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

[donald willis]

Speaking of the Davises.... A few curiosities:

Barbara D testified that a "man was coming across the yard.... First off
[Mrs. Markham] went to screaming before I had paid too much attention to
him, and pointing at him...." (v3p343)

While Mrs. M herself testified, "He cut across Patton St. like this.
Toward Jefferson. Then he was still in sight WHEN I BEGAN TO SCREAM AND
HOLLER...." (v3)

If Mrs. M is correct re the point at which she began to scream, then
Barbara D couldn't have seen the suspect while Mrs M was screaming and he
was still in the front yard.

Another curiosity: Barbara D charts (on CE 534) the path that she says
that the suspect took across the front yard. Note that that path comes
nowhere near the intersection of 10th & Patton. While Mrs. M is famous
for her kitty-korner confrontation with him while he's standing at the
opposite corner of the intersection.

Virginia D., possibly, reconciles Barbara D & Helen M in her own
testimony:

Mr. BELIN. Well, let me try and reconstruct your actions then.
You heard the shots?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. You ran to the door?
Mr. BELIN. What did you see when you got to the door?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we just saw, you know, the police car parked down there
and we wondered what was going on, so we heard Mrs. Markham across the
street calling.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, she told us to call the police, well, so we went to the
house.
We was already in the house, and we went to the phone and called the
police. (v6p460)

If we stop right there, Virginia D's testimony makes sense here. She and
Barbara D hear Mrs M telling them to "call the police". And they proceed
to do just that. No mention of Mrs M screaming yet, and no sighting of
the suspect in the yard. She just says to call the police. They do that.
However, Virginia D continues, disastrously:

Mrs. DAVIS. Well, she told us to call the police, well, so we went to the
house.
We was already in the house, and we went to the phone and called the police.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
460
Mrs. DAVIS. Then we went back to the front door.
Mr. BEI.IN. Then what did you do?
Mrs. DAVIS. We saw the boy cutting across the street.

This v e r y s l o w moving suspect is still in sight AFTER the Davises
call the cops!? That's where Virginia D's testimony goes off the rails
here. Up to that point, she seems to reconcile her testimony with Mrs
M's. Then she has the "boy" still in sight and, for some reason, "cutting
across the street". (This is the only time that either Davis says that
they saw the suspect cross a street.)

But until this incredible coda, Virginia D paints a believable picture of
the shooting scene: The Davises see and hear Mrs M telling them to call
the police, and they do. Mrs M then picks up the story as the suspect is
running up Patton, and THEN she starts screaming. Again, believable:
She doesn't call attention to herself with screaming until he's trotting
off AWAY from her.

dcw

[John Corbett]

Right, Don. Everybody made all this stuff up just to frame poor little Lee
Harvey Oswald. The cops. The witnesses. The bus driver. The cab driver.

Did you ever consider the possibility that the reason the eyewitness
testimony and the physical evidence points to Oswald is because Oswald was
the one who killed Tippit?

[donald willis]

They got the right guy for the JFK shooting. Wrong guy for the Tippit
shooting.

dcw

[John Corbett]

You're batting .500.

[donald willis]

Okay--you won't be happy until I say that they got the wrong guy for both
killings, eh?

[John Corbett]

I'll be happy no matter what you believe. Your confusion causes me no
grief.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

A great example of a logical fallacy -- this is a straw man argument. He
isn't arguing that, and he knows it, I know it, and you know it.

So why pretend otherwise?

You never did answer his initial question, which demands only a simple yes
or no response" "Did you ever consider the possibility that the reason the

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Don,

Since you admit they got the right guy for the JFK assassination, perhaps
you can delve into the motivation of everyone to frame Oswald for the
Tippit shooting and let the real cop killer get away?

Why would they bother?
- As you admit, they got the right guy for the JFK shooting, and framing
him for a separate crime doesn't change the facts involving the
assassination.

Let's also talk in more detail about why the cops were so keen on framing
Oswald -- and letting the real cop killer get away. Do you have a response
here? I've never seen one.
- Framing Oswald for shooting a cop still leaves Tippit dead. And, if your
charge is true, it leaves the real cop-killer on the street to kill again,
doesn't it? Therefore, why would the police align to frame Oswald? What is
their motivation to do any of this?

Separate from that, you accuse multiple witnesses of changing their
statements to aid in the frame-up of Oswald. For the most part, these
witnesses are solid American citizens, with no crime record or record of
lying under oath, or even of cheating on a fifth grade test. You've got no
reason to accuse them as you do, other than their statements disagree with
your beliefs, so can you get into their motivation for lying to frame an
innocent man? Is this something you would find easy to do? I wouldn't. Yet
you accuse not just one or two people of changing their statements to
frame Oswald, but many. What is their motivation to do any of this?

