T.F. Bowley, A Wind-Up Wristwatch & 1:17

[Greg Doudna]

35 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"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?

Where did Jimmy Burt say that? Reference, quote?

Incidentally, I tried to message you privately on this site seeking access to the Jimmy Burt Chapman interview, you didn't reply. Did you get that?

[Gerry Down]

4 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

“Confirmed” is a bit of a stretch. Myers especially isn’t exactly captain objectivity, to put it mildly. 

All it could take to exonerate Oswald is a confirmed ID of the fingerprints on the cruiser. Those prints alone would’ve probably got Oswald acquitted on the Tippit murder. 

No matter how you swing it the Tippit killer is by far the most likely candidate to have left those prints, and we know for sure the prints were not left by Oswald.

It’s hard to find a more reasonable doubt than that: hard forensic evidence that the killer - who was witnessed physically touching the car in the exact location where prints were lifted twenty minutes later - was not Lee Harvey Oswald. 

Well, "concluded" would have been a better word.

[Gerry Down]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I agree Tom, this Down guy has really come out of the closet of late.

Another WC zealot.

No, I don't support the WCRs conclusion, nor that or Posner's or Bugliosi's books. 

[Tom Gram]

8 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

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

You’re still repeating this obvious falsehood? Are you legally blind, cause that’s the only way someone would not have been able to see if the killer was leaning on the car from Markham’s position. This is clearly illustrated in CE525, a photo taken from Markham’s position. 

As I say in the thread linked below, I encourage everyone to look at CE525 and say with a straight face that you couldn’t tell if someone was leaning down and resting their hands on the window ledge from that spot. Keep in mind it was broad daylight. 

 

[Bill Brown]

7 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

You’re still repeating this obvious falsehood? Are you legally blind, cause that’s the only way someone would not have been able to see if the killer was leaning on the car from Markham’s position. This is clearly illustrated in CE525, a photo taken from Markham’s position. 

As I say in the thread linked below, I encourage everyone to look at CE525 and say with a straight face that you couldn’t tell if someone was leaning down and resting their hands on the window ledge from that spot. Keep in mind it was broad daylight. 

 

 

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.

 

Edited April 16 by Bill Brown

[Bill Brown]

14 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Where did Jimmy Burt say that? Reference, quote?

Incidentally, I tried to message you privately on this site seeking access to the Jimmy Burt Chapman interview, you didn't reply. Did you get that?

 

"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.

 

[Kevin Balch]

15 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Nobody disputes the killer was leaning down in to speak to Tippit through that front vent window, sort of hard to do so without resting hands on the car. Try to replicate that, lean down to talk through a cracked-open passenger vent window so that the driver can hear clearly ... without resting against the car for balance, or positioning one's hands for balance as one puts one's face near the glass to speak through the vent. 

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. I could see where someone very tall, heavy or old might have difficulty. But Oswald was none of these. The Tatum claim that he had his hands in his pockets makes sense if he thought he might need his handgun in a hurry as well as to prevent Tippit from detecting the outline of a gun in the pocket. Someone being questioned by a cop might be inclined to be respectful to catch a break by not leaning on the car. On the other hand, if the Tippit killing was pre-arranged, the killer would likely be careful about not leaving fingerprints.

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"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.

You are playing games, citing evidence inaccessible to anyone, and not lifting a finger to make it available and can’t be bothered even to make a civil private reply to my private inquiry.

If you are going to cite evidence you keep hidden in your vest pocket that no one else is allowed to see, I am asking for an exact quote (with any sentence or so relevant surrounding context exact quote too). 

I am not saying you’ve misremembered or are paraphrasing wrong. I just like to verify fact claims I’ve never heard before. I check footnotes, and you’re not giving one that can be checked; why?

Are you more interested in winning arguments by withholding access to secret evidence, than in discussion where both sides may learn something from one another? 

[Greg Doudna]

Ps Bill, if Jimmy Burt said he saw Tippit roll down the front passenger window (maybe partway?), I think Burt may have been only a car length away and therefore that witness claim is of interest. I would not automatically assume it was wrong. In that case I could imagine Tippit normally driving with that window up, lowering it partway to be able to hear what the man flagging him down wanted to tell or ask him, then rolling it back up the partway again before getting out of the vehicle on the drivers side. 

