Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[proudfootz]

As much as I think that manifesto and proudfoot are blowing smoke, I do have to agree at this point. You made a positive, verifiable, testifiable, falsifiable claim so you do bear the burden to provide evidence to back up your claim that this guy, Lane was it, was/is a liar or lied. If only to shut them up.

Well said.

 

[proudfootz]

Are you serious?

Apparently this is as 'serious' as it gets - unsubstantiated and vague sweeping claims backed up with a lot of 'attitude'.

Look how many pages have been wasted already avoiding providing a scintilla of evidence that Lane lied.

This is why such threads get to be so long.

 

[Mudcat]

Well said.

Don't think I'm your ally, because I'm not. I just think that the past couple of pages come off as a little bit childish with the back and forth "Yes he was" "No he was not" "Was so" "Was not" and so on. And even if the witness was wrong about the identification I have to ask, so what?

That doesn't really do anything to absolve Oswald of guilt with so much evidence against him.

 

[proudfootz]

Don't think I'm your ally, because I'm not. I just think that the past couple of pages come off as a little bit childish with the back and forth "Yes he was" "No he was not" "Was so" "Was not" and so on.

I'm just glad there's someone who's willing to call these guys on their silly game playing.

 

[proudfootz]

And even if the witness was wrong about the identification I have to ask, so what?

That doesn't really do anything to absolve Oswald of guilt with so much evidence against him.

There's a couple of ways this could go - if Markham is not a reliable witness, there goes some of the alleged 'evidence' against him.

It says something about the quality of the evidence if this is an example of it.

Personally, I don't think Oswald shot anyone on that day.

 

[Mudcat]

There's a couple of ways this could go - if Markham is not a reliable witness, there goes some of the alleged 'evidence' against him.

Some, but is it enough to to throw reasonable doubt on Oswald's guilt to discount one eye witness?

Personally, I don't think Oswald shot anyone on that day.

You're certainly entitled to that belief.

 

[proudfootz]

Some, but is it enough to to throw reasonable doubt on Oswald's guilt to discount one eye witness?

Of course not.

Nonetheless, it's interesting to me the lengths to which people will go to defend this one.

Then at the same time gloss over the problems with her testimony with excuses about her age, her just being naturally muddle-headed, or her lack of education, and so forth.

You're certainly entitled to that belief.

Intelligent people can disagree.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Personally, I don't think Oswald shot anyone on that day.

You're almost correct. He shot two people. His attempted assassination of General Walker was on another day.

Did you have a testable hypothesis for some other assassin of the president with Oswald's rifle from Oswald's sniper's nest before Oswald fled the crime scene and murdered officer Tippit before hiding in a movie theater and attempting to murder more officers with the revolver he murdered officer Tippit with?

 

[Axxman300]

Personally, I don't think Oswald shot anyone on that day.

It was his rifle. The shots came from his place of employment. Nobody could account for his whereabouts during the shooting - including Oswald.

He fled the scene.

Returned to his rooming house and retrieved his gun - the one he used to KILL TIPPIT - and the same gun he tried to shoot another Dallas policeman in the movie theater when they moved to arrest him.

Guess he didn't kill enough cops.

 

[proudfootz]

You're almost correct. He shot two people. His attempted assassination of General Walker was on another day.

Nor do I think Oswald shot at Walker's house.

So that is three crimes which Oswald has been tried for in the media which I think he is innocent of.

Did you have a testable hypothesis for some other assassin of the president with Oswald's rifle from Oswald's sniper's nest before Oswald fled the crime scene and murdered officer Tippit before hiding in a movie theater and attempting to murder more officers with the revolver he murdered officer Tippit with?

I don't have a hypothesis about who killed Kennedy or who killed Tippit.

Nor do I know who Jack the Ripper is.

I need not know who was responsible for these three separate crimes to be able to identify a specific individual who wasn't, though.

 

[proudfootz]

It was his rifle. The shots came from his place of employment. Nobody could account for his whereabouts during the shooting - including Oswald.

I don't believe the shots came from the rifle attributed to Oswald. I don't think the shots all came from the building where he was employed.

Oswald did provide an account of his whereabouts.

He fled the scene.

Many people left Dealey Plaza after the murder - that is not 'evidence' of involvement on the crime. Otherwise we'd have to put scores of people on trial.

Returned to his rooming house and retrieved his gun - the one he used to KILL TIPPIT - and the same gun he tried to shoot another Dallas policeman in the movie theater when they moved to arrest him.

