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

On Thursday, March 25, 2021 at 6:51:55 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
> 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    CUT
> > > > 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?

It took him 24 hours to finally ID Oswald.  He had 3 chances on Friday.  
Tell me that that delay was insignificant.

 Why would he ID Oswald at all if he 
> wasn't Tippit's killer

I can only speculate.  But that's what happened.  I know, I know--Capt. 
Fritz was a pussycat....

 and why would the cops pressure him into IDing the 
> wrong man for the killing of their fellow officer.

The DPD, SS, and FBI wanted to squelch any suggestion of a conspiracy.  
And they wanted witnesses to Oswald shooting Tippit, and they manufactured 
some.  (Don't think, though, that the FBI had a hand in 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. 
> > > > 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.

You dismiss the significant as insignificant.

> > 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.

"Nothing"?  You and Hank keep making false claims, and not admitting it.  
Obviously, you haven't read their affidavits.  In hers, Barbara D. said 
they found a shell in the front yard.  In hers, Virginia D said they saw 
the suspect from the side door on Patton.  You'll agree that the side door 
could not be the front door?

dcw