Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Tomtomkent]

She also said:

So, which one is it?

With context: Both.

This is of course the crux of the criticism, taking either with out context is plainly dishonest.

Taking both in context leads to more varied readings well with in the expectations of human psychology. It could be read as her identifying the man she saw with out recognising him as the man she knows. Or as a plain old human with the limits of human memory.

However, recognising both were part of the longer transcript shows the evidence was dishonestly portrayed as an affirmative of the answer desired rather than the full data set.

QED: Claims of dishonest representation, are supported. Claiming she definately did not identify the man in the line up is effectively a lie. Intentional or not.

 

[JayUtah]

There comes a point when promising to post some theory in good time when the forum is ready, becomes droll.

It has to be remembered that this is the "...it never ends" thread currently in its third split, hence the III in the title, and that we regulars have been in this thread for years and have discussed and debated quite a few theories, as well as quite a few attempts to acquit Oswald. That's not to say we must have seen and heard it all, but when a newcomer tells us he has to start at the beginning and set the stage again, yes it does become droll.

I'd prefer he go back and read the previous threads. But that would mean wading through the thousand fringe resets of Robert Prey, and I wouldn't really want to inflict that on anyone. However, it's disheartening to hear every single conspiracy theorist come in and imply that no one but him knows the material and that he has to start from first principles.

If the theory stands it needs no introduction.

If it's a product of the evidence, having been synthesized from it, then it shouldn't have an introduction.

If the theory only works if the audience is ready to be convinced then it is not convincing on its own merits, which even to the best of us should be a red flag.

Indeed. Most of the conspiracy theories start with the premise that the Warren Commission got it wrong (for whatever reason) and that Oswald was set up somehow. Having made that case, then they try to "close the loop" inappropriately and argue something like, "Now that we know Oswald can't have done it, what else is possible?" Based on that flawed approach they purport to set up some other scenario which, they say, the evidence more appropriately favors.

The reason it's flawed is because the evaluation of other scenarios is based on accepting as fact that Oswald can't have done it, and therefore that evidence purporting to show Oswald as the killer must "somehow" be wrong and can be thus safely discarded. That is, they never allow the two theories to run head-to-head to see which one has the preponderance of evidence. It's that insidious two-step process that turns off mainstream history to conspiracy theories.

 

[proudfootz]

As Jay has stated, and you have ignored, she subsequently explained that she had misunderstood the question.

Yes, Markham seems to be very muddle-headed. Small wonder even Warren Commission defenders considered her a screwball.

Please list those aspects of her testimony that are "not in accord with the facts."

It seems she claims Tippit was alive when she approached and was trying to speak, and she ministered to him until the ambulance arrived.

The facts would seem to indicate Tippit died immediately.

Irrelevant attempt to cast doubt on the reliability of her testimony.

Given her muddle-headedness, I find not rational reason to find her credible.

No. She did pick Oswald out of a line-up, as several other witnesses did. The fact that she later apparently claimed not to have, in response to a question that she subsequently stated she'd misunderstood, does not alter the fact of her initial identification, no matter how much you might wish it did.

As Markham seems easily confused and easily led, I'm not as confident in her as seems necessary to find her credible.

So they all mistakenly identified Oswald? That's a laughable excuse. You are merely attempting to explain away the damning evidence against him. Further, three of the witnesses stated that the shooter emptied his revolver into some bushes; the shell casings recovered from that location were matched to the pistol Oswald had in his possession when he was arrested. How do you account for that?

Depending on witnesses like Markham to identify Oswald as Tippit's killer is laughable.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Depending on witnesses like Markham to identify Oswald as Tippit's killer is laughable.

You will be pleased to learn that we can instead depend on Oswald's revolver which was used to murder officer Tippit and which Oswald still had in his possession when he was apprehended and with which he tried to shoot the arresting officers. Are you still fixated on Markham?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Depending on witnesses like Markham to identify Oswald as Tippit's killer is laughable.

You typed that in response to a post that described physical evidence obtained following up on the witness testimony. Like shells. Why do you assume that the witness testimony alone would be relied on? Or that all were like one example?

 

[JayUtah]

If that is your impression, there's nothing I can do to educate you. That is up to you to familiarize yourself with the literature.

I'm asking for your view of whatever you consider the defensible conclusions of "the literature" to be. Referring me to what someone else has said or written gives me no insight into what you believe and are prepared to argue.

