The Bus Stop Farce

[Bill Brown]

She also said the man who shot the policeman was Lee Oswald.  So, what now?

You never read anyone's posts but your own do you? Cite the testimony where Mrs Markham actually ever says "I saw Oswald shoot the cop". Now ..I have read her testimony several times and she was told by the Commissioners that it was Oswald who did it but for some apparent reluctance issue...she never said "I saw Oswald shoot Tippit". None of this "It was #2" stuff  ... No "He gave me the willies" --Where did she say it outright "Oswald shot the policeman"? Look for it here. It will not be found. Psychology interceded ..She knew it wasn't Lee Oswald.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/markham1.htmYou will just have to take the cops' word for it I'm afraid. Unfortunately...they are all dead by now.

I did not say that Markham stated in her TESTIMONY that "Oswald shot the policeman".  Maybe you didn't closely read my comment which you were replying to?

She's on video explaining what she saw, regarding the man who killed Tippit.  She closes that particular video interview by saying that she "identified him in the lineup".  As it turns out, she identified Oswald in the lineup and therefore, she said Oswald is the man who shot the policeman, exactly as I stated.

[Bill Brown]

You got me... Markham didn't use the word "catch". It was Ball who asked her when she usually got her bus.

Mr. BALL. You know what time you usually get your bus, don't you?
Mrs. MARKHAM. 1:15.

Same difference

No.  It's not the same difference.

Did she think he was asking her what time she got to her bus stop?

Did she think he was asking her what time she gets on the bus?

Who knows.  But, 1:15 would NOT be the time she always boards her bus since there was no 1:15 bus.

Weak. You don't get to determine what she thought. The question is clear; Ball wanted to know when she got her bus.

Ball did not ask when she arrived at the bus stop.

And how do you know there wasn't a bus at 1.15? Just because the schedule (according to the FBI) said 1.12 and 1.22, does that mean that a bus can not be late three minutes?

But it's a moot point, because even if Markham arrived at the bus stop at 1.15, she would have walked passed the corner of 10th & Patton at 1.12 or 1.13, because it takes at least 2 minutes to walk the distance from 10th street to the bus stop on Jefferson. This in turn means that she would have passed 10th street before the shooting, if that took place at 1.14 or 1.15.

Weak. You don't get to determine what she thought.

Where did I claim to be able to determine what she thought?  Please explain.

The question is clear; Ball wanted to know when she got her bus.

Actually, the question was not totally clear.  I do believe Ball was trying to ask her what time she boarded her bus and I have never said otherwise.  What I said was that because the question is not totally clear, we don't really know exactly how Markham interpreted the question and because of this, we do not know what her answer really means.  Ball certainly could have asked the question in a more obvious manner than he did.

And how do you know there wasn't a bus at 1.15? Just because the schedule (according to the FBI) said 1.12 and 1.22, does that mean that a bus can not be late three minutes?

There was no 1:15 bus, according to all of the information we have.  If you have something which suggests otherwise, then please post it (which you won't do, because you don't have it).

As for the bus being late, obviously it can be late on occasion.  However, one doesn't bank on the bus being late every single time so your point here is kind of invalid.

But it's a moot point, because even if Markham arrived at the bus stop at 1.15, she would have walked passed the corner of 10th & Patton at 1.12 or 1.13, because it takes at least 2 minutes to walk the distance from 10th street to the bus stop on Jefferson. This in turn means that she would have passed 10th street before the shooting, if that took place at 1.14 or 1.15.

I can accept that Lee Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit at 1:13.  Fair enough?

[Bill Brown]

That would be a short thread because nobody denies that Oswald carried a revolver when he was arrested.

John Iacoletti has questioned it over and over.  And then, once he did that, he did it over and over again.  And then again.  And again.

[Bill Brown]

First things first, Mr. Brown:

(A) Who told you sir the jacket was only zipped up halfway during the encounter between Tippit and the actual gunman? Source please.

(B) Now, regardless of the light colour of the shirt, which did Not match the dark reddish brown shirt donned by the wrongly accused, How do you account for the difference in the light grey pants worn by the wrongly accused as oppose to the dark coloured trousers described by Mrs. Markham worn by the actual gunman?

Now, for the record, Mr. Brown, I'm not here to clash with you in spite of our obvious differences in this case as I have come to respect you in spite of those differences. That said, I'm no longer the "rookie" researcher you, Mr. Mack (Gary, RIP), etc encountered in May of 2014 w/the Ben Hur chariot avatar drawn by a team of horses. Mr. Mack flooded my then PM box w/your wrong about this "kid", you're wrong about that "kid", etc.

