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

[Tom Gram]

27 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"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

 

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. 

That’s without even getting into the integrity of the lineups. 

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? 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?

I’m pretty sure most people who claim to engage in research don’t share evidence with other researchers only when they feel they “owe” them something. Peer review exists for a reason. 

[Bill Brown]

3 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

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. 

That’s without even getting into the integrity of the lineups. 

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? 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?

I’m pretty sure most people who claim to engage in research don’t share evidence with other researchers only when they feel they “owe” them something. Peer review exists for a reason. 

 

"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.

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"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.

You’re still on this moronic “owing” thing with yourself and Myers. Peer review exists for a reason Bill. 

As has been proven time and time again throughout history, many reporters leave out important context from interviews, especially if their goal is to push a certain narrative e.g Dale Myers. 

I bet someone could write an entire book on Myers’ omissions if he ever had the courage to expose his work to real scrutiny, but I’m not going to hold my breath. 

So no, I’m not implying that you’re lying, nor am I trolling. I just think this anti-transparent egotistical attitude towards research on an important historical topic is a joke.

Both sides are guilty of doing this by the way, but Myers is quite possibly the worst offender in JFK research history. He even criticizes others and impugns their integrity for doing it, which is ridiculous and hypocritical to the extreme. 

Also I noticed you ignored Markham’s multiple statements that she was unsure of her identification, plus all the ridiculous crap about Oswald’s eyes and her “cold chills”. Do you think she was lying? 

Edited April 17 by Tom Gram

[Bill Brown]

17 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

You’re still on this moronic “owing” thing with yourself and Myers. Peer review exists for a reason Bill. 

As has been proven time and time again throughout history, many reporters leave out important context from interviews, especially if their goal is to push a certain narrative e.g Dale Myers. 

I bet someone could write an entire book on Myers’ omissions if he ever had the courage to expose his work to real scrutiny, but I’m not going to hold my breath. 

So no, I’m not implying that you’re lying, nor am I trolling. I just think this anti-transparent egotistical attitude towards research on an important historical topic is a joke.

Both sides are guilty of doing this by the way, but Myers is quite possibly the worst offender in JFK research history. He even criticizes others and impugns their integrity for doing it, which is ridiculous and hypocritical to the extreme. 

Also I noticed you ignored Markham’s multiple statements that she was unsure of her identification, plus all the ridiculous crap about Oswald’s eyes and her “cold chills”. Do you think she was lying? 

 

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

 

[Tom Gram]

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

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

 

Hey I don’t disagree, for once. 

Since you seem to adhere to this whole “owing” policy for research material though I think the above is relevant. Plus you are the de facto spokesperson here for Myers’ research and opinions. 

You never answered my question about Markham. Do you think her “identification” in the lineup was totally confident and solid, and her WC testimony to the exact opposite was inaccurate, or a lie? 

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

Hey I don’t disagree, for once. 

Since you seem to adhere to this whole “owing” policy for research material though I think the above is relevant. Plus you are the de facto spokesperson here for Myers’ research and opinions. 

You never answered my question about Markham. Do you think her “identification” in the lineup was totally confident and solid, and her WC testimony to the exact opposite was inaccurate, or a lie? 

 

Re: Markham's positive identification

I believe Markham picked Oswald on the evening of 11.22.63.

Period.

[Kevin Balch]

So is Markham credible or not? It seems like one either believes her regarding the hands on the car and disbelieves her identification in the lineup or disbelieves the former and believes the latter.

The only thing I can say for sure was she was there.

[Bill Brown]

2 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

So is Markham credible or not? It seems like one either believes her regarding the hands on the car and disbelieves her identification in the lineup or disbelieves the former and believes the latter.

The only thing I can say for sure was she was there.

 

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.

 

Edited April 18 by Bill Brown

[Greg Doudna]

Bill Brown has provided me with scans of the pages of a transcript of the Al Chapman interview of Jimmy Burt. I see now Bill Brown posted that transcript in full (11 scanned pages) on another forum for anyone interested, here:

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3689.672.html 

 

Jimmy Burt on Tippit rolling down the passenger window so the man who killed him could talk to him

"... we noticed the policeman pulled up to talk to this guy and well he pulled up and he rushed over to roll his window down."

(...)

"... a policeman pulled up and he rolled his window down and the guy walked over..."

He rolled which window down?

"The one on the opposite side."

The opposite side from the driver?

"Yes. And the guy walked over and put his hand on the window and bent down to where he could talk."

He put his hands on the car?

"Yes, he did. And bent down in the window so he could talk."

I did a little checking on comments on a Quora question to police officers on driving with their windows up or down on patrol cars. I found officers answering who said although it was a matter of personal preference, many officers kept windows cracked or partly open as a rule in order to be able to hear outside, told of crimes solved by what an officer was able to hear, from having the car window cracked open. Some officers were so intent on that that they left windows cracked a little even in rainy weather. But the problem with driving with windows fully down was stinging insects can come in.

Reading those comments I wondered if the ability to hear outside the car was why Tippit had the window vent on the passenger side open, as the way he normally drove his patrol car. 

