Virginia Davis Blows Her Lines, Exposes Revolver/Automatic Cover-up
Sean Smiley
Yes, Bugs, there is a Virginia.... Here is what Tippit witness
Virginia Davis was supposed to say, and did say (elsewhere, however,
she strayed from the script):
"We ran to the front door.... We saw a boy walking, cutting across our
yard.... He was emptying shells in his left hand." (v6 pp456, 459-60)
How do we know that the above scenario was manufactured, that Ms Davis
was coached? Because she proved to be a suborner's worst nightmare:
Now and then, she forgot her lines, accidentally told the truth.
Ouch.
Here, blessedly, is where she slips and tells it true:
"We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to [the] side door at
Patton Street."
This is from her same-day, 11/22/63 county affidavit, signed by her.
Her own words. Those five little words: "side door at Patton
Street"....
On April 1, 1964, WC Counsel David Belin asked her about this
affidavit:
"Do you remember that you signed a statement when you were down at the
Dallas Police Dept.?
Davis: Yes,sir.
Belin: You have read... the contents of your deposition?
Davis: Yes, sir.
Belin: Is there anything in that statement that is inaccurate in any
way?
Davis: No, sir.
Belin: Is that what you told the police on 11/22/63?
Davis: That's right. (v6p463)
Yes, Ms Davis stuck by her affidavit. Certainly, nothing jumped out
at her. "In any way." End of discussion....
Hold on. Belin is, for some reason, not quite satisfied, although all
seems to have been asked and answered.
Belin: Now, on this statement, it says that you heard a shot & then
another shot & ran to the side door at Patton Street. Was that the
side door or front door?
Gee, where is he leading the witness?
Davis: It was the front door.
Ah! Back to the script. Whew! Close call. Certainly easy to forget
your vantage point re a fleeing cop killer. Happens every day. So
many cops, so many killers. One gets doors, days mixed up. Killers
coming, killers going.... Well, Belin, we assume, knows these things,
and doesn't bother to ask Davis how she could have said "side door at
Patton Street", which phrase does not figure at all in the approved
script. Curiosity was not his thing....
But if the side door were her vantage point, would Davis not have seen
the killer crossing Patton Street? Nowhere does she say... oh, wait,
she does say:
We saw the boy cutting across the street. (v6p461)
Forgot her lines again. Putting the two sentences together: "We...
ran to the side door at Patton Street [and] saw the boy cutting across
the street".
But of what possible importance is such a change in vantage points?
Well, Virginia Davis--and, if you take her affidavit "we" seriously,
her sister-in-law Barbara Jeanette--did *not* (from the front door)
see the suspect "emptying shells in his left hand". Further, she, or
they, did *not*--from the side door vantage point--see the suspect
throw down shells, or they would have reported this action to the
police, and the latter would have quickly found the shells.
Upshot: First, Virginia Davis's *lapses* into truth tells us that
*no* shells were found, belatedly, on impromptu scavenger hunts ("With
Malice" p266), at the Tippit scene.
Secondly, the furtive Virginia-furnished glimpses of the truth here
tell us just the opposite of what the Davises' story was meant to tell
us. However many hulls were found, they were not revolver hulls.
They were automatic hulls. The Davis *revolver* hulls ("Both Davis
women are describing a revolver"--"With Malice" p257) were simply part
of the script, that same script which Virginia tried to follow, but
couldn't, always....
.
dcw
David Von Pein
Somehow, the "side door" vs. "front door" discrepancy means Oswald
MUST be innocent. And apparently it MUST mean Virginia Davis never saw
Oswald at all on Nov. 22. Right, kook?
Some of you kooks will do anything to let a killer go free. Right,
Sean (er...I mean Don)?
Sean Smiley
> Somehow, the "side door" vs. "front door" discrepancy means Oswald
> MUST be innocent. And apparently it MUST mean Virginia Davis never saw
> Oswald at all on Nov. 22.
Not sure exactly *what* she saw. But I know what she *didn't* see.
And now you do, too. Use your nascent knowledge wisely....
> Some of you kooks will do anything to let a killer go free. Right,
> Sean (er...I mean Don)?
My grandson's sign-in seems to override anyone else's here. Just go
by the initials....
dcw
David Von Pein
Donald C. Willis,
You know darn well that both Davis girls saw Lee Oswald cutting across
their yard -- regardless of WHICH door they were looking out of.
Do you realize HOW MANY people would have to be part of the "script"
in the Tippit murder if your theory is to be believed, Don?
Markham
Scoggins
Benavides
V. Davis
B. Davis
Callaway
Guinyard
Patterson
Reynolds
Brock
These people positively identified Oswald as being the killer or
fleeing just afterward. Were they ALL reading from a "script"?
I, too, have wondered why the two Davis shells weren't recovered
earlier. But even so, we KNOW that Oswald was dumping shells near that
corner, because BENAVIDES watched him dump the shells too,
corroborating both Davis girls. And Benavides picked up 2 shells
almost right away, so those shells certainly weren't "planted".
