Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Barbara & Virginia Davis' affidavits (accidentally) validate Sgt.

669 views
Skip to first unread message

donald willis

unread,
Oct 4, 2019, 1:24:46 PM10/4/19
to
Barbara & Virginia Davis' affidavits (accidentally) validate Sgt. Hill's
"auto 38" transmission

"When the police arrived I showed one of them where I saw this man
emptying his gun and we found a shell"--11/22/63 affidavit, Barbara Davis.

If, as she wrote here, Barbara actually saw the gunman tossing a shell on
the ground, it should have been no problem for her to point it out & one
of the police to pick it up. It would have been found in short order, and
Sgt Hill's 1:41 call re the shells found at the scene would have been
deemed to have included it. However, there was one drawback to the
original story of widely scattered shells here: Hill said, in full, "The
shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic
38, rather than a pistol", so this first version of Barbara D's story,
indicating a pistol, does not fly.

So the story was amended: Barbara, later, did NOT say that she saw the
man DROP the shell, rather that he palmed it & she did not see where he
dropped it. (Commission Counsel: "And he was emptying [his gun]? To his
left palm?" Barbara D: "Yes." v3p343-4.) Hence, as noted in "With
Malice", she was said not to have found it until about 2pm ("With Malice",
p266), on the Patton side of the house.

Virginia Davis echoes Barbara re another shell. "We... ran to the side
door at Patton Street. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was
unloading his gun" (11/22/63 affidavit). The shell which she supposedly
saw the "boy" unload and drop was (supposedly), in fact, found near the
house on the Patton side. ("With Malice" p266). Both sisters-in-law,
then, originally said that they saw the gunman drop the respective shells
on the ground. Tweedledum, er, Virginia D, too, changed her story: "He
was emptying the shells in his left hand" (v6p460).

It was not enough for the (supposed) witnesses to say that two of the
shells were found up near the house (on whatever lawn). That would, in
fact, suggest "revolver". So easy. But the shells also had to have been
said to have been found safely AFTER 1:41, after Hill's call, in order to
negate that "auto 38". But the way Barbara & Virginia D's affidavits have
it, the 1:40 call negates THEIR story, not Hill's.... The former was
apparently a concoction from the get-go.

The very fact that shells were found at the scene indicates that an
automatic was indeed the weapon. Why, that is, would a murderer with a
revolver purposely leave behind evidence, when he could just as easily
dump the shells somewhere far away from the scene?

Additionally, why would a murderer with a revolver not dump the
implicating revolver, too? No shells, no revolver, no worries. Oswald
was so obliging....

dcw

John McAdams

unread,
Oct 4, 2019, 1:27:37 PM10/4/19
to
On 4 Oct 2019 13:24:45 -0400, donald willis <dcwi...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
So *all* the witnesses who saw the gunman fiddling with the gun and
ejecting spent hulls were lying?

You don't to that with an automatic.


--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

donald willis

unread,
Oct 4, 2019, 10:56:19 PM10/4/19
to
No, Mrs. Markham apparently saw him checking the gun to see if it was
loaded. But you have to question Sam Guinyard's testimony re seeing the
man drop shells on Patton. If he had seen that, I would think he would
have been a good citizen & reported it to the cops.

And even your dear Dale Myers (gad, I'm starting to sound like 19eee) has
written that Benavides must have been lying when the latter said he saw
where the man dropped the hulls.


The Davises were lying through their teeth, though. Okay, they thought it
was in a good cause--they were helping the police. Understandable.

dcw

donald willis

unread,
Oct 4, 2019, 10:57:54 PM10/4/19
to
On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 10:27:37 AM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
Of course, the "Touch of Evil" (Welles, '58) scenario is possible. It's
the only way that I can see that, though some witnesses were lying
(Benavides & the Davises) re seeing the gunman drop or palm shells, the
weapon was really actually in point of fact a revolver. In such a case,
the DPD etc. just wanted ordinary-people confirmation of what the
ballistics were telling them. In other words, for those of us ordinary
people who don't quite fathom the fine print of ballistics--or don't trust
the authorities in charge of the ballistics--we have other, large-print
ordinary people saying that they saw the man's actions (when they did
not). It "humanizes" the evidence....

dcw

19efppp

unread,
Oct 5, 2019, 7:43:22 AM10/5/19
to
Congratulations, Willis! You've managed to make everything even murkier! I
suggest you take up McAdams on his offer and call ALL of the witnesses
liars. That's as close as you'll ever get to the truth here. The only
honest person in Dallas on that day was Phineas J. McWatters, inventor of
the Whoopee Cushion.

Mitch Todd

unread,
Oct 5, 2019, 7:43:42 AM10/5/19
to
If you're using a semi-auto, you don't empty the cases
from the weapon. The weapon does that for you.

And haven't you and I have already been over the phrase
"automatic .38 instead of a pistol?"


Mark

unread,
Oct 5, 2019, 7:46:03 AM10/5/19
to
I will take it one more step further and ask Donald, if the Davis sisters
and Hill lied, why did they? Tell us about what you think has to be the
logical conclusion of your point here. Finish your thought process. Finish
what you are alleging these people did.

That the Davis sisters and Hill had to be part of a conspiracy and/or
cover-up to murder President Kennedy, right?

Tell me, how did the conspiracy masterminds know what route Oswald would
walk? Did the conspiracy get to the Davis sisters and Hill before or
after the murder of the president? Please explain.

As far Oswald not thinking straight after he murdered Tippit, why don't
you come into the real world Donald. He was a disturbed human being, not a
robot.

He had shot the POTUS and then a policeman, and you expect him to act
logically?

The man was mentally sick, and you want him to act logically?

LHO beat his wife and ultimately chose to abandon his two daughters
because of his politics, and you think this man will think logically under
extreme stress?

Mark




Mark

unread,
Oct 5, 2019, 4:04:52 PM10/5/19
to
The Davis sisters were "lying through through their teeth" because they
wanted to help the DPD.

Are you saying that as an opinion, or as a fact? If as a fact, what is
your cite?

Once again, you're getting all kinds and numbers of people involved in
your conspiracy. And after 55+ years not one leak. (I wonder why the
conspiracy's roving hit squad didn't take out soft targets like the
Davises.)

How does this conspiracy hang in there together in your mind? I think they
ought to be in the GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS book. Mark

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 5, 2019, 8:36:48 PM10/5/19
to
Excuse me? That makes no sense at all. First, his fingerprints are all
over it. Second, they might be able to trace it back to him by the serial
number. How many murders do you know where the murderer intentionally left
behind incriminating evidence?

And no matter who the murderer was, he reloaded so he anticipated that he
might need to shoot again.

I personally think that Oswald followed the habit of many people who use
revolvers and only loaded it with 5 rounds and after shooting Tippit
needed to reload for self-protection. In his mind, if they sent one cop to
kill him, they probably had sent more.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 6, 2019, 2:12:20 PM10/6/19
to
Well, in fact sometimes you do have to reload an automatic. Usually with
another clip.

Also if the gun jams you may need to manually eject the defective
cartridge. Remember, when we are talking about an automatic in this case
we are only talking about a SEMI-atomatic. I don't know of any kook who
has a theory that a full automatic pistol was used.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 6, 2019, 2:12:47 PM10/6/19
to
Jesus Christ, are you old enough to remember Orson Welles? Do you
remember the scene?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1rnPfXnYc8

TOUCH OF EVIL

ORSON WELLES | USA | 1958 | 111 MIN | PG-13

Embarking on his honeymoon with wife Susie (Janet Leigh), Mexican
Narcotics officer Mike Vargas (Charlton Heston) is under the impression he
can finally get some much needed vacation time. Plans change when a car
explodes at the border and he is thrust into an investigation with the
American police force, led by unethical Captain Hank Quinlan (Orson
Welles). Quinlan immediately fingers a young Mexican as the culprit, but
Vargas believes that Quinlan planted the evidence and his own
investigation into the captain leads him down a rabbit hole of police
corruption. This formally audacious and thematically bleak noir is an
essential addition to Welles???s legendary filmography.

Cast: Charlton Heston, Janet Leigh, Orson Welles, Marlene Dietrich

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 6, 2019, 2:14:04 PM10/6/19
to
What are you suggesting? A conspiracy? You mean they killed Tippit in
order to frame Oswald for a murder, any murder?

> That the Davis sisters and Hill had to be part of a conspiracy and/or
> cover-up to murder President Kennedy, right?
>

Why does it have to be connected to the JFK assassination? You sound
like a conspiracy kook. Why not claim that THEY killed Kennedy and tried
to pin it on Oswald? Please, try a little harder.

> Tell me, how did the conspiracy masterminds know what route Oswald would
> walk? Did the conspiracy get to the Davis sisters and Hill before or

Well, Jeez, if your going to make up an Uber conspiracy obviously they
would have been following Oswald or maybe it's that mystery cop car that
honked its horn at Oswald's rooming house. You need to work harder on your
conspiracy theory. Don't just take off the whole weekend, man. Get back to
work.

