On Friday, February 12, 2021 at 12:14:19 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 6:17:13 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 6:56:07 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 10, 2021 at 11:17:45 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, February 10, 2021 at 5:51:26 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > Was W.W. Scoggins the only witness at 10th and Patton who actually saw Tippit's killer?
> > > > >
> > > > > Question: Why would Officer J.D. Tippit's killer run more or less west on Jefferson, AWAY, quite logically, from the scene of the crime, then do a 180 turn, heading back more or less east in the alley, towards the two old houses/stores, TOWARDS the scene of the crime? (illustration featuring the houses p90 "With Malice") This is what Warren Reynolds would have us believe. We have a frame grab from film footage of Reynolds as he tells a policeman that the "gunman went into the rear of the used furniture store seen in the background." (WM caption p131)
> > > > Because people who commit crimes are always thinking clearly and don't try
> > > > to throw the police off the trail by taking any kind of zig-zag route in
> > > > an effort to elude capture where you live, right?
> > > >
> > > > The hard evidence indicates Oswald shot Tippit. The rest is just diversion
> > > > by you. "If I was the suspect I wouldn't have done this, I would have done
> > > > that" doesn't change the evidence any.
> > You ignored this entirely.
> So you want me to repeat that the "hard evidence" was processed by those
> (like Capt. Fritz) behind the assassinations.
No, you misunderstand my argument. I don't want you to repeat your
allegations, speculations and prior arguments.
I want you to prove your allegations speculations and prior arguments. You
need to prove (not allege, speculate and argue) that Fritz was behind the
assassination. You haven't done that. Your posts to that end fall woefully
short of anything approaching proof. And we both know it.
> >
> > Your arguments about what you would have done or what you would expect the
> > suspect to have done are meaningless.
> Well, I'm glad you admit that the suspect (not Oswald) was last seen by
> Reynolds going into the back of a furniture store/house. No zig or zag,
> though--he was most probably running down the alley from Patton, and just
> had to turn to his left.
What? Don't play games. At no time did I say Oswald was not the suspect.
At no time did I suggest the suspect was last seen by Reynolds going into
the back of a furniture store/house. I simply reminded you that criminals
sometimes do things we least expect and in hindsight might not find
reasonable. That is no reason to discard the witness statements.
> People who commit crimes typically
> > don't have time to reflect on what they've done in that instant and always
> > choose - in retrospect - the best flight plan or means of escape? What
> > person other than Oswald had the murder weapon used to kill Tippit on his
> > person when arrested? Anyone?
> Again, Fritz & co were the ones who handled the "murder weapon"....
Again, short of proof that Fritz had anything to do with the assassination
(as a conspirator), your argument reduces to the standard conspiracy
argument that the evidence against 'poor innocent Oswald' is all planted
to frame him. Sorry, you should know that argument by itself is not
persuasive, and you know the arguments you've advanced for Fritz
involvement are not persuasive either (else we'd be persuaded by now).
> >
> > Your suppositions - in hindsight - about twhat the suspect should have
> > done don't amount to anything.
> > > > >
> > > > > It would make sense, be more logical, if Reynolds' suspect was running west in the ALLEY and, halfway down, ducked into the back of one of the houses just off the alley. No backtracking.
Nobody cares what you find the more reasonably and logical route for the
suspect to take. It is meaningless.
> The fact that Reynolds told the cops that he last saw the man going into the old house was never again mentioned by him--he simply told the Warren Commission that the suspect "went behind the station, and that is when I lost him" (7/22/64 testimony)--and the Commission was apparently not granted access to the film footage. Not surprising: The film-documented Reynolds-and-the-old-house story all but negates the story told by Pat Patterson, Harold Russell, L.J. Lewis, and, later, Reynolds himself--that the suspect the four had seen had turned off Patton St. and onto Jefferson, not into the alley.
Did Reynolds tell the cops that? That is Myers supposition, not a proven
fact. Does it matter? No. We've already addressed changes of stories a
multitude of times. You treat each change as evidence of coverup and
suggest that means the witness was doing this to aid in the coverup. But
you never eliminate more commonplace reasons like the witness simply
didn't want to admit they were wrong.
. . . deleted scenes available in the director's cut ...
> > > > > Cab driver W.W. Scoggins appears to have had a personal interest in catching Tippit's killer: "I wasn't paying too much attention to the man [in the police car], you see, just used to see him every day." (v3p325) As noted, their belated response to the shooting indicated that L.J. Lewis and Virginia Davis saw only a fellow witness chasing the killer from 10th St. to the alley, most likely Croy's "cab driver [who] had picked up Tippit's gun... and attempted to give chase." (Burt--who was in a house at the intersection of 9th & Denver when he heard two shots--obviously, like Lewis, got to the scene too late to see the shooter.)
