Re: Did the Davises see anyone (other than Mrs. Markham)?

On Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 7:33:17 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 3:40:29 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: 
> > On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 5:14:15 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 3:47:27 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: 
> > > > On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 8:07:16 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > > > On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 8:37:32 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: 
> > > > > > On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 6:10:55 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 7:30:32 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: 
> > > > > > > > On Monday, March 29, 2021 at 4:27:13 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, March 28, 2021 at 5:25:26 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 16, 2021 at 4:11:26 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 16, 2021 at 2:16:09 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Speaking of the Davises.... A few curiosities: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Barbara D testified that a "man was coming across the yard.... First off 
> > > > > > > > > > > > [Mrs. Markham] went to screaming before I had paid too much attention to 
> > > > > > > > > > > > him, and pointing at him...." (v3p343) 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > While Mrs. M herself testified, "He cut across Patton St. like this. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Toward Jefferson. Then he was still in sight WHEN I BEGAN TO SCREAM AND 
> > > > > > > > > > > > HOLLER...." (v3) 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > If Mrs. M is correct re the point at which she began to scream, then 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Barbara D couldn't have seen the suspect while Mrs M was screaming and he 
> > > > > > > > > > > > was still in the front yard. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Another curiosity: Barbara D charts (on CE 534) the path that she says 
> > > > > > > > > > > > that the suspect took across the front yard. Note that that path comes 
> > > > > > > > > > > > nowhere near the intersection of 10th & Patton. While Mrs. M is famous 
> > > > > > > > > > > > for her kitty-korner confrontation with him while he's standing at the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > opposite corner of the intersection. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Virginia D., possibly, reconciles Barbara D & Helen M in her own 
> > > > > > > > > > > > testimony: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mr. BELIN. Well, let me try and reconstruct your actions then. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > You heard the shots? 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mr. BELIN. You ran to the door? 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mr. BELIN. What did you see when you got to the door? 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we just saw, you know, the police car parked down there 
> > > > > > > > > > > > and we wondered what was going on, so we heard Mrs. Markham across the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > street calling. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do? 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mrs. DAVIS. Well, she told us to call the police, well, so we went to the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > house. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > We was already in the house, and we went to the phone and called the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > police. (v6p460) 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > If we stop right there, Virginia D's testimony makes sense here. She and 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Barbara D hear Mrs M telling them to "call the police". And they proceed 
> > > > > > > > > > > > to do just that. No mention of Mrs M screaming yet, and no sighting of 
> > > > > > > > > > > > the suspect in the yard. She just says to call the police. They do that. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > However, Virginia D continues, disastrously: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mrs. DAVIS. Well, she told us to call the police, well, so we went to the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > house. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > We was already in the house, and we went to the phone and called the police. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do? 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 460 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mrs. DAVIS. Then we went back to the front door. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mr. BEI.IN. Then what did you do? 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mrs. DAVIS. We saw the boy cutting across the street. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > This v e r y s l o w moving suspect is still in sight AFTER the Davises 
> > > > > > > > > > > > call the cops!? That's where Virginia D's testimony goes off the rails 
> > > > > > > > > > > > here. Up to that point, she seems to reconcile her testimony with Mrs 
> > > > > > > > > > > > M's. Then she has the "boy" still in sight and, for some reason, "cutting 
> > > > > > > > > > > > across the street". (This is the only time that either Davis says that 
> > > > > > > > > > > > they saw the suspect cross a street.) 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > But until this incredible coda, Virginia D paints a believable picture of 
> > > > > > > > > > > > the shooting scene: The Davises see and hear Mrs M telling them to call 
> > > > > > > > > > > > the police, and they do. Mrs M then picks up the story as the suspect is 
> > > > > > > > > > > > running up Patton, and THEN she starts screaming. Again, believable: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > She doesn't call attention to herself with screaming until he's trotting 
> > > > > > > > > > > > off AWAY from her. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Right, Don. Everybody made all this stuff up just to frame poor little Lee 
> > > > > > > > > > > Harvey Oswald. 
> > > > > > > > > > I just realized. In my post, I did not say that the witnesses--Virginia D 
> > > > > > > > > > & Mrs. Markham--were "making up stuff". I accept their joint story. 
> > > > > > > > > > What you write here does not apply to what I wrote here. It's you who has 
> > > > > > > > > > to reject the story! 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I have to reject Virginia Davis' testimony 
> > > > > > > > Okay. Then let's go with just one Davis, Barbara D, who in her affidavit 
> > > > > > > > said she found a shell in the front yard, then, in her testimony, said 
> > > > > > > > that she found it in the side yard. "It". Just realized--we don't know 
> > > > > > > > which Davis (supposedly) found which shell in the side yard. Maybe it 
> > > > > > > > doesn't matter. Let's amend that statement: Barbara D. testified that 
> > > > > > > > she found "a" shell in the side yard. 
