The lineups were tainted from the start. Oswald was the only one with cuts & bruises on his face and he was the only one dressed scruffily. He had also been shown on TV countless times by then.
I knew you would raise the imperfect nature of the line-ups eventually. You might have a case if there were only one eyewitness, but there were six who identified Oswald in this manner. None claimed to be uncertain--none said the man who shot Tippit wasn't in the line-up. Further, whose fault was it that Oswald had bruises on his face, and whose fault was it that he complained about the line-up? There's a great strategy for suspects--resist arrest, and complain about the line-up, so your identification will be thrown out. Again, you are attempting to use the "something is wrong--therefore I am right" gambit to to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt.
Below is from the link, which also details the many problems with the lineups....
When they were later asked if they had watched any televison that afternoon, both ladies claimed that they had not. Virginia Davis, however, also stated "Our television was blurred anyway, so we couldn't hardly tell."
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp..../id_draft.html
Oh, bravo,
turbonium--absolute proof of Oswald's innocence.
Here is the quote
in context:
Quote:
Mrs. Charlie Virginia Davis (WC):
Mr. BELIN. Later did you ever see a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald on television?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. When did you first see it on television?
Mrs. DAVIS. When they was bringing him out of the jail out here.
Mr. BELIN. When?
Mrs. DAVIS. When they were bringing him out of the jail.
Mr. BELIN. You mean Sunday when he got shot?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did this look, could you tell whether this was the same man you saw running with the gun?
Mrs. DAVIS. I wouldn't say for sure.
Mr. BELIN. You mean from seeing his picture on television?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What about the man you identified as No. 2? Would you say for sure that he was the man you saw running with the gun?
Mrs. DAVIS. I would say that was him for sure.
Mr. BELIN. What you are saying is that you couldn't necessarily tell from the television picture?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir. Our television was blurred anyway, so we couldn't hardly tell. [emphasis added]
|
This is at least the 10th time you have uncritically parroted an out-of-context quotation, severely mangled paraphrase, or factoid from some conspiracist web site, which speaks volumes about both your desperation to proclaim a conspiracy and the mendacity of certain conspiracists (including the author of the linked article).
Now,
turbonium, in light of the incontrovertible evidence that a significant number of conspiracists' claims are simply fabricated, why should we or anyone else take any of them seriously? Also, in light of your continual uncritical repetition of these "factoids" or outright fabrications, why should we take
you seriously? Please comment.
In light of the tainted lineups due to Oswald being already seen on TV and appearing much different than the others in the lineups, I see no reason to consider Markham's flip-flop testimony as valid.
You also see no reason to consider the Parkland doctors' testimony that they really couldn't be certain whether the throat wound was an entry wound or an exit wound as valid, so your views on witness credibility frankly carry little weight. Further, your attempt to cast doubt on the Davis sisters' claim that they hadn't seen Oswald on television [edit: before the lineup] has clearly been refuted.
She repeated that she did not recognize any of the faces in the lineup. That was all that should have been included in the Warren Report - she clearly stated that she recognized none of the men in the lineup!
And, just as with the Parkland doctors and the autopsy doctors, once someone makes a statement that you feel supports a conspiracy, that statement can never be retracted, corrected, or qualified. This is because There is a Conspiracy, so the absolute slightest doubt about any aspect of The Official Gummit Story conclusively proves that there was one, because in the real world people never make mistakes or misspeak or misunderstand questions, do they,
turbonium?
Mrs Markham's later testimony suggests that she meant that she was initially uncertain. As I've stated previously, from looking at all of her testimony one could logically infer that she lacked good reasoning and communication skills, so it is reasonable to conclude that she might actually
have misunderstood the question, even though that might seem odd from reading her testimony.
Quote:
Helen Markham (WC)
Mr. BALL. No. I wanted to know if that day when you were in there if you saw anyone in there--
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two.
Mr. BALL. What did you say when you saw number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, let me tell you. I said the second man, and they kept asking me which one, which one. I said, number two. When I said number two, I just got weak.
Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
Mr. BALL. You recognized him from his appearance?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I asked--I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.
Mr. BALL. When you saw him?
Mrs. MARKHAM. When I saw the man. But I wasn't sure, so, you see, I told them I wanted to be sure, and looked, at his face is what I was looking at, mostly is what I looked at, on account of his eyes, the way he looked at me. So I asked them if they would turn him sideways. They did, and then they turned him back around, and I said the second, and they said, which one, and I said number two. So when I said that, well, I just kind of fell over. Everybody in there, you know, was beginning to talk, and I don't know, just-- [emphasis added]
|
But then, Specter muddied the waters when he suddenly (for who knows what reason?? ) mentions "Was there a number two man in there?"!! Spitfire, even you should be able to admit that specifically pointing out one of the people in a lineup to a witness is a no-no. It instantly taints the witness' testimony as inadmissable (in a standard court of law, or any procedure claimed to be fair and unbiased).
Yes, and no one pointed Oswald out to Mrs. Markham
during the line-up, as she testified. You are attempting to seize on senior counsel Joseph Ball's (not Arlen Specter's) questioning of Mrs. Markham about an identification
that she was already known to have made as if he were somehow coaching her to identify Oswald at that point. Ball already
knew she had identified Oswald in the line-up, thus his obvious confusion. Also, exactly what are you implying by the phrase "even you?"
From the link below are some of the points for conducting a fair and proper lineup. All those listed below were not followed during Oswald's lineups!
This is similar to your thoroughly discredited claim that radio and TV stations weren't allowed to broadcast police radio information. The standards you list are standards
today. They were
not the standards 40 years ago. To reiterate: the fact that the line-ups were less than perfect by today's standards is neither evidence of Oswald's innocence, nor proof of a conspiracy.
Of course, they don't even mention this one, it's such a no-brainer: Don't "suggest" a specific person to a witness from a lineup!
Again, you are attempting to insinuate that Joseph Ball was coaching Mrs. Markham to identify Oswald, when in fact he was questioning her about an identification she was already known to have made.
[edit: clarification]
[edit: typos]