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

On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> 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. 

Gee, no surprise. You ignored this.

> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > == 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.... 

Ignored this as well.

> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > 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. 

And of course, you ignored this too!


> > > 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. 
  
Why am I not surprised you ignored this as well? 
   
   
> > > 
> > > -- 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. 

You cite the hearsay, I cite the evidence. You ignored my point above.

> > > "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 ignored this.

> > > 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. 

And ignored this too!

> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 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. 

And you ignored this!

> > 
> > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > == 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.

Sorry, you'll need to establish all that, not just assert it. We'll await 
your evidence.

Oh, that's right. You don't have any. Only conjecture.

> 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. 

You ignored this.

> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > 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 you ignored this.

> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 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. 

So you claim. But we're still awaiting your evidence of this conjecture.

Got any?

And got any rebuttal to all the points you avoided above?