Beyond that, there's also the revolver taken off Oswald in the Texas
Theatre matching the shells in evidence. You argue those were switched
somewhere along the line, but provide no evidence of that. Again, if the
evidence indicated Oswald's weapon wasn't the weapon used to kill Tippit,
what's the reason for the crime lab or the FBI to swap them out and frame
an innocent guy, and let the real killer of Tippit go free? Why would
someone switch them out BEFORE the crime lab or the FBI examined them?

You make all these accusations, but you don't have a shred of evidence
indicting any of these people for doing anything at all nefarious. You try
to back into these accusations by concentrating on minor discrepancies in
the witness statements -- as if discrepancies in witness statements are
unusual, and meaningful. They aren't. No two witnesses will agree on
everything unless they are in collusion.

This has been studied extensively and to pretend the witness discrepancies
are meaningful requires willful ignorance and ignoring the science.

https://nobaproject.com/modules/eyewitness-testimony-and-memory-biases

Go right ahead with your silly game. It's not convincing. It never will be
to knowledgeable people.

Hank

[donald willis]

As the widow of Deputy Sheriff Jack Faulkner told me over the phone, 20 or
so years ago, If Oswald killed the nice patrolman, it follows that he shot
JFK, too. The Tippit shooting made it personal--scads of witnesses, on
the same (ground) level, in the same neighborhood. Five floors up, there
was reason to doubt any witness's ID from the street.

dcw

[donald willis]

On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 9:16:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:

Oh, and my "silly game" led me to the conclusion that Oswald shot JFK.
But if you find that unconvincing....

>
> Hank

[John Corbett]

The case against Oswald in the assassination of JFK could easily have been
made without any witnesses identifying him. The forensic evidence alone
left no reasonable doubt he was the assassin. There was no need for
anybody to frame him for the Tippit murder. In that case we had both ample
eyewitness testimony and compelling forensic evidence.

[John Corbett]

From the fifth floor. That part is very unconvincing.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Let me know if you need further
explanation.

PS: You ignored all my points and changed the subject to the JFK
assassination from that which we were discussing. No, that's not
convincing at all. And I'm unclear why you think these silly games you're
playing here are convincing to anyone.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

[donald willis]

On Tuesday, March 16, 2021 at 4:11:26 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

I just realized. In my post, I did not say that the witnesses--Virginia D
& Mrs. Markham--were "making up stuff". I accept their joint story.
What you write here does not apply to what I wrote here. It's you who has
to reject the story!

dcw

[John Corbett]

I have to reject Virginia Davis' testimony because she said during the
same testimony that Jeanette called the police before they went to the
door and also that she called the police after they went to the door. Both
of those things cannot be true. She also said they went to the side door
before testifying they went to the front door. Since she was sixteen and
married, I doubt she had been living for very long in that apartment and
maybe didn't know which was the front door and which was the side door.
It's clear she was confused about some very basic facts which makes it
amazing that you would find significance in anything she said.

If one is truly searching for the truth, one looks for the best evidence
available to lead him to it. Your approach is to follow the anomalies that
don't fit with anything else. That can only lead you to the wrong answer
as you have been demonstrating for years on this forum.

[donald willis]

Okay. Then let's go with just one Davis, Barbara D, who in her affidavit
said she found a shell in the front yard, then, in her testimony, said
that she found it in the side yard. "It". Just realized--we don't know
which Davis (supposedly) found which shell in the side yard. Maybe it
doesn't matter. Let's amend that statement: Barbara D. testified that
she found "a" shell in the side yard.

because she said during the
> same testimony that Jeanette called the police before they went to the
> door and also that she called the police after they went to the door. Both
> of those things cannot be true. She also said they went to the side door
> before testifying they went to the front door. Since she was sixteen and
> married, I doubt she had been living for very long in that apartment and
> maybe didn't know which was the front door and which was the side door.

She did say something like "side door on Patton". She'd know which street
was which.

> It's clear she was confused about some very basic facts which makes it
> amazing that you would find significance in anything she said.

We also have to kind of discount Guinyard's testimony that he saw the
suspect knocking shells out of the gun in the side yard, since he didn't
follow up on that. We also have to question Benavides' testimony to the
effect that he saw the suspect tossing a shell down here, a shell there,
in the front yard. Why didn't the Davises see that? Barbara D should
have said that she saw the guy tossing down *two shells" in the front
yard. Shells that Benavides testified that he picked up. But by the time
of her testimony, it's *no* shells dropped in the front yard. (That she
said she saw.)

