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

On Friday, March 19, 2021 at 12:07:19 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> 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:   CUT   
> > > 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. 

I said that "Summers had a witness".  You may argue with him, if you wish.  
But his witness is an exception to your absolute "not one witness" until 
you can prove otherwise.

> 
> 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.

Instances in which "direct testimony" was at the least misleading:  
Virginia Davis's insistence that they called the cops first, then saw the 
suspect.  Or:  Her (less frequent) statements, in reverse.  Sgt Hill's 
denial that he sent the "auto 38" transmission.  Pretty much the whole of 
Cecil McWatters' testimony.  DPD Insp. Sawyer's testimony that he got to 
Dealey & into the depository by about 12:34.  (He could not have gotten in 
there so fast:  The cops he alludes to who said the shooting came from 
there did not even start reporting until 12:36 & 12:38.)

In the above instances, hearsay might even be better than testimony!

> > > > > > "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.

Not enough leeway to put the shell around the corner of the house!

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

Nothing was said to have been found in that overlap area.

> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 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). 

Lovely.  I'm assuming that your referring to Myers' book.  If so, note 
that Hill also says there that he took part in picking up the shells.  
That's more than "presence".


> 
> You cannot name or produce Summers supposed witness. 
> 

Supposed?  Summers was a doofus who couldn't relay a few simple words?  
Interesting assumption on your part.

> You have two hearsay accounts, one of which is explainable in simple terms 
> as a misinterpretation of the evidence.

Even Myers couldn't quite explain the "38"--unless Hill read it on the 
shells.  Remember, the transmission was "auto 38".... Not so simple, Hank.

 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. 

Myers wrote that he interviewed Summers on 3/28/83 (With Malice p611), but 
doesn't name the witness, at least in his book.

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

Hilarious!

dcw