The Bus Stop Farce

[Martin Weidmann]

The application of common sense and reason is lost on Martin.  It is almost unfair.  Like beating a dumb animal with a stick.

As John always says; an appeal to "common sense" is usually made when no evidence is available.

[Martin Weidmann]

And this brings us to the other bus stop farce. You apparently assume that she had to catch the 1.12 bus every day

Markham said she caught the earlier bus because that bus would get her to work on time..... The later bus took a different route when it crossed the viaduct into downtown Dallas, and she would be late for work if she took the later bus.....

Interesting. I have not seen that... Can you point me to where I can find this information, Walt?

[Richard Smith]

So, no matter how many words you write, you still can not explain how Markham could have been at 10th street to see Tippit being killed at 1.14 or 1.15 when she, by her own account, would have been at the bus stop on Jefferson catching her daily bus at around 1.15? Got it

You really believe this rebuts multiple witnesses including Markham who saw Oswald at the Tippit scene?

So, you were in Miami yesterday beating your wife, right?

And that Oswald had a pistol when arrested with the same two different brands of ammo that are found at that scene.

Repeating the same old crap isn't making it any more credible. Show that the revolver now in evidence is the one they took from Oswald and you may be on to something, but all you've got so far is a revolver showing up at the police station two hours after Oswald was arrested and a detective claiming it was Oswald's revolver.

And even though there is a picture of Oswald's pistol being carried out of the TT, you believe it "mysteriously" appeared later at the police station (not to mention police officers confirming that Oswald had a pistol in the TT).

Show the picture and the proof that it is the same revolver that showed up at the police station two hours later. Nobody denies that Oswald he a pistol in the TT. That was never the point. The real point is that you and your ilk are jumping to conclusions based on incomplete and sometimes completely missing information. If Oswald was framed, a revolver being switched could easily have been part of the plan.

But let me get this one straight.  You won't admit that you are a CTer?  Wow.

No, I am not a CT for two reasons; (1) I don't have a conspiracy theory and (2) I follow the evidence where it leads me. If that means Oswald turns out to be guilty then so be it. But you don't hang a man based on a belief. So, show me the evidence, and that's where you and your ilk come up short every time.

So, tell me "Richard"... if Markham, when going to work, took the same bus every day, at around 1.15, how could she possibly have been at 10th street at that time to witness a shooting? Instead of acting like a weasel all the time, for once be a man and at least try to give a honest and plausible answer to the question.

Members of the DPD confirmed that Oswald had a pistol when arrested.  There is a photo of it being carried out of the TT.  Oswald admitted he had a pistol when arrested.  But you suggest it somehow mysteriously appeared later.  And then deny you are a CTer?  How do you reconcile suggesting that all these folks lied to implicate Oswald and framed him - including apparently Oswald himself - with any narrative that does not entail a conspiracy? 

[Alan J. Ford]

An interesting thread OP, w/some insightful reading contributions gentlemen. IMHO Mrs. Markham's testimony is indicative of what so many in the legal profession would ascribe as "leading the witness".  That said, inspite of Mr. Ball's shameful steering to a pre-determined outcome, she managed to slip this gem pass him, note her clothing description of the Tippit gunman ---->

Mr. BALL. What did he have on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on this light shirt, dark trousers

Her description eliminates the wrongly accused. Upon being apprehended inside the Texas Theatre, he donned a dark reddish brown shirt w/light grey pants. Oops!

WC counsel Ball & commission members Ford & Dulles failed--in their haste to frame an innocent party-- to recognize this rather telling conflicting admission. Otherwise, they would have invented another phantom bus ride back to the rooming house once again for the wrongly accused to once again change his clothing to fit their "star" witness' account.

The wrongly accused did not shoot anybody. Anybody.

[Charles Collins]

Once again to try to twist my words to create a strawman.

You apparently assume that she had to catch the 1.12 bus every day because the 1.22 bus would have been after 1.15.

I never said or assumed anything of the sort. Even if she did in fact take the 1.22 bus, she would - by her own account - be at the bus stop at 1.15 to catch her bus, whether that was a delayed 1.12 or the 1.22 bus

However, to Markham, either bus could have been taken and she would still likely describe it as the “same bus” because they both depart Jefferson around 1.15 and take her to where she needed to go. She might or might not even be aware of the difference.

True... and none of it explains why Markham would still be at 10th Street at 1.14 or 1.15 to see Tippit get killed, when she said herself she took her regular bus on Jefferson at 1.15.

It would depend on whether or not she noticed details like bus numbers, drivers, etc. And, as far as I know, she really doesn’t indicate that she did.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it was actually the same bus every day. I would argue it probably wasn't. This is about the time that Markham said she took the bus on Jefferson. She estimated that time to be at 1.15. The bus schedule shows busses stopping at 1.12 and 1.22 and she could have taken either one. What she couldn't have done is be at 10th Street at 1.14 or 1.15, which means that the shooting of Tippit happened earlier.

There is enough circumstantial evidence to justify the conclusion that Tippit was really killed between 1.06 and 1.10.

Your contentions require very punctual timing. Nothing about Markham’s account indicated that she was that punctual or paid close attention to the exact time or that the clocks she relied upon were entirely accurate. Neither were most people that punctual back in 1963.

