Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[I Ratant]

A modest collections of books and reference information. #'s 1 & 2 are sufficient to cover the field.

 

[proudfootz]

No evidence that you'll acknowledge, anyway.

If we're going to accept the opinions of bloggers I can find all the evidence you'll ever want that Bugliosi or Posner are liars.

But don't set the bar high for me and set it low for your own prejudices.

 

[proudfootz]

Do I find Mark Lane's lies in Gerry Posner's "Case Closed"? What page?

Funny how no evidence Lane has lied has been produced.

I guess we have to take someone's word for it.

 

[manifesto]

A modest collections of books and reference information. #'s 1 & 2 are sufficient to cover the field.

Good, then you should have no problem open one of them, find the lie/s and quote it together with a page number, should you?

 

[manifesto]

Funny how no evidence Lane has lied has been produced.

I guess we have to take someone's word for it.

Yes. This is the strangest discussion I have so far ever been part of. Ever.

 

[proudfootz]

No, that isn't the question.

It goes to the credibility of Markham if she lies in her WC testimony.

No, you simply didn't understand the rebuttal. Either the conversation between Lane and Markham took place as advertised, in which case Lane lied about what Markham told him. Or it didn't take place as claimed, in which case Lane fabricated it, then misrepresented it.

Other than some vague claims that Lane lied, all we have seen so far is that Markham lied about talking to Lane, and that WC lawyers had to be very persistent to get past six denials that she identified Oswald.

 

[JayUtah]

But don't set the bar high for me and set it low for your own prejudices.

My opinion is not based on bloggers.

Evidence has been presented. If you wish to contest it, contest it -- on whatever grounds you feel are appropriate. But pretending it doesn't exist is just a lame excuse for not contesting it.

 

[JayUtah]

Good, then you should have no problem open one of them, find the lie/s and quote it together with a page number, should you?

What makes you think the evidence you seek is limited to one or two pages in some book that can be easily cited? Have you read the referred book? Yes or no.

 

[proudfootz]

Nope, just amused.

But you did reproduce it anyway, voluntarily and selectively, and then had to backpedal.

I haven't had to backpedal at all. Do you understand the words you're trying to use?

First you posted a short snippet and emphasized the line you thought would convey that Markham denied her identification. Then when it became apparent your opponents knew more of the testimony than you perhaps credited them for, you had to backpedal and explain that what she said for the following two pages wasn't her "real" testimony, but was only the result of what you claimed was badgering "by lawyers." That was Plan B after Plan A (the selective quotation) failed.

Nice story, bro.

The fact is she denied, and denied, and denied, and denied, again and again that she identified Oswald.

That it took a great deal of persistence by prosecution lawyers to get the answer they wanted tells us a great deal about Markham.

Then someone suggested she was old, confused, under-educated as an excuse - but all that tells us is that she's not a very reliable witness.

No more so than you telling me how upset I am. I simply noted that it took three tries before you would acknowledge that the excerpt you quoted from Markham's Warren Commission testimony wasn't the whole truth. I'm not pretending to practice psychology; I'm just observing you as you backpedal.

There you go, using that word. It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Still, none of your attempts to characterize me has produced an iota of evidence that Lane lied, as the unsupported claim goes.

Simple observation shows that you seem to prefer to go after the messenger than produce evidence supporting the claim.

"Would appear necessary" is your layman's interpretation, and it begs the question. As I said, it appears you're the one doing damage control when it became apparent you couldn't get by with selectively quoting Markham.

The folks who claim Markham testified that she 'identified Oswald' have been selective when they leave out her many, many denials that she did.

I was simply correcting your selective use of her testimony.

Taken together, it was like pulling teeth to finally get her to say she did.

 

[proudfootz]

My opinion is not based on bloggers.

Evidence has been presented. If you wish to contest it, contest it -- on whatever grounds you feel are appropriate. But pretending it doesn't exist is just a lame excuse for not contesting it.

The remark by Ayton was the 'evidence'? Really?

That's a pitifully low standard of evidence.

 

[proudfootz]

Good, then you should have no problem open one of them, find the lie/s and quote it together with a page number, should you?

I can tell you on what page Bugliosi lies about something in his assassination book, if you want a change of subject.