It intuitively makes better sense to roll down the passenger door window partway if one wants to talk to someone on the passenger side outside the car. It doesn't have to be rolled down all the way, but enough to not have glass obstructing the person's face. I am persuaded on the basis of the combined testimony of Jimmy Burt and of Helen Markham who said she saw the same thing (that the window was rolled down), with no counter testimony, plus the logic of it, that Tippit probably rolled the window down partway, in fact unless there is any reason set forth why not, I will just assume it since it makes so much sense and is what the witnesses said they saw. The notion of the man talking through the vent does not sound right, not very convenient for talking or hearing. 

When Tippit was through talking with the man Tippit would have reached over and rolled that same window back up, as he preferred the window up, before he started to get out of his car on the driver's side. That will account for the window found rolled up after he was killed.

If, on the other hand, Tippit had reached over to open a usually-closed passenger vent to allow the man to talk through the vent (with difficulty for the man to be understood, and Tippit to hear), Tippit would have closed that vent back up when the conversation was through, before Tippit got out of the car on the driver's side, to return the vent to his normal preferred "closed" condition. But the vent was found open (cracked) after Tippit was killed--not because he opened it to speak to the man, but because that was the normal way he was driving the car. It was the front door window that Tippit rolled down at least partway, then rolled back up again, during those words spoken at the passenger door window.

Here is a photo of the Tippit patrol car at the crime scene showing the vent on the driver's side also open: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/lee-harvey-oswald--292452569559764005/ . 

It was not hot temperature at the time Tippit was driving that car at the time of his death. At 1 pm that day the temperature was measured 67 degrees F (Dallas Love Field).

The vent on the passenger side was probably open for the same reason the vent on the driver's side was open, either to hear, or possibly for preference in cooling the car or for fresh air, or both or all three, in whatever case the same reason applicable to both vents, removing the assumption that the vent on one side, but not the other, had been cracked, and then left open that way without being closed again, for purposes of a very awkward conversation with struggling to be heard through the vent--against what any of the witnesses said they saw.

I believe now the notion of talking through the vent has been a mistake.

[Kevin Balch]

18 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

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.  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.

 

I think it’s best to ignore her testimony as worthless.

[Kevin Balch]

2 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

When Tippit was through talking with the man Tippit would have reached over and rolled that same window back up, as he preferred the window up, before he started to get out of his car on the driver's side. That will account for the window found rolled up after he was killed.

Why would he roll the window back up? It was a nice, sunny day. Plus, it would better allow him to hear his radio. He did not call in that he was going to be away from his radio and would be at risk of missing a call.

In the crime scene photos, the driver’s side window is down. It’s possible that the vent window was open rather than the passenger window to cut down on wind and other noise as he was driving so he could hear the radio.

I don’t think he would fool with the window when he stopped to talk to the shooter. He would keep his eyes on the guy and want to keep his hand free in case he needed to use his pistol.

He was intent on stopping this guy for some reason (description, previous encounter, walking fast, sudden change in direction)  based on the car being parked askew relative to the side of the street as though he had his eyes on the man while he was stopping the car.

[Bill Brown]

17 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Bill Brown has provided me with scans of the pages of a transcript of the Al Chapman interview of Jimmy Burt. I see now Bill Brown posted that transcript in full (11 scanned pages) on another forum for anyone interested, here:

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3689.672.html 

 

Jimmy Burt on Tippit rolling down the passenger window so the man who killed him could talk to him

"... we noticed the policeman pulled up to talk to this guy and well he pulled up and he rushed over to roll his window down."

(...)

"... a policeman pulled up and he rolled his window down and the guy walked over..."

He rolled which window down?

"The one on the opposite side."

The opposite side from the driver?

"Yes. And the guy walked over and put his hand on the window and bent down to where he could talk."

He put his hands on the car?

"Yes, he did. And bent down in the window so he could talk."

I did a little checking on comments on a Quora question to police officers on driving with their windows up or down on patrol cars. I found officers answering who said although it was a matter of personal preference, many officers kept windows cracked or partly open as a rule in order to be able to hear outside, told of crimes solved by what an officer was able to hear, from having the car window cracked open. Some officers were so intent on that that they left windows cracked a little even in rainy weather. But the problem with driving with windows fully down was stinging insects can come in.

Reading those comments I wondered if the ability to hear outside the car was why Tippit had the window vent on the passenger side open, as the way he normally drove his patrol car. 

It intuitively makes better sense to roll down the passenger door window partway if one wants to talk to someone on the passenger side outside the car. It doesn't have to be rolled down all the way, but enough to not have glass obstructing the person's face. I am persuaded on the basis of the combined testimony of Jimmy Burt and of Helen Markham who said she saw the same thing (that the window was rolled down), with no counter testimony, plus the logic of it, that Tippit probably rolled the window down partway, in fact unless there is any reason set forth why not, I will just assume it since it makes so much sense and is what the witnesses said they saw. The notion of the man talking through the vent does not sound right, not very convenient for talking or hearing. 

When Tippit was through talking with the man Tippit would have reached over and rolled that same window back up, as he preferred the window up, before he started to get out of his car on the driver's side. That will account for the window found rolled up after he was killed.

