Bill Brown

"I think it’s more likely that Oswald went straight to the Texas Theater, and was never at the Tippit crime scene. Butch Burroughs, a Texas Theater concessions employee for decades, told author Jim Marrs in 1987 that he sold Oswald popcorn right around 1:15 pm. Author Dale Myers challenged Burroughs, saying that he “told the Warren Commission that he didn’t see Oswald slip into the theater. He also didn’t mention selling popcorn to Oswald.” Myers missed the point. Ticket taker Julia Postal quoted Burroughs as saying “Well, I saw him coming out.”, presumably when Oswald bought the popcorn. Burroughs was never asked by the Warren Commission if he saw Oswald prior to the police hunt." Nonsense. The police asked Burroughs, while the search was going on inside the theater, if he had seen the guy and Burroughs told them that he had not. This would mean that Burroughs is lying a couple of decades later when he says he sold popcorn to the guy.

Completely unrelated to Herb Sawyer putting out the physical description over the police radio moments after talking to Howard Brennan.

Same goes for Markham giving the time of "six or seven minutes after one". First, conspiracy advocates like to automatically take that to mean she is saying she arrived at Tenth and Patton about six or seven minutes after one o'clock (save for her affidavit, which only adds to the confusion). But the truth is when you read her testimony, she could still be referring to the time she left her apartment (which was one block north of Tenth and Patton). In other words, we don't really know whether Markham is saying she left her apartment six or seven minutes after one or if she's saying she estimates she arrived at Tenth and Patton at six or seven minutes after one. When asked by Ball what time she left her apartment, she says it was at one. Then moments later, she adds "I believe it was a little after one". Anyway, my point... die hard conspiracy advocates like to use Markham when trying to show that Oswald couldn't have shot Tippit because he couldn't have arrived at the scene in time but then they totally dismiss her positive identification of Oswald as the cop-killer when she attended the lineup on the evening of 11.22.63.

Re: Markham's positive identification I believe Markham picked Oswald on the evening of 11.22.63. Period.

Sounds to me like you need to take much of the above up with Dale Myers.

Howard Brennan gave a description to Herb Sawyer, who then put it out over the police radio.

"So to Bill Brown, Markham’s testimony has zero bearing on the credibility of that identification. It doesn’t matter that she said was unsure multiple times, originally said she’d never seen any of the men, had to be led into answering that she picked the #2 man, and that her identification was based more on a “feeling” than actual visual memory. Is that an accurate assessment? Really? That’s a stone-cold reliable identification to you? Do you even believe some of the stuff you post here or are you just trolling? Honest question." Since you're asking... My opinion... In her testimony to Ball, she was obviously confused on what it was exactly that Ball was asking her. I feel that Ball asked her if she had seen any of the men (among the four in the lineup) before, as in had she seen any of them on Tenth Street. But, I feel Markham mistakenly believed Ball was asking her if she knew any of the four men at any point in time before 11.22.63. Now, obviously Ball was not asking her that but it's irrelevant to what she THOUGHT he was asking her. But, none of her confused testimony given many months later changes the fact that on 11.22.63, she positively identified Lee Oswald as the cop-killer. "Also I see you’ve taken a page out of your messiah Myers’ book and are refusing to share Burt’s interview transcript with Greg Doudna." Why do some of you guys continually make things up? Secondly, are you somehow working under the mistaken impression that Myers owes anyone around here copies of his interviews? Third, I have not refused to share the transcripts of the Burt interview with Greg Doudna. Not that I owe you an explanation, but Greg sent me a private message last week asking for the audio and/or transcripts of the Burt interview with Al Chapman. I was out of town for a week and I have the audio saved onto my laptop, which I did not have with me. I told myself that I would respond to Greg's inquiry once I returned home. In the meantime, I was posting here on the forum using my phone. Then, Greg made a smartass comment to me (apparently I hadn't replied to his private message in when he'd consider a timely manner?). I then told him that I thought he once told me that he had read the transcripts of the interview. He hasn't replied yet and that is where we currently stand. Why are you making this about Bill Brown, anyway? Move on. "What’s the actual reason you don’t want to share that information? Is it an ego thing, like it makes you feel better to know you have access to secret evidence that no one else is allowed to see - not even a copy-pasted direct quote - or are you afraid that Greg will call you out for being full of it?" Again, I haven't said I don't want to share the information with Greg. I assure you, I am not afraid of anything Greg or anyone else around here would have to say. As for being "full of it", that'd imply that I am lying about what Burt said in the interview. Is that what you are doing here? Or, are you just trolling? Honest question.

"The evidence also shows that he was not knowingly involved in the assassination, but was set up to become exactly what he stated he was after he was arrested and before he was conveniently silenced – a patsy." It's entirely amateurish to believe that Oswald was saying, during his "patsy" statement, that dark sinister forces were conspiring to frame him for the assassination. You have to take Oswald's statement in it's entirety (which most conspiracy advocates never do)... "They have taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy." "They" is very obviously the Dallas Police Department. Oswald is clearly (if you consider the statement in it's totality) saying that the Dallas Police are questioning him/charging him for no other reason than he lived in Russia.

