Tippit

[Bernice Moore]

DID MRS. MARKHAM IDENTIFY OSWALD AS TIPPIT'S KILLER?

Michael T. Griffith
1997
@All Rights Reserved
Revised and Expanded on 3/12/2002

Did the Warren Commission's star witness against Lee Harvey Oswald in the Tippit slaying, Mrs. Helen Markham, really see Oswald shoot Tippit? Did she actually identify him as the killer at a police lineup?
Attorney Mark Lane testified under oath to the Warren Commission he had talked to Helen Markham, the Commission's star witness in the Tippit shooting, and that she had said the shooter was:

1. short,
2. a little on the heavy side, and,
3. his hair was bushy

Lane's report of his conversation with Mrs. Markham caused a furor because obviously the description she gave him did not fit that of Tippit's alleged killer, Lee Harvey Oswald. Mrs. Markham, however, denied she had ever even talked to Mark Lane, but it turned out she was lying. Lane had taped his conversation with Markham and turned the tape over to the Commission. In fact, at one point Mrs. Markham denied the voice on the tape was her voice! The tape, of course, showed that Lane did not pose as some kind of law enforcement officer.
Why is Mrs. Markham an importnat witness? Because she was the only person the Commission could produce who claimed to have seen Oswald shoot Officer J. D. Tippit. But did Mrs. Markham actually identify Oswald as Tippit's killer? There are doubts that Oswald was the man Mrs. Markham saw shoot Tippit, assuming she even saw the killing and was able to recall what the assailant looked like. Let us begin by considering the transcript of her phone conversation with Mark Lane.
Transcript start:

LANE. But, well, just, could you just give me one moment and tell me. I read that you told some of the reporters that he was short, stocky, and had bushy hair.

MARKHAM. No, no. I did not say this.

LANE. You did not say that?

MARKHAM. No, sir.

Comment: So a news reporter (Hugh Aynesworth from The Dallas Morning News) had interviewed Mrs. Markham and reported in a published article that she had described Tippit's killer as short, stocky, and with bushy hair. Now, whom should we believe, the reporter or Mrs. Markham? To put it another way, should we believe Mrs. Markham, who lied about having spoken with Lane, who falsely claimed Lane posed as some kind of a law enforcement officer, who denied the voice on Lane's tape was even hers, who indicated no one came out to Tippit for about 20 minutes (when in fact the ambulance came and removed Tippit's body within 5-10 minutes of the shooting), who said Tippit tried to talk to her (when all indications are that Tippit died instantly), and who said Tippit was still alive when he was placed into the ambulance (was this the same Tippit who was lying lifelessly in a pool of blood when seen by Benavides and Bowley?), or should we believe the news reporter? It's important to note that the newspaper journalist was not the only person to whom Mrs. Markham described Tippit's killer as having bushy hair. Mrs. Markham said the same thing to Officer J. M. Poe when he interviewed her shortly after the shooting (Dale Myers, With Malice, Oak Cliff Press, 1998, p. 118). Let's return to the transcript:

LANE. Well, would you say that he was stocky?

MARKHAM. Uh, he was short.

LANE. He was short.

MARKHAM. Yes.

Comment: Oswald was not really "short." At 5'9" Oswald was of average height, and one could say he was a "tall" 5'9" since he was sometimes taken to be 5'10" or 5'11". In fact, Oswald was taller than Mrs. Markham. However, some people would describe a 5'9" man as short (or perhaps "a little short").

LANE. And was he a little bit on the heavy side?

MARKHAM. Uh, not too heavy.

Comment: "Not too heavy"? Tippit's killer was "not too heavy"? In contrast, Oswald was almost skinny. In fact, many would say Oswald was slender. He was not heavy at all.

LANE. Not too heavy, but slightly heavy?

MARKHAM. Oh, well, he was, no he wasn't, didn't look too heavy, uh-uh.

Comment: Markham seems to have been waffling a bit here. In any case, while Tippit's killer might not have looked "too heavy," Oswald didn't look the least bit heavy. One can't help but wonder if Markham's description to Lane as "not too heavy" only proves that initially she did describe the man as being "stocky" or "kind of heavy," just as the reporter said she did. One wonders if Mrs. Markham was simply trying to back away from the description she gave to the reporter because she realized it did not match Oswald. On the other hand, in fairness to Mrs. Markham it should be noted that Officer J. M. Poe said Markham told him the killer had a slender build (see below).