> after the murder of the president? Please explain.
>
> As far Oswald not thinking straight after he murdered Tippit, why don't
> you come into the real world Donald. He was a disturbed human being, not a
> robot.
>

Then why don't you use the insanity defense to get him off the hook?

> He had shot the POTUS and then a policeman, and you expect him to act
> logically?
>

Why did you expect him to act logically BEFORE JFK went through Dealey
Plaza? Do you deny that Oswald shot at General Walker? Is that logical?

> The man was mentally sick, and you want him to act logically?
>

You need to work harder on this insanity defense. Can't you go back to
when he dropped out of school? You know a lot of punks who drop out of
high school go on to become murderers?

> LHO beat his wife and ultimately chose to abandon his two daughters

Abandon? He gave Marina all his money and told her to buy new shoes for
Junie. Maybe that's why he went to the shoestore!



Posted April 1, 2007 (edited)


Chuck Robbins said:
Didn't Oswald make this statement two times while in custody?

I can understand a Father being concerned about new shoes being
provided for a child, however,

I hardly believe that this would have been a priority for Oswald
under his circumstances.

This sounds like it could be a coded request for assistance of some
sort.

Any thoughts on this?

OHMYGOD.

I'm reading "Executive Action" by Mark Lane (et al) now.

It's a "fictionalized" account of President Kennedy's murder (in the
same way that the WCR is a "factual" account."

It has frequent footnotes to define the jargon.

At one point a high level CIA agent (Preston) says to an asset he's
trying to persuade to sign on as an assassin:

Preston>"I've never seen a better cover plan. You will be personally
escorted from the scene ty the S.S."

...

Asset>"The S.S.?"

Preston>Our straight penetration agents. And you'll have S.S. shoes" too."

Footnotes:

S.S.--The Secret Service

Penetration agents--Agents who infiltrate another organization for life

Shoes--False documents

Ahem...

Pg 48 of hardcover version, eighth printing May 1975

GOOD eye Chuck.

---

Oswald's last words by Mae here, for context:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html

"...

1:10 - 1:30 P.M. Lee Harvey Oswald Visited by Mother, Marguerite Oswald,
and Wife, Marina Oswald

(To his Mother.) "No, there is nothing you can do. Everything is fine. I
know my rights, and I will have an attorney. I already requested to get
in touch with Attorney Abt, I think is his name. Don't worry about a thing."

(To his Wife.) "Oh, no, they have not been beating me. They are treating
me fine. . . . You're not to worry about that. Did you bring June and
Rachel? . . . Of course we can speak about absolutely anything at all. .
. . It's a mistake. I'm not guilty. There are people who will help me.
There is a lawyer in New York on whom I am counting for help. . . .
Don't cry. There is nothing to cry about. Try not to think about it. . .
. Everything is going to be all right. If they ask you anything, you
have a right not to answer. You have a right to refuse. Do you
understand? . . . You are not to worry. You have friends. They'll help
you. If it comes to that, you can ask the Red Cross for help. You
mustn't worry about me. Kiss Junie and Rachel for me. I love you. . . .
Be sure to buy shoes for June."

2:15 P.M. Lineup for Witnesses William W. Scoggins and William Whaley

"I refuse to answer questions. I have my T-shirt on, the other men are
dressed differently. . . . Everybody's got a shirt and everything, and
I've got a T-shirt on. . . . This is unfair."

3:30 - 3:40 P.M. Robert Oswald, Brother, in Ten-Minute Visit

"I cannot or would not say anything, because the line is apparently
tapped. [They were talking through telephones.] . . . I got these bruises
in the theater. They haven't bothered me since. They are treating me all
right. . . . What do you think of the baby? Well, it was a girl, and I
wanted a boy, but you know how that goes. . . . I don't know what is going
on. I just don't know what they are talking about. . . . Don't believe all
the so-called evidence." When Robert Oswald looked into Lee's eyes for
some clue, Lee said to him, "Brother, you won't find anything there. . . .
My friends will take care of Marina and the two children." When Robert
Oswald stated that he didn't believe the Paines were friends of Lee's, he
answered back, "Yes, they are. . . . Junie needs a new pair of shoes."

Or maybe you think that was a code for START WWIII.


> because of his politics, and you think this man will think logically under
> extreme stress?
>

YOU don't.

> Mark
>
>
>
>


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 6, 2019, 2:14:14 PM10/6/19
to
Unless it jams and then you have to manually remove the defective
cartridge. If you've never shot any guns I don't think you should be
discussing them.

donald willis

unread,
Oct 6, 2019, 2:16:06 PM10/6/19
to
I thought I was pretty f----n' clear. And your ideas have created your
own problems with everyone else....

Bud

unread,
Oct 6, 2019, 2:17:00 PM10/6/19
to
What she saw is what she said she saw, Oswald fooling with his gun after
he shot the cop.

> But you have to question Sam Guinyard's testimony re seeing the
> man drop shells on Patton.

What he saw is what he said he saw, Oswald unloading his gun shortly
after Tippit was killed.

> If he had seen that, I would think he would
> have been a good citizen & reported it to the cops.
>
> And even your dear Dale Myers (gad, I'm starting to sound like 19eee) has
> written that Benavides must have been lying when the latter said he saw
> where the man dropped the hulls.

Myers said Oswald killed Kennedy. I guess that is settled.

> The Davises were lying through their teeth, though.

The Davis girls saw what they said they saw, Oswald unloading his gun
shortly after Tippit was killed.

> Okay, they thought it
> was in a good cause--they were helping the police. Understandable.

Yes, cops always like to see cop killers get away unpunished. Rest, Don.

> dcw


donald willis

unread,
Oct 6, 2019, 2:19:47 PM10/6/19
to
You're assuming that the cops would have found gun & shells, in the
Greater Oak Cliff area, which is unlikely. Supposedly, they couldn't even
find two of the shells right there on the Davis property! I personally
don't believe that factoid--as automatic shells, they would all have been
found near Tippit's car almost immediately. In fact, if the gun had been
a revolver, you'd think they'd have had a concerted search for shells at
least neighborhood-wide.* But they didn't. Why? They knew they wouldn't
find anything 'cause the "auto 38"s were found near Tippit's car.

*Supposedly, one shell was NOT found. And it was not on Oswald. Yet--no
search. It took the Davises, supposedly, to find the last two (known)
shells. Actually, Virginia D, years later, said she or her father found
the fifth shell! Were the cops really that inept? They found, so the
story goes, NO shells at all. Only civilians found them. The more I
think about it, the more ludicrous the "revolver" story becomes....

How many murders do you know where the murderer intentionally left
> behind incriminating evidence?
>
Uh--supposedly, the Tippit murder, remember? The FOUR shells were supposedly, conveniently, scattered all over the Davis yard.

And JFK's murder, too! Remember the rifle? They did everything put slap
an "I'm the assassin" note on Oswald's back....

dcw

donald willis

unread,
Oct 6, 2019, 2:20:17 PM10/6/19
to
You should have separated out these three witnesses. You know very well
that Hill ADMITTED to Dale Myers that he did lie about sending the "auto
38" transmission, lied about it to the Commission. He, however, did not
say WHY he lied.

And, WHY, collaterally, did DPD Sgt. Henslee, mis-transcribe the "auto 38"
transmission by appending other names & numbers to the transmission, in
his transcript? Hill could not have gotten away with his own lie if
Henslee hadn't covered for him....

Of course, the immediate reason was to throw the Commission off the track
re the transmission. Gee, why would the DPD do that? Why didn't they
want any questions re the two "auto" transmissions that day from Oak
Cliff? A teeny tiny bit suspicious....

It follows, then, that the Davises were also cajoled or coaxed--gently,
probably--into lying, to help the DPD, in the worst way. I understand
their public spirited-ness, but it was still wrong....


Tell us about what you think has to be the
> logical conclusion of your point here. Finish your thought process. Finish
> what you are alleging these people did.
>
> That the Davis sisters and Hill had to be part of a conspiracy and/or
> cover-up to murder President Kennedy, right?
>
> Tell me, how did the conspiracy masterminds know what route Oswald would
> walk?

They didn't have to know. He got to Oak Cliff, on McWatters' bus, after
it was all over, circa 1:20.

dcw

donald willis

unread,
Oct 6, 2019, 2:20:41 PM10/6/19
to
Left to herself, Mrs. Markham has told interviewers that she first saw the
suspect going into the alley off Patton. She told the Commission only
that she last saw him, then, headed up Patton, towards Jefferson.
Leak....

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 6, 2019, 9:14:14 PM10/6/19
to
You have to learn to separate in your mind the subtle differences between
the conspiracy to murder, the cover-up and bad witnesses. Just being
stupid or wrong does not make someone a conspirator.

> How does this conspiracy hang in there together in your mind? I think they
> ought to be in the GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS book. Mark
>


They are. The longest cover-up in history.


donald willis

unread,
Oct 6, 2019, 9:15:07 PM10/6/19
to
I'm old enough to have seen his film "Chimes at Midnight" (1966) on first
release. And also, a few years later, "F for Fake".

