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

On Tuesday, March 16, 2021 at 8:21:30 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Saturday, March 13, 2021 at 8:19:11 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote: 
> > On Saturday, March 6, 2021 at 9:55:03 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote: 
> > > 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: CUT 
> > > > > > > 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. 
> > 
> > No--that's Barbara D & the FBI: 
> > "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) 
> > Do you still say that that's just my assumption? You know that she later 
> > testified that the shell was found under the window on the side: see her 
> > arrow D-1 on CE 534. Clearly, that wasn't the front yard.
> Asked and answered. The direct testimony of a witness takes precedence 
> over hearsay reports by non-witnesses.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > == 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 == 
> > > > 
> > 
> > See the FBI reports, above, and give up trying to rewrite Barbara D's 
> > affidavit. You're good at that....
> FBI hearsay reports by non-witnesses do not overrule the testimony of 
> witnesses. 
> 
> Her affidavit does not say she saw the gunman discarding the shells in the 
> front yard. It says she saw him unloading the gun.
> "I saw this man walking across my front yard unloading a gun.... 
> 
> 
> > 
> >
> > > > 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 
> > 
> > SAID they saw the suspect emptying his gun.
> Yes, when witnesses give testimony under oath or a statement to the police 
> that becomes a typewritten affidavit, they usually *talk* about what they 
> witnessed. So yeah, numerous witnesses said they saw the gunman 
> *emptying* his gun. 
> 
> I know you like to think everyone that gives a statement contrary to your 
> beliefs is lying, but you have yet to prove any of that. You simply assume 
> it.
> > Funny, not to come to your 
> > rescue, but no one ever talks about fellow witness Sam Guinyard's 
> > testimony wherein HE too claims to have seen the suspect unloading his 
> > gun. Maybe because he testified that he too saw the man emptying his gun, 
> > but not into his other hand. Guess he didn't get the memo. "I never did 
> > see him use his left hand": 
> > 
> > Mr. GUINYARD. Yes. 
> > Mr. BALL. And you saw a man, did you? 
> > Mr. GUINYARD. Yes. 
> > Mr. BALL. What did you see him doing? 
> > Mr. GUINYARD. He came through there running and knocking empty shells out of his pistol and he had it up just like this with his hand. 
> > Mr. BALL. With which hand? 
> > Mr. GUINYARD. With his right hand; just kicking them out. 
> > Mr. BALL. He had it up? 
> > Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; he had it up just like this. 
> > Mr. BALL. How was he kicking them out? 
> > Mr. GUINYARD. He was rolling them with his hand--with his thumb. 
> > Mr. BALL. Rolling them with his thumb? 
> > Mr. GUINYARD. Checking them--he had the pistol up just like this [indicating]. 
> > Mr. BALL. Did he use his left hand any? 
> > Mr. GUINYARD. No; I never did see him use his left hand. 
> > 
> > So we have several different versions of how the suspect emptied his 
> > gun--the Davises, originally; the Davises, in their testimony; Guinyard, 
> > in his testimony; and I believe that another witness, Domingo Benavides, 
> > has yet another version. Which one to believe? Perhaps none of them.... 
> > The Davises were perfectly synced in their testimony, with each other, but 
> > not with their affidavits or with the other two witnesses! A tangled 
> > web....
> Again, conflicts in witnesses' statements are perfectly normal and show 
> they are NOT in collusion. 
> 
> This is understood by real investigators. 
> 
> When untangling the web, you look for the things they agree on, not the 
> conflicts. They agree the gunman had a revolver, and he was seen emptying 
> the empty shells.
> > 
> > -- 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. 
> > 
> > The first cop to the scene, Sgt. Croy, said he had heard reports that a 
> > cab driver had picked up the gun.
> We both understand Croy wasn't a witness, and what he is reporting is 
> *hearsay*. Croy was close, but wrong. 
> 
> It was another man (Callaway) who picked up Tippit's gun, and convinced the 
> cab driver (Scoggins) to drive him around looking for the gunman. 
> Callaway's affidavit: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/callaway.htm 
> 
> == QUOTE == 
> 
> I got the officer's gun and hollered at a cab driver to come on, We might 
> catch the man. We got into his cab, number 213 and drove up Patton to 
> Jefferson and looked all around, but did not see him. 
> 
> == UNQUOTE == 
> 
> Scoggins testimony: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/scoggins.htm 
> == QUOTE == 
> Mr. BELIN. What did you see him do? This man came up and picked up the policeman's gun. He picked it up and said, "Let's go see if we can find him?" 
> Mr. SCOGGINS. I thought the man was a kind of police, Secret Service or something, I didn't know, and I take him and we drove around over the neighborhood looking, and I still didn't know what kind--I still thought he was connected with the Police department in some way. 
> == UNQUOTE == 
> 
> Again, hearsay does NOT take precedence over the statements of the 
> witnesses actually there.
> > "With Malice", the revised version, 
> > references a private security agent who said that a screaming woman who 
> > sounds a lot like Mrs. Markham pointed to a taxi leaving the Tippit scene 
> > and shouted that the killer was in it. (Scoggins & Callaway were in it.)
> You're quoting hearsay once more.
> > You make it sound so cut-and-dried....
> Only because it is.
> > 
> > > There was no automatic. There was 
> > > Oswald.
> The shells in evidence indicate a revolver - Oswald's revolver - was used. 
> The witnesses indicate a revolver was used. 
> 
> Against this, you have no witness evidence - only hearsay.
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 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? 
> > 
> > Why should I address generalizations?
> You should address the points I make. 
> 
> Again:
> 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. 
> 
> > 
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > == 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? 
> > > > 
> > 
> > See those FBI reports, above.
> Hearsay reports by non-witnesses do not take precedence over direct 
> statements by eyewitnesses, Don.

