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

On Tuesday, March 2, 2021 at 1:13:40 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Monday, March 1, 2021 at 7:54:39 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote: 
> > On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 2:09:40 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote: 
> > > On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 12:41:28 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote: 
> > > > On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 10:43:21 AM UTC-8, John Corbett 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". 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. That's why they had Ms Davis 
> > > > > > change her story for her testimony, 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. 
> > > > > > It wasn't Scoggins because we know the person seen didn't look like a 
> > > > > > > weather-beaten 50 or 60-year-old or thereabouts. Scoggins had no reason to 
> > > > > > > empty Tippit's gun. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > She picked Oswald out of a lineup that same night as the man she saw. 
> > > > > > > "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." 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This isn't going very well for you. 
> > > > > > Going worse for you. 
> > > > > > > > Did Scoggins empty Tippit's gun? Could she have seen 
> > > > > > > > > Scoggins, or did she see Oswald? 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > She specifically eliminates Scoggins here (and note the editorial 'we' when 
> > > > > > > > > talking of her actions concerning the shell): 
> > > > > > > > > == QUOTE == 
> > > > > > > > > Mr. BALL. Did you see a man coming and get the policeman's gun? 
> > > > > > > > > Mrs. DAVIS. No, I didn't. 
> > > > > > > > > Mr. BALL. Did you later look in the bushes and find something? 
> > > > > > > > > Mrs. DAVIS. Yes; in the grass beside the house. 
> > > > > > > > > Mr. BALL. The grass beside the house. What did you find? 
> > > > > > > > > Mrs. DAVIS. We found one shell. 
> > > > > > > > > Mr. BALL. One shell? 
> > > > > > > > > Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. 
> > > > > > > > > == UNQUOTE == 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > And she picked Oswald out of a lineup about 8pm at night as the man she saw: 
> > > > > > > > > == QUOTE == 
> > > > > > > > > Mr. BALL. When those--how many men were shown to you in this lineup? 
> > > > > > > > > Mrs. DAVIS. Four. 
> > > > > > > > > Mr. BALL. Were they of the same size or of different sizes? 
> > > > > > > > > Mrs. DAVIS. Most of them was about the same size. 
> > > > > > > > > Mr. BALL. All white men, were they? 
> > > > > > > > > Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. 
> > > > > > > > > Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in that room? 
> > > > > > > > > Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir. I recognized number 2. 
> > > > > > > > > Mr. BALL. Number 2 you recognized? Did you tell any policeman there anything 
> > > > > > > > > after you recognized them? 
> > > > > > > > > Mrs. DAVIS. I told the man who had brought us down there. 
> > > > > > > > > Mr. BALL. What did you tell him 
> > > > > > > > > Mrs. DAVIS. That I thought number 2 was the man that I saw. 
> > > > > > > > > Mr. BALL. That you saw? 
> > > > > > > > > Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. 
> > > > > > > > > Mr. BALL. By number 2, was the man you saw the man you saw doing what? 
> > > > > > > > > Mrs. DAVIS. Unloading the gun. 
> > > > > > > > > Mr. BALL. And going across your yard? 
> > > > > > > > > Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir. 
> > > > > > > > > == UNQUOTE == 
> > > > > > > I see I quoted that already, and you ignored it. It's as I said above. It 
> > > > > > > appears no amount of evidence is going to be acceptable to you. 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > The evidence indicates Virginia and Barbara Davis saw Oswald with the gun, 
> > > > > > > > > not Scoggins. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Try 
> > > > > > > > > > > > another quote! 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Why? The same-day affidavit and Warren Commission testimony of Davis alone 
> > > > > > > > > > > destroys your "Scoggins was mistaken for the shooter" scenario. You think 
> > > > > > > > > > > anything she said means she saw the 49-year-old Scoggins walking away with 
> > > > > > > > > > > a gun? 
> > > > > > > > > > In that testimony, she says, many times, that they called the cops, THEN 
> > > > > > > > > > saw the suspect. Nice of him to wait around for them to call the cops on 
> > > > > > > > > > him! Brilliant figuring, Hank.... 
> > > > > > > > > The logical fallacy of a straw argument by you. I never suggested he 
> > > > > > > > > waited around for them to make a phone call. 
> > > > > > > > I was being facetious. Obviously, it was another man that Virginia saw a 
> > > > > > > > few minutes after the shooting. 
> > > > > > > Begging the question. Describe another man who admitted to unloading a gun 
> > > > > > > and tossing away expended shells. You can't. 
