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

On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 8:04:19 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
> 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: 
> > > 
> > > 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.
> He was not a witness to the gun being emptied.

Try again:

Mr. BALL. So that you could look up Patton Street?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes.
Mr. BALL. North on Patton?
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.

Note, especially, the phrase, "knocking empty shells out of his 
pistol"....


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

He's not one of us either.


> > > > 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.) 
> > >
> She contradicted herself numerous times during her testimony. She clearly 
> was confused as to the sequence of events because she claimed the cops 
> were called both before they went to the door and afterward. Naturally you 
> pick the version that makes the least sense.
> > > 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.
> Why would somebody invent that? Oh, that's right. Everybody wanted to 
> frame Oswald for the Tippit murder. The cops had no interest in finding 
> the person who really killed one of their fellow officers.
> > 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.
> What you believe and what really happened took diverging paths a long time 
> ago.
> > 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'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. 
> > > > > > 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....
> Eyewitness accounts are neither empirical evidence nor useless. Their 
> value falls in the middle ground between those two extremes. Witnesses 
> usually don't get everything right nor everything wrong. Fortunately we 
> don't have to look at what they tell us in a vacuum. We have other 
> evidence which can give us a good idea of what they got right and what 
> they got wrong. You on the other hand weigh each witnesses account against 
> the assumptions you have made.
> > > 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.
> That's another way of making the same point I just made. Hank has done it 
> a little more succinctly.
> > > 
> > > 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. 
> > > > > > 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.)
> Claviger hardly qualifies as an LN. He is a different type of CT.

Debatable.  I believe that Claviger posited only one *intentional* 
shooter--Oswald.  Hence, LN....

dcw