LANE. He wasn't too heavy, and would you say that he had rather bushy hair, kind of hair?

MARKHAM. Yes, just a little bit bushy, uh huh.

LANE. It was a little bit bushy.

MARKHAM. Yes.

Comment: So Mrs. Markham said the killer's hair was "a little bushy." But Oswald's hair was straight. In fact, in photos taken of him at the police station, which was after he had scuffled with police at the theater, his hair appears fairly well groomed. One could say it was slightly uncombed on the front top side, but that's about it. I can't see anyone describing it as "a little bushy." Additionally, and this is an important point, Oswald's hair would not have appeared at all uncombed at the Tippit scene, assuming he was even there, which has yet to be established.
As mentioned, when Officer J. M. Poe interviewed Mrs. Markham, she told him Tippit's killer had bushy hair. She said the killer was "a white male about 25 years old, 5'10", slender build, bushy hair, wearing a brown jacket" (Myers, With Malice, p. 118, emphasis added). The jacket that the police claimed Oswald discarded after allegedly shooting Tippit wasn't even close to being brown in color. The police initially said the jacket they reportedly "found" was white. The jacket that was finally submitted as evidence was gray with a slight touch of blue.
Interestingly, Mrs. Markham was not the only witness who said Tippit's killer had "bushy" hair. When Sgt. Gerald Hill arrived at the murder scene, a witness came up to him and said the man who had shot Officer Tippit "had on a jacket and a pair of trousers, and brown bushy hair" (7 H 47-48; Dale Myers, With Malice, p. 117, emphasis added).
Let's skip ahead a bit as Mrs. Markham began to talk about her conversations with the Dallas Police Department (DPD):

LANE. Did you say that he was short and a little bit on the heavy side and had slightly bushy hair?

MARKHAM. Uh, no, I did not. They didn't ask me that.

Comment: The "they" here are the Dallas police. So the police didn't ask if the killer was a bit on the heavy side and had slightly bushy hair. This is not at all surprising, since, amazingly, they had already, somehow, ruled out all other suspects, as well as the need to look for other suspects. They had their man, though to this day no one can explain why the Dallas police would have legitimately wanted Oswald in the first place so soon after the assassination. It seems that certain elements of the DPD were tipped off about Oswald prior to the assassination.

LANE. And when you were there, did they ever ask you anything else about Oswald? About whether he was tall or short?

MARKHAM. Uh, yes, sir. They asked me that.

LANE. And you said he was short, eh?

MARKHAM. Yes, sir, he is short. He was short.

Comment: He was of average height. He was taller than Mrs. Markham. He was sometimes thought to be 5'10" or 5'11". Again, though, some people might call a 5'9" man "short." I don't think most people would do so, but some might view a man of that height as short.

LANE. He was short. And they asked if he was thin or heavy, and you said he was a little on the heavy side?

MARKHAM. And he was, uh, uh, well not too heavy. Uh, say around 160, maybe 150.

Comment: Mrs. Markham's weight estimates aside, note that she once again said he was "not too heavy." But Oswald, on the other hand, was not the least bit heavy. One can't get too much mileage out of her use of the phrase "not too heavy." The point is that Oswald was not the slightest bit heavy. He was, if anything, slender and almost skinny.

LANE. Well, did you say he wasn't too heavy, but he was a little heavy?

MARKHAM. Uh-huh.

Comment: Let's read that again, bearing in mind that the context of the question was what she had said to the police:

LANE. Well, did you say he wasn't too heavy, but he was a little heavy?

MARKHAM. Uh-Huh.

Comment: So Mrs. Markham admitted telling the DPD that Tippit's killer was "a little heavy." This contradicted what she reportedly told Officer Poe. Oswald was not the least bit heavy. It took Lane a while to get her to admit it, but he finally got her to acknowledge that she did tell the Dallas police that Tippit's assailant was "a little heavy." Did she just err in describing the killer's build when she spoke with Officer Poe, and did she in fact really believe the assailant was somewhat heavy?
Interestingly, another witness, Acquilla Clemmons, stated during a filmed interview that she saw two men standing near Tippit's car moments before one of them shot Tippit, and that one of the men was "kind of heavy" (Lane, Rush to Judgment, pp. 193-194).

LANE. You did say that?

MARKHAM. I did identify him in the lineup.

