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

On Friday, March 5, 2021 at 3:01:44 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) 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? 

Not a propos.  At first, Barbara D. said the shell was found in the front 
yard.  (And I have just yesterday posted FBI reports backing that up and 
posted them here.)  At the hearings, she told a different story--they were 
now supposedly found on the side yard, beyond the row of bushes and out of 
sight (from the pov of the front door).


> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > That's your argument here. 
> > > > > You ignored this entirely.
> Still ignoring it. We're onto 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.

Virginia D's later "clarification" re what the suspect was doing with the 
shells is very precise--she remembered those details very clearly come the 
hearings.  And yet the same day as the assassination she was putting her 
witnessing of the suspect at the "side door" on Patton,' she then changed 
that to the front door on 10th.  Funny how her "memory" is just terrible 
later the same day, yet laser-focused months later.  More than short-term 
memory vs. long term is involved here....


> You're ignoring this too.

No longer!

 If you're going to ignore the majority of my 
> points, why should I bother discussing anything with you?

Good question.  But if I respond to every point I'll be months behind 
answering you and John rather than just a week. Wish I had all the time 
you seem to have....

> > > > > > > > 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.
> Uh, that's the logical fallacy of begging the question. You've never 
> established the existence of any Davis 'advisors'.

The changes in their testimony and sequencing of events (call to police 
BEFORE spotting of subject) establish the existence of outside help.  Or 
okay if you like the harmless explanation:  self-destruction of their 
testimony though abject confusion.  Either way, however, they are not to 
be believed.  Call them, then, self-compromised witnesses, if you like.

 You've merely assumed 
> their existence. So let's carry this a step further: let's assume the 
> advisors were Keebler elves, so you understand the problem a bit better. 
> 
> So your statement then becomes: 
> 
> "The Keebler elves who were the Davis's "advisors" thought it was pretty 
> important". 
> 
> Does that clarify your problem for you?

Okay, let's say, then, that they were simply confused to the point of 
uselessness.  They self-destructed.  Happy?

> > 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.
> And this becomes "The Keebler elves had them add the business re not
> dropping the shells in the front yard to later reports & testimony".
> Still failing to understand your problem? You can't just assume the 
> Keebler elves had any involvement. You need to proof it. And the same 
> applies no matter what you call these assumed "advisors".

Okay, they were useless on their very own....

> > The fact 
> > > is he emptied the spent shells so he could reload with live rounds.
> Absolutely. But Don has no answer for this, so he ignores it.

Oh it's so sweet how LNs always agree with one another.  Unless one of 
them--say, Claviger--strays off the reservation. Poor guy seems to have a 
mind of his own.  (Okay, not sure I agree with him either re the SS 
accident, but I can't outright reject his ideas here either.)

Okay, now, I've answered most of your points, but have no time for any 
other posts....

dcw