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

On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 8:38:09 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 7:05:05 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote: 
> > 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: 
> > > > 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.... 
> > What assumption is that, Don?
> Here ya go: 
> 
> Hank: Sgt. Hill "heard about .38 shells left at the scene and assumed the 
> automatic part because they were at the scene." 
> 
> You're still forgetting this, from the same exchange: 
> 
> dcw: "Conveniently, you're forgetting the testimony of Hill, Poe, and 
> Benavides. All three testified that they had either seen or heard that the 
> suspect was throwing down shells as he left the scene. Throwing them down, 
> MANUALLY. Tell me how you "assume the automatic part" from that!" 
> 
> In 1964, that was all we had, from the Hearings. How do you get from the 
> Hill/Poe/Benavides tale to "automatic 38"? According to that testimony, 
> shells were not just seen at the scene, but the gunman was seen THROWING 
> them down. 

 This alone makes it impossible that an automatic was used.
 
> You assume that Hill "heard about .38 shells left at the scene". He 
> testified only that he heard about shells THROWN DOWN at the scene...

  Did he hear about the throwing down before or after he went on the 
radio?

> 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.
> Yes, and one was Benavides, but his tale, told to Poe, who told it to 
> Hill, fails the DPD radio "auto 38" test. So scratch at least one of your 
> "numerous witnesses"....
> 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.
> Certainly not if you think that facts are malleable.... 
> 
> dcw