And, yes. Welles' cop in "Touch of Evil" doesn't have the evidence to
convict the man whom he believes is the murderer. So SPOILERS he plants,
I believe, a shoe in the right place to get him convicted. Turns out the
guy is the killer and, as I recall, Welles is disgraced, and Marlene
Dietrich feels kinda sorry for her old friend, at the end....

dcw

19efppp

unread,
Oct 7, 2019, 10:10:34 AM10/7/19
to
I have problems with everybody else? I thought we were getting along
splendidly.

John Deagle

unread,
Oct 7, 2019, 10:12:23 AM10/7/19
to
That is not a scene. That is a trailer. Here is a scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg8MqjoFvy4&t=125s

donald willis

unread,
Oct 7, 2019, 10:13:18 AM10/7/19
to
Great! Then Benavides found 2 shells, the Davises found two shells, and
Guinyard saw two more shells being unloaded from the gun. What happened to
the 5th & 6th shells?


> > If he had seen that, I would think he would
> > have been a good citizen & reported it to the cops.
> >
> > And even your dear Dale Myers (gad, I'm starting to sound like 19eee) has
> > written that Benavides must have been lying when the latter said he saw
> > where the man dropped the hulls.
>
> Myers said Oswald killed Kennedy. I guess that is settled.
>

Even I say that that might be. So what? What does that have to do with
Myers calling Benavides a liar?

> > The Davises were lying through their teeth, though.
>
> The Davis girls saw what they said they saw, Oswald unloading his gun
> shortly after Tippit was killed.
>
> > Okay, they thought it
> > was in a good cause--they were helping the police. Understandable.
>
> Yes, cops always like to see cop killers get away unpunished. Rest,
> Don.

They knew they got the wrong guy.

dcw

Bud

unread,
Oct 7, 2019, 10:13:49 AM10/7/19
to

Bud

unread,
Oct 7, 2019, 10:14:16 AM10/7/19
to
There was a cop killer on the loose, a slightly higher priority.

> They knew they wouldn't
> find anything 'cause the "auto 38"s were found near Tippit's car.

While you are imagining, why not image that an automatic handgun was
found there also?

> *Supposedly, one shell was NOT found. And it was not on Oswald. Yet--no
> search. It took the Davises, supposedly, to find the last two (known)
> shells. Actually, Virginia D, years later, said she or her father found
> the fifth shell! Were the cops really that inept? They found, so the
> story goes, NO shells at all. Only civilians found them. The more I
> think about it, the more ludicrous the "revolver" story becomes....

Yes, all those indications that a revolver was used, but you see through
them all, or explain away them all. What a silly hobby!

> How many murders do you know where the murderer intentionally left
> > behind incriminating evidence?
> >
> Uh--supposedly, the Tippit murder, remember? The FOUR shells were supposedly, conveniently, scattered all over the Davis yard.
>
> And JFK's murder, too! Remember the rifle? They did everything put slap
> an "I'm the assassin" note on Oswald's back....

He did, when he committed assassination.

> dcw


Bud

unread,
Oct 7, 2019, 5:37:08 PM10/7/19
to
Despite the cover up efforts of the conspiracy crowd it is still pretty
easy to determine Oswald`s guilt in both murders.

Bud

unread,
Oct 7, 2019, 5:37:18 PM10/7/19
to
Did you use one buffalo nickle or 5 indian head pennies to get in?

donald willis

unread,
Oct 7, 2019, 10:39:07 PM10/7/19
to
That's interesting, too. Here, she says she last saw the guy running down
10th. She had four versions of the escape route for the gunman!

Bud

unread,
Oct 7, 2019, 10:41:11 PM10/7/19
to
You are looking at the wrong thing again, aren`t you? Oswald was seen by
multiple people unloading a gun and shells were found in the area he was
seen unloading.

How is what you are asking impact the facts I just laid out?

> > > If he had seen that, I would think he would
> > > have been a good citizen & reported it to the cops.
> > >
> > > And even your dear Dale Myers (gad, I'm starting to sound like 19eee) has
> > > written that Benavides must have been lying when the latter said he saw
> > > where the man dropped the hulls.
> >
> > Myers said Oswald killed Kennedy. I guess that is settled.
> >
>
> Even I say that that might be. So what? What does that have to do with
> Myers calling Benavides a liar?

Quote Myers taking that position.

If you remember I said I think Benavides could have identified Oswald as
the man he saw.

> > > The Davises were lying through their teeth, though.
> >
> > The Davis girls saw what they said they saw, Oswald unloading his gun
> > shortly after Tippit was killed.
> >
> > > Okay, they thought it
> > > was in a good cause--they were helping the police. Understandable.
> >
> > Yes, cops always like to see cop killers get away unpunished. Rest,
> > Don.
>
> They knew they got the wrong guy.

Of course they were willing to let a cop killer go free, they do it all
the time. Rest Don.


> dcw


donald willis

unread,
Oct 7, 2019, 10:41:44 PM10/7/19
to
Not after about 1:45. There was still a police presence at the scene for
a while after that. And others could have returned to the scene to finish
up AFTER heading toward the theatre and corralling O....

The cops stopped searching for shells early because they had all been
found, almost immediately, at the Tippit scene.

, a slightly higher priority.
>
> > They knew they wouldn't
> > find anything 'cause the "auto 38"s were found near Tippit's car.
>
> While you are imagining, why not image that an automatic handgun was
> found there also?
>


> > *Supposedly, one shell was NOT found. And it was not on Oswald. Yet--no
> > search. It took the Davises, supposedly, to find the last two (known)
> > shells. Actually, Virginia D, years later, said she or her father found
> > the fifth shell! Were the cops really that inept? They found, so the
> > story goes, NO shells at all. Only civilians found them. The more I
> > think about it, the more ludicrous the "revolver" story becomes....
>
> Yes, all those indications that a revolver was used, but you see through
> them all, or explain away them all. What a silly hobby!
>

Speak for yourself.

dcw

David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 8, 2019, 12:17:38 PM10/8/19
to
On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 10:13:18 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> Great! Then Benavides found 2 shells, the Davises found two shells, and
> Guinyard saw two more shells being unloaded from the gun. What happened to
> the 5th & 6th shells?

Lee Harvey Oswald shot J.D. Tippit with Smith & Wesson revolver #V510210,
and after firing four (or perhaps five) bullets at Tippit, Oswald ran (or
walked briskly) toward the corner of Tenth & Patton. When he reached the
corner, Oswald began to unload the empty shells from his revolver, with
two of the shells falling to the ground on Tenth Street (very near the
corner itself), with the other two shells coming out of the gun after
Oswald had reached the side yard of the Davis apartment building (again
see page 266 of "With Malice").

The above scenario of Oswald's shell-dumping is also perfectly consistent
with the known characteristics of Lee Oswald's V510210 revolver, which is
a gun that would result in bulged (or slightly expanded) cartridge cases
after bullets were fired through the rechambered revolver. Which means the
shells would have a tendency to stick in the chamber, resulting in
additional effort being required by any gunman attempting to manually
remove the shells from the weapon (see page 258 of "With Malice").

This "sticky shells" situation was almost certainly the case with Oswald's
revolver on November 22, 1963, at 10th & Patton, with the shells being a
bit difficult for Oswald to remove from the gun all at once. Hence, there
were two shells found near the corner on Tenth Street, while the other two
shells were found around the corner in the Davises' side yard.

It's also quite possible that the "sticky" nature of Oswald's bullet
shells could be the reason that only four shells were recovered at the
Tippit murder scene (with the possibility existing that Oswald actually
fired five bullets at Officer Tippit, with one bullet missing the target).

If Oswald did, indeed, fire five shots at Tippit (which can never be
proven, of course), instead of just four shots, then it's possible that
the fifth bullet shell was simply lost to history, never having been
recovered by anyone after the shooting.

The above scenario is somewhat buttressed by the testimony of eyewitness
Sam Guinyard, who watched Oswald flee the scene of Tippit's murder from
Ted Callaway's car lot.

Guinyard told the Warren Commission that he saw Oswald "knocking empty
shells out of his pistol", although it's a little unclear exactly where
Oswald was located when Guinyard saw him removing the shells. It's
possible Guinyard was only referring to Oswald kicking out shells near the
corner of 10th & Patton. But it's also possible that Guinyard saw Oswald
still in the process of dumping shells out of the gun when Oswald was much
further down Patton Avenue.

And if the latter situation is true, then it's quite conceivable that
Oswald could have removed at least one bullet shell from his revolver when
he was near the corner of Patton and Jefferson Boulevard. And we know that
no bullet shells were recovered that far away from where J.D. Tippit was
killed.

David Von Pein
January 7, 2012

More:
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1109.html

donald willis

unread,
Oct 8, 2019, 12:18:13 PM10/8/19
to
You sound like my grandson!

donald willis

unread,
Oct 8, 2019, 4:02:07 PM10/8/19
to
Let me re-do that. There was a cop killer on the loose after about 1:15pm
11/22/63, and he's still on the loose....

dcw

donald willis

unread,
Oct 8, 2019, 4:03:12 PM10/8/19
to
Guinyard testified that the gunman, on the Patton side of the house, was
"knocking empty shells out of his pistol... with his right hand.... He
never did use his left hand" (v7p397).