>
> If one is truly searching for the truth, one looks for the best evidence
> available to lead him to it. Your approach is to follow the anomalies that
> don't fit with anything else.

Like those four anomalists who said the Dealey shooter's window was open
all the way. Here, the anomalist is actually the one witness, Euins, who
said the window was halfway open.

dcw

[John Corbett]

You are the poster child for something Bud has said for a long time.
Conspiracy hobbyists are really bad at weighing evidence. Oswald dumped
the shells in the bushes that are at the corner of that house as he
proceeded toward Patton. Here is a photo of that house:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zoINb3xg5hM/U-FMq7t628I/AAAAAAAA2IE/yNnt-TaLJfY/s1600/Commission-Document-630--(15).jpg

As he was passing those bushes it would be just as accurate to say he was
in the front yard as it would be to say he was in the side yard and the
same would be true of any shells that were dumped as he went past those
bushes. Why on earth would you find significance in the fact that a
witness would describe that area as being in the side yard and another
would described it as being in the front yard or that the same witness
would describe that place as being in the side yard and months later refer
to it as the front yard? It's the same damn place whether you call it the
front yard or the side yard. Just how would this difference in the
description of where the shells were found fit into your grand cover up of
the Tippit murder. Are you claiming these witnesses were pressured to
changing where they saw Oswad dump the shells from the side yard to the
front yard. Why? What the hell difference would it make? It's just another
of you lame attempts to find significance in the most insignificant
things.

[donald willis]

Good. I'm glad *you* don't. "Anything"? Yes, it is amazing that she
said that the suspect unloaded shells into his other hand.
Insignificant....

dcw

[John Corbett]

I can't imagine anything less significant than the means by which Oswald
ejected the shells from the revolver. Whether he did it with gravity,
shaking the gun, or using the ejector rod, the shells came out of his gun
and ended up on the ground. If people saw the same action but got
different impressions as to just how Oswald ejected the shells, what the
hell difference does that make?

[donald willis]

You might want to check the testimony of the Davises again. Neither said
that shells were "dumped in the bushes". Or check the photo on page 266
of "With Malice". One shell was (supposedly) found under a SIDE window,
the other "near the walkway" on the SIDE of the house. Neither shell,
then, would have even been near a bush, or near the front yard. Now,
who's really bad with evidence?

Here is a photo of that house:
>
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zoINb3xg5hM/U-FMq7t628I/AAAAAAAA2IE/yNnt-TaLJfY/s1600/Commission-Document-630--(15).jpg
>
> As he was passing those bushes it would be just as accurate to say he was
> in the front yard as it would be to say he was in the side yard and the
> same would be true of any shells that were dumped as he went past those
> bushes. Why on earth would you find significance in the fact that a
> witness would describe that area as being in the side yard and another
> would described it as being in the front yard or that the same witness
> would describe that place as being in the side yard and months later refer
> to it as the front yard? It's the same damn place whether you call it the
> front yard or the side yard. Just how would this difference in the
> description of where the shells were found fit into your grand cover up of
> the Tippit murder. Are you claiming these witnesses were pressured to
> changing where they saw Oswad dump the shells from the side yard to the
> front yard.

Actually, that's pretty much the reverse of what I have said! And who is
"Oswad"?

dcw

[John Corbett]

You are.

Mr. BELIN - About how long did it take you to locate the shells once you
stared looking for them?

Mr. BENAVIDES - Just a minute. I mean not very long at all. Just walked
directly to them.

Mr. BELIN - You saw where he had thrown them?

Mr. BENAVIDES - One of them went down inside of a bush, and the other one
was by the bush.

> Here is a photo of that house:
> >
> > http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zoINb3xg5hM/U-FMq7t628I/AAAAAAAA2IE/yNnt-TaLJfY/s1600/Commission-Document-630--(15).jpg
> >
> > As he was passing those bushes it would be just as accurate to say he was
> > in the front yard as it would be to say he was in the side yard and the
> > same would be true of any shells that were dumped as he went past those
> > bushes. Why on earth would you find significance in the fact that a
> > witness would describe that area as being in the side yard and another
> > would described it as being in the front yard or that the same witness
> > would describe that place as being in the side yard and months later refer
> > to it as the front yard? It's the same damn place whether you call it the
> > front yard or the side yard. Just how would this difference in the
> > description of where the shells were found fit into your grand cover up of
> > the Tippit murder. Are you claiming these witnesses were pressured to
> > changing where they saw Oswad dump the shells from the side yard to the
> > front yard.
> Actually, that's pretty much the reverse of what I have said!

Then why the hell are you making a big deal that some of the witnesses
said front yard and some said side yard?

> And who is "Oswad"?

Take a guess.

Is this really the best you can do?

