Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Gary Craig]

Once the confusion was settled, Markham said this...

"Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman."

She said she didn't recognize anyone in the line up. She had to be coached/led almost word for word.

That coaching would not have been allowed in a court of law. The kangaroo WC is another story.

       "At this point counsel, a teacher of criminal law and procedure at the University of Southern California and a member of the U.S. Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, asked a rather leading question. Mrs. Markham said that she recognized no one at the lineup; counsel tried five times for a more acceptable answer. Then, departing a little from the legal procedure he teaches, he next asked his friendly but disconcerting witness, "Was there a number two man in there?" Mrs. Markham replied, "Number two is the one I picked." Counsel began another question: "I thought you just told me that you hadn't, but Mrs. Markham interrupted to answer inexplicably, "I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing."

[Gary Craig]

No.  It could easily be argued that each of the Davis girls and Scoggins got better looks at the killer than did Benavides.

Barbara Davis:  Picked Oswald out of a lineup.

Virginia Davis:  Picked Oswald out of a lineup.

William Scoggins:  Picked Oswald out of a lineup.

Domingo Benavides:  Decided that he did not get a good enough look at the killer to attend a lineup.


Duh.

"Domingo Benavides:  Decided that he did not get a good enough look at the killer to attend a lineup."

Some how I don't really think that's the reason he missed the Ozzie line ups.

LOL

Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.

Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........

[Gary Craig]

You're not too bright, are you?

The two Davis shells were linked, through ballistics, to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of any other weapon.  The chain of possession for these two shells is clear and perfectly intact.

Any issue (if there are any) with the chain of possession of the two Poe shells does not change the fact that the two Davis shells convict Oswald.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0242b.htm

Mr. Eisenberg: Now, you said that there were three bullets of Winchester-Western manufacture, those are 602,603, and 605 and one bullet of R.-P. manufacture.
Mr. Cunningham: That is correct.
Mr. Eisenberg: However, as to the cartridge cases, Exhibit 594, you told us there were two R.-P. cartridge cases and two Winchester-Western cartridge cases.
Mr. Cunningham: That is correct.
Mr. Eisenberg: So that the recovered cartridge cases, there is one more recovered R.-P. cartridge case than there was recovered bullet?
Mr. Cunningham: Yes
Mr. Eisenberg: And as to the bullets, there is one more recovered Winchester-Western bullet than there is Winchester-Western cartridges?
Mr. Cunningham: That is correct.
Mr. Eisenberg: How would you account for that?
Mr. Cunningham: The possibility exits that one bullet is missing. Also, they may not have found one of the cartridges.
Representative Boggs: Are you able to match the bullet with the cartridge case?
Mr. Cunningham: It is not possible.
Representative Boggs: So that while you can establish the fact that the cartridge case, the four that we have, were fired in that gun---
Mr. Cunningham: Yes Sir.
Representative Boggs: You cannot establish the fact that the bullets were fired in that gun?
Mr. Cunningham: That is correct.
Representative Boggs: And you cannot--having the cartridge case and the bullet--you cannot match them up?
Mr. Cunningham: No, you can't.

---------------

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, were you able to determine whether those bullets have been fired in this weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; I was not.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
First of all, Commission Exhibit No. 602 was too mutilated. There were not sufficient microscopic marks remaining on the surface of this bullet, due to the mutilation, to determine whether or not it had been fired from this weapon.

[Gary Craig]

So what?  Is fifty-six feet supposed to be some great, insurmountable distance?  Lame.

Any golfer realizes that a distance less than nineteen yards is no great distance at all.

Domingo Benavides was directly across the street from Tippit's squad car (within 15 ft) when the shots

were fired. He said he got a really good look at the shooter.

Calloway saw a man running from a distance of 56 feet and farther.

Yet Calloway is the better witness to ID Tippit's killer? 

 LOL

[Bill Brown]

Domingo Benavides was directly across the street from Tippit's squad car (within 15 ft) when the shots

were fired. He said he got a really good look at the shooter.

Calloway saw a man running from a distance of 56 feet and farther.

Yet Calloway is the better witness to ID Tippit's killer? 

 LOL

Straw man.

Why are you so easily confused?

I didn't include Callaway in the Domingo Benavides list.  I said each of the Davis sisters and Scoggins.  Go back and read it again.  Good grief.

[Walt Cakebread]

I read the crap by conspiracy types, mindful it?s now 55 years after the event and what stands out is, their arguments HAVE NOT CHANGED in 55 years. That?s remarkable. They still choose (it?s still a choice) to live in a world where suspicion becomes fact, lack of facts becomes evidence of a conspiratorial cover up and actual proof to the contrary is dismissed as disinformation. It begs the question have these lunatics done even a cursory investigation of the facts?  The answer to that is yes, they have examined the facts but in their distorted world view of how historical events happen, actual facts mean little to nothing. Their individual ideology means more than FACTS.  Frightening concept, don?t you think? Nobody should be surprised they cannot prove their personal conspiracy let alone any conspiracy. The question should no longer be did LHO shoot JFK and Tippit.  That?s proven to reasonable people. I?ve said it before, there may have been a conspiracy but it cannot be proven now or ever.  That too is a fact.

I read the crap by conspiracy types, mindful it?s now 55 years after the event and what stands out is, their arguments HAVE NOT CHANGED in 55 years.

Mr May...I believe that you have your head in a most unnatural place......   The CT  contingent's arguments have changed with the passage of time.    Gone are the shrill silly cries of outrageous theories that were introduced as theories of wacko conspiracy theorists when in reality the theories were the work of LNer's posing as CT's to lend credence to the cries of the government's shills, that all CT's are a bunch of wackos.

The CT who post on this forum are intelligent and present reasonable alternatives to the official US government tale.

[Martin Weidmann]

All this thread shows is that Bill Brown is nothing more than a WC propagandist.

Bill Brown believes things that witnesses said 30 years later, except for those times when he doesn't.

So true... the alleged Scoggins quote isn't even directly from Scoggins....

Instead it is something that Jim Leavelle claimed to have remembered verbatim after several decades and told to Dale Myers.

It illustrates precisely how desperate Brown is to make his case and why he is such a waste of time to talk to!

[Matt Grantham]

What evidence would that be?

Butch Burroughs