Was. W.W. Scoggins the only witness at 10th and Patton who actually

505 views
Skip to first unread message

donald willis

unread,
Feb 10, 2021, 5:51:26 AMFeb 10
to
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)

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. 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.

An FBI interview (1/21/64 WM p547) with Lewis and an 8/26/64 affidavit (hearings v15p703) by Lewis correcting that interview shed some light on the man whom the four saw. In the interview, Lewis states that he saw a "white male... running south on Patton", then "called the DPD". In the affidavit, he makes "clarifications": "Upon hearing the shots... I immediately called the DPD.... There was so much confusion at the DPD end of the telephone conversation, they were having trouble making out what I was telling them. A FEW MINUTES LATER, I observed a white male... running south on Patton...."

Pretty clearly, Lewis' clarification indicates that the person he was watching was not Tippit's killer, nor a second gunman. The few-minute time delay indicates, rather, that the person whom Lewis saw was simply a fellow witness chasing the killer. Lewis was too late to see the latter. Lewis's affidavit reflects a similar time delay evidenced in witness Virginia Davis' Commission testimony: "Jeanette [her sister-in-law] called the police, and we went back, and [the suspect] was cutting across our yard" (v6p457). She reiterates this sequence a total of at least 10 times before counsel (David Belin) finally gets her to reverse it (p467)! Oh, too late, David. The damage is done. Virginia Davis was also too late to have seen the killer. Belin, however, satisfied (he got what he wanted), doesn't ask her again about sequencing....

A letter of information from Patrolmen J.M. Poe and L.E. Jez to Chief Curry, on 11/22/63, states, "There were approximately six to eight witnesses, all telling officers that the subject was running WEST IN THE ALLEY between 10th and Jefferson." (WM p487) Poe and Jez make reference to two of these "6 to 8" alley-suspect witnesses: Mrs. Markham and Domingo Benavides. In his Commission testimony, Poe further includes a third, "one of [the two Davis girls]" (v7p69), as among those aforementioned six or so witnesses to whom he spoke that afternoon. In all likelihood, this was Virginia Davis, who also let slip in her testimony, "We saw the boy cutting across the STREET". (v6p460) This street could only have been Patton, off which was the alley. In her 11/22/63 affidavit, she stated that she and her sister-in-law "heard a shot and then another shot and ran to side door at Patton Street". Virginia Davis was one of the Poe-Jez "west in the alley" witnesses. If her sister-in-law was, too, she was, at any rate, apparently not one of the Poe-Jez witnesses.

At the Commission hearings, Mrs. Markham said only that she last saw the suspect headed down Patton ("toward Jefferson"). But on 12/2/63, 10th Street resident Frank Cimino told the FBI that she had told him that she saw a man "run west on 10th Street and pointed in the direction of an alley which runs between 10th St. & Jefferson off Patton St." (WM p538) DPD Sgt. Pete Barnes' crime-scene sketch (WM p161) charts a path from Tippit's car on 10th to Patton to the alley ("210 ft" from 10th to the alley), and he notes, "W on alley to Crawford". The only witness shown in film footage taken at the crime scene with Barnes is... Mrs. Markham (WM pp154, 155). And, as Dale Myers writes, "In later years, Markham stated the killer cut across the SW corner of 10th & Patton & fled west down the alley between Patton [Myers apparently meant "10th"] & Jefferson" (p216). And in an interview posted on YouTube by "JFK 63 conspiracy", Mrs. Markham herself says that "he run [sic] off across the field... went over the fence and down the alley".

The third Poe-Jez witness, Benavides, like Virginia Davis, told the Commission that he was on 10th St. & thus could not have seen where the suspect went after he disappeared around the corner of the Davis residence at 10th & Patton. But the Poe-Jez report creates a little ambiguity here, and an 11/22/63 supplementary offense report by Dets. Leavelle & Dhority states that Benavides "did not see the suspect" (WM p449). More ambiguity. Benavides did little to clear up the latter--he made no affidavits, statements, or interview reports until his Commission testimony. For whatever reasons, he was a blank slate when, finally, he talked to the Commission.

The first take of another witness, Jimmy Burt, in a 12/15/63 interview with the FBI, states that "he ran to the intersection of 10th & Patton and when he was close enough to Patton to see to the south HE SAW THE MAN RUNNING INTO AN ALLEY located between 10th & Jefferson."

We can now tentatively name six of the Poe-Jez/alley witnesses: Mrs. Markham, Virginia Davis, Domingo Benavides, Jimmy Burt, L.J. Lewis, and Warren Reynolds. We don't know the real stories of Russell, Patterson, and Barbara Jeanette Davis. Although--if Patterson was with Reynolds, as the former maintained, and another witness, William J. Smith, was with Burt, as the former maintained--then Patterson and Smith were the last two Poe-Jez witnesses.

The next (answerable) question, Who was the man these six saw chasing the killer? Our first clues come from the Commission testimony of DPD Sgt. Kenneth Croy: "There was a report that a cab driver had picked up Tippit's gun and had left, presumably. They don't know whether he was the one that had shot Tippit.... Anyway, he saw it and he picked up Tippit's gun and attempted to give chase or something like that." (v12p201) Croy had apparently heard conflicting reports re Scoggins' role in the mystery, but seemed to settle more on Scoggins as vigilante rather than as killer.

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.)

Did Scoggins himself see the perp run down the alley and through the old house and onto Jefferson, or did he see the man run directly up Patton to Jefferson? He told the Commission only that he last saw him "going south on Patton" (v3p326). But on 11/23/63, he told the FBI that the "last time he saw this man was when he was going down Jefferson". If the latter statement is correct, then Scoggins apparently took the alley as a short cut, and switched from the alley to Jefferson when he reached the old house. No wonder Reynolds and the police could find no one still in the house when they got there.

What would have been the reason for the Dallas police to rewrite the Scoggins story? To get the six to eight witnesses to change their own stories? For one thing, the police clearly really wanted only one headline story, Lee Harvey Oswald's. They didn't want the presence of a second suspect to "confuse" matters. For another, they didn't want to lose lineup eyewitnesses Mrs. Markham, Virginia Davis, and Scoggins himself.

The primacy of W.W. Scoggins. However, the main reason that Scoggins' story had to be deep-sixed was a more-encompassing one. The usual picture of the 10th & Patton area of Oak Cliff about 1:15pm, on November 22nd, 1963--when Tippit was apparently shot--was of a neighborhood crawling with witnesses to the murder and the murderer. True, the sound of the shots seemed to bring out everyone, but most of the witnesses seemed to have been brought out just a tad too late to have caught sight of the actual shooter.

The only person who I'm relatively sure actually saw the shooter in the immediate, 10th-and-Patton vicinity was Scoggins. Yes, there are a few other possible witnesses, including two whom I have not yet mentioned, Sam Guinyard and Ted Callaway, though the latter gave no indication of having seen the man, in his superfluous 1:20 police-radio advisory: "This police officer's just shot. I think he's dead." (CE 1974 p56) Harold Russell, too, was a possible witness of the shooter at 10th & Patton. But Scoggins was virtually the only certain one. The streets of Tenth and Patton were, most likely, not quite so populated as advertised, around 1:15pm, before the shooting--many of the citizens of Oak Cliff were no doubt inside their homes and offices following the fast-breaking events in Dealey Plaza, glued to their radios and television sets, and did not get outside that quickly. They couldn't know that news was happening just outside. too.

I realize that all the witnesses who actually just saw Scoggins (or, like, perhaps, Callaway, saw no one) had to be transformed, somehow, into witnesses not just of the actual shooter, but of Oswald, no small task since the two men did not resemble one another, physically, in the least. But Homicide Capt. Fritz was intent on getting "witnesses over for identification just as soon as [his men] could" (WM p207). And he did not seem to be fussy about how exactly they were processed. Main case in point: Scoggins.

On one front, the DPD had Scoggins downplay his own role in the broader story. In his Commission testimony, he first states that he abruptly left the Tippit scene about 1:24 because the police "talked with everybody else [but] didn't ask [him]" to give them a statement (v3p331). This is the version which Dale Myers parrots, or quotes, in "With Malice", page 119. However, later in his testimony, Scoggins contradicts this part of his testimony when he tells Allen Dulles that, after he had "got in the car" with Callaway "and toured the neighborhood, and then the policemen came along... I left my cab setting there and got in a car with them and left the scene...." (p337)

FBI agent Robert Barrett fortuitously confirmed the revised Scoggins version in a 1996 interview with Myers when he noted that, when he arrived at the Tippit scene, at 1:42, "he parked across from Scoggins' cab near 10th & Patton". 1:42, not 1:24. This particular instance of the methodical downsizing of Scoggins' role (here, specifically, a ride with the cops to the area where he and Callaway, in Scoggins' cab, lost track of the killer) was most critical: The fact that Scoggins went with the police, earlier that afternoon, makes it doubly strange that he did not go with them to one of the three lineups that evening. Fritz may have gotten him "over for identification", on Friday, but Scoggins did not then actually provide him with the hoped-for identification of the man who supposedly killed the man that Scoggins "used to see every day".

The DPD also, apparently, did not want it generally acknowledged that Scoggins last saw the shooter "going down Jefferson". For reasons which will become obvious, they seemed to prefer to have Patrolman Howell W. Summers' 1:37 ".32 dark finish automatic pistol" transmission (DPD radio logs) handled by Ted Callaway, who handily explained away the "automatic" reference as his own error, based on his seeing the suspect's "hand... going toward the butt of the gun, like the way you'd load an automatic." (WM p78) Summers had, further, radioed that his witness last saw the man "running on the north side of the street from Patton on Jefferson..." (CE 1974 p74)--which description of the escape route would seem to have eliminated, as his source, Scoggins (who initially testified that he last saw the subject "going down Patton"). Unless you are enterprising enough to read the whole of Scoggins' testimony.

Scoggins did not explicitly say whether he thought that the murder weapon was an automatic or a revolver, but he did tell David Belin that the "three or four" shots "was [sic] fast". Belin: They were fast shots?" Scoggins: "Yes, they were fast." (v3p324) Semi-automatic pistols typically deliver faster rates of fire than revolvers. Scoggins chased after the killer three times within the space of a half hour--first by foot, then by cab, then by cop car. Yet it then took him some 24 hours to make his ID of the killer... of the man that, as he testified, he "used to see every day". The disconnect!

dcw

John Corbett

unread,
Feb 10, 2021, 2:17:39 PMFeb 10
to
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)
>

How can a frame grab tell us what a person is saying.

> 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. 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.

You are assuming much that is not in evidence. Various people saw Oswald
at different places on his escape route. Which one said they saw him going
east in alley?
You spent a whole lot of time demonstrating that witnesses give
conflicting accounts of the same event. That is the norm in any event.
People get details wrong and their accounts often don't jibe with one
another. Why would you think that would be any different in this
particular case?

All of this is a lame attempt to divert attention from the fact that
Oswald was the guy most of these witnesses identified as the man they saw
either shooting Tippit or fleeing the scene with a gun in his hand, a gun
he still had in his possession when arrested a short time later, a gun
that was positively matched to the shells discarded by Tippit's killer as
he fled the scene. IOW, you are wasting your time with this nonsense. But
that's what conspiracy hobbyists have been doing for 57 years so there is
no reason to stop now.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 10, 2021, 2:17:45 PMFeb 10
to
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.


