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

On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 5:58:47 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 9:46:30 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 5:21:36 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote: 
> > > 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. 
> > Asked and Answered. 
> > 
> > Short Answer: No, she didn't. 
> > 
> > Long Answer: She said she saw the gunman "emptying the gun" in the front 
> > yard. You're assuming she meant emptied onto the ground. But she didn't 
> > say that, and she didn't say the shell was recovered in the front yard. 
> > You're assuming that. 
> > 
> > == QUOTE == 
> > When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of them where I saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell. 
> > == QUOTE == 
> > 
> > "And we found the shell" is what her affidavit said. It doesn't say *where* they found the shell. It doesn't even say the shell was discarded in the front yard. Those are both your assumptions. 
> > 
> > And it's important to remember others said (and she clarified in her testimony) the gunman emptied the gun into his hand, and she clarified she didn't see what he did with the shells. . 
> > == QUOTE == 
> > Mr. BALL. And what did you see the man doing? 
> > Mrs. DAVIS. Well, first off she went to screaming 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. Which hand did he have it? 
> > Mrs. DAVIS. Right hand. 
> > Mr. BALL. To his left palm? 
> > Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. 
> > Mr. BALL. Did you see him throw anything away? 
> > Mrs. DAVIS. No. 
> > Mr. BALL. You didn't? 
> > Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. 
> > == UNQUOTE == 
> > She didn't say she saw where the shells hit the ground. You're assuming 
> > the shells were found in the front yard, but she doesn't say that, either. 
> > She said the gun was emptied into his left palm. Read her testimony. 
> > > (And I have just yesterday posted FBI reports backing that up and 
> > > posted them here.) 
> > Translation: You posted hearsay from people who weren't witnesses and 
> > didn't see the incident whatsoever. You think this somehow takes 
> > precedence over the actual statements of the witnesses. It doesn't. 
> > 
> > For another example, Domingo Benavides saw the gunman toss shells aside 
> > (which means they weren't dropped from the gun directly onto the ground), 
> > and found two: 
> > 
> > == QUOTE == 
> > Mr. BELIN - When you went back, what did you do? First of all, was there anything up to that time that you saw there or that you did that you haven't related here that you can think of right now? 
> > Mr. BENAVIDES - Well, I started--I seen him throw the shells and I started to stop and pick them up, and I thought I'd better not so when I came back, after I had gotten back, I picked up the shells. 
> > Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you said you saw the man with the gun throw the shells? 
> > Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir. 
> > .... 
> > Mr. BELIN - You saw where he threw the shells? 
> > Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir. 
> > Mr. BELIN - Did you later go back in that area and try and find the shells? 
> > Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes. Well, right after that I went back and I knew exactly where they was at, and I went over and picked up one in my hand, not thinking and I dropped it, that maybe they want fingerprints off it, so I took out an empty pack of cigarettes I had and picked them up with a little stick and put them in this cigarette package; a chrome looking shell. 
> > Mr. BELIN - A chrome looking shell? 
> > Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir. 
> > Mr. BELIN - About how long did it take you to locate the shells once you stared looking for them? 
> > Mr. BENAVIDES - Just a minute. I mean not very long at all. Just walked directly to them. 
> > Mr. BELIN - You saw where he had thrown them? 
> > Mr. BENAVIDES - One of them went down inside of a bush, and the other one was by the bush. 
> > == UNQUOTE == 
> > 
> > The witnesses described the gunman emptying a revolver, not an automatic. 
> > The witnesses said he emptied the revolver shells into his hand, not onto 
> > the ground.
> Exception: Sam Guinyard.

No, he's not an exception. He didn't see Oswald emptying and reloading his 
weapon because by the time he saw Oswald (and he picked Oswald out of the 
lineup) Oswald had already completed that action. 
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/guinyard.htm


> > Your assumptions to the contrary (automatic, shells dropped 
> > from gun directly onto ground, witnesses saw a vigilante with Tippit's 
> > gun, for some reason emptying THAT) makes no sense and is contrary to the 
> > evidence. 

You ignored this.

> > > 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). 
> > No, she told the story as she saw it, which is contradictory to your 
> > unwarranted assumptions, so you accuse her of changing her story under 
> > pressure. But all she did is clarify her affidavit by specifying what she 
> > saw and where. 

You're ignoring a lot of my points again. It's almost like you don't care 
what the facts are.

> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 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.... 
> > She saw the gunman at the front door emptying his revolver into his hand. 
> > She went to the side door and saw the gunman discard one shell. There's no 
> > conflict in her testimony to anyone not assuming she meant something else. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > You're ignoring this too. 
> > > 
> > > No longer! 

I see no response here that explains your problem away.

> > > 
> > > 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.... 
> > Hilarious. I am going back to the testimony and quoting directly from 
> > that. It's not a matter of how much time I have. It's a matter of how much 
> > evidence I have. I have the evidence. 
> You have assumptions and hearsay. 

> Gee, on alt.conspiracy.jfk, Ben Holmes says that HE has the evidence, LNs 
> don't. I also recall Prof. Marsh saying, often, that HE has the photos, 
> no one else does. You guys are very possessive.....

The evidence is available to you. But you seldom if ever utilize it. 
Instead you utilize hearsay and conjecture to attempt to explain away 
where the evidence clearly points.


> > > > > > > > > > > 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. 
> > Hilarious. You're claiming people don't mis-remember unless they 
> > had "outside help" doing so? 
> > 
> > John Corbett has already dealt with this, so I don't need to go into any 
> > more detail. Which is more likely? She called the police before going to 
> > the door and hearing Markham screaming "He killed him! He killed him!" and 
> > seeing the police officer lying in the street, or she called police after 
> > witnessing that?
> In one instance, Virginia D. testified that they went to the door, heard 
> Mrs. Markham saying to call the cops, then they did, without having seen 
> the suspect. (See separate thread.)

