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

On Friday, April 9, 2021 at 6:13:18 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 6:11:35 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:=20
> > On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 3:26:08 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:=
=20
> > > On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 8:03:33 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:=20
> > > > On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 3:40:35 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:=
=20
> > > > > In which Sgt. Hill shoots himself in the foot with an automatic=
=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Witness Domingo Benavides, DPD Patrolman Joe M. Poe, and DPD Sgt.=
 Gerald=20
> > > > > Hill were in perfect agreement at the Warren Commission hearings.=
=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Benavides: "[The suspect] had just got back to the sidewalk when =
he threw=20
> > > > > he first [shell], and when he threw the second one, he had alread=
y cut=20
> > > > > back into the yard." (v6p450)=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Poe: "[Benavides] told me [the suspect] was running out across th=
is lawn.=20
> > > > > He was unloading his pistol as he ran." (v7p68)=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Hill: "Poe showed me a Winston cigarette package that contained t=
hree=20
> > > > > spent jackets from shells that he said a citizen had pointed out =
to him=20
> > > > > where the suspect had reloaded his gun and dropped these in he gr=
ass."=20
> > > > > (v7p48-49) So it would seem that the gunman was carrying a revolv=
er: The=20
> > > > > shells were manually discarded.=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > And yet, at 1:41, Hill radioed that the "shells at the scene indi=
cate that=20
> > > > > the suspect is armed with an automatic 38, rather than a pistol."=
 (DPD=20
> > > > > radio logs)=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > First desperate move: Hill denied, at the Commission hearings, th=
at he was=20
> > > > > the one who had sent the transmission: "That probably is R.D. Str=
inger".=20
> > > > > (v7p57) (Stringer was not called to testify.) Second desperate mo=
ve: And=20
> > > > > DPD transcriber Sgt. G.D. Henslee attributed the transmission to=
=20
> > > > > "Westbrook-Batchelor". (v21p397) (Neither officer testified re th=
e=20
> > > > > transmission.) Much later, Hill finally took responsibility for i=
t: "In a=20
> > > > > 1986 interview, Hill admitted being the cop behind the strange=20
> > > > > broadcast...." (With Malice, p260)=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > But as far back as 1964, the groundwork was being laid in case fu=
ture=20
> > > > > investigators looked at future transcriptions of the DPD radio lo=
gs--for=20
> > > > > instance, the August 11, 1964 FBI transcription, which properly a=
ppended=20
> > > > > "Sergeant G. Hill" to the transmission. Benavides also testified =
that "One=20
> > > > > of [the shells] went down inside of a bush, and the other one was=
 by the=20
> > > > > bush"--they were, he says, pretty close together, as shells autom=
atically=20
> > > > > ejected would have been. The fact that there were shells on the g=
round, in=20
> > > > > the first place, and, in the second, that they were found near ea=
ch other,=20
> > > > > would indicate, for any future investigation, that they were from=
 an=20
> > > > > automatic, and explained the "automatic" on the radio.=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Third desperate move: Supporting this version of the story was al=
so the=20
> > > > > fact that Hill supposedly saw, as he testified, only the cigarett=
e=20
> > > > > package, and not the shells inside it. Thus the only possible exp=
lanation=20
> > > > > of that "automatic" seemed to be that the shells were found (a) o=
n the=20
> > > > > ground and (b) close together. The shells themselves, supposedly,=
 then,=20
> > > > > did not figure in the 1:41 transmission. Hill hadn't seen them.=
=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Hill and his transmission were insulated by Benavides' testimony,=
 by=20
> > > > > Henslee's false transcription, and by the ingenious employment of=
 the=20
> > > > > cigarette package. How could he possibly be undone? How? Well, he=
 done=20
> > > > > undid himself.=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > "Asked how he determined that the shells were 38 caliber, Hill re=
plied,=20
> > > > > 'You can tell that from the shell. Thirty-eight's stamped on the =
bottom of=20
> > > > > it. I looked on the bottom'." (With Malice p261, author's 1986 in=
terview=20
> > > > > of Hill) All that insulation, up in smoke. All three layers of se=
paration=20
> > > > > between Hill and the shells--poof!=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > But why was such care taken to separate Hill from shells? Dale My=
ers goes=20
> > > > > on to explain: "Hill's explanation compounds the problem. For if =
true,=20
> > > > > Hill would have seen additional stamp impressions. Thirty-eight a=
utomatic=20
> > > > > cartridges are traditionally marked, '38 AUTO'...." (p261)=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Myers then goes on to distract his readers from the "38" issue by=
=20
> > > > > returning to the relatively simple "automatic" issue: "There is n=
o=20
> > > > > indication that Hill ever studied the shells to the degree that h=
is later=20
> > > > > claims suggest. Hill's explanation that the radio transmission de=
scribing=20
> > > > > the shells as "automatics" was based on an incorrect assumption i=
s=20
> > > > > probably very close to the truth." (p261)=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > In other words, Myers has no explanation, other than Hill's, for =
the "38".=20
> > > > > He does not even attempt one. His only recourse is to distract, d=
istract.=20
> > > > > So, as of now, Hill's explanation--the only one we have, so far, =
in some=20
> > > > > 57 yea rs--stands: He saw "38" "on the bottom" of the shells. His=
 three=20
> > > > > layers of separation couldn't keep him from "38 AUTO"....=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > All you have demonstrated is that Hill made a mistake in assuming t=
he=20
> > > > gunman had fired an automatic and then tried to cover up his mistak=
e.=20
> > > > People do that all the time. The fact that every witness who observ=
ed the=20
> > > > gunman as he passed from the front yard to the side yard said he wa=
s=20
> > > > unloading the shells as he went indicates the gun wasn't an automat=
ic. He=20
> > > > wouldn't have to unload shells from an automatic. They eject themse=
lves=20
> > > > and they do that at the location the gun is fired. They would not h=
ave=20
> > > > landed at the location whether the shells were found. ALL the eyewi=
tnesses=20
> > > > indicated the gunman had a revolver and all the recovered shells we=
re=20
> > > > fired by Oswald's revolver yet you choose to discard all of that an=
d=20
> > > > fixate instead on an erroneous radio transmission by Hill. Once aga=
in, you=20
> > > > focus on all the wrong things.=20
> > > And once again you completely ignore what I actually wrote. In fact,=
=20
> > > nothing you say indicates that you even read the post. Just brought o=
ut=20
> > > the old rubber stamp again....=20
> > >=20
> > I have no idea where you are trying to go with this. You have identifie=
d=20
> > an anomaly, Hill's erroneous report that Tippit's shooter used an=20
> > automatic.
> I've done more than that. Wriggle out of the only explanation ever given=
=20
> re that "38" in the transmission. Hank tries to do that at the Nuthouse,=
=20
> but in order to so do he has to make one big assumption....

