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

On Monday, March 29, 2021 at 4:27:06 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Sunday, March 21, 2021 at 4:04:26 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: 
> > On Friday, March 19, 2021 at 12:07:19 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote: 
> > > On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 9:00:28 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: 
> > > > On Tuesday, March 16, 2021 at 8:21:32 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote: 
> > > > > On Sunday, March 14, 2021 at 8:48:49 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: CUT 
> > > > > witnesses, who saw one gunman with one revolver. 
> > > > > > but not the Davises' affidavits. Hill radioed that the "shells at the scene" suggested an "automatic .38" (FBI transcription CE 1974 p78) And--based on the Davis affidavits--that would mean all FOUR shells "at the scene". Now, the Davises may have been enlisted simply to ensure that we got the idea that the gunman used a revolver--they changed their story for the Warren Commission, saying that they found the shells later in the afternoon. And it is still possible that the man manually dropped all four shells in "one little area", and that would have suggested "automatic" to Hill. But the very use of spurious witnesses suggests spurious evidence. 
> > > > > The affidavits of both Davis sisters prepared on 11/22/63 indicate they 
> > > > > saw a gunman emptying his revolver. Not one witness who came forward on 
> > > > > 11/22/63 said they saw a gunman with an automatic. 
> > > > Patrolman Summers had a witness who came forward, before 1:40 and said he 
> > > > saw an automatic. You lose.... 
> > > No, you do. Summers was not a witness. He arrived after the shooting was 
> > > over. What he's reporting is hearsay. Let's examine what the witness 
> > > actually said, not what the hearsay was. Please provide the name of the 
> > > witness, cite for their testimony, and quote what you think indicates an 
> > > automatic instead of a revolver. 
> > I said that "Summers had a witness". You may argue with him, if you wish. 
> > But his witness is an exception to your absolute "not one witness" until 
> > you can prove otherwise.
> Again, who is this witness? Not one witness came forward to say they saw a 
> gunman with an automatic. All the known witnesses said the gunman had a 
> revolver.

The witness "came forward", even if his identity is not known.  Whether or 
not it was intentional, not one witness testified at the hearings to even 
hearing about an "automatic", not even Sgt. Hill, who it turns out was on 
record (the DPD radio logs) re "auto 38" shells.  And not Patrolman 
Summers, who did not testify.  It couldn't have been a more perfect shut 
out if it was intentional.

 ball is in your court to move this from hearsay to 
> evidence. 
> 
> Produce the witness.

I believe that, in later years, Ted Callaway said that he was that 
witness.

 
> > > 
> > > Remember that the witness's statement is evidence, the police officer's 
> > > second-hand report is hearsay. 
> > > Also remember that evidence takes precedence over hearsay.
> You seem to need constant reminders of these facts.
> > Instances in which "direct testimony" was at the least misleading: 
> > Virginia Davis's insistence that they called the cops first, then saw the 
> > suspect. Or: Her (less frequent) statements, in reverse.
> Nobody is saying direct testimony is infallible. Find another strawman to 
> kick around.
> > Sgt Hill's 
> > denial that he sent the "auto 38" transmission.
> Asked and answered. His actual radio call doesn't say he saw automatic 
> shells, he says "shells at the scene indicate an automatic was used". And 
> an automatic ejects shells, a revolver does not. So when shells are found 
> at the scene, that *typically* means an automatic. But the witnesses told 
> a different story once tthey were interviewed.
> > Pretty much the whole of 
> > Cecil McWatters' testimony.
> We've examined that one in detail. The evidence is Oswald got on 
> McWatters' bus.

So far, so good.

 Oswald admitted to getting on and off a bus and taking a 
> taxi.

Only if you still have faith in the words of the DPD, the FBI, & the SS.

 Bledsoe puts him on the bus.

Roy M. Jones was the supposed stand-in for Oswald, the one, that is, who 
took that particular McW bus to Oak Cliff.  But he told the FBI that the 
bus that he was on was held up by cops who boarded the bus, for about an 
hour.  McW nowhere--even in his unending testimony--describes, even 
remotely, such an incident.  No cop boarding, no hour delay.  Jones was 
not "Oswald".  Who was?  Only other candidate produced at the hearings 
was... Oswald.

dcw