Mrs. Markham's Secret: Why She Agreed to a (False) Identification of Oswald
dcwi...@netscape.net
Oswald
The long & short of it: Tippit witness Mrs Markham's "man walking up
10th" (v3p307) could not have been Patrolman HW Summers' witness's
"getaway man" (police radio logs 1:37pm). Could not have been, that
is, the man who either looked like Lee Oswald ("white male, 27, 5
feet
11, 165"), or was Lee Oswald, & who fled directly up Patton Street to
East Jefferson.
Nor could he have been the Benavides/Davis/Davis/Scoggins/Guinyard
suspect who cut across lawns & jumped through bushes, meanwhile
scattering hulls everywhere.
Mrs Markham's man did not cut across front yards or wield a gun in
his
right hand.
In a filmed interview, she said that the man "put his gun back in his
pants" after shooting Officer Tippit. Then, "he walked down the
sidewalk", to the corner of Tenth & Patton (SS interview 12/2/63),
went across Patton, then "run off across the field--that lot there--
went over the fence & down the alley" (filmed interview). Or, as
Crime Lab Sgt Pete Barnes put it--in his 11/22/63 crime-scene
sketch--"W on alley to Crawford" (With Malice p161 [sketch] & p152
[pic of Barnes listening to Talbert & Westbrook question Mrs M]).
It's true that, many times, Mrs Markham talked about seeing someone
shoot Tippit, & that she ID'd Oswald as this man, but the *rest* of
her story suggests that this part of her story cannot be true, all
but
negates that part, suggests that she was coerced into not mentioning
the alley escape route in her 1964 WC testimony, her 11/22/63 Dallas
County affidavit, or her 12/2/63 SS interview. Suggests same
because--
both before & after these dates--she insisted: "alley". The only
witness we see Barnes talking to is Mrs M--clearly, his source for "W
on alley". If the man that she saw... pocketed his sidearm... walked
down the sidewalk to the intersection... went across Patton & through
a field... jumped over a fence & went down the alley... then he was
not the killer. He could be neither Oswald nor an Oswald lookalike,
could not be Summers' "getaway man". Who was he?
Astonishingly, Mrs Markham says something, almost in passing, in her
Commission testimony, which seems to cancel out all her famous
professed screaming & hollering & all-but-fainting (v3p311) & seeing
a
man shooting a cop & fearing that the man "was fixing to kill" her
(v3p308). The lady doth profess too much. She overcompensates, as
will be seen.... "After he shot the policeman, he turned around, came
back around toward Patton St. He wasn't... he didn't seem to be in
no
hurry. I THOUGHT HE HADN'T DONE ANYTHING...." (v3p321)
Come again? These hardly sound like the words of someone who has
just
seen a man shoot a police officer. These are more like the words of
someone who has, say, heard shooting, then (a bit later) seen a body
&
a man standing over it. It's like a scene from a vastly different
scenario. And that scenario would go something like this: As Mrs M,
on Patton, approaches Tenth, she hears two-to-four shots. A minute
later, she sees a police car, & a man leaning into its front
passenger
window. The man then goes around the front of the car, bends down,
picks up the officer's service revolver, & puts it in his beltline.
No actual witnessing of shooting or falling.... And then, of course,
yes, in this case, she could hardly have been certain that he had
"done anything".
Mrs Markham *knew*. Not right away. At first, she only "thought".
At first, of course, she could not be sure that the man with the gun
was not, also, the man who had shot the officer, or an accomplice.
One possibility: He might have shot, then lingered at the scene for
a
minute or so, between the time she heard the shots & the time she
arrived at 10th & Patton. But the fact that the man seemed to be "in
no hurry" made her think that he "hadn't done anything". And she
could only have thought that he hadn't done anything if she hadn't
*seen* him do anything. As she later found out, her hunch had been
correct--her suspect was not the shooter, was not the man wielding
the
gun in his right hand who fled down Patton, then Jefferson. The man
whom other witnesses described as throwing down shells here & there,
in the bushes up from the sidewalk. That was not *her* gunman, and
she knew it.
But she was the most public witness to the Tippit murder. She had
been seen on TV, standing with policemen around the front passenger
window of Tippit's squad car (WM pp150, 152). They would later have
her ID the suspect who, the police said, had actually shot Tippit.
It
was not the man she had seen, but, they said, it was the man she
*would have seen* had she reached Tenth & Patton a minute or so
earlier--all the evidence told them so, and they certainly would have
been eager to share that evidence with her. They wanted witnesses to
a shooter (WM p207), not to a man running after the shooter, or to
(horrors!) a second shooter. They couldn't take a chance on muddying
the lone-shooter waters, and she was glad, it seems, to help them
nail
the real killer.
The only problem--for them--was that she kept going back to the
alley. She acquiesced on the *revised* ID of her gunman, as Oswald,
but for some reason balked at revising his escape route. Perhaps, in
part, she reverted to "alley" simply because the authorities were
less
insistent on that point--after all, they never forced her to say that
she saw the man go up Patton all the way to Jefferson, and from her
vantage point, at the intersection, she could see both Jefferson &
the
alley. They allowed her simply to leave a right turn at Jefferson
implied, &, at most, to say just that he was headed "toward"
Jefferson
(v3p321). Which could also be seen as leaving "alley" implied....
There's a piece of uncertain testimony from one of the police
sergeants at the scene which seems to reflect Mrs Markham's original
("I thought") uncertainty. Kenneth Croy: "There was a report that a
cab driver had picked up Tippit's gun & had left, presumably. They
don't know whether he was the one that had shot Tippit, or whether
the
man... picked up Tippit's gun & attempted to give chase or something
like that." (v12p202) Croy does not ID the "they" who submitted this
report, but notes that Mrs M "was the main eyewitness, as far as I
could make out." (p201) Film of the scene shows him listening to her
(WM p110). And the three words which attorney Mark Lane tried to
connect to Mrs M re her suspect: short (confirmed), bushy haired (all
but confirmed), stocky (not confirmed): would all seem to fit... cab
driver WW Scoggins (WM p227). But Homicide Captain Will Fritz wanted
strictly-Oswald witnesses, not confusion on the part of his star
witness or his sergeant....
Mrs Markham's actual story would put the picking up of the gun at
about 1:16. And, certainly--one would think--any self-respecting Oak
Cliff vigilante would not want the trail to go ice cold, would not
want to wait, say, five or six minutes to get going after the cop
killer. Yet, just such a far-fetched story was concocted to
neutralize both Croy's "a cab driver had picked up Tippit's gun"
Commission testimony *and* Mrs. Markham's "down the alley", off-
Broadway observations. Croy could say what he wanted, and Mrs M
could
say what she wanted (on her own, at least), because several other
witnesses were to be synchronized re just such a fantastic "cold
pursuit" story--Scoggins, Ted Callaway, TF Bowley, and Domingo
Benavides. Because, of course, if four people say something is so,
then it must be so, & *not* fantastic....
But 7 witnesses trump 4 witnesses. And Mrs Markham was apparently
only one of "approximately six to eight witnesses, all telling
officers that the subject was running west in the alley between Tenth
and Jefferson Streets". (11/22/63 Poe/Jez report//WM p487) But--
surprise, surprise--like Mrs Markham, none of these other witnesses
was allowed to tell the Warren Commission about a gunman "running
west
in the alley". One of the "six to eight", however--Jimmy Burt--told
the *FBI* that he last "saw the man running into an alley located
between 10th & Jefferson Avenue on Patton Street". (12/15/63
interview//WM p534) And another--Warren Reynolds--was filmed telling
police, the afternoon of November 22nd, that he had tracked the
suspect to the back of an old house off the alley (WM p120). But he,
too, knuckled under, and told the Commission that he had last seen
the
man running into the parking area behind a Texaco station (v11p436).
That's three of the "six to eight" on record, if not the Commission's
record.
There were, then, six-to-eight reports of a suspect fleeing down the
alley off Patton, but not only were these reports apparently not
followed up on (except, perhaps, by the FBI), they were strenuously
suppressed. We know that they were suppressed because we have seen
how Mrs Markham's "down the alley" report was suppressed, and it took
a Crime Lab document and the witness's own words to bring it to
light.
Thanks to Gil Jesus &, indirectly, Dale Myers
c2007 dcw
Walt
FWIW... I believe that Tippit's killer did turn right at the alley
between Jefferson and 10th street.....because it logical.
Though the killer obviously wanted to be seen, or at least he wasn't
worried about witnesses seeing him in the act of shooting a cop, he
clearly didn't want to be apprended. He fled the scene immediately
after ejecting three spent shells from his revolver. He ducked behind
some bushes and headed toward the backyard of the house at 400 E
tenth, then emerged onto the sidwalk on Patton and cut diagonally
across Patton, and then headed south on Patton toward Jefferson. The
alley offed a much better escape route, because there was a large
building that faced Patton on the north side of the alley.
Once the killer turned right and headed west in the alley he would
have been out of sight of the winesses at the scene of Tippit's
murder. Therefore It's much more logical that the killer would have
used the alley as an escape route. As you pointed out Helen Markham
and others, said she saw him enter the alley. If the Jacket that was
found in a parking lot just off to the south side of that alley
belonged to the killer, it was in a location that a man fleeing west
in the alley would have discarded it. Though there doesn't seem to be
much to be gained in debating the killer's escape route, it just makes
more sense for the killer to have used the alley in his flight.
Walt
Todd W. Vaughan
Tippit was shot 4 times.
4 shells were recovered.
> He ducked behind
> some bushes and headed toward the backyard of the house at 400 E
> tenth, then emerged onto the sidwalk on Patton and cut ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walt
There is controversy about how many times Tippit was shot..... The
official police report on his death lists three shots.
One bullet struck him in the head near the right eyebrow, One bullet
struck him in the chest, and one bullet struck him in the stomach.
Walt
Todd W. Vaughan
There is no controversy over how many times Tippit was shot.
The autopsy report and the autopsy photos show he was shot 4 times.
Period.
And as I said, 4 spent shells were recovered at the scene.
> The
> official police report on his death lists three shots.
> One bullet struck him in the head near the right eyebrow, One bullet
> struck him in the chest, and one bullet struck him in the stomach.
The official police reports also name Oswald as the killer of Kennedy
and Tippit.
You believe the offical police reports when thye support your own
views, but ignore them when they don't.
You're a kook.
>
> Walt
Walt
Not true....Only TWO shells were recovered at the scene...... A third
shell was picked up later that afternoon and a fourth shell
mysteriously appeared later.
On page 139 of "The Search for LHO' there are four enlarged photos of
spent .38 special shells. THREE of the shells appear to have been
fired from the same gun, but one was fired from a different gun.
Walt
Todd W. Vaughan
You're so full of shit Walt.
After the shooting Domingo Benavides found 2 shells and Barbara
Jeanette Davis found 1 shell. The police collected these at the scene.
Later in the afternoon after the police left, Virginia Davis found a
4th shell just around the corner, along the path where Oswald had ran,
called the DPD, and they sent 2 officers out to pick it up.
It's clear you don't know the record in this case.
And it's clear you make up whatever you don't know.
dcwi...@netscape.net
Actually, 5, if you count the one that one of the Davises or their
uncle found years later....
dw
Todd W. Vaughan
That's correct, if that story is true.
Walt
Any shells that were found after the crime scene was cleared by the
homocide detectives cannot be used as evidence, because there is no
way of knowing where any shells that were found hours, days, or years
later came from.
Don Where did you hear that a .38 special shell was found years
later. Are you aware that the Davis's moved out of those apartments,
and out of Dallas shortly after the murder of Tippit?
Walt
Todd W. Vaughan
That's absurd.
>
> Don Where did you hear that a .38 special shell was found years
> later. Are you aware that the Davis's moved out of those apartments,
> and out of Dallas shortly after the murder of Tippit?