> > > > > > > > because she said during the 
> > > > > > > > > same testimony that Jeanette called the police before they went to the 
> > > > > > > > > door and also that she called the police after they went to the door. Both 
> > > > > > > > > of those things cannot be true. She also said they went to the side door 
> > > > > > > > > before testifying they went to the front door. Since she was sixteen and 
> > > > > > > > > married, I doubt she had been living for very long in that apartment and 
> > > > > > > > > maybe didn't know which was the front door and which was the side door. 
> > > > > > > > She did say something like "side door on Patton". She'd know which street 
> > > > > > > > was which. 
> > > > > > > > > It's clear she was confused about some very basic facts which makes it 
> > > > > > > > > amazing that you would find significance in anything she said. 
> > > > > > > > We also have to kind of discount Guinyard's testimony that he saw the 
> > > > > > > > suspect knocking shells out of the gun in the side yard, since he didn't 
> > > > > > > > follow up on that. We also have to question Benavides' testimony to the 
> > > > > > > > effect that he saw the suspect tossing a shell down here, a shell there, 
> > > > > > > > in the front yard. Why didn't the Davises see that? Barbara D should 
> > > > > > > > have said that she saw the guy tossing down *two shells" in the front 
> > > > > > > > yard. Shells that Benavides testified that he picked up. But by the time 
> > > > > > > > of her testimony, it's *no* shells dropped in the front yard. (That she 
> > > > > > > > said she saw.) 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > If one is truly searching for the truth, one looks for the best evidence 
> > > > > > > > > available to lead him to it. Your approach is to follow the anomalies that 
> > > > > > > > > don't fit with anything else. 
> > > > > > > > Like those four anomalists who said the Dealey shooter's window was open 
> > > > > > > > all the way. Here, the anomalist is actually the one witness, Euins, who 
> > > > > > > > said the window was halfway open. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > You are the poster child for something Bud has said for a long time. 
> > > > > > > Conspiracy hobbyists are really bad at weighing evidence. Oswald dumped 
> > > > > > > the shells in the bushes that are at the corner of that house as he 
> > > > > > > proceeded toward Patton. 
> > > > > > You might want to check the testimony of the Davises again. Neither said 
> > > > > > that shells were "dumped in the bushes". Or check the photo on page 266 
> > > > > > of "With Malice". One shell was (supposedly) found under a SIDE window, 
> > > > > > the other "near the walkway" on the SIDE of the house. Neither shell, 
> > > > > > then, would have even been near a bush, or near the front yard. Now, 
> > > > > > who's really bad with evidence? 
> > > > > You are. 
> > > > Try again. You start with a false, or at best half-true, premise: 
> > > > "Oswald dumped the shells in the bushes". Well, one shell, supposedly. 
> > > > Quarter-true. And Benavides says another "by the bush". But the Davises 
> > > > testified that the two shells that THEY found were on the side yard, under 
> > > > a window and near the side walkway. NOT in or near those bushes. And you 
> > > > accuse ME of cherry picking! 
> > > Now you are just nitpicking because you have nothing of substance to 
> > > present. The important thing is that Oswald was seen dumping shells from 
> > > his revolver 
> > Like I said, LNs find it very hard to admit when they're wrong, as Corbett 
> > here was with his Oswald dumped all the shells in the bushes. If he can't 
> > get the details right, it makes you wonder about his Big Picture....
> Hilarious. Here you are, not conceding that people are human and make 
> mistakes, so you're still trying to make sense of a 1000-piece puzzle that 
> has 900 correct pieces and 100 wrong ones (because of human error). 57+ 
> years later, you're still no closer to a solution than you were when you 
> first started beating your hobby-horse. You're not getting anywhere, Don. 
> Your hobby-horse never left the starting gate. 
> 
> Meanwhile, the Dallas Police, the FBI, the Warren Commission and the HSCA 
> each examined all 1000 pieces, realized some of them were simply mistakes 
> that didn't belong to this puzzle, and saw the big picture. It was Oswald, 
> with the rifle, from the Depository.

I've often used the analogy of the jigsaw puzzle but I don't think we're 
missing even close to 100 pieces. There are a few missing pieces, the 
biggest being Oswald's motive but we don't need that piece to know what 
the picture looks like. The pieces we do have only fit together one way 
and it presents a clear picture of Oswald as the assassin. Is it possible 
the few pieces we have missing could contain evidence of accomplices? Yes, 
but highly unlikely.  The pieces we do have tell us unmistakably that 
Oswald was the shooter. If there was evidence he had accomplices, it 
almost surely would have surfaced by now.