helen markhams supposed identification of oswald

[fobrien1]

helen markham was a warren commission star witness , she said she witnessed the murder of officer tippit .

now when it comes to mrs markhams supposed identification of oswald as officer tippits killer our lone nut advocate friends find her completely honest , truthful , credible . in other matters related to mrs markham our LN friends dont find her to be quite so credible or reliable . such is the LN logic one of their witnesses is both reliable and credible and then unreliable in the space of a few minutes . when markham testified that she left home to go to work at her usual time , and walked her usual route to go to the bus stop on jefferson to get her usual 1.12pm bus our LN friends say NO NO SHE IS WRONG . but why ? well because when asked what time she reached the corner of 10th and patton she replied I WOULDNT MIND BETTING THAT IT WAS 1.06 OR 1.07 . this was based on her leaving home for work at the usual time , and based on the time it would taker her to reach the corner of 10th and patton enroute to her usual bus stop on jefferson where she would catch the 1.12 bus to work . anyone who has specific times they leave home to go to work to catch a bus or a train etc etc will know they have t keep good time . also markham had only walked a block or so , so she had a reasonable means of working out the approximate time she reached the corner of 10th and patton .

but our LN friends say NO NO SHE WAS WRONG , WE CANT RELY ON HER AND THE TIME SHE GAVE . but when the hysterical witness supposedly IDs oswald they say she is completely reliable . the problem here is that LNs assert that officer tippit was shot at 1.16pm , this is so they can give oswald enough time to get to the crime scene . if you read my tippit time line thread you will see that even at 1.16pm oswald would have had a serious problem getting there . if our LN friends are honest and admit that markhams 1.07pm time is indeed in and around the time of the shooting they know they then acquit oswald in regard the tippit killing because there is no way oswald could get to the crime scene .

so lets look at mrs markhams testimony

William Ball: Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?

Helen Markham: Yes, sir.

William Ball: Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?

Helen Markham: No, sir.

William Ball: You did not? Did you see anybody - I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?

Helen Markham: From their face, no.

William Ball: Did you identify anybody in these four people?

Helen Markham: I didn't know nobody.

William Ball: I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?

Helen Markham: No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.

William Ball: No one of the four?

Helen Markham: No one of them.

William Ball: No one of all four?

Helen Markham: No, sir.

William Ball: Was there a number two man in there?

Helen Markham: Number two is the one I picked.

William Ball: Well, I thought you just told me that you hadn't...

Helen Markham: I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing.

William Ball: No. I wanted to know if that day when you were in there if you saw anyone in there...

Helen Markham: Number two.

William Ball: What did you say when you saw number two?

Helen 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.

William Ball: What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?

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

William Ball: You recognized him from his appearance?

Helen 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.

William Ball: When you saw him?

Helen 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...

William Ball: Did you recognize him from his clothing?

Helen Markham: He had on a light short jacket, dark trousers. I looked at his clothing, but I looked at his face, too.

William Ball: Did he have the same clothing on that the man had that you saw shoot the officer?

Helen Markham: He had, these dark trousers on.

William Ball: Did he have a jacket or a shirt? The man that you saw shoot Officer Tippit and run away, did you notice if he had a jacket on?

Helen Markham: He had a jacket on when he done it.

William Ball: What kind of a jacket, what general color of jacket?

Helen Markham: It was a short jacket open in the front, kind of a grayish tan.

William Ball: Did you tell the police that?

Helen Markham: Yes, I did.

William Ball: Did any man in the lineup have a jacket on?

Helen Markham: I can't remember that.

William Ball: Did this number two man that you mentioned to the police have any jacket on when he was in the lineup?

Helen Markham: No, sir.

William Ball: What did he have on?

Helen Markham: He had on a light shirt and dark trousers.

William Ball: Did you recognize the man from his clothing or from his face?

Helen Markham: Mostly from his face.

William Ball: Were you sure it was the same man you had seen before?

Helen Markham: I am sure.



now above markham multiple times was asked if she recognized anyone in the line up . there were 4 men in the line up , oswald was one of them , and he was the second man in the line up .

as many times as ball asked markham if she recognized ANYONE in the line up she replied NO . she didnt know ANYONE in the line up , she didnt recognize anyone in the line up by their face , she didnt know any of them , and had never seen any of them before . ball was a pains to get the answer HE WANTED from her , when she said she didnt recognize any of the 4 men ball replied NOT ONE OF THE FOUR ? she answered none of the four .

with this mr ball then illegally leads the witness in an attempt to garner from her the answers he wants . he asks her WAS THERE A NUMBER 2 MAN ? . you will recall just above that i said OSWALD WAS THE SECOND MAN IN THE LINE UP , so oswald was THE NUMBER 2 MAN that ball led markham on .

William Ball: Was there a number two man in there?

Helen Markham: Number two is the one I picked.

in a court of law ball would have been in trouble for leading the witness as he did markham . markham at the lineup was hysterical ,


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

William Ball: You recognized him from his appearance?