This report, however, tallies with what Scoggins said in a later FBI 
interview:  They were met by plainclothesmen who took Tippit's gun and led 
Callaway & Scoggins back to the scene.  Callaway apparently lied in an 
interview with Dale Myers when he said that Scoggins got so nervous they 
lost the suspect.

 Stop pretending the conflict resolves in 
> your favor. It doesn't. 
> 
> Again, my point was "Your argument reduces to what you infer and assume is 
> the absolute truth and any lack of clarity in a witness statement should
> resolve in favor of a cover-up and conspiracy."
> That's not the way to get to the truth of the matter. That's a way to 
> avoid the truth of the matter.
> > 
> > 
> > > > 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. 
> > 
> > I have detailed how the change implies a cover-up.
> You have claimed the *assumed* change implies a cover-up, but you've 
> proven neither the change nor the cover-up.
> > 
> > > 
> > > And of course, regardless of where she saw the man emptying the gun, she 
> > > did say she saw him emptying his gun. 
> > 
> > I quoted all 9 times in which Virginia Davis said that they first called 
> > the cops, then saw the suspect. I always thought, then, that they saw 
> > only the witness with Tippit's revolver. But at least one of her 
> > instances of putting the call to the police first suggests that they 
> > actually saw no one: 
> > Mr. BELIN. Well, let me try and reconstruct your actions then. 
> > You heard the shots? 
> > Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir. 
> > Mr. BELIN. You ran to the door? 
> > Mr. BELIN. What did you see when you got to the door? 
> > Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we just saw, you know, the police car parked down there 
> > and we wondered what was going on, so we heard Mrs. Markham across the 
> > street calling. 
> > Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do? 
> > Mrs. DAVIS. Well, she told us to call the police, well, so we went to the 
> > house. 
> > We was already in the house, and we went to the phone and called the police. 
> > Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do? 
> > Mrs. DAVIS. Then we went back to the front door. 
> > Mr. BEI.IN. Then what did you do? 
> > Mrs. DAVIS. We saw the boy cutting across the street. (pp460-461) 
> > #7: call first, suspect 2nd 
> > In this recitation, Virginia D states that they heard the shots, ran to 
> > the door, heard Mrs M saying to call the cops, then went back inside, 
> > called the cops, then went back to the front door and saw "the boy cutting 
> > across the street". 
> > 
> > By that time, however, the "boy" could have made it to Ft. Worth. If 
> > Virginia D is on the money here, they saw NO ONE....
> So let's resolve your misunderstanding. 
> 
> FaCT: Virginia Davis was absolutely sure she saw a young man emptying a 
> gun (she variously called him a boy or a teenager - Oswald was 24). She 
> mentioned it consistently in her affidavit AND in her testimony. Her 
> sister Barbara's affidavit and testimony says that as well. 
> FACT: Other witnesses, in addition to both Davis women, mentioned seeing
> the gunman emptying his revolver.
> FACT: There was no evidence of - nor any reason for - Callaway emptying 
> Tippit's gun and discard unfired bullets. 
> FACT: No unfired bullets were found at the scene. 
> FACT: The only physical evidence found at the scene was the shells in 
> evidence. 
> FACT: Those shells match Oswald's revolver taken off Oswald less than 45 
> minutes later in the Texas Theatre. 
> FACT: Numerous witnesses at or near the murder site picked Oswald out of 
> lineups as the man they saw with the gun. 
> 
> Reasonable Conclusions: 
> 
> 1. Since the witnesses saw the gunman unloading his weapon, the gunman used 
> a revolver. 
> 2. Since the witnesses picked Oswald out of lineups, the witnesses saw 
> Oswald. 

Not always a good clue.  McWatters picked out Oswald, but the Commission 
rejected his ID.

> 3. Since the shells in evidence match Oswald weapon, Oswald fired the shots 
> that killed Tippit. 
> 

The "shells in evidence" were not necessarily the shells found at the 
scene.

dcw