A conspiracy theorist has to distort the evidence to massive degrees
in order to clean Oswald's skirts in the Tippit murder.
Even without the 2 Benavides/Poe shells, the 2 "Davis" shells (which
didn't go through J.M. Poe's hands) were proven to be from the gun
Oswald had on him in the theater.
Given that last undeniable fact, I doubt that even Harry Houdini could
manage to set Oswald free.
Sean Smiley
> Donald C. Willis,
>
> You know darn well that both Davis girls saw Lee Oswald cutting across
> their yard -- regardless of WHICH door they were looking out of.
>
> Do you realize HOW MANY people would have to be part of the "script"
> in the Tippit murder if your theory is to be believed, Don?
>
> Markham
> Scoggins
> Benavides
> V. Davis
> B. Davis
> Callaway
> Guinyard
> Patterson
> Reynolds
> Brock
>
> These people positively identified Oswald as being the killer or
> fleeing just afterward. Were they ALL reading from a "script"?
>
> I, too, have wondered why the two Davis shells weren't recovered
> earlier. But even so, we KNOW that Oswald was dumping shells near that
> corner, because BENAVIDES watched him dump the shells too,
> corroborating both Davis girls. And Benavides picked up 2 shells
> almost right away, so those shells certainly weren't "planted".
I here append my post on Mr. "2 or 3-Shell" Benavides:
Tantalizing Coincidence or Intimidation Murder? Eddy Benavides Dies,
His Brother Testifies He Saw Shells Thrown Down
If Edward Benavides indeed died for two or three empty hulls, it still
wasn't enough--it took, also, at least three instances of apparent
perjury and an inventive DPD-radio-log transcription to get Domingo
Benavides safely into the revolver (i.e., Oswald's) fold. But let's
start back at the beginning....
In the beginning, there was nothing. That is, there was, on November
22, 1963, apparently not one public word spoken or written re witness
Domingo Benavides (or anyone else) having seen Officer JD Tippit's
killer throw down shells. Benavides' affidavit from that day seems to
have disappeared (With Malice p449). And Sam Guinyard--another
witness who would go on to testify before the Warren Commission that
he saw Tippit's killer discarding empty shells--did not mention, in
his brief affidavit of 11/22/63, any such discarding. That same day,
Det. James Leavelle reported that Benavides did not even see the
gunman (WM p449), only that he "picked up two empty .38 hulls from the
street" (CE 2003 p217). Officer J.M. Poe, however, stated--in a
letter to the Chief of Police--that an "unidentified witness gave
Officer J.M. Poe two empty hulls in an empty cigarette pack & stated
these were the bullets that killed the officer, & that the suspect
reloaded the gun as he ran...." (WM p487)
Then... over four more months of radio silence re the subject of
Benavides, Guinyard, & the throwing down of shells. Finally, on the
same day--April 2, 1964--both Benavides and Guinyard testified,
respectively, that they had seen the gunman discarding shells. As
noted, Guinyard's original affidavit was short--perhaps he simply did
not get to the subject in question. But two curious circumstances
attended Benavides & the supposedly witnessed tossing down of shells.
One: As noted, his 11/22 affidavit has never surfaced, nor has any
other statement predating his Commission testimony. Two: His brother
was shot to death, in February of 1964, in a barroom incident
(Accessories after the Fact p299). (John McAdams' students have tried
to verify the incident, with, last I heard, little success.) So, it
was not just time which intervened, for Benavides, between 11/22 and
4/2....
On April 2nd, then, the dam breaks:
Benavides: [The gunman] had just got back to the sidewalk when he
threw the first [hull] & when he threw the second one, he had already
cut back into the yard.
Belin: Now you saw him throw two shells?
Benavides: Yes, sir. (v6p450)
(In 1967, Benavides told CBS News that he picked up three shells. [WM
p259])
Ball: You could look up Patton St.?
Guinyard: Yes.
Ball: North on Patton?
Guinyard: Yes.
Ball: What did you see [the suspect] doing?
Guinyard: He came through there running & knocking empty shells out
of his pistol & he had it up just like this with his hand.
Ball: With which hand?
Guinyard: With his right hand, just kicking them out. He was rolling
them with his hand, with his thumb.
Ball: Did he use his left hand any?
Guinyard: No, I never did see him use his left hand. (v7p397)
(Guinyard's importance begins and ends here. His testimony tallies
with no one. LNers like Dale Myers completely ignore his take on the
hulls, partly because to accept it would be to dismiss the testimony
of Virginia and Barbara Jeanette Davis: To synch with them, Guinyard
would had to have had the hulls already in the gunman's left hand.)
Above, both Benavides & Guinyard clearly describe a man with a
revolver--with hulls removed manually--like that taken from Oswald.