The story is not that it was found years later, but rather found
sometime after, when they were still living there.
Walt, do you have Dale Myers book, With Malice?
Walt
No.....I read something called "Video Toaster" or something like that
by Myers many yrars ago and I though he was an idiot trying to impress
the unwary that he had used a computer to prove Oswald was guilty. I
thought it was nothing more than GIGO.....And I have no time for Dale
Myers.
Walt
Bud
dcwi...@netscape.net wrote:
> Mrs Markham's Secret: Why She Agreed to a (False) Identification of
> Oswald
I guess it`s about time for another alternate-reality construct
built from descrepancies by dw.
> The long & short of it: Tippit witness Mrs Markham's "man walking up
> 10th" (v3p307) could not have been Patrolman HW Summers' witness's
> "getaway man" (police radio logs 1:37pm). Could not have been, that
> is, the man who either looked like Lee Oswald ("white male, 27, 5
> feet
> 11, 165"), or was Lee Oswald, & who fled directly up Patton Street to
> East Jefferson.
Mrs Markham said it was Oswald she saw shoot Tippit. Which was he
fled afterwards isn`t really that important, it was the killing part
that was breaking some kind of laws.
> Nor could he have been the Benavides/Davis/Davis/Scoggins/Guinyard
> suspect who cut across lawns & jumped through bushes, meanwhile
> scattering hulls everywhere.
I`ll bet there are a zillion descrepancies in the Virginia Tech
shooting accounts. A kook might conclude dozens of asian gunman
running hither and yon.
> Mrs Markham's man
Oswald, she said.
Marham said it was Oswald she saw shoot Tippit.
> Astonishingly, Mrs Markham says something, almost in passing, in her
> Commission testimony, which seems to cancel out all her famous
> professed screaming & hollering
Other witnesses corroborate her screaming.
> & all-but-fainting (v3p311) & seeing
> a
> man shooting a cop & fearing that the man "was fixing to kill" her
> (v3p308). The lady doth profess too much. She overcompensates, as
> will be seen.... "After he shot the policeman, he turned around, came
> back around toward Patton St. He wasn't... he didn't seem to be in
> no
> hurry. I THOUGHT HE HADN'T DONE ANYTHING...." (v3p321)
Ouch. A troublesome sentence (unfinished, I note, is the rest
harmful to your thesis, dw?). Since we know she was there, and several
people report her screaming, which strongly indicates she did she the
murder committed at that location, how can this information be
construed to benefit the kook`s beloved patsy. Lets see...
> Come again? These hardly sound like the words of someone who has
> just
> seen a man shoot a police officer. These are more like the words of
> someone who has, say, heard shooting, then (a bit later) seen a body
> &
> a man standing over it.
<snicker> Oz came a-running to see if Tippit was ok. Markham saw Oz
comforting the fallen officer. Markham starting screaming, scaring
away the kook`s hero. Either that, or Oz took his pistol in pursuit of
the actual shooter. Yeah, thats the ticket. Chased him to the Texas
Theater, only stopping once to window shop some shoes.
> It's like a scene from a vastly different
> scenario.
Yah, a troublesome sentence fragment gives you the green light to
scrap everything she ever said, and insert ony scenario that tickles
your fancy. Stellar.
> And that scenario would go something like this: As Mrs M,
> on Patton, approaches Tenth, she hears two-to-four shots. A minute
> later,
It sure is taking the Davis sisters a long time to check out the
shoots they heard. And what of the other witnesses, Scoggins,
Callaway, are they reporting a long delay betwen the shots and the
person fleeing?
>she sees a police car, & a man leaning into its front
> passenger
> window. The man then goes around the front of the car, bends down,
> picks up the officer's service revolver, & puts it in his beltline.
This is stupid. Callaway reports the gun being found under his body
about the time the ambulance came.
> No actual witnessing of shooting or falling.... And then, of course,
> yes, in this case, she could hardly have been certain that he had
> "done anything".
>
> Mrs Markham *knew*. Not right away. At first, she only "thought".
> At first, of course, she could not be sure that the man with the gun
> was not, also, the man who had shot the officer, or an accomplice.
> One possibility: He might have shot, then lingered at the scene for
> a
> minute or so, between the time she heard the shots & the time she
> arrived at 10th & Patton. But the fact that the man seemed to be "in
> no hurry" made her think that he "hadn't done anything". And she
> could only have thought that he hadn't done anything if she hadn't
> *seen* him do anything. As she later found out, her hunch had been
> correct--her suspect was not the shooter, was not the man wielding
> the
> gun in his right hand who fled down Patton, then Jefferson. The man
> whom other witnesses described as throwing down shells here & there,
> in the bushes up from the sidewalk. That was not *her* gunman, and
> she knew it.
This is what the kooks think the WC should have produced, folks.
Read it and weap.
Multiple witnesses to Oz in the area with a gun trump kook
constructs.
> And Mrs Markham was apparently
> only one of "approximately six to eight witnesses, all telling
> officers that the subject was running west in the alley between Tenth
> and Jefferson Streets". (11/22/63 Poe/Jez report//WM p487) But--
> surprise, surprise--like Mrs Markham, none of these other witnesses
> was allowed to tell the Warren Commission about a gunman "running
> west
> in the alley". One of the "six to eight", however--Jimmy Burt--told
> the *FBI* that he last "saw the man running into an alley located
> between 10th & Jefferson Avenue on Patton Street". (12/15/63
> interview//WM p534) And another--Warren Reynolds--was filmed telling
> police, the afternoon of November 22nd, that he had tracked the
> suspect to the back of an old house off the alley (WM p120). But he,
> too, knuckled under, and told the Commission that he had last seen
> the
> man running into the parking area behind a Texaco station (v11p436).
> That's three of the "six to eight" on record, if not the Commission's
> record.
It wasn`t the fleeing, it was the murder that would have got Oz
fried.
David Von Pein
There is absolutely NO doubt as to the number of times J.D. Tippit was
shot. The number is 4.
You, Walt (being a kook), have INSERTED the "controversy" into this
situation, the very same way you mangle and complicate the totally-
uncomplicated evidence with respect to many other areas of the JFK and
Tippit murders. But, in reality, no controversy exists at all when it
comes to the number of times Tippit was shot by Oswald.
Four different bullets were plucked from Tippit's body, for Pete sake!
Do you think that THREE shots resulted in FOUR bullets (CE 602 thru
605) inside Tippit's body?
Mr. EISENBERG -- "Mr. Nicol, finally I hand you a group of four
bullets marked Commission Exhibits 602, 603, 604, and 605, which I
state for the record were recovered from the body of Officer
Tippit..."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0148b.jpg
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0149a.jpg
============
MORE ON THE MURDER OF OFFICER J.D. TIPPIT:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3959008382f45641
dcwi...@netscape.net
later years. And, yes, I don't wholly trust such a belated find.
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > Mrs Markham's Secret: Why She Agreed to a (False) Identification of
> > Oswald
>
> I guess it`s about time for another alternate-reality construct
> built from descrepancies by dw.
>
> > The long & short of it: Tippit witness Mrs Markham's "man walking up
> > 10th" (v3p307) could not have been Patrolman HW Summers' witness's
> > "getaway man" (police radio logs 1:37pm). Could not have been, that
> > is, the man who either looked like Lee Oswald ("white male, 27, 5
> > feet
> > 11, 165"), or was Lee Oswald, & who fled directly up Patton Street to
> > East Jefferson.
>
> Mrs Markham said it was Oswald she saw shoot Tippit. Which was he
> fled afterwards isn`t really that important, it was the killing part
> that was breaking some kind of laws.
Bud -- Then your "Twilight Zone" killer ran down the alley & Jefferson
at the same time. You can't have it both ways. Either the killer
fled down Jefferson from Patton or he fled down the alley from Patton,
& I think the former. Someone else took the alley, chasing him. And
I seem to recall that even LNers spend a lot of time tracing O's
flight path from Dealey. Some of them must think it's important....
dw
>
> > Nor could he have been the Benavides/Davis/Davis/Scoggins/Guinyard
> > suspect who cut across lawns & jumped through bushes, meanwhile
> > scattering hulls everywhere.
>
> I`ll bet there are a zillion descrepancies in the Virginia Tech
> shooting accounts. A kook might conclude dozens of asian gunman
> running hither and yon.
>
> > Mrs Markham's man
>
> Oswald, she said.
>
Short, bushy-haired?
Markham & Jimmy Burt said the man they saw fled down the alley. At
the other end, Reynolds said he lost the man as the latter entered the
back of a house off the alley.... If this was Oswald, then who was the
Oswald lookalike who fled down Jefferson, according to Patrolman
Summers?
> > Astonishingly, Mrs Markham says something, almost in passing, in her
> > Commission testimony, which seems to cancel out all her famous
> > professed screaming & hollering
>
> Other witnesses corroborate her screaming.
>
Strange, tho, just a few minutes after the shooting, we hear nothing
like that on Bowleys' citizen call. And sound was carrying pretty
good. We can hear people outside the patrol car talking in the quiet,
adding things to what Bowley is saying. And no screaming on the
street....
Two did. Virginia Davis & LJ Lewis said they saw the man *after*
each, respectively, called the police....
> >she sees a police car, & a man leaning into its front
> > passenger
> > window. The man then goes around the front of the car, bends down,
> > picks up the officer's service revolver, & puts it in his beltline.
>
> This is stupid. Callaway reports the gun being found under his body
> about the time the ambulance came.
>
5 or 6 minutes later? *Then*, he goes after the killer? And by that
time Officer Croy was at the scene. Think a cop would see someone
running down the street wielding a gun....
>
>
>
> > No actual witnessing of shooting or falling.... And then, of course,
> > yes, in this case, she could hardly have been certain that he had
> > "done anything".
>
> > Mrs Markham *knew*. Not right away. At first, she only "thought".
> > At first, of course, she could not be sure that the man with the gun
> > was not, also, the man who had shot the officer, or an accomplice.
> > One possibility: He might have shot, then lingered at the scene for
> > a
> > minute or so, between the time she heard the shots & the time she
> > arrived at 10th & Patton. But the fact that the man seemed to be "in
> > no hurry" made her think that he "hadn't done anything". And she
> > could only have thought that he hadn't done anything if she hadn't
> > *seen* him do anything. As she later found out, her hunch had been
> > correct--her suspect was not the shooter, was not the man wielding
> > the
> > gun in his right hand who fled down Patton, then Jefferson. The man
> > whom other witnesses described as throwing down shells here & there,
> > in the bushes up from the sidewalk. That was not *her* gunman, and
> > she knew it.
>
> This is what the kooks think the WC should have produced, folks.
> Read it and weap.
>
The WC couldn't have "produced" this--the circa 7 witnesses who said
they saw a gunman running down the alley were not permitted to say so
to the Commission. I don't blame the Commish. Nor were they privy to
the film of Reynolds telling the cops circa 1:30pm that he last saw
the suspect entering an old house off the alley. They got his cover
story re the parking lot....
The Commission ended up with a "kook construct" because they didn't
get complete info. Multiple witnesses to a suspect running into the
alley off Patton were not allowed to testify to this....
>
> > And Mrs Markham was apparently
> > only one of "approximately six to eight witnesses, all telling
> > officers that the subject was running west in the alley between Tenth
> > and Jefferson
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
dcwi...@netscape.net
described an Oswald lookalike (or Oswald) heading up Patton, then down
Jefferson. I don't think there'd be *two* Oswald lookalikes at the
scene....
dw
> Though the killer obviously wanted to be seen, or at least he wasn't
> worried about witnesses seeing him in the act of shooting a cop, he
> clearly didn't want to be apprended. He fled the scene immediately
> after ejecting three spent shells from his revolver. He ducked behind
> some bushes and headed toward the backyard of the house at 400 E
> tenth, then emerged onto the sidwalk on Patton and cut ...
