Re: Was. W.W. Scoggins the only witness at 10th and Patton who actually

On Monday, March 1, 2021 at 9:55:33 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2021 at 4:20:10 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote: 
> > On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 6:57:20 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote: 
> > > On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 8:29:27 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote: 
> > > > On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 10:43:50 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote: 
> > > > > On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 5:54:13 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote: 
> > > > > > On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 6:23:12 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 6:14:00 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote: 
> > > > > > > > On Friday, February 12, 2021 at 5:15:09 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, February 12, 2021 at 12:14:19 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 6:17:13 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 6:56:07 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, February 10, 2021 at 11: CUT g before I had paid too 
> > > > > > > > > much attention to him, and pointing at him, and he was, what I thought, 
> > > > > > > > > was emptying the gun. 
> > > > > > > > > Mr. BALL. He had a gun in his hand? 
> > > > > > > > > Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. 
> > > > > > > > > Mr. BALL. And he was emptying it? 
> > > > > > > > > Mrs. DAVIS. It was open and he had his hands cocked like he was emptying it. 
> > > > > > > > > ... 
> > > > > > > > > Mr. DULLES. Did you know at the time he was emptying his gun? 
> > > > > > > > > Mrs. DAVIS. That is what I presumed because he had it open and was shaking 
> > > > > > > > > it. 
> > > > > > > > > == UNQUOTE == 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > So Barbara also saw the man emptying the gun, she just didn't see him 
> > > > > > > > > discard a shell. 
> > > > > > > > However, she says (in her affidavit) that she & "the police" found a shell 
> > > > > > > > "where I saw this man emptying his gun"*. That they found a shell in the 
> > > > > > > > front yard. But in her testimony, she changes that to, she found a shell 
> > > > > > > > in the side yard on Patton (as you quote her, below): 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > *affidavit: "When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of them where I 
> > > > > > > > saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell." 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Sorry, I don't see the problem. Who besides the killer would be emptying a 
> > > > > > > gun? 
> > > > > > The problem is that she is here saying that they found a shell "where I 
> > > > > > saw this man emptying his gun". 
> > > > > Hilarious. Do you even listen to yourself? If I asked a five-year old 
> > > > > where they put something, and it was where they said it was, should I 
> > > > > accused them of lying? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > That's your argument here. 
> > > You ignored this entirely.
> Still ignoring it.
> > > > > > If so, she would have been able to lead 
> > > > > > the cops directly to it, and it would have been found well before Sgt 
> > > > > > Hill's 1:40 transmission re "auto" shells. 
> > > > > "would have been able to" vs "did". Look up the difference and report back 
> > > > > to us. 
> > > > > > That's why they had Ms Davis 
> > > > > > change her story for her testimony, 
> > > > 
> > > > > Not established. Your entire premise is begged, based on accusing Barbara 
> > > > > Davis of lying, which is premised on her saying the shell was found where 
> > > > > she saw the man emptying his gun. 
> > > > I'm accusing her of changing her story. As you note, she said, in her 
> > > > affidavit, "the shell was found where she saw the man emptying his gun", 
> > > > on the front lawn. In her later testimony, she said it was found on the 
> > > > side yard, on Patton. 
> > > No, you're not simply accusing her of changing her story. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > You're claiming there's a massive cover-up / conspiracy to frame Oswald: 
> > > "That's why *THEY* [emphasis added] had Ms Davis change her story for her 
> > > testimony," And so it's not as simple as accusing her of changing her 
> > > story. There is a whole other story imbedded in your claim. Who is "they" 
> > > and what evidence do you have of that? You have none. And so we come to 
> > > you constantly imbedding your premise into your arguments, begging the 
> > > question, because you have no evidence of this cover-up / conspiracy you 
> > > suggest, just so changes of testimony that you figure must lead somewhere, 
> > > whether they be nothing more than either a clarification / forgetfulness 
> > > on the part of the witness or a misunderstanding of the evidence on your 
> > > part.
> Ignoring this, too.
> > > > > > so that the shell could be said to 
> > > > > > have been found outside her range of vision, and it could not have been 
> > > > > > said to have been covered by the transmission. 
> > > > 
> > > > > What? The man was seen emptying his *revolver*. Numerous witnesses said 
> > > > > that. 
> > > > The key word is "found". In their testimony, both Davises now said that 
> > > > they only SAW the man emptying his gun into his HAND. They now (in their 
> > > > testimony) say they did NOT see the suspect dropping the shell in the 
> > > > grass. 
> > > Virginia Davis did NOT say she saw the suspect dropping the shell on the 
> > > ground in her affidavit either: 
> > Nor did she say there that she saw him emptying the gun into his *hand*.
> So what? Your entire premise was she saw the gunman emptying his gun onto 
> the ground originally, and her later testimony was changed to unloading 
> into his hand. She never said she saw the gunman emptying his gun onto the 
> ground, that was just *your assumption*. Your assumption is wrong, and you 
> haven't established she changed her story here.
> > The hand business turned up only later in their statements & testimony. 
> > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm

> Again, so what? You're treating your assumption as a fact, and it's not. 
> "The hand business" is nothing more than a clarification in their 
> testimony.

Wrong.  The hand business changes where Barbara D. first said the shell 
was found, from front yard to side yard.