Comment: That wasn't the question. Lane didn't ask her if she had "identified" Oswald in the lineup; rather, he was just asking her to repeat what she had just said--that Tippit's assailant was "a little heavy." And notice that Markham apparently realized the conflict between describing the killer as "a little heavy" and then saying the killer was Oswald. When asked to repeat the statement she had just made that the assailant was "a little heavy," she avoided the question and replied that she had identified Oswald in the lineup.
Furthermore, as we can see in her Warren Commission testimony, Mrs. Markham's "identification" of Oswald in the police lineup was questionable. In fact, during her testimony she was hesitant to even say she had picked Oswald out of the lineup. She started off by repeatedly saying she did not recognize any of the men in the lineup. It was only after being led by Warren Commission counsel that she finally admitted to having "chosen" Oswald.
This leads one to ask: Why was Mrs. Markham so reluctant to admit she had selected Oswald out of the lineup? Was it because she knew she really did not recognize Oswald as the man she had seen kill Tippit? Did she know she had "chosen" Oswald only because it was obvious he was the suspect and because she knew the DPD wanted her to make the identification? Was she hesitant to admit to having "chosen" Oswald because she had been pressured into making her "identification"?
Moreover, given the grossly unfair nature of those lineups, the fact that Mrs. Markham reportedly "picked" Oswald proves little. Even the slowest of witnesses could have readily discerned that Oswald was the suspect, and they could not have failed to notice Oswald's unflattering, contrasting appearance in comparison to the other men in the lineup. Also, Oswald was made to state his name and place of employment. By the time the lineups were held, most of the world had been told that Oswald had fired the shots from the building where he worked.

LANE. Yes, and did you say that the man who shot, did you tell the officers that the man who shot Tippit had bushy hair?

MARKHAM. Uh, no, I did not.

LANE. But, but he did have bushy hair you said, just a little bushy?

MARKHAM. Well, you wouldn't say it hadn't been combed you know or anything.

LANE. Yes.

MARKHAM. Of course, he probably had been through a lot, and was kind of tore up a little. . . .

Comment: Mrs. Markham went from saying the killer's hair was "bushy" (according to the reporter and to a police officer), to saying it was "a little bushy," to saying that Oswald's hair at the police station looked "combed" ("You wouldn't say it hadn't been combed"). Oswald's hair at the police station was only mildly uncombed, and even then only on a certain part of the top of his head. There is a big difference between saying the killer's hair was "bushy" or "a little bushy" and saying that Oswald's hair at the police station was "combed."

LANE. Have you told any reporters about anything?

MARKHAM. Well, one. They worried me to death.

LANE. I'm sure they are after you because you're a very important witness.

MARKHAM. Uh-huh.

LANE. Did any of the reporters, did you tell any reporter that the person that shot Oswald, shot Tippit was short, stocky, and had bushy hair?

MARKHAM. I did not.

Comment: Yet, she had just described the killer as "not too heavy," "kind of heavy," "short," and as having hair that was "a little bushy." Again, whom are we to believe, Mrs. Markham or the reporter? I'll take the reporter's initial version of the interview over Mrs. Markham's version.

LANE. You don't remember telling it because one of the reporters reported that in the newspaper.

MARKHAM. Yes, I read that.

LANE. You read that. What paper was that, do you recall?

MARKHAM. Uh, I believe it was in the "Herald."

LANE. The "Herald"?

MARKHAM. I believe, it might have been the "News."

LANE. It was one of the Dallas papers, uh?

MARKHAM. Yes, sir.

LANE. And, do you know what day that was?

MARKHAM. No, sir.

LANE. That was shortly after, though, wasn't it?

MARKHAM. Yes, sir. They gave my address, name and everything.

LANE. Yes, and they had you quoted as saying that he was short, stocky, and had bushy hair.

MARKHAM. Well, they are just not right.

LANE. But that's what they said, though.

MARKHAM. I know it. They can put anything in papers.

Comment: So we're supposed to believe the reporter got three major details wrong, that Mrs. Markham really didn't say the killer was short, stocky, and had bushy hair. Again, I'll take the reporter's initial recollection over Mrs. Markham's.
Now, let's consider Mrs. Markham's amazing account of her experience at the DPD lineup as she related it during her Warren Commission testimony. As we'll see, she repeatedly said she didn't recognize any of the men in the lineup, and she said the killer's coat didn't match the color of Oswald's gray jacket and that the killer's shirt didn't look like the shirt Oswald had on either! The Warren Commission counsel was Joseph Ball:

Mr. BALL. Later that day they had a showup you went to?