Bud
dcwi...@netscape.net wrote:
> On Apr 19, 4:44 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > > Mrs Markham's Secret: Why She Agreed to a (False) Identification of
> > > Oswald
> >
> > I guess it`s about time for another alternate-reality construct
> > built from descrepancies by dw.
> >
> > > The long & short of it: Tippit witness Mrs Markham's "man walking up
> > > 10th" (v3p307) could not have been Patrolman HW Summers' witness's
> > > "getaway man" (police radio logs 1:37pm). Could not have been, that
> > > is, the man who either looked like Lee Oswald ("white male, 27, 5
> > > feet
> > > 11, 165"), or was Lee Oswald, & who fled directly up Patton Street to
> > > East Jefferson.
> >
> > Mrs Markham said it was Oswald she saw shoot Tippit. Which was he
> > fled afterwards isn`t really that important, it was the killing part
> > that was breaking some kind of laws.
>
> Bud -- Then your "Twilight Zone" killer ran down the alley & Jefferson
> at the same time. You can't have it both ways.
I can have it as many different ways as the witnesses describe it.
I don`t expect what the witnesses relate to match, so I`m not
surprised when it doesn`t. It may have seemed to some, from their
vantage point, that he did one thing, to others the same things might
have appeared differently. By your reasoning, if I want to kill
someone, my best bet is to do so in front of a large number of people,
and let the inevitable descrepancies exhonerate me.
> Either the killer
> fled down Jefferson from Patton or he fled down the alley from Patton,
> & I think the former. Someone else took the alley, chasing him. And
> I seem to recall that even LNers spend a lot of time tracing O's
> flight path from Dealey. Some of them must think it's important....
> dw
Some might. Some might think if you have definate answers to all
questions about his movements, he must be innocent. I don`t, I`ve
never seen it in any other case. If Oz jaywalked while fleeing the
murders, there are bigger fish to fry. Multiple people put Oz in that
are with a gun. Oz was captured with a gun.
> > > Nor could he have been the Benavides/Davis/Davis/Scoggins/Guinyard
> > > suspect who cut across lawns & jumped through bushes, meanwhile
> > > scattering hulls everywhere.
> >
> > I`ll bet there are a zillion descrepancies in the Virginia Tech
> > shooting accounts. A kook might conclude dozens of asian gunman
> > running hither and yon.
> >
> > > Mrs Markham's man
> >
> > Oswald, she said.
> >
> Short, bushy-haired?
Yah, there are pictures of Oz in custody where a "bushy haired"
description would be acceptably accurate. Certainly it is no reason to
disregard her identification of Oz as the man she saw (except by those
who`s only interest is writing scenarios in which Oz is innocent, of
course)..
One person shot Tippit. Oz was the only person identifed as that
shooter, and as the person running around the area with a gun. If
there are differing accounts as to which way he ran, I`d say that some
of the accounts are in error.
> > > Astonishingly, Mrs Markham says something, almost in passing, in her
> > > Commission testimony, which seems to cancel out all her famous
> > > professed screaming & hollering
> >
> > Other witnesses corroborate her screaming.
> >
> Strange, tho, just a few minutes after the shooting, we hear nothing
> like that on Bowleys' citizen call. And sound was carrying pretty
> good. We can hear people outside the patrol car talking in the quiet,
> adding things to what Bowley is saying. And no screaming on the
> street....
The Davis sisters said the heard shots, went immediately to their
door, and saw Markham standing there screaming. That corroborates
Markham`s account of her sceaming.
Virginia didn`t call the police her sister Barabara did. This is
from Barbara Davis`s 11-22 afidavit...
"I heard a shot and jumped up and heard another shot. I put on my
shoes and went to the door and I saw this man walking across my front
yard unloading a gun. A woman was standing across the street screaming
"He shot him, he killed him" and pointed towards the police car. This
is the first time I noticed a police car there. I ran back in the
house and called the operator and reported this to the police."
> > >she sees a police car, & a man leaning into its front
> > > passenger
> > > window. The man then goes around the front of the car, bends down,
> > > picks up the officer's service revolver, & puts it in his beltline.
> >
> > This is stupid. Callaway reports the gun being found under his body
> > about the time the ambulance came.
> >
> 5 or 6 minutes later? *Then*, he goes after the killer?
Why, you think he should acted faster? How do your thoughts of what
should have occurred impact what actually did?
> And by that
> time Officer Croy was at the scene. Think a cop would see someone
> running down the street wielding a gun....
Calloway got in Scoggin`s cab and searched around, he wasn`t running
down the street. And calloway didn`t act as soon as the gun was found.
It was put on the hood, then inside the patrol car, and then taken by
Callaway in pursuit of the killer. (Oz).
Ben Holmes
dcwi...@netscape.net says...
>
>On Apr 19, 4:44 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>> > Mrs Markham's Secret: Why She Agreed to a (False) Identification of
>> > Oswald
>>
>> I guess it`s about time for another alternate-reality construct
>> built from descrepancies by dw.
An excellent example of why Bud remains on my killfile list. Don - as usual, a
very good post.
>> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> >>> "There is controversy about how many times Tippit was shot." <<<
>
> There is absolutely NO doubt as to the number of times J.D. Tippit was
> shot. The number is 4.
>
You, Walt (being a kook), have INSERTED the "controversy" into this
situation,
It's not I that wrote the official DPD police report that actually
lists where the THREE bullets hit Tippit.
Sorry if you don't like the evidence..... Send me yer T.S. card and
I'll punch it for you, when you've got all twenty T.S. holes punched
you can redeem it for a quarter and call someone who will listen to
you whine.
Walt
the very same way you mangle and complicate the totally-
> uncomplicated evidence with respect to many other areas of the JFK and
> Tippit murders. But, in reality, no controversy exists at all when it
> comes to the number of times Tippit was shot by Oswald.
>
> Four different bullets were plucked from Tippit's body, for Pete sake!
> Do you think that THREE shots resulted in FOUR bullets (CE 602 thru
> 605) inside Tippit's body?
>
> Mr. EISENBERG -- "Mr. Nicol, finally I hand you a group of four
> bullets marked Commission Exhibits 602, 603, 604, and 605, which I
> state for the record were recovered from the body of Officer
> Tippit..."
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_...
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_...
David Von Pein
Oh, you mean the four bullets that were removed from Tippit's dead
body (CE602-605)?
Is that the type of evidence I "don't like"?
Walt
Ok, thanks Don.... But since that shell isn't part of the official
record it's utterly useless. I know you been researching this case
for decades ....... And I assume it's become clear to you that
elements of the DPD were involved in the murder of JFK. Since that
should be clear to you then it is very difficult to know what is true
evidence and what is fabricated evidence.
In the case of Tippit's murder....... almost NONE of the evidence is
reliable. About all we can be sure of is that Oswald was at his
rooming house at about 1:04 and Tippit was killed before 1:10.
( probably about 1:07 ) There simply was NOT enough time for LHO to
travel on foot the one 9/10 of a mile between the two points.
Walt
Walt
Hey Pea Brain.... Ya need ta go back ta school and learn ta count, or
stop lying.....whichever is the case. There were NOT four bullets
removed from Tippit's body.
Walt
Todd W. Vaughan
So let me get this straight - you haven't read the ONLY book ever to
be written on the Tippit Murder? I thought as much, since you appear
to be wholly woefully inept on the facts of the Tippit murder.
Over the last 32 years I've made it a point to read and watch
everything I can get my hands on regarding the assassination, be it
non-conspiracy, conspiracy, well written, poorly written, well
supported, poorly supported, etc., it matters not. This is because
I've always been of the philosophy that to really understand
something, especially an issue that has become as complex as the
Kennedy assassination, you need to educate yourself on ALL aspects and
ALL points of view of the issue.
Your silly and juvenile "I have no time for Dale Myers." statement
simply translates to "I don't want to educate myself on the issue".
And it shows.
Todd W. Vaughan
Walt,
4 bullets were removed from Tippit's body - one was removed by the
attending physician at the emergency room and three were removed
during the autopsy.
Once again you show yourself to be wildly ignorant of the facts in
this case and thus unable to be trusted in any claims you make
regarding it.
Todd
Walt
> On Apr 19, 4:44 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > > Oswald
>
> > I guess it`s about time for another alternate-reality construct
> > built from descrepancies by dw.
>
> > > 10th" (v3p307) could not have been Patrolman HW Summers' witness's
> > > "getaway man" (police radio logs 1:37pm). Could not have been, that
> > > is, the man who either looked like Lee Oswald ("white male, 27, 5
> > > feet
> > > 11, 165"), or was Lee Oswald, & who fled directly up Patton Street to
> > > East Jefferson.
>
> > > shoot Tippit, & that she ID'd Oswald as this man, but the *rest* of
> > > her story suggests that this part of her story cannot be true, all
> > > but
> > > negates that part, suggests that she was coerced into not mentioning
> > > the alley escape route in her 1964 WC testimony, her 11/22/63 Dallas
> > > County affidavit, or her 12/2/63 SS interview. Suggests same
> > > because--
> > > both before & after these dates--she insisted: "alley". The only
> > > witness we see Barnes talking to is Mrs M--clearly, his source for "W
> > > on alley". If the man that she saw... pocketed his sidearm... walked
> > > down the sidewalk to the intersection... went across Patton & through
> > > a field... jumped over a fence & went down the alley... then he was
> > > not the killer. He could be neither Oswald nor an Oswald lookalike,
> > > could not be Summers' "getaway man". Who was he?
>
> > Marham said it was Oswald she saw shoot Tippit.
>
> the other end, Reynolds said he lost the man as the latter entered the
> back of a house off the alley.... If this was Oswald, then who was the
> Oswald lookalike who fled down Jefferson, according to Patrolman
> Summers?
>
> > > Commission testimony, which seems to cancel out all her famous
> > > professed screaming & hollering
>
> > Other witnesses corroborate her screaming.
>
> Strange, tho, just a few minutes after the shooting, we hear nothing
> like that on Bowleys' citizen call. And sound was carrying pretty
> good. We can hear people outside the patrol car talking in the quiet,
> adding things to what Bowley is saying. And no screaming on the
> street....
Don, I was unaware that Ted Callaway testified that he used Tippit's
radio to notify the DPD dispatcher about the shooting.
That makes three men who used Tippit's radio to notify headquarters.
Dom Benavides... was first he notified the dispatcher within a couple
of minutes of the shooting. Then I believe TF Bowley was number two
man to use the radio, because Callaway said he notified the dispatcher
and the the dispatcher told him they already had the info so please
stay off the radio. Then immediately after hanging up the mike the
ambulance arrived. TF Bowley wouldn't have tried to contact the
dispatcher after Calloway because according to Callaway the ambulance
arrived almost immediately. Since TF Bowley said he arrived at 1:10
Callaway must have tried to call the dispatcher several minutes after
TF Bowley. ( Probably the call that was recorded at 1:16) This also
means that Callaway didn't didn't respond to the shots as he
claimed,or if he did, he didn't go directly to the scene after calling
to a man with a gun " What the hell's going on". Either way Callaway
was embroidering the truth. I wonder if he really saw what he claimed
he saw when he said the guy was carring a blue steel 32 automatic. It
doesn't make sense for a killer to be running down the street waving a
pistol.....Particularly after Helen Markham said she saw the killer
put the pistol in his pants.
Walt
>
>
>
>
>
> > > & all-but-fainting (v3p311) & seeing
> > > a
> > > man shooting a cop & fearing that the man "was fixing to kill" her
> > > (v3p308). The lady doth profess too much. She overcompensates, as
> > > will be seen.... "After he shot the policeman, he turned around, came
> > > back around toward Patton St. He wasn't... he didn't seem to be in
> > > no
> > > hurry. I THOUGHT HE HADN'T DONE ANYTHING...." (v3p321)
>
> > Ouch. A troublesome sentence (unfinished, I note, is the rest
> > harmful to your thesis, dw?). Since we know she was there, and several
> > people report her screaming, which strongly indicates she did she the
> > murder committed at that location, how can this information be
> > construed to benefit the kook`s beloved patsy. Lets see...
