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

On Sunday, March 28, 2021 at 2:25:03 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
> On Sunday, March 28, 2021 at 9:07:49 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: 
> > On Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 1:01:41 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > On Friday, March 26, 2021 at 7:41:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: 
> > > > 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. 
> > > The delay was insignificant. 
> > LN intransigence knows no bounds. 
> > > > 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.) 
> > > So they really didn't care if they caught the real cop killer. And that 
> > > makes sense to you. 
> > Talk about not making sense. (See above.)
> Begging the question.
> > > > > > > > > > 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? 
> > > > 
> > > So she corrected herself. Aren't people allowed to do that? 
> > You said there was no other conflict between Virginia D's affidavit and 
> > her testimony. As you see, there in fact was. LNers can't admit when 
> > they're wrong.
> OK. I was wrong.

Okay.  Good.

 Virginia Davis contradicted herself so many times as to 
> make her account of the event almost worthless.

True, but she seemed genuinely torn between two different versions of 
events.

 Jeanette Davis on the 
> other hand, older and obviously much more level headed, was very 
> consistent in her description of the event, both in her original affidavit 
> and WC testimony.

Except that in her affidavit, she said the shell was found in her front 
yard; in her testimony, she said side yard.

 She described hearing a shot, going to the front door, 
> hearing Markham scream to call that police and seeing Oswald cutting 
> across the corner of their yard on his way to Patton, emptying the shells 
> as he did. There is nothing ambiguous about her testimony. Yet you want to 
> latch on to the testimony of a ditzy young girl and present that as 
> evidence of a cover up. No wonder you can't get the right answer.
> > Virginia Davis 
> > > was 16 years old and a bit of a ditz. She went back and forth as to 
> > > whether they called the police before or after going to the front door. It 
> > > would make no sense that they would have called the police before going to 
> > > the front door because they would have had no reason to. 
> > If the Davises heard Markham screaming "Call the police!"--after the two 
> > heard shots--it would make sense that they'd call the police before 
> > venturing out into a shooting scene.
> Now you are just making up hypotheticals. Neither one of them described 
> that as the way it happened. Both said they went to the door and then 
> heard Markham scream call the police.

Yes, but you know that Virginia occasionally had another version of when 
they saw the suspect:

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)
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.


> > The called the 
> > > police because Markham told them the cop had been shot and they saw 
> > > Oswald crossing their yard while emptying the shells from his gun.
> > > 
> > > This is why Hank told you to follow the consistencies 
> > Okay, pal. Follow this one: Four or five witnesses (out of six) said 
> > that the Dealey shooter shot from a wide-open window. Climb aboard the 
> > Consistency Express. Oh, you can't? 
> >
> "Wide open" is a very imprecise description. The witnesses were very 
> consistent in saying the shooter was on the 6th floor. No ambiguity there.

Nor in their "wide open", parse it as you will.  So much for 
"consistency", eh?

dcw