Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Martin Weidmann]

Previously

He may well have done, although I doubt it, but Brown's OP contains only part of the whole story and can not be relied upon.

For instance, Helen Markham testified she left home at "a little after 1". She had only one block to walk, yet according to the official story Tippit was shot at around 1.14 pm. That means that, for the official story to be true, Markham would have taken some 10 minutes to walk one block. Anything less than that would have placed her well beyond 10th/Patton prior to the shooting. Obviously, if the shooting happened earlier, it's just about impossible for Oswald to have been there on time to do the deed.

William Scoggins's testimony reveals that his timing was off and that he got to 10th/Patton earlier than the official story claims. Also, Scoggins, who is supposed to have identified Oswald at the DPD line up failed to identify Oswald as Tippit's killer to the FBI from a photo shown to him the very next day.

Domingo Benavides, who was closer to the actual shooting than anybody else, refused to participate in a line up because he felt he could not positively identify the killer, yet others, like the Davis sisters, who were indoors somehow can identify the man? Really?

There are so many things Brown doesn't tell you, that his entire OP is just a one sided dishonest presentation of what he wants to be the truth rather than the truth itself.

The biggest problem for the believers in a 1.14 / 1.15 shooting of Tippit are the combined timelines of Markham and Bowley. Their "estimates" don't have to be "spot on". There are two anchors which IMO make it nearly impossible to challenge these timelines, even when you give or take a minute or so.

First of all, we know that Markham arrived at the scene, at least two or three minutes (my estimate), prior to Bowley. Markham saw the shooting taking place and Bowley arrived shortly after it happened.

Secondly, we know that Bowley said he picked up his daughter from school at "about 12.55" and school bells tend to ring on time.

So, if you want to push back Markham's time, you also have to push back Bowley's timeline with the same amount of time, otherwise there is no way that Bowley could have arrived after Markham saw the shooting.

Markham said she left home at "a little after one" and that it could have been as late as 1.06 or 1.07. The walking distance from 9th street to 10th/Patton is one block which takes about 2 minutes, which would have her arrive at 10th/Patton at the latest at 1.09.

The route Bowley described from the school to 10th/Patton takes an estimated 13 minutes, so if he picked up his daughter at "about 12.55" and allow a bit more time for traffic, he could and would have arrived at 10th/Patton at roughly 1.10.

Inbetween those to arrival times Tippit must have been shot.

So, what happens if you try to push back Markham's arrival time to (let's say) 1.14? It would mean that Bowley's timeline would have to be pushed back by 5 minutes also, but how does that work when you know he picked up his daughter from school at 12.55? Five minutes late would have left his daughter waiting for him for 5 minutes after school was out.... so, what's the reasoning there? Bowley got to the school 5 minutes late and somehow didn't notice it?

And what about Markham, where was she during those extra 5 minutes? Did she perhaps go for coffee halfway down the 2 minute walk it would have taken to get her from 9th to 10th street?

[Bill Brown]

"Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman." - Helen Markham

[John Iacoletti]

Bill Smith positively identified the killer as Lee Oswald.

Huh?

[Bill Brown]

Mr. BALL. What called your attention to this incident?
Mr. SMITH. I heard some shots.
Mr. BALL And what? You looked down that way?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you see?
Mr. SMITH. Saw Oswald running and policeman falling.

[Ray Mitcham]

 From Smith's statement to the FBI. 12.13.63

"SMITH advised that he did not believe it was OSWALD when he first saw OSWALD on TV because it looked like OSWALD had light colored hair. He was exhibited a photograph of OSWALD and stated that the individual he observed had dark hair like the New Orleans Police Department photograph of OSWALD.'

[Jerry Freeman]

Wm Smith stated in his affidavit that the shooter he saw was wearing a WHITE shirt and BROWN jacket.
If this was Oswald--when did he change clothes?

[John Mytton]

Wm Smith stated in his affidavit that the shooter he saw was wearing a WHITE shirt and BROWN jacket.
If this was Oswald--when did he change clothes?

Wm Smith stated in his affidavit that the shooter he saw was wearing a WHITE shirt...

He was wearing a WHITE shirt, what's your point?

...and BROWN jacket.

Smith's affidavit said the jacket was LIGHT brown and like almost every eyewitness at the Tippit crime scene they said Oswald was wearing a LIGHT coloured jacket and because everyone perceives colour in their own way due to contrast of background, direction of sun, reflection of surrounds and etc, so of course there was a slight variation in reported colour.



For instance, A and B in the following image are the same.



JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

He was wearing a WHITE shirt, what's your point?





Smith's affidavit said the jacket was LIGHT brown and like almost every eyewitness at the Tippit crime scene they said Oswald was wearing a LIGHT coloured jacket and because everyone perceives colour in their own way due to contrast of background, direction of sun, reflection of surrounds and etc, so of course there was a slight variation in reported colour.



For instance, A and B in the following image are the same.



JohnM

Bla bla bla…


Yes, Oswald was wearing a white T shirt under his brown shirt, when he was arrested, and his brown shirt looked a lot more brown than a light grey jacket ever would....

But that would of course mean that Oswald didn't leave the roominghouse with his jacket after all and that the white jacket found at the car park wasn't his....

Seems you want to have your cake and eat it too….