Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[manifesto]

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt

Do you trust MacAdams?

 

[manifesto]

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html Page 167



Mark Lane lied about what she said. That makes him a liar

Is this all she said?

 

[proudfootz]

Which of all the possible explanations is more likely, and why?

I'd put Markham at the top of the list - apparently she was known to be an utter screwball.

She failed to identify Oswald in a line up.

Occam's Razor suggests Oswald was not the person she saw, if indeed she saw anybody.

 

[JerryGarcia]

I'd put Markham at the top of the list - apparently she was known to be an utter screwball.

She failed to identify Oswald in a line up.

Occam's Razor suggests Oswald was not the person she saw, if indeed she saw anybody.

Incorrect. According to the Warren Report she did identify Oswald in the lineup.

 

[JerryGarcia]

Do you trust MacAdams?

Yes I do,

Unlike Mark Lane, he has not lied.

 

[proudfootz]

Incorrect. According to the Warren Report she did identify Oswald in the lineup.

I'm sure somehow a lawyer could get that conclusion from this testimony:

Mr. BALL. Did anybody tell you that the man you were looking for would be in a certain position in the lineup, or anything like that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
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.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.

 

[proudfootz]

Yes I do,

Unlike Mark Lane, he has not lied.

By 'John McAdams' do you mean 'Paul Nolan'?

 

[JerryGarcia]

I'm sure somehow a lawyer could get that conclusion from this testimony:

Mr. BALL. Did anybody tell you that the man you were looking for would be in a certain position in the lineup, or anything like that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
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.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.

And what conclusion can you draw from this testimony from the same link?

Mrs. Markham. I did identify him in the lineup.

 

[JayUtah]

The issue regarding Lane and Markham, as it relates to Lane's honesty, is whether he (Lane) represented Markham's conversation with him accurately to the Warren Commission. Whether Markham did or did not identify Oswald in a lineup is a separate issue. The issue is that what she told Lane is not what Lane said she told him. If Lane misrepresented Markham's testimony, then that is a lie.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm sure somehow a lawyer could get that conclusion from this testimony...

They probably draw their conclusions from the two pages after you stopped quoting, where she discusses at length how she identified Oswald in the lineup, giving details about what she recognized.

 

[proudfootz]

And what conclusion can you draw from this testimony from the same link?

That after denying six times that she identified Oswald in the line up as the murderer of Tippit, lawyers finally badgered her into giving the answer they wanted.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmarkhamH.htm

 

[JerryGarcia]

That after denying six times that she identified Oswald in the line up as the murderer of Tippit, lawyers finally badgered her into giving the answer they wanted.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmarkhamH.htm

My quote is from a transcript of a telephone interview with Mark Lane.

 

[JayUtah]

My quote is from a transcript of a telephone interview with Mark Lane.

And I just read the raw testimony without some web site trying to put a spin on it, and I got the impression that while Markham was initially flustered, she was not being badgered to give some desired answer.

 

[proudfootz]

My quote is from a transcript of a telephone interview with Mark Lane.

The same Mark Lane Markham denies she ever talked to?

That would make her a liar, wouldn't it?

Markham's story seems to be in conflict with a number of facts, I wouldn't be comfortable putting very much confidence in it.

 

[proudfootz]

And I just read the raw testimony without some web site trying to put a spin on it, and I got the impression that while Markham was initially flustered, she was not being badgered to give some desired answer.

Which website did you get this 'no spin' data from?

 

[JayUtah]

Which website did you get this 'no spin' data from?

I didn't say it was a web site. I typically consult facsimile PDFs of the original printed Warren Commission materials. It's the same sources conspiracy authors use, so I don't know why your panties are in such a wad.

I just note a distinct difference between your approach and mine. You selectively quote Markham's testimony without attribution, leaving off the part where she confirms that she identified Oswald. Then when pressed, you send me to a web site where someone has typed in a lengthier excerpt from Markham's testimony and offered commentary on it.

I simply went and read her testimony, and decided for myself what it indicated and how much of it was relevant to this particular question.

You seem to be afraid of context here. And no wonder. You originally tried the rail-split approach. Then when you got caught doing it, you had to ramp up the spin to make sure we got the impression that she was "badgered" into giving the answer you really didn't want your readers knowing that she gave. Your approach to Markham is all spin and damage control. This is why it generally fails to convince.

 

[JayUtah]

The same Mark Lane Markham denies she ever talked to?

If Mark Lane had invented it, why did he misquote his own fabrication? The question regarding Lane and Markham is whether Lane represented correctly what he claims Markham told him. According to Lane, Markham described Oswald as short and stocky with bushy hair. But according to the transcript of the purported phone call between them, Markham explicitly denies that. In fact, the transcript shows that Lane primed her with that description and that Markham denied it.

If your claim is that the conversation between Lane and Markham never took place, can you explain these inconsistencies?

 

[JayUtah]

Markham's story seems to be in conflict with a number of facts, I wouldn't be comfortable putting very much confidence in it.

Eyewitness testimony is almost always in conflict with facts determinable by other means. For that reason we don't consider it exceptionally reliable in general, but we don't dismiss it outright. If you're willing to argue that Markham's testimony is less reliable than other eyewitnesses, then go ahead and make your case. But arguing that it seems to conflict with facts without providing a quantitative or qualitative discussion of that conflict doesn't separate her testimony from the general case.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I'd put Markham at the top of the list - apparently she was known to be an utter screwball.

Your and other conspiracists' spin. A more reasonable interpretation is that she just wasn't very smart or sophisticated. She stated in her testimony that she'd only completed the 8th grade, and that she'd either been a housewife or worked as a waitress her entire adult life.

She failed to identify Oswald in a line up.

A lie.

Occam's Razor suggests Oswald was not the person she saw, if indeed she saw anybody.

Bull. What about all the other witnesses in the area who identified Oswald as the shooter?

 

[proudfootz]

Your and other conspiracists' spin. A more reasonable interpretation is that she just wasn't very smart or sophisticated. She stated in her testimony that she'd only completed the 8th grade, and that she'd either been a housewife or worked as a waitress her entire adult life.

Given that you seem to think Markham is confused or under-educated, she was more likely to be mistaken or simply wrong. Or perhaps more vulnerable to those lawyers pressuring her to give the answer they wanted after denying she identified Oswald six times.

Since her story is not in accord with the facts in a lot of aspects, she's not a very good witness is she? Even Warren Commission counsel Joseph Ball admitted her testimony was riddled with errors and characterized her as an 'utter screwball'.

Wonder how she would perform if she were ever cross-examined?

A lie.

According to some partisans, it is.

According to the testimony already quoted, a reasonable conclusion by persons of sense.

Bull. What about all the other witnesses in the area who identified Oswald as the shooter?

What about them? As other posters have pointed out, eyewitnesses aren't very reliable.