But, the admonishment below applies to you, too:
I have it on good authority that:
Really? Well then:
You need to post the evidence for this. Why? You know why:
Again, ask for sources in connection to the ongoing discussion and I provide it there and then.
Allways.
So your argument is that if an accused person gets into into a fight with the police,
Or, being badly beaten up by a gang of police officers believing/pretend to belive he killed one of their own.
gets punched in the eye in an attempt to arrest him,
Attempt?
then disrupts his lineups by shouting at the police and claiming he's being framed,
Well, if he is the only one beaten up with a black eye, his face been all over the news, wearing torn clothes, the only one NOT a tidy teenager, well ... I belive he had all the reasons to protest.
You wouldn’t?
and protesting loudly about the violation of his civil rights,
No defence lawyer and a travesty of line up and he should NOT complain?
those lineups can't be held against him and should be disregarded?
Of course they should be disregarded. If they violate the defendants right to a fair and unbiased witness confrontation, they are NOT to be used in order to incriminate him.
There is a similar case in Sweden where the widdow of the assassinated Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme made a positive ID of the assassin being a guy named, Christer Pettersson. A life long alcoholic and drug addict with a violent record.
Problem was, when doing the (video) confrontation the first thing she said was: ”Yes, one can see who is the alcoholic.”
1. She had been briefed by the police/DA that the suspect was an alcoholic and drug addict.
2. All the other guys in the line up were employees at the police headquarters in Stockholm.
The guy walked.
Oswald was beaten up with torn clothes, the three other guys were/looked like tidy teenagers and they too were employees at the police headquarters.
Go figure.
Why hasn't your argument cut out the use of lineups entirely? Are defense lawyers in this country that badly educated that they don't know of this tactic to prevent a valid identification of the person they represent?
Oswald had no defence lawyer in spite of requsting one in the very strange and brief press conference he was giving not knowing he was also a suspect in the assassination of JFK.
I lived through that day. You? I doubt it. The news coverage was predominantly about the death of the President, not the death of police officer Tippit.
Try to remember this:
Mrs. Markham saw Oswald in the news before coming to the line up. Oswald being lynched in prime time national TV, Oswald on the cover of LIFE, etc, etc, ...
So two points here:
1. You conceded the number two man was Oswald. So you're admitting she picked Oswald out of the lineup.
She did not recognize him as the killer of Tippit, but she ”got the shills” when looking at him = Oswald had a black eye, was upset by the unfair composition of the line up. She was in a state of hysteria. Of course she ”got the shills”.
Ball: Was there a number two there? Lol.
2. She was never identified by the Warren Commission as their 'star witness'. This is a term hung on her like a scarlet letter by conspiracy authors who like to pretend that if they quibble enough about her testimony, then readers will be more likely to accept the quibbles about the other witnesses.
Star witness = the only witness who allegedly did a positive ID of Oswald actually shooting Tippit.
And then there's this:
The old CT trick of a quote out of context. We've seen that too many times to be fooled by it any more.
And then you stop the quote just where she starts to explain, putting a period in place of a comma, and pretending that's the entirety of her identification and explanation. It's not.
Shame on you. When you have to mis-represent the testimony by taking it out of context like this, you are admitting you don't have a case.
The pertinent part (the good stuff you left out) is below:
== QUOTE ==
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--
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize him from his clothing?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light short jacket, dark trousers. I looked at his clothing, but I looked at his face, too.
Mr. BALL. Did he have the same clothing on that the man had that you saw shoot the officer?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had, these dark trousers on.
Mr. 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?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had a jacket on when he done it.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a jacket, what general color of jacket?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It was a short jacket open in the front, kind of a grayish tan.
Mr. BALL. Did you tell the police that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, I did.
Mr. BALL. Did any man in the lineup have a jacket on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I can't remember that.
Mr. BALL. Did this number two man that you mentioned to the police have any jacket on when he was in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did he have on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light shirt and dark trousers. (Representative Ford is now in the Commission hearing room.)
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize the man from his clothing or from his face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Mostly from his face.
Mr. BALL. Were you sure it was the same man you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I am sure.
== UNQUOTE ==
I see nothing in your ”context” that in anyway give another meaning to my quote. Nothing. On the contrary, it is strengthening the case of hysteria, confusion and profound uncertainty she is conveying:
I wasn't sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.
Cold shills ≠ positive ID.
So no problems then. Since all your above points are either undocumented, unproven claims with no source provided, or shown to be taken out of context claims and other arguments with no basis in law or reason.
Remember this:
Hank
Ask me to provide source, one at the time, and I do it.
has been stinking the place up for you. Hope you can clear the air after his idiocy.