It would be plausible behavior it seems to me. I just was not aware until your mention that Jimmy Burt had claimed to witness that if what you say is right.

[Bill Brown]

6 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

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. I could see where someone very tall, heavy or old might have difficulty. But Oswald was none of these. The Tatum claim that he had his hands in his pockets makes sense if he thought he might need his handgun in a hurry as well as to prevent Tippit from detecting the outline of a gun in the pocket. Someone being questioned by a cop might be inclined to be respectful to catch a break by not leaning on the car. On the other hand, if the Tippit killing was pre-arranged, the killer would likely be careful about not leaving fingerprints.

 

"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.

 

[Bill Brown]

5 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

You are playing games, citing evidence inaccessible to anyone, and not lifting a finger to make it available and can’t be bothered even to make a civil private reply to my private inquiry.

If you are going to cite evidence you keep hidden in your vest pocket that no one else is allowed to see, I am asking for an exact quote (with any sentence or so relevant surrounding context exact quote too). 

I am not saying you’ve misremembered or are paraphrasing wrong. I just like to verify fact claims I’ve never heard before. I check footnotes, and you’re not giving one that can be checked; why?

Are you more interested in winning arguments by withholding access to secret evidence, than in discussion where both sides may learn something from one another? 

 

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?

 

[Tom Gram]

14 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Ps Bill, if Jimmy Burt said he saw Tippit roll down the front passenger window (maybe partway?), I think Burt may have been only a car length away and therefore that witness claim is of interest. I would not automatically assume it was wrong. In that case I could imagine Tippit normally driving with that window up, lowering it partway to be able to hear what the man flagging him down wanted to tell or ask him, then rolling it back up the partway again before getting out of the vehicle on the drivers side. 

It would be plausible behavior it seems to me. I just was not aware until your mention that Jimmy Burt had claimed to witness that if what you say is right.

Markham told Mark Lane she saw the same thing: 

Mr. LANE. You saw it stop and then Oswald or this gentleman, whoever it was, walked over to the car?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir; he walked over to the car.
"Mr. LANE. You didn't see the officer call him over, though, did you?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. He rolled down the window.
"Mr. LANE. He did what?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. He rolled down his window.
"Mr. LANE. The officer rolled down the window?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; uh-huh.
"Mr. LANE. Of course, you didn't put that in your affidavit.
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Sir?
"Mr. LANE. That was not in your affidavit.
"Mrs. MARKHAM. It should have been.

Her WC testimony is not as convincing on that point: 

Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes. The window was down, and I know it was down, I know, and he put his arms and leaned over, I don't know what they were talking about, I didn't hear it. Then he stepped back in a few minutes, stepped back two steps. 

I agree though overall. Bill’s notion that the crime scene photos eliminate any possible chance of Tippit leaning over and rolling down the window is completely ridiculous. I do think it’s more likely that Tippit just leaned over to open the vent, but it’s hardly impossible that Tippit rolled the window down to talk to the killer and back up after. 

On the fingerprints, it’s a lot easier to tell what Markham testified to by seeing it on video in the 1964 CBS interview you posted a while back: 

Note that she says “and he leaned over like this” when doing the gesture to show the killer’s hands on the window ledge. Here is the same exchange in her WC testimony:

Mrs. MARKHAM. That is right. And the man went over to the car, put his hands on the window-- 
Mr. DULLES. The window was open? 
Mrs. MARKHAM. Leaned over like this. 
Mr. DULLES. Let me see. Was that on the right-hand side of the car, or where the driver was? 
Mrs. MARKHAM. It was on the opposite side of the car. 
Mr. DULLES. Opposite side of the car from the driver, yes. 

That’s pretty damn specific. Who (besides Bill) thinks Markham wouldn’t have been able to see someone doing that from her position? Keep in mind that Markham specifically testified that she had good eyesight and had never needed glasses. 

I’d like to see a reenactment of that whole scene from Markham’s position. 