Meanwhile, Virginia Davis testified that the guy was "emptying the shells
in his left hand" (v6p460), and Barbara D. testified that he was "emptying
the gun... to his left palm" (v3p344).

The Davises, then, saw the man emptying two shells out of his gun;
Guinyard says that he saw him knock at least two shells out of his gun.

So, the score is Benavides 2, the Davises 2, Guinyard at least 2. That
would mean that at least two shells and two bullets were not found. And
Guinyard's two shells should have been found fairly easily since he said
they were dropped not far from where the Davises said THEY found their
shells. Of course maybe it WAS Guinyard's shells that were found and the
Davises' that were not.

Perhaps the DPD was not interested in finding any more shells since they
had found the automatic shells right at the shooting scene and KNEW that
there was nothing left to find! That would explain their lack of
curiosity re Guinyard's observations....

dcw

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 8, 2019, 4:05:52 PM10/8/19
to
Because we have been chipping away at the cover-up for many years and
getting lots of files.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 8, 2019, 8:44:54 PM10/8/19
to
On 10/8/2019 12:17 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 10:13:18 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>> Great! Then Benavides found 2 shells, the Davises found two shells, and
>> Guinyard saw two more shells being unloaded from the gun. What happened to
>> the 5th & 6th shells?
>
> Lee Harvey Oswald shot J.D. Tippit with Smith & Wesson revolver #V510210,
> and after firing four (or perhaps five) bullets at Tippit, Oswald ran (or

Very good, so why can't you figure out if it was 5? And if it was 5, why
not 6? Do you r4ember were Hinckley's errant shot wen and why it misses
everyone? (for rxtra credit)

> walked briskly) toward the corner of Tenth & Patton. When he reached the
> corner, Oswald began to unload the empty shells from his revolver, with
> two of the shells falling to the ground on Tenth Street (very near the

Did thety bounce?

> corner itself), with the other two shells coming out of the gun after
> Oswald had reached the side yard of the Davis apartment building (again
> see page 266 of "With Malice").
>
> The above scenario of Oswald's shell-dumping is also perfectly consistent
> with the known characteristics of Lee Oswald's V510210 revolver, which is
> a gun that would result in bulged (or slightly expanded) cartridge cases
> after bullets were fired through the rechambered revolver. Which means the
> shells would have a tendency to stick in the chamber, resulting in
> additional effort being required by any gunman attempting to manually
> remove the shells from the weapon (see page 258 of "With Malice").
>
> This "sticky shells" situation was almost certainly the case with Oswald's
> revolver on November 22, 1963, at 10th & Patton, with the shells being a
> bit difficult for Oswald to remove from the gun all at once. Hence, there
> were two shells found near the corner on Tenth Street, while the other two
> shells were found around the corner in the Davises' side yard.
>
> It's also quite possible that the "sticky" nature of Oswald's bullet
> shells could be the reason that only four shells were recovered at the
> Tippit murder scene (with the possibility existing that Oswald actually
> fired five bullets at Officer Tippit, with one bullet missing the target).

Or maybe a spectator "collected" one as a souvenir.

>
> If Oswald did, indeed, fire five shots at Tippit (which can never be
> proven, of course), instead of just four shots, then it's possible that
> the fifth bullet shell was simply lost to history, never having been
> recovered by anyone after the shooting.
>

Maybe someone ate t?

> The above scenario is somewhat buttressed by the testimony of eyewitness
> Sam Guinyard, who watched Oswald flee the scene of Tippit's murder from
> Ted Callaway's car lot.
>
> Guinyard told the Warren Commission that he saw Oswald "knocking empty
> shells out of his pistol", although it's a little unclear exactly where
> Oswald was located when Guinyard saw him removing the shells. It's
> possible Guinyard was only referring to Oswald kicking out shells near the
> corner of 10th & Patton. But it's also possible that Guinyard saw Oswald
> still in the process of dumping shells out of the gun when Oswald was much
> further down Patton Avenue.
>
> And if the latter situation is true, then it's quite conceivable that
> Oswald could have removed at least one bullet shell from his revolver when
> he was near the corner of Patton and Jefferson Boulevard. And we know that
> no bullet shells were recovered that far away from where J.D. Tippit was
> killed.
>
> David Von Pein
> January 7, 2012
>
> More:
> https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1109.html
>



HOw about Oswald shooting 4 shots at Tippit, then after Tippit slumped
to the ground, Oswald walked aroun the police car and fired the 5th
bullet as the coup de grace?

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 8, 2019, 8:45:30 PM10/8/19
to
Oh goodie, thread drift.
Did I ever tell you about the STEEL pennies?
I have some steel pennies from WWII.
I used one to show the guys at the gunshop that the SMI bullets were not
steel plated as they claimed, but only copper plated? We got out a
magnet and tried to get it to stick to the bullets, but it did not,
proving that they were only copper coated not steel. Then I trick my
friends with a magnet and see if they can pick up a peney with the
magnet. They say it is impossible because they pennies are made out of
copper. Then I pick up MY penny with the magnet. Because it was made out
of steel. Do you know why they switched to steel in WWII?
Be a Big Boy and don't ask.


Bud

unread,
Oct 8, 2019, 8:46:19 PM10/8/19
to
He sounds like a clever kid.

Bud

unread,
Oct 8, 2019, 8:48:07 PM10/8/19
to
Yes, Guinyard saw Oswald unloading his revolver shortly after he shot
and killed Tippit.

> The Davises, then, saw the man emptying two shells out of his gun;
> Guinyard says that he saw him knock at least two shells out of his gun.

Yes, both Barbara and Virgina Davis saw Oswald unloading his revolver
shortly after he shot and killed Tippit.

> So, the score is Benavides 2, the Davises 2, Guinyard at least 2.

No, the score is 4 people identifying Oswald as the man who was
unloading or fooling with his gun shortly after Tippit was shot and
killed.

> That
> would mean that at least two shells and two bullets were not found. And
> Guinyard's two shells should have been found fairly easily since he said
> they were dropped not far from where the Davises said THEY found their
> shells. Of course maybe it WAS Guinyard's shells that were found and the
> Davises' that were not.
>
> Perhaps the DPD was not interested in finding any more shells since they
> had found the automatic shells right at the shooting scene and KNEW that
> there was nothing left to find! That would explain their lack of
> curiosity re Guinyard's observations....

Hobbyist figuring.

> dcw


Bud

unread,
Oct 8, 2019, 8:48:27 PM10/8/19
to
You can make lots of paper airplanes out of them.

donald willis

unread,
Oct 9, 2019, 9:26:36 AM10/9/19
to
Yes, the Davises ID'd Oswald, just as McWatters did!

recip...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 9, 2019, 9:27:31 AM10/9/19
to
On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 1:14:14 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/5/2019 7:43 AM, Mitch Todd wrote:
> > If you're using a semi-auto, you don't empty the cases
> > from the weapon. The weapon does that for you.
>
> Unless it jams and then you have to manually remove the defective
> cartridge. If you've never shot any guns I don't think you should be
> discussing them.

So you're saying that the gun started jamming repeatedly *after* the
gunman was finished killing Tippit? That makes no sense.



donald willis

unread,
Oct 9, 2019, 9:29:11 AM10/9/19
to
On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 9:17:38 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 10:13:18 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > Great! Then Benavides found 2 shells, the Davises found two shells, and
> > Guinyard saw two more shells being unloaded from the gun. What happened to
> > the 5th & 6th shells?
>
> Lee Harvey Oswald shot J.D. Tippit with Smith & Wesson revolver #V510210,
> and after firing four (or perhaps five) bullets at Tippit, Oswald ran (or
> walked briskly) toward the corner of Tenth & Patton. When he reached the
> corner, Oswald began to unload the empty shells from his revolver, with
> two of the shells falling to the ground on Tenth Street (very near the
> corner itself), with the other two shells coming out of the gun after
> Oswald had reached the side yard of the Davis apartment building (again
> see page 266 of "With Malice").
>

Good to see that LNs are (properly) confused by the witnessing of falling
shells, by the Davises, Benavides, and Guinyard.

Start with Benavides: "[The gunman] catty-cornered across the yard.... He
didn't go all the way on the sidewalk. He cut across the yard.... He
turned & went down the sidewalk to, well, until he got in front of the
corner house.... He had just got back to the sidewalk when he threw the
first [shell] & when he threw the second one, he had already cut back into
the yard. He just sort of cut across." (v6p450)

Dale Myers' diagram of these actions accurately shows the path Benavides
describes the gunman taking, across the yard, nowhere near the 10th &
Patton intersection (p76). Meanwhile, the Davises testified that--from
their front porch--they saw the man simply emptying shells from the gun
into his "left hand" (Barbara v6p460m Virginia v3pp343-44).

For some reason, Benavides didn't see the gunman palming any shells, and
the Davises didn't see the man dropping any shells, although they were
supposedly looking at the same scene. And, contrary to DVP, above, the
shells which the Davises said that they found on the side yard did NOT
"come out of the gun" after the man "had reached the side yard". Both
said that they came out and were palmed in their FRONT yard. If the two
shells were still in the gun when the man went around the house to the
side yard, then the Davises would have seen NO shells, either falling or
being palmed.

