Oswald's Escape Route Time Trial

[John Mytton]

"wasn't it Weidmann who called Markham a "Screwball"?" Mr Mytton

i would feel with certainty that the original person who said that was indeed YOUR very own Mr Ball of the warren commission .

Ball was debating Mark Lane at the time and within context was only giving a sarcastic reply, but Martin likes to say Markham is a screwball when she identified Oswald and on the other hand Markham was an honest valuable eyewitness with her time estimate. Do you see the obvious conflict?

Whereas from my perspective, Markham's identification of Oswald was true and genuine and the 1963 timepiece was never verified and considering the FBI ascertained that buses came every ten minutes, whenever she got to the bus stop, the wait was never very long.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Ball was debating Mark Lane at the time and within context was only giving a sarcastic reply, but Martin likes to say Markham is a screwball when she identified Oswald and on the other hand Markham was an honest valuable eyewitness with her time estimate. Do you see the obvious conflict?

Whereas from my perspective, Markham's identification of Oswald was true and genuine and the 1963 timepiece was never verified and considering the FBI ascertained that buses came every ten minutes, whenever she got to the bus stop, the wait was never very long.

JohnM

Still being your usual obnoxious self, I see

[Michael Capasse]

I'm just gonna leave this here...



Mr. BALL. Later that day they had a show up you went to?
Mrs. MARKHAM. A lineup?

Mr. BALL. A lineup.
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.

Mr. BALL. How many men were in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I believe there were, now I am not positive, I believe there were three besides this man.

Mr. BALL. That would be four people altogether?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I believe that is correct.

Mr. BALL. Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.

Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.

Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.

Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.

Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two is the one I picked.

Mr. BALL. Well, I thought you just told me that you hadn't--
Mrs. MARKHAM. I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing.

Mr. BALL. No. I wanted to know if that day when you were in there if you saw anyone in there--
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What can I say?

It reads like a "Burns & Allen" routine or an episode of "I Love Lucy."
Obvious evidence the witnesses were coached throughout this process.
There is no confidence in this witness' ability to answer simple and direct questions.

Helen Markham, testified 3x before the commission. Twice in April (I think), with Attorney Ball, the other on July 22 or 23 with Liebeler.
The record is not clear. April sounds right because, Ball is referencing and introducing Mark Lane to the testimony.
Lane, played a bigger part in July when they, (WC) try to legally threaten him.

The above doesn't dispute that Mrs. Markham chose number 2 at the lineup.
What it does is, bring into question the fairness of the circumstances for which she made that choice.

[Richard Smith]

I'm just gonna leave this here...



Mr. BALL. Later that day they had a show up you went to?
Mrs. MARKHAM. A lineup?

Mr. BALL. A lineup.
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.

Mr. BALL. How many men were in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I believe there were, now I am not positive, I believe there were three besides this man.

Mr. BALL. That would be four people altogether?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I believe that is correct.

Mr. BALL. Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.

Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.

Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.

Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.

Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two is the one I picked.

Mr. BALL. Well, I thought you just told me that you hadn't--
Mrs. MARKHAM. I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing.

Mr. BALL. No. I wanted to know if that day when you were in there if you saw anyone in there--
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What can I say?

It reads like a "Burns & Allen" routine or an episode of "I Love Lucy."
Obvious evidence the witnesses were coached throughout this process.
There is no confidence in this witness' ability to answer simple and direct questions.

Helen Markham, testified 3x before the commission. Twice in April (I think), with Attorney Ball, the other on July 22 or 23 with Liebeler.
The record is not clear. April sounds right because, Ball is referencing and introducing Mark Lane to the testimony.
Lane, played a bigger part in July when they, (WC) try to legally threaten him.

The above doesn't dispute that Mrs. Markham chose number 2 at the lineup.
What it does is, bring into question the fairness of the circumstances for which she made that choice.