Mrs. MARKHAM. A lineup?

Mr. BALL. A lineup.

Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.

Mr. BALL. How many men were in the lineup?

Mrs. MARKHAM. I believe there were, now I am not positive, I believe there were three besides this man.

Mr. BALL. That would be four people altogether?

Mrs. MARKHAM. I believe that is correct.

Mr. BALL. Were they of anywhere near similar build or size or coloring?

Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, they were all about the same height.

Mr. BALL. Who were you in the lineup room with?

Mrs. MARKHAM. Who was I in the room where they had this man?

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mrs. MARKHAM. Policemen.

Mr. BALL. More than one?

Mrs. MARKHAM. The room was full.

Comment: I'm sure this made for a completely objective, relaxed, pressure-free "identification."

Mr. BALL. It was. In this lineup room, the room was full of policemen. Weren't there just one or two men with you?

Mrs. MARKHAM. One or two with me, but I don't know who they were.

Mr. BALL. But there were other officers?

Mrs. MARKHAM. There were all policemen sitting in the back of me, and aside of me.

Mr. BALL. In this room?

Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir. They were doing something.

Mr. BALL. Before you went into this room were you shown a picture of anyone?

Mrs. MARKHAM. I was not.

Mr. BALL. Did you see any television?

Mrs. MARKHAM. I did not.

Mr. BALL. Did a police officer say anything to you before you went in there, to tell you--

Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.

Comment: Just bear in mind that Mrs. Markham also said she never talked to Mark Lane, and also denied the voice on the tape was hers even after it was played for her, etc., etc. One witness later admitted that the police told him that if he could make the "identification" it would "wrap up" their case against Oswald. Another witness said the police prepared his identification statement before he saw the lineup. Anyway, let's continue.

Mr. BALL. That he thought "We had the right man," or something of that sort? Anything like that?

Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. No statement like that?

Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. Did anybody tell you that the man you were looking for would be in a certain position in the lineup, or anything like that?

Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.

Comment: Again, given the evidence, Mrs. Markham's claim that she was not "helped" in her identification is open to question. And she was almost certainly taken to view the lineup before she was ready to do so (see below).

Mr. BALL. Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?

Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?

Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.

Comment: What? What about her later claim that she would have known Oswald anywhere? That he stared in her eyes, and that she would "know him anywhere"? Let's read this exchange again:

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?

Mrs. MARKHAM. No, Sir.

Comment: So she did not recognize anyone in the lineup.

Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?

Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.

Comment: Notice the not-so-subtle hint from Ball: "I have asked you that question before," as in, "Hey, we already talked about this. Why aren't you coming up with the information we want?" Let's read the exchange again:

Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?

Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.

Comment: So Mrs. Markham said she did not recognize anyone in the lineup, and this time she specified that she didn't recognize any of their faces ("From their face, no"), yet earlier in her testimony she claimed Tippit's killer stared directly at her.

Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?

Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.

Comment: Notice Mrs. Markham's hesitancy to report that she identified Oswald in the lineup. Ball didn't ask her if she "knew anybody" in the lineup. He asked her a simple, straightforward question: "Did you identify anybody in these four people?"

Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?

Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.

Comment: This is nothing short of amazing. She specified that she had not seen any of the men in the lineup previously, even after Ball made it even clearer that he wasn't asking if she "knew" anyone in the lineup, and even when he simply asked her, "Did anyone in the lineup look like anyone you had seen before?"

Mr. BALL. No one of the four?

Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.

Mr. BALL. No one of all four?

Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.

Comment: So twice more she said that no one in the lineup looked like anyone she had seen before--she had never seen any of the men in the lineup before. Yet, Tippit's killer supposedly walked toward her and stared straight at her and this haunting sight was supposedly burned into her memory!

Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?

Comment: Hint, hint. So after having Mrs. Markham tell him several times that she hadn't previously seen any of the lineup men before and hadn't recognized anyone in the lineup, Warren Commission counsel Ball decided it was time for some more prompting. "Uh-hum, how about that number two fellow? You remember him?"

Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two is the one I picked.

Mr. BALL. Well, I thought you just told me that you hadn't--

Mrs. MARKHAM. I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing.