>
> 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. 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.
>
> An FBI interview (1/21/64 WM p547) with Lewis and an 8/26/64 affidavit (hearings v15p703) by Lewis correcting that interview shed some light on the man whom the four saw. In the interview, Lewis states that he saw a "white male... running south on Patton", then "called the DPD". In the affidavit, he makes "clarifications": "Upon hearing the shots... I immediately called the DPD.... There was so much confusion at the DPD end of the telephone conversation, they were having trouble making out what I was telling them. A FEW MINUTES LATER, I observed a white male... running south on Patton...."
>
> Pretty clearly, Lewis' clarification indicates that the person he was watching was not Tippit's killer, nor a second gunman. The few-minute time delay indicates, rather, that the person whom Lewis saw was simply a fellow witness chasing the killer. Lewis was too late to see the latter. Lewis's affidavit reflects a similar time delay evidenced in witness Virginia Davis' Commission testimony: "Jeanette [her sister-in-law] called the police, and we went back, and [the suspect] was cutting across our yard" (v6p457). She reiterates this sequence a total of at least 10 times before counsel (David Belin) finally gets her to reverse it (p467)! Oh, too late, David. The damage is done. Virginia Davis was also too late to have seen the killer. Belin, however, satisfied (he got what he wanted), doesn't ask her again about sequencing....
>
> A letter of information from Patrolmen J.M. Poe and L.E. Jez to Chief Curry, on 11/22/63, states, "There were approximately six to eight witnesses, all telling officers that the subject was running WEST IN THE ALLEY between 10th and Jefferson." (WM p487) Poe and Jez make reference to two of these "6 to 8" alley-suspect witnesses: Mrs. Markham and Domingo Benavides. In his Commission testimony, Poe further includes a third, "one of [the two Davis girls]" (v7p69), as among those aforementioned six or so witnesses to whom he spoke that afternoon. In all likelihood, this was Virginia Davis, who also let slip in her testimony, "We saw the boy cutting across the STREET". (v6p460) This street could only have been Patton, off which was the alley. In her 11/22/63 affidavit, she stated that she and her sister-in-law "heard a shot and then another shot and ran to side door at Patton Street". Virginia Davis was one of the Poe-Jez "west in the alley" witnesses. If her sister-in-law was, too, she was, at any rate, apparently not one of the Poe-Jez witnesses.
>
> At the Commission hearings, Mrs. Markham said only that she last saw the suspect headed down Patton ("toward Jefferson"). But on 12/2/63, 10th Street resident Frank Cimino told the FBI that she had told him that she saw a man "run west on 10th Street and pointed in the direction of an alley which runs between 10th St. & Jefferson off Patton St." (WM p538) DPD Sgt. Pete Barnes' crime-scene sketch (WM p161) charts a path from Tippit's car on 10th to Patton to the alley ("210 ft" from 10th to the alley), and he notes, "W on alley to Crawford". The only witness shown in film footage taken at the crime scene with Barnes is... Mrs. Markham (WM pp154, 155). And, as Dale Myers writes, "In later years, Markham stated the killer cut across the SW corner of 10th & Patton & fled west down the alley between Patton [Myers apparently meant "10th"] & Jefferson" (p216). And in an interview posted on YouTube by "JFK 63 conspiracy", Mrs. Markham herself says that "he run [sic] off across the field... went over the fence and down the alley".
>
> The third Poe-Jez witness, Benavides, like Virginia Davis, told the Commission that he was on 10th St. & thus could not have seen where the suspect went after he disappeared around the corner of the Davis residence at 10th & Patton. But the Poe-Jez report creates a little ambiguity here, and an 11/22/63 supplementary offense report by Dets. Leavelle & Dhority states that Benavides "did not see the suspect" (WM p449). More ambiguity. Benavides did little to clear up the latter--he made no affidavits, statements, or interview reports until his Commission testimony. For whatever reasons, he was a blank slate when, finally, he talked to the Commission.
>
> The first take of another witness, Jimmy Burt, in a 12/15/63 interview with the FBI, states that "he ran to the intersection of 10th & Patton and when he was close enough to Patton to see to the south HE SAW THE MAN RUNNING INTO AN ALLEY located between 10th & Jefferson."
>
> We can now tentatively name six of the Poe-Jez/alley witnesses: Mrs. Markham, Virginia Davis, Domingo Benavides, Jimmy Burt, L.J. Lewis, and Warren Reynolds. We don't know the real stories of Russell, Patterson, and Barbara Jeanette Davis. Although--if Patterson was with Reynolds, as the former maintained, and another witness, William J. Smith, was with Burt, as the former maintained--then Patterson and Smith were the last two Poe-Jez witnesses.
>
> The next (answerable) question, Who was the man these six saw chasing the killer? Our first clues come from the Commission testimony of DPD Sgt. Kenneth Croy: "There was a report that a cab driver had picked up Tippit's gun and had left, presumably. They don't know whether he was the one that had shot Tippit.... Anyway, he saw it and he picked up Tippit's gun and attempted to give chase or something like that." (v12p201) Croy had apparently heard conflicting reports re Scoggins' role in the mystery, but seemed to settle more on Scoggins as vigilante rather than as killer.
>
> 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."

Those shells recovered were tracable to Oswald's weapon, not Tippit.
Nobody said they saw Tippit shoot, so they couldn't be from Tippit's
weapon. And there'd be no reason for Scoggins to empty Tippit's weapon to
reload it.

As always, you clutch onto a theory despite all the conflicting evidence
that is shouting from the rooftops that you're wrong.

19efppp

unread,
Feb 10, 2021, 9:11:02 PMFeb 10
to
On Wednesday, February 10, 2021 at 5:51:26 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
Did Myers ever ask Scoggins why he and Callaway searched north of 10th
street to look for a suspect who had run south to Jefferson?

donald willis

unread,
Feb 10, 2021, 9:11:16 PMFeb 10
to
On Wednesday, February 10, 2021 at 11:17:39 AM UTC-8, John Corbett 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)
> >
> How can a frame grab tell us what a person is saying.
> > 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. 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.
> You are assuming much that is not in evidence. Various people saw Oswald
> at different places on his escape route. Which one said they saw him going
> east in alley?

If he was spotted first going past the Texaco station (by the Brocks),
then last seen (by Reynolds) by the old houses, then he was going more or
less east.
Canned response #4. Try looking at "this particular case"....

>
> All of this is a lame attempt to divert attention from the fact that
> Oswald was the guy most of these witnesses identified as the man they saw
> either shooting Tippit or fleeing the scene

Yeah--he split himself in two and ran down the alley and Jefferson, at the
same time. Nice.

dcw

John Corbett

unread,
Feb 11, 2021, 6:55:53 AMFeb 11
to
What I have stated is a well known fact. This particular case is no
different in that regard than any other. Would you expect the witnesses in
this case to be somehow more observant or have clearer memories than
witnesses in every other case.

> >
> > All of this is a lame attempt to divert attention from the fact that
> > Oswald was the guy most of these witnesses identified as the man they saw
> > either shooting Tippit or fleeing the scene

> Yeah--he split himself in two and ran down the alley and Jefferson, at the
> same time. Nice.
>

The fact that you think that would be necessary speaks volumes.

donald willis

unread,
Feb 11, 2021, 6:56:04 AMFeb 11
to
A very good question. But I don't think it could have been directed at
Myers. Scoggins died in the early 90s. I don't know when Myers started
researching his book. I don't recall any interview footnotes re Scoggins
in the latter. But, yes, 12th & Beckley--whence Sgt. Hill called re his
witness, Scoggins, and where the latter & Callaway were intercepted by
plainclothesmen (private eyes sort of)--was in one direction, and the
Texas Theater was in the other direction. Perhaps Scoggins was just
guessing at the flee-er's direction after the killer reached Jefferson,
perhaps not. If he was right, though, that would leave the poor
defenseless parking-lot jacket an orphan. Boo hoo. Or orphink, as Popeye
would say....

donald willis

unread,
Feb 11, 2021, 6:56:07 AMFeb 11
to
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?
"Davis saw the man empty his revolver"--famous last words.... Another
problem with your little quote. "We"--which means Virginia says that she
& Barbara Jeanette both went to the side door. And, yet, in her
testimony, BJ sez she did not see the man actually drop a shell. Try
another quote! Oh, yes, and welcome to the Twilight Zone. Kick back &
stay a while....

dcw

donald willis

unread,
Feb 11, 2021, 7:47:47 PMFeb 11
to
And yet I'd be willing to bet that you swear by the lineup IDs of the six
witnesses. Apparently, lineups clear up memories and make participants
suddenly more "observant" and unerring.

> > >
> > > All of this is a lame attempt to divert attention from the fact that
> > > Oswald was the guy most of these witnesses identified as the man they saw
> > > either shooting Tippit or fleeing the scene
>
> > Yeah--he split himself in two and ran down the alley and Jefferson, at the
> > same time. Nice.
> >
> The fact that you think that would be necessary speaks volumes.

Please. YOU would have to think that was necessary.

dcw


Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 11, 2021, 9:17:13 PMFeb 11
to
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.

Your arguments about what you would have done or what you would expect the
suspect to have done are meaningless. 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?