How exactly does it "bring into question the fairness of the circumstances"?  She is taking his questions literally.  She didn't "know" Oswald or "recognize" him.  She didn't have a clue who he was.  She had never seen him before she witnessed him murdering Tippit.  Obviously, if she had been "coached" to answer these questions her answer would have been "yes."  She is certainly not the greatest witness in history, but she is also not the only witness who places Oswald at the scene with his gun in hand.  What do you think the odds are that Oswald worked in the place from which the president was assassinated, would leave work to get his gun, and then pass the very scene of the only DPD officer murdered in a number of years on the way to the movies?  All within about an hour.  And was unlucky enough to look so much like the Tippit shooter that he was identified by multiple witnesses as the person at the scene with a gun?  A billion to one if he was innocent? 

[Michael Capasse]

How exactly does it "bring into question the fairness of the circumstances"?  She is taking his questions literally.  She didn't "know" Oswald or "recognize" him.  She didn't have a clue who he was.  She had never seen him before she witnessed him murdering Tippit.  Obviously, if she had been "coached" to answer these questions her answer would have been "yes."  She is certainly not the greatest witness in history, but she is also not the only witness who places Oswald at the scene with his gun in hand.  What do you think the odds are that Oswald worked in the place from which the president was assassinated, would leave work to get his gun, and then pass the very scene of the only DPD officer murdered in a number of years on the way to the movies?  All within about an hour.  And was unlucky enough to look so much like the Tippit shooter that he was identified by multiple witnesses as the person at the scene with a gun?  A billion to one if he was innocent?

It's called "Unfair Lineups"
https://jfk.boards.net/post/1268/thread

Do you think she knew the other fill ins?

[Martin Weidmann]

And as far as the "unverified timepiece" goes; Markham took the same bus to work every workday. People who do that are not only accutely aware of the time but they also know when to leave home for the bus stop. In her WC testimony, Markham stated that she usually got the bus from Jefferson at 1:15 PM.

Mr. BALL. You know what time you usually get your bus, don't you?
Mrs. MARKHAM. 1:15.

The FBI established that her regular bus was scheduled to stop at the Jefferson bus stop at 1:12 and 1:22, so LN's made a big deal out of this, as if buses back then always ran exactly on schedule. In March 1964 Markham told FBI agent Barrett that she "had hoped to catch a bas at about 1:15". So, regardless if it was a delayed 1:12 bus or the one scheduled for 1:22, Markham was clear at her being at the bus stop at 1:15. When you then look at the distance she had to walk, it turns out to be no more than two blocks, which the FBI established could be walked at normal speed in roughly 2,5 minutes each. This means that Markham would have passed the crossing at 10th and Patton no later than 1:12 which is well before the time Tippit, according to the official narrative, was supposedly shot.

Mytton's argument about the "unverified timepiece" relates only to the time Markham left the washateria and clearly has no merit because Markham never said in either her testimony or affidavit at what time exactly she left the washateria. What she did say in her testimony was;

Mr. BALL. So you were walking south toward Jefferson?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You think it was a little after 1?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I wouldn't be afraid to bet it wasn't 6 or 7 minutes after 1.

So, she actually said that she was already walking toward Jefferson at roughly 1:06 or 1:07

In her affidavit, on 11/22/63, she goes even further when she says; "At approximately 1:06 PM, November 22, 1963 -- I was standing at the corner of E. 10th and Patton street waiting for the traffic to go by.

Markham's statements match up perfectly with the information provided by T.F. Bowley. He said he was picking up his daughter from her school in Singing Hills and then his wife from work, at the Telephone Company on 9th street, to go on a holiday. He gave the time he picked up his daughter as around 12:55. He then drove along Marsalis Ave to his wife's place of work in Oak Cliff, and after turning left onto 10th street he came upon the location of the shooting. I have driven this route myself some years ago and it took me, at normal speed, no more that 13 minutes. This means that Bowley arrived at the crime scene at roughly between 1:08 to 1:11, depending on the exact time he left the school. Bowley said that when he arrived at the scene he checked his watch, because he wondered if he would be late to pick up his wife. Years later, he told Stan Dane that he wasn't sure he looked at his watch immediately after arriving at the scene or a little bit later. In any event, his watch said 1:10, which fits right in with Markham's time estimate.