Comment: Ball had said nothing about "clothing." His questions could not have been clearer, and Mrs. Markham had just specified (1) that she didn't recognize any of the lineup men from their faces (so she obviously knew the question wasn't about "clothing") and (2) that she had never seen any of the men before. Mrs. Markham was obviously very reluctant to report under oath to a federal commission that she had "picked" Oswald. It's not hard to understand why: Because she knew she had not really "picked" Oswald of her own free will, because she knew Oswald was not the man she had seen shoot Tippit, or because she obviously didn't remember what the shooter looked like and therefore didn't want to pick anyone out of the lineup. Nor was Oswald the man Mrs. Markham described to the news reporter (or even to Mark Lane, for that matter).

Mr. BALL. No. I wanted to know if that day when you were in there if you saw anyone in there--

Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two.

Mr. BALL. What did you say when you saw number two?

Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, let me tell you. I said the second man, and they kept asking me which one, which one. I said, number two. When I said number two, I just got weak.

Comment: It's worth remembering that Mrs. Markham had to be taken to the first-aid room when she arrived at the police station because she was thought to be in a state of shock. Yet, shortly thereafter she was taken to view the lineup. Captain Fritz was "unhappy" that it was taking "so long" to arrange the viewing.
Also, notice Mrs. Markham's comment that the police "kept asking me which one, which one." This calls to mind an image of a bunch of anxious Dallas police officers pressuring a woman who was in no shape to be viewing a murder-case lineup in the first place.

Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?

Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.

Mr. BALL. You recognized him from his appearance?

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.

Comment: This is hardly what one would call an ironclad identification. As Sylvia Meagher said, "Reading this testimony about the 'identification' on which the Commission relied, I feel a few cold chills too" (Accessories After the Fact, p. 256).

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.

Comment: Oswald could not have "looked at her" from the lineup. He was behind a one-way nylon screen and could not possibly have seen her. Mrs. Markham continued:

Mrs. MARKHAM. 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--

Comment: So after repeatedly saying she didn't recognize anyone in the lineup and that she had never seen any of the lineup men before, she then said that after they had Oswald turn sideways and then back around, she then recognized him as the man who had shot Tippit. And exactly how did she recognize him? Just a moment earlier she had said it was "on account of his eyes, the way he looked at me." She said she wasn't sure, so she told the police she wanted to be "sure," and so she looked at his eyes. Once she looked at his eyes, she apparently became "sure" it was him, "on account of . . . the way he looked at me." But, as mentioned, Oswald could not have "looked at her." Or, did she recognize him only after he was asked to turn sideways and then back around? Or did she "recognize" him by the way he looked at her after they had him turn sideways (even though he could not have looked at her)? It's impossible to tell from her seemingly conflicting testimony on this point.

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.

Comment: So now we learn that it was also Oswald's clothing that she recognized. But this claim only creates more problems, as we'll soon see.

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.

Comment: But the first police radio report on Tippit's killer, which was supposedly based at least partly on Mrs. Markham's description, said he was wearing a white jacket (CE 1974; Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 272). In fact, three minutes after this report went out over the air, a police officer, who remains unidentified to this day, radioed that he had the killer's white jacket in his possession. It would have been very hard to mistake Oswald's gray jacket for a white jacket after holding it and having a chance to look at for even just a few seconds. To add to the confusion, one of the witnesses, Barbara Davis, said Tippit's killer was wearing a black coat. Is it not odd, and in fact astounding, that the "policeman" who allegedly "discovered" the killer's coat has never been identified (see Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, pp. 276-279; Lane, Rush to Judgment, pp. 203-204)?

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.

Comment: Hold it! First she said she couldn't remember if any man in the lineup was wearing a jacket, but then, a couple seconds later, when asked if Oswald had a jacket on, she said he wasn't wearing one.

Mr. BALL. What did he have on?

Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light shirt and dark trousers.

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.

Comment: Perhaps it was just a matter of loose phrasing, but notice that Mrs. Markham did not say she was sure about her identification at the time of the lineup, but that "I am sure." So she went from saying she didn't recognize any of the men in the lineup and that she had never seen any of them before, to saying she was now certain of her identification, yet she avoided saying (or failed to say) she was certain at the time of the lineup that the man whom she had selected was the man she had seen shoot Tippit.

Mr. BALL. Now, what time of day was it that you saw this man in the lineup?