DVP is haplessly trying to reconcile the testimonies of Benavides, the
Davises, and Markham, who, famously, testified that the gunman went down
the 10th St. sidewalk, right to the intersection. Her testimony
contradicts that of Benavides & the Davises, who have him cutting across
the latters' lawn (as seen in the Myers diagram).

Markham undercuts Benavides who, in turn, undercuts the Davises. The four
cannot be reconciled. Shells apparently got into the grass, but we'll
never know exactly how--the witnesses can't agree. One begins to wonder
if they saw anything....

> The above scenario of Oswald's shell-dumping is also perfectly consistent
> with the known characteristics of Lee Oswald's V510210 revolver, which is
> a gun that would result in bulged (or slightly expanded) cartridge cases
> after bullets were fired through the rechambered revolver. Which means the
> shells would have a tendency to stick in the chamber, resulting in
> additional effort being required by any gunman attempting to manually
> remove the shells from the weapon (see page 258 of "With Malice").
>
> This "sticky shells" situation was almost certainly the case with Oswald's
> revolver on November 22, 1963, at 10th & Patton, with the shells being a
> bit difficult for Oswald to remove from the gun all at once. Hence, there
> were two shells found near the corner on Tenth Street, while the other two
> shells were found around the corner in the Davises' side yard.

Interesting that DVP here overrides the Davises' testimony, which posits a
different reason for the delay in getting the shells to the ground! I do
agree that their testimony SHOULD be overridden, for other reasons....

dcw

19efppp

unread,
Oct 9, 2019, 10:25:28 PM10/9/19
to
And as you probably already know, Sam Guinyard has him walking down Patton
on the east side until he passes by the car lot driveway,

Mr. BALL. Now, where was Oswald when he passed you going south toward
Jefferson?
Mr. GUINYARD. Well, he was between the alley and the driveway coming off
Patton.
Mr. BALL. And he was across .the street from you, wasn't he?
Mr. GUINYARD. No; he was on this side of the street.
Mr. BALL. You were on the east side of the street?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes, sir; and he was too--he was on the east side of the
street until he got across our driveway and then he got onto the west side.

...whereas Callaway had him cross to the west side further north than
that. Callaway himself was standing at the north edge of the driveway, as
can be seen in WC Document 630 (21), a photo showing Callaway where he was
standing. So Oswald would have had to walk right through him if Guinyard's
account was correct. Like I said before, you should take up McAdams on his
offer that ALL of these witnesses were lying. They were not describing
what they saw; they were trying to remember what they were told to say.
This was a planned killing, and the witnesses were part of the plan. But
they were amateurs, so they screwed it up. Helen Markham was certainly no
trained operator. They had to use some of the natives, and the natives
were amateur liars. I can't say why they didn't have Benevides identify
Oswald, but he must have been a hired hand. Maybe he only agreed to do so
much, but not to finger an innocent man for murder.

And Hill must have known all along that it was not an automatic. But by
putting it on the record, on the dictabelt recording, that he thought it
was an automatic, it sure makes it look as though he could not have shot
Tippit. He didn't even know what kind of a gun had been used. Hardy har
har. He lied to make himself look like a dumb but innocent cop. But he
shot JD Tippit. He is the short and chunky gunman whom the unplanned
witness, Acquilla Clemons saw reloading his gun. And ALL of the Official
Witnesses were LYING. You're welcome.


Bud

unread,
Oct 9, 2019, 10:26:02 PM10/9/19
to
Oswald was crossing the Davis`s lawn, Oswald was on McWatters bus.

David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 9, 2019, 10:26:35 PM10/9/19
to
I wonder if Donald Willis can split his hairs any thinner as he tries to
fine-tune the shell-dropping at 10th & Patton to a microscopic level that
even *he* has surely got to know is simply impossible (not to mention
downright ludicrous).

To a reasonable person, the testimonies of Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis,
and Domingo Benavides (the 3 people who ultimately picked up the 4 bullet
shells) are perfectly consistent with each other. The KEY "consistent"
factor being this one:

Those three witnesses each saw ONE gunman dumping shells out of just ONE
gun near the corner of Tenth Street and Patton Avenue in the Dallas suburb
of Oak Cliff on Friday, November 22nd, 1963 AD!

ONE GUNMAN was seen dumping shells from ONE SINGLE GUN.

Perhaps the above sentence should be placed on a magnet on Don Willis'
refrigerator door. Because I think he needs to be constantly reminded of
that important fact.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 10, 2019, 6:56:37 PM10/10/19
to
Are you into Origami? I had a Japanese girlfriend who was very good at it.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 10, 2019, 6:56:46 PM10/10/19
to
They did not find any AUTO shells.

> dcw
>


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 10, 2019, 6:57:29 PM10/10/19
to
On 10/9/2019 9:27 AM, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 1:14:14 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 10/5/2019 7:43 AM, Mitch Todd wrote:
>>> On 10/4/2019 12:24 PM, donald willis wrote:
>>>> Barbara & Virginia Davis' affidavits (accidentally) validate Sgt. Hill's
>>>> "auto 38" transmission
>>>>
>>>> "When the police arrived I showed one of them where I saw this man
>>>> emptying his gun and we found a shell"--11/22/63 affidavit, Barbara
>>>> Davis.
>>>>
>>>> If, as she wrote here, Barbara actually saw the gunman tossing a shell on
>>>> the ground, it should have been no problem for her to point it out & one
>>>> of the police to pick it up.?? It would have been found in short order,
>>>> and
>>>> Sgt Hill's 1:41 call re the shells found at the scene would have been
>>>> deemed to have included it.?? However, there was one drawback to the
>>>> original story of widely scattered shells here:?? Hill said, in full, "The
>>>> shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic
>>>> 38, rather than a pistol", so this first version of Barbara D's story,
>>>> indicating a pistol, does not fly.
>>>>
>>>> So the story was amended:?? Barbara, later, did NOT say that she saw the
>>>> man DROP the shell, rather that he palmed it & she did not see where he
>>>> dropped it.?? (Commission Counsel:?? "And he was emptying [his gun]??? To
>>>> his
>>>> left palm?"?? Barbara D: "Yes." v3p343-4.)?? Hence, as noted in "With
>>>> Malice", she was said not to have found it until about 2pm ("With
>>>> Malice",
>>>> p266), on the Patton side of the house.
>>>>
>>>> Virginia Davis echoes Barbara re another shell.?? "We... ran to the side
>>>> door at Patton Street.?? I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was
>>>> unloading his gun" (11/22/63 affidavit).?? The shell which she supposedly
>>>> saw the "boy" unload and drop was (supposedly), in fact, found near the
>>>> house on the Patton side. ("With Malice" p266).?? Both sisters-in-law,
>>>> then, originally said that they saw the gunman drop the respective shells
>>>> on the ground.?? Tweedledum, er, Virginia D, too, changed her story:?? "He
>>>> was emptying the shells in his left hand" (v6p460).
>>>>
>>>> It was not enough for the (supposed) witnesses to say that two of the
>>>> shells were found up near the house (on whatever lawn).?? That would, in
>>>> fact, suggest "revolver".?? So easy.?? But the shells also had to have been
>>>> said to have been found safely AFTER 1:41, after Hill's call, in order to
>>>> negate that "auto 38".?? But the way Barbara & Virginia D's affidavits
>>>> have
>>>> it, the 1:40 call negates THEIR story, not Hill's.... The former was
>>>> apparently a concoction from the get-go.
>>>>
>>>> The very fact that shells were found at the scene indicates that an
>>>> automatic was indeed the weapon.?? Why, that is, would a murderer with a
>>>> revolver purposely leave behind evidence, when he could just as easily
>>>> dump the shells somewhere far away from the scene?
>>>>
>>>> Additionally, why would a murderer with a revolver not dump the
>>>> implicating revolver, too??? No shells, no revolver, no worries.?? Oswald
>>>> was so obliging....
>>>
>>> If you're using a semi-auto, you don't empty the cases
>>> from the weapon. The weapon does that for you.
>>
>> Unless it jams and then you have to manually remove the defective
>> cartridge. If you've never shot any guns I don't think you should be
>> discussing them.
>
> So you're saying that the gun started jamming repeatedly *after* the
> gunman was finished killing Tippit? That makes no sense.
>
>
>


No. I am the one who refutes the theory that a semi-automatic PISTOL was
used. I KNOW it was a revolver. But the Alterationists know nothing about
guns so the theories they make up can't work.

On a side note, I suspect that Tippit was already dead after the first 4
shots and the 5th was just to make sure.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 10, 2019, 6:57:42 PM10/10/19
to
How do YOU know he is still alive? Privileged information?

> dcw
>


donald willis

unread,
Oct 10, 2019, 7:03:57 PM10/10/19
to
I think that that's pretty close to what happened. And as I noted, DVP
picked up one element--the sticky shells--to explain why the shells were
not all dropped at once. But HIS explanation cancels out the Davises'
explanation! The DPD worked overtime coming up with things to counter the
police-radio "auto" "mistakes"....


