Oswald killed Tippit -- Helen Markham confirms her ID on CBS 1964

[Ross Lidell]

Eye witness testimony is the least reliable there is. Ask 10 people about an event they just watched and you get 10 different stories..... Most eye witnesses only saw Tippit's killer for a couple of seconds during high consternation.

And there is no timing discrepancy. Oswald last confirmed sighting was at around 1.03 pm at the bus stop in front of the roominghouse. He was seen there by Earlene Roberts who had just turned to television on for the 1 pm news, when Oswald entered the room. If he physically couldn't have been at the location where Tippit was shot at the time of the murder, he couldn't have been the murderer. Eye witnesses may well have seen somebody looking like him.

Eye witness testimony is the least reliable there is. Ask 10 people about an event they just watched and you get 10 different stories..... Most eye witnesses only saw Tippit's killer for a couple of seconds during high consternation.

That "high consternation" phrase is an original: Can I borrow it and use it sometime?

A detailed description of an event by multiple witnesses will produce varying results: The "rashomon" effect.

The simpler "is that the man who you saw at the scene of the crime" question is more likely to produce a consistent result. Agreed?

[Ross Lidell]

Dismissing possibilities and biased ridicule aren't evidence of a crime. Neither is conjecture.

Strange first sentence. I doubt that anyone has ever claimed that. I did not even by implication.

[Martin Weidmann]

The timing discrepancy defense based on an speed of movement from North Beckley to Tenth and Patton does not work. It may have before the horse and buggy era. With motorized transport.... Oswald traveling between those two points in 12 minutes (if that's what it was) is not IMPOSSIBLE. Oswald could have gotten a lift (part of the way) in a car. I don't think that happened but it's a possibility no matter how slim.

Oswald traveling between those two points in 12 minutes (if that's what it was) is not IMPOSSIBLE.

The fastest time established by Gary Mack's time trial was 11 minutes. 1.03 + 11 = 1.14.... and that does not include the time Tippit and his killer talked. However, the available evidence justifies the conclusion that Tippit was actually shot earlier than 1.14

Oswald could have gotten a lift (part of the way) in a car. I don't think that happened but it's a possibility no matter how slim.

So, if a slim possibility favors Oswald's guilt, you accept it as a possibility, but when it doesn't you dismiss it outright. Got it.

But there is in interesting question that is never answered by those who claim Oswald must have been running or had some sort of transporation and that's this;

What in the world could have possibly been so important to Oswald that he needed to get to a go-nowhere location as 10%/Patton (where he would stand out like a sore thumb) as quickly as he could? Apart from jogging, have you ever run to a place where there was nothing to do or see? And if he was tansported in a car, why not pick a location like Jefferson to be dropped of where there was a lot more activity (less chance of being noticed) and bus stops all over the place?

It's easier to hide in the open in a crowd of people than on an empty street, right?

[Martin Weidmann]

Eye witness testimony is the least reliable there is. Ask 10 people about an event they just watched and you get 10 different stories..... Most eye witnesses only saw Tippit's killer for a couple of seconds during high consternation.

That "high consternation" phrase is an original: Can I borrow it and use it sometime?

A detailed description of an event by multiple witnesses will produce varying results: The "rashomon" effect.

The simpler "is that the man who you saw at the scene of the crime" question is more likely to produce a consistent result. Agreed?

That "high consternation" phrase is an original: Can I borrow it and use it sometime?

You can't agrue with the description, right?

The simpler "is that the man who you saw at the scene of the crime" question is more likely to produce a consistent result. Agreed?

No. And I speak from personal experience. A couple of years ago, some of my employees and myself witnesses a robbery right in front of our eyes. A guy pushed a girl aside and stole her telephone. When the police came, about 30 minutes, the only consistency between us was that we all said no when the police asked if we would be able to identify the man if we saw him again. It all happened too quickly...

[Martin Weidmann]

Strange first sentence. I doubt that anyone has ever claimed that. I did not even by implication.

You just laughed, that was implication enough.

[John Iacoletti]

A detailed description of an event by multiple witnesses will produce varying results: The "rashomon" effect.

On the flip side there is the bandwagon effect.

The simpler "is that the man who you saw at the scene of the crime" question is more likely to produce a consistent result. Agreed?

It introduces bias.  Particularly when asked by an authority figure.

[John Iacoletti]

The fastest time established by Gary Mack's time trial was 11 minutes. 1.03 + 11 = 1.14.... and that does not include the time Tippit and his killer talked. However, the available evidence justifies the conclusion that Tippit was actually shot earlier than 1.14

And the fastest time also ignored the witnesses who said the man was walking west on 10th street.