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

On Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 8:10:14 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 1:02:47 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: 
> > 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 (A   CUT   
> > > > > 
> > > > > 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_________________________________________________? 
> > Just speculation, but I think that Virginia Davis simply wanted to help 
> > the cops catch the killer of JFK.
> How would Virginia Davis know at the time that the guy who just shot the 
> cop was the prime suspect in the JFK assassination? Even the cops didn't 
> know that until they got Oswald back to the police station.

The Davises did their IDs and affidavits in the evening.  The 
assassinations were on the news.

 Based on her 
> testimony, it doesn't sound like she was even aware JFK had been shot.

Any particular part of it suggest that?

> > > > > 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. 
> > Yes you can. Try. I don't believe that it was Oswald who killed Tippit.
> Which makes no sense.

If you don't look too closely.

> > Main reason: Scoggins was a friend or acquaintance of Tippit and was with 
> > the cops as early as 1:22 and yet didn't ID Oswald in a lineup till the 
> > next day.
> Don't you think a friend of Tippit would want to get the right guy that 
> killed him. Why would he want to finger the wrong guy?

My point exactly--Oswald--in two lineups on Friday--was the wrong guy, and 
Scoggins knew it.


> > > > 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. 
> > You're saying: Ignore Guinyard's testimony because he didn't tally with 
> > the Davises' take on disposing of the shells? 
> >
> The only conflict between the Guinyard account and that Davises' account 
> was the manner in which Oswald emptied the gun which is terribly 
> unimportant. Whether he dumped them into his hand or directly onto the 
> ground doesn't matter.

I'm not going to try again to explain why it was important.  Either you 
just don't get it or you don't want to get it.  Okay, or I haven't been 
clear enough.

 All the witnesses agree he was emptying the gun as 
> he went around the corner of the house and the shells were found where 
> they described it.

Where they described it in their testimony, but not in their affidavits 
("they" here being the Davises).

dcw