Or link you to Posner's dishonesty...

 

[JayUtah]

It goes to the credibility of Markham if she lies in her WC testimony.

Markham's credibility is a separate issue. The issue at hand -- before you changed the subject to try to undermine Markham -- is Lane's credibility. One of the points raised is whether Lane accurately represented what he purported to be Markham's conversation to him on the phone. I have presented the relevant dilemma three times now, and you insist on trying to talk about Markham instead.

Can you explain why Lane's characterization of the phone transcript, especially regarding Markham's description of Oswald, does not fit what the transcript actually said?

Other than some vague claims that Lane lied...

Specific examples were provided. You simply wrote them off as the comments of "bloggers" which you felt you could safely ignore, and refused to discuss the claims further. Whether you believe I rely on bloggers or not, I find it interesting that you dismiss bloggers when you yourself quoted a blogger's analysis of part of the Markham testimony.

...all we have seen so far is that Markham lied about talking to Lane, and that WC lawyers had to be very persistent to get past six denials that she identified Oswald.

Please elaborate on the first point. Especially, please elaborate on the notion that she denied it was her voice on the tape when it was played to her.

As to the second point, you consistently try to spin the Markham testimony and suggest I have to accept your spin. I have read it in its entirety, and I will draw my own conclusions regarding what difficulty may have arisen in the examination and what it means in terms of proof and in terms of Markham's credibility. Keep in mind that the Warren Commission was already aware that Markham had, in the end, identified Oswald in the Dallas police department lineup.

 

[JayUtah]

I haven't had to backpedal at all. Do you understand the words you're trying to use?

Very much so. I outlined your backpedaling, to which your principal response is...

Nice story, bro.

The fact is she denied, and denied, and denied, and denied, again and again that she identified Oswald.

I will draw my own conclusions regarding her testimony. The fact remains that you didn't address the latter portion of her testimony until it was repeatedly pushed under your nose.

That it took a great deal of persistence by prosecution lawyers to get the answer they wanted tells us a great deal about Markham.

Again you insist on interpreting the tenor and purpose of the cross-examination. Are you a lawyer? Have you ever physically been in a courtroom and actually observed the cross-examination of a witness by counsel?

Then someone suggested she was old, confused, under-educated as an excuse - but all that tells us is that she's not a very reliable witness.

That's up to the individual reader to determine. But you're quite adamant that we should focus on Markham and ignore the fact that Lane blatantly misrepresented to the Commission what the transcript of the purported phone conversation actually said. Every time I try to direct your attention to this, your response is, "But see, Markham is unreliable.."

Simple observation shows that you seem to prefer to go after the messenger than produce evidence supporting the claim.

Then report my posts for moderation. Otherwise address my points.

I was simply correcting your selective use of her testimony.

...says the guy who never quoted or acknowledged more than a brief snippet of it.

 

[I Ratant]

Good, then you should have no problem open one of them, find the lie/s and quote it together with a page number, should you?

.
Lazy ass guy, aren't you!....
Books have glossaries in the back with names, places, and things that are mentioned, listed by page numbers, in this case.
Do your own work.

 

[manifesto]

.
Lazy ass guy, aren't you!....
Books have glossaries in the back with names, places, and things that are mentioned, listed by page numbers, in this case.
Do your own work.

Are you serious?

 

[manifesto]

Apparently no one knows what lies Lane is supposed to have committed, but the rumor is going around based on plagiarist Gerald Posner's word of honor.

I read somewhere that Bob Loomis had a hand in it (Case Closed) ... that feels even more reassuring.

 

[JayUtah]

Are you serious?

Yes, he is. And so am I. Have you read the book in question? Yes or no.

 

[proudfootz]

Markham's credibility is a separate issue. The issue at hand -- before you changed the subject to try to undermine Markham -- is Lane's credibility. One of the points raised is whether Lane accurately represented what he purported to be Markham's conversation to him on the phone. I have presented the relevant dilemma three times now, and you insist on trying to talk about Markham instead.

Can you explain why Lane's characterization of the phone transcript, especially regarding Markham's description of Oswald, does not fit what the transcript actually said?

Doesn't it?

We'd like to see this claim supported with some evidence.

Specific examples were provided.

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.