However, upon further reading and immersing myself deeper into this case, suffice it to say the hastily contrived script fed to the general public framing an innocent party does Not pass the test of time. That said, best to you & yours for a safe, healthy & Happy Thanksgiving!

The wrongly accused did Not shoot anybody. Anybody.

(A) Who told you sir the jacket was only zipped up halfway during the encounter between Tippit and the actual gunman? Source please.

I didn't say that the jacket was zipped up only halfway.

(B) Now, regardless of the light colour of the shirt, which did Not match the dark reddish brown shirt donned by the wrongly accused, How do you account for the difference in the light grey pants worn by the wrongly accused as oppose to the dark coloured trousers described by Mrs. Markham worn by the actual gunman?

I believe eyewitnesses to a crime make mistakes almost always, when it comes to clothing descriptions.  This is obvious.  It happens.

Set aside the description of color for a minute.  I would like to know what some conspiracy advocates believe happened to the jacket that Oswald was zipping up as he went out the front door of the rooming house.  He left the house wearing a jacket and was seen at the shoe store entrance with no jacket.  Even if the jacket was rainbow-colored, what happened to it?  Why did Oswald get rid of it?

Now, for the record, Mr. Brown, I'm not here to clash with you in spite of our obvious differences in this case as I have come to respect you in spite of those differences. That said, I'm no longer the "rookie" researcher you, Mr. Mack (Gary, RIP), etc encountered in May of 2014 w/the Ben Hur chariot avatar drawn by a team of horses. Mr. Mack flooded my then PM box w/your wrong about this "kid", you're wrong about that "kid", etc.

Thanks Alan.  I appreciate that. buddy.

However, upon further reading and immersing myself deeper into this case, suffice it to say the hastily contrived script fed to the general public framing an innocent party does Not pass the test of time. That said, best to you & yours for a safe, healthy & Happy Thanksgiving!

Alan, Happy Thanksgiving to you and your loved ones.

[Bill Brown]

Also in testimony..We know that Fritz lied in his testimony..denying anything said by Roger Craig and Oswald's reaction at that time.

If Fritz lied, then why would he stop there?  Why not tell the world that Oswald admitted that he was up on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination and that he was later present at Tenth and Patton?

Your statement that Fritz lied is not logically sound.

[Martin Weidmann]

Where did I claim to be able to determine what she thought?  Please explain.

Here;

Actually, the question was not totally clear. 

The question may not have been totally clear to you, but that doesn't mean it was the same for Markham. So, unless you determine for her what she tought, she understood and answered Ball's question.

I do believe Ball was trying to ask her what time she boarded her bus and I have never said otherwise.  What I said was that because the question is not totally clear, we don't really know exactly how Markham interpreted the question and because of this, we do not know what her answer really means.  Ball certainly could have asked the question in a more obvious manner than he did.

You can believe what you want, but just because you - for obvious reasons - feel the question wasn't clear, doesn't mean that you get to argue what Markham's answer really means. She answered Ball's question without hesitation. That's what's in the record.

There was no 1:15 bus, according to all of the information we have.  If you have something which suggests otherwise, then please post it (which you won't do, because you don't have it).

I never claimed there was a 1.15 bus.

As for the bus being late, obviously it can be late on occasion.  However, one doesn't bank on the bus being late every single time so your point here is kind of invalid.

Nobody has claimed that Markham banked on the bus being late. She just estimated the time. When you have the same routine every work day, you know when to leave home in order to make sure you get to the bus on time, regardless on what exact minute it arrives at the bus stop. Markham knew she left home a little after one and the distance to walk was two blocks, which means that she would have been at the bus stop well on time for the arrival of the bus she needed. Her estimate being off by 3 minutes doesn't alter that at all.

I can accept that Lee Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit at 1:13.  Fair enough?

No. In order to "accept" that, you still imply that Markham's estimate (for either catching her regular bus or arriving at the bus stop) of 1.15 was correct, when in fact you have no way of knowing that it was.

Besides, if Tippit was killed at 1.13, it means that Bowley must have witnessed the murder, as he arrived at 10th street at 1.10. But we know he didn't. It also means that the ambulance would have had only two minutes time between it's dispatch from the funeral home on Jefferson and it's arrival at Methodist Hospital at 1.15, when Tippit was declared DOA.

In other words, you can only accept that Tippit was killed at 1.13 when you ignore the bigger picture and the other evidence.

[Martin Weidmann]

John Iacoletti has questioned it over and over.  And then, once he did that, he did it over and over again.  And then again.  And again.

Since when is questioning something the same as denying something?

Why do LNs have difficulty discerning between the meaning of those two words?