Oswald's Escape Route Time Trial

[Martin Weidmann]

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."

You think the lineup was "unfair" to Oswald because he looked like the person who committed the crime?

That should probably be: he looked like the only person out of the four who was likely to have committed the crime!

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.

True, if Oswald was a totally innocent person, I would agree. But if he was in some way involved in some scheme, which left him open to manipulation, the odds would be considerably smaller.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

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."

It's called reverse engineering a conspiracy. Simply lay out all of this vast amount of information - stories, claims, accounts - and then pluck those out that support your preconceived conspiracy. Works every time. As long as you ignore all of this other evidence.

Again, it's why they have 50 different flavors of conspiracies. The CIA, the Pentagon, the FBI, SS, Mob, anti-Castro Cubans, rich Texas oilmen, the Mossad, Wall Street financiers, the FED, and on and on. They all grab that information that supports their original theory. After 60 years instead of having a more streamlined explanation it's gotten more convoluted. One giant Rube Goldberg device where you push a button and the bells jingle and the wheels turn and at the end JFK is dead.

Like this made by the CIA at their Hawkeye Photographic Lab. I hope Michael Griffith doesn't see it.

[Richard Smith]

It's called reverse engineering a conspiracy. Simply lay out all of this vast amount of information - stories, claims, accounts - and then pluck those out that support your preconceived conspiracy. Works every time. As long as you ignore all of this other evidence.

Again, it's why they have 50 different flavors of conspiracies. The CIA, the Pentagon, the FBI, SS, Mob, anti-Castro Cubans, rich Texas oilmen, the Mossad, Wall Street financiers, the FED, and on and on. They all grab that information that supports their original theory. After 60 years instead of having a more streamlined explanation it's gotten more convoluted. One giant Rube Goldberg device where you push a button and the bells jingle and the wheels turn and at the end JFK is dead.

Like this made by the CIA at their Hawkeye Photographic Lab. I hope Michael Griffith doesn't see it.

Some theories are at least plausible despite lacking any support.  When they start rolling out the "Oswald doubles" and "body alterations" explanations that is X-Files material.   

[Richard Smith]

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.

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?

You suggested the lineups were unfair and provided a link in which your very first post claims that there were Oswald doubles roaming about Dallas.  In that context, presumably you are implying that one of these "doubles" who looked like Oswald committed the Tippit murder.  And that is why the witnesses picked poor old Ozzy out of the lineup.  Because the shooter looked like him.  Markham indicated that she didn't know or recognize any of the people in the lineup.  None of them.  Meaning that none of them were not previously known to her.   The first and only time she saw Oswald was when he murdered Tippit.  Is there any reason to believe that she would lie on this point if some of these men had frequented her restaurant?  And again, she was not the only witness to ID Oswald.

[John Mytton]

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.

Eyewitnesses who positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald. And don't forget in many cases only 1 positive ID is enough but here we have an absolute plethora. Also another very important fact in this case is the shells recovered at the scene, the same shells that Oswald was seen removing and discarding from his revolver, were an exclusive match to Oswald's revolver, the same revolver he was arrested with and the same revolver he tried to use to kill more cops! A Slam Dunk in other words.

Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.

Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. V DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in that room?
Mrs. B DAVIS. Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.

Mr. CALLAWAY. No. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." So they brought four men in.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.
Mr. BALL. You mean he looked like the same man?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Then what did you do?
Mr. GUINYARD. I was looking--trying to see and after I heard the third shot, then Oswald came through on Patton running---came right through the yard in front of the big white house---there's a big two-story white house---there's two of them there and he come through the one right on the corner of Patton.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. Four? Did any one of the people look anything like strike that. Did you identify anyone in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I identified him.

RUSSELL positively identified a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans Police Department # 112723, taken August 9, 1963, as being identical with the individual he had observed at the scene of the shooting of Dallas Police Officer J.D. TIPPIT on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas.
 
Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.

Eyewitnesses who positively identified Oswald and confirmed he was carrying a gun

Mr. BALL. Which way?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Towards Jefferson, right across that way.
Mr. DULLES. Did he have the pistol in his hand at this time?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had the gun when I saw him.

Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you said you saw the man with the gun throw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you see the man empty his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it

Mr. BALL. And what did you see the man doing?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, first off she went to screaming before I had paid too much attention to him, and pointing at him, and he was, what I thought, was emptying the gun.
Mr. BALL. He had a gun in his hand?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.

Mr. BALL. And how was he holding the gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. We used to say in the Marine Corps in a raised pistol position.

Mr. BALL. What did you see him doing?
Mr. GUINYARD. He came through there running and knocking empty shells out of his pistol and he had it up just like this with his hand.
Mr. BALL. With which hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. With his right hand; just kicking them out.
Mr. BALL. He had it up?

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see this man's face that had the gun in his hand?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Very good.

HAROLD RUSSELL, employee, Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, he was standing on the lot of Reynolds Used Cars together with L.J. LEWIS and PAT PATTERSON, at which time they heard shots come from the vicinity of Patton and Tenth Street, and a few seconds later they observed a young white man running south on Patton Avenue carrying a pistol or revolver which the individual was attempting to either reload or place in his belt line.

Mr. BELIN. Did he have anything in his hand?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He had a pistol in his left hand.


The Police Officers who were confronted with the murdering Oswald.

Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. When you saw Oswald's hand by his belt, which hand did you see then?
Mr. WALKER. He had ahold of the handle of it.
Mr. BELIN. Handle of what?
Mr. WALKER. The revolver.
Mr. BELIN. Was there a revolver there?
Mr. WALKER. Yes; there was.

Mr. HUTSON. McDonald was at this time simultaneously trying to hold this person's right hand. Somehow this person moved his right hand to his waist, and I saw a revolver come out, and McDonald was holding on to it with his right hand, and this gun was waving up toward the back of the seat like this.

Oswald even admitted carrying his revolver.

Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.

Mr. McCLOY. Was it a sharpshooter's or a marksman's? There are two different types, you know.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
Oswald admitted that he was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 22d of November 1963, where he had been employed since the 15th of October. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was a laborer in this building and had access to the entire building. It had offices on the first and second floors with storage on third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building.
He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home. He went to his residence on North Beckley, changed his clothes, and then went to a movie.
Captain Fritz asked him if he always carried a pistol when he went to the movie, and he said he carried it because he felt like it. He admitted that he did have a pistol on him at the time of his arrest, in this theatre, in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. He further admitted that he had resisted arrest and had received a bump and a cut as a result of his resisting of arrest. He then denied that he had killed Officer Tippit or President Kennedy.

Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.





JohnM

[Fergus O'Brien]

You haven't argued "in any way" that the fibers from Oswald's shirt would prove him innocent?  Then why make such a big deal about him changing shirts and claiming that resulted in a "problem" for LNers?  What problem would there be then?  The argument seemed to be that because Oswald claimed to have changed shirts, he could not have left the fibers on the rifle that was used to assassinate JFK.   That sounds a lot like suggesting he was not the assassin.   The facts are that the fibers found on the rifle are consistent with those from the shirt that Oswald was wearing approximately an hour after the assassination.  Absent a time machine we can't know certain things with absolute certainty, but those facts lend themselves to Oswald's guilt rather than his innocence.  What are the odds that Oswald puts on a random shirt that matches the fibers found on his rifle that day?  And again, even if there were no fibers from his shirt, there is ample evidence to link Oswald to the murder weapon.  It is difficult to even contemplate how there could be any more evidence of the fact.  Oswald has no explanation for the presence of his rifle at the crime scene.  He has no credible alibi for the moment of the assassination.  He flees the scene within minutes and gets a gun.  He is identified by several witnesses as the person who murdered a police officer in broad daylight on the street.  I'm puzzled how anyone can fixate on a trivial point like the fibers in the face of the overwhelming mountain of evidence that links Oswald to the crime.

i am not making a big deal , you are the one doing that . your stance is oswald was guilty , as with any LN and as with the warren commission when taking this LN stance you are stuck with the evidence you thinks proves oswald acted alone . you simply cant and wont contradict it , because it weakens and maybe destroys your arguments to do so . this is why you felt a need to come up with the supposition that he left the FRESH fibers on the  rifle weeks to months prior , anything to keep that brown shirt on Oswalds back .

it is very simple the fibers were fresh , not weeks or months old , but Stombaugh as with the other agents was not going to let the commission try to push them into being specific and try to give an exact time how long the fibers were there . just as they would not say any tippit bullet matched to the pistol . hence the commission had to get joe nichol in to save the day .if they were fresh fibers left on that rifle that day and Oswald never wore that brown shirt in work that day , well that is a problem . it means they got there in one of two ways , by accident (cross contamination ) or on purpose . if the fibers got there on purpose that then means we have to question the reliability of that evidence , that is the point . and if one item of evidence is suspect how do we know we can trust other evidence ? .

LN love certain words , one being consistent / CONSISTENT WITH . the fibers are CONSISTENT with the fibers from Oswalds shirt .the sun and the moon are consistent , both are round and bright in the sky . but they are very different . Stombaugh mentioned the color of fibers he looked at , he never mentioned BROWN , it was after all a brown shirt . so there should be brown fibers or color fibers that together make a shirt look brown YES ?  . i already posted some of pat speers work on this matter .

but as you admit you cant know with certainty certain things , neither can i . the difference being i am not claiming that which i cant prove is proof of anything .

there is that OVERWHELMING MOUNTAIN again lol , certainly evidence points to Oswald but as we can see here on this forum that evidence is not always quite what it appears to be .

[Fergus O'Brien]

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

and LN love to cite Markham as a witness to the Tippit shooting but they refuse to accept her estimate of the time (about 1.07)  that the shooting took place BASED upon her leaving home at her normal time to go and get her normal bus to work . a time estimate which is not inconsistent with Bowleys 1.10pm time . he saw tippit already down , looked at his watch , and noted the time was 1.10 pm . you are another who refuses to accept her time estimate .

you accept her testimony that she identified oswald .  but she told agent Odum (from  me memory) the killer was about 18 with dark hair . she told Aynesworth the killer was (again from memory) again bit chunky , bit short , slightly bushy hair . this is what prompted lane to speak to her . a conversation she first denied took place and she even denied her own voice . in addition she has the killer crossing 10th street , turning left and going to the corner of 10th and patton , then crossing the street again and coming face to face with her . NO OTHER WITNESS CLAIMED THIS . this either tells us that she was a screwball or that she saw a second man . the same woman who testified that she did not know ANYONE in the line up NOT A ONE , not by their face , not by their clothing . yet you stand by her identification of Oswald while you criticize martin . 

[Fergus O'Brien]

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?

"She is taking his questions literally.  She didn't "know" Oswald or "recognize" him.  She didn't have a clue who he was"

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.

Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.