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

On Wednesday, March 24, 2021 at 8:10:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> 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.

Your claim was that they "were part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald on 
the afternoon". So are you now changing your story to say they didn't join 
the conspiracy until the evening?

> Based on her 
> > testimony, it doesn't sound like she was even aware JFK had been shot.
> Any particular part of it suggest that?

The part where she said that she and her sister were lying on the bed and 
the couch when they heard the shots. Anyone who was aware of the 
assassination would almost surely have the TV or radio tuned in to get the 
latest information. For people who were aware of what happened, the world 
came to a stop that afternoon.

> > > > > > 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.

It makes no sense whether you look closely or just take a glance at the 
evidence. It all screams that Oswald killed Tippit, your feeble efforts to 
rewrite history not withstanding.

> > > 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.

And just how do you know he knew that? Why would he ID Oswald at all if he 
wasn't Tippit's killer and why would the cops pressure him into IDing the 
wrong man for the killing of their fellow officer.

> > > > > 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.

Your entire line of reasoning isn't clear. You find significance in the 
insignificant and dismissing everything that is significant.

> 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). 
> 

There is nothing in their testimony that conflicts with their affidavits 
other than Virginia Davis not being able to remember if Jeanette called 
the police before or after seeing Oswald crossing their yard while 
unloading the spent shells.