> > >
> > > > Whoa, big fella. You're getting off into twilight zone territory now.
> > > > Virginia Davis saw the man empty his revolver and said so on 11/22/63:
> > > >
> > > >
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
> > > >
> > > > "We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to the side door at Patton
> > > > Street. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his
> > > > gun."
> > > Ironic that you should use a quote from Virginia Davis which undercuts
> > > your own argument. If she saw the perp "unloading his gun", about 1:15,
> > > why did it take her & the cops until about 2pm to find a shell there?
>
>
>
> > Forty five minutes is an excessive amount of time to interview all the
> > witnesses and start collecting the evidence in your world?
> You're presupposing that "all the witnesses" would have been interviewed
> before the search for evidence would have "started".
Nope. I'm pointing out your argument that the shells should have been
found prior to 2pm is unproven and is merely used as a pretext to
eliminate Virginia Davis' 11/22/63 statement which alone eliminates
Scoggins as the man seen by witnesses with the weapon. I'm pointing out
that your allegation that 45 minutes is an excessive amount of time is
simply stated as true, and no citations to anything regarding police
procedures and investigatory practices were given, alluded to, or even
hinted at. You merely decided 45 minutes from the commission of the crime
to the gathering of evidence was too much for you to accept, and expect us
to accept it as well. Tell us of your years of experience in law
enforcement again, and remind us how you know what you claim.
> And the search would
> have taken about 2 minutes if you accept Davis's affidavit. She said she
> saw him emptying the gun in the side yard.
Okay, so given you say the shells were found at 2pm,. then the search
would have started at 1:58 pm. Remind us of the evidence that indicates
the search started sooner than that. Remind us what your point is, because
the shells Davis saw were found, and they were proven to come from the gun
taken from Oswald in the theatre.
> You must live
> > on a different planet from where I live. Seriously. How long do you think
> > it should have taken to talk to the two Davis girls and then find the
> > shell? Why? Justify your answer.
> Again, you're presupposing....
No, I'm pointing out you're playing a shell game here. I'm asking you to
answer the question I asked ("How long do you think it should have taken
to talk to the two Davis girls and then find the shell?") and justify the
answer with evidence. You claim 45 minutes is excessive. What's the
maximum number of minutes that's not excessive?
Since it appears from here you're going to argue no amount of time is the
correct answer (because Fritz), it likewise appears from here you are
bound to reject the evidence because it points to Oswald, not Scoggins,
regardless of anything I say. If that's the case, then I will point out
that if your arguments are not evidence-based but are bound instead by
your overarching belief in Oswald's innocence, then there's nothing I can
say that you won't reject.
No, calling it desperate doesn't make it desperate. You are here arguing
merely that the way you see things is the way everyone should see things.
You offer nothing to support the way you see things. I am merely pointing
out your arguments are unproven, and pointing out what you perceive as
glitches in the matrix don't rise to the level of proof necessary to
establish Oswald's innocence. You are simply throwing out arguments, and
expecting other to disprove them, rather than proving them. That is the
logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. I bear no burden of
disproof, you bear the burden of proof.
Moreover, Virginia Davis did this several places. Belin asks what SHE saw
and did. She answers throughout with the plural 'we', speaking for herself
and her sister (or sister-in-law, the record is unclear on that and it may
actually be both):
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you got to the front door? Did you open
the front door, or not?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir; we just looked through the front door.
...
Mr. BELIN. Were you looking through the screen door, or was the screen
door partially open, if you remember.
Mrs. DAVIS. It was closed. We was looking through it.
...
Mr. BELIN. What did you see when you looked through the screen door?
Mrs. DAVIS. We saw a boy walking, cutting across our yard.
== UNQUOTE ==
> > > And, yet, in her
> > > testimony, BJ sez she did not see the man actually drop a shell.
> > Maybe she was looking at Markham at that instant.
> So you're saying that the suspect did drop a shell in the front yard,
> Barbara Davis just didn't see that?
