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

On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 9:00:28 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 16, 2021 at 8:21:32 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote: 
> > On Sunday, March 14, 2021 at 8:48:49 AM UTC-4, 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: 
> > > > > > > > > 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 A CUT ara Davis saw. 
> > > > > > > And a CHANGE does take place between affidavit and testimony with Barbara 
> > > > > > > Jeanette, too: In her affidavit, she says that they found a shell "where 
> > > > > > > I saw this man emptying his gun", i.e., the front yard. In her testimony, 
> > > > > > > the shell is now found in the side yard. You're wrong on both counts. 
> > > > > > Your i.e. is unproven. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hilarious. You're exposing the silliness of your argument as we discuss 
> > > > > > this. I don't have to disprove your assertions. You need to prove them. 
> > > > > > You need to prove any change automatically means cover up and conspiracy 
> > > > > > and show how you eliminated all other possibilities. You never do. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You're assuming what you need to prove. She doesn't say they found the 
> > > > > > shell where she saw the man drop the shell *onto the ground*. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > If you were a CT, McAdams would call this "nitpicking": 
> > > > The nitpicking is being done by you. Let's start at the top: 
> > > > Who was seen emptying the revolver manually? 
> > > > Was it the gunman -- the only person who had a need to reload, having just 
> > > > fired his weapon, shooting a police officer dead -- or was it some innocent 
> > > > bystander, who picked up Tippit's weapon? 
> > > > Were bullets found or expended shells? 
> > > > If expended shells, doesn't that mean the gunman was seen, not Scoggins or 
> > > > some other witness who picked up Tippit's weapon? 
> > > > 
> > > > Let's start there. What's your reconstruction of the event, answering 
> > > > those questions? 
> > > 
> > > Benavides' first extant statement actually seems to have been his WC 
> > > testimony. (Det. Leavelle thought that he might have done an affidavit 
> > > 11/22/63, but that has not yet surfaced.) There, he testified, "[The 
> > > gunman] had just got back to the sidewalk when he threw the first [shell] 
> > > and when he threw the second one, he had already cut back into the yard. 
> > > He just sort of cut across. 
> > > 
> > > Mr. BELIN - Now you saw him throw two shells? 
> > > Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir. 
> > > Mr. BELIN - You saw where he threw the shells? 
> > > Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir. 
> > > These shells, then, were described in Sgt. Hill's 1:41 DPD-radio transmission. And they were found fairly easily because Benavides, as he testified, SAW the gunman throw them down. 
> > > Now, Barbara Davis: "When the police arrived I showed one of them where I saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell." (11/22/63 affidavit) That is, they found a shell where she SAW him drop it, in the "front yard". 
> > > And Virginia Davis: "We... ran to side door at Patton St. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun." (11/22/63 affidavit) She, too, is saying that she SAW the "boy" emptying his gun, but on the side yard, where a shell was indeed supposed to have been found later. 
> > > The Davises, too, then, like Benavides, should have--in short order-- spotted the shells: They SAW them being removed from the gun. Found easily, then, in plenty of time to have been included in Hill's 1:41 roundup. Well and good. But, while Benavides testified that the first two shells were found in one little area--suggesting the use of a semi-automatic pistol-- 
> > Whoa. No. That's totally wrong. Benavides said he saw the man unload the 
> > weapon and throw the shells away. That isn't how an automatic works. 
> > That's how a revolver works. Other witnesses said the gunman unloaded his 
> > weapon manually as well. Your argument here is nonsense, and everyone 
> > reading this knows Benavides testimony doesn't suggest an automatic. 
> > 
> > == QUOTE == 
> > Mr. BELIN - Well, did you see the man empty his gun? 
> > Mr. BENAVIDES - That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it. 
> > Mr. BELIN - Do you remember in which hand he was holding his gun? 
> > Mr. BENAVIDES - No; I sure don't. 
> > Mr. BELIN - Do you remember if he was trying to put anything in the gun also? 
> > Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes. As he turned the corner he was putting another shell in his gun. 
> > Mr. BELIN - You saw him? 
> > Mr. BENAVIDES - I mean, he was acting like. I didn't see him actually put a shell in his gun, but he acted like he was trying to reload it. 
> > Maybe he was trying to take out another shell, but he could have been reloading it or something. 
> > == UNQUOTE == 
> > the Davises here indicated that the third and fourth were dropped in two 
> > different areas, in the front yard and the side yard, suggesting the use of 
> > a revolver. 
> > 
> > > Hill's transmission supports Benavides' testimony, 
> > Hill's transmission is of his assumption: "Shells *at the scene* indicate 
> > an automatic was used". 
> > 
> > Since a revolver does not eject shells as an automatic does, the 
> > reasonable assumption is that shells at the scene would indeed indicate an 
> > automatic was used. Hill was not a witness, and his radio call stating 
> > what appears to be his assumption does not overturn the statements of the 
> > witnesses, who saw one gunman with one revolver. 
> > > but not the Davises' affidavits. Hill radioed that the "shells at the scene" suggested an "automatic .38" (FBI transcription CE 1974 p78) And--based on the Davis affidavits--that would mean all FOUR shells "at the scene". Now, the Davises may have been enlisted simply to ensure that we got the idea that the gunman used a revolver--they changed their story for the Warren Commission, saying that they found the shells later in the afternoon. And it is still possible that the man manually dropped all four shells in "one little area", and that would have suggested "automatic" to Hill. But the very use of spurious witnesses suggests spurious evidence. 
> > The affidavits of both Davis sisters prepared on 11/22/63 indicate they 
> > saw a gunman emptying his revolver. Not one witness who came forward on 
> > 11/22/63 said they saw a gunman with an automatic.
> Patrolman Summers had a witness who came forward, before 1:40 and said he 
> saw an automatic. You lose....