Double standards, special pleading. Stop evading. Answer the question.

There is no double standard. You made an argument based on an opinion and I am asking for the foundation for that opinion. Doing so does not require me to first state and defend some other opinion as a prerequisite.

The only special pleading is coming from you. You seem to argue that your opinion of Ball's examination is somehow beyond question.

Finally I'm not evading anything. You have simply spring up with this tu quoque only after I asked you to establish a foundation for your opinion. You may attempt all you want to shift the burden of proof, but it will not succeed.

You'll find that a little honestly helps your credibility. For example, if you have no relevant experience, why can't you simply say so?

Not at all - the burden to 'prove' Oswald is a murderer...

Changing horses. That's not the point at hand here.

I haven't suggested anything is 'mandatory' - do try to avoid making strawman arguments and attributing them to me.

You're shifting the burden of proof and asking your critics to justify why a courtroom standard of proof would be inappropriate. You seem regard your choice for the standard of proof as a self-evident conclusion. That's why I applied the label "mandatory." It suggests that any other choice would be self-evidently improper.

If you agree that a courtroom "beyond reasonable doubt" standard is not the only standard that may be applied, then please tell us why you believe it is the appropriate standard in this case for the discussion of JFK assassination evidence.

The fervently held belief that he is in fact guilty is not supported by such a lesser burden of proof. In my opinion, of course.

I'm confused. A lesser burden of proof somehow results in a lack of support for Oswald's guilt, but a greater burden of proof somehow does?

"Fervently?" More emotional framing?

What I suggested was that the standard of proof I would like to use in exonerating Oswald is the standard which you have just now agreed is exactly the sort of standard useful for exonerating a suspect.

I didn't state the highlighted portion as the goal. That's your idea of what the goal should be. My goal is the examination of the totality of JFK evidence in hopes of solving the crime. What do you think the standard of proof should be for that goal, and why?

I can see that it will take quite a bit of work to get to the point where actual evidence is presented and argued...

Sorry, not interested. You may not simply assume your critics are uninformed, irrational, or in any other way somehow unprepared to discuss your claims. I've been in this thread for several years and party to its several hundred pages of discussion. I have no interest in your proposal for an elaborate setup in preparation for an actual argument. As Tomtomkent has said, if your case can only be presented after preconditioning your audience and/or critics, it cannot stand on its merits.

I would respond to this, but since it is a weasle-worded strawman, I'm not answering this loaded question.

Refusing to answer questions doesn't convince me you are serious.

No, ignoring Markham's repeated denials wasn't really 'strange' - it's rather expected, unfortunately.

Elaborate on what you mean exactly by "rather expected." Now's your chance to dispel all the alleged mischaracterizations and misrepresentations you suggest have been perpetrated upon you.

More strawman on your part - you're really wasting a lot of effort and time re-writing my arguments to suit your tactics.

Not a straw man at all. You've repeatedly suggested that your methods of investigation are "real world." I'm asking you to substantiate that they are.

Since you seem to consider method and so forth to be very important to a proper exposition of your case, an evaluation of your methods by the relevant field of scholarship would seem very relevant and important indeed. I am not prepared to take your word for it that your methods are those the mainstream would use for the examination of JFK assassination evidence. So if you'd be so kind as to show me the mainstream's opinion of it.

You're getting worked up over nothing.

How am I "worked up?" I'm simply responding to what I think is your point and the arguments you seem to be making for them.

I'm willing to drop this discussion of your silly ad hominem attacks on 'conspiracy theorists' any time you choose.

If you believe my commentary on conspiracy theories constitutes an ad hominem attack against you, you are quite welcome to submit them for moderation. As you have noted in your comments regarding your "thin-skinned" critics, you don't seem to have a handle yet on what this forum considers a personal attack.

But continuing to insinuate that you are being unfairly attacked, as an excuse for avoiding certain points or as a supposed justification for your own inappropriate bluster, is becoming tedious.

First it was 'no interest among CTs to identify suspects' to 'no consensus about who these alternate suspects are'. Another goalpost successfully moved. Good job!

First, you have shown that any previous goalpost had been moved. What happened was that you finally stopped rail-splitting the exoneration proposition.

Second, I never withdrew the first claim. Some conspiracy theorists -- and I identified them chiefly as those who have previously posted in this thread -- expressly state that they have no interest in pursuing an investigation of additional suspects. Since you stated that such a pursuit would be "wild-eyed speculation," and that you refused to engage in it, I felt confident including you among those.