Mrs. MARKHAM. I would say it was four, a little after.

Mr. BALL. That was four in the afternoon?

Mrs. MARKHAM. I was so upset I couldn't even tell you the time. In fact, I wasn't interested in the time.

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. Could I ask just one question?

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. You referred to his eyes; they were rather striking. Can you give any impression of how his eyes looked to you? I realize that is a very vague question.

Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes. He looked wild. They were glassy looking, because I could see--

Mr. DULLES. He had no glasses on?

Mrs. MARKHAM. No. When we looked at each other, he just stared, just like that. I just don't know. I just seen him--I would know the man anywhere, I know I would.

Mr. DULLES. Thank you.

Comment: If she would have "known the man anywhere," why, then, did she start off by repeatedly saying, in the clearest possible terms, that she had never seen any of the men in the lineup before? Can you imagine what a defense attorney could have done with Mrs. Markham's testimony in a trial?
And which man was Mrs. Markham "sure" she would have known anywhere--the man she described to the news reporter and to Officer Poe, or the very similar man whom she described, on tape, to Mark Lane (short, a little heavy, and with hair that was either a little bushy), or Oswald?

Mr. BALL. I have here an exhibit, Commission Exhibit 162, a jacket. Did you ever see this before?

Mrs. MARKHAM. No; I did not.

Mr. BALL. Does it look like, anything like, the jacket the man had on?

Mrs. MARKHAM. It is short, open down the front. but that jacket it is a darker jacket than that, I know it was.

Mr. BALL. You don't think it was as light a jacket as that?

Mrs. MARKHAM. No, it was darker than that, I know it was. At that moment I was so excited--

Comment: This is most interesting: Apparently Mrs. Markham was positive ("I know it was") that the killer's jacket was darker than Oswald's gray jacket. Two early police radio alerts on the killer said his jacket was white. On the other hand, one can interpret Mrs. Markham's statement to mean she was saying the gray jacket was darker than the killer's jacket. It is hard to tell from the transcript. If this interpretation is correct, it makes it all the more interesting that the killer's jacket was initially said to be white. Either way, Mrs. Markham was saying the killer's jacket did not look like the jacket the Commission claimed Oswald was wearing when he allegedly shot Tippit.

Mr. BALL. I show you a shirt here, which is Exhibit 150. Did you ever see a shirt the color of this?

Mrs. MARKHAM. The shirt that this man had, it was a lighter looking shirt than that.

Mr. BALL. The man who shot Tippit?

Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir; I think it was lighter. (3 H 310-312, emphasis added)

Comment: So not only did Oswald's gray jacket not look like the jacket worn by Tippit's killer, but Oswald's shirt was darker than the killer's shirt. What kind of an "identification" is this?
I really don't blame Mrs. Markham for lying under the circumstances. I fault those who undoubtedly put tremendous pressure on her to do so. I think in her own way she was trying to slip in some of the truth, or else she just wasn't very good at sticking to the story she had been fed. I don't doubt that the news reporter accurately relayed what Mrs. Markham had told him, that Tippit's killer was short, stocky, and had bushy hair. She had to back away from that description because it did not resemble Oswald.
I seriously doubt a competent prosecutor would have dared to put Mrs. Markham on the stand if Oswald had lived to stand trial. The problems and contradictions that I've pointed out in the above-quoted segment of her Warren Commission testimony are by no means all of the problematic statements and claims that she made. Under even halfway competent cross-examination Mrs. Markham's story, or stories, would have been destroyed.
*********************************************************
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Michael T. Griffith holds two Associate of Applied Science degrees from the Community College of the Air Force and is awaiting the awarding of a Bachelor of Science degree from Excelsior College in Albany, New York. He is also a two-time graduate of the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, and of the U.S. Air Force Technical Training School in San Angelo, Texas. He has earned instructor certification from both the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force. He is the author of the book Compelling Evidence: A New Look at the Assassination of President Kennedy (Grand Prairie, TX: JFK-Lancer Productions and Publications, 1996). His articles on the assassination have appeared in several journals that deal with the subject. In addition, he is the author of four books on Mormonism and ancient texts.
JFK Assassination Web Page
JFK Assassination Web Page 2
JFK Assassination Web Page (Old)




http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id130.htm

Did Mrs. Markham REALLY see the Tippit killer ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMpCeAfrE1s