No, you do. Summers was not a witness. He arrived after the shooting was 
over. What he's reporting is hearsay. Let's examine what the witness 
actually said, not what the hearsay was. Please provide the name of the 
witness, cite for their testimony, and quote what you think indicates an 
automatic instead of a revolver.

Remember that the witness's statement is evidence, the police officer's 
second-hand report is hearsay.
Also remember that evidence takes precedence over hearsay.

> > > > > "When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of them where I saw 
> > > > > > > > this man emptying his gun and we found a shell." 
> > > > > She does not say, for instance, "we found a shell elsewhere". 
> > > > Again, there is a certain amount of leeway here about how precisely 
> > > > "where" is. I trust you understand that. 
   
You ignored this. 
   
   
> > > > > 
> > > > > > You're 
> > > > > > assuming that. She doesn't specify how far or close the recovered shell 
> > > > > > was from where the gunman was. You're assuming it was *right there*, 
> > > > > > whereas it might have been found a few feet away from where the man was 
> > > > > > unloading his gun. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Barbara D. indicated they were found some YARDS away (as in 
> > > > > feet/yards/miles, not front yard/side yard). 
> > > > Thank you for that concession. I said "feet", you're expanding the area to 
> > > > "yards" (plural). That's a much larger area where the shells can be 
> > > > recovered. 
   

You ignored this.

> > > > > 
> > > > > You assume there is a front yard and a side yard, but 
> > > > > > in fact it was open ground, and there is no clear demarcation. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > There was a row of bushes in between. And there is, as Virginia D. says, 
> > > > > a "side door", so there's a "side yard". 
> > > > And there's an overlap area at the corner which is visible from the front 
> > > > door and the side door. 

You ignored this.

> > > > > 
> > > > > > Someone 
> > > > > > looking out the front door may call the yard to their left 'the front 
> > > > > > yard', whereas someone looking out the side door on the left of the house 
> > > > > > may call the yard to their right 'the side yard'. In other words, there is 
> > > > > > a part of the yard that could be either side yard or front yard, depending 
> > > > > > on the person's viewpoint. You assume no part of the front yard could ever 
> > > > > > be part of the side yard, and that's simply not the case. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Nitpicking again. 
> > > > The nitpicking is being done by you, Don. I'm pointing out your 
> > > > nitpicking, assumptions, and begged questions aren't getting you closer to 
> > > > solving this case. Rejecting the reasonable conclusions for outlandish, 
> > > > unproven ones (the witnesses saw cab driver Scoggins with Tippit's gun, 
> > > > not the gunman) isn't going to ever make sense to reasonabe people. 
> > > > > That ambiguous area of the yards is not in question. 
> > > > > Nothing was seen in that area. 
> > > > Except perhaps the gunman emptying his revolver. Or is it your argument he 
> > > > did he not cross that area whatsoever? 
> > > 
> > > The key word was "seen", not unseen walking suspect. 
> > Not sure of your point, if you even have one. The gunman was seen in that 
> > area emptying his revolver. He was so described by numerous witnesses 
> > doing so, on 11/22/63 and later in their testimony. 
> > 
> > Not one witness testified to seeing a gunman with an automatic.
> And yet Patrolman Summers radioed that his witness saw a man with an 
> automatic. What happened to that witness? 

You tell us.

> For his part, Hill did not 
> testify that he radioed "automatic". Sounds an awful lot like a coverup. 

To a conspiracy theorist, "I like broccoli" sounds like a cover up.

> No one testified re an automatic, though at least two witnesses said they 
> saw one (including Hill).... 

Negative. Hill was not a witness to the shooting, or the flight of the 
gunman. Hill arrived later.

He explained his radio call as a presumption based on the presence of 
shells at the scene of the shooting (an automatic ejects the shells, a 
revolver does not).

You cannot name or produce Summers supposed witness.

You have two hearsay accounts, one of which is explainable in simple terms 
as a misinterpretation of the evidence. The other might have a simple 
explanation as well. We don't know, because no critic who ever raised this 
issue ever reached out to Officer Summers to get his explanation.

The count of "automatic weapon" *witnesses* remains at zero. You have two 
hearsay accounts, and that's all you have.

Hank