> This was a planned killing, and the witnesses were part of the plan. But
> they were amateurs, so they screwed it up. Helen Markham was certainly no
> trained operator. They had to use some of the natives, and the natives
> were amateur liars.

Callaway was pretty professional at it. Took me quite some years to find
even one thing about which he could be proven to have lied--Scoggins'
alleged nervousness leading the two to lose the perp. Scoggins' assertion
that some kind of lawmen stopped the two was fairly recently authenticated
in Myers' revision of "With Malice".... Some truth re the Markham story
dribbled out both early & late: that she saw the suspect heading up the
alley off Patton.

Scoggins himself did finally cave, and he ID'd Oswald in a next-day
lineup, after somehow missing the 3 on Friday. But I admire him for
holding out so long. He was part of 3 chases earlier on Friday....

I can't say why they didn't have Benevides identify
> Oswald, but he must have been a hired hand. Maybe he only agreed to do so
> much, but not to finger an innocent man for murder.

They needed Benavides for bearing witness to shells being dropped. Took
HIM 3 or 4 months to come around, at the hearings. He said not a word (on
the record) before his WC testimony....

>
> And Hill must have known all along that it was not an automatic. But by
> putting it on the record, on the dictabelt recording, that he thought it
> was an automatic, it sure makes it look as though he could not have shot
> Tippit. He didn't even know what kind of a gun had been used. Hardy har
> har. He lied to make himself look like a dumb but innocent cop. But he
> shot JD Tippit. He is the short and chunky gunman whom the unplanned
> witness, Acquilla Clemons saw reloading his gun. And ALL of the Official
> Witnesses were LYING. You're welcome.

I can't buy any of this paragraph--mainly because I hold that it WAS an
automatic....

dcw

donald willis

unread,
Oct 10, 2019, 7:04:44 PM10/10/19
to
Says the guy who has fined-tuned the actions of the defective revolver to
a fare-thee-well! Don't you feel pretty silly contradicting the
testimonies of the Davises? Your own "fine-tuning" eliminates them as
believable witnesses!

And as I noted, yes, it is "impossible" to reconcile the various
testimonies re the shells....

>
> To a reasonable person, the testimonies of Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis,
> and Domingo Benavides (the 3 people who ultimately picked up the 4 bullet
> shells) are perfectly consistent with each other.

Yeah, if you ignore most of what they said!

The KEY "consistent"
> factor being this one:
>
> Those three witnesses each saw ONE gunman dumping shells out of just ONE
> gun near the corner of Tenth Street and Patton Avenue in the Dallas suburb
> of Oak Cliff on Friday, November 22nd, 1963 AD!
>

Oh, I see. Not "BC". Glad you specified.

Never mind that their testimonies are a knot of contradictions....

And Dale Myers and fellow witness Ted Callaway both concluded that
Benavides did NOT see the gunman dumping shells. And you can go back to
Det. Jim Leavelle's same day report arriving at the same conclusion.

Nice "witness" who wasn't even a "witness"!

dcw

David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 11, 2019, 4:42:23 PM10/11/19
to
DONALD C. WILLIS SAID:

Don't you feel pretty silly contradicting the testimonies of the Davises?
Your own "fine-tuning" eliminates them as believable witnesses!


DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

The things I've said about the shell-dropping do not contradict the Davis
girls at all. Why on Earth do you think that ALL of the bullet shells in
Oswald's revolver had to behave in the exact same manner on November 22nd?
Why couldn't just ONE or TWO of the shells have been the "sticky" ones?
Maybe four of the shells slid out fairly easily and quickly, while one or
two others stuck in the chamber and required further effort (and time) by
Oswald to extract them.

Tell me, Don, why you think my above hypothesis is a totally impossible
one.

donald willis

unread,
Oct 11, 2019, 4:43:03 PM10/11/19
to
Then why did they produce three false witnesses to REVOLVER shells?

>
> > dcw
> >


19efppp

unread,
Oct 11, 2019, 4:43:49 PM10/11/19
to
That is what I used to think, that it was an automatic and Hill knew it.
But I now must dismiss that because they couldn't have been so stupid, the
planners, to miss this detail. If they were going to blame Oswald, then
they would know what kind of gun they were going to use and would have
worked all of that out in advance. Hill would have known what the gun was
to be. Hill had earlier been using radio transmissions to set his alibi
into the record and he knew what he was doing when he said the shells were
automatics. Given that Hill was one of the perps, my conclusion, then
there would be no reason for him to get on the radio to announce that it
was an automatic unless he was once again setting it into the record to
make himself look innocent. Jerry is a murderer.

19efppp

unread,
Oct 11, 2019, 4:44:16 PM10/11/19
to
I never noticed that Benavides didn't go on the record until the WC. Maybe
he wasn't even there. That might explain the confusion about who was
talking on Tippit's radio, Benavides or Bowley. Maybe it was claimed to be
Benavides just to "prove" that he was there. Bowley was feted for the feat
a couple of years ago, as the man who called in on Tippit's radio.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 11, 2019, 9:03:22 PM10/11/19
to
Full Automatic?
Can you tell the difference just by looking at the shells?
Have you ever shot an automatic?


donald willis

unread,
Oct 12, 2019, 9:24:06 AM10/12/19
to
Doesn't work. Benavides said that he saw the guy DROP two shells on the
ground in front. The Davises said that he put two shells IN HIS HAND, but
did not drop them where they saw him extract them. They were later
(supposedly) found in the side yard. Maybe the guy had sticky HANDS!
Try again. I hate to force you to be so ingenious....

I think you have to go with either sticky shells or the Davises, but not
both....

dcw



donald willis

unread,
Oct 12, 2019, 9:24:52 AM10/12/19
to
I think you're right. I never trusted the DPD's allowing Bowley to go on
vacation and do his affidavit a week or two later, after he came back.
More likely, yes, they did it just to ease Bowley out (of the phone call)
and ease Benavides in.

Who threw this fete?

dcw

donald willis

unread,
Oct 12, 2019, 4:35:08 PM10/12/19
to
Whatever Sgt Hill & Patrolman Summers said.

> Can you tell the difference just by looking at the shells?

Hill said that he looked at the bottom of the hulls, & they were
apparently stamped AUTO.


> Have you ever shot an automatic?

I shot BB guns at YMCA Day Camp about 60 years ago.

dcw

donald willis

unread,
Oct 12, 2019, 4:44:41 PM10/12/19
to
I've always thought that, perhaps, the man they wanted to do the deed
simply insisted on using an automatic--then left the cleanup to the DPD.
Seemed pretty simple, maybe, beforehand: The police would have control of
the gun & ammo from start to finish, and subtle changes could all be made
behind-the-scenes. They didn't count on TWO cops relaying info re the
automatic, or (okay, Marsh) semi-automatic. (But Hill used "auto".) And
the clean-up involved bending 3 witnesses, having Hill & Poe lie to the
WC, and Henslee putting others' names on the 1:41 "auto 38" transmission.
A little messier than planned....

dcw

Hill would have known what the gun was
> to be. Hill had earlier been using radio transmissions to set his alibi
> into the record and he knew what he was doing when he said the shells were
> automatics. Given that Hill was one of the perps, my conclusion, then
> there would be no reason for him to get on the radio to announce that it
> was an automatic unless he was once again setting it into the record to
> make himself look innocent. Jerry is a murderer.

Hill was just an after-the-fact, cover-up guy, a loose cannon who wavered
between 2 & 3 shells found at the scene, & later even betrayed the
original cover-up with Benavides, by saying that he & Poe found the
shells.

dcw

19efppp

unread,
Oct 12, 2019, 9:05:26 PM10/12/19
to
It was on a YouTube video, some local TV station news piece. But I
couldn't find it again when I went looking later. He was an old man when
it was done, just 2 or 3 years ago, I think. I should have downloaded the
video. Maybe I can find it.

David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 12, 2019, 9:07:37 PM10/12/19
to
On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 9:24:06 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> Doesn't work. Benavides said that he saw the guy DROP two shells on the
> ground in front. The Davises said that he put two shells IN HIS HAND, but
> did not drop them where they saw him extract them. They were later
> (supposedly) found in the side yard. Maybe the guy had sticky HANDS!
> Try again. I hate to force you to be so ingenious....
>
> I think you have to go with either sticky shells or the Davises, but not
> both....
>

As I explained earlier, a situation could very well have existed in which
there could have possibly been one or two "sticky" shells in Lee Oswald's
revolver and at the same time still have the Davis girls plus Domingo
Benavides seeing exactly what they each said they saw with respect to
Oswald's shell-dumping. And why anyone would think those things could not
co-exist in this case is a real mystery to me, because it's obvious from
my 4-point timeline listed below that all of those things could have very
easily co-existed in Oak Cliff on November 22, 1963, and with Lee Harvey
Oswald as the lone gunman:

1.) Oswald is able to extract two of the spent bullet shells in or near
the front yard of the apartment where the two Davis girls lived (near
the corner of Tenth & Patton). These are the two shells that witness
Domingo Benavides saw the gunman throw on the ground and which were
later recovered by Benavides himself.