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. 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.
> > >
> > > An FBI interview (1/21/64 WM p547) with Lewis and an 8/26/64 affidavit (hearings v15p703) by Lewis correcting that interview shed some light on the man whom the four saw. In the interview, Lewis states that he saw a "white male... running south on Patton", then "called the DPD". In the affidavit, he makes "clarifications": "Upon hearing the shots... I immediately called the DPD.... There was so much confusion at the DPD end of the telephone conversation, they were having trouble making out what I was telling them. A FEW MINUTES LATER, I observed a white male... running south on Patton...."
> > >
> > > Pretty clearly, Lewis' clarification indicates that the person he was watching was not Tippit's killer, nor a second gunman. The few-minute time delay indicates, rather, that the person whom Lewis saw was simply a fellow witness chasing the killer. Lewis was too late to see the latter. Lewis's affidavit reflects a similar time delay evidenced in witness Virginia Davis' Commission testimony: "Jeanette [her sister-in-law] called the police, and we went back, and [the suspect] was cutting across our yard" (v6p457). She reiterates this sequence a total of at least 10 times before counsel (David Belin) finally gets her to reverse it (p467)! Oh, too late, David. The damage is done. Virginia Davis was also too late to have seen the killer. Belin, however, satisfied (he got what he wanted), doesn't ask her again about sequencing....
> > >
> > > A letter of information from Patrolmen J.M. Poe and L.E. Jez to Chief Curry, on 11/22/63, states, "There were approximately six to eight witnesses, all telling officers that the subject was running WEST IN THE ALLEY between 10th and Jefferson." (WM p487) Poe and Jez make reference to two of these "6 to 8" alley-suspect witnesses: Mrs. Markham and Domingo Benavides. In his Commission testimony, Poe further includes a third, "one of [the two Davis girls]" (v7p69), as among those aforementioned six or so witnesses to whom he spoke that afternoon. In all likelihood, this was Virginia Davis, who also let slip in her testimony, "We saw the boy cutting across the STREET". (v6p460) This street could only have been Patton, off which was the alley. In her 11/22/63 affidavit, she stated that she and her sister-in-law "heard a shot and then another shot and ran to side door at Patton Street". Virginia Davis was one of the Poe-Jez "west in the alley" witnesses. If her sister-in-law was, too, she was, at any rate, apparently not one of the Poe-Jez witnesses.
> > >
> > > At the Commission hearings, Mrs. Markham said only that she last saw the suspect headed down Patton ("toward Jefferson"). But on 12/2/63, 10th Street resident Frank Cimino told the FBI that she had told him that she saw a man "run west on 10th Street and pointed in the direction of an alley which runs between 10th St. & Jefferson off Patton St." (WM p538) DPD Sgt. Pete Barnes' crime-scene sketch (WM p161) charts a path from Tippit's car on 10th to Patton to the alley ("210 ft" from 10th to the alley), and he notes, "W on alley to Crawford". The only witness shown in film footage taken at the crime scene with Barnes is... Mrs. Markham (WM pp154, 155). And, as Dale Myers writes, "In later years, Markham stated the killer cut across the SW corner of 10th & Patton & fled west down the alley between Patton [Myers apparently meant "10th"] & Jefferson" (p216). And in an interview posted on YouTube by "JFK 63 conspiracy", Mrs. Markham herself says that "he run [sic] off across the field... went over the fence and down the alley".
> > >
> > > The third Poe-Jez witness, Benavides, like Virginia Davis, told the Commission that he was on 10th St. & thus could not have seen where the suspect went after he disappeared around the corner of the Davis residence at 10th & Patton. But the Poe-Jez report creates a little ambiguity here, and an 11/22/63 supplementary offense report by Dets. Leavelle & Dhority states that Benavides "did not see the suspect" (WM p449). More ambiguity. Benavides did little to clear up the latter--he made no affidavits, statements, or interview reports until his Commission testimony. For whatever reasons, he was a blank slate when, finally, he talked to the Commission.
> > >
> > > The first take of another witness, Jimmy Burt, in a 12/15/63 interview with the FBI, states that "he ran to the intersection of 10th & Patton and when he was close enough to Patton to see to the south HE SAW THE MAN RUNNING INTO AN ALLEY located between 10th & Jefferson."
> > >
> > > We can now tentatively name six of the Poe-Jez/alley witnesses: Mrs. Markham, Virginia Davis, Domingo Benavides, Jimmy Burt, L.J. Lewis, and Warren Reynolds. We don't know the real stories of Russell, Patterson, and Barbara Jeanette Davis. Although--if Patterson was with Reynolds, as the former maintained, and another witness, William J. Smith, was with Burt, as the former maintained--then Patterson and Smith were the last two Poe-Jez witnesses.
> > >
> > > The next (answerable) question, Who was the man these six saw chasing the killer? Our first clues come from the Commission testimony of DPD Sgt. Kenneth Croy: "There was a report that a cab driver had picked up Tippit's gun and had left, presumably. They don't know whether he was the one that had shot Tippit.... Anyway, he saw it and he picked up Tippit's gun and attempted to give chase or something like that." (v12p201) Croy had apparently heard conflicting reports re Scoggins' role in the mystery, but seemed to settle more on Scoggins as vigilante rather than as killer.
> > >
> > > 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 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.

> "Davis saw the man empty his revolver"--famous last words....

She said that, yes. She affirmed it in her testimony here:
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. I'm going to call that Virginia Davis Deposition, Exhibit 1. What was Mrs. Markham saying, or did you hear her say anything?
Mrs. DAVIS. We heard her say "He shot him. He is dead. Call the police."
Mr. BELIN. Was she saying this in a soft or loud voice?
Mrs. DAVIS. She was screaming it.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. All right. Now, you saw a boy. Do you know how old he was?
Mrs. DAVIS. He didn't look like he was over 20.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what color hair he had?
Mrs. DAVIS. Let's see, the best I recall, he had sort of light brown.
Mr. BELIN. Light brown hair?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Was he tall or short or average height?
Mrs. DAVIS. He was about average height.
Mr. BELIN. Fat, thin, or average weight?
Mrs. DAVIS. Slim.
Mr. BELIN. Pardon?
Mrs. DAVIS. Slim.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs. DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what color his trousers were?
Mrs. DAVIS. I think they were black. Brown jacket and trousers.
Mr. BELIN. The trousers were black?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what kind of shirt he had on?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir; I don't recall that.
Mr. BELIN. Was the jacket open or closed up?
Mrs. DAVIS. It was open.
Mr. BELIN. But you don't remember what kind of shirt he had on?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
== UNQUOTE ==

Scoggins - who you claim Davis saw - didn't empty Tippit's gun because
Tippit never got to use his gun.

He also doesn't fit the description of the man emptying his revolver Virginia Davis gave:
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. How old a gentleman are you?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Forty-nine.
== UNQUOTE ==

Davis described the person emptying his gun:
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. All right. Now, you saw a boy. Do you know how old he was?
Mrs. DAVIS. He didn't look like he was over 20.
== UNQUOTE ==

Face it, your argument does NOT fit the facts. But don't let that stop you.
You've never let it stop you in the past.


> Another
> problem with your little quote. "We"--which means Virginia says that she
> & Barbara Jeanette both went to the side door.

Does it? Did you ever hear of the 'editorial we'?
We sometimes use 'we' when we mean 'I'.



> 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. 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.

> 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?

Quote it for me.


> Oh, yes, and welcome to the Twilight Zone. Kick back &
> stay a while....

Anytime we discuss anything related to the Kennedy assassination I get
that feeling.

Here's what Scoggins - the man you're arguing Virginia Davis mistook for a
20-year old - looked like:
https://thumbs.worthpoint.com/zoom/images2/1/1016/24/william-scoggins-signed-fdc-kennedy_1_9e86d25d2183c5eb7cde9f58309fdad2.jpg

Yes, twilight zone material for sure.

Hank




donald willis

unread,
Feb 12, 2021, 12:14:19 AMFeb 12
to
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.

>
> 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.

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"....

>
> 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. 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.
> > > >
> > > > An FBI interview (1/21/64 WM p547) with Lewis and an 8/26/64 affidavit (hearings v15p703) by Lewis correcting that interview shed some light on the man whom the four saw. In the interview, Lewis states that he saw a "white male... running south on Patton", then "called the DPD". In the affidavit, he makes "clarifications": "Upon hearing the shots... I immediately called the DPD.... There was so much confusion at the DPD end of the telephone conversation, they were having trouble making out what I was telling them. A FEW MINUTES LATER, I observed a white male... running south on Patton...."
> > > >
> > > > Pretty clearly, Lewis' clarification indicates that the person he was watching was not Tippit's killer, nor a second gunman. The few-minute time delay indicates, rather, that the person whom Lewis saw was simply a fellow witness chasing the killer. Lewis was too late to see the latter. Lewis's affidavit reflects a similar time delay evidenced in witness Virginia Davis' Commission testimony: "Jeanette [her sister-in-law] called the police, and we went back, and [the suspect] was cutting across our yard" (v6p457). She reiterates this sequence a total of at least 10 times before counsel (David Belin) finally gets her to reverse it (p467)! Oh, too late, David. The damage is done. Virginia Davis was also too late to have seen the killer. Belin, however, satisfied (he got what he wanted), doesn't ask her again about sequencing....
> > > >
> > > > A letter of information from Patrolmen J.M. Poe and L.E. Jez to Chief Curry, on 11/22/63, states, "There were approximately six to eight witnesses, all telling officers that the subject was running WEST IN THE ALLEY between 10th and Jefferson." (WM p487) Poe and Jez make reference to two of these "6 to 8" alley-suspect witnesses: Mrs. Markham and Domingo Benavides. In his Commission testimony, Poe further includes a third, "one of [the two Davis girls]" (v7p69), as among those aforementioned six or so witnesses to whom he spoke that afternoon. In all likelihood, this was Virginia Davis, who also let slip in her testimony, "We saw the boy cutting across the STREET". (v6p460) This street could only have been Patton, off which was the alley. In her 11/22/63 affidavit, she stated that she and her sister-in-law "heard a shot and then another shot and ran to side door at Patton Street". Virginia Davis was one of the Poe-Jez "west in the alley" witnesses. If her sister-in-law was, too, she was, at any rate, apparently not one of the Poe-Jez witnesses.
> > > >
> > > > At the Commission hearings, Mrs. Markham said only that she last saw the suspect headed down Patton ("toward Jefferson"). But on 12/2/63, 10th Street resident Frank Cimino told the FBI that she had told him that she saw a man "run west on 10th Street and pointed in the direction of an alley which runs between 10th St. & Jefferson off Patton St." (WM p538) DPD Sgt. Pete Barnes' crime-scene sketch (WM p161) charts a path from Tippit's car on 10th to Patton to the alley ("210 ft" from 10th to the alley), and he notes, "W on alley to Crawford". The only witness shown in film footage taken at the crime scene with Barnes is... Mrs. Markham (WM pp154, 155). And, as Dale Myers writes, "In later years, Markham stated the killer cut across the SW corner of 10th & Patton & fled west down the alley between Patton [Myers apparently meant "10th"] & Jefferson" (p216). And in an interview posted on YouTube by "JFK 63 conspiracy", Mrs. Markham herself says that "he run [sic] off across the field... went over the fence and down the alley".
> > > >
> > > > The third Poe-Jez witness, Benavides, like Virginia Davis, told the Commission that he was on 10th St. & thus could not have seen where the suspect went after he disappeared around the corner of the Davis residence at 10th & Patton. But the Poe-Jez report creates a little ambiguity here, and an 11/22/63 supplementary offense report by Dets. Leavelle & Dhority states that Benavides "did not see the suspect" (WM p449). More ambiguity. Benavides did little to clear up the latter--he made no affidavits, statements, or interview reports until his Commission testimony. For whatever reasons, he was a blank slate when, finally, he talked to the Commission.
> > > >
> > > > The first take of another witness, Jimmy Burt, in a 12/15/63 interview with the FBI, states that "he ran to the intersection of 10th & Patton and when he was close enough to Patton to see to the south HE SAW THE MAN RUNNING INTO AN ALLEY located between 10th & Jefferson."
> > > >
> > > > We can now tentatively name six of the Poe-Jez/alley witnesses: Mrs. Markham, Virginia Davis, Domingo Benavides, Jimmy Burt, L.J. Lewis, and Warren Reynolds. We don't know the real stories of Russell, Patterson, and Barbara Jeanette Davis. Although--if Patterson was with Reynolds, as the former maintained, and another witness, William J. Smith, was with Burt, as the former maintained--then Patterson and Smith were the last two Poe-Jez witnesses.
> > > >
> > > > The next (answerable) question, Who was the man these six saw chasing the killer? Our first clues come from the Commission testimony of DPD Sgt. Kenneth Croy: "There was a report that a cab driver had picked up Tippit's gun and had left, presumably. They don't know whether he was the one that had shot Tippit.... Anyway, he saw it and he picked up Tippit's gun and attempted to give chase or something like that." (v12p201) Croy had apparently heard conflicting reports re Scoggins' role in the mystery, but seemed to settle more on Scoggins as vigilante rather than as killer.
> > > >
> > > > 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". 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.

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....

