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

On Friday, March 5, 2021 at 5:59:07 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> 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.
   
And still ignoring it. If you're going to ignore the inconvenient points I make, why should I bother discussing this with you? 
 
  
> > > > > > > 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.
   

And still ignoring it. If you're going to ignore the inconvenient points I 
make, why should I bother discussing this with you?

> > > > > > > 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.

You're ignoring this. If you're going to ignore the inconvenient points I 
make, why should I bother discussing this with you?

> > > 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.
  
No, that's your assumption, based on your assumption that she meant she 
the gunman drop the shells onto the ground.

  
> > > > 
> > > > == 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.... 
 
Straw man argument and we both know it. Any port in the storm when you're 
that desperate, Don.

You ignore what I actually said to score a bogus point. Here's what I 
actually said. Ignore it some more. You're good at that.

== QUOTE ==
He could have dropped it into his hand and then tossed it aside. Your 
assumption is not  a fact. 
== UNQUOTE ==
  
 
> 
> Barbara D. doesn't make a distinction between "where" she saw the man 
> emptying his gun and ""where" a shell was found. 

Yes, so? I go back to my original question and your original argument.

Did she see the man with a revolver or an automatic? It's your claim the 
shells recovered were from an automatic, but numerous witnesses saw the 
gunman *emptying* his gun -- including Barbara Davis. That act of 
*emptying* the gun manually establishes the weapon used was a revolver (an 
automatic weapon is called that for a reason -- it automatically ejects 
the shells after the bullet is fired. A revolver needs to have the 
expended shells emptied manually).

You tried to argue that the person seen by the Davis women was actually a 
50-something year-old cab driver who picked up Tippit's gun, but you 
appear to have dropped that when I posted links to his image. He looks 
nothing like the 'boy' described by Davis. He also said he didn't pick up 
the gun. It was another witness entirely.

She saw the gunman unloading his weapon. There was no automatic. There was 
Oswald.

> 
> > 
> > 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. 
 
You're ignoring this. If you're going to ignore the inconvenient points I 
make, why should I bother discussing this with you?

> > > > 
> > > > == 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". 

You're admitting here that your argument above ("Well, gee, if he only 
"unloaded" it into his hand, then Barbara D. found her shell in the 
suspect's hand! Nice work, Hank....") was a straw man argument and you 
understood my point all along.

> Either way, she's saying it was found in the front yard. 

Is she? Where does she consistently say that? Your argument reduces to 
what you infer and assume is the absolute truth and any lack of clarity in 
a witnesses statement should resolve in favor of a cover-up and 
conspiracy.

Could he not have tossed it behind him as he turned the corner, for 
example? Wouldn't that act be visible from both the front door and the 
side door?

> 
> 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.

 You avoided my point that even if her testimony changed from her original 
affidavit, it doesn't of necessity imply a cover-up. There could be any 
number of other reasons for the apparent change in her statement.

And of course, regardless of where she saw the man emptying the gun, she 
did say she saw him emptying his gun. And that means she saw a revolver, 
not an automatic. You stress the little apparent (assumed) contradictions, 
and ignore the parts that did not change. And you haven't shown anyone but 
the gunman had any reason to empty his weapon. Tippit's never fired his 
weapon (a revolver), so there was no need to empty any expended shells 
from his weapon, so that eliminates entirely the cab driver Scoggins from 
being the person either Virginia Davis or Barbara Davis saw.

> > > 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":
 

The nitpicking is being done by you. Let's start at the top:
Who was seen emptying the revolver manually?
Was it the gunman -- the only person who had a need to reload, having just 
fired his weapon, shooting a police officer dead -- or was it some innocent 
bystander, who picked up Tippit's weapon?
Were bullets found or expended shells?
If expended shells, doesn't that mean the gunman was seen, not Scoggins or 
some other witness who picked up Tippit's weapon? 

Let's start there. What's your reconstruction of the event, answering 
those questions?

> "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". 
 

Again, there is a certain amount of leeway here about how precisely 
"where" is. I trust you understand that.

 
 
> 
> > 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). 

Thank you for that concession. I said "feet", you're expanding the area to 
"yards" (plural). That's a much larger area where the shells can be 
recovered.

> 
> 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". 

And there's an overlap area at the corner which is visible from the front 
door and the side door.

> 
> > 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. 

The nitpicking is being done by you, Don. I'm pointing out your 
nitpicking, assumptions, and begged questions aren't getting you closer to 
solving this case. Rejecting the reasonable conclusions for outlandish, 
unproven ones (the witnesses saw cab driver Scoggins with Tippit's gun, 
not the gunman) isn't going to ever make sense to reasonabe people.

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

Except perhaps the gunman emptying his revolver. Or is it your argument he 
did he not cross that area whatsoever?

Hank