Guess he didn't kill enough cops.

These are also claims which I don't feel compelled to accept on anyone's say-so.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Nor do I think Oswald shot at Walker's house.

So that is three crimes which Oswald has been tried for in the media which I think he is innocent of.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Of course, opinions don't change facts. Sorry.

I don't have a hypothesis about who killed Kennedy or who killed Tippit.

Oh. Do you know of any other CTists who might? That would be useful.

Nor do I know who Jack the Ripper is.

I need not know who was responsible for these three separate crimes to be able to identify a specific individual who wasn't, though.

The one person nobody has ever been able to positively identify as NOT the murderer of JFK and officer Tippit is Oswald. Who knows, you might be the first.

So, you have no hypothesis at all, huh? Nothing?

 

[JayUtah]

So far I've seen the opinion of a blogger and the opinion of a plagiarist presented as 'evidence' without much by way of examples.

No, you've been presented with evidence that you refuse to consider because, in your opinion, it was presented by a "blogger" and a "plagiarist." In other words, you suggest a rejoinder that you might present, but you don't present it. You leave it as an ad hominem insinuation. If your response to the charges of dishonesty on Lane's part are that the source reporting those lies has himself been dishonest, that is your burden of proof.

Yes, she denies again and again she talked with Lane.

But then she acknowledges that's her voice on the tape. Lane said in his own WC testimony Markham told him she had been ordered by law enforcement not to discuss the case. If that is true, it would explain why she would deny having spoken to him. It was only when she learned that a tape of the conversation existed and would be played in the course of the examination that she warmed up to the notion that she would be accountable for it.

I ask you again: are you a lawyer? Have you ever been in an actual courtroom? Have you ever seen a witness actually being examined and cross-examined by counsel? These are not trivial questions. You are asking us to accept your interpretation of what is happening in a transcript of oral examinations. Therefore I want to know what your experience is in the interpretation of testimony and transcripts.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember...

And once again you quote selectively -- a portion of the Lane-Markham transcript that is included in the Liebler examination, apparently hoping we won't know that the full transcript of the call is available and that it was upon review of the full transcript that the Warren Commission evaluated the reliability of Markham's testimony to them.

The full transcript shows that Lane tried three times to lead Markham to agree with his characterization of Oswald. No matter how many times Lane tried to prime her, she disagreed with him on all the identification points except height, and upon the conclusion that she did identify Oswald.

What Lane said Markham told him: "He was short"
What Markham actually said: "He was short"
I'll concede that Lane accurately represents Markham on this point. However, the phone transcript shows that Markham hastened to emphasize to Lane, on the point of height, that she identified the man correctly in the transcript. From that I glean that whatever she meant by "short," she considered both Tippet's assailant and the man in the lineup to be commensurately "short." That's aside from whether Oswald objectively was short or tall.

What Lane said Markham told him: "[He was] a little on the heavy side"
What Markham actually said: "...not too heavy" ... "no he wasn't [slightly heavy], didn't look too heavy, uh-uh." etc.
We know Lee Harvey Oswald was 5'-9" and that this is the man Markham picked out of a lineup, all the while maintaining that he was "short." Lane considers this (not indefensibly) to be average height, but his judgment is irrelevant. What is omitted in the WC excerpt is that Markham estimates the assailant's weight as 150 to 160 lbs., a standard BMI in the normal range for someone of the height she identified in the lineup. Lane ignores the quantitative estimate Markham gives and sticks with the "on the heavy side" phrase he tries to pin her with.

What Lane said Markham told him: "...his hair was somewhat bushy"
What Markham actually said: "...just a little bit bushy" ... "you wouldn't say it hadn't been combed you know or anything"
Again we find the full transcript shows that Markham was defining what she meant by "bushy" (a material point Lane ignores). It also shows that while she gives a minimal quantification every time, Lane rewrites this as the nebulous "somewhat."

And in summary, Lane keeps pestering her to confirm the "short, stocky, bushy hair" phrase, which she refuses to do.

We can see that the relevant part of the tape recording of the conversation as transcribed matches in every detail Mark Lane's summary.

Only if we trust your judgment of relevancy, which we don't. When we see the full transcript -- not the cherry-picked parts you claim all that's relevant -- we see that Markham repeatedly denied Lane's attempts to put words in her mouth. Yet those words are the ones he gives to the Warren Commission, no matter how many times she denied it in the transcript.

Why is is that the more testimony we see, the less your interpretation of it stands up?

