A Question for the Warren Commission Apologists

[Bill Brown]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The person I got that story from was a little loose in his characterization of the Higgins interview. The "reporters" he spoke of was actually researcher Barry Ernest. The quote is from an unplanned interview he had with Higgins, which he recorded in his book.

Higgins had remembered the time of the shooting after all those years because she heard the 1:16 PM time reported on the news in 1963 and she realized that the real time was ten minutes prior. She told Ernest, "I'd bet my life" on that time.

 

 

Oh my gosh, how old are you, Bill?

Television was funny back then, with an awful lot of live broadcasts featuring absolute amateurs. I remember one local TV show called "Dialing for Dollars" where the host would randomly pick a phone number, call it, wait for six rings to pass, and then count to ten to give the household more time to answer the phone. If a person did answer, the host would ask a question. The person would win some amount of money if they got the answer right.

It was all very corny. I just looked it up in Wikipedia and was surprised to find an article on it. Our local Dialing for Dollars set looked a lot like the one on the left here:

 

It's not at all surprising that a live host back then would give out the time of day.

 

 

"The person I got that story from was a little loose in his characterization of the Higgins interview. The "reporters" he spoke of was actually researcher Barry Ernest. The quote is from an unplanned interview he had with Higgins, which he recorded in his book."

 

Right.  Exactly as I said, decades later from a questionable researcher.  Did Ernest record the supposed interview with Higgins?  Of course not.  Like i said, questionable.  So then perhaps you shouldn't have said that Higgins told reporters that she was watching the news and the announcer stated that the time was six minutes after one.

 

"Oh my gosh, how old are you, Bill?

Television was funny back then, with an awful lot of live broadcasts featuring absolute amateurs. I remember one local TV show called "Dialing for Dollars" where the host would randomly pick a phone number, call it, wait for six rings to pass, and then count to ten to give the household more time to answer the phone. If a person did answer, the host would ask a question. The person would win some amount of money if they got the answer right."

 

How is any of the above supposed to suggest that ANY announcer on television ever noted on the air that the time was six minutes after one?

What I am telling you is that it did not happen.  There is no footage of any television announcer giving that time stamp.

 

[Bill Brown]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

LOL, oh really? The dispatcher never says 1:10?

Lookie here:

 

Disp 10-4 603 and 602, 1:10 p .m .
6C2 What's that address on Jefferson?
Disp 501 East 10th .
85 85 out .
19 19 .
Disp 19 .
19, Give me the correct address on the shooting .
Dizp 501 East 10th .
105 105 .
602 602 Code 6
Unknown Was 519 E . Jefferson correct?
Disp We have 2 locations, 501 E . Jefferson and 501 E . 10th.
19, are you enroute?
Uknown This is an officer
19 to-4 .
19 19 is enroute .
Disp 10-4, 19.
605 605 Code 5 .
Disp 10-4, 605, 1:10.
Disp 85 .
602 602 .
Disp 85 . . . .
85, 85 .
Disp The subject's running west on Jefferson from the location.
85 10-4 .
Disp No physical description .
Citizen [Bowley] hello, hello, hello . . . .
602 602 . . .
Citizen [Bowley] . . . . from out here on 10th Street, 300 block . This police
officer's just shot . I think he's dead .
Disp 10-4, we have the information . The Citizen using the
radio, remain off the radio now .
 

From p. 408 and 409 of CE-705:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_705.pdf

 

The dispatcher says it's 1:10 PM twice, just before Bowley gets on the radio! This is precisely the time that Bowley says he made the radio call!

As I said, the Dictabelt and transcript were altered to show a later time -- about 9 minutes later -- to give Oswald more time to get there to supposedly shoot Tippit. But the coverup artists made a mistake and didn't change this 1:10 PM time. The error was caught later and attempts made to correct it, but it was too late to cover all their tracks!

 

 

No, No and No.

There is no verbal timestamp of 1:10 given by the dispatcher.  You can hear the dispatcher give the timestamp of 1:11 on two occasions, about thirty seconds apart... and what do ya know?  Six minutes later you can hear Bowley report his call on Tippit's squad car radio.

You really should just go and listen to the actual audio for yourself.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

40 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

[Markham] very plainly states that the number two man was the man she saw shoot the policeman.  Oswald was the number two man.

 

And immediate afterword she said:

 

Mrs. Markham: I asked- I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cool chills just run over me.

