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 w    CUT    nce of 
> > > shells at the scene of the shooting (an automatic ejects the shells, a 
> > > revolver does not). 
> > Lovely. I'm assuming that your referring to Myers' book. If so, note 
> > that Hill also says there that he took part in picking up the shells. 
> > That's more than "presence".
> Not referring to that at all. Saw a program sometime in the past where 
> Hill said this on camera. I don't recall the program

When was it filmed?

, but I recall his 
> statement (not word-for-word, of course). It was what I always suspected. 
> Maybe sometime in the past in this forum I posted the exact quote and the 
> TV program (when I was posting as Joe Zircon), but I cannot swear to it. 
> 
> If he handled the shells, so what?

Then, as Myers suggests, he must have seen "auto" on them.  And "38".  
That's what.

> > > 
> > > You cannot name or produce Summers supposed witness. 
> > > 
> > Supposed? Summers was a doofus who couldn't relay a few simple words? 
> > Interesting assumption on your part.
> Straw man. People misunderstand each other other on occasion. You have one 
> hearsay account of a supposed unnamed witness who said something, versus 
> numerous other signed documents by known witnesses that say something 
> contrary to that.

Evidence by democracy.
 
> 
> You resolve that discrepancy in favor of the hearsay account of the 
> unknown witness. I don't. I would LOVE to hear why you resolve it the way 
> you do, but I doubt you have a good reason. Walk me through your logic 
> here.

No "resolve".  Summers simply reported what he'd been told, whether it was 
an error or not.

> > > You have two hearsay accounts, one of which is explainable in simple terms 
> > > as a misinterpretation of the evidence. 
> > Even Myers couldn't quite explain the "38"--unless Hill read it on the 
> > shells. Remember, the transmission was "auto 38".... Not so simple, Hank.
> What's stamped on the actual shells in evidence, Don?

What do I think of the "actual shells in evidence", Hank?  I've told you 
and John and Bud many times.

dcw