The means of obtaining that result is of interest, and would be of interest to any intelligent observer.

I don't accept you as a representative of "any intelligent observer," but in the interests of this point that you agree is relevant, I'd like to press you to answer for your experience in obtaining oral testimony, or observing it being obtained by trained examiners.

Please answer.

 

[proudfootz]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Of course, opinions don't change facts. Sorry.

Of course your opinions don't change the facts. I never said they did.

Oh. Do you know of any other CTists who might? That would be useful.

You may have your theory about who killed Kennedy, and Tippit, and who Jack the Ripper was.

But as we agreed above - your opinion doesn't change the facts.

The one person nobody has ever been able to positively identify as NOT the murderer of JFK and officer Tippit is Oswald. Who knows, you might be the first.

I'm sure there are plenty of others who have observed certain facts which tend to exclude Oswald from culpability for these two crimes.

So, you have no hypothesis at all, huh? Nothing?

It would be pointless to speculate - especially at the prompting of someone so passionately and pugnaciously in love with their own theory.

 

[JayUtah]

I don't have a hypothesis about who killed Kennedy or who killed Tippit.

Why not? Isn't the point to determine who killed Kennedy, if not Oswald? In your apparently comprehensive survey of the relevant evidence, not one other person or persons emerge as the more likely killer?

Nor do I know who Jack the Ripper is.

Since you've made no assertions about Jack the Ripper, I don't see why this is relevant. It is, however, appropriate to ask whether you have any other suspects for the murders we are discussing.

I need not know who was responsible for these three separate crimes to be able to identify a specific individual who wasn't, though.

Yes, you do. And I'll explain why.

Both the prevailing theory, generally expressed by the Warren Commission, and the various conspiracy theories, both rely on the standard-of-proof concept. In your estimation, the case against Oswald fails to meet a standard of proof. But the question is, what standard of proof? And by whose judgment?

The conspiracy theorists want to rewrite the problem into one simply of exonerating Oswald, because they think that has the lowest standard of proof. Or, conversely, they think that since Oswald would have to be proven guilty by some high standard of legal proof, and that further they believe that standard has not been met, that he should not be considered the prime suspect.

But that's not the actual problem. That's the cop-out. It's not how historians work and it's not how police work. It's how lawyers work in court to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused, but that's not a broad examination of all the pertinent evidence. If you look at all the available evidence -- and a lot has been uncovered over the decades -- then the conspiracists should be able to show a preponderance of evidence for some other suspect(s), not just a general smattering of evidence purporting to lead vaguely away from Oswald.

A smattering of vaguely exculpatory evidence, much of it contradictory, doesn't erase the fact that out of all the carbon-based life forms we could consider, the most evidence fingers Lee Harvey Oswald more than any other single person or group. It's that "more than" that keep conspiracy theorists from having any toehold in the real world of forensic investigation or scholarship regarding Kennedy.

 

[Mudcat]

So that is three crimes which Oswald has been tried for in the media which I think he is innocent of.

As well as fleeing from the scene of a crime, resisting arrest, reckless endangerment, perhaps a few others that posters more familiar with the law could list. But he wasn't any more innocent of those crimes than just the three you are counting.

I need not know who was responsible for these three separate crimes to be able to identify a specific individual who wasn't, though.

What you do need is reasonable doubt. And, by your own admission, disputing one witness isn't enough to provide that.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm sure there are plenty of others who have observed certain facts which tend to exclude Oswald from culpability for these two crimes.

You can hypothetically exculpate Oswald until the cows come home. But as long as there is still more evidence for his guilt than for some other actual person's guilt, you still haven't solved anything.

It would be pointless to speculate - especially at the prompting of someone so passionately and pugnaciously in love with their own theory.

If you want to be taken seriously, you have to make an affirmative case for another suspect and show that the preponderance of evidence favors him more than it does Oswald. Imaginary trials where you acquit Oswald in your mind have no value either in law or in history.

 

[proudfootz]

No, you've been presented with evidence that you refuse to consider because, in your opinion, it was presented by a "blogger" and a "plagiarist." In other words, you suggest a rejoinder that you might present, but you don't present it. You leave it as an ad hominem insinuation. If your response to the charges of dishonesty on Lane's part are that the source reporting those lies has himself been dishonest, that is your burden of proof.

I guess I'm not convinced I should take the unsupported opinions of these people as Gospel.

I'd rather see some evidence of these alleged lies, which no one to date has been able to present.

