Bill Brown

This interview with Markham was for the Sept. 27, 1964 broadcast of "November 22, 1963: The Warren Report" (CBS). Yes, it has been there all along, nothing new here. Markham says: "He wasn't a very big man. He was short - kind of short - so, as I can remember." What she does NOT say is he was short, kind of short, sort of a fat(?) man, as incorrectly attributed to her by Greg Doudna. Therefore, Markham's description does NOT rule out Oswald, since she doesn't use the word fat. We also know that her description doesn't rule out Oswald because she positively identified Oswald (the #2 man) during a police lineup a couple hours after the shooting. "Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman." - Helen Markham (Warren Commission testimony) Markham was absolutely positive that the man she saw shoot Tippit was Lee Oswald when she said this (also from her testimony to the Warren Commission): "When we looked at each other, he just stared, just like that. I just don't know. I just seen him, I would know the man anywhere, I know I would." As for the partial fingerprints lifted from the driver's side door, this entire thing is foolish. It does not take a Lieutenant Columbo to understand that Markham was standing about 150 feet west of the patrol car and on the other side of the street, i.e. the other side of the car from where Oswald was. All it takes is a basic understanding of the Tippit case. From her position across the street and 150 feet west of the car, there is no way she could see whether or not Oswald touched the door. All she could determine was that Oswald walked over to the car and leaned down to talk to Tippit. Jack Tatum drove by at about this same instant, saw Oswald from ten to fifteen feet away and said Oswald had his hands in his jacket pockets and he was leaning down to talk to Tippit. Maybe part of the problem here is that some of you are completely unaware of where Markham was standing in relation to the stopped patrol car. This is simple stuff as long as one doesn't choose to jump through hoops in an effort to make it difficult. There is no way Markham can be relied upon as a witness to whether or not the killer touched the passenger side door. We know this because she incorrectly said: "The window was down, and I know it was down, I know, and he put his arms and leaned over." The problem here is that window was NOT down during the conversation between Tippit and Oswald, unless one wants to believe that Tippit rolled the window up before getting out of the car, which would be complete nonsense. Crime scene photos show the window clearly rolled up. In addition to Markham, earlier in this thread, Greg Doudna relied on Jimmy Burt as a witness to Tippit's killer touching the passenger door of the patrol car. This is also faulty. First, Jimmy Burt was about 300 feet east of the stopped patrol car. Second, and perhaps more importantly, Burt also said that Tippit, siting in the driver seat, "reached over and rolled the window down". Since the window was NOT down, Burt is making a mistaken assumption (as was Markham). Since we know Burt was making a mistaken assumption regarding Tippit reaching over and rolling the window down, then why can't Burt be making another mistaken assumption when he said the killer placed his hands on the car? This statement by Burt is proof that he cannot be relied upon as to whether or not the killer touched the car. Again, crime scene photos show the window rolled up. Markham and Burt saw Tippit's killer walk over to the passenger side of the patrol car and lean down to talk to Tippit through the opened tiny vent window. Is it really all that unreasonable for both to later make the simple but yet mistaken assumption that the killer actually touched the car? Of course not. Sometimes you see an event unfold without seeing the complete picture. Your mind then fills in the blanks; a perfectly natural thing to do.

"If you are questioning that a .38 Smith & Wesson in a paper bag tossed into a street at night is a suspected murder weapon disposal from a gangland or contract murder, I can hardly believe you are serious." Who says it's a murder weapon? You? Please list a murder in the Dallas area which ballistic evidence ties this weapon to. "Its a murder weapon disposal hours after the Tippit murder..." Who, other than you, says it was a murder weapon? "The most plausible candidate for who tossed that paper-bag revolver, from timing and route logistics, by coincidence is none other than the leading non-Oswald suspect for the Tippit murder." Nonsense. Any one in that part of Dallas could have tossed that paper bag at any time before it was found. "The tossing into a city street near the Carousel Club..." Near the carousel club? What characteristics are you using to determine what is "near" anywhere? I know how far away this bag was found from the Carousel Club. Do you? "...is consistent with that suspect having no car of his own and being a passenger sitting in the back seat of Ruby's car driving from the Carousel Club at ca 5 am Nov 23 toward the Stemmons Freeway." How is a paper bag containing a revolver and found in the street up against the curb "consistent" with any of the above? Explain. A paper bag containing a revolver found on the ground must be tossed out of the backseat of a car by someone in the backseat because he has no car of his own? I don't understand how you're making these leaps. It certainly isn't based on a shred of evidence. "I would like a straight answer from you to this last question above, with explanation as to why in your answer." If I were on the jury, I would vote Oswald guilty based on the eyewitness positive identifications along with the ballistic evidence linking the shells found at the scene to the revolver taken from Oswald when he was arrested. The shells found at the Tippit murder scene didn't come from the revolver found in a paper bag near downtown Dallas because the shells have been proven (through ballistic testing) to have come from Oswald's revolver. When fired, the revolver puts a distinct marking (a "fingerprint") on the shell. The shell casing is up against the breech face and the firing pin. The bullet is fired when the hammer makes contact with the primer. When this happens, the shell is thrown back against the breech face. This action is what places the "fingerprint" onto the base of the shell casing (marks which match the breech face to the shell casing). The marks on the breech face matching the marks on the shell casing is what is what proves that the shell casing was fired from that specific weapon, to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world. Joseph Nicol (Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification & Investigation for the State of Illinois) Cortlandt Cunningham, Robert Frazier, Charles Killion (all three of the Firearms Identification Unit of the FBI Laboratory in Washington D.C.) These four experts each examined the shell casings found at the scene at Tenth and Patton as well as Oswald's revolver (taken from him upon his apprehension at the theater). Using this manner of ballistic testing, these investigators, independent of each other, determined that the shells were linked to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world. For those who haven't yet, get a copy and actually read With Malice by Dale Myers.