[donald willis]

Are you pretending not to understand what I'm saying? The operative
phrase, above, is "into his other hand". It's the key to the Davis's
amazing tale....

dcw

[donald willis]

Try again. You start with a false, or at best half-true, premise:
"Oswald dumped the shells in the bushes". Well, one shell, supposedly.
Quarter-true. And Benavides says another "by the bush". But the Davises
testified that the two shells that THEY found were on the side yard, under
a window and near the side walkway. NOT in or near those bushes. And you
accuse ME of cherry picking!

LNs find it very very hard to admit when they're wrong....

If they were pressured to say the reverse of the scenario in your
question, then they were pressured to say "front yard", in their
testimony. That's why the hell....

> > And who is "Oswad"?
> Take a guess.
>
> Is this really the best you can do?

This from John "Quarter True" Corbett!

dcw

[John Corbett]

I'm not pretending. I really don't understand what you are saying? I
rarely do.

> The operative phrase, above, is "into his other hand". It's the key to
> the Davis's amazing tale....

It seems to be a rather unimportant detail. Why does it matter if Oswald
dumped the shells into his hand and tossed them away or simply dumped them
on the ground? He discarded them so he could reload.

[John Corbett]

Now you are just nitpicking because you have nothing of substance to
present. The important thing is that Oswald was seen dumping shells from
his revolver as he passed from the front yard to the side yard along
Patton. That is where the shells were found by three different people and
all of those shells were fired by Oswald's revolver which he still had in
his possession when arrested in the Texas Theater. All these other phony
issues you have dreamed up are nothing more than a lame attempt to
invalidate all the damning evidence we have that Oswald was Tippit's
murderer.

>
> LNs find it very very hard to admit when they're wrong....

We don't get as much opportunity as you do.

If only you had evidence that anybody was pressured to change their story
or a plausible reason why they would have been pressured to change what
they said on this point.

> > > And who is "Oswad"?
> > Take a guess.
> >
> > Is this really the best you can do?
> This from John "Quarter True" Corbett!

Speaking of "Quarter True". You got the correct shooter for the JFK
assassination but got the location wrong so you only get half credit. You
completely whiffed on the Tippit murder so you get no credit for that. You
end up with half of a half which is one quarter.

[Bud]

Actually, no. Barbara Davis put an arrow pointing to the window she was
referring to in CE 532.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1134#relPageId=260

> NOT in or near those bushes.

Yes, near those bushes that Scoggins saw Oswald come through.

[donald willis]

I don't see her referring to CE 532 in her testimony. She puts a line on
CE 534 to indicate where she was standing at one point.

[Bud]

She put an arrow pointing to which window she was referring to on CE
534. It can be seen above the back window of the car.

[donald willis]

Like I said, LNs find it very hard to admit when they're wrong, as Corbett
here was with his Oswald dumped all the shells in the bushes. If he can't
get the details right, it makes you wonder about his Big Picture....

as he passed from the front yard to the side yard along
> Patton. That is where the shells were found by three different people and
> all of those shells were fired by Oswald's revolver which he still had in
> his possession when arrested in the Texas Theater. All these other phony
> issues you have dreamed up

Inaccuracy is hardly a "phony issue".

Ouch!

dcw

[Bud]

The big picture is the shells being found in that area makes it
impossible that an automatic was used to kill Tippit.

[John Corbett]

I made the observation that you have to resort to nitpicking because you
have nothin of substance to offer and you proved me right by doubling down
on your nitpicking while still offering nothing of substance.

Try explaining why the exact location the discarded shells landed or the
number that ended up in the bushes makes one bit of difference.

[donald willis]

On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 12:40:16 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, April 5, 2021 at 7:40:40 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 5:14:19 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 3:47:27 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 8:07:16 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 8:37:32 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

> > > > > > On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 6:10:55 AM UTC CUT

> > > > > > You might want to check the testimony of the Davises again. Neither said
> > > > > > that shells were "dumped in the bushes". Or check the photo on page 266
> > > > > > of "With Malice". One shell was (supposedly) found under a SIDE window,
> > > > > > the other "near the walkway" on the SIDE of the house. Neither shell,
> > > > > > then, would have even been near a bush, or near the front yard. Now,
> > > > > > who's really bad with evidence?
> > > > > You are.
> > > > Try again. You start with a false, or at best half-true, premise:
> > > > "Oswald dumped the shells in the bushes". Well, one shell, supposedly.
> > > > Quarter-true. And Benavides says another "by the bush". But the Davises
> > > > testified that the two shells that THEY found were on the side yard, under
> > > > a window and near the side walkway.
> > > Actually, no. Barbara Davis put an arrow pointing to the window she was
> > > referring to in CE 532.
> > >
> > > https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1134#relPageId=260
> > > > NOT in or near those bushes.
> > > Yes, near those bushes that Scoggins saw Oswald come through.
> > I don't see her referring to CE 532 in her testimony. She puts a line on
> > CE 534 to indicate where she was standing at one point.
> She put an arrow pointing to which window she was referring to on CE
> 534. It can be seen above the back window of the car.