You simply wrote them off as the comments of "bloggers" which you felt you could safely ignore, and refused to discuss the claims further.

I'd be happy to discuss the accusations of someone like Ayton, so long as the same credibility given to the opinions of others I might wish to cite.

Whether you believe I rely on bloggers or not, I find it interesting that you dismiss bloggers when you yourself quoted a blogger's analysis of part of the Markham testimony.

I only want to apply to your sources the same respect you give mine. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Please elaborate on the first point. Especially, please elaborate on the notion that she denied it was her voice on the tape when it was played to her.

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

--------

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember at that time that Mr. Ball asked you the question, "Did you ever talk to a New York lawyer who said he was from New York?" And that you answered, "No, sir." Mr. Ball then asked you, "Did you ever talk to a lawyer who was investigating the case on behalf of the deceased man, Lee Oswald?" Your answer was, "No, sir." Mr. Ball asked, "Did you ever talk to a man who said he was representing the mother of Lee Oswald?" And you answered, "No, sir." And then Mr. Ball asked you, "You don't remember ever talking to a man named Mark Lane?" And then you answered, No, sir."
Mrs. MARKHAM. Right.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember giving that testimony at that time?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever talked to Mark Lane?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No; I haven't--I haven't never seen the man in my life.
Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever talk to Mark Lane on the telephone?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you remember that Congressman Ford specifically, and Mr. Dulles, asked you whether or not you had talked to Mark Lane on the telephone and you told them at that time that you had not talked to Mark Lane?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir; I have never seen the man. If he was to come in here I wouldn't know who he was.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, aside from the fact you have never seen the man, you also told the Commission when you were in Washington that you had never talked to him over the telephone?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Right.
Mr. LIEBELER. Have you talked to Mark Lane over the telephone since you were in Washington, before today?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. You have never talked to Mark Lane over the telephone?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir; no, sir. Now, the old lady, and they told me were reporters, came to my house.
Mr. LIEBELER. Right, but you have no recollection of ever talking yourself?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I never even talked to her even.
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, I'll tell you very frankly, that we have a tape recording of a conversation that purports to be a conversation between you and Mark Lane on the telephone and I have a transcript which we will mark as Markham Exhibit No. 1----
Mrs. MARKHAM. Let me tell you now----
Mr. LIEBELER. I ask you to read the transcript and I will make arrangements----I hadn't thought you would be here until 1 o'clock this afternoon, so I don't have a tape recorder here, but I think I can have the Secret Service bring one over. Would you like to hear the tape, so you can tell us whether or not that is your voice?

Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; sure.
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me make arrangements then to have the Secret Service bring the tape recorder on over and we will see if it is your voice.
Mrs. MARKHAM. I am going to tell you this, now, there was someone--let me tell you this--there was someone one day-- this was all to me--I was scared, and I was, you know, frightened, and one day--now, this brings me back--the memories [referring to the transcript heretofore mentions]. One day on my job there was someone that called, but he told me he was from the city.
Mr. LIEBELER. From here in Dallas?
Mrs. MARKHAM. That's right; the city hall down here, and this man told me he was---now, I can tell you what he told me he was--he said he was Captain Fritz--over this telephone--Capt. Will Fritz and I know you are familiar with him, maybe. Now, he said he was Captain Fritz with the police department of the city of Dallas.
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, this transcript indicates that someone called a number, a telephone number---do you remember the telephone number at your office where you worked; were you working?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; I was working down here on Main Street.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know what the telephone down there is?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No; I have really forgotten it, but it was over this office phone. It's a Riverside 8 number.
Mr. LIEBELER. Is there such a number as Matthew 7-6797?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Or is there such a number as MA 7-6797, is there such a number as that that you know of?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. This transcript here indicates that some gentleman called this number here, Matthew 7-6797.
Mrs. MARKHAM. My number at home is Whitehall and this number that I worked at was Riverside 8.
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, I think what we should do is have the Secret Service bring a tape recorder here, because I want you to listen to this conversation, and if it is not your voice, we certainly want to know that.
Mrs. MARKHAM. Sure, and this man--what this man told me--he told me he was from the Dallas Police Department and he said it was concerning the Oswalds and they had to get a little more information from me.
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, let me call the Secret Service.
Mrs. MARKHAM. And listen, that was the only call that I know of. You see, I kept racking my brain thinking back, you know.
Mr. LIEBELER. Why don't we suspend momentarily and as soon as the Secret Service man brings the tape recorder over here, which should be within a short time, a half an hour, we will play the tape.
Mrs. MARKHAM. All right.
(At this point the proceedings were recessed and resumed at 11:40 a.m., as follows