On April 8th (Hill) and 9th (Poe), Sgt Gerald Hill & Officer Poe pick
up Benavides' story, and it might seem that they can do so now only
because Benavides has indeed, finally, publicly, made it his story.
(No one picks up Guinyard's story.)
Poe: "[Benavides] told me [the gunman] 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 & dropped these in the
grass...." (v7p48)
Benavides, Poe, and Hill, then, are almost perfectly in synch at the
Warren Commission Hearings, although none of the three apparently said
anything before April 2nd re the gunman's throwing down shells.
Certainly, Benavides had said nothing. Their joint testimony
supported the Commission's findings that the shells at the Tippit
scene came from Oswald's gun (Warren Report p176). End of story.
Well, middle of story, actually. About 1:40pm, on 11/22/63, an
officer radioed, "Shells at the scene indicate the suspect is armed
with an automatic .38, rather than a pistol." DPD Dispatcher GD
Henslee appends the names "Westbrook-Batchelor" to his transcription
of the transmission (Sawyer Exhibit A p397). And, elsewhere in his
testimony, Sgt Hill hazards that one RD Stringer sent it: "Because
Stringer quite probably would have been using the same call number
[that Hill did: 550-2]...." (v7p57) Henslee and Hill are both wrong.
Stringer's call number was 551 (CE 1974 p188). And the DPD radio
"tapes prove that Hill was the officer who made the transmission. In
a 1986 interview, Hill admitted being the cop behind the strange
broadcast...." (WM p260)
There goes another dam. At the hearings, Benavides, Poe, & Hill could
talk all day--and far into the night--about retrieving revolver shells
from the Tippit scene. But only because Hill was able to deny--a tip
of the apparent-perjury hat to Henslee--radioing that the shells were
automatics.
So...with Hill's name restored to its rightful place beside the
"automatic" transmission....
"automatic .38": Hill, then, was obviously not told that the suspect
had reloaded his gun & dropped hulls in the grass.
"automatic .38": Poe, then, in turn, obviously did not hear that the
suspect had unloaded hulls from his pistol as he ran.
"automatic .38": Benavides, then, in turn, obviously did not see the
suspect manually throw down two or three hulls.
Henslee and Hill had to suppress the name of the author of the
"automatic .38" transmission in order for the Benavides-Poe-Hill story
of the unloading of the hulls to stand. Produce the name "Hill" & the
story falls apart. Not one word of it can be true. All that stands
is the original "Shells at the scene indicate the suspect is armed
with an automatic .38...."
dcw
David Von Pein
During his 1967 CBS interview, Domingo Benavides didn't say he
absolutely, positively picked up "three" shells. He said he "THOUGHT"
he had picked up three. He was obviously mistaken. He had picked up
only two.
Any more hairs you care to split today, Don?
Bud
The lawyer Louise Nizer called Don`s approach the "analytical
syndrome", and had this to say about it...
"It is possible to take the record of any trial and by minute
dissection and post-facto reasoning demonstrate that witnesses for
either side made egregious errors or lied. Then, by ascribing critical
weight to the exposed facts, the conclusion is reached that the
verdict was fraudulently obtained."
Sean Smiley
Louise?
Sean Smiley
At one point, Sgt Hill also said 3 hulls were picked up by Dom (as
Guinyard called him, I believe). And I believe it was prosecuting
defense attorney Louisa Nizer who described your approach: Seize on
an incidental point, & ignore the main one....
Bud
My bad, should have been "Louis".
Further elaboration and trashing of CTers in the Kennedy
assassination can be found here in this forward to the book "Blood &
Ink" written by Johnathan Goodman...
http://upress.kent.edu/books/excerpts/Borowitz/Blood_and_Ink.pdf
Bud
What was the "main one"?
And you are misapplying Nizer, DVP isn`t trying to make the
witnesses out to be liars, Don, that would be you.
Sean Smiley
> On Mar 11, 1:37 am, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 10, 7:24 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > During his 1967 CBS interview, Domingo Benavides didn't say he
> > > absolutely, positively picked up "three" shells. He said he "THOUGHT"
> > > he had picked up three. He was obviously mistaken. He had picked up
> > > only two.
>
> > > Any more hairs you care to split today, Don?
>
> > At one point, Sgt Hill also said 3 hulls were picked up by Dom (as
> > Guinyard called him, I believe). And I believe it was prosecuting
> > defense attorney Louisa Nizer who described your approach: Seize on
> > an incidental point, & ignore the main one....
>
> What was the "main one"?
The restoration of Sgt Hill's name to the "auto 38" transmission
undercuts the Hill/Poe/Benavides tale of the picking up of supposed
revolver hulls, told by Hill to the WC.
>
> And you are misapplying Nizer
Not Louisa Nizer....
Sean Smiley
Yes, this can be done, too, in my day job, film critic/historian.
Hence, such books as "Against Interpretation"....
dcw