Back window of which car? I see a line drawn on the front lawn, that's
it.

[donald willis]

On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 8:03:11 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 3:40:29 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 5:14:15 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

> > > On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 3:47:27 PM UTC-4, CUT

> > > > Try again. You start with a false, or at best half-true, premise:
> > > > "Oswald dumped the shells in the bushes". Well, one shell, supposedly.
> > > > Quarter-true. And Benavides says another "by the bush". But the Davises
> > > > testified that the two shells that THEY found were on the side yard, under
> > > > a window and near the side walkway. NOT in or near those bushes. And you
> > > > accuse ME of cherry picking!
> > > Now you are just nitpicking because you have nothing of substance to
> > > present. The important thing is that Oswald was seen dumping shells from
> > > his revolver
> > Like I said, LNs find it very hard to admit when they're wrong, as Corbett
> > here was with his Oswald dumped all the shells in the bushes. If he can't
> > get the details right, it makes you wonder about his Big Picture....
> The big picture is the shells being found in that area makes it
> impossible that an automatic was used to kill Tippit.

"That area"? What area? We were talking about shells the Davises found
around the bushes. Or Corbett's 3/4 false "Oswald dumped the shells in the
bushes".

[donald willis]

On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 8:03:26 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 3:40:29 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 5:14:15 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 3:47:27 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 8:07:16 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 8:37:32 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 6:10:55 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 7:30:32 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, March 29, 2021 at 4:27:13 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, March 28, 2021 at 5: CUT inside of a bush, and the other one

You said that "Oswald dumped the shells in the bushes". That was false.
Making false statements makes a difference, Corbett.

ddw

[Bud]

On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 3:26:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 8:03:11 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 3:40:29 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 5:14:15 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 3:47:27 PM UTC-4, CUT
> > > > > Try again. You start with a false, or at best half-true, premise:
> > > > > "Oswald dumped the shells in the bushes". Well, one shell, supposedly.
> > > > > Quarter-true. And Benavides says another "by the bush". But the Davises
> > > > > testified that the two shells that THEY found were on the side yard, under
> > > > > a window and near the side walkway. NOT in or near those bushes. And you
> > > > > accuse ME of cherry picking!
> > > > Now you are just nitpicking because you have nothing of substance to
> > > > present. The important thing is that Oswald was seen dumping shells from
> > > > his revolver
> > > Like I said, LNs find it very hard to admit when they're wrong, as Corbett
> > > here was with his Oswald dumped all the shells in the bushes. If he can't
> > > get the details right, it makes you wonder about his Big Picture....
> > The big picture is the shells being found in that area makes it
> > impossible that an automatic was used to kill Tippit.
> "That area"? What area?

That corner of the house.

That is why it is easy to determine a revolver and not an automatic was
used. Has an automatic been used the shells would have been found 40-50
feet away towards the front of Tippit`s patrol car.

>We were talking about shells the Davises found
> around the bushes.

Yes, the bushes are at that corner of the house. The bushes Scoggins saw
Oswald come through.

> Or Corbett's 3/4 false "Oswald dumped the shells in the
> bushes".

That vicinity.

[John Corbett]

Keep nitpicking. It's all you've got.

[donald willis]

The side of the house under the window & the grass near the side walkway
are NOT in the vicinity of the bushes.

[donald willis]

Better than what you've got--false statements.

dcw

[John Corbett]

Take a look at the picture of the house. The side yard is very narrow.
Anything in the side yard is in the vicinity of those bushes.

This is the kind of nitpicking you continue to engage in because you have
no real case to make. You focus on the minutia and ignore the big picture.
You disregard all the compelling evidence because you think it is
important exactly where each of the discarded shells landed.

[Bud]

When Barbara Davis was asked where she saw Oswald emptying the gun, she
said not quite to the bushes. She marked it on the photo. That is where
the shell she found was. The other shell was found near the step of the
side door. Both were found along the route they said they saw Oswald take
while he unloaded the gun. I`m not sure how far the second shell was found
from the bushes, but it is more the vicinity of the bushes than it is in
the vicinity of Tippit`s patrol car, where they would have been found if
an automatic was used.

[donald willis]

Gee. Now I don't feel so bad about being called outrageous....