"Burt said he saw the killer's hands touching but Burt is not the argument." So I am clear, you're no longer relying on Jimmy Burt as evidence that the killer touched the patrol car? You were before and I'm just trying to follow. "Here is what is strong: the first-day interview of witness Helen Markham by FBI agent Barrett, in which Helen Markham says she saw the killer of Tippit with his face right up to the glass of the Tippit patrol car right where the unidentified fingerprints were lifted twenty minutes after Helen Markham saw this, and told this the same afternoon..." But nothing from that first day statement to Barrett about the killer actually touching the patrol car. It wouldn't matter anyway, since she was about 150 feet away and on the other side of the car. "Twenty minutes later, after officer Tippit was shot dead by that man, a Dallas Police officer lifted fingerprints from the top of that right front door." Surely, you're aware that the crime scene was unsecured for at least ten minutes. Tippit's service revolver was handled by at least two witnesses on the scene. Anyone could have touched the patrol car. Sadly, the partial prints lifted by Barnes are not evidence of anything. "Especially if that jury or that public were also allowed to know of the paper-bag revolver, the disposal of a murder weapon of the kind used to kill Tippit..." Help me understand how this "paper bag revolver" has now been upgraded to the class of "murder weapon". Thanks Again, Oswald was arrested in the theater with the revolver on him which was linked (through ballistic testing) to the shells found at the scene to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world. Thirteen witnesses saw the man either shoot Tippit or run from the scene with a gun in his hands. Nine of these witnesses said the man was Lee Oswald. Four of the witnesses weren't sure one way or the other. Zero out of the thirteen said the man was not Oswald.

"I don’t know. On present information, not unequivocally, even though what he says he saw sounds plausible." I only ask because you strongly rely on Burt when trying to show that the killer indeed had his hands on the car. So which is it? "You’re not going to discuss Acquilla further? It is now dawning on me why you consistently attacked my known Callaway/gunman interaction exchange episode as what Acquilla was describing having witnessed, while resolutely refusing to say your own alternative interpretation of what she saw. It’s because you don’t think she saw the gunman at all? That she made it up? Is that correct?" First, again, the exchange between Callaway and the cop-killer took place much too far down Patton for Clemons to have heard any of it. Second, what I do know for sure is that she said nothing in an official capacity and that is why I discount her. First Day Evidence, ya know?

So do you find Jimmy Burt's description of what happened at the patrol car to be credible or no?

Nope.

The Commission called Lee Bowers, Sam Holland, Frank Reilly, Arnold Rowland, Sylvia Odio and many others who's testimony contradicted what ended up being the Commission's conclusion.

I'm aware of that. King sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

The book is fiction, it involves time travel for cripes' sake. Get over yourselves.

You realize that a man can't really walk into a back room in a diner and travel back to 1958. Right?

I've never been totally convinced that Clemons saw the killer as he was making his escape. However, to include her is to also include Jack Tatum, who undoubtedly said the guy was Oswald. Fair enough?

"I think research arguing there were two, not one, headshots close together that killed JFK is arguably the most important development in recent memory. If proven, by itself it would blow up the WR. Tink Thompson, Gary Aguilar and Bill Simpich made the two shot argument at the Duquesne conference last month, meticulously going through the Zapruder film frame by frame to identify each shot." Interesting. Let's discuss. "Problem is, the Zapruder film was altered..." Never mind.

Greg Doudna asked: "But back to Benavides. Why Benavides but not Acquilla Clemons?" My simple answer is that though she was interviewed by amateur sleuths in the summer of '64 (Salandria, Martin and the Nashes), there is nothing in an official capacity.

By the way, Greg... I wonder if you could clear something up for me. Earlier in this thread, while you and I were discussing the partial prints lifted from the car by Barnes, I stated that Jimmy Burt (over 300 feet away and on the other side of the street) is not credible, regarding whether or not the killer touched the patrol car. I asked you if you agreed with me or if you feel Burt is credible, re: whether or not the killer touched the car. Do you feel Burt is credible when he discusses what happened down at the patrol car even though he was over 300 feet away?