But then you changed your tune. You told me that I was mistaken to say there was no interest in pursuing other suspects, and that if I would but consult "the literature" I would find such claims. But your unwillingness to name any out of "the literature" illustrates that you cannot quickly name one for which there is broad support in whatever you believe "the literature" to be.

You're the one who changed your tune. I simply followed you there without belaboring your backpedaling too much.

If you want the unvarnished truth, in the broadest sense most conspiracy authors do both at approximately the same time. They propose a snippet or two of a scenario and identify players like Hunt as possible conspirators. But then when you ask them to make an affirmative accusation, they explicitly decline and say it's not their goal or duty to do so. You've also played both sides on this point, so I'm content addressing whichever side of your mouth you want to talk out of any one time. But I do wish you'd pick one and stick with it. While I'll address the argument you make on the spot, I won't condone flip-flopping between them as an evasion.

I prefer to take things one step at a time - since we can't even agree on a 'methodology' it would be pointless to discuss evidence or make arguments you can't or won't even consider.

If your theory relies on your own special methodology that you justify only with "why not?" and can't show to be one reasonably accepted in the field of historical, forensic, or legal research into a body of evidence, then what good is it?

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, Markham seems to be very muddle-headed.

Define "muddle-headed." In her testimony she describes herself as "very shook up" (WC op. cit., 305 at 15) Is there a reason you rewrite that as "muddle-headed?"

Small wonder even Warren Commission defenders considered her a screwball.

We are challenging your claims. We are not per se "Warren Commission defenders." If it is to us that you refer, please link to the post where any of us have called Markham a "screwball."

It seems she claims Tippit was alive when she approached and was trying to speak, and she ministered to him until the ambulance arrived.

The facts would seem to indicate Tippit died immediately.

"Would seem to indicate?" That suggests an interpretation and conclusion drawn from facts rather than the facts themselves. Was there, for example, a medical examiner on the scene at the instant of the shooting to ascertain that Tippit died immediately? Was he somehow dismembered or so traumatically injured that instant death was a foregone conclusion? Or instead were the facts of Tippet's susceptibility ultimately the result of synthesizing the most likely conclusion from the testimonies of several eyewitnesses who may have recalled differently? Would you care to elaborate?

Given her muddle-headedness...

I object to the label "muddle-headedness" as your own invention, and one that has no distinct definition. You seem to be using it to suggest that she was deficient in whatever way you need to make your argument plausible.

I find not rational reason to find her credible.

You seemed to find her credible enough when she was denying -- "something like six times" according to you -- that she had identified Oswald in a police lineup. You seemed to find her credible enough when she claimed she had never spoken to Mark Lane. Please explain the process you use to determine when Markham is credible and when she is not.

As Markham seems easily confused and easily led...

Describe what you mean by the highlighted words, how you arrived at the conclusion that Markham was "easily led" as you say, identify the evidence you used to arrive at it, and state what that implies for your argument.

Depending on witnesses like Markham to identify Oswald as Tippit's killer is laughable.

Inappropriate generalization. "Witnesses like Markham" suggests that some number of other pertinent witnesses to Tippit's shooting were "like Markham" in ways you find deleterious to her credibility. If you wish to impeach Markham, impeach her on attributes that pertain to her. If you wish to impeach other witnesses to Tippet's shooting, do so on grounds that pertain to them.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Define "muddle-headed." In her testimony she describes herself as "very shook up" (WC op. cit., 305 at 15) Is there a reason you rewrite that as "muddle-headed?"
[...]
Describe what you mean by the highlighted words, how you arrived at the conclusion that Markham was "easily led" as you say, identify the evidence you used to arrive at it, and state what that implies for your argument.



Inappropriate generalization. "Witnesses like Markham" suggests that some number of other pertinent witnesses to Tippit's shooting were "like Markham" in ways you find deleterious to her credibility. If you wish to impeach Markham, impeach her on attributes that pertain to her. If you wish to impeach other witnesses to Tippet's shooting, do so on grounds that pertain to them.

It is almost like she was coping with a traumatic experience. Like seeing somebody shot...

 

[HSienzant]

Here's the link to Nolan Potter's statement:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0432b.htm

Here it is typed in:

-- quote --
DATE 3/19/64

NOLAN H. POTTER, 7114 Red Bud Drive, Dallas, Texas, telephone number EV-1-4334, was interviewed at his place of employment, the Union Terminal Company, 500 South Houston Street.