[Jerry Freeman]

Here is a quote from a photograph of the actual typewritten notes by Hugh Aynesworth written in May of 1964 for The Dallas Morning News and published in a book titled “The Reporters’ Notes by The Dallas Morning News published in 2013.
  But now have firm evidence to support my conclusion.

Your "firm evidence" being that Hugh Aynesworth said so.
 Been doing this since you signed in on this forum.

[Charles Collins]

The anybody but LHO crowd likes to believe that LHO actually stood at the bus stop near his rooming house when he left it a little after 1:00 on 11/22/63. And they point this out as part of their argument claiming that LHO couldn’t have traveled on foot the distance to the Tippit murder scene in time to get there before Tippit was murdered.

Here is a quote from a photograph of the actual typewritten notes by Hugh Aynesworth written in May of 1964 for The Dallas Morning News and published in a book titled “The Reporters’ Notes by The Dallas Morning News published in 2013.

“Mrs. Roberts recalled the now star-boarder running in about 1 p.m. as she sat watching the TV coverage of the assassination. “Boy you’re in a hurry,” she said. He hasn’t replied yet. She told us Oswald (Mr. Lee as she knew him) had hesitated at the front of the house a moment, then started running down Beckley Street south.

So, the later claims by Mrs. Roberts that LHO went to the bus stop and waited there for a while are (quite obviously to me) not true. She may believe that he did, but it is apparent that her later memory is false. Her fresh recollection (given to Aynesworth and the others just hours after the event) of LHO running south on Beckley, and no mention of the bus stop, are bound to be more accurate than her later one. Our memories are reconstructions (unlike taped re-runs) based on associations. It is easy to understand how Mrs. Roberts could mistakenly associate another memory (of LHO standing at the bus stop at another time) as part of what she remembered of 11/22/63. We all have mistakenly remembered a few things wrong from time to time. And we only realize it when we encounter evidence contrary to our memories. So, it probably happens to all of us more often than we think it does.

Some of you will cling to Mrs. Roberts’ false memory account and say that it is true. But I am convinced otherwise. I always have felt this way. But now have firm evidence to support my conclusion.

I don’t mind correcting myself when I jump to a wrong conclusion. The story written by Hugh Aynesworth and Larry Grove and published in the Dallas Morning News on 11/28/63 does mention the bus stop. So it wasn’t a false memory of Mrs. Roberts. My bad...

Here’s what is written in the 11/28/63 story about this aspect:

“Mrs. Roberts noticed Oswald stand, momentarily at a bus stop on North Beckley after he left the house. She could see him there, through the front window, as she watched TV from the oval couch in the front room.
But Oswald didn’t wait long. He bolted to his left and hurried south, on Beckley - the last time Mrs. Roberts saw him until his image appeared on the TV screen an hour later.”

This story was written only days after the assassination. Before any of the timing questions ever surfaced.  I also have a copy of the unedited story as it was typed by Aynesworth, including handwritten notations, etc. This was provided to me, upon request, by the DeGolyer Library.

[Martin Weidmann]

Members of the DPD confirmed that Oswald had a pistol when arrested.  There is a photo of it being carried out of the TT.  Oswald admitted he had a pistol when arrested.  But you suggest it somehow mysteriously appeared later.  And then deny you are a CTer?  How do you reconcile suggesting that all these folks lied to implicate Oswald and framed him - including apparently Oswald himself - with any narrative that does not entail a conspiracy?

Members of the DPD confirmed that Oswald had a pistol when arrested.  There is a photo of it being carried out of the TT.  Oswald admitted he had a pistol when arrested. 

I never disputed the fact that Oswald had a pistol at the TT. According to Fritz, Oswald actually admitted owning a revolver, which he said he had bought in Fort Worth.

But you suggest it somehow mysteriously appeared later. 

No. Wrong again. Can't you get anything right? Yes, Oswald had a revolver at the TT and yes, a revolver was brought into the police station by a detective (I can't instantly recall his name). This, however, was some two hours after the arrest and the detective claimed it was Oswald's gun, which he had been walking around with for several hours (not really the way to deal with evidence). He asked some officers in the DPD lunchroom (if I remember correctly) to put their initials on it which they did despite the fact that they had not been involved in the arrest.

Also remarkable is the fact that the spare bullets they claimed belonged to Oswald were (just like the bus ticket) not found on his person until hours after his arrest.

So, there is no mysteriously appearing revolver, there is a massive chain of custody issue. Can you prove that the revolver brought into the police station by the detective is in fact Oswald's revolver and the answer is clearly; no!

How do you reconcile suggesting that all these folks lied to implicate Oswald and framed him - including apparently Oswald himself - with any narrative that does not entail a conspiracy

Obviously, if Oswald was indeed framed there must have been a conspiracy. That's a given, but I am not promoting in any way the notion that there was a conspiracy. I don't try to run before I can walk. For the moment I am simply looking at the case against Oswald. The matter of a possible conspiracy will be resolved by the outcome of that examination.

So, I am not suggesting that anybody lied, nor am I advocating that they all told the truth. I am merely asking for evidence so that I don't have to take their word for it. Strangely enough, more than once in this case, that evidence has never been provided. Now, you can assume all you want that everybody who implicated Oswald was telling the truth, but such an assumption is of no value at all.