Helen 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.

so the hysterical markham wasnt sure , she just got a chill over her and decided that that meant oswald was the one .


William Ball: When you saw him?

Helen 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

again she says she wasnt sure if oswald was the man , and she had them turn him SIDEWAYS . in her earlier testimony she said she covered her face with both hands BECAUSE SHE DIDNT WANT TO SEE THE KILLERS FACE . she waited till she thought the killer was gone and then lowered her hands , she then says that when she did that that she found the killer STANDING THERE RIGHT IN FRONT OF HER LOOKING HER RIGHT IN THE FACE . she even mentioned his eyes .

so its funny then that she would ask for a side view of a man she says SHE LOOKED SQUARE IN THE FACE . if she looked at the face of a man who just killed someone ( a man just inches away from her) and whos eyes she noted WHY WAS SHE IN ANYWAY UNSURE ? . why was it then  A CHILL that made her think HE WAS THE GUY ? .

how does that account for her testimony above multiple times saying SHE RECOGNIZED NO ONE IN THE LINE UP ? .

by the time she had gone to the line up the world and his dog had been told that the shots came from the book depository on elm street , and that a man called oswald had been arrested . at the start of each line up all line up participants (some were cops ) were told to speak and give their name and place of work . OSWALD SPOKE AND SAID LEE HARVEY OSWALD , TEXAS SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY .

but the line ups will need to be a thread all on their own .

[fobrien1]

oswald was one of four in the above line up . the other 3 were cops . when all 4 were asked to speak and give there name and place of work the 3 cops naturally and by their own admission gave false information . oswald as was said in the previous post here gave his real name and real place of work . aside from that he had a swollen eye and wore a torn tee shirt when the other 3 men were neatly dressed . and as was previously said here it was reported all over the media that the shots came from the depository building . in short stevie wonder could have picked oswald .

one must wonder aloud why the police had oswald speak at all for the markham line up ? she made no claims at all of hearing the mans voice . so all this served to do was to help the police incriminate oswald . in fact only one witness claimed to have heard the killer speak a few words , and that was cab driver scoggins . so aside from scoggins NO WITNESS had any need to hear oswalds voice .

"Homicide Detective L. C. Graves, one of those organising the lineup, said that she was "quite hysterical" and "crying and upset" 16 and there was even talk of her being sent to hospital. In his testimony, Captain Fritz stated: "We were trying to get that showup as soon as we could because she was beginning to faint and getting sick. In fact I had to leave the office and carry some ammonia across the hall, they were about to send her to the hospital or something and we needed that identification real quickly, and she got to feeling all right after using this ammonia." "

" Several members of the Warren Commission staff have subsequently voiced their opinions of Mrs Markham's value as a witness. Assistant Counsel Liebeler has described her testimony as "contradictory and worthless" , whilst Assistant Counsel Ball described her as "an utter screwball" "

Norman Redlich, another Warren Commission staff member, is quoted as saying "The Commission wants to believe Mrs Markham and that's all there is to it."

next we have markhams descriptions of the killer .

she told fbi agent odum that the killer was about 18 with black hair .

Mr. Ball
On the 22d of November, 1963, that is the day of the shooting, did you talk to an FBI agent named Odum? Do you remember?

Mrs. Markham
I talked to some people, men, down at the police station.

Mr. Ball
That is right. He says that you described the man who shot Tippit as a white male, about 18, black hair, red complexion, wearing black shoes, tan jacket, and dark trousers. Do you remember that?

markham denied what odum said . one thing we know about odum is that he was honest and he didnt lie even for j edgar hoover . the fbi falsified a report stating that odum brought ce399 to parkland , and that he showed it to tomlinson , wright and pool who identified it as the bullet found at parkland . this is a lie . odum was vehement not only in stating that HE NEVER BROUGHT ANY BULLET TO PARKLAND but also that he NEVER EVEN SEEN CE399 . so if odum was a liar or dishonest he would have gone along with the falsified fbi report AND HE DIDNT .

that brings us back to markham . would she say something and then lie and deny she said it ? . sadly the answer is YES .

she testified that she never spoke to anyone about the case , well with the exception of course of any police / secret service or fbi who took her statements the day tippit was killed . having denied she spoke to anyone she was played a tape recording of a telephone conversation between her and mark lane .

mark lane had called her and quickly let her know that he was mark lane an attorney in the oswald case . there is a tape recording of this and a transcript of that recording . when played HER OWN VOICE by the warren commission she actually denied her own voice . only to then admit that YES it was indeed her voice and that she had indeed spoken to mr lane . however she then tried to deny saying WHAT SHE SAID ON THE TAPE .

the reason lane had called her is that reporter hugh aynesworth had reported that markham told her that the killer was sort of short and stocky with bushy hair .

so now we have markham saying oswald was the killer , that the killer was about 18 with black hair , and also that he was short and stocky with bushy hair . further to that we have her denying her own statement to agent odum and lying and saying she SPOKE TO NO ONE when she had spoken to lane , and DENYING HER OWN VOICE ON TAPE .

that isnt to say that makham set out to lie or to deceive . but none the less there is no doubt that her statements and testimony and the aynesworth article , the odum report and lanes recording prove that there are serious problems with this witness . she has a serious reliability and credibility problems , and certainly in terms of her supposed identification of oswald .

we should add in also that she claimed she had a conversation with the dying officer tippit , other witness statements would dispute this . but also it appears medically that he was dead pretty much straight away in terms of the head shot .

however her 1.07pm time for the shooting has support . t f bowley the only witness to actually look at their watch arrived on the scene and tippit was already down . bowley said the time was 1.10pm . this ties in with markhams 1.07 approximation . but even if we say we cant rely on markham at all t f bowley still puts the killing of officer tippit pre 1.10pm .

