Re: Did the Davises see anyone (other than Mrs. Markham)?

On Saturday, March 20, 2021 at 6:27:04 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 9:16:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 8:37:30 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: 
> > > On Tuesday, March 16, 2021 at 4:11:26 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > > On Tuesday, March 16, 2021 at 2:16:09 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: 
> > > > > Speaking of the Davises.... A few curiosities: 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Barbara D testified that a "man was coming across the yard.... First off 
> > > > > [Mrs. Markham] went to screaming before I had paid too much attention to 
> > > > > him, and pointing at him...." (v3p343) 
> > > > > 
> > > > > While Mrs. M herself testified, "He cut across Patton St. like this. 
> > > > > Toward Jefferson. Then he was still in sight WHEN I BEGAN TO SCREAM AND 
> > > > > HOLLER...." (v3) 
> > > > > 
> > > > > If Mrs. M is correct re the point at which she began to scream, then 
> > > > > Barbara D couldn't have seen the suspect while Mrs M was screaming and he 
> > > > > was still in the front yard. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Another curiosity: Barbara D charts (on CE 534) the path that she says 
> > > > > that the suspect took across the front yard. Note that that path comes 
> > > > > nowhere near the intersection of 10th & Patton. While Mrs. M is famous 
> > > > > for her kitty-korner confrontation with him while he's standing at the 
> > > > > opposite corner of the intersection. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Virginia D., possibly, reconciles Barbara D & Helen M in her own 
> > > > > testimony: 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 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. (v6p460) 
> > > > > 
> > > > > If we stop right there, Virginia D's testimony makes sense here. She and 
> > > > > Barbara D hear Mrs M telling them to "call the police". And they proceed 
> > > > > to do just that. No mention of Mrs M screaming yet, and no sighting of 
> > > > > the suspect in the yard. She just says to call the police. They do that. 
> > > > > However, Virginia D continues, disastrously: 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 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? 
> > > > > 460 
> > > > > 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. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > This v e r y s l o w moving suspect is still in sight AFTER the Davises 
> > > > > call the cops!? That's where Virginia D's testimony goes off the rails 
> > > > > here. Up to that point, she seems to reconcile her testimony with Mrs 
> > > > > M's. Then she has the "boy" still in sight and, for some reason, "cutting 
> > > > > across the street". (This is the only time that either Davis says that 
> > > > > they saw the suspect cross a street.) 
> > > > > 
> > > > > But until this incredible coda, Virginia D paints a believable picture of 
> > > > > the shooting scene: The Davises see and hear Mrs M telling them to call 
> > > > > the police, and they do. Mrs M then picks up the story as the suspect is 
> > > > > running up Patton, and THEN she starts screaming. Again, believable: 
> > > > > She doesn't call attention to herself with screaming until he's trotting 
> > > > > off AWAY from her. 
> > > > > 
> > > > Right, Don. Everybody made all this stuff up just to frame poor little Lee 
> > > > Harvey Oswald. The cops. The witnesses. The bus driver. The cab driver. 
> > > > 
> > > > Did you ever consider the possibility that the reason the eyewitness 
> > > > testimony and the physical evidence points to Oswald is because Oswald was 
> > > > the one who killed Tippit? 
> > > They got the right guy for the JFK shooting. Wrong guy for the Tippit 
> > > shooting. 
> > > 
> > > dcw 
> > Don, 
> > 
> > Since you admit they got the right guy for the JFK assassination, perhaps 
> > you can delve into the motivation of everyone to frame Oswald for the 
> > Tippit shooting and let the real cop killer get away? 
> > 
> > Why would they bother? 
> > - As you admit, they got the right guy for the JFK shooting, and framing 
> > him for a separate crime doesn't change the facts involving the 
> > assassination. 
> > 
> > Let's also talk in more detail about why the cops were so keen on framing 
> > Oswald -- and letting the real cop killer get away. Do you have a response 
> > here? I've never seen one. 
> > - Framing Oswald for shooting a cop still leaves Tippit dead. And, if your 
> > charge is true, it leaves the real cop-killer on the street to kill again, 
> > doesn't it? Therefore, why would the police align to frame Oswald? What is 
> > their motivation to do any of this? 
> > 
> > Separate from that, you accuse multiple witnesses of changing their 
> > statements to aid in the frame-up of Oswald. For the most part, these 
> > witnesses are solid American citizens, with no crime record or record of 
> > lying under oath, or even of cheating on a fifth grade test. You've got no 
> > reason to accuse them as you do, other than their statements disagree with 
> > your beliefs, so can you get into their motivation for lying to frame an 
> > innocent man? Is this something you would find easy to do? I wouldn't. Yet 
> > you accuse not just one or two people of changing their statements to 
> > frame Oswald, but many. What is their motivation to do any of this? 
> > 
> > Beyond that, there's also the revolver taken off Oswald in the Texas 
> > Theatre matching the shells in evidence. You argue those were switched 
> > somewhere along the line, but provide no evidence of that. Again, if the 
> > evidence indicated Oswald's weapon wasn't the weapon used to kill Tippit, 
> > what's the reason for the crime lab or the FBI to swap them out and frame 
> > an innocent guy, and let the real killer of Tippit go free? Why would 
> > someone switch them out BEFORE the crime lab or the FBI examined them? 
> > 
> > You make all these accusations, but you don't have a shred of evidence 
> > indicting any of these people for doing anything at all nefarious. You try 
> > to back into these accusations by concentrating on minor discrepancies in 
> > the witness statements -- as if discrepancies in witness statements are 
> > unusual, and meaningful. They aren't. No two witnesses will agree on 
> > everything unless they are in collusion. 
> > 
> > This has been studied extensively and to pretend the witness discrepancies 
> > are meaningful requires willful ignorance and ignoring the science. 
> > 
> > https://nobaproject.com/modules/eyewitness-testimony-and-memory-biases 
> > 
> > Go right ahead with your silly game. It's not convincing. It never will be 
> > to knowledgeable people.
> Oh, and my "silly game" led me to the conclusion that Oswald shot JFK. 
> But if you find that unconvincing.... 
> 

Don,

Since you admit they got the right guy for the JFK assassination, perhaps 
you can delve into the motivation of everyone to frame Oswald for the 
Tippit shooting and let the real cop killer get away?

Why would they bother?

- As you admit, they got the right guy for the JFK shooting, and framing 
  him for a separate crime doesn't change the facts involving the 
  assassination.

Let's also talk in more detail about why the cops were so keen on framing 
Oswald -- and letting the real cop killer get away. Do you have a response 
here? I've never seen one.

- Framing Oswald for shooting a cop still leaves Tippit dead. And, if your 
  charge is true, it leaves the real cop-killer on the street to kill 
  again, doesn't it? Therefore, why would the police align to frame 
  Oswald? What is their motivation to do any of this?

Separate from that, you accuse multiple witnesses of changing their 
statements to aid in the frame-up of Oswald. For the most part, these 
witnesses are solid American citizens, with no crime record or record of 
lying under oath, or even of cheating on a fifth grade test. You've got no 
reason to accuse them as you do, other than their statements disagree with 
your beliefs, so can you get into their motivation for lying to frame an 
innocent man? Is this something you would find easy to do? I wouldn't. Yet 
you accuse not just one or two people of changing their statements to 
frame Oswald, but many. What is their motivation to do any of this?

Beyond that, there's also the revolver taken off Oswald in the Texas 
Theatre matching the shells in evidence. You argue those were switched 
somewhere along the line, but provide no evidence of that. Again, if the 
evidence indicated Oswald's weapon wasn't the weapon used to kill Tippit, 
what's the reason for the crime lab or the FBI to swap them out and frame 
an innocent guy, and let the real killer of Tippit go free? Why would 
someone switch them out BEFORE the crime lab or the FBI examined them?

You make all these accusations, but you don't have a shred of evidence 
indicting any of these people for doing anything at all nefarious. You try 
to back into these accusations by concentrating on minor discrepancies in 
the witness statements -- as if discrepancies in witness statements are 
unusual, and meaningful. They aren't. No two witnesses will agree on 
everything unless they are in collusion.

This has been studied extensively and to pretend the witness discrepancies 
are meaningful requires willful ignorance and ignoring the science.

https://nobaproject.com/modules/eyewitness-testimony-and-memory-biases

Go right ahead with your silly game. It's not convincing. It never will be
to knowledgeable people.