Markham said in her affidavit that she was standing at the crossing of 10th and Patton at around 1:06, waiting for traffic to pass. She sees a man walking east being followed by a police car. She then sees the interaction between Tippit and the man, resulting in Tippit being shot. Several minutes later Bowley arrives and she's Benavides trying in vain to call the DPD dispatcher. He then takes over and calls the dispatcher. By then, Callaway arrives on the scene, about 3 minutes after hearing the shots, which confirms that Bowley must have arrived on the scene about 1 minute after the murder (as his radio call is timed at lasting 48 seconds). When Callaway is using the DPD radio, the ambulance pulls up and Bowley and Callaway help to place Tippit's body in it. The ambulance then drives to Methodist Hospital where Tippit is pronounced dead on arrival at 1:15 PM.

The only thing that doesn't match this timeline is the recording of the DPD radio, as we know it today. However, and rather remarkably, it is around this time that the recording failed to function properly. There's about a two minute gap with noise. Add to this that DPD Communications Supervisor, Sergeant Jim Bowles stated that the times called out by the dispatchers did not reflect real time, because the clocks in the dispatcher's office was linked to a master clock which itself could be off by several minutes. Bowles estimated it could be 3 minutes from standard time. And then there is the fact that between 1:04 and 1:15 there were only two time calls (1:07 and 1:12) on a recording which should have lasted 1 hour by actually only lasted 48 minutes.

With all this in mind it's pretty obvious that Mytton's argument about the "unverified timepiece" is absolutely nonsensical.

[Richard Smith]

It's called "Unfair Lineups"
https://jfk.boards.net/post/1268/thread

Do you think she knew the other fill ins?

You think the lineup was "unfair" to Oswald because he looked like the person who committed the crime?  And your explanation for this is that:  "there are Oswald imposters running around Dallas in the weeks and days before the assassination."  That is way far out stuff.  Honestly, you can't really believe that nonsense.  That is called working backwards toward the facts to reach a desired conclusion.  Again, what do you think the odds are that Oswald worked in the very building from which the president was assassinated, left work to get a gun, passed the scene of the only murder of a DPD officer within a period of years on his way to the movies, and looked so much like the gunman that several random witnesses ID him as the shooter?  Has to be a billion to one that all those things would happen to an innocent person within a space of an hour or so.   Add in finding Oswald's prints on the SN boxes and bag "because he worked there."

[Michael Capasse]

You think the lineup was "unfair" to Oswald because he looked like the person who committed the crime? And your explanation for this is that:  "there are Oswald imposters running around Dallas in the weeks and days before the assassination."  That is way far out stuff.  Honestly, you can't really believe that nonsense.  That is called working backwards toward the facts to reach a desired conclusion.  Again, what do you think the odds are that Oswald worked in the very building from which the president was assassinated, left work to get a gun, passed the scene of the only murder of a DPD officer within a period of years on his way to the movies, and looked so much like the gunman that several random witnesses ID him as the shooter?  Has to be a billion to one that all those things would happen to an innocent person within a space of an hour or so.   Add in finding Oswald's prints on the SN boxes and bag "because he worked there."

I have no idea what your asking there ?-  or how that makes the line ups unfair? - but  it's blatantly  obvious they broke every line up rule in the book.
And numerous FBI reports of some "lone nut loser" creating a scene, and even identifying himself as "Lee Oswald" is nothing made up.

and looked so much like the gunman that several random witnesses ID him as the shooter?

That's why I ask - did she know the fill ins? - they were cops - her restaurant was a 4 min walk away
Who will she not choose?