Bill Smith and Domingo Benavides aren't after the fact. They both testified to the Warren Commission. Clemons did not. The FBI was completely unaware of Clemons until after the Warren Report was released. Clemons was visited by Vincent Salandria, Shirley Martin, as well as George & Patricia Nash in the summer of '64. Martin's recorded interview with Clemons proved that Lane was telling porky pies, regarding a mysterious 2nd female witness to the Tippit murder. Because Smith and Benavides testified to the Warren Commission and Clemons refused/was reluctant, it is faulty to place Clemons in the same category of witnesses as Smith, Benavides, Burt, Markham, B. Davis, V. Davis, Scoggins, Guinyard, Callaway, Reynolds, Patterson, Russell and Lewis.

Oversight? LOL You're a cute kid. I don't include Acquilla Clemons because she's after the fact. It's the same reason I don't include Jack Tatum (who would only help my case).

I am bumping this because a lot of the mistakes that I pointed out in the original post have not been dealt with by the author of those mistakes.

Thanks Greg. Let it stand, as I've clearly stated over and over, that none of the REAL witnesses said the man was NOT Oswald.

"FBI, which has some of the best expertise in the nation on fingerprints, never bothered with, no record ever was asked, to run the Tippit patrol car fingerprints." The prints lifted by Barnes were only partial prints. Because of this, they were of no value in determining who they belonged to.

"I think Craford post-Nov 22 intentionally bought another jacket as closely similar to the one he abandoned in Oak Cliff as he could find, in order to distance suspicion from himself as having left C162 in that parking lot of Ballew's Texaco after killing Tippit." So then you believe that Crafard was also wearing a shirt in which the shirt fibers were an exact match with test fibers removed from Oswald's arrest shirt? For those who may be unaware, microscopic fibers were found inside one of the sleeves of the jacket found underneath one of the cars behind the Texaco station. Test fibers were removed from the shirt Oswald was wearing when he was arrested inside the theater. When comparing fibers forensically, one does so using three fiber characteristics... Color, shade and twist. The fibers found inside the sleeve of the jacket (CE-162) were a match to the test fibers removed from Oswald's arrest shirt, i.e. the exact same color, the exact same shade and the exact same twist. Incidentally, a tuft of fibers were also found in a crevice between the metal butt plate and the wooden stock of the rifle (CE-139) found up on the sixth floor. These rifle fibers were also compared to the test fibers removed from Oswald's arrest shirt. Yep. Exact same color, shade and twist.

"Minor point, you err in saying none of the witnesses said the gunman was not Oswald. Jimmy Burt said so emphatically several years later in a tabloid." No Sir. I did not err at all. I have both the transcripts and the audio of the 1968 Al Chapman interview with Jimmy Burt for the National Enquirer. Although Chapman claims in his article that Burt said the man was not Oswald, the fact is that Burt didn't say it at all. Chapman did not include the transcripts in the article. I wonder why... Not really.

"Scoggins identified Oswald out of a lineup. But when he was shown photos by police he said he picked the "wrong" police photo. (Bill, do you know whose photo Scoggins picked who he got "wrong", ie other than Oswald?)" I wish I could help ya, Greg. But no, I sure don't know. The important thing here is that Scoggins told Jim Leavelle that the guy (Oswald) can bitch and holler all he wants, but that is the guy he saw running from the scene. (Dale Myers interview with Jim Leavelle)

"She herself said she covered her face with her hands and did not look when the killer left the patrol car and came west in what looked like her direction." No. Markham describes covering her eyes momentarily. Then, she spread apart her fingers and looked at the killer and he looked at her. This is almost a direct quote, Greg.

"Innocence Project exonerations in which persons convicted by juries of serious crimes such as murder, subsequently proven innocent by DNA testing, sometimes decades later, involve positive eyewitness identifications as part of the evidence which wrongly convicted those innocent persons in over half the cases." So because sometimes a suspect can be wrongly convicted means all suspects are wrongly convicted? Come on, now. A thousand men can be wrongly convicted but that doesn't mean that man #1001 is innocent.

"The reason the 9 who said the killer was Oswald and not Craford is not determinative is because Craford was never offered to those witnesses's awareness as a choice between Oswald or Craford. Craford was not in those lineups. Craford's photo was not, to my knowledge, shown to any of those witnesses (do you know differently on that?). Oswald in those lineups stood among others who did not look like him or Craford. Picking Oswald would be an easy mistake for a witness to make in that context, because we know witnesses did make exactly that identification mistake." That's not how it works. The nine witnesses said the man was Oswald because they felt the man they saw was Oswald. That Crafard was not in the lineups doesn't change the fact that the witnesses believed the man they saw was Oswald. If the man they saw was Crafard, then maybe one or two of them may have chose Oswald (in a lineup with no Crafard) but what do you think the odds are that nine out of nine would pick the wrong guy? Yes, Oswald stood out from the others alongside him. But witnesses are allowed to say that none of the men in the lineup resemble the man they saw. However, that's not what happened. They picked Oswald because they felt strongly enough that Oswald was the guy they saw. You're acting like the witnesses were forced to pick the man who most resembled the man they saw, even if the man they saw was not among those in the lineup before them. That's not the case, though.