Re: In which Sgt. Hill shoots himself in the foot with an automatic

On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 6:11:35 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 3:26:08 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 8:03:33 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 3:40:35 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: 
> > > > In which Sgt. Hill shoots himself in the foot with an automatic 
> > > > 
> > > > Witness Domingo Benavides, DPD Patrolman Joe M. Poe, and DPD Sgt. Gerald 
> > > > Hill were in perfect agreement at the Warren Commission hearings. 
> > > > 
> > > > Benavides: "[The suspect] had just got back to the sidewalk when he threw 
> > > > he first [shell], and when he threw the second one, he had already cut 
> > > > back into the yard." (v6p450) 
> > > > 
> > > > Poe: "[Benavides] told me [the suspect] was running out across this lawn. 
> > > > He was unloading his pistol as he ran." (v7p68) 
> > > > 
> > > > Hill: "Poe showed me a Winston cigarette package that contained three 
> > > > spent jackets from shells that he said a citizen had pointed out to him 
> > > > where the suspect had reloaded his gun and dropped these in he grass." 
> > > > (v7p48-49) So it would seem that the gunman was carrying a revolver: The 
> > > > shells were manually discarded. 
> > > > 
> > > > And yet, at 1:41, Hill radioed that the "shells at the scene indicate that 
> > > > the suspect is armed with an automatic 38, rather than a pistol." (DPD 
> > > > radio logs) 
> > > > 
> > > > First desperate move: Hill denied, at the Commission hearings, that he was 
> > > > the one who had sent the transmission: "That probably is R.D. Stringer". 
> > > > (v7p57) (Stringer was not called to testify.) Second desperate move: And 
> > > > DPD transcriber Sgt. G.D. Henslee attributed the transmission to 
> > > > "Westbrook-Batchelor". (v21p397) (Neither officer testified re the 
> > > > transmission.) Much later, Hill finally took responsibility for it: "In a 
> > > > 1986 interview, Hill admitted being the cop behind the strange 
> > > > broadcast...." (With Malice, p260) 
> > > > 
> > > > But as far back as 1964, the groundwork was being laid in case future 
> > > > investigators looked at future transcriptions of the DPD radio logs--for 
> > > > instance, the August 11, 1964 FBI transcription, which properly appended 
> > > > "Sergeant G. Hill" to the transmission. Benavides also testified that "One 
> > > > of [the shells] went down inside of a bush, and the other one was by the 
> > > > bush"--they were, he says, pretty close together, as shells automatically 
> > > > ejected would have been. The fact that there were shells on the ground, in 
> > > > the first place, and, in the second, that they were found near each other, 
> > > > would indicate, for any future investigation, that they were from an 
> > > > automatic, and explained the "automatic" on the radio. 
> > > > 
> > > > Third desperate move: Supporting this version of the story was also the 
> > > > fact that Hill supposedly saw, as he testified, only the cigarette 
> > > > package, and not the shells inside it. Thus the only possible explanation 
> > > > of that "automatic" seemed to be that the shells were found (a) on the 
> > > > ground and (b) close together. The shells themselves, supposedly, then, 
> > > > did not figure in the 1:41 transmission. Hill hadn't seen them. 
> > > > 
> > > > Hill and his transmission were insulated by Benavides' testimony, by 
> > > > Henslee's false transcription, and by the ingenious employment of the 
> > > > cigarette package. How could he possibly be undone? How? Well, he done 
> > > > undid himself. 
> > > > 
> > > > "Asked how he determined that the shells were 38 caliber, Hill replied, 
> > > > 'You can tell that from the shell. Thirty-eight's stamped on the bottom of 
> > > > it. I looked on the bottom'." (With Malice p261, author's 1986 interview 
> > > > of Hill) All that insulation, up in smoke. All three layers of separation 
> > > > between Hill and the shells--poof! 
> > > > 
> > > > But why was such care taken to separate Hill from shells? Dale Myers goes 
> > > > on to explain: "Hill's explanation compounds the problem. For if true, 
> > > > Hill would have seen additional stamp impressions. Thirty-eight automatic 
> > > > cartridges are traditionally marked, '38 AUTO'...." (p261) 
> > > > 
> > > > Myers then goes on to distract his readers from the "38" issue by 
> > > > returning to the relatively simple "automatic" issue: "There is no 
> > > > indication that Hill ever studied the shells to the degree that his later 
> > > > claims suggest. Hill's explanation that the radio transmission describing 
> > > > the shells as "automatics" was based on an incorrect assumption is 
> > > > probably very close to the truth." (p261) 
> > > > 
> > > > In other words, Myers has no explanation, other than Hill's, for the "38". 
> > > > He does not even attempt one. His only recourse is to distract, distract. 
> > > > So, as of now, Hill's explanation--the only one we have, so far, in some 
> > > > 57 yea rs--stands: He saw "38" "on the bottom" of the shells. His three 
> > > > layers of separation couldn't keep him from "38 AUTO".... 
> > > > 
> > > All you have demonstrated is that Hill made a mistake in assuming the 
> > > gunman had fired an automatic and then tried to cover up his mistake. 
> > > People do that all the time. The fact that every witness who observed the 
> > > gunman as he passed from the front yard to the side yard said he was 
> > > unloading the shells as he went indicates the gun wasn't an automatic. He 
> > > wouldn't have to unload shells from an automatic. They eject themselves 
> > > and they do that at the location the gun is fired. They would not have 
> > > landed at the location whether the shells were found. ALL the eyewitnesses 
> > > indicated the gunman had a revolver and all the recovered shells were 
> > > fired by Oswald's revolver yet you choose to discard all of that and 
> > > fixate instead on an erroneous radio transmission by Hill. Once again, you 
> > > focus on all the wrong things. 
> > And once again you completely ignore what I actually wrote. In fact, 
> > nothing you say indicates that you even read the post. Just brought out 
> > the old rubber stamp again.... 
> >
> I have no idea where you are trying to go with this. You have identified 
> an anomaly, Hill's erroneous report that Tippit's shooter used an 
> automatic.

I've done more than that.  Wriggle out of the only explanation ever given 
re that "38" in the transmission.  Hank tries to do that at the Nuthouse, 
but in order to so do he has to make one big assumption....

 You have identified a few minor discrepancies among the 
> witnesses who saw Oswald fleeing the scene. You have offered no cogent 
> explanation for how all of this fits into a framing of Oswald for Tippit's 
> murder. You think the existence of these discrepancies alone is evidence 
> of a frame up without every explaining the hows and whys that indicate 
> Oswald was framed. 
> 
> Why don't you spell out why you think these anomalies indicate Oswald was 
> frame. Let's see if you can put it all together into a scenario that makes 
> some sense.

Funny!  Then you can ignore that, too!

dcw