs. the record

[aeffects]

On Mar 17, 7:05 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 10:18 pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >        Lane testified that when he interviewed Helen Markham, "She
> > said--when I asked her how she could identify [Oswald] -- she indicated
> > she was able to identify him because of his clothing, a gray jacket and
> > dark trousers.  And this was the basis for her identification ..."
> > (II,51)
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2...
>
> >         The transcript of the interview shows that Markham said no such
> > thing.  (It doesn't even make sense, since Oswald wasn't wearing a jacket
> > in the lineup.)
>
> >          Here's what Markham *actually* told Lane about how she ID-ed
> > him:
>
> > QUOTE:
>
> > Lane: So, you must have been terribly upset, uh, at that time.  Do you
> > think it is possible you might have made a mistake in terms of
> > identifying Oswald?
>
> > Markham: No, uh, no.
>
> > L: You were not that upset.
>
> > M: No, cause I had to be sure.  They wanted to know right now, you
> > know.  I knew as quick.
>
> > L: Yes.
>
> > M: I said I’ve got to be sure, I want to be sure.
>
> > L: Yeh.
>
> > M: So, I had them to turn him, you know.
>
> > L: Yeh.
>
> > M: And they turned him, and it was him.
>
> > L: Yeh.
>
> > M: I could see him cause I looked right in here.
>
> > L:  Yeh, well you saw him for a little while when he came walking
> > toward you.
>
> > M: I saw him in the eyes.  It was him.
>
> > UNQUOTE
> >            (XX, 587-8)
>
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0...
>
> >                                               Jean
>
>   Nice find, Jean. Of course finding deceit in Mark Lane`s words is like
> finding sand at the beach. Let me try my hand it, here is a small except
> of Lane`s testimony before the WC...
>
>  "I spoke with the deponent, the eyewitness, Helen Louise Markham, and
> Mrs. Markham told me Miss or Mrs, I didn't ask her if she was married--
> told me that she was a hundred feet away from the police car, not the 50
> feet which appears in the affidavit. She gave to me a more detailed
> description of the man who she said shot Officer Tippit. She said he was
> short, a little on the heavy side, and his hair was somewhat bushy. I
> think it is fair to state that an accurate description of Oswald would be
> average height, quite slender, with thin and receding hair."
>
>   Lets examine a few portions of this and compare it with actual
> conversation between Lane and Markham. First this portion...
>
>   "...told me that she was a hundred feet away from the police car, not
> the 50 feet which appears in the affidavit."
>
>   Did Markham state as fact that she was 100 feet away as Lane represents
> her?
>
>   From the transcript of the telephone call...
>
>   Lane: Were you about 100 feet away would you say?
>
>   Markham: I`d say that.
>
>   So she only offered an approximation, which Lane transformed into a
> statement of fact. (I`ll leave aside the dishonesty of offering a distance
> by Lane, is 10th street a four lane highway that would be 100 feet catty
> corner across? And if Lane wanted to know the distances involved he could
> go to the location and measure it instead of implying that her giving two
> separate and differing guesses was meaningful). Continuing...
>
>   "She gave to me a more detailed description of the man who she said shot
> Officer Tippit."
>
>   What good are descriptions given after she already identified Oswald as
> the man she saw kill Tippit? The descriptions she gave at the scene were
> to try and catch the assailant, what good are descriptions months after he
> is caught? Hell, she can just get a picture of Oswald then and describe
> what she is looking at. Continuing...
>
>  " She said he was short, a little on the heavy side, and his hair was
> somewhat bushy."
>
>   From the telephone conversation...
>
>   Lane: Did you say that he was short, a little bit on the heavy side and
> had slightly bushy hair?
>
>   Markham: Um, no I did not.
>
>   Continuing...
>
>   "I think it is fair to state that an accurate description of Oswald
> would be average height, quite slender, with thin and receding hair."
>
>   In the telephone conversation Markham offers an estimation of the man`s
> weight... "Um, say around 100, maybe 150". And she gave her assessment of
> the man`s hair, which wasn`t inconsistent at all with a receding
> hairline... "Well, you wouldn`t say it hadn`t been combed you know or
> anything". All in all Lane can sure pack a lot of deceit into a very small
> portion of testimony. Is it any wonder why the WC wanted the *actual*
> conversation?

your envy of Mark Lane's skill(s) knows no boundary Dudster. LMFAO!

Too bad bad Jean Davison can't retire from the mess you lone nut
trolls have made of the WCR, she's (sic) been attempting to save your
collective lone nut ass for 15 years now....

Are you going to be able to put out all those lone nut fires coming
down the pike? Especially over the next 10 months?