But then she acknowledges that's her voice on the tape. Lane said in his own WC testimony Markham told him she had been ordered by law enforcement not to discuss the case. If that is true, it would explain why she would deny having spoken to him. It was only when she learned that a tape of the conversation existed and would be played in the course of the examination that she warmed up to the notion that she would be accountable for it.

Or perhaps she was just confused. Or Old. Or some other excuse.

I ask you again: are you a lawyer? Have you ever been in an actual courtroom? Have you ever seen a witness actually being examined and cross-examined by counsel?

Are you trying to imply you are an experienced trial lawyer?

These are not trivial questions. You are asking us to accept your interpretation of what is happening in a transcript of oral examinations. Therefore I want to know what your experience is in the interpretation of testimony and transcripts.

These questions, then, are as relevant for you to answer as for anyone.

Please don't try these disingenuous tactics on me.

And once again you quote selectively -- a portion of the Lane-Markham transcript that is included in the Liebler examination, apparently hoping we won't know that the full transcript of the call is available and that it was upon review of the full transcript that the Warren Commission evaluated the reliability of Markham's testimony to them.

Jesus! I quoted a great deal more testimony than you ever have, all in an effort to forestall your repeating this 'out of context' mantra.

The relevant parts bolded for the convenience of the reader.

The full transcript shows that Lane tried three times to lead Markham to agree with his characterization of Oswald.

Now put your assertion compared to something like six times it took the prosecuting attorney to lead Markham to agree that she had identified Oswald.

...and your point is?

No matter how many times Lane tried to prime her, she disagreed with him on all the identification points except height, and upon the conclusion that she did identify Oswald.

I bolded the part where she agreed with every point of the description of the shooter as short, stocky, and bushy-haired.

You'd better go back and read it again.

What Lane said Markham told him: "He was short"
What Markham actually said: "He was short"

I'll concede that Lane accurately represents Markham on this point. However, the phone transcript shows that Markham hastened to emphasize to Lane, on the point of height, that she identified the man correctly in the transcript. From that I glean that whatever she meant by "short," she considered both Tippet's assailant and the man in the lineup to be commensurately "short." That's aside from whether Oswald objectively was short or tall.

What Lane said Markham told him: "[He was] a little on the heavy side"
What Markham actually said: "...not too heavy" ... "no he wasn't [slightly heavy], didn't look too heavy, uh-uh." etc.

Nice of you to put your own words in Markham's mouth.

The actual transcript:

"Mr. LANE. And was he a little on the heavy side?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Not too heavy.
"Mr. LANE. Not too heavy, but slightly heavy?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, he was--no--he didn't look too heavy.

No point in producing the transcript if you're going to rewrite it to suit yourself.

We know Lee Harvey Oswald was 5'-9" and that this is the man Markham picked out of a lineup, all the while maintaining that he was "short." Lane considers this (not indefensibly) to be average height, but his judgment is irrelevant. What is omitted in the WC excerpt is that Markham estimates the assailant's weight as 150 to 160 lbs., a standard BMI in the normal range for someone of the height she identified in the lineup. Lane ignores the quantitative estimate Markham gives and sticks with the "on the heavy side" phrase he tries to pin her with.

What Lane said Markham told him: "...his hair was somewhat bushy"
What Markham actually said: "...just a little bit bushy" ... "you wouldn't say it hadn't been combed you know or anything"
Again we find the full transcript shows that Markham was defining what she meant by "bushy" (a material point Lane ignores). It also shows that while she gives a minimal quantification every time, Lane rewrites this as the nebulous "somewhat."

And in summary, Lane keeps pestering her to confirm the "short, stocky, bushy hair" phrase, which she refuses to do.

So Lane is 'pestering' her when he persists in his inquiry. Is that what prosecution lawyers did when they persisted in trying to get her to confirm she identified Oswald?

Only if we trust your judgment of relevancy, which we don't. When we see the full transcript -- not the cherry-picked parts you claim all that's relevant -- we see that Markham repeatedly denied Lane's attempts to put words in her mouth. Yet those words are the ones he gives to the Warren Commission, no matter how many times she denied it in the transcript.

Yet the phone call shows Markham said the shooter was short, not too heavy, and bushy haired.


Here's the transcript again:

"Mr. LANE. ...and would you say that he had a rather bushy kind of hair?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; just a little bit bushy.
"Mr. LANE. It was a little bit bushy?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.

What would be interesting to discover is why she gave this description to a reporter which led Lane to call her in the first place.

