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

On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 12:48:05 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
> On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 11:07:23 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: 
> > On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 5:37:10 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 9:11:17 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: 
> > > > On Tuesday, March 30, 2021 at 9:32:44 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > > > On Monday, March 29, 2021 at 8:35:18 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: 
> > > > > > 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. 
> > > > > If you can't name the witness, he didn't come forward. What you have is 
> > > > > Summers' hearsay account. What really don't know what he told Summers. 
> > > > > > 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. 
> > > > > Forgive us if we don't find your beliefs compelling. If you think Callaway 
> > > > > was Summers' witness 
> > > > Actually, I don't think that he was. Remember that about 1:20 he was on 
> > > > the police radio saying he saw the body of Tippit, but he said nothing re 
> > > > seeing the suspect. 
> > > > 
> > > So you are admitting that no witness came forward, even years after the 
> > > event. If Callaway didn't see the suspect, obviously he didn't see what 
> > > kind of weapon the suspect had. 
> > You have a funny definition of the phrase "came forward". A witness--not 
> > Callaway, however--did come forward and told Patrolman Summers that he 
> > thought the weapon was an automatic. 
> >
> How do you know he came forward? How do you know Summers didn't approach 
> him?

Talk about nitpicking!

 How do you know what he told Summers? How do you know Summers didn't 
> just misunderstand him or make an assumption based on the fact the shells 
> were on the ground? Since we don't know who this witness was or what he 
> told Summers, this is pure hearsay and establishes nothing.