Mr. LIEBELER. This is Mr. John Joe Howlett with the Secret Service and he has brought over the tape recorder and has put the tape on it and we will continue with your deposition, Mrs. Markham. Mr. Howlett, with the U.S. Secret Service, will operate the tape recorder and I will ask you, Mrs. Markham, to listen, to this conversation and tell us whether or not this is an accurate reflection of a conversation that you had over the telephone some time ago?
The COURT REORTER. How much of this tape recording do you want on the record here?
Mr. LIEBELER. I don't want any of this on the record now; however, I will give you, Mrs. Markham, a transcript of this telephone conversation to review and follow along, if you will. This memorandum consists of 29 pages appearing on the letterhead of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, dated July 16, 1964, and I want you to see if that is not in fact a transcript, a typed copy of what is on this tape.
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; I'll watch this.
(At this point Mr. Howlett proceeded to play the tape recording of the telephone conversation heretofore referred to and when the witness, Mrs. Markham, began to indicate reactions to the recorded conversation, the reporter resumed recording same as hereinafter shown and the record here begins with the question and answer at the time Mrs. Markham began indicating her reactions.)

"Mr. LANE. I wonder if you would be good enough to tell me--I have your affidavit which you gave the police on that date.
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
"Mr. LANE. And I have read that, of course, and I wonder if you would be good enough to talk to me?"

Mr. LIEBELER. You are shaking your head, as you listen to this tape recorder, Mrs. Markham.
John Joe, let's stop the recorder for a moment. What do you mean to indicate by that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I never talked to that man.
Mr. LIEBELER. Is that not your voice on the tape?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I can't tell about my voice, but that man--I never talked to no woman or no man like that.
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, we will play the recording some more, and are you following it along, Mrs. Markham?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; I am right here.
Mr. LIEBELER. And does this memorandum appear to be an accurate and exact transcript of the recording?
Mrs. MARKHAM. That man--whoever that man is--I don't know, but it says, "Mark Lane." No, sir--I'll tell the truth (raising right hand) and those words that he's saying--that's nothing like the telephone call I got--nothing.
Mr. LIEBELER. Let's continue with the recording and see if you recognize your voice here on the tape.

"Mr. LANE. Tell me the description of the man whom you saw.
"Mrs. MARKHAM. This is an office business phone and I just can't tell you that. I don't have the time to.
"Mr. LANE. Well, could you just give me one moment and tell me--I read where you told some of the reporters that he was short and stocky and had bushy hair.
"Mrs. MARKHAM. No, no; I did not say that.
"Mr. LANE. You did not say that?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
"Mr. LANE. Would you say that he was stocky?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. He was short.
"Mr. LANE. He was short?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.
"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.
"Mr. LANE. He wasn't too heavy and would you say that he had a rather bushy kind of hair?

Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; that's my voice.