If, on the other hand, Tippit had reached over to open a usually-closed passenger vent to allow the man to talk through the vent (with difficulty for the man to be understood, and Tippit to hear), Tippit would have closed that vent back up when the conversation was through, before Tippit got out of the car on the driver's side, to return the vent to his normal preferred "closed" condition. But the vent was found open (cracked) after Tippit was killed--not because he opened it to speak to the man, but because that was the normal way he was driving the car. It was the front door window that Tippit rolled down at least partway, then rolled back up again, during those words spoken at the passenger door window.

Here is a photo of the Tippit patrol car at the crime scene showing the vent on the driver's side also open: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/lee-harvey-oswald--292452569559764005/ . 

It was not hot temperature at the time Tippit was driving that car at the time of his death. At 1 pm that day the temperature was measured 67 degrees F (Dallas Love Field).

The vent on the passenger side was probably open for the same reason the vent on the driver's side was open, either to hear, or possibly for preference in cooling the car or for fresh air, or both or all three, in whatever case the same reason applicable to both vents, removing the assumption that the vent on one side, but not the other, had been cracked, and then left open that way without being closed again, for purposes of a very awkward conversation with struggling to be heard through the vent--against what any of the witnesses said they saw.

I believe now the notion of talking through the vent has been a mistake.

 

"Bill Brown has provided me with scans of the pages of a transcript of the Al Chapman interview of Jimmy Burt. I see now Bill Brown posted that transcript in full (11 scanned pages) on another forum for anyone interested, here:

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3689.672.html "

 

Wait.  What?  I shared the transcripts with others in the past?  Don't tell this to Tom Gram.  It would ruin my seedy reputation with him.

@Tom Gram

 

"When Tippit was through talking with the man Tippit would have reached over and rolled that same window back up, as he preferred the window up, before he started to get out of his car on the driver's side. That will account for the window found rolled up after he was killed."

 

Please list the witness who stated that Tippit rolled the window back up after rolling it down to talk to the guy who was walking.  Greg, this is what you do.  You literally make up scenarios in your head and try to insert them into reality with no evidence backing yourself up, only supposition.

Crime scene photos show the passenger door window up and the VENT WINDOW OPENED.

Tippit didn't reach over to roll the window down.  Burt and Markham were wrong about this.  If they're wrong about that (they were), then they could also be wrong about the killer touching the car with his hands.

 

[Bill Brown]

28 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

I think it’s best to ignore her testimony as worthless.

 

I have no problem with ignoring Markham's testimony, which is completely unrelated to her positive identification of Oswald as the cop-killer during the lineup about five months BEFORE her testimony.

On the evening of 11.22.63, she picked Oswald as the man she saw shoot the policeman.

 

[Kevin Balch]

1 minute ago, Bill Brown said:

 

I have no problem with ignoring Markham's testimony, which is completely unrelated to her positive identification of Oswald as the cop-killer during the lineup about five months BEFORE her testimony.

On the evening of 11.22.63, she picked Oswald as the man she saw shoot the policeman.

 

If I could hear a good explanation of how Oswald came to be walking west from Marsalis prior to encountering Tippit, I would be comfortable with concluding Oswald was the shooter of Tippit. Unless new evidence about the jacket emerged that shows it didn’t fit Oswald or it was somebody else’s.

I don’t buy Myers theory that the killer turned around in mid-block and decided to walk west. If it was Oswald walking from the rooming house, he was hauling ass even with the 1:15 shooting time. Somebody walking that fast has a definite destination, they are not “figuring things out”. The Marsalis/Jefferson area is where Oswald was headed toward if he remained on the bus. It’s also logical to say that the killer would have continued on his original direction of travel (west) after killing Tippit.

But that lineup was bullshit.

[Tom Gram]

36 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Wait.  What?  I shared the transcripts with others in the past?  Don't tell this to Tom Gram.  It would ruin my seedy reputation with him.

Hey, I’m glad you shared it Bill. Your previous explanation was reasonable, but you could have just said that to begin with instead of you, of all people, supposedly getting offended by a “smartass comment” by probably the most polite person on this entire forum. 

Your “reputation” with me is fine. Your logic is not. Do you believe that all police lineup identifications are of equal credibility, and all that matters is if someone picks out the suspect, regardless of how unsure they are, the fairness of the lineup, pressure from police, and anything else imaginable? Cause that’s what it sounds like.

It’s a very simple question. Do you believe Markham’s lineup identification is credible or not? 

I’m amazed I have to spell this out, but the difference between Markham’s lineup ID and her statements about the killer touching the car is 1.) Markham said the killer put his arms on the window from day one; 2) She clarified what she meant in her affidavit in subsequent interviews: hands on the window ledge with arms crossed, and even acted it out; 3) she stated that observation confidently, specifically, and never wavered; and 4) what she described would’ve been clearly visible from her position, and a heck of a lot easier than facial recognition. 

Her lineup identification on the other hand is about as worthless as it gets. Could Markham have been wrong about the killer placing his hands on the car? Sure, but the probability that she saw what she said she saw is a hell of a lot higher than her lineup “identification” of Oswald. Period. 

Edited April 18 by Tom Gram