> > "Davis saw the man empty his revolver"--famous last words....
> She said that, yes. She affirmed it in her testimony here:
> == QUOTE ==
> Mr. BELIN. I'm going to call that Virginia Davis Deposition, Exhibit 1. What was Mrs. Markham saying, or did you hear her say anything?
> Mrs. DAVIS. We heard her say "He shot him. He is dead. Call the police."
> Mr. BELIN. Was she saying this in a soft or loud voice?
> Mrs. DAVIS. She was screaming it.
> Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
> Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.

I believe that, in her testimony, Virginia was saying that they saw him
from the front door. In her 11/22 affidavit, she said she saw him
emptying his gun from the side door. Big difference.
The fact was that six or 7 witnesses, including Virginia Davis (as per Poe
& Jez), saw the suspect run down the alley, not Jefferson. The Warren
Report's map of the suspect's escape route has him running down Jefferson.

> You've never let it stop you in the past.

Don't let it stop you now.

> > Another
> > problem with your little quote. "We"--which means Virginia says that she
> > & Barbara Jeanette both went to the side door.
> Does it? Did you ever hear of the 'editorial we'?
> We sometimes use 'we' when we mean 'I'.

Desperation time....

> > 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?

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.
>
> > 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....

dcw

John Corbett

unread,
Feb 12, 2021, 8:15:06 AMFeb 12
to
My position on witnesses has always been consistent. I believe witnesses
who can be corroborated. The fact that these witnesses IDed the guy who
was arrested in possession of the gun that killed Tippit is rock solid
corroboration. If they had IDed somebody else, I would doubt them.

> > > >
> > > > All of this is a lame attempt to divert attention from the fact that
> > > > Oswald was the guy most of these witnesses identified as the man they saw
> > > > either shooting Tippit or fleeing the scene
> >
> > > Yeah--he split himself in two and ran down the alley and Jefferson, at the
> > > same time. Nice.
> > >
> > The fact that you think that would be necessary speaks volumes.
> Please. YOU would have to think that was necessary.
>

No I don't because I know Oswald west on Jefferson because that is where
he was arrested a short time later. You seem to think that because a
witness says something that establishes it as a fact. Unless of course
that witness says something that conflicts with what you want to believe.
Then that witness is lying. That is how you judge the credibility of
witnesses. I judge them on whether or not their stories can be
corroborated. You should try that some time. If you did, you wouldn't
believe the silly things that you do.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 12, 2021, 8:15:09 AMFeb 12
to
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



donald willis

unread,
Feb 15, 2021, 6:13:57 AMFeb 15
to
It just seems strange that, supposedly, there were two witnesses--Virginia Davis and Domingo Benavides--who saw shells being thrown down, and it took the former about 45 minutes to find her shell, and what maybe 15 minutes for Benavides to find his shells and report them to the police. Reconcile that....

, 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

My main point is that all the shells had to have been found before about
1:40, when Sgt. Hill radioed in re "auto shells" at the scene. None of
the shells was that hard to find since all were found around Tippit's car.
Virginia Davis and Benavides were two of the alley witnesses, witnesses,
that is, to someone chasing the killer, who took the Patton-Jefferson
route. The alley guy, just another witness, would not have been tossing
shells around willy-nilly, or even very carefully.

, 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.

Cute.

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.

I wouldn't say that I have a great belief "in Oswald's innocence". He was
a murderer, but just because he was a shooter in Dealey doesn't mean he
was a shooter in Oak Cliff.

dcw
CUT for now (to be restored!)

donald willis

unread,
Feb 15, 2021, 6:13:58 AMFeb 15
to
Oh, how I envy LNers. Their case is all set out in the Warren Report.
They don't have to lift a finger. CTs, however, have to depend on the
scraps left after the cover-up was in place.


and Virginia Davis
> actually saw Oswald

Sure. After she called the cops. Oswald was standing outside waiting on
Virginia and Barbara. "Oh, there they are. I can get moving again."
Sure, Hank....

(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

By a witness who plumb forgot to tell the first cops to her house that she
had just seen Oswald after 12:30. Again, sure.... That's one of those
scraps--the landlady wasn't properly debriefed before 3pm, when the two
cops were there. As McWatters wasn't debriefed before his 11/22
affidavit.

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.

Reynolds last saw the suspect headed in the other direction, to the old
house. He and the cops of course were just embarrassed by their mistake,
and he didn't mention the old house in his testimony, and they, for their
part, considerately didn't mention his name in connection with the house,
in their testimony. I mean, at least, Westbrook and Owens didn't....

dcw

donald willis

unread,
Feb 15, 2021, 6:13:58 AMFeb 15
to
McWatters ID'd Oswald, "who was arrested in possession of the gun that
killed Tippit." And yet the Commission rejected that ID. So much for
"rock solid". McW was "corroborated". I think that my objections to at
least 3 other "positive" lineup IDs (Va. Davis, Markham, Scoggins), like
McW's, are at least as valid, if not more so, than the Commission's.

> > > > >
> > > > > All of this is a lame attempt to divert attention from the fact that
> > > > > Oswald was the guy most of these witnesses identified as the man they saw
> > > > > either shooting Tippit or fleeing the scene
> > >
> > > > Yeah--he split himself in two and ran down the alley and Jefferson, at the
> > > > same time. Nice.
> > > >
> > > The fact that you think that would be necessary speaks volumes.
> > Please. YOU would have to think that was necessary.
> >
> No I don't because I know Oswald west on Jefferson because that is where
> he was arrested a short time later.

That says nothing about the suspect's path there. Even you know it wasn't
a straight line. You and Hank invoke "zigzagging" to account for the
travels of a suspect and a vigilante.

You seem to think that because a
> witness says something that establishes it as a fact. Unless of course
> that witness says something that conflicts with what you want to believe.

You're perfectly describing the mindset of Fritz, Bookhout, & Kelley, who
wrote Oswald's interviews. Oh, yes, "wrote". What, that is, McW wrote in
his 11/22 affidavit "conflicted" with what the DPD, FBI & SS wanted to
hear. So they demolished that affidavit, changed everything, rewrote the
interviews, and discredited McW's ID of Oswald. If you don't believe me,
listen to the recording of the interviews. Oh, that's right....

dcw

donald willis

unread,
Feb 15, 2021, 6:14:00 AMFeb 15
to
However, she says (in her affidavit) that she & "the police" found a shell
"where I saw this man emptying his gun"*. That they found a shell in the
front yard. But in her testimony, she changes that to, she found a shell
in the side yard on Patton (as you quote her, below):

*affidavit: "When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of them where I
saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell."
I was being facetious. Obviously, it was another man that Virginia saw a
few minutes after the shooting.

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?

So, a few hours after the assassination, she stated that she & her
sis-in-law "ran to the side door at Patton". That was when her memory was
fresh. So, in her testimony--six month later--when she says that they
went to the front door on 10th, she must be remembering "incorrectly"....

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.

If, yes, you rewrite this passage of her testimony. It took Belin about
10 tries to get "that order".

The Davises of their affidavits and testimony are hopelessly
inconsistent....

dcw

donald willis

unread,
Feb 15, 2021, 6:14:02 AMFeb 15
to
On Friday, February 12, 2021 at 5:15:09 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> 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?
> > > > > >

This is turning into a short novel....

> > > > > > 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.

Yes, our knowledge is identical on all things JFK/Tippit.

> > >
> > > 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.

And yet you also want to eat your cake too--the zig & the zag.


> > 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.

I have no wish to proclaim Oswald either poor or innocent. You know that
I believe that he was guilty in Dealey.

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).

I have not seen you persuaded by anything which challenges key tenets of
the Warren Report.

> > >
> > > 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.

But at least six witnesses had a suspect traveling west from Patton in the
alley, logical or not.

> > 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.

Then why do you bother dismissing it? Sounds like it really does matter
to you. And it should--the episode of the old house was never
satisfactorily explained. And why did the cops take care when discussing
it, before the Commission, to omit Reynolds' name from the investigation
of the house?

Okay. Gotta leave off here. Will get to the next chapter soon....

dcw

John Corbett

unread,
Feb 15, 2021, 9:24:56 AMFeb 15
to
The WC did not reject McWatters' ID of Oswald as the man who got on his
bus and then got off a short time later. The gun in Oswald's possession
did nothing to corroborate or refute McWatters' ID of Oswald. The two were
unrelated. What did corroborate McWatters is that when arrested, Oswald
had a bus transfer in his pocket with McWatters' unique punch.

> > > > > >
> > > > > > All of this is a lame attempt to divert attention from the fact that
> > > > > > Oswald was the guy most of these witnesses identified as the man they saw
> > > > > > either shooting Tippit or fleeing the scene
> > > >
> > > > > Yeah--he split himself in two and ran down the alley and Jefferson, at the
> > > > > same time. Nice.
> > > > >
> > > > The fact that you think that would be necessary speaks volumes.
> > > Please. YOU would have to think that was necessary.
> > >
> > No I don't because I know Oswald west on Jefferson because that is where
> > he was arrested a short time later.
> That says nothing about the suspect's path there. Even you know it wasn't
> a straight line. You and Hank invoke "zigzagging" to account for the
> travels of a suspect and a vigilante.

I don't know the exact path Oswald took from the shooting site to the
theater any more than I know exactly the path he took from the rooming
house to the site of the shooting. We know where Oswald was spotted and we
know where he ditched his jacket and we can connect those dots but we
don't know if it is a straight line from one dot to the next. It isn't
important to establish the exact path.

> You seem to think that because a
> > witness says something that establishes it as a fact. Unless of course
> > that witness says something that conflicts with what you want to believe.

> You're perfectly describing the mindset of Fritz, Bookhout, & Kelley, who
> wrote Oswald's interviews. Oh, yes, "wrote". What, that is, McW wrote in
> his 11/22 affidavit "conflicted" with what the DPD, FBI & SS wanted to
> hear. So they demolished that affidavit, changed everything, rewrote the
> interviews, and discredited McW's ID of Oswald. If you don't believe me,
> listen to the recording of the interviews. Oh, that's right....
>

They did not discredit the ID of Oswald. They discredited that he was the
man who was grinning when telling the woman the president had been shot.
Apparently McWatters' conflated that man with Oswald who had gotten on his
bus and departed a short time later. You fail to realize that witnesses
can get some things right and some things wrong. That is why we use
corroborating evidence to figure out what parts any given witness got
right. Other evidence can also tell us which parts a witness got wrong.
It's not an all or nothing proposition.

Your approach reminds me of something Bud wrote a long time ago and has
repeated often. Conspiracy hobbyists focus on all the wrong things. You
ignore the rock solid evidence that tells us unambiguously that Oswald
killed Tippit and instead search high an low for anomalies in witness
accounts. It would be remarkable if such anomalies didn't exist given that
it is the norm for witnesses to get somethings right and somethings wrong.
It is ridiculous to believe every witness statement is correct.

donald willis

unread,
Feb 15, 2021, 5:04:45 PMFeb 15
to
On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 6:24:56 AM UTC-8, John Corbett wrote:
> On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 6:13:58 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > On Friday, February 12, 2021 at 5:15:06 AM UTC-8, John Corbett wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 7:47:47 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
>
> > > > And yet I'd be willing to bet that you swear by the lineup IDs of the six
> > > > witnesses. Apparently, lineups clear up memories and make participants
> > > > suddenly more "observant" and unerring.
> > > My position on witnesses has always been consistent. I believe witnesses
> > > who can be corroborated. The fact that these witnesses IDed the guy who
> > > was arrested in possession of the gun that killed Tippit is rock solid
> > > corroboration. If they had IDed somebody else, I would doubt them.
> > McWatters ID'd Oswald, "who was arrested in possession of the gun that
> > killed Tippit." And yet the Commission rejected that ID. So much for
> > "rock solid". McW was "corroborated". I think that my objections to at
> > least 3 other "positive" lineup IDs (Va. Davis, Markham, Scoggins), like
> > McW's, are at least as valid, if not more so, than the Commission's.
> The WC did not reject McWatters' ID of Oswald as the man who got on his
> bus and then got off a short time later.