2.) As Oswald continues to move through the shrubbery as he cuts across
the corner of 10th and Patton, he manages to extract two more bullet
shells from his gun (and is seen by the Davis girls with those shells
in his hand just a few seconds before Oswald drops them on the ground
in the side yard of the Davises' apartment house).

3.) If Oswald fired more than four shots at Officer Tippit (which is quite
possible, especially considering the "five pistol shots" testimony
provided by witness Ted Callaway, plus the "Remington vs. Winchester"
mismatch that exists when comparing the bullets taken from Tippit's
body to the types of cartridge cases that littered the murder scene
near 10th & Patton), then it would mean that at least one or two
bullet shells (plus one or two bullets as well) were never recovered
after Tippit's murder, which would have to mean that....

4.) Lee Harvey Oswald, at some unknown and undetermined point after
leaving the immediate area of Tippit's murder, extracted one or two
additional bullet shells from his Smith & Wesson V510210 revolver and
discarded them somewhere between Patton Avenue and the Texas Theater
prior to being apprehended by the Dallas Police Department.

Donald Willis' protestations notwithstanding, the scenario outlined above
is a perfectly reasonable and sensible one in light of all the evidence
that exists in the J.D. Tippit murder case --- especially when factoring
in the sticky shells situation which we know can easily occur after
bullets are fired through Oswald's revolver.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1109.html

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 13, 2019, 1:54:21 PM10/13/19
to
Who produced? Witnesses are sometimes wrong. Most witnesses would not
know the difference.

>>
>>> dcw
>>>
>
>


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 13, 2019, 1:55:03 PM10/13/19
to
Well, we would certainly HOPE that the conspirators were intelligent
enough or well connected enough to know which type or even brand of gun
Oswald bought and plant evidence compatible with that model, but who was
astute rnough to know which 3 brands of ammo he used? Would the CIA even
know details like that?

No, they were bumblers about ammo. They delivered the wrong ammo to the
Bay of Pigs fighters!

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 13, 2019, 9:58:00 PM10/13/19
to
When I went to summer camp we shot .22 shorts.

> dcw
>


donald willis

unread,
Oct 14, 2019, 1:42:52 PM10/14/19
to
Okay, that seems pretty clear now. I can accept it.

That said, let's see what the three witnesses here first related
Benavides' first extant statement actually seems to have been his WC
testimony. (Det. Leavelle thought that he might have done an affidavit
11/22/63, but that has not yet surfaced.) There, he testified, "[The
gunman] had just got back to the sidewalk when he threw the first [shell]
and when he threw the second one, he had already cut back into the yard.
He just sort of cut across.
Mr. BELIN - Now you saw him throw two shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - You saw where he threw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.

These shells, then, were described in Sgt. Hill's 1:41 DPD-radio transmission.
And they were found fairly easily because Benavides, as he testified, SAW
the gunman throw them down.

Now, Barbara Davis: "When the police arrived I showed one of them where I
saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell." (11/22/63 affidavit)
That is, they found a shell where she SAW him drop it, in the "front
yard".

And Virginia Davis: "We... ran to side door at Patton St. I saw the boy
cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun." (11/22/63
affidavit) She, too, is saying that she SAW the "boy" emptying his gun,
but on the side yard, where a shell was indeed supposed to have been found
later.

The Davises, too, then, like Benavides, should have--in short order--
spotted the shells: They SAW them being removed from the gun. Found
easily, then, in plenty of time to have been included in Hill's 1:41
roundup. Well and good. But, while Benavides testified that the first
two shells were found in one little area--suggesting the use of a
semi-automatic pistol--the Davises here indicated that the third and
fourth were dropped in two different areas, in the front yard and the side
yard, suggesting the use of a revolver.

Hill's transmission supports Benavides' testimony, but not the Davises'
affidavits. Hill radioed that the "shells at the scene" suggested an
"automatic .38" (FBI transcription CE 1974 p78) And--based on the Davis
affidavits--that would mean all FOUR shells "at the scene". Now, the
Davises may have been enlisted simply to ensure that we got the idea that
the gunman used a revolver--they changed their story for the Warren
Commission, saying that they found the shells later in the afternoon.
And it is still possible that the man manually dropped all four shells in
"one little area", and that would have suggested "automatic" to Hill.
But the very use of spurious witnesses suggests spurious evidence.

dcw

BT George

unread,
Oct 14, 2019, 10:57:25 PM10/14/19
to
Excellent response David.

David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 15, 2019, 11:35:03 AM10/15/19
to
Once again, Donald Willis is attempting to fine-tune the witness testimony
to absurd levels.

And I really don't know where Don is trying to go with his microscopic
analysis of the Davis & Benavides statements. Because with or without Don
Willis' absurd "fine-tuning", the fact will *still* remain that both Davis
girls positively identified the ONE AND ONLY shell-dumper as LEE HARVEY
OSWALD.

It's looking more and more like Donald is merely playing a useless parlor
game with the witness statements.

Mitch Todd

unread,
Oct 15, 2019, 11:35:53 AM10/15/19
to
Speaking of suggestions, I would suggest to you that the
notion of a semi-auto weapon being involved came from
Ted Callaway. He'd admitted to the commission that he
thought the escaping gunman was carrying a .32 automatic.
How Callaway could figure that out from across the street
is anyone's guess, but that's what he went with. This ID
was immortalized in the DPD radio transcript by Summers'
"apparently armed with a .32 dark-finish automatic"
broadcast. Sgt Hill was left with a with a murderer with
armed with an automatic who left .38 special cases. Since
.38 is typically a revolver cartidge, we wind up with
Hill's tortured syntax: "armed with an automatic .38,
rather than a pistol." That is, "armed with an automatic
.38 [special] rather than a [revolver]. This isn't rocket
science.



donald willis

unread,
Oct 15, 2019, 11:44:37 AM10/15/19
to
Agreed. However, if DVP's response, in alt.conspiracy.jfk, to my post re
the Davises' story changes from their original affidavits to their WC
testimony is any indication, he's now helpless.

dcw

19efppp

unread,
Oct 15, 2019, 3:19:45 PM10/15/19
to
I didn't download the video, but I took a screen capture and scribbled on
it. Apparently, it was the DPD who honored Bowley in 2010.

https://postimg.cc/94rCCSzM

19efppp

unread,
Oct 15, 2019, 3:20:56 PM10/15/19
to
You might also be interested in this HSCA document which reveals Bowley's
Jack Rubi connections going back to the 1950's, if you didn't already know
about it.

https://postimg.cc/hzN9pHQ7

Funny that an old Ruby associate just happened to be a Tippit witness.
Bowley said that he talked to a police sergeant at the Tippit scene. He
didn't name the sergeant, and I've always assumed that it was Croy, who
told the WC that he was the first cop on the scene. Maybe it was Sgt. Hill
whom he talked to, though Hill was not in uniform. Hill knew Ruby well,
according to other sources I've seen. Perhaps Bowley knew him on sight.
However, I still think that Croy is the most likely.

19efppp

unread,
Oct 15, 2019, 3:21:27 PM10/15/19
to
It's not rocket science and it's probably not right, either. If Hill
thought the shells were 38's, and he heard of the immortalized 32's, then
why didn't he correct the immortal error? Clearly, Hill's point is that it
is an automatic rather than a revolver, not a 38 rather than a 32.

donald willis

unread,
Oct 15, 2019, 3:22:54 PM10/15/19
to
The fact remains that Virginia Davis AND Sam Guinyard said that they saw
the gunman unloading or dropping shells on the side yard, yet nothing was
supposedly found until later in the day.

And Mrs. Markham's 12/2/63 SS affidavit precludes the possibility of ANY
shells having been found on the side yard:

"[The gunman] calmly walked away from the scene to the sidewalk. He
walked down the sidewalk and when he got to the corner of Patton and 10th,
he saw me. When he saw me, he started running. He ran at an angle across
Patton, and the last time I saw him, he was running down Patton toward
Jefferson."

According to Mrs M, then, the man did NOT cut across the lawn and the
Davises' front walkway. He did NOT extract shells while cutting across.
And he did NOT discard them on the side.

dcw

donald willis

unread,
Oct 15, 2019, 9:11:02 PM10/15/19
to
Someone who used to post here also noted that the Davises' phone number
used to be Ruby's, or vice versa.

Bud

unread,
Oct 15, 2019, 9:12:05 PM10/15/19
to
According to Markham, "the man" was Oswald.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 16, 2019, 9:50:07 AM10/16/19
to
I wish that one of the kooks would come up with the theory that Jack
Ruby was the chubby guy who shot Tippit. Sent there to kill Oswald and
go the wrong man. Whatever happened to his Twist Board?


donald willis

unread,
Oct 16, 2019, 9:51:35 AM10/16/19
to
Wasn't at first, at the Big Lineup.

Mitch Todd

unread,
Oct 16, 2019, 9:51:46 AM10/16/19
to
Since Hill's "automatic .38" transmission came after
Summers' ".32 dark-finish automatic" transmission, I
would say that Hill's statement actually was a correction.