> > > 
> > > == QUOTE == 
> > > ...I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun. We 
> > > walked outside and a woman was hollering "he's dead, he's dead, he's 
> > > shot". This woman told Jeanette to call the Police and she did [sic]. I 
> > > saw the officer that had been shot lying on Tenth street after Jeanette 
> > > had called the police. Jeanette found a empty shell [sic] that the man had 
> > > unloaded and gave it to the police. After the Police had left I found a 
> > > empty shell [sic] in our yard. This is the same shell I gave to Detective 
> > > Dhority [sic]. The man that was unloading the gun was the same man I saw 
> > > tonight as number 2 man in a line up. 
> > Notice that Virginia talks only of "unloading". And her "unloaded" re 
> > Barbara Jeanette's shell implies dropping.
> Dropping where? Onto the ground or into the hand? It doesn't imply one or 
> the other. 

Well, gee, if he only "unloaded" it into his hand, then Barbara D. found 
her shell in the suspect's hand!  Nice work, Hank....

Barbara D. doesn't make a distinction between "where" she saw the man 
emptying his gun and ""where" a shell was found.

> 
> You don't get to assume a fact not in evidence, then make that assumption 
> the cornerstone of your argument for the entire argument for framing 
> Oswald. 
> 
> Well, I suppose you can, and in fact, you do. But I'm here to tell you 
> that's not the right way to resolve discrepancies in this -- or any other 
> -- case.
> > > 
> > > == UNQUOTE == 
> > > 
> > > Barbara Davis did NOT say she saw the suspect dropping the shell on the 
> > > ground in her affidavit either: 
> > > 
> > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm 
> > > 
> > > == QUOTE == 
> > > 
> > > I heard a shot and jumped up and heard another shot. I put on my shoes and 
> > > went to the door and I saw this man walking across my front yard unloading 
> > > a gun. ... When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of them where I saw 
> > > this man emptying his gun and we found a shell. After the police had left 
> > > I went back into the yard and Virginia found another shell which I turned 
> > > over to the police. About 8:00 pm the same day, the police came after me 
> > > and took me downtown to the city hall where I saw this man in a lineup. 
> > > The #2 man in a 4-man lineup was the same man I saw in my yard, also the 
> > > one that was unloading the gun. 
> > > == UNQUOTE == 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > There is nothing in either first day affidavit about seeing the man 
> > > actually drop a shell onto the ground. They both simply say they saw him 
> > > 'unloading a gun" or "emptying his gun". Nothing in either about what 
> > > specifically happened to the shells, whether the shells were simply 
> > > emptied into his palm or tossed onto the ground. 
> > > 
> > However, BJ implies in her affidavit that the shell was dropped where she 
> > saw the man "emptying his gun": "When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] 
> > one of them where I saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell."
> It doesn't imply he dropped it directly onto the ground.

Sorry, it DOES imply that.  Or, just to oblige you, I'll allow that the 
suspect COULD have dropped the shell into his hand and then simply dropped 
it onto the ground "where [Barbara D.] saw this man emptying his gun".  
Either way, she's saying it was found in the front yard.

 He could have 
> dropped it into his hand and then tossed it aside. Your assumption is not 
> a fact.
> > > Your entire argument is premised around an change between the testimony 
> > > and the affidavit that you claim happened, but didn't. 
> > A change certainly happened with Virginia--in the affidavit, the action 
> > takes place on the Patton side of the house; in her testimony, it has 
> > CHANGED to the front, 10th St. side. She even, as I recall, has to 
> > reject, explicitly, in her testimony, what she said in her affidavit.
> And does every change, every clarification, every lapse of memory by a 
> witness mean a cover up in every case? Not just the JFK case, every case 
> the police ever investigate? 
> 
> Does it? If a witness says one thing on day one and another on day 100, 
> does that mean the witness has changed their story to aid in a cover up? 
> 
> Your argument is nonsense here. You're assuming the drop, you're assuming 
> the cover up.
> > And a CHANGE does take place between affidavit and testimony with Barbara 
> > Jeanette, too: In her affidavit, she says that they found a shell "where 
> > I saw this man emptying his gun", i.e., the front yard. In her testimony, 
> > the shell is now found in the side yard. You're wrong on both counts.
> Your i.e. is unproven. 
> 
> Hilarious. You're exposing the silliness of your argument as we discuss 
> this. I don't have to disprove your assertions. You need to prove them. 
> You need to prove any change automatically means cover up and conspiracy 
> and show how you eliminated all other possibilities. You never do. 
> 
> You're assuming what you need to prove. She doesn't say they found the 
> shell where she saw the man drop the shell *onto the ground*.

If you were a CT, McAdams would call this "nitpicking":

"When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of them where I saw 
> > > this man emptying his gun and we found a shell." 

She does not say, for instance, "we found a shell elsewhere".

 You're 
> assuming that. She doesn't specify how far or close the recovered shell 
> was from where the gunman was. You're assuming it was *right there*, 
> whereas it might have been found a few feet away from where the man was 
> unloading his gun.

Barbara D. indicated they were found some YARDS away (as in 
feet/yards/miles, not front yard/side yard).

 You assume there is a front yard and a side yard, but 
> in fact it was open ground, and there is no clear demarcation.

There was a row of bushes in between.  And there is, as Virginia D. says, 
a "side door", so there's a "side yard".

 Someone 
> looking out the front door may call the yard to their left 'the front 
> yard', whereas someone looking out the side door on the left of the house 
> may call the yard to their right 'the side yard'. In other words, there is 
> a part of the yard that could be either side yard or front yard, depending 
> on the person's viewpoint. You assume no part of the front yard could ever 
> be part of the side yard, and that's simply not the case.

Nitpicking again.  That ambiguous area of the yards is not in question.  
Nothing was seen in that area.

dcw