Fascinating. Is it sharable?

"Markham’s testimony on the lineup has been ridiculed since the 60s, because it’s ridiculous" But, what you're forgetting is that you can set her 1964 testimony aside. It's completely unrelated to the fact that on 11.22.63, she picked Oswald as the man she saw shoot the policeman. Her testimony in '64 does nothing to change what she did on 11.22.63

"Keep in mind that Markham specifically testified that she had good eyesight and had never needed glasses." Okay. Markham said that the number two man (Oswald) was the man she saw shoot the policeman. Now what?

I'm not playing games and quite honestly, I don't owe you anything. Having said that, I thought you once told me that you've read the transcripts from that interview? Or, am I thinking of someone else?

"I tried that this morning even though my car, as all other modern vehicles, doesn’t have vents. I didn’t have a problem keeping my balance." Are ya sure? Some here would have everyone think it would be almost impossible to do.

"Where did Jimmy Burt say that? Reference, quote?" In the 1968 interview with Al Chapman, Burt said Tippit reached over and rolled his window down. Of course, we know the window was up when seen in the crime scene photos. If Burt was wrong about Tippit physically reaching over and rolling the window down., then why can't Burt also be wrong about the killer physically placing his hands on the patrol car? Why is automatic that the killer placed his hands on the car? The answer is that is NOT automatic that the killer physically placed his hands on the car.

Oh boy. Do you not understand the difference between leaning on the car and placing your hands on the car? My point, which I was very clear about, is that the killer could have indeed leaned on the car (forearms, elbows) and Markham made the mistaken assumption that the killer placed his hands on the car. Incidentally, Jack Tatum drove by the scene and said the killer had his hands in his jacket pockets as he leaned forward to talk to Tippit.

"Coming on to the intersection of Neely and North Beckley. He said this will do fine. I pulled over to the curb. The fare was 95 cents. He handed me a dollar bill and got out." -- William Whaley (Four Days In November documentary)

"Two of the witnesses who observed the killer talking to Tippit that way directly said the killer's arms (Markham) or hands (Jimmy Burt) were on that front passenger door touching." Burt also said Tippit reached over and rolled down the passenger window. That didn't happen though, unless you believe Tippit rolled the window back up before getting out. So, what now? If Burt is wrong about that, then why can't he be wrong about the killer placing his hands on the car?

Look. It's real simple. Two partial prints were lifted from the patrol car. One from the passenger front door. The other from the right front fender just above the tire. The prints most likely belong to the same person. Who said the killer touched the right front fender just above the tire?

"Even without the witnesses, the Tippit killer is still by far the most likely candidate to have left those prints. The prints were left by a single individual, and lifted from the exact two positions where the killer had been observed literally twenty minutes earlier right next to the patrol car." No. Other than the prints lifted from the passenger front door, who said the killer touched the patrol car near the front passenger fender just above the tire?

Great question; one that I've discussed here many times. No. We don't know that for sure at all. Helen Markham said the killer placed his hands on the car but there is no way she could see that from her position. She made an assumption, a natural one to make, though incorrect. Jimmy Burt said the killer touched the car but he was about 300 feet east of the scene.

"Why did he pull over Andrews and look in the back of the car? Why did he have to make that call at the record store and then run out?" Why do you automatically believe stories that came out of the woodwork decades later? The Top Ten story came out in 1981 and the Andrews story didn't come out until the very early 1990's. Why did these people wait so long to tell their stories?

There is nothing to suggest that the prints MUST have been left by the killer. Partial prints lifted from the patrol car that don't belong to Oswald does not in any way create reasonable doubt about Oswald's guilt. To do so, you'd have to show that the prints MUST belong to the killer. Are you even aware of where the partial prints were found on the car? No witness describes the killer touching the car in a location where one of the two prints were lifted from. If the prints were left by the same person, then this would rule out the killer as the one responsible for leaving the prints.

Thanks Gerry. Much appreciated, Buddy.

"Mr. Brown failed to respond when I asked him why the dictabelt indicates that Ted Callaway made a second citizen call for help AFTER the ambulance had already arrived." I wasn't aware that this really required a response. "I went on up to the squad car and saw the police officer lying in the street. I see he had been shot in the head. So the first thing I did, I ran over to the squad car. I didn't know whether anybody reported it or not. So I got on the police radio and called them, and told them a man had been shot, told them the location, I thought the officer was dead. They said we know about it, stay off the air, so I went back." -- Ted Callaway (Warren Commission testimony)

Oswald gave Whaley the destination of 500 N. Beckley. Once they approached the 700 block (Beckley and Neely), Oswald told Whaley that this would do just fine. Whaley pulled over just north of the corner and Oswald got out.