 

So she wasn't sure after all. Which isn't surprising given that she denied it was Oswald 15 times.

We both know that the DPD designed the lineup to make it look like Oswald was the one in custody for the crime.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

30 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

You really should just go and listen to the actual audio for yourself.

 

What would be the point? I know it's been altered.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Please, how anyone can take the versions of the DPD tapes seriously as evidence is utterly goofy.

As far back as 1967 Sylvia Meagher questioned their authenticity because of the different versions.

Joe McBride harpooned them on at least two specific points.

We have an article coming in at K and K that goes even farther in that regard.

Edited April 10 by James DiEugenio

[Gil Jesus]

4 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

No, she doesn't tell the Warren Commission that at all.  She was confused about what Ball was asking her and we know this because she very plainly states that the number two man was the man she saw shoot the policeman.  Oswald was the number two man.

Also, in a filmed interview, Markham says that Oswald is the man she saw shoot Tippit.

So I ask you... What does obvious confusion during her testimony in 1964 have to do with the FACT that she positively identified Oswald on the night of November 22nd, 1963?

 

Nonsense. For her "positive" identification, she chose Oswald even through she testified that she had never seen him before, including at the murder: "I had never seen none of these men, none of them."

So why would Mrs. Markham identify Oswald if she had never seen him before ?

Because she was being pressured by the Dallas Police to choose one of the men in the lineup.

She testified that she was surrounded by policemen in the lineup room. ( 3 H 310 )
"..and they kept asking me, which one, which one." ( 3 H 311 )

Her own admission that she wasn't sure at first and the fact that police kept pressuring her to pick somebody indicates that her choice of Oswald came after a considerable amount of hesitation and was NOT a positive identification.

"If a witness hesitates to pick someone out of a lineup or photo array, then the identification is likely less reliable." Epps Law Group

This is verified by Police Chief Jesse Curry, who testified that Markham did not identify Oswald right away.

Her hesitation in choosing Oswald was because she knew that the man she saw kill Tippit was NOT in the lineup.

In testimony she confirms that.
"No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men " ( 3 H 310 )

Markham picked Oswald because she felt pressured to pick SOMEBODY by police. The evidence is clear on that. She wasn't going to pick the fat guy in the grey sweater, she wasn't going to pick the dark skinned man in the brown sport coat and she wasn't going to pick the blond in the red vest.

There was only one choice for her to make and when Fritz asked her if she saw the man she hesitated.

That's not a positive identification.

It wasn't until AFTER she picked Oswald that she "got weak" and "just kind of fell over" ( ibid. ). Why didn't she get weak when she first saw him ? She got weak because she knew she had identified an innocent man.

Markham also testified that the number 2 man in the lineup "had on a LIGHT SHIRT and dark trousers". ( 3 H 311 ) This proves that Oswald was shown in his T-shirt and your statement that he wore his brown shirt for the Friday lineups is in error.

Speaking of that brown shirt, Markham's refusal to identify the shirt in evidence as the same shirt worn by Tippit's killer adds doubt that the killer was Oswald. ( 3 H 312 )

Learn the case.

 

 

ven though she testified under oath that she hadn’t seen him before, including at the murder scene. ( 3 H 310 )

Edited April 10 by Gil Jesus

[Sean Coleman]

Pinch o salt with everything Markham says, an utter screwball. The Mark Lane/Markham phone call sketch is always good for a laugh 😆 

[James DiEugenio]

I cannot believe someone is arguing for Markham today.

Even Joe Ball said she was an "utter screwball" and they should not have used her.  Liebeler felt the same.

Edited April 10 by James DiEugenio

[Pat Speer]

20 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"What?? Markham told the Warren Commission FIFTEEN times that Oswald wasn't the man who she saw shoot Tippit!"

 

No, she doesn't tell the Warren Commission that at all.  She was confused about what Ball was asking her and we know this because she very plainly states that the number two man was the man she saw shoot the policeman.  Oswald was the number two man.

Also, in a filmed interview, Markham says that Oswald is the man she saw shoot Tippit.

So I ask you... What does obvious confusion during her testimony in 1964 have to do with the FACT that she positively identified Oswald on the night of November 22nd, 1963?

 

I would agree that she probably ID'ed him, but her behavior during her testimony and her inability to recognize Oswald in a photo really really hurts her credibility, to the point where she would probably be written off by a jury.

Can we at least agree on that?