If you want to ignore that Markham said she took her daily bus at 1.15, which means she couldn't have been at 10th street to see a shooting at that time, then ignore it...
Mrs Markham was at 10th Street at the time of the shooting. Other witnesses to the crime and it's aftermath confirm that.
Of course she was at 10th Street at the time of the shooting, genius. But that wasn't the point, which apparently went straight over your head.
The point I was making is that Markham said she took the same bus to work everyday. She estimated the departure time from Jefferson to be 1.15, but according to the FBI the schedule for Markham's bus had stops at 1.12 and 1.22. So, if the shooting occurred at 1.14 or 1.15, then Markham couldn't have been at 10th Street, because at that time she would be getting on her regular bus on Jefferson. In other words, the shooting took place earlier than 1.14. In fact, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to argue that the shooting probably took place between 1.06 and 1.10. This, in turn means that Oswald couldn't have been there, as he was seen at the roominghouse on Beckley at 1pm and taking the fastest route it took at least 11 minutes to get to 10th street from there.
You fail to discern the obvious fact that Mrs Markham's testimony about daily bus times does not trump the testimony of eye witnesses who place Lee Oswald at the scene of the crime: the murder of JD Tippit. Oswald was identified as the man seen (a.) shooting the police officer or (b.) fleeing the location of the Tippit killing with a pistol in his hand.
Eyewitnesses can be and often are wrong. These witnesses were never subjected to cross-examination by a defense lawyer, which is very often the moment in court where they recant or change their story. Witness identification is the least reliable evidence there is. I know from first hand experience how difficult it is to identify a person. I once witnessed a street robbery and although I saw the robber pretty well, when the police asked me if I would be able to identify him I said no.
Having said that, if Oswald couldn't physically have been at 10th Street when Tippit was shot then the witnesses were wrong. It's as simple as that.
Mrs Markham was a less than excellent witness before the Warren Commission. Markham's bus time statement was worthy of assessment by the Commission. However, it has to be dismissed as less important in determining the time of the Tippit killing and the identity of the perpetrator.
Wrong. You don't dismiss a clear time indication simply because it doesn't fit the narrative. Even less so when there is more circumstantial evidence to actually show that the shooting took place earlier than 1.14 or 1.15 and there is
no evidence whatsoever that Tippit was really killed at 1.14 or 1.15.
Like all JFK assassination contrarians, you're determined to accept the least plausible evidence and dismiss that which unambiguously points to the guilt of your imagined-client, Lee Harvey Oswald.
Wrong again. I am not about to accept Oswald's guilt simply because you and your ilk say he is guilty. If you want to convince me of anything, you need to provide evidence that is sufficiently conclusive and holds up under scrutiny.
You are just dismissing evidence you don't like because of your predetermined conclusion that Oswald was guilty, when in fact the case against him has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. That's why LNs never want to examine or discuss the evidence honestly and complain about those who do!
Keep going on with this ultra-contrarian tripe and you'll soon be labelled a "Norwegian demon".
Pathetic... but since I know who it is coming from, I don't give a damn.