POTTER advised that he is a hostler helper for the Union Terminal Company, and, on Novemebr 22, 1963, he was standing on the Elm Street viaduct with some fellow employees awaiting the motorcade with President JOHN F. KENNEDY. POTTER stated that when the President's car had turned west on Elm Street and had driven past the Texas School Book Depository Building, he heard three loud reports which sounded like firecrackers. He then saw President KENNEDY slump over in his car and the Presidential car drive through the underpass. POTTER said he recalls seeing smoke in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building rising above the trees. POTTER said there were people running in every direction and he noticed a police man drive his motorcycle up the slope towards the Texas School Book Depository Building. POTTER said he could not determine from which direction the shots were fired.

He had no further information of any value.

on 3/17/64 at Dallas, Texas File 3 DL-100-10461
by Special Agent THOMAS T. TRETTIS, JR and E. J. ROBERTSON/ds Date dictated 3/17/64
-- unquote --

Do we agree on that being the contents of Potter's statement?

I see that in that statement, Potter is credited with these statements: POTTER said he recalls seeing smoke in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building rising above the trees. POTTER said there were people running in every direction and he noticed a police man drive his motorcycle up the slope towards the Texas School Book Depository Building.

Do you agree that Potter said that? That he mentioned seeing smoke in front of the TSBD and seeing a police drive toward the TSBD?

Mark Lane's treatment of Potter's statement to follow.

 

[HSienzant]

From an unpublished manuscript of mine from 20 years ago:

== quote ==

Nolan Potter has been credited by Mark Lane as a possible eighth knoll witness. How and why Lane counted him as a smoke on the knoll witness is a story in itself, and both enlightening and frightening to anyone wishing to resolve the eyewitness accounts solely through the information provided in the critics' books. In Rush to Judgment, Lane wrote, in a footnote on page 40:

"Another person on the overpass also said that he saw smoke, but the FBI report of that interview is so vague that it is difficult to determine precisely where he placed the smoke. According to the report, a motorcycle patrolman was headed 'up the slope', and the witness located the smoke in that area. The patrolman was headed for the fenced in area on the grassy knoll and did, in fact, run up the incline and into the railroad yards, as other witnesses stated. One might deduce, therefore, that it was there, near the fence, that this witness observed the smoke."

== unquote ==


By ignoring the clear context of Nolan Potter's statement, and overlaying his own interpretation of Potter's words instead, Mark Lane twisted a statement that pointed to the TSBD as the source of the shots into a statement that pointed to the Grassy Knoll as the source of the shots.

Mark Lane lied.

Hank

 

[carlitos]

Actually, the burden of proving Oswald's guilt lies on the prosecution.



It's sad, really, you can't seem wrap your head around that.

In the United States, we don't prosecute dead people.

did[/I] commit a crime to be able to show that someone specific didn't.

Typical CT idiocy. Picking at minutiae and missing the entire picture.

 

[HSienzant]

Mark Lane said: the FBI report of that interview is so vague that it is difficult to determine precisely where he placed the smoke...

The FBI Report said: POTTER said he recalls seeing smoke in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building rising above the trees.

Is the above vague or difficult to place?




Mark Lane said: According to the report, a motorcycle patrolman was headed 'up the slope', and the witness located the smoke in that area. The patrolman was headed for the fenced in area on the grassy knoll and did, in fact, run up the incline and into the railroad yards, as other witnesses stated. One might deduce, therefore, that it was there, near the fence, that this witness observed the smoke.

The FBI Report said: ...he noticed a police man drive his motorcycle up the slope towards the Texas School Book Depository Building.

Lane quotes only the 'up the slope' portion of the comment, and ignores the part about 'towards the Texas School Book Depository Building.' He then ignores the fact that the road slopes upward at roughly a 3% grade toward the TSBD (from Potter's position) and substitutes where he wants the policeman to go instead of where the witness said the policeman went.




Lane lied.

 

[manifesto]

With context: Both.

This is of course the crux of the criticism, taking either with out context is plainly dishonest.

Well, you did just that, didn't you?

Taking both in context leads to more varied readings well with in the expectations of human psychology. It could be read as her identifying the man she saw with out recognising him as the man she knows. Or as a plain old human with the limits of human memory.