>
> This is the kind of nitpicking you continue to engage in because you have
> no real case to make.

Your grasping is making me feel like I am making my case.

dcw

[donald willis]

And it's more in the vicinity of the bushes than it is in the vicinity of
Albuquerque.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 7:30:32 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Monday, March 29, 2021 at 4:27:13 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

> proceeded toward Patton. Here is a photo of that house:

>
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zoINb3xg5hM/U-FMq7t628I/AAAAAAAA2IE/yNnt-TaLJfY/s1600/Commission-Document-630--(15).jpg
>
> As he was passing those bushes it would be just as accurate to say he was
> in the front yard as it would be to say he was in the side yard and the
> same would be true of any shells that were dumped as he went past those
> bushes. Why on earth would you find significance in the fact that a
> witness would describe that area as being in the side yard and another
> would described it as being in the front yard or that the same witness
> would describe that place as being in the side yard and months later refer
> to it as the front yard? It's the same damn place whether you call it the
> front yard or the side yard.

Yes, this is the point I made numerous times to Don. There's an
overlapping area that can be called the side yard (because it's visible
from the side door) and called the front yard (because it's visible from
the front door).

Don pretty much just danced on past the point.

> Just how would this difference in the
> description of where the shells were found fit into your grand cover up of
> the Tippit murder. Are you claiming these witnesses were pressured to
> changing where they saw Oswad dump the shells from the side yard to the

> front yard. Why? What the hell difference would it make? It's just another
> of you lame attempts to find significance in the most insignificant
> things.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Hilarious. Here you are, not conceding that people are human and make
mistakes, so you're still trying to make sense of a 1000-piece puzzle that
has 900 correct pieces and 100 wrong ones (because of human error). 57+
years later, you're still no closer to a solution than you were when you
first started beating your hobby-horse. You're not getting anywhere, Don.
Your hobby-horse never left the starting gate.

Meanwhile, the Dallas Police, the FBI, the Warren Commission and the HSCA
each examined all 1000 pieces, realized some of them were simply mistakes
that didn't belong to this puzzle, and saw the big picture. It was Oswald,
with the rifle, from the Depository.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

You are. Of course they didn't recover the shells from the bushes.
Benavides did that.

== QUOTE ==

Mr. BELIN - About how long did it take you to locate the shells once you

started looking for them?

Mr. BENAVIDES - Just a minute. I mean not very long at all. Just walked
directly to them.
Mr. BELIN - You saw where he had thrown them?
Mr. BENAVIDES - One of them went down inside of a bush, and the other one
was by the bush.

== UNQUOTE ==

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Ok, Nevermind. I see you got this covered, John.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

You should get an award of some kind for that comeback!

> > >
> > > Mr. BELIN - About how long did it take you to locate the shells once you
> > > stared looking for them?
> > >
> > > Mr. BENAVIDES - Just a minute. I mean not very long at all. Just walked
> > > directly to them.
> > >
> > > Mr. BELIN - You saw where he had thrown them?
> > >
> > > Mr. BENAVIDES - One of them went down inside of a bush, and the other one
> > > was by the bush.

Did everyone notice Don ignored your point here?

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Don is apparently playing hunt the wumpus, uh, conspirators.
He fell into a bottomless pit a long time ago and is still falling.
Because it's bottomless.

[Bud]

That, too.

Think of it this way Don, when I was a younger man, I could stand by
those bushes and hit either shell with a stream of piss, so that makes
them in the same vicinity. These days I`m happy if I can clear my shoes,
but that is a different story...

[John Corbett]

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

[John Corbett]

Don opted to make a big deal of the fact that only one shell actually
landed in the bushes and another nearby as if that really matters. We know
where Oswald was when he emptied the spent shells from his revolver and
the fact he had to empty them is proof positive that a revolver was used
to kill Tippit, not a semi-automatic handgun. Don got fixated on the
erroneous police report that the shooter had used an automatic and refuses
to let go of it no matter how much evidence is presented that refutes that
early report. It's really all he has to go one so he refuses to let it go.
In that regard he is much like Marsh who continues to cling to his
precious acoustical evidence no matter how many ways it has been debunked.

[John Corbett]

We have something else in common.

[donald willis]

That's not quite what she said. That was more counsel Ball than Barbara
D.:

Ball: "Did you later look in the bushes & find something??
Davis: "Yes, IN THE GRASS BESIDE THE HOUSE."

Note that, although she said, Yes, she did not even use the word "bushes".
Trust more in her "under the window", which window was not near the
bushes.

dcw

[John Corbett]

It was Benevides who testified he found two shells, one in the bush and
one next to the bush. Whether the shell Barbara Davis found was actually
in or near the bush is hardly important. The shells were scattered in a
small area near the corner of the house where Oswald was seen dumping
them. The only mystery is why you continue to fixate on the exact location
of where each shell was found.