I am pointing out your burden isn't met. There is an wealth of evidence
that your scenario that Davis saw Scoggins is wrong and Virginia Davis
actually saw Oswald (she described the man she saw as young (Scoggins was
49), brown hair, no cap (Scoggins had a cap), slender (Scoggins was not
slender), wearing a jacket, the shells found at the scene match the
revolver taken off Oswald after he attempted to shoot an officer in the
theatre, Oswald was seen donning a jacket at about one pm north of the
Tippit murder site, and seen again at about 1:30pm south of the Tippit
murder site (without a jacket) and a jacket was found abandoned in the
parking lot, as if the killer was trying to change his appearance. There
is a witness (Mary Brock) that puts Oswald in the parking lot.
> > You don't know exactly
> > where she was looking, but you attempt to drive a wedge between her and
> > her sister's testimony where none necessarily exists.
Barbara too on 11/22/63 said she saw a man unloading a gun:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm
== QUOTE ==
I saw this man walking across my front yard unloading a gun.
== UNQUOTE ==
She affirmed that in her testimony:
== QUOTE ==
Mrs. DAVIS. Mrs. Markham standing across the street over there, and she was
standing over there and the man was coming across the yard.
Mr. BALL. A man was coming across what yard?
Mrs. DAVIS. My yard.
Mr. BALL. And what did you see the man doing?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, first off she went to screaming before I had paid too
much attention to him, and pointing at him, and he was, what I thought,
was emptying the gun.
Mr. BALL. He had a gun in his hand?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And he was emptying it?
Mrs. DAVIS. It was open and he had his hands cocked like he was emptying it.
...
Mr. DULLES. Did you know at the time he was emptying his gun?
Mrs. DAVIS. That is what I presumed because he had it open and was shaking
it.
== UNQUOTE ==
So Barbara also saw the man emptying the gun, she just didn't see him
discard a shell. Did Scoggins empty Tippit's gun? Could she have seen
Scoggins, or did she see Oswald?
She specifically eliminates Scoggins here (and note the editorial 'we' when
talking of her actions concerning the shell):
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BALL. Did you see a man coming and get the policeman's gun?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, I didn't.
Mr. BALL. Did you later look in the bushes and find something?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes; in the grass beside the house.
Mr. BALL. The grass beside the house. What did you find?
Mrs. DAVIS. We found one shell.
Mr. BALL. One shell?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
== UNQUOTE ==
And she picked Oswald out of a lineup about 8pm at night as the man she saw:
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BALL. When those--how many men were shown to you in this lineup?
Mrs. DAVIS. Four.
Mr. BALL. Were they of the same size or of different sizes?
Mrs. DAVIS. Most of them was about the same size.
Mr. BALL. All white men, were they?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in that room?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.
Mr. BALL. Number 2 you recognized? Did you tell any policeman there anything
after you recognized them?
Mrs. DAVIS. I told the man who had brought us down there.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him
Mrs. DAVIS. That I thought number 2 was the man that I saw.
Mr. BALL. That you saw?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. By number 2, was the man you saw the man you saw doing what?
Mrs. DAVIS. Unloading the gun.
Mr. BALL. And going across your yard?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
== UNQUOTE ==
The evidence indicates Virginia and Barbara Davis saw Oswald with the gun,
not Scoggins.
> >
> > > Try
> > > another quote!
> >
> > Why? The same-day affidavit and Warren Commission testimony of Davis alone
> > destroys your "Scoggins was mistaken for the shooter" scenario. You think
> > anything she said means she saw the 49-year-old Scoggins walking away with
> > a gun?
> In that testimony, she says, many times, that they called the cops, THEN
> saw the suspect. Nice of him to wait around for them to call the cops on
> him! Brilliant figuring, Hank....
The logical fallacy of a straw argument by you. I never suggested he
waited around for them to make a phone call. Try rebutting the points I
actually make, and not the ones you wish I made.
This doesn't put Scoggins in position to be the young slender man she saw.
But on 11/22/63, she mentioned the man emptying his weapon and discarding
shells prior to Markham standing over the body and screaming. She didn't
mis-remember that.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
== QUOTE ==
We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to the side door at Patton
Street. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun.
We walked outside and a woman was hollering "he's dead, he's dead, he's
shot".
== UNQUOTE ==
Obviously, six months or more after the assassination, she perhaps
remembered the order of some things incorrectly. So what? But in her
testimony here, she says she called after Markham shouted that.
== QUOTE ==
Mrs. DAVIS. When Mrs. Markham was standing across the street hollering,
she told us to call the police, so Jeanette and I went in there, and
Jeanette called the police and we went back and he was cutting across our
yard, and we gave him time to go on because we were afraid he might shoot
us.
== UNQUOTE ==
So she saw the young slender man with brown hair wearing a jacket discard
a shell, heard Markham screaming, and then called the cops. In that order.
Hank