"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; just a little bit bushy.
"Mr. LANE. It was a little bit bushy?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.
"Mr. LANE. Yes. Was there anybody else around when you saw this happen?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir; I didn't see anyone.
"Mr. LANE. There was no one else there. Did you ever have a chance to see Mr. Oswald when he was alive, I mean after he was arrested, did they bring you down to look at him?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. I saw him on the lineup.
"Mr. LANE. Yes. Did he look anything like the man who shot Oswald?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. I identified him.
"Mr. LANE. You identified him as the man who did shoot him. Did anyone point him out to you at that time as the man?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. In the lineup?
"Mr. LANE. Yes.
"Mrs. MARKHAM. No; they did not.
"Mr. LANE. Did they tell you who it might be?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. They didn't tell me one thing.
"Mr. LANE. No. Do you recall what the gentleman was wearing who shot Officer Tippit?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
"Mr. LANE. How was he dressed?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light gray looking jacket.
"Mr. LANE. Yes.
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Kind of dark trousers.
"Mr. LANE. Dark trousers?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Uh-huh.
"Mr. LANE. And did you see what color shirt?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. No; I could not.
"Mr. LANE. The jacket was open or closed?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir; it was zipped up a little bit--the neck was closed--pretty close too.
"Mr. LANE. Well, as I said, I have read your affidavit and it indicates the police car stopped and then this man walked over to it and leaned on it and placed his arms up against the car.
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Up in the window.
"Mr. LANE. In the window?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.
"Mr. LANE. You didn't see the police officer call him over, did you?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; I seen the police car stop--I seen it all.
"Mr. LANE. I beg your pardon?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir; I seen the police car stop.
"Mr. LANE. You heard the police car stop?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. I seen it.
"Mr. LANE. You saw it stop and then Oswald or this gentleman, whoever it was, walked over to the car?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir; he walked over to the car.
"Mr. LANE. You didn't see the officer call him over, though, did you?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. He rolled down the window.
"Mr. LANE. He did what?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. He rolled down his window.
"Mr. LANE. The officer rolled down the window?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; uh-huh.
"Mr. LANE. Of course, you didn't put that in your affidavit.
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Sir?
"Mr. LANE. That was not in your affidavit.
"Mrs. MARKHAM. It should have been.
"Mr. LANE. It should have been--you told that to the officers?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir; he had to have the window rolled down, because, you see, he leaned over in the window.
"Mr. LANE. I see. Now, did you tell the officers at the police station when they questioned you, the description of the man who shot Tippit?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. I told them that at the scene of the murder.
"Mr. LANE. You told the officers the description?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
"Mr. LANE. Did you say that he was short and a little bit on the heavy side and had slightly bushy hair?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. No; I did not. They didn't ask me that.
"Mr. LANE. They never asked you his description?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; they asked what he was wearing.
"Mr. LANE. Just what he was wearing?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
"Mr. LANE. But they never asked you how he was built or anything like that?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
"Mr. LANE. Well, you went to the police station where they took your affidavit, right?
" Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes."

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you are shaking your head at this point. Miss Reporter, you are taking the transcript down.
The REPORTER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, at this point you were shaking your head, what do you mean by that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. This man--I have never talked with. This lady was never on the telephone. This man that called me like I told you, he told me he was from the city hall, the police department, the police department of the city hall.
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, do you remember having this conversation with somebody?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; I do, but he told me he was from the police department of city hall and he had to get some information, a little more information from me. That was my boss that told me the one that said, "Wait a minute," that was my boss, Mr. Sam Gambolus.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you received this call at the place where you work?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember specifically that when the telephone calls started, that this man told you he was from the city hall of the police department?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir; yes, sir; right. Because you see--- I had got a call from a man, but it was--I found out later, because the lady had called me back, it was from Mr. Tippit's sister, and I had told them that I couldn't talk, you know, I was busy on my job and this man told me that he was from the police department of the city hall and he had to get a little more information and it wouldn't take much of my time, and so I got permission from this boss, Mr. Gambolus, to talk with this man. Now, he told me that.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, did he tell you he was from the police department?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, on this tape recording right here, this man is asking you what the police did.
Mrs. MARKHAM. I know it.
Mr. LIEBELER. And he said they--the police took you and took your affidavit.
Mrs. MARKHAM. That man--I have never talked to that man. I talked to a man that was supposed to have been from the police department of the city hall.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recognize this as the voice of the man you talked to?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No; it is not.
Mr. LIEBELER. This is not the same voice?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No.
Mr. LIEBELER. How do you explain the fact that the woman's voice on this tape recording is your voice?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I never heard that.
Mr. LIEBELER. You never heard the man's voice before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. And I never heard this lady's voice before--this is the first time.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any doubt in your mind at all that the lady's voice on the tape now is your voice?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It is my voice, but this man told me he was from the city police.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did it occur to you as you were talking to him--when he said for example, on the tape here just a few minutes ago, did you tell the officers--you told this person you were talking to on this tape that you-saw the police car stop and that this man walked over to the car and that the officer had rolled the window down and this man's voice said you did not put in the affidavit that you had seen the officer roll the window down.
Mrs. MARKHAM. Man, I have never heard such a thing as this.
Mr. LIEBELER. At the bottom of page 6 he says, "I see. Now, did you tell the officers at the police station, when they questioned you, the description of the man who shot Tippit?"
You couldn't have thought was from the police department if he was asking you what you were telling the police before---do you agree with me?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; but he told me he was from the police department and he had to get some information from me and I wanted to get back to my work.
Mr. LIEBELER. So, it is your testimony that even though you engaged in this conversation here, the man--when he started out, he told you that he was from the police department; is that right?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir; I wouldn't have never talked to this man. Just like if I get a telephone call I say, "You know where I am at, come down to see me." He told me he was from the police department and this lady never talked to me.
Mr. LIEBELER. Which lady is that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. On this tape.
Mr. LIEBELER. Which lady on the tape?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It was a woman talking.
Mr. LIEBELER. The lady's voice that was talking on the tape here?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. I thought that was your voice?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Not at the first there.
Mr. LIEBELER. Not at the first--you mean the telephone operator, the one that was the telephone operator? The tape here indicates that the long-distance telephone operator or some telephone operator called you to the telephone and a man answered the telephone.
Mrs. MARKHAM. No; my boss called me to the telephone.
Mr. LIEBELER. So, when you came to the telephone it was this man on the telephone and he told you that he was from the police department?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. And then you engaged in this telephone conversation?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; he certainly did.
Mr. LIEBELER. So that, in fact, your testimony is that you had never had anybody introduce themselves to you as Mark Lane?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you haven't talked to him over the telephone?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir; and so help me [raising right hand] I did not.
Mr. LIEBELER. You don't have any doubt, however, that you did engage in this particular conversation, except that you are having trouble at the beginning and end of it because you said that the man told you that he was from the police department when he called?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir ; he certainly did. I know he did.