Sounds like they DID: "McWatters' recollection alone was too vague to be
a basis for placing Oswald on the bus." (WR p159)


The gun in Oswald's possession
> did nothing to corroborate or refute McWatters' ID of Oswald. The two were
> unrelated. What did corroborate McWatters is that when arrested, Oswald
> had a bus transfer in his pocket with McWatters' unique punch.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All of this is a lame attempt to divert attention from the fact that
> > > > > > > Oswald was the guy most of these witnesses identified as the man they saw
> > > > > > > either shooting Tippit or fleeing the scene
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah--he split himself in two and ran down the alley and Jefferson, at the
> > > > > > same time. Nice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > The fact that you think that would be necessary speaks volumes.
> > > > Please. YOU would have to think that was necessary.
> > > >
> > > No I don't because I know Oswald west on Jefferson because that is where
> > > he was arrested a short time later.
> > That says nothing about the suspect's path there. Even you know it wasn't
> > a straight line. You and Hank invoke "zigzagging" to account for the
> > travels of a suspect and a vigilante.
> I don't know the exact path Oswald took from the shooting site to the
> theater any more than I know exactly the path he took from the rooming
> house to the site of the shooting. We know where Oswald was spotted and we
> know where he ditched his jacket and we can connect those dots but we
> don't know if it is a straight line from one dot to the next. It isn't
> important to establish the exact path.

It is if the suspect's path is being confused with the path of someone
chasing him.

dcw (more later)


John Corbett

unread,
Feb 15, 2021, 7:54:28 PMFeb 15
to
On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 5:04:45 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 6:24:56 AM UTC-8, John Corbett wrote:
> > On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 6:13:58 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 12, 2021 at 5:15:06 AM UTC-8, John Corbett wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 7:47:47 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> >
> > > > > And yet I'd be willing to bet that you swear by the lineup IDs of the six
> > > > > witnesses. Apparently, lineups clear up memories and make participants
> > > > > suddenly more "observant" and unerring.
> > > > My position on witnesses has always been consistent. I believe witnesses
> > > > who can be corroborated. The fact that these witnesses IDed the guy who
> > > > was arrested in possession of the gun that killed Tippit is rock solid
> > > > corroboration. If they had IDed somebody else, I would doubt them.
> > > McWatters ID'd Oswald, "who was arrested in possession of the gun that
> > > killed Tippit." And yet the Commission rejected that ID. So much for
> > > "rock solid". McW was "corroborated". I think that my objections to at
> > > least 3 other "positive" lineup IDs (Va. Davis, Markham, Scoggins), like
> > > McW's, are at least as valid, if not more so, than the Commission's.
> > The WC did not reject McWatters' ID of Oswald as the man who got on his
> > bus and then got off a short time later.
> Sounds like they DID: "McWatters' recollection alone was too vague to be
> a basis for placing Oswald on the bus." (WR p159)

That is not a rejection. It is a qualifier. By itself, McWatters' ID of
Oswald would not have been compelling. It required corroboration. They got
it in two forms. First was the bus transfer in Oswald's pocket when
arrested that contained McWatters' unique punch. Second was the ID of
Oswald by Mary Bledsoe, his former landlady. Her testimony is corroborated
by the fact she noticed there was a hole in the elbow of Oswald's shirt.
The shirt he was wearing when arrested had such a hole.

> The gun in Oswald's possession
> > did nothing to corroborate or refute McWatters' ID of Oswald. The two were
> > unrelated. What did corroborate McWatters is that when arrested, Oswald
> > had a bus transfer in his pocket with McWatters' unique punch.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All of this is a lame attempt to divert attention from the fact that
> > > > > > > > Oswald was the guy most of these witnesses identified as the man they saw
> > > > > > > > either shooting Tippit or fleeing the scene
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yeah--he split himself in two and ran down the alley and Jefferson, at the
> > > > > > > same time. Nice.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > The fact that you think that would be necessary speaks volumes.
> > > > > Please. YOU would have to think that was necessary.
> > > > >
> > > > No I don't because I know Oswald west on Jefferson because that is where
> > > > he was arrested a short time later.
> > > That says nothing about the suspect's path there. Even you know it wasn't
> > > a straight line. You and Hank invoke "zigzagging" to account for the
> > > travels of a suspect and a vigilante.
> > I don't know the exact path Oswald took from the shooting site to the
> > theater any more than I know exactly the path he took from the rooming
> > house to the site of the shooting. We know where Oswald was spotted and we
> > know where he ditched his jacket and we can connect those dots but we
> > don't know if it is a straight line from one dot to the next. It isn't
> > important to establish the exact path.
> It is if the suspect's path is being confused with the path of someone
> chasing him.
>

"If" doesn't count for anything. You need to provide evidence that such a
thing happened. So far all you have given us are your assumptions.

We know roughly the path Oswald took from the site of the Tippit murder to
the Texas Theater. We know Reynolds followed him a short distance. We know
other people who saw him on his route. We know after shooting Tippit he
fled down Patton to Jefferson and with at least one detour to ditch his
jacket and possibly find a hideout, he returned to Jefferson where he was
seen entering the Texas Theater. What more is necessary?

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 15, 2021, 9:22:54 PMFeb 15
to
On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 6:13:57 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> On Friday, February 12, 2021 at 5:15:09 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > 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.

So nothing further on that.


> > > >
> > > > 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.

And nothing further on that.


> > > 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).

Nor anything further on that.


> > > >
> > > > 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.

And still nothing further here.

> > > 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.
> >

And this was ignored too.

> > . . . 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
> It just seems strange that, supposedly, there were two witnesses--Virginia Davis and Domingo Benavides--who saw shells being thrown down, and it took the former about 45 minutes to find her shell, and what maybe 15 minutes for Benavides to find his shells and report them to the police. Reconcile that....

Why? Do you expect evidence to turn up at the same time - down to the
minute or even the second? Can you cite for that from any criminal
investigator or manual on police work?

> , 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.

Of course this was ignored, and Don just treated us to his opinion that he
things the times are off.

> > > 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
> My main point is that all the shells had to have been found before about
> 1:40, when Sgt. Hill radioed in re "auto shells" at the scene.

Only if you assume that Hill had actually seen shells and hadn't heard a
second-hand or third hand report from Poe or someone else about shells and
assumed they were from an automatic. Your assumptions are not evidence.

> None of
> the shells was that hard to find since all were found around Tippit's car.
> Virginia Davis and Benavides were two of the alley witnesses, witnesses,
> that is, to someone chasing the killer, who took the Patton-Jefferson
> route. The alley guy, just another witness, would not have been tossing
> shells around willy-nilly, or even very carefully.

What alley guy would be tossing shells around at all? Only the killer
would be doing that. He had to discard the shells from his weapon to
reload. Virginia Davis and Domingo Benavides both saw somebody discarding
shells. And how do we know who did that? The shells matched the revolver
taken off Oswald when he tried to shoot Officer MacDonald in the movie
theatre. Remember?

This is very inconvenient for your beliefs in Oswald's innocence so you
just dismiss it as planted evidence to frame Oswald. But a police officer
had just been killed. Why would the police frame an innocent man and let
the guilty cop-killer go free?


> , because
> > the shells Davis saw were found, and they were proven to come from the gun
> > taken from Oswald in the theatre.

I see I already made the point and you ignored it, concentrating instead
on a minor issue of who told who what when.


> > > 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.
> Cute.

No attempt at cuteness. That's exactly what your doing. While we're
distracted with your nonsense arguments that for some reason you want to
insist the witnesses saw Scoggins, and mistook him somehow for a much
younger man.

> 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.
> I wouldn't say that I have a great belief "in Oswald's innocence". He was
> a murderer, but just because he was a shooter in Dealey doesn't mean he
> was a shooter in Oak Cliff.

So you have a great belief in Oswald's innocence in the Tippit murder. You
ignored all the points I made and just reiterated some of your own, which
only amount to a few minor conflicts in the record at best.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 15, 2021, 9:22:57 PMFeb 15
to
No, it's laid out in the testimony of the eyewitnesses and the expert
witnesses. For the umpteenth time, I didn't reach my conclusions by
reading the Warren Commission Final Report. I reached my conclusions
independent of the Commission by reading all the testimony and reviewing
all the evidence they published in their 26 volumes, and that evidence and
testimony in the 12 volumes published by the HSCA.

You are just making an attempt to smear me as a lackey who just accepts
government pronouncements when the truth is I went into my reading of the
WC and HSCA volumes as a WC critic and was converted when I discovered the
critics weren't being close to faithful to the evidence.

> They don't have to lift a finger. CTs, however, have to depend on the
> scraps left after the cover-up was in place.

Begging the question of a cover-up already in place is a logical fallacy.
These errors are endemic in your posts.


> and Virginia Davis
> > actually saw Oswald
> Sure. After she called the cops. Oswald was standing outside waiting on
> Virginia and Barbara. "Oh, there they are. I can get moving again."
> Sure, Hank....

Another logical fallacy, this is a strawman argument, where you rebut a
point I didn't make but pretend you did.


> (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
> By a witness who plumb forgot to tell the first cops to her house that she
> had just seen Oswald after 12:30. Again, sure....

Is this something in the actual evidence or something you derived as a
conclusion by reading something?
Can you actually cite for the claim?


> That's one of those
> scraps--the landlady wasn't properly debriefed before 3pm, when the two
> cops were there. As McWatters wasn't debriefed before his 11/22
> affidavit.

You are begging the questions once more. You have to establish these
supposed debriefings, not just proclaim them as a given.


> 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.
> Reynolds last saw the suspect headed in the other direction, to the old
> house. He and the cops of course were just embarrassed by their mistake,
> and he didn't mention the old house in his testimony, and they, for their
> part, considerately didn't mention his name in connection with the house,
> in their testimony. I mean, at least, Westbrook and Owens didn't....
>

We agree on the outline here. Did Westbrook and Owens even know Reynolds
or meet with him? Can you establish that? If not, the fact the Westbrook
and Owens didn't mention Reynolds means nothing but you're pretending it's
a clue to the coverup.

Hank

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 15, 2021, 9:23:00 PMFeb 15
to
Bizarre.

If the LEOs were making up Oswald's answers after the fact, why didn't
they make up that Oswald admitted that he admitted to owning a rifle? Or
make up that Oswald admitted it was a legit photo of him with his rifle in
the Neely Street backyard. Or make up that he admitted bringing it to the
Depository? Or make up that he admitted shooting the President.

Instead, you proclaim they "rewrote the interviews" of Oswald to better
frame him by having him proclaim his innocence and denying he ever owned a
rifle!

Bizarre.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 15, 2021, 9:23:12 PMFeb 15
to
Sorry, I don't see the problem. Who besides the killer would be emptying a
gun? It wasn't Scoggins because we know the person seen didn't look like a
weather-beaten 50 or 60-year-old or thereabouts. Scoggins had no reason to
empty Tippit's gun.

She picked Oswald out of a lineup that same night as the man she saw.
"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."

This isn't going very well for you.
I see I quoted that already, and you ignored it. It's as I said above. It
appears no amount of evidence is going to be acceptable to you.

> >
> > 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.
> I was being facetious. Obviously, it was another man that Virginia saw a
> few minutes after the shooting.

Begging the question. Describe another man who admitted to unloading a gun
and tossing away expended shells. You can't.


> 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?
> So, a few hours after the assassination, she stated that she & her
> sis-in-law "ran to the side door at Patton". That was when her memory was
> fresh.

Ok.

> So, in her testimony--six month later--when she says that they
> went to the front door on 10th, she must be remembering "incorrectly"....

Ok. That's the point I made. Witnesses are sometimes wrong about stuff.
And recall stuff incorrectlyy.


> 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.
> If, yes, you rewrite this passage of her testimony. It took Belin about
> 10 tries to get "that order".
>
> The Davises of their affidavits and testimony are hopelessly
> inconsistent....

Welcome to the real world. Witnesses are hopelessly inconsistent. Their
inconsistency doesn't make Oswald innocent of being Tippit's killer. And
their inconsistency doesn't mean they saw Scoggins emptying Tippit's gun
and shaking out or tossing shells aside. Tippit's gun was taken from
underneath his body and he never got it fully out of his holster.

== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Scoggins, I started to ask you about the revolver of the
policeman when you came and saw him. This was in his holster or on the
street?
Mr. SCOGGINS. It was on the street whenever I saw it.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know where it was with relation to the policeman's body?
Mr. SCOGGINS. It was there pretty close to his body, you know, like kind of
under his body when they picked him up. It either fell out of his holster
or was laying on the ground, one, I don't know which.
== UNQUOTE ==

Scoggins never said he had the gun.

And here's how Scoggins described the gunman he saw:
== quote ==
Mr. BELIN. Now, let me ask you this question. First of all, do you remember,
or can you describe the man you saw on November 22 with the gun?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He was a medium-height fellow with, kind of a slender look,
and approximately, I said 25, 26 years old, somewhere along there.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember the color of his hair?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes. It was light; let's see, was it light or not-medium
brown, I would say.
Mr. BELIN. Pardon?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Medium brown, I would say--now, wait a minute. Now, medium
brown or dark.
Mr. BELIN. Medium brown or dark hair?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Was he a Negro or a white man?
Mr. SCOGGINS. White, light complected, not real brown.
Mr. BELIN. Was he fat, average build or thin?
Mr. SCOGGINS. No, he was slender; not real slender, but you know--
Mr. BELIN. Was he wearing glasses or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. No.
== unquote ==

Sounds more like Oswald than Scoggins to me.

It was Callaway who had Tippit's gun:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/callaway.htm

"I got the officer's gun and hollered at a cab driver to come on, We might
catch the man."

Callaway was 39 or 40 at the time of the assassination. The Davis sisters
didn't see him unloading Tippit's gun either.

Hank

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 16, 2021, 9:39:37 AMFeb 16
to
On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 5:04:45 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 6:24:56 AM UTC-8, John Corbett wrote:
> > On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 6:13:58 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 12, 2021 at 5:15:06 AM UTC-8, John Corbett wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 7:47:47 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> >
> > > > > And yet I'd be willing to bet that you swear by the lineup IDs of the six
> > > > > witnesses. Apparently, lineups clear up memories and make participants
> > > > > suddenly more "observant" and unerring.
> > > > My position on witnesses has always been consistent. I believe witnesses
> > > > who can be corroborated. The fact that these witnesses IDed the guy who
> > > > was arrested in possession of the gun that killed Tippit is rock solid
> > > > corroboration. If they had IDed somebody else, I would doubt them.
> > > McWatters ID'd Oswald, "who was arrested in possession of the gun that
> > > killed Tippit." And yet the Commission rejected that ID. So much for
> > > "rock solid". McW was "corroborated". I think that my objections to at
> > > least 3 other "positive" lineup IDs (Va. Davis, Markham, Scoggins), like
> > > McW's, are at least as valid, if not more so, than the Commission's.
> > The WC did not reject McWatters' ID of Oswald as the man who got on his
> > bus and then got off a short time later.
> Sounds like they DID: "McWatters' recollection alone was too vague to be
> a basis for placing Oswald on the bus." (WR p159)

No, you're quoting out of context. They concluded from the evidence that
Oswald did ride McWatters bus, as McWatters testified, but his
recollection **alone** wasn't sufficient.

They also had the bus transfer that Oswald could only have obtained from
being on McWatters bus and they said that:

"When Oswald was apprehended, a bus transfer marked for the
Lakewood-Marsalis route was found in his shirt pocket. The transfer was
dated "Fri. Nov. 22, '63" and was punched in two places by the busdriver.
On the basis of this punchmark, which was distinctive to each Dallas
driver, the transfer was conclusively identified as having been issued by
Cecil J. McWatters, a busdriver for the Dallas Transit Co. On the basis of
the date and time on the transfer, McWatters was able to testify that the
transfer had been issued by him on a trip which passed a check point at
St. Paul and Elm Streets at 12:36 p.m., November 22, 1963."

And they had the ID of his former landlady:

"Riding on the bus was an elderly woman, Mary Bledsoe, who confirmed the
mute evidence of the transfer. Oswald had rented a room from Mrs. Bledsoe
about 6 weeks before, on October 7, but she had asked him to leave at the
end of a week. Mrs. Bledsoe told him "I am not going to rent to you any
more." She testified, "I didn't like his attitude.... There was just
something about him I didn't like or want him.... Just didn't want him
around me."

All three, together, form enough of a web that it snares Oswald.

> The gun in Oswald's possession
> > did nothing to corroborate or refute McWatters' ID of Oswald. The two were
> > unrelated. What did corroborate McWatters is that when arrested, Oswald
> > had a bus transfer in his pocket with McWatters' unique punch.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All of this is a lame attempt to divert attention from the fact that
> > > > > > > > Oswald was the guy most of these witnesses identified as the man they saw
> > > > > > > > either shooting Tippit or fleeing the scene
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yeah--he split himself in two and ran down the alley and Jefferson, at the
> > > > > > > same time. Nice.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > The fact that you think that would be necessary speaks volumes.
> > > > > Please. YOU would have to think that was necessary.
> > > > >
> > > > No I don't because I know Oswald west on Jefferson because that is where
> > > > he was arrested a short time later.
> > > That says nothing about the suspect's path there. Even you know it wasn't
> > > a straight line. You and Hank invoke "zigzagging" to account for the
> > > travels of a suspect and a vigilante.
> > I don't know the exact path Oswald took from the shooting site to the
> > theater any more than I know exactly the path he took from the rooming
> > house to the site of the shooting. We know where Oswald was spotted and we
> > know where he ditched his jacket and we can connect those dots but we
> > don't know if it is a straight line from one dot to the next. It isn't
> > important to establish the exact path.
> It is if the suspect's path is being confused with the path of someone
> chasing him.

There's no need to insert someone else here. Witnesses get stuff wrong.
That's what they do.

You're like a dowser trying to find water by using a divining rod. You may
have convinced yourself it would work. But that doesn't mean it does or
that there's any real answers to be found. If you find water, it's
happenstance and was bound to happen sooner or later. But you use those
rare successes to convince yourself your methodology really does work.

Hank



Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 16, 2021, 9:39:37 AMFeb 16
to
There you go again. That's not what I said, and we both know that. Deal
with the points I make, don't ignore them and substitute your own.


> > > >
> > > > 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.
> And yet you also want to eat your cake too--the zig & the zag.

You want the whole pie to yourself. You to crowd out reason and substitute
suspicion, innuendo and logical fallacies instead.


> > > 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.
> I have no wish to proclaim Oswald either poor or innocent. You know that
> I believe that he was guilty in Dealey.

If that was true, you wouldn't have found yourself that Virginia Davis
mistook Scoggins for a teenager or that Scoggins was the one with the gun.
But you wound up there on your own from your own arguments.


> > 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).
> I have not seen you persuaded by anything which challenges key tenets of
> the Warren Report.

Again, I did not reach my conclusions here by merely accepting everything
the Warren Commission said as gospel. I reached my conclusions by my own
reading of the testimony and review of the evidence after I was already a
conspiracy believer.

> > > >
> > > > 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.
> But at least six witnesses had a suspect traveling west from Patton in the
> alley, logical or not.

Fine. I don't recall that standing out in my reading of the evidence or
testimony. What of it? Who are the six and can you quote their statements
so we can look at them individually and try to understand them?


> > > 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.
> Then why do you bother dismissing it?

I just explained why. It doesn't matter.

> Sounds like it really does matter
> to you.

So if I discuss your errors with you, that means it's important, and that
means cover-up, and if I don't, that means I have no explanation other
than cover-up? Do I have your logic down correct here?


> And it should--the episode of the old house was never
> satisfactorily explained. And why did the cops take care when discussing
> it, before the Commission, to omit Reynolds' name from the investigation
> of the house?

Did they omit it or did they not know it? You turn lack of evidence into
evidence of conspiracy and coverup by just these sorts of assumptions all
the time.

donald willis

unread,
Feb 22, 2021, 7:03:25 AMFeb 22
to
Yeah, she noticed it when Sorrels brought it to her home!

dcw

donald willis

unread,
Feb 23, 2021, 1:03:47 PMFeb 23
to
Sorry to have lumped you with those who just looked at the Warren Report
itself and accepted its conclusions.

> > They don't have to lift a finger. CTs, however, have to depend on the
> > scraps left after the cover-up was in place.
> Begging the question of a cover-up already in place is a logical fallacy.
> These errors are endemic in your posts.
> > and Virginia Davis
> > > actually saw Oswald
> > Sure. After she called the cops. Oswald was standing outside waiting on
> > Virginia and Barbara. "Oh, there they are. I can get moving again."
> > Sure, Hank....
> Another logical fallacy, this is a strawman argument, where you rebut a
> point I didn't make but pretend you did.

Your point was that Davis saw Oswald. I used sarcasm to indicate that she
most probably did not see him, but someone chasing the actual perp.

> > (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
> > By a witness who plumb forgot to tell the first cops to her house that she
> > had just seen Oswald after 12:30. Again, sure....
> Is this something in the actual evidence or something you derived as a
> conclusion by reading something?
> Can you actually cite for the claim?

See Commission Exhibit 2003 pp230, 231(Det. Potts) & 245 (Det. Senkel).

> > That's one of those
> > scraps--the landlady wasn't properly debriefed before 3pm, when the two
> > cops were there. As McWatters wasn't debriefed before his 11/22
> > affidavit.
> You are begging the questions once more. You have to establish these
> supposed debriefings, not just proclaim them as a given.
> > 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.
> > Reynolds last saw the suspect headed in the other direction, to the old
> > house. He and the cops of course were just embarrassed by their mistake,
> > and he didn't mention the old house in his testimony, and they, for their
> > part, considerately didn't mention his name in connection with the house,
> > in their testimony. I mean, at least, Westbrook and Owens didn't....
> >
> We agree on the outline here. Did Westbrook and Owens even know Reynolds
> or meet with him? Can you establish that?

Yes. See the photo (or frame grab), bottom, page 121, "With Malice":
"Westbrook questions Reynolds".

dcw

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 23, 2021, 8:45:07 PMFeb 23
to
You ignored this point.
You ignored this point.
You ignored this point.


> > > > > 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.

You ignored this point.
You ignored all this.


> > > > > > > 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
> > > Oh, how I envy LNers. Their case is all set out in the Warren Report.
> > No, it's laid out in the testimony of the eyewitnesses and the expert
> > witnesses. For the umpteenth time, I didn't reach my conclusions by
> > reading the Warren Commission Final Report. I reached my conclusions
> > independent of the Commission by reading all the testimony and reviewing
> > all the evidence they published in their 26 volumes, and that evidence and
> > testimony in the 12 volumes published by the HSCA.
> >
> > You are just making an attempt to smear me as a lackey who just accepts
> > government pronouncements when the truth is I went into my reading of the
> > WC and HSCA volumes as a WC critic and was converted when I discovered the
> > critics weren't being close to faithful to the evidence.
> Sorry to have lumped you with those who just looked at the Warren Report
> itself and accepted its conclusions.

Just don't do it again.

> > > They don't have to lift a finger. CTs, however, have to depend on the
> > > scraps left after the cover-up was in place.
> > Begging the question of a cover-up already in place is a logical fallacy.
> > These errors are endemic in your posts.

You ignored this point.

> > > and Virginia Davis
> > > > actually saw Oswald
> > > Sure. After she called the cops. Oswald was standing outside waiting on
> > > Virginia and Barbara. "Oh, there they are. I can get moving again."
> > > Sure, Hank....
> > Another logical fallacy, this is a strawman argument, where you rebut a
> > point I didn't make but pretend you did.
> Your point was that Davis saw Oswald. I used sarcasm to indicate that she
> most probably did not see him, but someone chasing the actual perp.

You used sarcasm instead of evidence. Interesting. I'm more of an evidence
man myself. You got any evidence of a different perp (and note I'm asking
for actual evidence, not speculation, not innuendo, note sarcasm, not
inferences from something somebody failed to say or note, I'm asking for
actual evidence of a different perp).


> > > (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
> > > By a witness who plumb forgot to tell the first cops to her house that she
> > > had just seen Oswald after 12:30. Again, sure....
> > Is this something in the actual evidence or something you derived as a
> > conclusion by reading something?
> > Can you actually cite for the claim?
> See Commission Exhibit 2003 pp230, 231(Det. Potts) & 245 (Det. Senkel).

Potts: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0168a.htm
Senkel: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0172a.htm

It took some digging, but I found the links (above) you should have
provided.

What was Senkel and Potts tasked with by Fritz?

Potts says to go to the rooming house and search the room of Oswald. It
wasn't to interview the owner or the housekeeper. Potts says they searched
the room and recovered certain items.

Senkel said he was tasked to go to the rooming house and search the room
of Oswald. Senkel says they searched the room and recovered certain
items.

There is no mention of any interview of Johnson or Roberts. Your argument
is not supported by the evidence.

You take the failure to interview Mrs. Johnson or Mrs. Roberts and the
failure to specify they were asked when they last saw him as evidence that
she "plumb forgot to tell the first cops ... she had just seen Oswald".
It's not evidence of that at all. It's evidence Potts and Senkel did what
they were tasked to do -- search the room of Oswald -- not interview
people in the rooming house.



> > > That's one of those
> > > scraps--the landlady wasn't properly debriefed before 3pm, when the two
> > > cops were there. As McWatters wasn't debriefed before his 11/22
> > > affidavit.
> > You are begging the questions once more. You have to establish these
> > supposed debriefings, not just proclaim them as a given.

You ignored this point.


> > > 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.
> > > Reynolds last saw the suspect headed in the other direction, to the old
> > > house. He and the cops of course were just embarrassed by their mistake,
> > > and he didn't mention the old house in his testimony, and they, for their
> > > part, considerately didn't mention his name in connection with the house,
> > > in their testimony. I mean, at least, Westbrook and Owens didn't....
> > >
> > We agree on the outline here. Did Westbrook and Owens even know Reynolds
> > or meet with him? Can you establish that?
> Yes. See the photo (or frame grab), bottom, page 121, "With Malice":
> "Westbrook questions Reynolds".


How does this photo establish Westbrook and Owens knew Reynolds name?
That's the argument you're advancing, that they knew it, but failed to
mention it in their testimony. That photo (or frame grab) shows Westbrook
talking with Reynolds. It doesn't show Reynolds identified himself, or
that Westbrook ( or Owens, how does he enter your argument?) made a note
(physical or mental) of Reynolds name.

Your task, if you're going to argue they failed to mention Reynolds name
in their testimony not to embarass Reynolds, is to show they knew his name
and noted it, not just that one of them talked to him.

We'll await your evidence, not your suppositions and innuendo, suspicions
and leaping to conclusions.

I'm an evidence kind of guy. Got any of the good stuff?

Hank



Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 23, 2021, 8:45:10 PMFeb 23
to
So your argument is she noticed it when it was first shown to her and she
reaffirmed she saw that hole when it was shown to her later, in her Warren
Commission testimony.

I'm curious why you think this helps your cause.

Hank

donald willis

unread,
Feb 24, 2021, 5:54:10 AMFeb 24
to
He had proclaimed his innocence in public.

>
> Bizarre.

donald willis

unread,
Feb 24, 2021, 5:54:13 AMFeb 24
to
On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 6:23:12 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 6:14:00 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > On Friday, February 12, 2021 at 5:15:09 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > > 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: CUT g 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.
> > However, she says (in her affidavit) that she & "the police" found a shell
> > "where I saw this man emptying his gun"*. That they found a shell in the
> > front yard. But in her testimony, she changes that to, she found a shell
> > in the side yard on Patton (as you quote her, below):
> >
> > *affidavit: "When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of them where I
> > saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell."

> Sorry, I don't see the problem. Who besides the killer would be emptying a
> gun?

The problem is that she is here saying that they found a shell "where I
saw this man emptying his gun". If so, she would have been able to lead
the cops directly to it, and it would have been found well before Sgt
Hill's 1:40 transmission re "auto" shells. That's why they had Ms Davis
change her story for her testimony, so that the shell could be said to
have been found outside her range of vision, and it could not have been
said to have been covered by the transmission.

It wasn't Scoggins because we know the person seen didn't look like a
> weather-beaten 50 or 60-year-old or thereabouts. Scoggins had no reason to
> empty Tippit's gun.
>
> She picked Oswald out of a lineup that same night as the man she saw.
> "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."
>
> This isn't going very well for you.

Going worse for you.
"Another" "admitted"?

> > 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?
> > So, a few hours after the assassination, she stated that she & her
> > sis-in-law "ran to the side door at Patton". That was when her memory was
> > fresh.
> Ok.
> > So, in her testimony--six month later--when she says that they
> > went to the front door on 10th, she must be remembering "incorrectly"....

> Ok. That's the point I made. Witnesses are sometimes wrong about stuff.

Great! Now you have (as I do) Virginia Davis saying that she saw the guy
drop a shell, and it would, if so, thus have been found fairly quickly,
like her sister--in-law's shell. All the shells then were covered by Sgt.
Hill's 1:40 "auto" shell transmission. Notice that I said "SAYING that
she saw the guy drop a shell" (on the side yard). She could not have seen
ANY shells dropped since they were ejected AUTOMATICALLY near Tippit's
car. Her affidavit was just the first, very awkward step in covering up
the fact that she saw no shells dropped. But she needed to change her
story, and did, in her testimony....

dcw

John Corbett

unread,
Feb 24, 2021, 1:43:21 PMFeb 24
to
I just submitted a new thread using Tiger Woods car crash as a perfect
example of how erroneous early reports can be. Contrary to initial
reports, the jaws-of--life were not needed to extract Woods from the
rolled over SUV. Hill's report of the shells being from an automatic is
just another example of an erroneous early report made because somebody
(Hill) jumped to a conclusion that later turned out to be false, yet you
continue to cling to this error as if it were an established fact. Tippit
was shot with a revolver which does not eject shells and none were ever
found near his car. Oswald had to manually eject the shells from the
cylinder of his revolver and was seen doing that as he fled the scene. The
fact the shells were found some distance away and not near the site of the
shooting tells us it was not an automatic. So why do you continue to
insist that it was?

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 24, 2021, 1:43:27 PMFeb 24
to
Yes, so?

In your world, guilty people *always* admit guilt, and never proclaim
their innocence?

I fail to understand your point. Again, while he was proclaiming his
innocence in public, he made no public statements about his rifle that I
recall. Why not rewrite his statements to include an admission he owned a
rifle, and yeah, he brought it to work that day to show to his co-workers,
as another employee did earlier that week?

He made no public denials about the backyard photos either. Why not better
frame him by admitting, "Yeah, that's me in the photo, and that's my
rifle, so what?"

Instead, they "rewrite" his claims in custory by having him deny
everything!

What do you think Oswald's original claims were, before your claim of
"rewriting"?

>
> >
> > Bizarre.

Your take on this is still bizarre.

Hank

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 24, 2021, 1:43:50 PMFeb 24
to
Hilarious. Do you even listen to yourself? If I asked a five-year old
where they put something, and it was where they said it was, should I
accused them of lying?

That's your argument here.

> If so, she would have been able to lead
> the cops directly to it, and it would have been found well before Sgt
> Hill's 1:40 transmission re "auto" shells.

"would have been able to" vs "did". Look up the difference and report back
to us.


> That's why they had Ms Davis
> change her story for her testimony,

Not established. Your entire premise is begged, based on accusing Barbara
Davis of lying, which is premised on her saying the shell was found where
she saw the man emptying his gun.

> so that the shell could be said to
> have been found outside her range of vision, and it could not have been
> said to have been covered by the transmission.

What? The man was seen emptying his *revolver*. Numerous witnesses said
that.

> It wasn't Scoggins because we know the person seen didn't look like a
> > weather-beaten 50 or 60-year-old or thereabouts. Scoggins had no reason to
> > empty Tippit's gun.
> >
> > She picked Oswald out of a lineup that same night as the man she saw.
> > "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."
> >
> > This isn't going very well for you.
> Going worse for you.

I beg to differ. I have evidence. You have speculation based on the shell
being found where Barbara said the man was emptying his gun.
And this is ignored.

> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > I was being facetious. Obviously, it was another man that Virginia saw a
> > > few minutes after the shooting.
> > Begging the question. Describe another man who admitted to unloading a gun
> > and tossing away expended shells. You can't.
> "Another" "admitted"?

Yes. Did Scoggins say he unloaded Tippit's gun? Did Callaway? Tippit
possessed a revolver. So did Oswald. The shells recovered at the scene
matched Oswald's weapon, not Tippit's. To make this into something else,
you need to provide evidence of someone else emptying a revolver.

You have zilch, so you're forced into accusing almost everyone of lying to
aid in the coverup.
Would have been found fairly quickly does not mean "was found fairly
quickly". Define "fairly quickly". I would think the interviews of the
witnesses came before the witnesses were asked to point out the shells.

> All the shells then were covered by Sgt.
> Hill's 1:40 "auto" shell transmission.

We've covered that ad infinitum. Hill admitted he made a reasonable
conjecture based on the mere presence of shells at the scene.. He had not
handled any at that point. He simply conjectured an automatic because he
was told of shells.


> Notice that I said "SAYING that
> she saw the guy drop a shell" (on the side yard). She could not have seen
> ANY shells dropped since they were ejected AUTOMATICALLY near Tippit's
> car.

You just invented an automatic based on hearsay and calling the witnesses
who said they saw the gunman emptying his gun liars.

CTs gotta do what CTs gotta do.


> Her affidavit was just the first, very awkward step in covering up
> the fact that she saw no shells dropped. But she needed to change her
> story, and did, in her testimony....

Her affidavit was on 11/22/63. They were covering up even then?

Why not frame Oswald for owning an automatic?


Hank

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 24, 2021, 9:18:22 PMFeb 24
to
Oooh, oooh, pick me!

He insists on such nonsense because without it, he's stuck admitting all
the evidence points to Oswald killing both Kennedy and Tippit.

And he can't have that.

Hank

donald willis

unread,
Feb 24, 2021, 9:18:28 PMFeb 24
to
Hostile witness! She already didn't like him. Her chance to "get"
Oswald....

> All three, together, form enough of a web that it snares Oswald.

An old, decrepit web. And I don't think I said that McWatters didn't pick
up Oswald. I just showed how he did not pick up Oswald and Jones on the
same bus trip.

dcw

donald willis

unread,
Feb 24, 2021, 10:02:51 PMFeb 24
to
From the post which started this thread:


"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)

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. 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.

An FBI interview (1/21/64 WM p547) with Lewis and an 8/26/64 affidavit (hearings v15p703) by Lewis correcting that interview shed some light on the man whom the four saw. In the interview, Lewis states that he saw a "white male... running south on Patton", then "called the DPD". In the affidavit, he makes "clarifications": "Upon hearing the shots... I immediately called the DPD.... There was so much confusion at the DPD end of the telephone conversation, they were having trouble making out what I was telling them. A FEW MINUTES LATER, I observed a white male... running south on Patton...."

Pretty clearly, Lewis' clarification indicates that the person he was watching was not Tippit's killer, nor a second gunman. The few-minute time delay indicates, rather, that the person whom Lewis saw was simply a fellow witness chasing the killer. Lewis was too late to see the latter. Lewis's affidavit reflects a similar time delay evidenced in witness Virginia Davis' Commission testimony: "Jeanette [her sister-in-law] called the police, and we went back, and [the suspect] was cutting across our yard" (v6p457). She reiterates this sequence a total of at least 10 times before counsel (David Belin) finally gets her to reverse it (p467)! Oh, too late, David. The damage is done. Virginia Davis was also too late to have seen the killer. Belin, however, satisfied (he got what he wanted), doesn't ask her again about sequencing....

A letter of information from Patrolmen J.M. Poe and L.E. Jez to Chief Curry, on 11/22/63, states, "There were approximately six to eight witnesses, all telling officers that the subject was running WEST IN THE ALLEY between 10th and Jefferson." (WM p487) Poe and Jez make reference to two of these "6 to 8" alley-suspect witnesses: Mrs. Markham and Domingo Benavides. In his Commission testimony, Poe further includes a third, "one of [the two Davis girls]" (v7p69), as among those aforementioned six or so witnesses to whom he spoke that afternoon. In all likelihood, this was Virginia Davis, who also let slip in her testimony, "We saw the boy cutting across the STREET". (v6p460) This street could only have been Patton, off which was the alley. In her 11/22/63 affidavit, she stated that she and her sister-in-law "heard a shot and then another shot and ran to side door at Patton Street". Virginia Davis was one of the Poe-Jez "west in the alley" witnesses. If her sister-in-law was, too, she was, at any rate, apparently not one of the Poe-Jez witnesses.

At the Commission hearings, Mrs. Markham said only that she last saw the suspect headed down Patton ("toward Jefferson"). But on 12/2/63, 10th Street resident Frank Cimino told the FBI that she had told him that she saw a man "run west on 10th Street and pointed in the direction of an alley which runs between 10th St. & Jefferson off Patton St." (WM p538) DPD Sgt. Pete Barnes' crime-scene sketch (WM p161) charts a path from Tippit's car on 10th to Patton to the alley ("210 ft" from 10th to the alley), and he notes, "W on alley to Crawford". The only witness shown in film footage taken at the crime scene with Barnes is... Mrs. Markham (WM pp154, 155). And, as Dale Myers writes, "In later years, Markham stated the killer cut across the SW corner of 10th & Patton & fled west down the alley between Patton [Myers apparently meant "10th"] & Jefferson" (p216). And in an interview posted on YouTube by "JFK 63 conspiracy", Mrs. Markham herself says that "he run [sic] off across the field... went over the fence and down the alley".

The third Poe-Jez witness, Benavides, like Virginia Davis, told the Commission that he was on 10th St. & thus could not have seen where the suspect went after he disappeared around the corner of the Davis residence at 10th & Patton. But the Poe-Jez report creates a little ambiguity here, and an 11/22/63 supplementary offense report by Dets. Leavelle & Dhority states that Benavides "did not see the suspect" (WM p449). More ambiguity. Benavides did little to clear up the latter--he made no affidavits, statements, or interview reports until his Commission testimony. For whatever reasons, he was a blank slate when, finally, he talked to the Commission.

The first take of another witness, Jimmy Burt, in a 12/15/63 interview with the FBI, states that "he ran to the intersection of 10th & Patton and when he was close enough to Patton to see to the south HE SAW THE MAN RUNNING INTO AN ALLEY located between 10th & Jefferson.""

dcw

donald willis

unread,
Feb 24, 2021, 10:02:54 PMFeb 24
to
"they recognized [Oswald] as one of their roomers".... No interviewing of
Mrs. Roberts need have been done. Just add a ", who was just here about
an hour or two ago", after "their roomers". She didn't because she hadn't
seen him.

Meanwhile, Senkel records that Mrs. Johnson said that they had 17 rooms
with 16 occupied. That has nothing to do with searching Oswald's room.
And it's a sight less important than the (non-)fact that Oswald was there
within the last 2 hours.
Moving the goalposts. Not what you asked. I established that Westbrook
met with Reynolds. Now that's not enough.

dcw

donald willis

unread,
Feb 24, 2021, 10:02:57 PMFeb 24
to
Westbrook actually rewrites the old-house story:

"here is an old house the only thing--I come down by this station
there---there is an old house there and some of the officers were looking
it over. They had seen somebody go in it and there was quite a few
officers there so I didn't pay any further attention to it. So, I walked
on, and possibly--this may be it--it appears to be it right here in the
corner." (from his testimony)

No "officers" had seen anybody go in, he says. He just walked past the
scene. And yet he talked to the citizen who saw someone go in. Nice.
Reynolds didn't have to worry about the DPD undercutting him!

dcw

John Corbett

unread,
Feb 25, 2021, 8:04:05 AMFeb 25
to
I never cease to be amazed at the lengths conspiracy hobbyists will go to
in order to deceive themselves. They will find one cockamamie excuse
after another to dismiss each and every piece of the damning evidence of
Oswald's guilt in both murders so they can construct alternative scenarios
that become so convoluted they would make Rube Goldberg envious.

donald willis

unread,
Feb 25, 2021, 12:41:23 PMFeb 25
to
She noticed it, or it was pointed out to her, when Sorrels showed her the
shirt, but she hadn't necessarily seen it before.

donald willis

unread,
Feb 25, 2021, 12:41:27 PMFeb 25
to
Okay. It was just the reverse. He didn't say that. He said the
opposite, that "they had seen somebody go in it"....

donald willis

unread,
Feb 25, 2021, 12:41:28 PMFeb 25
to
The shells were SAID to have been found "some distance away". Don't think
they really were....

John Corbett

unread,
Feb 25, 2021, 9:13:24 PMFeb 25
to
They were said to have been found some distance away because the were
found some distance away. You have no evidence to the contrary. You just
invented this cockamamie story out of thin air.

donald willis

unread,
Feb 25, 2021, 9:13:26 PMFeb 25
to
On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 10:43:27 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 5:54:10 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 6:23:00 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 6:13:58 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote: BIG CUT

> > > > a straight line. You and Hank invoke "zigzagging" to account for the
> > > > travels of a suspect and a vigilante.
> > > > You seem to think that because a
> > > > > witness says something that establishes it as a fact. Unless of course
> > > > > that witness says something that conflicts with what you want to believe.
> > > > You're perfectly describing the mindset of Fritz, Bookhout, & Kelley, who
> > > > wrote Oswald's interviews. Oh, yes, "wrote". What, that is, McW wrote in
> > > > his 11/22 affidavit "conflicted" with what the DPD, FBI & SS wanted to
> > > > hear. So they demolished that affidavit, changed everything, rewrote the
> > > > interviews, and discredited McW's ID of Oswald. If you don't believe me,
> > > > listen to the recording of the interviews. Oh, that's right....
> > > >
> > > > dcw
> > > Bizarre.
> > >
> > > If the LEOs were making up Oswald's answers after the fact, why didn't
> > > they make up that Oswald admitted that he admitted to owning a rifle? Or
> > > make up that Oswald admitted it was a legit photo of him with his rifle in
> > > the Neely Street backyard.

Former poster here Walt Cakebread insisted that the photo of him & the
rifle was a fraud. All I know is that it was thoughtful of Oswald to
leave more evidence around. He was good about that....

Or make up that he admitted bringing it to the
> > > Depository? Or make up that he admitted shooting the President.
> > >
> > > Instead, you proclaim they "rewrote the interviews" of Oswald to better
> > > frame him by having him proclaim his innocence and denying he ever owned a
> > > rifle!
> > He had proclaimed his innocence in public.
> Yes, so?
>
> In your world, guilty people *always* admit guilt, and never proclaim
> their innocence?
>
> I fail to understand your point. Again, while he was proclaiming his
> innocence in public, he made no public statements about his rifle that I
> recall. Why not rewrite his statements to include an admission he owned a
> rifle, and yeah, he brought it to work that day to show to his co-workers,
> as another employee did earlier that week?
>
> He made no public denials about the backyard photos either. Why not better
> frame him by admitting, "Yeah, that's me in the photo, and that's my
> rifle, so what?"
>
> Instead, they "rewrite" his claims in custory by having him deny
> everything!
>
> What do you think Oswald's original claims were, before your claim of
> "rewriting"?

The statement of his that I have studied was that he went to the second
floor & got a soda. That's all. No 2nd-floor encounter. I believe that
that was what he *claimed*, and Hosty & Bookhout accurately reported that.
Bookhout later did a retake on the first interview and completely rewrote
that episode himself! *Bookhout* did some rewriting to include a
2nd-floor encounter (whether it happened or not) and have Oswald (as I
recall) still eating lunch after 12:30....

dcw

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 25, 2021, 9:59:14 PMFeb 25
to