And the point is, the Hill transmission really does
betray that the cases he saw were .38 specials, no
matter what some people would like you to believe.
While there were a number of automatic pistols that
could shoot .38 Spl, they weren't common at all.
Of course, Oswald's revolver had been rechambered
for .38 Spl...







19efppp

unread,
Oct 16, 2019, 1:59:40 PM10/16/19
to
Maybe Ruby had the open mic.

19efppp

unread,
Oct 16, 2019, 2:00:11 PM10/16/19
to
Since Hill's statement came after, I would say it came after and not
assume that it was a correction of anything. But, if you must think that
it is a correction, what Hill said implied that he was correcting the idea
that the gun was a revolver. He didn't mention the 32's at all, even if
they had been immortalized by that time. So there's no reason to think he
was putting the immortals in their place, no matter what some people would
like you to believe.

BT George

unread,
Oct 16, 2019, 9:54:32 PM10/16/19
to
How many others ID'd Oz? What are the odds they were all wrong of lying?

Also, if you've managed to convince yourself he wasn't an innocent person
in regard to JFK, I am struggling to understand why you are so dedicated
to finding any shred of evidence he wasn't guilty of anything in the
Tippit case. You do know that cops are *VERY* loathe to let cop killers
get away? Yet if you think they tried to frame Oz for Tippit, that's
exactly what you have them doing; letting the true killer off to nail the
wrong one.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 16, 2019, 9:55:57 PM10/16/19
to
Wow, so why don't you come up with a theory that Ruby was the chubby guy
who shot Tippit with an automatic?


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 16, 2019, 9:56:33 PM10/16/19
to
Well, the DPD had to tell her which man to pick out.
She was so stupid that she couldn't figure out which guy was not wearing
a shirt. I's like the old police lineups where there are 5 white guys
and one black guy and the cops have to tell the witness which one is the
black guy she needs to pick out.

donald willis

unread,
Oct 16, 2019, 9:57:39 PM10/16/19
to
Hill's subsequent actions indicate that he actually, yes, did mean "auto".
He probably wasn't trying cover-up ".38". He told the WC that he didn't
send the "auto 38" transmission, and fellow DPD Sgt. Henslee--in his
transcription--covered up Hill's sending of same. A lot of trouble for 38
Specials....

dcw

Bud

unread,
Oct 16, 2019, 9:58:22 PM10/16/19
to
What does that mean?

Mark

unread,
Oct 17, 2019, 9:44:10 PM10/17/19
to
That's his standard M.O. Ignore the mountain of hard evidence showing LHO
committed both murders, and instead try to find (inherently unreliable)
eyewitness statements that show contradictions and confusion.

It's a myopic approach to the assassination. Mark


donald willis

unread,
Oct 17, 2019, 9:47:18 PM10/17/19
to
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 6:54:32 PM UTC-7, BT George wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 8:51:35 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 6:12:05 P CUT , he was running down Patton toward
> > > > Jefferson."
> > > >
> > > > According to Mrs M, then, the man
> > >
> > > According to Markham, "the man" was Oswald.
> >
> > Wasn't at first, at the Big Lineup.
> >
>
> How many others ID'd Oz? What are the odds they were all wrong of lying?

Odds don't have much to do with facts.

>
> Also, if you've managed to convince yourself he wasn't an innocent person
> in regard to JFK, I am struggling to understand why you are so dedicated
> to finding any shred of evidence he wasn't guilty of anything in the
> Tippit case.

In the JFK case, I came to realize that most of the evidence I had
uncovered simply indicated a conspiracy. It didn't exonerate Oswald.
For that, I had depended on witness statements re where & when they saw
Oswald. They were, at best, contradictory, suggesting that there must
have been a better way to guarantee that Oswald could remain a viable
patsy. The better way: Have him in the "sniper's nest", either firing or
assisting.

The evidence I've found in the Tippit case strongly suggests that Oswald
did not shoot Tippit. One piece of that evidence: Witness Scoggins went
on 2 or 3 chases after the perp on Friday, beginning about 1:16. The last
chase was in a cop car. Yet, Scoggins did not attend the first lineup on
Friday, as one would expect of someone who seemed so keen on catching the
shooter. Nor did he attend either of the two other Friday lineups.

My takeaway He either indicated to the cops beforehand that he knew Oswald
wasn't the shooter, or he attended a Friday lineup and failed to ID anyone
in it, or both, and his failure was not recorded.

dcw

donald willis

unread,
Oct 17, 2019, 9:47:39 PM10/17/19
to
Ah! Unfamiliar with her testimony, eh?

19efppp

unread,
Oct 17, 2019, 9:48:53 PM10/17/19
to
Brother Donald doesn't believe in Chunky Man. He thinks that Mark Lane
lead Acquilla Clemons down the primrose path. Now, if a senile bus driver
had seen Chunky Man, that might make him think twice.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Oct 18, 2019, 9:47:20 AM10/18/19
to
Never rely on witnesses. The physical evidence proves that Oswald shot
Tippit. SCIENCE.

Bud

unread,
Oct 18, 2019, 2:28:39 PM10/18/19
to
Familiar with the silly games you play with the evidence.

FORREST TRUMP

unread,
Oct 18, 2019, 8:58:50 PM10/18/19
to
Never rely on ear witnesses. The physical evidence proves that Oswald shot
JFK. SCIENCE.

BT George

unread,
Oct 18, 2019, 8:59:43 PM10/18/19
to
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 8:47:18 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 6:54:32 PM UTC-7, BT George wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 8:51:35 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 6:12:05 P CUT , he was running down Patton toward
> > > > > Jefferson."
> > > > >
> > > > > According to Mrs M, then, the man
> > > >
> > > > According to Markham, "the man" was Oswald.
> > >
> > > Wasn't at first, at the Big Lineup.
> > >
> >
> > How many others ID'd Oz? What are the odds they were all wrong of lying?
>
> Odds don't have much to do with facts.
>

Sure they do. It's a *fact* he ended up being positively identified by 6
witnesses. You say that was bogus. Unless all or most of them have since
recanted, you have to assert a reason you think each was erroneous or
untrue. And for you to be right about that, there is some kind of
probability for or against each claim to that effect. The odds you have
*correctly* impeached enough of them to prove thesis is certainly very,
very small. So you will need some kind of *proof* that the odds of
unlikelihood do not prevail.


> >
> > Also, if you've managed to convince yourself he wasn't an innocent person
> > in regard to JFK, I am struggling to understand why you are so dedicated
> > to finding any shred of evidence he wasn't guilty of anything in the
> > Tippit case.
>
> In the JFK case, I came to realize that most of the evidence I had
> uncovered simply indicated a conspiracy. It didn't exonerate Oswald.
> For that, I had depended on witness statements re where & when they saw
> Oswald. They were, at best, contradictory, suggesting that there must
> have been a better way to guarantee that Oswald could remain a viable
> patsy. The better way: Have him in the "sniper's nest", either firing or
> assisting.
>
> The evidence I've found in the Tippit case strongly suggests that Oswald
> did not shoot Tippit. One piece of that evidence: Witness Scoggins went
> on 2 or 3 chases after the perp on Friday, beginning about 1:16. The last
> chase was in a cop car. Yet, Scoggins did not attend the first lineup on
> Friday, as one would expect of someone who seemed so keen on catching the
> shooter. Nor did he attend either of the two other Friday lineups.
>
> My takeaway He either indicated to the cops beforehand that he knew Oswald
> wasn't the shooter, or he attended a Friday lineup and failed to ID anyone
> in it, or both, and his failure was not recorded.
>

And then he stuck with his lie or let them get away with it all the way
till 1990. Hence he too was one of many accessories after the fact that
didn't give a rip about justice for Kennedy or Tippit. (Please don't tell
me you believe he feared the 27 year old JFK "Death Squads" up till the
day of his death in 1990.)

BT George

unread,
Oct 18, 2019, 9:00:18 PM10/18/19
to
Why not address this to Donald? He's the one placing witnesses above the
physical evidence. ...Or more to the point, he's placing WAAAYYYY too much
reliance for doubting the physical evidence based on their various,
sometimes discrepant statements, and his own reading of them.

donald willis

unread,
Oct 18, 2019, 9:01:28 PM10/18/19
to
"Hard evidence" -- you mean, like the shells which Fritz half-acknowledged
that he picked up in the depository, before they could be photographed?
Or the "auto" shells & gun found in Oak Cliff? And the "auto 38"
transmission which Sgt. Hill falsely denied sending, during the hearings?
Oh, THAT "hard evidence"....

dcw

donald willis

unread,
Oct 18, 2019, 9:02:28 PM10/18/19
to
"Science"? You mean ballistics? Like the shells which Fritz picked up
and put down? You trust them? Ooo-kay!

donald willis

unread,
Oct 18, 2019, 9:02:41 PM10/18/19
to
"Chunky Man"--you mean, Scoggins? Mrs Mr thought he was the perp.

donald willis

unread,
Oct 19, 2019, 9:37:06 AM10/19/19
to
But NOT, Mr. Bud seems to be implying, with Mrs M's testimony!
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages