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

On Sunday, March 21, 2021 at 1:04:44 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
> On Sunday, March 21, 2021 at 1:01:50 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: 
> > On Friday, March 19, 2021 at 7:38:24 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) 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: 
> > > > > On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 5:2 CUT 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 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. 
> > > No, he's not an exception. He didn't see Oswald emptying and reloading his 
> > > weapon because by the time he saw Oswald (and he picked Oswald out of the 
> > > lineup) Oswald had already completed that action. 
> > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/guinyard.htm 
> > First, that's only his 11/22 affidavit. Secondly, Guinyard IS an exception: 
> > 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. 
> > Mr. BALL. He didn't? 
> > Mr. GUINYARD. No, sir 
> > 
> > You're wrong. He testified that he did see emptying, and onto the ground. 
> > You've got to check more than just his affidavit. Of course, Guinyard's 
> > testimony contradicts the Davises, who said--in their testimony--that the 
> > shells found in the side yard were emptied into his hand in the front 
> > yard.
> The normal way to eject shells from a Smith and Wesson revolver and many 
> other makes is to flip open the cylinder, point the muzzle toward the sky, 
> and let gravity empty the cylinder. Because shells expand when fired, some or 
> all may not just slide out so they need an assist from the ejector rod which is 
> on the front of the cylinder in the center. With the weapon pointed to the sky, 
> pushing down on the ejector rod will push and remaining shells out of the cylinder. 
> S&W revolvers open to the left so it would be normal for the shooter to hold the 
> handle with the right hand and push down on the ejector rod with the left. When 
> doing so, it might appear to a witness the gunman is emptying the shells into his 
> hand since his left hand would be covering the cylinder as he pushed down on 
> the ejector rod. It really doesn't matter much whether Oswald emptied the directly 
> onto the ground or into his hand before tossing them on the ground. A witness 
> watching him do it could easily get a false impression as to how he was doing it.
> > > > > Your assumptions to the contrary (automatic, shells dropped 
> > > > > from gun directly onto ground, witnesses saw a vigilante with Tippit's 
> > > > > gun, for some reason emptying THAT) makes no sense and is contrary to the 
> > > > > evidence. 
> > > You ignored this. 
> > > > > > At the hearings, she told a different story--they were 
> > > > > > now supposedly found on the side yard, beyond the row of bushes and out of 
> > > > > > sight (from the pov of the front door). 
> > > > > No, she told the story as she saw it, which is contradictory to your 
> > > > > unwarranted assumptions, so you accuse her of changing her story under 
> > > > > pressure. But all she did is clarify her affidavit by specifying what she 
> > > > > saw and where. 
> > > You're ignoring a lot of my points again. It's almost like you don't care 
> > > what the facts are. 
> > Speaking of facts... see above! 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That's your argument here. 
> > > > > > > > > > > You ignored this entirely. 
> > > > > > > Still ignoring it. We're onto you. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, she would have been able to lead 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the cops directly to it, and it would have been found well before Sgt 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hill's 1:40 transmission re "auto" shells. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "would have been able to" vs "did". Look up the difference and report back 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to us. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's why they had Ms Davis 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > change her story for her testimony, 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Not established. Your entire premise is begged, based on accusing Barbara 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Davis of lying, which is premised on her saying the shell was found where 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > she saw the man emptying his gun. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm accusing her of changing her story. As you note, she said, in her 
> > > > > > > > > > > > affidavit, "the shell was found where she saw the man emptying his gun", 
> > > > > > > > > > > > on the front lawn. In her later testimony, she said it was found on the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > side yard, on Patton. 
> > > > > > > > > > > No, you're not simply accusing her of changing her story. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > You're claiming there's a massive cover-up / conspiracy to frame Oswald: 
> > > > > > > > > > > "That's why *THEY* [emphasis added] had Ms Davis change her story for her 
> > > > > > > > > > > testimony," And so it's not as simple as accusing her of changing her 
> > > > > > > > > > > story. There is a whole other story imbedded in your claim. Who is "they" 
> > > > > > > > > > > and what evidence do you have of that? You have none. And so we come to 
> > > > > > > > > > > you constantly imbedding your premise into your arguments, begging the 
> > > > > > > > > > > question, because you have no evidence of this cover-up / conspiracy you 
> > > > > > > > > > > suggest, just so changes of testimony that you figure must lead somewhere, 
> > > > > > > > > > > whether they be nothing more than either a clarification / forgetfulness 
> > > > > > > > > > > on the part of the witness or a misunderstanding of the evidence on your 
> > > > > > > > > > > part. 
> > > > > > Virginia D's later "clarification" re what the suspect was doing with the 
> > > > > > shells is very precise--she remembered those details very clearly come the 
> > > > > > hearings. And yet the same day as the assassination she was putting her 
> > > > > > witnessing of the suspect at the "side door" on Patton,' she then changed 
> > > > > > that to the front door on 10th. Funny how her "memory" is just terrible 
> > > > > > later the same day, yet laser-focused months later. More than short-term 
> > > > > > memory vs. long term is involved here.... 
> > > > > She saw the gunman at the front door emptying his revolver into his hand. 
> > > > > She went to the side door and saw the gunman discard one shell. There's no 