And that makes no sense, as John Corbett patiently explained to you. Her 
and her sister-in-law both saw someone unloading a revolver. Who was it 
except the gunman who had just shot Tippit. Since the other witnesses 
didn't say the gunman hung around but left quickly, then any 
reconstruction that puts the gunman hanging around for the Davis women to 
see is just wrong. So we know they saw him, then made the phone call, not 
the other way around.

See, that's the way the evidence works, you disregard the inconsistencies, 
and resolve in favor of the consistencies.

The inconsistencies don't reveal a cover-up with everyone lying. They 
reveal witnesses who are not colluding to frame an innocent man 
(otherwise, their stories would all mesh).


> > 
> > You never did explain why a vigilante with Tippit's gun would think he 
> > should toss bullets aside.
> Never said that he did. The tossing bullets business was invented.

What!!!??? It was mentioned in the earliest affidavits on 11/22/63.
The witnesses were part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald on the afternoon 
of the assassination? 

Why'd so many many pick Oswald out of lineups? Why'd they mention a 
revolver? Why were shells found not near the body, but picked up out of 
the grass off to the side? Your arguments make no sense.


> You never did explain why the witnesses found 
> > expended shells, not unfired bullets. You never did explain how Barbara 
> > Davis mistook Scoggins for a teenager.
> As I say in the other thread, I'm beginning to doubt that the Davises saw 
> anyone.

Hilarious. So you come here with a bunch of conjectures that don't fit the 
evidence, and then revise as necessary.

So your argument is they saw no one and simply invented the gunman 
emptying his revolver on the afternoon ofup 11/22/63?  And then picked out 
Oswald at the lineup as the guy they didn't see?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm

Why were shells found in the grass? Why did those shells match Oswald's 
weapon?

Your argument above exposes the fatal flaw in all conspiracy thinking. 
You'll do everything in your power not to admit to it being Oswald. So you 
flit from one unreasonable explanation (The Davis women saw Scoggins with 
Tippit's gun, not Oswald with his own revolver) to another unreasonable 
explanation (The Davis women saw nobody) rather than alight on the most 
reasonable explanation (The Davis women saw Oswald emptying his revolver 
of his expended shells after shooting Tippit).


> > I'm sure there's a lot more about 
> > your scenario that needs explaining, but those three just jump out at me. 
> > > 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're here saying it's your way or the highway.
> You're projecting.
> No, the testimony and the 
> > affidavits tell a relatively consistent story. There are inconsistencies 
> > from witness to witness and within the same witness' statements from time 
> > to time. Those inconsistencies don't overturn the hard evidence, and don't 
> > overrule what the witnesses consistently said they saw: A gunman with a 
> > revolver manually emptying his handgun. 

You ignored this.

> > > 
> > > 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? 
> > Sorry, no. You're assuming, not proving, the existence of the so-called 
> > 'advisers' to Davis. A few inconsistencies in her story doesn't abrogate 
> > the consistent story told by the witnesses. 

You ignored this.

> > > > > 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.... 
> > Still not proving the existence of any advisors. You appear to be arguing 
> > now the inconsistencies themselves are enough to discard the consistencies 
> > as well. That's not the way it works in real life. 
> > 
> > For example, Mark Lane points out the Tippit witnesses were all over the map 
> > concerning what the gunman was wearing: 
> > In his book, Rush to Judgment, in Chapter 14 • The Murder of 
> > Officer Tippit: The Eyewitnesses, Lane says this: 
> > 
> > == QUOTE == 
> > Benavides made reference to having seen a 'light-beige' 
> > jacket, but when Commission Exhibit 163, described by the 
> > Commission Report as a 'heavy blue jacket', was shown to 
> > him by counsel, evidently in error, he said, 'I would say this looks 
> > just like it.' Barbara Davis testified that the killer wore 'a black 
> > coat' when she saw him run across her lawn. * Ted Callaway 
> > thought the jacket worn by the assailant 'had a little more tan to 
> > it' than Commission Exhibit 162. Mrs Markham believed the 
> > jacket was darker than the one shown to her in Washington, 
> > although little or no credence can be placed in her estimate. 
> > Warren Reynolds described the jacket that the fleeing man wore 
> > as 'blueish' and Scoggins told Commission counsel that the 
> > man who ran past his taxicab wore a jacket darker than Commission 
> > Exhibit 162. 
> > == UNQUOTE == 
> > Lane notes this, but fails to take it to it's logical conclusion. 
> > Tippit is still dead. A gunman still shot him. The inconsistencies don't 
> > remove the gun from the gunman's hand, and these inconsistencies don't 
> > make the gunman someone other than Oswald. You are guilting of arguing in 
> > the same way. 
> > 
> > It's quite common for witnesses to fail to remember everything 
> > consistently (indeed, consistent testimony is often a sign of collusion, 
> > where two or more people acting in concert, get together to make sure 
> > their testimony is consistent). You and Lane above both ignore this, and 
> > take the inconsistencies as somehow absolving Oswald. 

You ignored this.

> > > > > 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.) 
> > Hilarious. I guess I'm only allowed to respond to your points now, no one 
> > else's? Is that what you're arguing? I can't respond to others I agree 
> > with and tell them I agree? Show me where it says that's a restriction in 
> > posting. 
 

You ignored this.

> > > 
> > > Okay, now, I've answered most of your points, but have no time for any 
> > > other posts.... 
> > > 
> > You've responded to my points. You've answered none of them. 
> >
> Whose way or the highway? 

The evidence is the highway. The conjectures and hearsay you utilize is 
the back road. Again, your responses do not amount to answers. The 
questions raised by your responses are still there.

Hank