[Bud]

<snicker> Ben order you to bring this over from the moderated group?
We know, junkie, we know.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <366d7e36-16f2-4cb9...@oz4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On Mar 17, 7:05=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 10:18=A0pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Lane testified that when he interviewed Helen Markham, "=

>She
>> > said--when I asked her how she could identify [Oswald] -- she indicated
>> > she was able to identify him because of his clothing, a gray jacket and

>> > dark trousers. =A0And this was the basis for her identification ..."
>> > (II,51)
>>
>> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2...
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The transcript of the interview shows that Markham said=
> no such
>> > thing. =A0(It doesn't even make sense, since Oswald wasn't wearing a ja=
>cket
>> > in the lineup.)
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Here's what Markham *actually* told Lane about how s=
>he ID-ed
>> > him:
>>
>> > QUOTE:
>>
>> > Lane: So, you must have been terribly upset, uh, at that time. =A0Do yo=

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

>> > M: No, cause I had to be sure. =A0They wanted to know right now, you
>> > know. =A0I knew as quick.
>>
>> > L: Yes.
>>
>> > M: I said I=92ve got to be sure, I want to be sure.

>>
>> > L: Yeh.
>>
>> > M: So, I had them to turn him, you know.
>>
>> > L: Yeh.
>>
>> > M: And they turned him, and it was him.
>>
>> > L: Yeh.
>>
>> > M: I could see him cause I looked right in here.
>>

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

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

>> =A0"I spoke with the deponent, the eyewitness, Helen Louise Markham, and

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

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

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

>> =A0 "...told me that she was a hundred feet away from the police car, not

>> the 50 feet which appears in the affidavit."
>>

>> =A0 Did Markham state as fact that she was 100 feet away as Lane represen=
>ts
>> her?
>>
>> =A0 From the transcript of the telephone call...
>>
>> =A0 Lane: Were you about 100 feet away would you say?
>>
>> =A0 Markham: I`d say that.
>>
>> =A0 So she only offered an approximation, which Lane transformed into a
>> statement of fact. (I`ll leave aside the dishonesty of offering a distanc=

>e
>> by Lane, is 10th street a four lane highway that would be 100 feet catty
>> corner across? And if Lane wanted to know the distances involved he could
>> go to the location and measure it instead of implying that her giving two
>> separate and differing guesses was meaningful). Continuing...
>>

>> =A0 "She gave to me a more detailed description of the man who she said s=
>hot
>> Officer Tippit."
>>
>> =A0 What good are descriptions given after she already identified Oswald =

>as
>> the man she saw kill Tippit? The descriptions she gave at the scene were

>> to try and catch the assailant, what good are descriptions months after h=

>e
>> is caught? Hell, she can just get a picture of Oswald then and describe
>> what she is looking at. Continuing...
>>

>> =A0" She said he was short, a little on the heavy side, and his hair was
>> somewhat bushy."
>>
>> =A0 From the telephone conversation...
>>
>> =A0 Lane: Did you say that he was short, a little bit on the heavy side a=
>nd
>> had slightly bushy hair?
>>
>> =A0 Markham: Um, no I did not.
>>
>> =A0 Continuing...
>>
>> =A0 "I think it is fair to state that an accurate description of Oswald

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

>> =A0 In the telephone conversation Markham offers an estimation of the man=

>`s
>> weight... "Um, say around 100, maybe 150". And she gave her assessment of
>> the man`s hair, which wasn`t inconsistent at all with a receding
>> hairline... "Well, you wouldn`t say it hadn`t been combed you know or

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

>l
>> portion of testimony. Is it any wonder why the WC wanted the *actual*
>> conversation?
>
>your envy of Mark Lane's skill(s) knows no boundary Dudster. LMFAO!
>
>Too bad bad Jean Davison can't retire from the mess you lone nut
>trolls have made of the WCR, she's (sic) been attempting to save your
>collective lone nut ass for 15 years now....
>
>Are you going to be able to put out all those lone nut fires coming
>down the pike? Especially over the next 10 months?

I find it amusing that Jean is too yellow to come over here and put her
assertions to the fire. Ditto with Billy.


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

[aeffects]

try as you might you WON'T make researchers on this board the primary
topic of discussion, it's Warren Commission case evidence you lone nut
meathead, you!

I know, I know, this has to be supremely embarrassing. Embarrassing
that YOU can't stifle, suppress and/or moderate posts here on ACJ. So
suck-it-up word merchant, stay on point... even blue hair ladies
aren't gonna help you here...

[aeffects]

On Mar 18, 6:12 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <366d7e36-16f2-4cb9-8031-06152c147...@oz4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

they are in drop-dead awe over Mark Lane. Not to mention astonished
that near 50 year old case evidence has stymied them. What we have
here are a bunch of lone nut wannabes trying to play Vin Bugliosi!
They aren't cutting it!

[Bud]

<snicker> "researchers"

> I know, I know, this has to be supremely embarrassing. Embarrassing
> that YOU can't stifle, suppress and/or moderate posts here on ACJ. So
> suck-it-up word merchant, stay on point... even blue hair ladies
> aren't gonna help you here...

She certainly isn`t helping Ben. Pointing out the lies of his hero
and mentor...

[Bud]

Yah, how could someone be this dishonest? Is this really what you
retards think the investigation *should* have looked like? Of course
it is!

[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

[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

[aeffects]

On Mar 18, 7:00 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<bullshit of course>

posting by tonnage you poor lone nut soul won't get you any closer to
NIRVANA (in this case Bugliosi's tack room). What-a-dolt! Carry on,
hon!