Edited April 17 by Tom Gram

[Bill Brown]

10 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Markham told Mark Lane she saw the same thing: 

Mr. LANE. You saw it stop and then Oswald or this gentleman, whoever it was, walked over to the car?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir; he walked over to the car.
"Mr. LANE. You didn't see the officer call him over, though, did you?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. He rolled down the window.
"Mr. LANE. He did what?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. He rolled down his window.
"Mr. LANE. The officer rolled down the window?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; uh-huh.
"Mr. LANE. Of course, you didn't put that in your affidavit.
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Sir?
"Mr. LANE. That was not in your affidavit.
"Mrs. MARKHAM. It should have been.

Here WC testimony is not as convincing on that point: 

Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes. The window was down, and I know it was down, I know, and he put his arms and leaned over, I don't know what they were talking about, I didn't hear it. Then he stepped back in a few minutes, stepped back two steps. 

I agree though overall. Bill’s notion that the crime scene photos eliminate any possible chance of Tippit leaning over and rolling down the window is completely ridiculous. I do think it’s more likely that Tippit just leaned over to open the vent, but it’s hardly impossible that Tippit rolled the window down to talk to the killer and back up after. 

On the window, it’s a lot easier to tell what Markham testified to by seeing it on video in the 1964 CBS interview you posted a while back: 

Note that she says “and he leaned over like this” when doing the gesture to show the killer’s hands on the window ledge. Here is the same exchange in her WC testimony:

Mrs. MARKHAM. That is right. And the man went over to the car, put his hands on the window-- 
Mr. DULLES. The window was open? 
Mrs. MARKHAM. Leaned over like this. 
Mr. DULLES. Let me see. Was that on the right-hand side of the car, or where the driver was? 
Mrs. MARKHAM. It was on the opposite side of the car. 
Mr. DULLES. Opposite side of the car from the driver, yes. 

That’s pretty damn specific. Who (besides Bill) thinks Markham wouldn’t have been able to see someone doing that from her position? Keep in mind that Markham specifically testified that she had good eyesight and had never needed glasses. 

I’d like to see a reenactment of that whole scene from Markham’s position. 

 

"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?

 

[Tom Gram]

9 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"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?

 

Markham’s testimony on the lineup has been ridiculed since the 60s, because it’s ridiculous.

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. 
Mr. BALL. What did you say when you saw number two? 
Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, let me tell you. I said the second man, and they kept asking me which one, which one. I said, number two. When I said number two, I just got weak. 
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. 
Mr. BALL. You recognized him from his appearance? 
Mrs. MARKHAM. I asked--I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me. 
Mr. BALL. When you saw him? 
Mrs. MARKHAM. When I saw the man. But I wasn't sure, so, you see, I told them I wanted to be sure, and looked, at his face is what I was looking at, mostly is what I looked at, on account of his eyes, the way he looked at me. So I asked them if they would turn him sideways. They did, and then they turned him back around, and I said the second, and they said, which one, and I said number two. So when I said that, well, I just kind of fell over. Everybody in there, you know, was beginning to talk, and I don't know, just-- 

Not exactly confidence inspiring.

Still though, what’s easier, facial recognition from a distance of a generic looking white guy, or seeing if someone is leaning over and resting their hands on something? 

[Bill Brown]

4 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Markham’s testimony on the lineup has been ridiculed since the 60s, because it’s ridiculous.

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. 
Mr. BALL. What did you say when you saw number two? 
Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, let me tell you. I said the second man, and they kept asking me which one, which one. I said, number two. When I said number two, I just got weak. 
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. 
Mr. BALL. You recognized him from his appearance? 
Mrs. MARKHAM. I asked--I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me. 
Mr. BALL. When you saw him? 
Mrs. MARKHAM. When I saw the man. But I wasn't sure, so, you see, I told them I wanted to be sure, and looked, at his face is what I was looking at, mostly is what I looked at, on account of his eyes, the way he looked at me. So I asked them if they would turn him sideways. They did, and then they turned him back around, and I said the second, and they said, which one, and I said number two. So when I said that, well, I just kind of fell over. Everybody in there, you know, was beginning to talk, and I don't know, just-- 

Not exactly confidence inspiring.

Still though, what’s easier, facial recognition from a distance of a generic looking white guy, or seeing if someone is leaning over and resting their hands on something? 

 

"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