[Bud]

It is exactly what she said.

"Mr. BALL. In other words, there is a cross you make across the line
that he took which marks the place where he was emptying the gun.

Mrs. DAVIS. Just about halfway there.

Mr. BALL. Mark it also on 21, 534.

Mrs. DAVIS. Not quite half, not quite to the bushes there."

"...not quite to the bushes there"

>That was more counsel Ball than Barbara
> D.:

Stop making things up.

> Ball: "Did you later look in the bushes & find something??
> Davis: "Yes, IN THE GRASS BESIDE THE HOUSE."

That area is the side of the house.

> Note that, although she said, Yes, she did not even use the word "bushes".

She had earlier.

The bushes, the window and the grass beside the house are all the same
small area in that corner of the house.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11029#relPageId=34

It is where she saw Oswald cut across the lawn while removing the spent
shells from his handgun. The reason he shells were empty is because the
slugs were in Tippit`s body. Perhaps if you spend a few more decades
studying this case you might be able to figure out the simple basic facts
about what occurred. I`m not optimistic, either in the time span or the
capability.

> Trust more in her "under the window", which window was not near the
> bushes.

She marked which window in the photo. It is the one that overlooks the
bushes.

> dcw

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

== QUOTE ==
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS

BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of
Texas, on this day personally appeared Barbara Jeanette Davis w/f/22, 400
E. 10th, WH3 8120. Bus: same who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath
deposes and says:

Today November 22, 1963 shortly after 1:00 pm, my sister-in-law, Virginia
Davis, and I were lying on the bed with the kids. I heard a shot and
jumped up and heard another shot. I put on my shoes and went to the door
and I saw this man walking across my front yard unloading a gun. A woman
was standing across the street screaming that "he shot him, he killed him"
and pointed towards a police car. That is the first time I noticed a
police car there. I ran back in the house and called the operator and
reported this to the police. When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of
them where I saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell. After the
police had left I went back into the yard and Virginia found another shell
which I turned over to the police. About 8:00 pm the same day, the police
came after me and took me downtown to the city hall where I saw this man
in a lineup. The #2 man in a 4-man lineup was the same man I saw in my
yard, also the one that was unloading the gun.

/s/ Barbara Jeanette Davis

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963

/s/ Mary Rattan
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== UNQUOTE ==

[donald willis]

Okay, I misread that. Ball said "emptying". I was thinking "dropping
shells on the ground". Barbara D did not testify that the suspect was
"dropping" shells in the front yard.

>
> "...not quite to the bushes there"
> >That was more counsel Ball than Barbara
> > D.:
> Stop making things up.
> > Ball: "Did you later look in the bushes & find something??
> > Davis: "Yes, IN THE GRASS BESIDE THE HOUSE."
> That area is the side of the house.
> > Note that, although she said, Yes, she did not even use the word "bushes".
> She had earlier.
>
> The bushes, the window and the grass beside the house are all the same
> small area in that corner of the house.

The window below which a shell was found was on the SIDE of the house.

>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11029#relPageId=34
>
> It is where she saw Oswald cut across the lawn while removing the spent
> shells from his handgun. The reason he shells were empty is because the
> slugs were in Tippit`s body. Perhaps if you spend a few more decades
> studying this case you might be able to figure out the simple basic facts
> about what occurred. I`m not optimistic, either in the time span or the
> capability.
> > Trust more in her "under the window", which window was not near the
> > bushes.
> She marked which window in the photo. It is the one that overlooks the
> bushes.
>

I don't see that mark.

dcw

[donald willis]

I hadn't realized that the only yard Barbara D here mentions is the "front
yard"-- she seems to be saying that BOTH shells were found in the front
yard. The only referent we have for "back into the yard" and "where I saw
this man emptying his gun" is the "front yard". Thanks, Hank! Barbara D
changed her story re the finding of BOTH shells for her testimony.

dcw

[John Corbett]

Don continues to focus on all the wrong stuff.

You need to up your game, Don. With Marsh seeming to have checked out,
you're the only regular left on the CT side.

[Bud]

She didn`t say she physically saw shells fall, only the action of
unloading. She found a shell near the area she saw him unloading, so the
inference can be made. They weren`t found where they would have been had
an automatic been used to kill Tippit so that idea is completely
discredited.