[fobrien1]

so is helen markham a reliable and credible witness ? . our LN friends tel us YES and then they say UM AH UH NO she isnt reliable . so they say she is is or is not based on what ever argument they just happen to be making at a particular time . this is what is called cherry picking , and is what they accuse people like me of .

i dont cherry pick , i try to outline as much of the evidence and facts as is possible and let the people reading decide for them selves .

the facts as already outlined are that markhams approximation that having walked about a block that she reached 10th and patton at about 1.07pm fits with t f bowley who said he arrived after the shooting . he said officer tippit was already down , and that he looked at his watch and it said 1.10pm .

on the above matter she has corroboration , the times fit each other . it isnt something she would need to embelish or lie about , after all she was seen there at the scene . and we know the time of her usual bus (1.12pm ) and we know her usual route from her home to her bus stop on jefferson , and how long it would take to walk that distance . so the timing fits . so on this matter i cant see a reason to dispute her seeing as how bowleys time seen on his watch corroborates her time . but each individual reading this will have to decide for themselves .

in regards oswalds identification we have seen there are many problems . we have seen that she lied saying she never spoke to agent odum , unless our ln friends are gong to assert that an fbi agent falsified her statement and added a description that points to an 18 year old black haired killer and not oswald . it needs noting that the warren commission did not call agent odum and ask him about the statement markham gave him , instead they simply took her word that she did not give that statement . i mean god forbid they called him and that the honest odum came and testified and said YES SHE DID GIVE ME THAT STATEMENT .

we know she lied and said she never spoke to mark lane when there is undeniable proof that she did . we have a tape recording / transcript and testimony proving this . we also know that in this regard that she also denied her own voice in addition , only to ten admit that she had indeed spoken to lane .

our LN friends assert that lane told her on the phone that he was dallas police captain will fritz , nowhere on the tape or the transcript is there any mention of this , so its pure assumption on the part of LNs . but that does not stop them stating this nonsense as fact . in fact if you check out the tape /transcript you will find that the conversation starts with HELLO MY NAME IS MR LANE I AM AN ATTORNEY IN THE OSWALD CASE .

also captain fritz was a texan , anyone ever heard mark lanes accent ? . he was a very well spoken northern man with a distinctive accent that in no way could be mistaken by markham for a southern texan accent . check out mark lanes videos on youtube and see for your self .

even when caught in lies she tried to persist in stating that she didnt say the things that are on the tape despite the fact she admitted having the conversation and that IT WAS HER VOICE ON THE TAPE .

so her oswald identification is a serious problem because she gave multiple DIFFERING descriptions .

there is more to this story . she claimed that the killer crossed to the side of the street just opposite from the killing , that he turned left and made his way to the corner of the street which is at the 1oth and patton junction . she was stood on the other side of that junction at the corner . she then stated that she covered her face with her hands , when she took them down he was standing there looking her in the eye . that means he had to have carried on left and crossed the street towards her and eventually stood in front of her . she lowered her hands and said he was standing there in front of her . remember now its on this basis that she said she noted his eyes and this she said led her to identify him in the line up . she then said he just took off AGAIN moving leftward and then ran across the street and through and empty lot .

THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE ESCAPE ROUTE THAT OTHER WITNESSES SAID THE KILLER TOOK . they said having shot tippit that the killer ran BACKWARDS through the yard of the nearby house and that he eventually emerged from bushes at the lower end of patton as it joined jefferson . now either this statement by markham about the killers escape route is false or we have TWO different men . acquilla clemmons also said she saw two men . and two witnesses said the killer wore a black jacket which oswald did not .

however our LN friends say that markhams identification of oswald is reliable and credible . well if so then our LN friends have to also admit that her statement that he ran a different route to what other witnesses said (and that he wore different clothing ) indicates that two men were involved . but no lol , our LN friends want markham dropping her hands and seeing the killer but they want to dismiss her statement about the route she said he took that contradicts theirs and the official conclusion .

it cant be both , unless LNs assert that oswald killed tippit , crossed the street , walked left to the corner , crossed over the junction to markham . then retraced his steps , crossed back over to officer tippit , emptied his gun , and ran off through the yard . NO WITNESS EVER CLAIM THAT . but again atleast on the matter of two men possibly being at the murder scene markham has some corroboration .

again its up to the individual .