------------

It just goes to show what a great witness the WC has on their hands!


So here is what Lane is said to have said:

"She [Markham] said he [the shooter] was short, a little on the heavy side, and his hair was somewhat bushy. I think it is fair to state that an accurate description of Oswald would be average height, quite slender with thin and receding hair."

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

Conclusion: Mark Lane told the truth. Case closed.

As to the second point, you consistently try to spin the Markham testimony and suggest I have to accept your spin. I have read it in its entirety, and I will draw my own conclusions regarding what difficulty may have arisen in the examination and what it means in terms of proof and in terms of Markham's credibility. Keep in mind that the Warren Commission was already aware that Markham had, in the end, identified Oswald in the Dallas police department lineup.

Perhaps 'in the end' after much persuasion Markham did agree to 'identify' Oswald. The means of obtaining that result is of interest, and would be of interest to any intelligent observer.

I have simply presented evidence for my position. I don't accept your spin on these matters.

 

[Mudcat]

Do your own work.

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.

 

[proudfootz]

Very much so. I outlined your backpedaling, to which your principal response is...

You told a story, with much spin.

I backed up my claims with quotes and citations.

I will draw my own conclusions regarding her testimony. The fact remains that you didn't address the latter portion of her testimony until it was repeatedly pushed under your nose.

Nor did you address the bulk of her testimony, which you conveniently left out.

Again you insist on interpreting the tenor and purpose of the cross-examination. Are you a lawyer? Have you ever physically been in a courtroom and actually observed the cross-examination of a witness by counsel?

There was no cross examination of this witness by counsel for the defense.

Your questions are irrelevant. Nice try at changing the subject, though.

That's up to the individual reader to determine. But you're quite adamant that we should focus on Markham and ignore the fact that Lane blatantly misrepresented to the Commission what the transcript of the purported phone conversation actually said. Every time I try to direct your attention to this, your response is, "But see, Markham is unreliable.."

No evidence that Lane misrepresented the phone conversation has been presented.

I can no more address this non-existent 'fact' than I can ride a unicorn to the Lost Continent of Mu.

Then report my posts for moderation. Otherwise address my points.

I have repeatedly addressed your points, when I can find them.

...says the guy who never quoted or acknowledged more than a brief snippet of it.

I produced more of the actual testimony than anyone else here.

You seem to enjoy indulging yourself in misrepresenting the true situation.