Why is is that the more testimony we see, the less your interpretation of it stands up?

That is your spin on it - actually readers can see for themselves that the transcript of the conversation matches point for point Lane's description of it.

I don't accept you as a representative of "any intelligent observer," but in the interests of this point that you agree is relevant, I'd like to press you to answer for your experience in obtaining oral testimony, or observing it being obtained by trained examiners.

Likewise.

Please answer.

I see why you persist in trying to make this about me, as you don't seem to be having much success in arguing on the facts.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Of course your opinions don't change the facts. I never said they did.

Exactly. It doesn't matter that you fervently wish there wasnt a huge and insurmountable preponderance of evidence against Oswald. It's there.

You may have your theory about who killed Kennedy, and Tippit, and who Jack the Ripper was.

The evidence says beyond a doubt that it was Oswald.

But as we agreed above - your opinion doesn't change the facts.

Exactly, no matter how fervently you wish you could prove him innocent, the overwhelming evidence shows him to be guilty. I'm glad you agree with me.

I'm sure there are plenty of others who have observed certain facts which tend to exclude Oswald from culpability for these two crimes.

A pity those "facts" have never been presented here.

It would be pointless to speculate - especially at the prompting of someone so passionately and pugnaciously in love with their own theory.

Amazingly, the only thing the CTists ever seem to do is speculate. Who knows, you might start doing something different. Some day.

No hypothesis at all, huh?

 

[proudfootz]

Why not? Isn't the point to determine who killed Kennedy, if not Oswald? In your apparently comprehensive survey of the relevant evidence, not one other person or persons emerge as the more likely killer?

I prefer to stick with what can be established facts.

I don't understand why you are wedded to the notion that wild speculation must be indulged in.

Since you've made no assertions about Jack the Ripper, I don't see why this is relevant. It is, however, appropriate to ask whether you have any other suspects for the murders we are discussing.

To explain to you more explicitly - one need not have a theory about who committed a crime to be able to have reasons to exculpate someone accused of a crime.

Certainly you can ask me to speculate, just as I can ask you to speculate. But what would be the point of that?

Yes, you do. And I'll explain why.

Both the prevailing theory, generally expressed by the Warren Commission, and the various conspiracy theories, both rely on the standard-of-proof concept. In your estimation, the case against Oswald fails to meet a standard of proof. But the question is, what standard of proof? And by whose judgment?

I think I can go along with this, so far.

The conspiracy theorists want to rewrite the problem into one simply of exonerating Oswald, because they think that has the lowest standard of proof.

This speculation is interesting. If you are making a formal claim of this as a matter of fact, you will of course feel obliged to demonstrate it to the same standard you would require of anyone else.

Or, conversely, they think that since Oswald would have to be proven guilty by some high standard of legal proof, and that further they believe that standard has not been met, that he should not be considered the prime suspect.

I'm always interested to see how people seem so willing to indulge in mind-reading tricks.

Is there someone who speaks for this group you call 'conspiracy theorists' whose actual words you can quote?

But that's not the actual problem. That's the cop-out. It's not how historians work and it's not how police work. It's how lawyers work in court to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused, but that's not a broad examination of all the pertinent evidence. If you look at all the available evidence -- and a lot has been uncovered over the decades -- then the conspiracists should be able to show a preponderance of evidence for some other suspect(s), not just a general smattering of evidence purporting to lead vaguely away from Oswald.

So, in your opinion, this is what is required.

So, to return to the Jack the Ripper analogy - if I disagree with your theory that Abraham Lincoln was the culprit it's not enough to show your claim is without foundation but I must also supply my own candidate for the identity of the Ripper? That anything less is a cop out?

Let me now state that I disagree with this 'requirement' you've invented.

A smattering of vaguely exculpatory evidence, much of it contradictory, doesn't erase the fact that out of all the carbon-based life forms we could consider, the most evidence fingers Lee Harvey Oswald more than any other single person or group.

Well, in my opinion it is the quality of the evidence which is more telling than the quantity.

And the quantity isn't that much. In my opinion.

Some of the factoids already trotted out aren't evidence indicating culpability for murder - that he, like many others, worked in a building that bordered Dealey Plaza? That after the assassination he, like many others, left the area? Big whoop!

It's that "more than" that keep conspiracy theorists from having any toehold in the real world of forensic investigation or scholarship regarding Kennedy.

Your opinion is duly noted. As has been suggested - your enthusiasm for your opinion doesn't change the facts.