>
> > > Come again? These hardly sound like the words of someone who has
> > > just
> > > seen a man shoot a police officer. These are more like the words of
> > > someone who has, say, heard shooting, then (a bit later) seen a body
> > > &
> > > a man standing over it.
>
> > <snicker> Oz came a-running to see if Tippit was ok.Markhamsaw Oz
> > comforting the fallen officer.Markhamstarting screaming, scaring
> > > MrsMarkham*knew*. Not right away. At first, she only "thought".
Walt
Todd, there were not four bullets removed from Tippit's body. The
bullet that struck the brass button of Tippit's jacket never
penetrated his body. This could be where the discrepancy between the
official police report and the record came from.
To my knowledge the autopsy has never been released..... the most
official document available is the police report that was written that
day.
Walt
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1177047263.1...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> dcwi...@netscape.net says...
> >
> >On Apr 19, 4:44 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> >> > Mrs Markham's Secret: Why She Agreed to a (False) Identification of
> >> > Oswald
> >>
> >> I guess it`s about time for another alternate-reality construct
> >> built from descrepancies by dw.
>
>
> An excellent example of why Bud remains on my killfile list.
And further proof that you remain a kook. dw takes 6 words from
Markham`s testimony ("I thought he hadn`t done anything..."), and uses
them to scrap her whole account (except for select portions he needs
for his thesis, of course).
> Don - as usual, a
> very good post.
Yah, kook kudos all around. It doesn`t matter that his contrived
scenario ignores all kinds of evidence and testimony, it raises
questions, which is seen as progress amongst the normality-challenged.
dcwi...@netscape.net
> In article <1177047263.157860.312...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> dcwill...@netscape.net says...
>
>
>
> >On Apr 19, 4:44 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> >> > Mrs Markham's Secret: Why She Agreed to a (False) Identification of
> >> > Oswald
>
> >> I guess it`s about time for another alternate-reality construct
> >> built from descrepancies by dw.
>
> An excellent example of why Bud remains on my killfile list. Don - as usual, a
> very good post.
>
alley was the clincher. I recall that some LNer (probably Bud or Joe
Z) pooh-poohed the idea of Mrs M's saying the gunman went down the
alley because it was only her son or son-in-law who told the HSCA that
that was what she was saying. It was not she herself who said it to
them. Now, we have it from her lips. And the LNers are *still* not
satisfied! (Of course)....
dw
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
dcwi...@netscape.net
> On 19 Apr, 22:59, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:> >>> "There is controversy about how many times Tippit was shot." <<<
>
> > There is absolutely NO doubt as to the number of times J.D. Tippit was
> > shot. The number is 4.
>
> You, Walt (being a kook), have INSERTED the "controversy" into this
> situation,
>
> It's not I that wrote the official DPD police report that actually
> lists where the THREE bullets hit Tippit.
>
"Suspect... started shooting striking deceased once in the R temple,
once in R side of chest & once in center of stomach." That's it.
dw
> Sorry if you don't like the evidence..... Send me yer T.S. card and
> I'll punch it for you, when you've got all twenty T.S. holes punched
> you can redeem it for a quarter and call someone who will listen to
> you whine.
>
> Walt
>
> the very same way you mangle and complicate the totally-
>
>
>
> > uncomplicated evidence with respect to many other areas of the JFK and
> > Tippit murders. But, in reality, no controversy exists at all when it
> > comes to the number of times Tippit was shot by Oswald.
>
> > Four different bullets were plucked from Tippit's body, for Pete sake!
> > Do you think that THREE shots resulted in FOUR bullets (CE 602 thru
> > 605) inside Tippit's body?
>
> > Mr. EISENBERG -- "Mr. Nicol, finally I hand you a group of four
> > bullets marked Commission Exhibits 602, 603, 604, and 605, which I
> > state for the record were recovered from the body of Officer
> > Tippit..."
>
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_...
>
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_...
>
> > ============
>
dcwi...@netscape.net
Walt -- You got it. LNers cite Himalayas of evidence, but if the
perps handled said evidence, it's reduced to molehills. Capn Fritz,
at least, was in on it....
dw
David Von Pein
I guess I just MADE UP Commission Exhibits 602 thru 605 (shown vividly
below, one bullet per exhibit), huh?
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0148b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0149a.htm
Don't ya just love it when a CTer decides what the evidence is going
to be?
I even previously linked CE602-605 for Walt to view....and he still
insists that only three bullets were removed from Tippit's body.
dcwi...@netscape.net
I think someone wrote a book on the subject in the 70s....
dw
David Von Pein
When did she ever supposedly say anything like that?
Markham's WC testimony is crystal-clear in this regard, and is
corroborated by all other nearby witnesses.....
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."
dcwi...@netscape.net
Walt -- All we know for sure about citizen calls is that Bowley called
at 1:17 & Callaway called at 1:20, because we can hear them on the
line. Supposedly, Benavides tried to call just before Bowley, but
couldn't work the gizmo, but we can't hear him on the radio so there's
no corroboration. He may have been one of the ones feeding Bowley
info that we hear in the background of the latter's call....
dw
\ This also
> means that Callaway didn't didn't respond to the shots as he
> claimed,or if he did, he didn't go directly to the scene after calling
> to a man with a gun " What the hell's going on". Either way Callaway
> was embroidering the truth. I wonder if he really saw what he claimed
> he saw when he said the guy was carring a blue steel 32 automatic. It
> doesn't make sense for a killer to be running down the street waving a
> pistol.....Particularly after Helen Markham said she saw the killer
> put the pistol in his pants.
The Oswald lookalike (as I believe was the shooter) may have *wanted*
to attract attention, & held the pistol out. Hopefully, he was well
paid for this act of bravado; even better: *He* was assassinated,
later, like the killer in the 1953 Heston film "Dark City". But I
still say that Mrs M saw only someone running after this guy, hence
the dichotomy with the description & the escape route: sidewalk to
field to alley, no lawn/bushes & no Jefferson....
dcwi...@netscape.net
> > dcwill...@netscape.net says...
>
> > >On Apr 19, 4:44 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > >> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > >> > Mrs Markham's Secret: Why She Agreed to a (False) Identification of
> > >> > Oswald
>
> > >> I guess it`s about time for another alternate-reality construct
> > >> built from descrepancies by dw.
>
> > An excellent example of why Bud remains on my killfile list.
>
> And further proof that you remain a kook. dw takes 6 words from
> Markham`s testimony ("I thought he hadn`t done anything..."), and uses
> them to scrap her whole account (except for select portions he needs
> for his thesis, of course).
>
hadn't indicated that her suspect indeed had done nothing. Her guy
ran down the sidewalk, across the intersection, across a field, & down
the alley. The actual shooter apparently cut across the lawn &
Patton, up to Jefferson. Her words only clinched this....
dw
> > Don - as usual, a
> > very good post.
>
> Yah, kook kudos all around.
Oh no, not that CTers are ever-patting each other on the back. Tom
Lowry might be a lapdog sitting at the feet adoringly of Von Pein, if
I may paraphrase a fellow film critic....
dw
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
It most certainly has been released, and is fully printed in Dale
Myers' 1998 book (which you've never bothered to even peruse). Great
"researcher" you are.
Page 420 of "With Malice" shows page 1 of Earl Rose's autopsy report
on J.D. Tippit (Autopsy number M63-352).
The second paragraph says:
"There are four entrance types of wounds."
The report then lists, in detail, where each of the entry wounds was
located on the body.
Page 436 of "With Malice" is also interesting, in that it confirms
(via a document dated December 11, 1963) that one of the four bullets
was not removed from Tippit's body by Dr. Rose at autopsy...with that
fourth bullet having been removed prior to the November 22nd autopsy.
That December 11th document also states this -- "It is the opinion of
Dr. Rose that one of the bullets will be suitable for ballistics
comparisons".
And one of the four bullets WAS "suitable" (per Joseph Nicol) for a
ballistics comparison...with Nicol testifying that it was his belief
that that one "suitable" bullet had come from Oswald's revolver "to
the exclusion".
dcwi...@netscape.net
Until it was verified that Mrs M said this, LNers, historically,
simply dismissed "bushy haired" as Lane's invention. It was not. Nor
was "short". And someday "stocky" may be verified, & LNers will then
be reduced to saying that, from a certain angle, the perpetually
"slender" Oswald appeared uh er uh uh er well "stocky"...!
Weasels....
7 accounts are in error? That's the (average) number the Poe/Jez
report cites re suspect running down alley. And someone had Mrs Mr
suppress the fact that she was one--the principal one--of these 7.
She has said, on film, that she saw him run down the alley. Why was
she not allowed to say this to the Commission? Why were none of the
other 6 allowed to? Burt, for instance, told the FBI that he saw the
gunman go into the alley off Patton. If this was all harmless error
(or 7 errors), why wasn't the confusion cleared up?
>
> > > > Astonishingly, Mrs Markham says something, almost in passing, in her
> > > > Commission testimony, which seems to cancel out all her famous
> > > > professed screaming & hollering
>
> > > Other witnesses corroborate her screaming.
>
> > Strange, tho, just a few minutes after the shooting, we hear nothing
> > like that on Bowleys' citizen call. And sound was carrying pretty
> > good. We can hear people outside the patrol car talking in the quiet,
> > adding things to what Bowley is saying. And no screaming on the
> > street....
>
> The Davis sisters said the heard shots, went immediately to their
> door, and saw Markham standing there screaming. That corroborates
> Markham`s account of her sceaming.
You know that Virginia had *two* stories, one in which they did *not*
go immediately to the door on 10th, but to the *side* door on Patton,
*after* calling the cops. She may be one of the Oak Cliff 7. And the
Davises said they saw Mrs M screaming as the gunman cut across the
lawn. Mrs M said she didn't start screaming until the gunman was
running up Patton, & that the gunman did not cut across the lawn at
all. Virginia's alternate story re calling the cops *after* seeing
the gunman implies that she too saw only the guy chasing the shooter,
& hence "screaming" may not have entered into their actual story at
all.... It certainly was not caught on either the 1:17 or 1:20 citizen
call. Alternatively, Mrs M may have called out to other onlookers
because she was not sure, at this point (when the guy was going across
Patton towards the field), that the man was the shooter.
Thank you. But Virginia alternated, in her testimony, re saying they
called the cops before/after seeing the gunman....
> > > >she sees a police car, & a man leaning into its front
> > > > passenger
> > > > window. The man then goes around the front of the car, bends down,
> > > > picks up the officer's service revolver, & puts it in his beltline.
>
> > > This is stupid. Callaway reports the gun being found under his body
> > > about the time the ambulance came.
>
> > 5 or 6 minutes later? *Then*, he goes after the killer?
>
> Why, you think he should acted faster? How do your thoughts of what
> should have occurred impact what actually did?
>
> > And by that
> > time Officer Croy was at the scene. Think a cop would see someone
> > running down the street wielding a gun....
>
> Calloway got in Scoggin`s cab and searched around, he wasn`t running
> down the street. And calloway didn`t act as soon as the gun was found.
> It was put on the hood, then inside the patrol car, and then taken by
> Callaway in pursuit of the killer.
*There*! Callaway *was* then, you admit, running (or striding,
whatever) down the street, gun in hand. But Croy didn't say he saw
Callaway going around with the gun to Benavides (as per latter's
testimony), then down to the intersection & over to Scoggins' cab.
Okay, maybe Croy was the DPD's token blind cop.... Conversely,
Callaway didn't see *Croy*?!? Token blind witness.... LN kooks!
