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

On Sunday, March 7, 2021 at 4:44:51 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> 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.... 
> 
   
What point were you trying to make with your "This from Joe Zircon!" 
remark?
   
Let me put back the points you ignored and failed to respond to:

John Corbett said: 
> > 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?> > shooting tells us it was not an automatic. So why do you continue to
> > insist that it was?

You said: 
> The shells were SAID to have been found "some distance away". Don't think
> they really were....
    
And I said: 
== QUOTE ==
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[ed] 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.

== UNQUOTE ==

You're still ignoring it, or as I said above, closing your eyes to it and 
wishing it away.

Hank