The point is that she didn't identify Oswald because he resembled the shooter, she pointed out "nr 2" because he looked scary. The whole setup was rigged. 3 teenagers and Oswald, angry, scared and beaten up by the DPD with a big black brew over his eye, and a completely hysterical Markham in need of medical care. Texas justice?

However, recognising both were part of the longer transcript shows the evidence was dishonestly portrayed as an affirmative of the answer desired rather than the full data set.

No, it was in line with earlier descriptions of the shooter, and it's perfectly alright as a lawyer (informal) for the defense in the case against Oswald to ask questions in order to asses the firmness of a testimony. "Star witness" Markham didn't pass.

QED: Claims of dishonest representation, are supported. Claiming she definately did not identify the man in the line up is effectively a lie. Intentional or not.

No, she didn't identify Oswald, she identified "nr 2" because he gave her the creeps. No wonder ...

Ergo: Lane was not dishonest, misrepresenting Markhams testimony, and he certainly didn't lie.

 

[JayUtah]

"Star witness" Markham didn't pass.

According to whom?

No, she didn't identify Oswald, she identify "nr 2" because he gave her the creeps.

I'm reading the testimony right now, and I see no mention of him "giving her the creeps." Since you and proudfootz are so adamant about precise and accurate language, will you please justify your paraphrasing of Markham's actual testimony?

Ergo: Lane was not dishonest, misrepresenting Markhams testimony, and he certainly didn't lie.

Nonense. There's a huge difference between claiming someone didn't pick a person from the lineup, and claiming that she picked him for what you consider to be the wrong reasons.

 

[JayUtah]

Well, you did just that, didn't you?

No, he didn't. In the context of the phone interview with Lane, Markham repeatedly assured him she picked Oswald out of a police lineup. To claim that she somehow conveyed to him the impression otherwise is dishonest. To claim that she chose Oswald for the wrong reason is to interpolate one's own judgment upon the witness.

In the context of the examination under Ball, the conversation at the top of pg. 311 makes it abundantly clear Markham had previously denied having picked Oswald because she misunderstood Ball's question near the bottom of pg. 310. To claim that the denials were somehow her "real" answer, and that she had been led to state otherwise by a devious Ball, is to deny the context.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Well, you did just that,

Nope. I just reminded somebody of evidence already discussed.

I made no comment, or reached no conclusion beyond the fact that Lane ignored a pertinent statement.

I assume you are able to distinguish between discussing the presentation of sources and drawing conclusions from those sources?

As you have failed to do so for the rest of your post, it is irrelevant.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No, he didn't. In the context of the phone interview with Lane, Markham repeatedly assured him she picked Oswald out of a police lineup. To claim that she somehow conveyed to him the impression otherwise is dishonest. To claim that she chose Oswald for the wrong reason is to interpolate one's own judgment upon the witness.

In the context of the examination under Ball, the conversation at the top of pg. 311 makes it abundantly clear Markham had previously denied having picked Oswald because she misunderstood Ball's question near the bottom of pg. 310. To claim that the denials were somehow her "real" answer, and that she had been led to state otherwise by a devious Ball, is to deny the context.

No I didn't because the only conversation I was having was about evidence already presented. I was asked for a link, I provided a quote. I made no discussion of implication, or drew no conclusion beyond it being dishonest to ignore pertinent statements to tailor a narrative.

 

[swright777]

<big snip>

I'm willing to let the readers judge which of us has better reasoning.

As am I!

+1 for JayUtah

 

[grmcdorman]

<big snip>

I'm willing to let the readers judge which of us has better reasoning.

As am I!

+1 for JayUtah

Yes, that's the infamous appeal to lurkers. As another lurker, I have to agree; both proudfootz and manifesto are failing to convince. When I started reading the JFK threads (multiple threads, yes, because I started before both splits) I did not really think about the issue of Oswald's guilt. Now, however, despite hundreds if not thousands of posts by doubters, I am very much convinced that the preponderance of evidence clearly implicates Oswald and no one else.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Yes, that's the infamous appeal to lurkers. As another lurker, I have to agree; both proudfootz and manifesto are failing to convince. When I started reading the JFK threads (multiple threads, yes, because I started before both splits) I did not really think about the issue of Oswald's guilt. Now, however, despite hundreds if not thousands of posts by doubters, I am very much convinced that the preponderance of evidence clearly implicates Oswald and no one else.

So by appealing to the readers to decide, does that mean truth WOULD be discerned popularity after all?