Whoever concocted this absurd story didn't count on good ol' Myers
coming up with the timeline which puts Croy at the scene *before*
Callaway left.... For just such research, I credited Myers, tho he
arrived at different conclusions.
Bud
Obviously, Lane was not seeking the truth, but merely engaging in
discrediting a witness who offered damaging information against his
client. In any case, here is Oz in custody, with bad hair that some
might refer to as "bushy"...
http://elderlynegro.freehomepage.com/images/oswald_custody.jpeg
BTW, Walt, that isn`t a giant cop guarding Oswald, that officer
is just closer to the camera.
> It was not. Nor
> was "short".
Nor is it impossible for someone to look at Oz, and refer to him
as "short".
> And someday "stocky" may be verified,
Markham estimated a weight for the man she saw to Lane, didn`t
she.? 150 pound, if I remember correctly.
>& LNers will then
> be reduced to saying that, from a certain angle, the perpetually
> "slender" Oswald appeared uh er uh uh er well "stocky"...!
He looked slender to numerous witnesses who saw him on the 6th
floor of the TSBD,
> Weasels....
<snicker> You kooks just like to pretend that the descriptive terms
Markham may have given to police rules out Oz as the man she saw.
Dunno, don`t care. I don`t have the interest or energy to devote
to debunking any of this nonsense. I don`t where you going with it.
Are you saying there were 2 gunman, and niether was Oswald. Do you
think these minor descrepancies can bear the weight of the astounding
possibility that there was someone that looked a lot like Oswald, with
a handgun, in the same area that Oz was captured with a handgun? I
gotta say, this is only something a desperate lawyer with a stone
guilty client would attempt.
> That's the (average) number the Poe/Jez
> report cites re suspect running down alley. And someone had Mrs Mr
> suppress the fact that she was one--the principal one--of these 7.
> She has said, on film, that she saw him run down the alley. Why was
> she not allowed to say this to the Commission? Why were none of the
> other 6 allowed to? Burt, for instance, told the FBI that he saw the
> gunman go into the alley off Patton. If this was all harmless error
> (or 7 errors), why wasn't the confusion cleared up?
They knew where Oz committed the murder, and they knew where he was
arrested. Probably they didn`t deem how precisely he got there as
being particularily important.
> > > > > Astonishingly, Mrs Markham says something, almost in passing, in her
> > > > > Commission testimony, which seems to cancel out all her famous
> > > > > professed screaming & hollering
> >
> > > > Other witnesses corroborate her screaming.
> >
> > > Strange, tho, just a few minutes after the shooting, we hear nothing
> > > like that on Bowleys' citizen call. And sound was carrying pretty
> > > good. We can hear people outside the patrol car talking in the quiet,
> > > adding things to what Bowley is saying. And no screaming on the
> > > street....
> >
> > The Davis sisters said the heard shots, went immediately to their
> > door, and saw Markham standing there screaming. That corroborates
> > Markham`s account of her sceaming.
>
> You know that Virginia had *two* stories, one in which they did *not*
> go immediately to the door on 10th, but to the *side* door on Patton,
> *after* calling the cops.
Virginia didn`t call the police, Barbara did.
> She may be one of the Oak Cliff 7. And the
> Davises said they saw Mrs M screaming as the gunman cut across the
> lawn. Mrs M said she didn't start screaming until the gunman was
> running up Patton, & that the gunman did not cut across the lawn at
> all. Virginia's alternate story re calling the cops *after* seeing
> the gunman implies that she too saw only the guy chasing the shooter,
> & hence "screaming" may not have entered into their actual story at
> all.... It certainly was not caught on either the 1:17 or 1:20 citizen
> call. Alternatively, Mrs M may have called out to other onlookers
> because she was not sure, at this point (when the guy was going across
> Patton towards the field), that the man was the shooter.
No, she said she was screaming, and other witnesses corroborate it.
Finding descrepancies doesn`t allow you to re-write the evidence.
Which account makes sense, or can`t you tell?
> > > > >she sees a police car, & a man leaning into its front
> > > > > passenger
> > > > > window. The man then goes around the front of the car, bends down,
> > > > > picks up the officer's service revolver, & puts it in his beltline.
> >
> > > > This is stupid. Callaway reports the gun being found under his body
> > > > about the time the ambulance came.
> >
> > > 5 or 6 minutes later? *Then*, he goes after the killer?
> >
> > Why, you think he should acted faster? How do your thoughts of what
> > should have occurred impact what actually did?
> >
> > > And by that
> > > time Officer Croy was at the scene. Think a cop would see someone
> > > running down the street wielding a gun....
> >
> > Calloway got in Scoggin`s cab and searched around, he wasn`t running
> > down the street. And calloway didn`t act as soon as the gun was found.
> > It was put on the hood, then inside the patrol car, and then taken by
> > Callaway in pursuit of the killer.
>
> *There*! Callaway *was* then, you admit, running (or striding,
> whatever) down the street, gun in hand.
No, that was Oz running down the street with a gun. The is
Callaway moving the gun to different locations around the patrol car.
> But Croy didn't say he saw
> Callaway going around with the gun to Benavides (as per latter's
> testimony), then down to the intersection & over to Scoggins' cab.
> Okay, maybe Croy was the DPD's token blind cop.... Conversely,
> Callaway didn't see *Croy*?!? Token blind witness.... LN kooks!
> Whoever concocted this absurd story didn't count on good ol' Myers
> coming up with the timeline which puts Croy at the scene *before*
> Callaway left.... For just such research, I credited Myers, tho he
> arrived at different conclusions.
Only to kooks would find it relevant who did what minutes after Oz
killed Tippit.
Walt
If you donno, and don't care why don't you go play on the freeway or
somethin... Perhaps a few games of Russian Roulette .....
Walt
dcwi...@netscape.net
"Don't care" means that you're uninterested in learning the truth,
means that you're uninterested in finding out why circa 7 witnesses
thot the killer ran down the alley, means that you're a typical
LNer....
>
> > That's the (average) number the Poe/Jez
> > report cites re suspect running down alley. And someone had Mrs Mr
> > suppress the fact that she was one--the principal one--of these 7.
> > She has said, on film, that she saw him run down the alley. Why was
> > she not allowed to say this to the Commission? Why were none of the
> > other 6 allowed to? Burt, for instance, told the FBI that he saw the
> > gunman go into the alley off Patton. If this was all harmless error
> > (or 7 errors), why wasn't the confusion cleared up?
>
> They knew where Oz committed the murder, and they knew where he was
> arrested. Probably they didn`t deem how precisely he got there as
> being particularily important.
>
>
Okay. Then let's say he ran *straight down* Jefferson, no detours, to
the Texas Theatre. Unimportant, yeah, how O got there. Oops--then
*who* dropped that jacket in the parking lot *off* Jefferson?!
Okay, part II. Let's say he ran *straight down* the sidewalk (as Mrs
M & Burt aver), then crossed Patton. Unimportant. Oops, part II--
then *who* dropped those shells in the bushes *away from* the
sidewalk?!
Your "unimportant" total, evidence-wise: 1 jacket, 4 hulls,
unaccounted for.
Gee, maybe it is important how O (or whoever) got from square one to
the theatre. Some witnesses (Markham, Reynolds, Burt, 4 other
witnesses) have him taking a route which would mean that someone else
dropped hulls, dropped a jacket, and could not have been seen running
down Jefferson....
>
>
> > > > > > Astonishingly, Mrs Markham says something, almost in passing, in her
> > > > > > Commission testimony, which seems to cancel out all her famous
> > > > > > professed screaming & hollering
>
> > > > > Other witnesses corroborate her screaming.
>
> > > > Strange, tho, just a few minutes after the shooting, we hear nothing
> > > > like that on Bowleys' citizen call. And sound was carrying pretty
> > > > good. We can hear people outside the patrol car talking in the quiet,
> > > > adding things to what Bowley is saying. And no screaming on the
> > > > street....
>
> > > The Davis sisters said the heard shots, went immediately to their
> > > door, and saw Markham standing there screaming. That corroborates
> > > Markham`s account of her sceaming.
>
> > You know that Virginia had *two* stories, one in which they did *not*
> > go immediately to the door on 10th, but to the *side* door on Patton,
> > *after* calling the cops.
>
> Virginia didn`t call the police, Barbara did.
One of Virginia's two scenarios is that Barbara called the cops, then
the two of them saw the gunman.
>
> > She may be one of the Oak Cliff 7. And the
> > Davises said they saw Mrs M screaming as the gunman cut across the
> > lawn. Mrs M said she didn't start screaming until the gunman was
> > running up Patton, & that the gunman did not cut across the lawn at
> > all. Virginia's alternate story re calling the cops *after* seeing
> > the gunman implies that she too saw only the guy chasing the shooter,
> > & hence "screaming" may not have entered into their actual story at
> > all.... It certainly was not caught on either the 1:17 or 1:20 citizen
> > call. Alternatively, Mrs M may have called out to other onlookers
> > because she was not sure, at this point (when the guy was going across
> > Patton towards the field), that the man was the shooter.
>
> No, she said she was screaming, and other witnesses corroborate it.
> Finding descrepancies doesn`t allow you to re-write the evidence.
>
The evidence was "rewritten" for the hearings. Mrs M said (before
them) that the gunman ran down the alley, & (after them) that the
gunman ran down the alley. The scenario written for her for the
hearings was that she lost sight of him running down Patton....
dw
> > > > > > & all-but-fainting (v3p311) & seeing
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > man shooting a cop & fearing that the man "was fixing to kill" her
> > > > > > (v3p308). The lady doth profess too
>
dcwi...@netscape.net
each other, then it's odd that he's here on this newsgroup. Oh, no,
maybe not--because they corroborate something which would call into
question the validity of evidence like the jacket, & even the hulls, &
certainly at least one & maybe two lineup IDs of their favorite fall
guy....
dw
Bud
What are their names, and what did they say?
>then it's odd that he's here on this newsgroup.
True enough.
> Oh, no,
> maybe not--because they corroborate something which would call into
> question the validity of evidence like the jacket, & even the hulls, &
> certainly at least one & maybe two lineup IDs of their favorite fall
> guy....
What is the reasonable alternative to the jacket being shed by the
shooter? Someone knew there was going to be a murder there, and a
jacket was a necessary component for framing the poor patsy? You think
you can support that amazing premise with the weak crap you are
offering? You are trying to paddle the Titanic with a popsicle stick.
dcwi...@netscape.net
Mrs Markham you know, & as I've noted she said her gunman ran across
Patton then across a field & down the alley. Jimmy Burt told the FBI
he last saw the gunman running into the alley off Patton. Warren
Reynolds told the cops at the scene that he last saw the gunman
entering the back of an old house off the alley. The other 3-to-5 (as
per Poe/Jez) have never been ID'd, tho Virginia Davis & LJ Lewis are
likely candidates since both said, at one time or another, that they
only saw the suspect *after* they called the cops. (Okay, Barbara
called the cops.) & Pat Patterson is another possibility since he
said he went with Reynolds.
>
> >then it's odd that he's here on this newsgroup.
>
> True enough.
>
> > Oh, no,
> > maybe not--because they corroborate something which would call into
> > question the validity of evidence like the jacket, & even the hulls, &
> > certainly at least one & maybe two lineup IDs of their favorite fall
> > guy....
>
> What is the reasonable alternative to the jacket being shed by the
> shooter? Someone knew there was going to be a murder there, and a
> jacket was a necessary component for framing the poor patsy? You think
> you can support that amazing premise with the weak crap you are
> offering? You are trying to paddle the Titanic with a popsicle stick.
