Quote:
|
Originally Posted by turbonium
Further, she did not initially describe Oswald as "short, a little on the heavy side," with "somewhat bushy" hair.
I have looked at the transcript, which includes the following...
Mr. Lane. Well, would you say that he was stocky?
Mrs. Markham. Uh, he was short.
Mr. Lane. He was short.
Mrs. Markham. Yes.
Mr. Lane. And was he a little bit on the heavy side?
Mrs. Markham. Uh, not too heavy.
Mr. Lane. Not too heavy, but slightly heavy?
Mrs. Markham. Oh, well, he was, no he wasn't, didn't look too
heavy, uh-uh.
Mr. Lane. He wasn't too heavy, and would you say that he had rather
bushy hair, kind of hair?
Mrs. Markham. Yeh, just a little bit bushy, uh huh.
Mr. Lane. It was a little bit bushy.
Mrs. Markham. Yes.
(Emphasis mine)
She said he was short, not too heavy, and his hair was a little bit bushy.
|
First, I observe that your story has changed from "short, a little on the heavy side, and somewhat bushy," to the above; a significant change.
Second, you ignored the word "initially" in my post, and, of course, you omitted the part of the transcript where she emphatically told Lane that she hadn't ever said that.
Quote:
Helen Markham (Lane Interview)
Mr. Lane. But, well, just, could you just give me one moment and tell me. I read that you told some of the reporters that he was short, stocky, and had bushy hair.
Mrs. Markham. No, no. I did not say this.
Mr. Lane. You did not say that?
Mrs. Markham. No, sir.
|
So now,
turbonium, where is your evidence that she ever told anyone this before she talked to Lane? Note that Lane's question itself does not constitute evidence--even if accepted at face value, it is at best hearsay.
Third, you complained vociferously about Arlen Specter's allegedly asking leading questions (which weren't), yet you have no problem with questions that are clearly leading in this case.
Fourth, "short" and "tall" can obviously be somewhat subjective. Oswald was 5'9" according to his Marine record and his autopsy report. J.D. Tippit was 5'11" according to his autopsy report. These are both in the range of "average" (which is about 5'10 for white American males at the present time)--however, Mrs. Markham might well have perceived Oswald as "short" because he was about two inches shorter than Tippit.
Fifth, Mrs. Markham declined even to accept Lane's characterization of the shooter as "slightly heavy." Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that by "not too heavy" she meant, "not at all overweight," rather than the inference conspiracists wish to suggest, as you orginally did, of "a little on the heavy side."
Finally, you omitted (as usual) the part of the transcript that makes clear that by "a little bit bushy" she meant "in need of combing."
Quote:
Helen Markham (Lane Interview)
Mr. Lane. But, but he did have bushy hair you said, just a little bushy?
Mrs. Markham. Well, you wouldn't say it hadn't been combed you know or anything.
|
Quote:
...according to her, he misrepresented himself as an official of the Dallas police when he called. Also, she testified that he had called her at work, and she was attempting to end the conversation as quickly as possible, so that she wouldn't get into trouble. This would explain her attempts at mild agreement with Lane's statements--e.g., telling him what she thought he wanted to hear, in order to get rid of him (note that this could have been a sub-conscious reaction). Finally, a detective testified that Mrs. Markham broke down when Oswald was brought into the line-up room.
Markham first claimed that she never even spoke to Lane, then claimed it was not her voice on the tape. So then she claimed that Lane misrepresented himself as a police officer. Strike three - the tape recording itself proves that Lane did not misrepresent or identify himself as a police officer. So this is hardly a valid supposition to dismiss her "...mild agreement with Lane's statements...in order to get rid of him...". And even if Lane had said he was a police officer, that explanation is absurd.
|
Here is the complete original transcript of the tape.
First, Lane identifies himself simply as "Mr. Lane" at the beginning of the conversation--not "Mark Lane," and never repeats his name. But of course, she was lying about not knowing him, wasn't she?
Second, in 1964, Mrs. Markham had likely never heard a recording of her own voice. Presumably you know that a person's own voice sounds different to him- or herself than it does to other people. Add to that 1964 tape-recording technology, plus the fact that the recording was made at Lane's end of the telephone, and it's perfectly reasonable that she wouldn't have recognized her own voice at first (she subsequently stated that she was uncertain). For you to claim otherwise frankly only makes you look desperate and foolish.
Third, Lane stated that he was "investigating the Oswald case," and that he had a copy of the deposition she'd given to the police. She could have assumed that he must be some sort of police or district attorney's office investigator.
Fourth, mild agreement would be a reasonable explanation even if she hadn't thought he was a police investigator.
Finally, you are frankly in no position to be characterizing anyone else's explanations as "absurd."
Quote:
As for "lying," she initially claimed never to have spoken with Lane because, according to her, he misrepresented himself as an official of the Dallas police when he called.
Already discussed above. She lied about never talking to Lane, she lied about her voice not being on the tape, and she lied about Lane misrepresenting himself as a police officer.
|
Just like
you lied,
turbonium, about J.M. Poe's telling the Warren Commission that he marked the shell casings, and about Dr. Marion Jenkins' claiming that the back wound was a shallow entry wound, and--what's that? Oh, you say you weren't lying? Those were just
mistakes? Oh, okay--but you accused Mrs. Markham of lying. How do you know
she wasn't just mistaken? Oh, I see--because you just know deep down in your heart of hearts that there really and truly
was a conspiracy to kill JFK, and you just know it has to be true, if you just wish and hope and believe enough, so she just
has to be lying...
Quote:
Finally, a detective testified that Mrs. Markham broke down when Oswald was brought into the line-up room.
Ah, the lineup. What does she say to the WC about identifying Oswald?
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
D'oh! She has repeatedly stated she didn't identify or recognize anyone. Better 'suggest' who she is supposed to have seen before. So out of nowhere, we get the following banter....
Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two is the one I picked.
Mr. BALL. Well, I thought you just told me that you hadn't--
Mrs. MARKHAM. I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing.
LOL! Let's see if this could be all a simple case of misunderstanding!
|
<snip of lame attempt to parody Mrs. Markham's testimony>
Mrs. Markham stated that she only finished the 8th grade, and it seems likely from reading all of her testimony that she lacked well-developed communication and abstract reasoning skills, had a rather limited perspective on life, might have been easily manipulated, and was possibly of below-average intelligence. Evidently you don't mind making fun of someone like that, which is unsurprising, considering your track record of insults and reckless accusations against all sorts of people connected with JFK's assassination.
More to the point, you have failed to explain how the apparent inconsistencies in Mrs. Markham's testimony are evidence of any kind of a conspiracy. You are simply falling back on the standard conspiracist line: "something is wrong--therefore I am right."
Additionally, unless you can somehow explain away all the other eyewitnesses who identified Oswald, there is no reason to question Mrs. Markham's testimony.
[edit: grammar]