> > > > > conflict in her testimony to anyone not assuming she meant something else. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > You're ignoring this too. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > No longer! 
> > > I see no response here that explains your problem away. 
> > You were saying I ignored something, not that I didn't explain something 
> > to your satisfaction. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If you're going to ignore the majority of my 
> > > > > > > points, why should I bother discussing anything with you? 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 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. 
> > Hilarious! See above.... 
> > 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. 
> > > > You have assumptions and hearsay. 
> > > 
> > > > Gee, on alt.conspiracy.jfk, Ben Holmes says that HE has the evidence, LNs 
> > > > don't. I also recall Prof. Marsh saying, often, that HE has the photos, 
> > > > no one else does. You guys are very possessive..... 
> > > The evidence is available to you. But you seldom if ever utilize it. 
> > Oh, I have utilized it. (See above.) 
> > > Instead you utilize hearsay and conjecture to attempt to explain away 
> > > where the evidence clearly points. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so that the shell could be said to 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have been found outside her range of vision, and it could not have been 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > said to have been covered by the transmission. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What? The man was seen emptying his *revolver*. Numerous witnesses said 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > The key word is "found". In their testimony, both Davises now said that 
> > > > > > > > > > > > they only SAW the man emptying his gun into his HAND. They now (in their 
> > > > > > > > > > > > testimony) say they did NOT see the suspect dropping the shell in the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > grass. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 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*. 
> > > > > > > > > > The hand business turned up only later in their statements & testimony. 
> > > > > > > > > Why do you think that is the least bit important? What difference does it 
> > > > > > > > > make whether he dumped the shells on the ground or into his hand? 
> > > > > > > > The Davis's "advisors" thought it was pretty important. 
> > > > > > > Uh, that's the logical fallacy of begging the question. You've never 
> > > > > > > established the existence of any Davis 'advisors'. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 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.) 
> > > And that makes no sense, as John Corbett patiently explained to you. Her 
> > > and her sister-in-law both saw someone unloading a revolver. Who was it 
> > > except the gunman who had just shot Tippit. Since the other witnesses 
> > > didn't say the gunman hung around but left quickly, then any 
> > > reconstruction that puts the gunman hanging around for the Davis women to 
> > > see is just wrong. So we know they saw him, then made the phone call, not 
> > > the other way around. 
> > "We know"--as if you were there. Then you say that the words of someone 
> > who WAS there make no sense. Nice.
> There are two ways to reach Hank's conclusion. One would have been to have 
> witnessed the shooting. The other is by applying common sense to the 
> various accounts.
> > > 
> > > See, that's the way the evidence works, you disregard the inconsistencies, 
> > > and resolve in favor of the consistencies. 
> > > 
> > > The inconsistencies don't reveal a cover-up with everyone lying. They 
> > > reveal witnesses who are not colluding to frame an innocent man 
> > > (otherwise, their stories would all mesh). 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 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. 
> > > What!!!??? It was mentioned in the earliest affidavits on 11/22/63. 
> > > The witnesses were part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald on the afternoon 
> > > of the assassination? 
> > > 
> > Yes.
> And their reason for doing so 
> was_________________________________________________?
> > > Why'd so many many pick Oswald out of lineups? Why'd they mention a 
> > > revolver? Why were shells found not near the body, but picked up out of 
> > > the grass off to the side? Your arguments make no sense. 
> > > > 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. 
> > > Hilarious. So you come here with a bunch of conjectures that don't fit the 
> > > evidence, and then revise as necessary. 
> > > 
> > > So your argument is they saw no one and simply invented the gunman 
> > > emptying his revolver on the afternoon ofup 11/22/63? And then picked out 
> > > Oswald at the lineup as the guy they didn't see? 
> > > 
> > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm 
> > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm 
> > > 
> > > Why were shells found in the grass? Why did those shells match Oswald's 
> > > weapon? 
> > > 
> > > Your argument above exposes the fatal flaw in all conspiracy thinking. 
> > > You'll do everything in your power not to admit to it being Oswald. So you 
> > > flit from one unreasonable explanation (The Davis women saw Scoggins with 
> > > Tippit's gun, not Oswald with his own revolver) to another unreasonable 
> > > explanation (The Davis women saw nobody) rather than alight on the most 
> > > reasonable explanation (The Davis women saw Oswald emptying his revolver 
> > > of his expended shells after shooting Tippit). 
> 
> > If I'm simply doing everything in my power to maintain that it wasn't 
> > Oswald,
> We know that. We just can't understand why you are doing that.
> > why do I admit it was he shooting in Dealey? Maybe I'm simply 
> > looking at the evidence more closely than you and Corbett.
> The expression "can't see the forest for the trees" comes to mind.
> > > > > 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 ignored this. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 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. 
> > > You ignored this. 
> > It certainly took some advice for them to come up with the palming of the 
> > shells business. Apparently, Guinyard didn't have the same adviser. 
> > Everyone seems to ignore him. 
> >
> As Hank told you earlier, look at the consistencies, not the 
> inconsistencies.

I hadn't really looked at that statement.  You're going to get, at best, 
only half the truth that way.

dcw