The validity of the jacket is called into question because both
Reynolds & Robert Brock said later that he, Reynolds, said he last saw
the gunman heading toward the parking lot behind the station, where
the jacket was found. The WFAA-TV film (from about 1:35pm 11/22)
exposes their perjury: Reynolds was telling everyone then that he last
saw the guy going into the back of that house. For the jacket to have
any validity, then, there had to be at least 2 suspects, one heading
towards the parking lot & the other, a few minutes later, heading in
the opposite direction, into the house. In this case, the latter was
the man with Tippit's gun chasing the parking-lot guy. So, yes, the
jacket could have been dropped by the shooter (Oswald or a
lookasimilar), but at least 2 witnesses perjured themselves to make it
look like there was only one suspect....
Todd W. Vaughan
> On 20 Apr, 11:16, "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 11:43 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 20 Apr, 09:34, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >>> "Sorry if you don't like the evidence." <<<
>
> > > > Oh, you mean the four bullets that were removed from Tippit's dead
> > > > body (CE602-605)?
>
> > > > Is that the type of evidence I "don't like"?
>
> > > Hey Pea Brain.... Ya need ta go back ta school and learn ta count, or
> > > stop lying.....whichever is the case. There were NOT four bullets
> > > removed from Tippit's body.
>
> > > Walt
>
> > Walt,
>
> > 4 bullets were removed from Tippit's body - one was removed by the
> > attending physician at the emergency room and three were removed
> > during the autopsy.
>
> > Once again you show yourself to be wildly ignorant of the facts in
> > this case and thus unable to be trusted in any claims you make
> > regarding it.
>
> > Todd
>
> Todd, there were not four bullets removed from Tippit's body. The
> bullet that struck the brass button of Tippit's jacket never
> penetrated his body. This could be where the discrepancy between the
> official police report and the record came from.
Walt,
The bullet that struck the button lodged in the body, along with the
button. Both were just below the surface of the skin, and both were
removed by the emergency room doctor at Methodist Hospital.
So yes, 4 bullets were removed from the body, one was removed by the
attending physician at the emergency room and three were removed
during the autopsy, exactly as I said above.
>
> To my knowledge the autopsy has never been released..... the most
> official document available is the police report that was written that
> day.
Your "knowledge" of the case is already demonstrably flawed. Of course
it has been released. It is published in With Malice. You'd know that
if you had read the book.
Todd
>
> Walt- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
Yep. Just like I told the Walt-Kook a few days ago....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/668ec165a4f3b374
Bud
No, only uninterested in what you are doing to it.
> means that you're uninterested in finding out why circa 7 witnesses
> thot the killer ran down the alley, means that you're a typical
> LNer....
I`m not interested in addressing this particular construct, because
if I debunk it, no harm is done to the concept of conspiracy. I think
it`s a more worthwhile to attack your approach to the evidence,
exploiting descrepancies in a desperate attempt to exhonerate a
obviously guilty party. For instance, you cling to the idea that
Virginia Davis called the cops before she saw a shooter, a scenario
that makes no sense, especially when Barbara and Virginia both relate
the same thing, that they heard the shots, went to the door, saw the
shooter, and Mrs Markham, went back inside to call police. You see,
that account makes sense, so it is of no use for your constructs, so
you latch on to some muddle in the testimony to exploit into something
you think you can build into a scenario in which Oz is innocent. It`s
not a problem with the evidence, it`s a problem with your mindset, so
countering what you write with evidence is bound not to garner results
as long as your mind remains fucked up.
Todd W. Vaughan
> >>> "It {the Tippit AR} is published in With Malice. You'd know that if you had read the book." <<<
>
> Yep. Just like I told the Walt-Kook a few days ago....
David,
One thing's for certain, the Walt-Kook has never been one to let the
facts get in the way of his next whacked-out conspiracy theory. We see
that here day after day.
In this case Walt's just been too lazy to track down the Tippit
autopsy report himself and too stupid to pick up the only book on the
Tippit murder and realize that the autopsy report is published there.
So what does Walt do?
He takes the big kook-jump off of the edge of the logic and reason
platform and comes to the "the (Tippit) autopsy has never been
released" conclusion, at least to "his knowledge", which obviously
dates back to the Ordovician period.
But hey, that's how these guys think. It's a nutty, spooky conspiracy,
David, and if you can't find that tough to find document that you
think should be out there and that you believe will prove the
conspiricy, you're allowed to just say it's been covered-up by the
minions of evil.
It's OK, because the end justifies the means.
I mean, you "know" there's a conspiracy, right?
Todd
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/668ec165a4f3b374
aeffects
when you Nutters have to seek support for Nutter theory[s] concerning
WCR and its findings/evidence, the entire JFK conspiracy community
knows you're in deep-straights... carry-on gentlemen...
> Todd
>
>
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/668ec165a4f3b374
Todd W. Vaughan
David! Good! A day, a post, in the nuthouse whouldn't be complete
without one of your patented know-nothing, say-nothing posts/replies.
>
>
>
> > Todd
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/668ec165a4f3b374- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
dcwi...@netscape.net says...
>
>On Apr 20, 7:00 am, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
>> In article <1177047263.157860.312...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>> dcwill...@netscape.net says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 19, 4:44 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> >> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>> >> > Mrs Markham's Secret: Why She Agreed to a (False) Identification of
>> >> > Oswald
>>
>> >> I guess it`s about time for another alternate-reality construct
>> >> built from descrepancies by dw.
>>
>ual, a
>> very good post.
>>
>Thanks, Ben. Hearing Mrs M directly say that her suspect ran down the
>alley was the clincher. I recall that some LNer (probably Bud or Joe
>Z) pooh-poohed the idea of Mrs M's saying the gunman went down the
>alley because it was only her son or son-in-law who told the HSCA that
>that was what she was saying. It was not she herself who said it to
>them. Now, we have it from her lips. And the LNers are *still* not
>satisfied! (Of course)....
>dw
They want the results of her testimony as the WCR spun it, but are unwilling to
defend her *actual* assertions. Sort of the "have your cake and eat it too"
type of thing.
LNT'ers simply cannot stand by the evidence in this case.
>> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
Bud
You don`t defend what the witnesses offer, you weigh it. You kooks
have broken scales, is all.
> Sort of the "have your cake and eat it too"
> type of thing.
Like the kooks who think her estimation of the time of Tippit`s
slaying is carved in stone, but don`t believe her when she identifies
Oz as the shooter, that kind of thing?
> LNT'ers simply cannot stand by the evidence in this case.
So you agree that Markham saw Oz shoot Tippit. Why`d he go and do a
thing like that for?
dcwi...@netscape.net
to (pyschological) projection....
To amend your comments: It was *Virginia* who clung to the idea that
they called the cops first. She kept returning to that, then counsel
would remind her that that didn't make sense, & she would make sense.
For a minute--then return to the idea of having called the cops
first. You haven't tried to explain her nonsensicalness. To me, it
sounds like a cover story coming unraveled in her head. Not only did
she *slip* & say call-first, insistently, she also, in her original
affidavit, *slipped* & said they went to the "side door on Patton".
Then, in her testimony--where she corrected the latter *slip*!--she
slipped again, & said, at one point, that the boy crossed the
*street*, not the lawn. I think it was the truth which kept slipping
out. Either their story was not what they said, or Barbara's was &
Virginia's was not....
dw
>
> > > > That's the (average) number the Poe/Jez
> > > > report cites re suspect running down alley. And someone had Mrs Mr
> > > > suppress the fact that she was one--the principal one--of these 7.
> > > > She has said, on film, that she saw him run down the alley. Why was
> > > > she not allowed to say this to the Commission? Why were none of the
> > > > other 6 allowed to? Burt, for instance, told the FBI that he saw the
> > > > gunman go into the alley off Patton. If this was all harmless error
> > > > (or 7 errors), why wasn't the confusion cleared up?
>
> > > They knew where Oz committed the murder, and they knew where he was
> > > arrested. Probably they didn`t deem how precisely he got there as
> > > being particularily important.
>
> > Okay. Then let's
>
dcwi...@netscape.net
> In article <1177129811.222942.223...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> dcwill...@netscape.net says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 20, 7:00 am, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
> >> In article <1177047263.157860.312...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> >> dcwill...@netscape.net says...
>
> >> >On Apr 19, 4:44 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> >> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> >> >> > Mrs Markham's Secret: Why She Agreed to a (False) Identification of
> >> >> > Oswald
>
> >> >> I guess it`s about time for another alternate-reality construct
> >> >> built from descrepancies by dw.
>
> >> An excellent example of why Bud remains on my killfile list. Don - as us=
> >ual, a
> >> very good post.
>
> >Thanks, Ben. Hearing Mrs M directly say that her suspect ran down the
> >alley was the clincher. I recall that some LNer (probably Bud or Joe
> >Z) pooh-poohed the idea of Mrs M's saying the gunman went down the
> >alley because it was only her son or son-in-law who told the HSCA that
> >that was what she was saying. It was not she herself who said it to
> >them. Now, we have it from her lips. And the LNers are *still* not
> >satisfied! (Of course)....
> >dw
>
> They want the results of her testimony as the WCR spun it
I think we blame the poor Commission too much. They simply didn't
have all the evidence--such as Mrs Mr's assertion re the alley, or
Reynolds telling the cops, on film, that he last saw the suspect
running into a house off the alley. The Commish didn't have much
choice on how to spin things, & they were buried in so much tangential
stuff that they didn't have time to follow up on misinformation (the
Sawyer Exhibits, falsified radio transcriptions) or withheld
information....
dw
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
dcwi...@netscape.net
Her "estimation" & Bowley's watch-checking were, I believe, meant to
throw us hapless CTers off the track, & make us think Mrs M arrived
earlier than she did. She actually arrived at the scene too *late* to
see the shooter, & saw only the guy with Tippit's gun running away, as
I detailed in the original entry in this thread....
dw
>
> > LNT'ers simply cannot stand by the evidence in this case.
>
> So you agree that Markham saw Oz shoot Tippit.
Mrs M didn't see anybody shoot anybody....
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
The first step in problem solving is identifying the problem.
> To amend your comments: It was *Virginia* who clung to the idea that
> they called the cops first. She kept returning to that, then counsel
> would remind her that that didn't make sense, & she would make sense.
> For a minute--then return to the idea of having called the cops
> first. You haven't tried to explain her nonsensicalness.
Sure I have. When she goes through her actions step by step, they
make sense. And they match her sisters. They heard the shots, went to
the door, went back in and called the cops. Who calls the cops because
they hear a few loud noises?
> To me, it
> sounds like a cover story coming unraveled in her head.
Of course it does. Thats why I identified your thinking as the
source of the problem.
> Not only did
> she *slip* & say call-first, insistently, she also, in her original
> affidavit, *slipped* & said they went to the "side door on Patton".
Oh boy, more descrepancies. She must have been coereced by the DPD
to say she went to the front door (an extraordinary idea propped up
with meager support). But her sister Barbara said she went to the door
and saw the man unloading his gun walking across her front lawn. And,
since the shooting occurred out front, perhaps Virginia was just
mistaken, or she looked out the side door while Barbara called the
cops. In any case, you`ve scoured the testimony collecting these
decrepancies, and you weave them into an alternate reality, but you
constructs alway ignore portions of what these or other witnesses say.
> Then, in her testimony--where she corrected the latter *slip*!--she
> slipped again, & said, at one point, that the boy crossed the
> *street*, not the lawn. I think it was the truth which kept slipping
> out.
Which was? One person crossing the street, one the lawn, with one
of the two being missed by Markham, Scoggins, Benavides, Barbara
Davis? You take the weakest bit of information, declare it the most
reliable, and construct your story from that. It isn`t the evidence,
dw, it`s your kooky approach to it.
Walt
I could not disagree more..... The warren Commission was working hand
in glove with Hoover to cover up the truth.
This is not to say that they were sinister and evil conspiritors, who
were privvy to the conspiracy. They went along with Johnson's
directive of "letting the sleeping dog lie". Oswald was dead and he
was the leader of a band of international Communists with home base in
Cuba. Lyin Bastard Johnson told them that it would trigger a nuclear
WWIII if they openly confronted Castro, so they would boycott Cuba,
and track down the rest of the band.