What assumption is that, Don? That the shells aren't swapped? No, that's 
the default position.

You're the one making the big assumption they were swapped. Your 
assumption is the unproven and assumed one. The shells are part of the 
hard evidence and you don't get to just assume any evidence pointing to 
Oswald was planted to frame him, but that's exactly what you're doing by 
concentrating on the discrepancies between the eyewitness statements and 
ignoring where they agree and additionally what the hard evidence tells 
us.

Numerous witnesses agree a revolver was used and emptied by the gunman as 
he left the scene. The hard evidence tells us the shooter was Oswald, as 
the shells in evidence match the revolver taken off Oswald in the theatre.

Numerous witnesses agree Oswald was the shooter, as they picked Oswald out 
of a lineup.

Keep pretending exactly where the shells were discarded/recovered is 
important.

It's not.


> You have identified a few minor discrepancies among the=20
> > witnesses who saw Oswald fleeing the scene. You have offered no cogent=
=20
> > explanation for how all of this fits into a framing of Oswald for Tippi=
t's=20
> > murder. You think the existence of these discrepancies alone is evidenc=
e=20
> > of a frame up without every explaining the hows and whys that indicate=
=20
> > Oswald was framed.=20
> >=20
> > Why don't you spell out why you think these anomalies indicate Oswald w=
as=20
> > frame. Let's see if you can put it all together into a scenario that ma=
kes=20
> > some sense.
> Funny! Then you can ignore that, too!=20
>=20
> dcw