> >
> > "...not quite to the bushes there"
> > >That was more counsel Ball than Barbara
> > > D.:
> > Stop making things up.
> > > Ball: "Did you later look in the bushes & find something??
> > > Davis: "Yes, IN THE GRASS BESIDE THE HOUSE."
> > That area is the side of the house.
> > > Note that, although she said, Yes, she did not even use the word "bushes".
> > She had earlier.
> >
> > The bushes, the window and the grass beside the house are all the same
> > small area in that corner of the house.
> The window below which a shell was found was on the SIDE of the house.

No. The area she is talking about is that side of the house from the
front door. She marked which window.

The problem is that there wasn`t a good photo of that area to work from.
They said as much when questioning Barbara Davis...

Mrs. DAVIS. I was standing on the porch.
Mr. BALL. Put an "X" there.
Mrs. DAVIS. I can't see the porch. The door is right between these two
things here.
Mr. BALL. These two things--what do you mean?
Mrs. DAVIS. Between the two posts.
Mr. BALL. Two posts?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Let's get a better view.
Mr. DULLES. It seems to be the best.
Mr. BALL. You are right.

> > https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11029#relPageId=34
> >
> > It is where she saw Oswald cut across the lawn while removing the spent
> > shells from his handgun. The reason he shells were empty is because the
> > slugs were in Tippit`s body. Perhaps if you spend a few more decades
> > studying this case you might be able to figure out the simple basic facts
> > about what occurred. I`m not optimistic, either in the time span or the
> > capability.
> > > Trust more in her "under the window", which window was not near the
> > > bushes.
> > She marked which window in the photo. It is the one that overlooks the
> > bushes.
> >
> I don't see that mark.

Look again, it is in CE532...

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1134#relPageId=260

You see the car to the left? You see the rear windshield of that car?
Look up from there. Another way to find it is there are 5 sets of posts
holding up the porch roof, the arrow is between the second and third post.

You can slide the view using the bar at the bottom. The line across the
law is the route she saw Oswald walk, the x is where she saw him emptying
the gun of the shells he killed Tippit with.

> dcw

[Bud]

You are never going to be able to figure out these simple things if you
insist on confusing yourself like this.

>Thanks, Hank! Barbara D
> changed her story re the finding of BOTH shells for her testimony.

She didn`t say she found both shells in her testimony.

> dcw

[donald willis]

Well, at least I've left YOU way behind in the dust....

With Marsh seeming to have checked out,
> you're the only regular left on the CT side.

Well, I guess it's my duty now to continue....

dcw

[John Corbett]

Unfortunately for you, you're heading in the wrong direction.

> With Marsh seeming to have checked out,
> > you're the only regular left on the CT side.

> Well, I guess it's my duty now to continue....

I will admit, you post enough silliness for a small army of CTs.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Continue, fine.

However, bear in mind nobody is asking you to carry on Marsh's tradition
of making up stuff.

Marsh did enough of that for two lifetimes:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/B4LEwr3APlE/m/ovrIVCK5GAAJ

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

CE532 is the top photo on the page, the photo from the inside of the car.

>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1134#relPageId=260
>
> You see the car to the left? You see the rear windshield of that car?
> Look up from there. Another way to find it is there are 5 sets of posts
> holding up the porch roof, the arrow is between the second and third post.
>
> You can slide the view using the bar at the bottom. The line across the
> law is the route she saw Oswald walk, the x is where she saw him emptying
> the gun of the shells he killed Tippit with.

That looks and sounds ike a description of the bottom photo on the page,
CE534.


>
> > dcw

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

I just have a few questions. Most can be answered with a simply yes or no.

1. Wouldn't that front yard be too far for the shells from an automatic to
be ejected?

2. Didn't she say she saw the man "unloading a gun" and then "emptying his
gun"?

3. Didn't you claim she was part of the coverup on 11/22/63?

4. Shouldn't she have found the shells much closer to the police car if an
automatic was used?

5. Did any known witness you can name (and produce and quote) say an
automatic was used?

6. Aren't the only references to an automatic from two hearsay police
radio calls?

7. Didn't numerous other witnesses say the gunman was fiddling with his
weapon, trying to unload or reload it?

8. Aren't the shells in evidence from a revolver, not an automatic?

9. Wasn't Oswald arrested in the theatre after slugging a cop and
attempting to pull his revolver on that cop?

10. Aren't the shells in evidence traceable to Oswald's revolver to the
exclusion of all other weapons in the world?

11. Wasn't Oswald arrested with the same two brands of bullets as the
found shells?

12. Didn't Oswald's revolver contain the same two brands of bullets as the
found shell?

13. Didn't numerous witnesses identify Oswald as the gunman in police
lineups that evening and the next day?

14. Wouldn't that much evidence be enough to convict anyone who wasn't
named Oswald?

15. Isn't it evident by now you don't have a case for Oswald's innocence?

Hank