The Warren Commission went along to avoid the nuclear war that Lyin
Bastard threatened...... and in doing so, they allowed Johnson to get
away with murder.
Walt
Ben Holmes
dcwi...@netscape.net says...
>
>On Apr 23, 4:42 pm, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
>> In article <1177129811.222942.223...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>> dcwill...@netscape.net says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 20, 7:00 am, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
>> >> In article <1177047263.157860.312...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> dcwill...@netscape.net says...
>>
>> >> >On Apr 19, 4:44 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> >> >> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> of
>> >> >> > Oswald
>>
>> >> >> I guess it`s about time for another alternate-reality construct
>> >> >> built from descrepancies by dw.
>>
> us=3D
>> >ual, a
>> >> very good post.
>>
>> >Thanks, Ben. Hearing Mrs M directly say that her suspect ran down the
>> >alley was the clincher. I recall that some LNer (probably Bud or Joe
>> >Z) pooh-poohed the idea of Mrs M's saying the gunman went down the
>> >alley because it was only her son or son-in-law who told the HSCA that
>> >that was what she was saying. It was not she herself who said it to
>> >them. Now, we have it from her lips. And the LNers are *still* not
>> >satisfied! (Of course)....
>> >dw
>>
>> They want the results of her testimony as the WCR spun it
>
>I think we blame the poor Commission too much.
Disagree... see below.
>They simply didn't
>have all the evidence--such as Mrs Mr's assertion re the alley, or
>Reynolds telling the cops, on film, that he last saw the suspect
>running into a house off the alley. The Commish didn't have much
>choice on how to spin things, & they were buried in so much tangential
>stuff that they didn't have time to follow up on misinformation (the
>Sawyer Exhibits, falsified radio transcriptions) or withheld
>information....
>dw
I could subscribe to your viewpoint if I could see the WC dealing honestly with
the evidence that they *did* have. But as I've shown in my series of posts on
"Provable Lies of the WC", they dealt with this case as if they were
prosecutors, and not as if they were searching for the truth. A simple review
of their patterns of questioning the eyewitnesses will also demonstrate this, as
Walt Brown demonstrated quite persuasively in his book, "The Warren Omission".
See also the books by Remington (although he tends to revel in minutia...) We
all know that the WC staff were desperately trying to finish up and release a
report *before* the next presidential election - so there were pressures to
"solve" the case and move on. This doesn't help a "search for the truth"
No, I don't absolve the WC - they were most guilty of all.
But I don't mind disagreeing with you on this - I consider it a fairly minor
point in comparison to the large areas of agreement in this case...
>, but are unwilling to
>> defend her *actual* assertions. Sort of the "have your cake and eat it t=
>oo"
>> type of thing.
>>
>> LNT'ers simply cannot stand by the evidence in this case.
>>
>
>>
>> >> >> > The long & short of it: Tippit witness Mrs Markham's "man walkin=
>g up
>> >> >> > 10th" (v3p307) could not have been Patrolman HW Summers' witness's
>> >> >> > "getaway man" (police radio logs 1:37pm). Could not have been, t=
>hat
>> >> >> > is, the man who either looked like Lee Oswald ("white male, 27, 5
>> >> >> > feet
>> >> >> > 11, 165"), or was Lee Oswald, & who fled directly up Patton Stree=
>t to
>> >> >> > East Jefferson.
>>
>> >> >> Mrs Markham said it was Oswald she saw shoot Tippit. Which was he
>> >> >> fled afterwards isn`t really that important, it was the killing part
>> >> >> that was breaking some kind of laws.
>>
>> >> >Bud -- Then your "Twilight Zone" killer ran down the alley & Jefferson
>> >> >at the same time. You can't have it both ways. Either the killer
>> >> >fled down Jefferson from Patton or he fled down the alley from Patton,
>> >> >& I think the former. Someone else took the alley, chasing him. And
>> >> >I seem to recall that even LNers spend a lot of time tracing O's
>> >> >flight path from Dealey. Some of them must think it's important....
>> >> >dw
>>
>> >> >> > Nor could he have been the Benavides/Davis/Davis/Scoggins/Guinyard
>> >> >> > suspect who cut across lawns & jumped through bushes, meanwhile
>> >> >> > scattering hulls everywhere.
>>
>> >> >> I`ll bet there are a zillion descrepancies in the Virginia Tech
>> >> >> shooting accounts. A kook might conclude dozens of asian gunman
>> >> >> running hither and yon.
>>
>> >> >> > Mrs Markham's man
>>
>> >> >> Oswald, she said.
>>
>> >> >Short, bushy-haired?
>>
>> >> >> > did not cut across front yards or wield a gun in
>> >> >> > his
>> >> >> > right hand.
>>
>> >> >> > In a filmed interview, she said that the man "put his gun back in=
> his
>> >> >> > pants" after shooting Officer Tippit. Then, "he walked down the
>> >> >> > sidewalk", to the corner of Tenth & Patton (SS interview 12/2/63),
>> >> >> > went across Patton, then "run off across the field--that lot ther=
>e--
>> >> >> > went over the fence & down the alley" (filmed interview). Or, as
>> >> >> > Crime Lab Sgt Pete Barnes put it--in his 11/22/63 crime-scene
>> >> >> > sketch--"W on alley to Crawford" (With Malice p161 [sketch] & p152
>> >> >> > [pic of Barnes listening to Talbert & Westbrook question Mrs M]).
>>
>> >> >> > It's true that, many times, Mrs Markham talked about seeing someo=
>ne
>> >> >> > shoot Tippit, & that she ID'd Oswald as this man, but the *rest* =
>of
>> >> >> > her story suggests that this part of her story cannot be true, all
>> >> >> > but
>> >> >> > negates that part, suggests that she was coerced into not mention=
>ing
>> >> >> > the alley escape route in her 1964 WC testimony, her 11/22/63 Dal=
>las
>> >> >> > County affidavit, or her 12/2/63 SS interview. Suggests same
>> >> >> > because--
>> >> >> > both before & after these dates--she insisted: "alley". The only
>> >> >> > witness we see Barnes talking to is Mrs M--clearly, his source fo=
>r "W
>> >> >> > on alley". If the man that she saw... pocketed his sidearm... wa=
>lked
>> >> >> > down the sidewalk to the intersection... went across Patton & thr=
>ough
>> >> >> > a field... jumped over a fence & went down the alley... then he w=
>as
>> >> >> > not the killer. He could be neither Oswald nor an Oswald lookali=
>ke,
>> >> >> > could not be Summers' "getaway man". Who was he?
>>
>> >> >> Marham said it was Oswald she saw shoot Tippit.
>>
>> >> >Markham & Jimmy Burt said the man they saw fled down the alley. At
>> >> >the other end, Reynolds said he lost the man as the latter entered the
>> >> >back of a house off the alley.... If this was Oswald, then who was the
>> >> >Oswald lookalike who fled down Jefferson, according to Patrolman
>> >> >Summers?
>>
>> >> >> > Astonishingly, Mrs Markham says something, almost in passing, in =
>her
>> >> >> > Commission testimony, which seems to cancel out all her famous
>> >> >> > professed screaming & hollering
>>
>> >> >> Other witnesses corroborate her screaming.
>>
>> >> >Strange, tho, just a few minutes after the shooting, we hear nothing
>> >> >like that on Bowleys' citizen call. And sound was carrying pretty
>> >> >good. We can hear people outside the patrol car talking in the quiet,
>> >> >adding things to what Bowley is saying. And no screaming on the
>> >> >street....
>>
>> >> >> > & all-but-fainting (v3p311) & seeing
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > man shooting a cop & fearing that the man "was fixing to kill" her
>> >> >> > (v3p308). The lady doth profess too much. She overcompensates, =
>as
>> >> >> > will be seen.... "After he shot the policeman, he turned around, =
>came
>> >> >> > back around toward Patton St. He wasn't... he didn't seem to be =
>in
>> >> >> > no
>> >> >> > hurry. I THOUGHT HE HADN'T DONE ANYTHING...." (v3p321)
>>
>> >> >> Ouch. A troublesome sentence (unfinished, I note, is the rest
>> >> >> harmful to your thesis, dw?). Since we know she was there, and seve=
>ral
>> >> >> people report her screaming, which strongly indicates she did she t=
>he
>> >> >> murder committed at that location, how can this information be
>> >> >> construed to benefit the kook`s beloved patsy. Lets see...
>>
>> >> >> > Come again? These hardly sound like the words of someone who has
>> >> >> > just
>> >> >> > seen a man shoot a police officer. These are more like the words=
> of
>> >> >> > someone who has, say, heard shooting, then (a bit later) seen a b=
>ody
>> >> >> > &
>> >> >> > a man standing over it.
>>
>> >> >> <snicker> Oz came a-running to see if Tippit was ok. Markham saw =
>Oz
>> >> >> comforting the fallen officer. Markham starting screaming, scaring
>> >> >> away the kook`s hero. Either that, or Oz took his pistol in pursuit=
> of
>> >> >> the actual shooter. Yeah, thats the ticket. Chased him to the Texas
>> >> >> Theater, only stopping once to window shop some shoes.
>>
>> >> >> > It's like a scene from a vastly different
>> >> >> > scenario.
>>
>> >> >> Yah, a troublesome sentence fragment gives you the green light to
>> >> >> scrap everything she ever said, and insert ony scenario that tickles
>> >> >> your fancy. Stellar.
>>
>> >> >> > And that scenario would go something like this: As Mrs M,
>> >> >> > on Patton, approaches Tenth, she hears two-to-four shots. A minu=
>te
>> >> >> > later,
>>
>> >> >> It sure is taking the Davis sisters a long time to check out the
>> >> >> shoots they heard. And what of the other witnesses, Scoggins,
>> >> >> Callaway, are they reporting a long delay betwen the shots and the
>> >> >> person fleeing?
>>
>> >> >Two did. Virginia Davis & LJ Lewis said they saw the man *after*
>> >> >each, respectively, called the police....
>>
>> >> >> >she sees a police car, & a man leaning into its front
>> >> >> > passenger
>> >> >> > window. The man then goes around the front of the car, bends dow=
>n,
>> >> >> > picks up the officer's service revolver, & puts it in his beltlin=
>e=2E
>>
>> >> >> This is stupid. Callaway reports the gun being found under his bo=
>dy
>> >> >> about the time the ambulance came.
>>
>> >> >5 or 6 minutes later? *Then*, he goes after the killer? And by that
>> >> >time Officer Croy was at the scene. Think a cop would see someone
>> >> >running down the street wielding a gun....
>>
>> >> >> > No actual witnessing of shooting or falling.... And then, of cou=
>rse,
>> >> >> > yes, in this case, she could hardly have been certain that he had
>> >> >> > "done anything".
>>
>> >> >> > Mrs Markham *knew*. Not right away. At first, she only "thought=
>"=2E
>> >> >> > At first, of course, she could not be sure that the man with the =
>gun
>> >> >> > was not, also, the man who had shot the officer, or an accomplice.
>> >> >> > One possibility: He might have shot, then lingered at the scene =
>for
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > minute or so, between the time she heard the shots & the time she
>> >> >> > arrived at 10th & Patton. But the fact that the man seemed to be=
> "in
>> >> >> > no hurry" made her think that he "hadn't done anything". And she
>> >> >> > could only have thought that he hadn't done anything if she hadn't
>> >> >> > *seen* him do anything. As she later found out, her hunch had be=
>en
>> >> >> > correct--her suspect was not the shooter, was not the man wielding
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > gun in his right hand who fled down Patton, then Jefferson. The =
>man
>> >> >> > whom other witnesses described as throwing down shells here & the=
>re,
>> >> >> > in the bushes up from the sidewalk. That was not *her* gunman, a=
>nd
>> >> >> > she knew it.