> > > > > > "Another" "admitted"? 
> > > > > > > > Try rebutting the points I 
> > > > > > > > > actually make, and not the ones you wish I made. 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > This doesn't put Scoggins in position to be the young slender man she saw. 
> > > > > > > > > But on 11/22/63, she mentioned the man emptying his weapon and discarding 
> > > > > > > > > shells prior to Markham standing over the body and screaming. She didn't 
> > > > > > > > > mis-remember that. 
> > > > > > > > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm 
> > > > > > > > > == QUOTE == 
> > > > > > > > > We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to the side door at Patton 
> > > > > > > > > Street. 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". 
> > > > > > > > > == UNQUOTE == 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Obviously, six months or more after the assassination, she perhaps 
> > > > > > > > > remembered the order of some things incorrectly. So what? 
> > > > > > > > So, a few hours after the assassination, she stated that she & her 
> > > > > > > > sis-in-law "ran to the side door at Patton". That was when her memory was 
> > > > > > > > fresh. 
> > > > > > > Ok. 
> > > > > > > > So, in her testimony--six month later--when she says that they 
> > > > > > > > went to the front door on 10th, she must be remembering "incorrectly".... 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Ok. That's the point I made. Witnesses are sometimes wrong about stuff. 
> > > > > > Great! Now you have (as I do) Virginia Davis saying that she saw the guy 
> > > > > > drop a shell, and it would, if so, thus have been found fairly quickly, 
> > > > > > like her sister--in-law's shell. All the shells then were covered by Sgt. 
> > > > > > Hill's 1:40 "auto" shell transmission. Notice that I said "SAYING that 
> > > > > > she saw the guy drop a shell" (on the side yard). She could not have seen 
> > > > > > ANY shells dropped since they were ejected AUTOMATICALLY near Tippit's 
> > > > > > car. Her affidavit was just the first, very awkward step in covering up 
> > > > > > the fact that she saw no shells dropped. But she needed to change her 
> > > > > > story, and did, in her testimony.... 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > I just submitted a new thread using Tiger Woods car crash as a perfect 
> > > > > example of how erroneous early reports can be. Contrary to initial 
> > > > > reports, the jaws-of--life were not needed to extract Woods from the 
> > > > > rolled over SUV. Hill's report of the shells being from an automatic is 
> > > > > just another example of an erroneous early report made because somebody 
> > > > > (Hill) jumped to a conclusion that later turned out to be false, yet you 
> > > > > continue to cling to this error as if it were an established fact. Tippit 
> > > > > was shot with a revolver which does not eject shells and none were ever 
> > > > > found near his car. Oswald had to manually eject the shells from the 
> > > > > cylinder of his revolver and was seen doing that as he fled the scene. The 
> > > > > fact the shells were found some distance away and not near the site of the 
> > > > > shooting tells us it was not an automatic. So why do you continue to 
> > > > > insist that it was? 
> > > 
> > > > The shells were SAID to have been found "some distance away". Don't think 
> > > > they really were.... 
> > > Nobody cares what you think. Opinions are like... you know where I'm 
> > > going, so there's no need to complete it. 
> > > 
> > > The testimony of the witnesses establishes the shells were ejected from a 
> > > revolver and toss away by the gunman. The shells in evidence were examined 
> > > and ballistics establishes they were ejected from Oswald's revolver to the 
> > > exclusion of all other weapons in the world. 
> > > 
> > > You can ignore that evidence all you want or attempt to discredit all the 
> > > witnesses and the expert testimony all you want, but it's not going away 
> > > just because you find it inconvenient, closed you eyes to it and clicked
> > > your Ruby shoe heels together and wished it to be so. 
> > 
> > This from Joe Zircon! 
> > 
> 
> 
> Yes. What is your point? There's certainly no refutation or rebuttal of 
> any of the points I made in your response. 
> 
> For those who don't know, I used to post here a few decades ago (1998 - 
> 2004 or so) as "Joe Zircon". You can use the search function to find my 
> old posts if you wish, but I posted a lot more frequently back then. So 
> you'll find a ton of them. 
> 
> That alias was to keep my first wife happy. And it comes via the novel 
> "Winter Kills" by Richard Condon. It's a novel about a presidential 
> assassination, and the man who kills the accused assassin in the novel is 
> named "Joe Diamond". I took the alias "Joe Zircon" from that. 
> 
> What point Don is trying to make with his "This from Joe Zircon!" remark 
> escapes me. But it certainly is ad hominem, and not at all pertinent. 
> 

Ruby.  Zircon.  There was a poster here some 15 years ago who called 
himself Amethyst.  I thought your "Zircon" was also just an extension of 
(Joe) Ruby.  No hominem about it....

> Hank