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

On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 at 10:37:01 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> On Friday, March 5, 2021 at 10:52:47 AM UTC-8, John Corbett wrote: 
> > On Friday, March 5, 2021 at 9:44:00 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote: 
> > > On Sunday, February 28, 2021 at 7:42:51 PM UTC-8, John Corbett 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. 
> > > > > > > > > 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. 
> > > > > > > > > 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*. 
> > > > > The hand business turned up only later in their statements & testimony. 
> > > > Why do you think that is the least bit important? What difference does it 
> > > > make whether he dumped the shells on the ground or into his hand? 
> > > 
> > > The Davis's "advisors" thought it was pretty important. They had them add 
> > > the business re not dropping the shells in the front yard to later reports 
> > > & testimony. And I've detailed the importance of this elsewhere. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The fact 
> > > > is he emptied the spent shells so he could reload with live rounds. 
> > > > > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > == 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. 
> > > 
> > > > Unbelievable the things you think are significant. 
> > > 
> > > Unbelievable the things you think AREN"T significant. 
> > > 
> > OK, here's your chance to show us how brilliant you are. Explain why the 
> > manner the gun was unloaded is significant.
> Okay--from earlier in this thread:
> > > > > > > > > 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 thus could not have been 
> > > > > > > > > said to have been covered by the 1:41 "38 auto" transmission, which negated any supposed revolver shell supposedly found earlier. 
> 
> And here's further evidence that Barbara Davis--as she indicated in her 11/22/63 affidavit--originally said the shell was found in the FRONT yard: 
> 
> 
> Two Sites, One Shell for Witness Barbara J. Davis On November 22, 1963, 
> witness Barbara J. Davis stated, in an affidavit, "I saw this man walking
> across my front yard unloading a gun.... When the police arrived I showed
> one of them where I saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell."
> The shell, then, was found in the front yard, she said, at the time. 

No, she didn't say that. Read it again. You're assuming what you need to 
prove.

She said she saw the gunman emptying his gun in the front yard. She didn't 
say she saw him emptying the gun *onto the ground* in the front yard in 
her affidavit. You're assuming that..

She didn't say the shell was found were she saw the man emptying his gun, 
either. She says merely that she showed the police where she saw the 
gunman (not Scoggins, BTW) emptying his gun, and then, separate from that, 
she says a shell was found. She didn't specify it was found precisely 
where she saw the gunman emptying his weapon, that's again an assumption 
by you. Maybe they had to look around a little and they found it a short 
distance away.

> 
> This is borne out by two subsequent FBI reports from information obtained 
> from the Dallas Police Department. 
> 
> "Can Dallas Police Department tell who picked up empty shells and where 
> they were found with respect to the shooting of Officer Tippit.... 
> Obtained from captioned file.... 1 [empty hull] found by Barbara Jeanette 
> Davis... in front yard." (FBI Agent Joseph J. Loeffler, 12/4/63 memo) 
> 
> "One of these hulls... was found in the front yard of Barbara Jeanette 
> Davis... [and] turned over to Captain George M. Doughty of the Dallas 
> Police Crime Laboratory.... Captain Doughty stated that all hulls were 
> received in the Police Crime Laboratory on November 22, 1963." (FBI Agent 
> Vincent E. Drain, 11/28/63 report) 
 

So to buttress your assumption about where the shell was found, you cite 
two hearsay reports by FBI agents who weren't at the scene of the crime on 
11/22/63, but prepared reports from other sources.  Am I understanding 
your argument correctly?

> 
> The DPD, then, told the FBI that the Barbara Davis hull was found in the 
> front yard. 

Or the FBI assumed it, just as you assumed it.

> 
> At the hearings, however, Barbara Davis changed her story and testified, 
> "We found one shell... in the grass beside the house". (v3p345) But 
> Captain Doughty, who recovered the shell (With Malice, p266), told the FBI 
> that it was found in the front yard. Shades of the two children in "La 
> Dolce Vita", who "[go] off in a different direction again... screaming 
> they can see the Madonna". ("There she is!" /No, "There!" /No, "They're 
> running the other way....") The two cannot be believed, and neither can 
> Barbara Davis, who was the source of one story for the FBI and a 
> contradictory one for the Warren Commission. The man in the middle, 
> Doughty, was not questioned by the Commission. 
> 
> Two sites, no shell, apparently.... 

Sorry, this is where you lose me. How do we go from one shell recovered by 
Barbara Davis and turned over to the police to no shells recovered by 
Barbara Davis?

You are playing a shell game with the evidence and when we're not looking, 
you're flicking the pea off the table. Barbara Davis found one shell and 
turned it over to the police.

And Doughty is not the man in the middle. He's the crime lab person who 
took possession of the shell. He isn't specified in the above as the 
police officer Barbara Davis gave the shell to.

> 
> There you go. She changed her story to make it seem like a shell had been 
> found AFTER Hill's 1:41 transmission & thus was not an "auto 38".... 
> 

I don't see a change in her story. I see assumptions by you of what she 
meant, followed by hearsay from FBI agents who weren't at the site on 
11/22/63, with another assumption that this means she changed her story, 
followed by a huge assumption about what this all means.

None of your assumptions above are supported by the evidence.

None of them.

Hank