>>
>> >> >> This is what the kooks think the WC should have produced, folks.
>> >> >> Read it and weap.
>>
>> >> >The WC couldn't have "produced" this--the circa 7 witnesses who said
>> >> >they saw a gunman running down the alley were not permitted to say so
>> >> >to the Commission. I don't blame the Commish. Nor were they privy to
>> >> >the film of Reynolds telling the cops circa 1:30pm that he last saw
>> >> >the suspect entering an old house off the alley. They got his cover
>> >> >story re the parking lot....
>>
>> >> >> > But
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
Bud
So, within hours of the shooting, they are getting Markham to say
she saw things she didn`t. Then *they* got the Davis sisters to say
they saw Markham outside shortly after Tippit`s murder. *They* also
got to Benavides, Scoggins, Callaway, Brewer, Postal, and many others,
to swear to things they didn`t see. Why believe such a extraordinary,
amazing, astounding possibility when a simple one is available? The
witnesses told what the saw, honestly, but possibly not perfectly.
When you need to invent unknown armed look-a-likes and dozens of
witnesses being coerced, isn`t it time to give this nonsense a rest?
> She actually arrived at the scene too *late* to
> see the shooter, & saw only the guy with Tippit's gun running away, as
> I detailed in the original entry in this thread....
> dw
>
> >
> > > LNT'ers simply cannot stand by the evidence in this case.
> >
> > So you agree that Markham saw Oz shoot Tippit.
>
> Mrs M didn't see anybody shoot anybody....
Yah, who could believe that a shooting in a residential area might
have witnesses? Something fisjy going on...
Walt
Now your voicing the Warren Commission's philosphy.... Give the dumb
bastards simple solutions.
Or Simple minds like simple solutions..... Nice to know that you
endorse that, Dud.
Walt
dcwi...@netscape.net
> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > On Apr 23, 2:00 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > > > On Apr 21, 7:37 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > > > > > On Apr 20, 1:24 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Apr 19, 4:44 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Oswald
>
> > > > > > > > > I guess it`s about time for another alternate-reality construct
> > > > > > > > > built from descrepancies by dw.
>
> > > > > > > > > > 10th" (v3p307) could not have been Patrolman HW Summers' witness's
> > > > > > > > > > "getaway man" (police radio logs 1:37pm). Could not have been, that
> > > > > > > > > > is, the man who either looked like Lee Oswald ("white male, 27, 5
> > > > > > > > > > feet
> > > > > > > > > > 11, 165"), or was Lee Oswald, & who fled directly up Patton Street to
> > > > > > > > > > East Jefferson.
>
> > > > > > simply dismissed "bushy haired" as Lane's invention.
>
> > > > > Obviously, Lane was not seeking the truth, but merely engaging in
> > > > > discrediting a witness who offered damaging information against his
> > > > > client. In any case, here is Oz in custody, with bad hair that some
> > > > > might refer to as "bushy"...
>
> > > > > http://elderlynegro.freehomepage.com/images/oswald_custody.jpeg
>
> > > > > BTW, Walt, that isn`t a giant cop guarding Oswald, that officer
> > > > > is just closer to the camera.
>
> > > > > > It was not. Nor
> > > > > > was "short".
>
> > > > > Nor is it impossible for someone to look at Oz, and refer to him
> > > > > as "short".
>
> > > > > > And someday "stocky" may be verified,
>
> > > > > she.? 150 pound, if I remember correctly.
>
> > > > > >& LNers will then
> > > > > > be reduced to saying that, from a certain angle, the perpetually
> > > > > > "slender" Oswald appeared uh er uh uh er well "stocky"...!
>
> > > > > He looked slender to numerous witnesses who saw him on the 6th
> > > > > floor of the TSBD,
>
> > > > > > Weasels....
>
> > > > > <snicker> You kooks just like to pretend that the descriptive terms
>
> > > > "Short" would not. "Bushy haired" would not. "Stocky" would.
>
> > > > > > >Certainly it is no reason to
> > > > > > > disregard her identification of Oz as the man she saw (except by those
> > > > > > > who`s only interest is writing scenarios in which Oz is innocent, of
> > > > > > > course)..
>
> > > > > > > > > > did not cut across front yards or wield a gun in
> > > > > > > > > > his
> > > > > > > > > > right hand.
>
> > > > > > > > > > In a filmed interview, she said that the man "put his gun back in his
> > > > > > > > > > pants" after shooting Officer Tippit. Then, "he walked down the
> > > > > > > > > > sidewalk", to the corner of Tenth & Patton (SS interview 12/2/63),
> > > > > > > > > > went across Patton, then "run off across the field--that lot there--
> > > > > > > > > > went over the fence & down the alley" (filmed interview). Or, as
> > > > > > > > > > Crime Lab Sgt Pete Barnes put it--in his 11/22/63 crime-scene
> > > > > > > > > > sketch--"W on alley to Crawford" (With Malice p161 [sketch] & p152
>
> > > > > > > > > > It's true that, many times,MrsMarkhamtalked about seeing someone
> > > > > > > > > > shoot Tippit, & that she ID'd Oswald as this man, but the *rest* of
> > > > > > > > > > her story suggests that this part of her story cannot be true, all
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > negates that part, suggests that she was coerced into not mentioning
> > > > > > > > > > the alley escape route in her 1964 WC testimony, her 11/22/63 Dallas
> > > > > > > > > > County affidavit, or her 12/2/63 SS interview. Suggests same
> > > > > > > > > > because--
> > > > > > > > > > both before & after these dates--she insisted: "alley". The only
> > > > > > > > > > on alley". If the man that she saw... pocketed his sidearm... walked
> > > > > > > > > > down the sidewalk to the intersection... went across Patton & through
> > > > > > > > > > a field... jumped over a fence & went down the alley... then he was
> > > > > > > > > > not the killer. He could be neither Oswald nor an Oswald lookalike,
> > > > > > > > > > could not be Summers' "getaway man". Who was he?
>
> > > > > > > > > Marham said it was Oswald she saw shoot Tippit.
>
> > > that account makes sense, so it is of no use for your constructs, so
> > > you latch on to some muddle in the testimony to exploit into something
> > > you think you can build into a scenario in which Oz is innocent. It`s
> > > not a problem with the evidence, it`s a problem with your mindset, so
> > > countering what you write with evidence is bound not to garner results
> > > as long as your mind remains fucked up.
>
> > Oh, nice! (in my best Onslow accent) I'll ignore that, & ascribe it
> > to (pyschological) projection....
>
> The first step in problem solving is identifying the problem.
>
> > To amend your comments: It was *Virginia* who clung to the idea that
> > they called the cops first. She kept returning to that, then counsel
> > would remind her that that didn't make sense, & she would make sense.
> > For a minute--then return to the idea of having called the cops
> > first. You haven't tried to explain her nonsensicalness.
>
>> Sure I have. When she goes through her actions step by step, they
make sense. And they match her sisters. They heard the shots, went to
the door, went back in and called the cops. Who calls the cops
because
they hear a few loud noises?
Exactly. Let's us, Bud, then go back "through her actions, step by
step", in her own words (& those of David Belin).
Here's the first exchange on the subject in which Belin does *not*
lead the witness (v6p458):
Virginia D: When Mrs Markham was standing across the street
hollering, she told us to call the police. So Jeanette & I went in
there, & Jeanette called the police. And we went back, & [the
suspect] was cutting across our yard. And we gave him time to go on
because we were afraid he might shoot us.
B: Did you call the police before or after you saw him cut across
your yard?
D: Before.
Now, let's go back to the first time the subject came up, when Belin
had to interject a leading question to get the *full* answer he
wanted( p457):
B: What was Mrs Markham saying, or did you hear her say anything?
D: We heard her say, "He shot him. He is dead. Call the police."
B: Was she saying this in a soft or loud voice?
D: She was screaming it.
B: Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
D: Well, we saw Oswald.
To put this latter exchange in context: Virginia Davis has devoted a
full page of testimony to Mrs Markham & her screaming. It takes
prompting by counsel to get her to bring up the subject of "Oswald",
as if he were an afterthought. In fact, in this exchange at least, he
*is* an afterthought. And when left to her own devices, without
prompting, we see (above, p458) that Virginia does not mention Oswald
at all when she's talking about Mrs Markham's screaming. Is this a
fluke? Let's continue with a *later* exchange (pp460-61):
B: Let me try & reconstruct your actions then. You heard the shots?
D: Yes, sir
B: You ran to the door? What did you see when you got to the door?
D: Well, we just saw, you know, the police car parked down there, &
we wondered what was going on. So we heard Mrs Markham across the
street calling.
B: Then what did you do?
D: Well, she told us to call the police. Well, so we went to the
house. We was already in the house, & we went to the phone & called
the police.
B: Then what did you do?
D: Then, we went back to the front door.
B: Then, what did you do?
D: We saw the boy cutting across the street.
B: Then what did you do or see?
D: After he disappeared around the corner, we ran out in the front
yard & down to see what had happened.
You're right, Bud. Her actions do make sense, & as you say, they
heard the shots, they went to the door, they went back in & called the
cops. Exactly as you said, ironically enuf. We can agree! They
heard the shots, they went to the door, Mrs Markham told them to call
the police, they did, they came back to the door, they saw the boy,
they cautiously waited until he had disappeared, then they ran down
the front yard to see what had happened. Indeed, who (as you say)
calls the cops because they hear a few loud noises? They also heard
Mrs M telling them to call the cops. But--and this makes just as much
sense as the Davises waiting until their suspect has disappeared--Mrs
Markham (if Virginia's right) seems to have waited until *her*
suspect disappeared. She wasn't shouting & waving & drawing
attention to herself while a cold calculating cop killer was across
the street from her & could pop *her* too. The women weren't stupid.
In sum: In the Virginia Davis version, Mrs Markham saw the actual
killer leaving the scene, waited until he had disappeared, then cried
out to the Davises--who came to their door too late to see the killer--
who then did what she had told them, & called the police. Tho they
had seen *no one* yet. Then, the two returned to the front door, saw
*another* man with a gun, Tippit's gun, crossing their lawn, perhaps
checking the revolver for bullets. When he disappeared, they felt
safe enuf to venture out to see what had happened.
Thank you, Bud, for giving me the blueprint, above. Of course, this
means that the stories of the Davises, Benavides, & Guinyard seeing
the *shooter* emptying his gun were inaccurate. They saw only the man
with Tippit's gun checking same. If there were dropped shells, they
were from Tippit's revolver....
dw
> > To me, it
> > sounds like a cover story coming unraveled in her head.
>
> Of course it does. Thats why I identified your thinking as the
> source of the problem.
>
> > Not only did
> > she *slip* & say call-first, insistently, she also, in her original
> > affidavit, *slipped* & said they went to the "side door on Patton".
>
> Oh boy, more descrepancies. She must have been coereced by the DPD
> to say she went to the front door (an extraordinary idea propped up
> with meager support). But her sister Barbara said she went to the door
> and saw the man unloading his gun walking across her front lawn. And,
> since the shooting occurred out front, perhaps Virginia was just
> mistaken, or she looked out the side door while Barbara called the
> cops. In any case, you`ve scoured the testimony collecting these
> decrepancies, and you weave them into an alternate reality, but you
> constructs alway ignore portions of what these or other witnesses say.
>
> > Then, in her testimony--where she corrected the latter *slip*!--she
> > slipped again, & said, at one point, that the boy crossed the
> > *street*, not the lawn. I think it was the truth which kept slipping
> > out.
>
> Which was? One person crossing the street, one the lawn, with one
> of the two being missed byMarkham, Scoggins, Benavides, Barbara
Bud
Apparently still over your head.
> Or Simple minds like simple solutions..... Nice to know that you
> endorse that, Dud.
What is wrong with a simple solution? Not enough ninjas to satisfy
your craving for complexity?