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 Historical content remains viewable.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

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

570 views
Skip to first unread message

donald willis

unread,
Feb 10, 2021, 5:51:26 AM2/10/21
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 PM2/10/21
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 PM2/10/21
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 PM2/10/21
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 PM2/10/21
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 AM2/11/21
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 AM2/11/21
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 AM2/11/21
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 PM2/11/21
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 PM2/11/21
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 AM2/12/21
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 AM2/12/21
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 AM2/12/21
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 AM2/15/21
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 AM2/15/21
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 AM2/15/21
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 AM2/15/21
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 AM2/15/21
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 AM2/15/21
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 PM2/15/21
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 PM2/15/21
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 PM2/15/21
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 PM2/15/21
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 PM2/15/21
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 PM2/15/21
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 AM2/16/21
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 AM2/16/21
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 AM2/22/21
to
Yeah, she noticed it when Sorrels brought it to her home!

dcw

donald willis

unread,
Feb 23, 2021, 1:03:47 PM2/23/21
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 PM2/23/21
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 PM2/23/21
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 AM2/24/21
to
He had proclaimed his innocence in public.

>
> Bizarre.

donald willis

unread,
Feb 24, 2021, 5:54:13 AM2/24/21
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 PM2/24/21
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 PM2/24/21
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 PM2/24/21
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 PM2/24/21
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 PM2/24/21
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 PM2/24/21
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 PM2/24/21
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 PM2/24/21
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 AM2/25/21
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 PM2/25/21
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 PM2/25/21
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 PM2/25/21
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 PM2/25/21
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 PM2/25/21
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 PM2/25/21
to
So what's your beef? Let's say they were on separate trips, so what?

If they were on different trips, Oswald had to be on the earlier one
because his landlady saw him at 1:00PM, and he was seen on Jefferson by
Brewer about 1:30PM, and he was arrested at 1:50. He also had a transfer
that McWatters punched for 1pm on his person, and McWatters identified
that transfer as one he gave to the man who left the bus. That man would
be Oswald. Whaley puts him in his cab about 1:45 and Roberts puts him at
the rooming house at "about 1:00 PM".

And, lest I forget, numerous witnesses and some physical evidence puts him
at the scene or in the vicinity of the Tippit killing at 1:15PM.

Unless of course all those people and more were colluding to frame Oswald
because they are all hostile witnesses and already didn't like him, or
something like that.

I don't see how your argument(s) removes Oswald from the scene of the
crime whatsoever.

Hank


Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 25, 2021, 9:59:17 PM2/25/21
to
Hilarious!

You don't understand what a hostile witness is. There weren't any in the
WC investigation because you didn't have a prosecution and defense side.
You only had one fact-finding body.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hostile_witness#:~:text=A%20witness%20who%20testifies%20against,Also%20called%20an%20adverse%20witness.
== QUOTE ==
Hostile Witness

A witness who testifies against the party who has called the person to
testify. The examiner may ask a hostile witness leading questions, as in
cross-examination. Also called an adverse witness.

== UNQUOTE ==

And since you're already at the point of admitting Oswald was on McWatters
bus, what's the point of doubting a woman who says she was on that bus and
recognized him from when he rented a room from her (and stiffed her for
the final week's rent he owed)?

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 25, 2021, 9:59:21 PM2/25/21
to
> > 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.

> "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.

Or maybe she did but they didn't catch it or note it in their memorandum.

Your problem here is your problem with the sixth floor evidence: You argue
that if something isn't noted, that means it never happened and that means
any later clarification is rejected by you as a lie.

You don't allow for human error of any kind.

>
> 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.

You go from a failure to note something to the argument that Oswald didn't
go to the rooming house and Roberts is lying. But Oswald admitted in
custody he went there. And Whaley (the cab driver) said he took him to
within a few blocks of the rooming house. And Oswald had a revolver on him
when arrested, and the holster was found by Senkel and Potts at the
rooming house - but no weapon was found there. Where'd Oswald get the
weapon he was arrested with if not at the rooming house? Why was Oswald
armed at 1:50 and why did he pull it on officer McDonald in the movie
theatre when Oswald slugged McDonald?

Everyone is lying to frame Oswald? Why?

> > > > > 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.


Still ignoring it.


> > > > > 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?
> Moving the goalposts. Not what you asked. I established that Westbrook
> met with Reynolds. Now that's not enough.

You established that Westbrook met with Reynolds. But your argument is
that they concealed his name in their testimony to avoid embarrassing him,
and that's the point you need to establish, not just assert and assume.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 26, 2021, 5:09:29 PM2/26/21
to
So you say that is a point of law that you are not allowed to testify
against someone who tried to kill you because you are biased?

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 26, 2021, 5:09:37 PM2/26/21
to
You're arguing with yourself here.
You argued the first point here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/vHtMMDoZ45Q/m/vedV7A4xAQAJ

Now you're saying that's wrong.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 26, 2021, 5:09:40 PM2/26/21
to
> > shooting tells us it was not an automatic. So why do you continue to
> > insist that it was?

> The shells were SAID to have been found "some distance away". Don't think
> they really were....


Nobody cares what you think. Opinions are like... you know where I'm
going, so there's no need to complete it.

The testimony of the witnesses establishes the shells were ejected from a
revolver and toss away by the gunman. The shells in evidence were examined
and ballistics establishes they were ejected from Oswald's revolver to the
exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

You can ignore that evidence all you want or attempt to discredit all the
witnesses and the expert testimony all you want, but it's not going away
just because you find it inconvenient, closed you eyes to it and clicked
your Ruby shoe heels together and wished it to be so.

Hank


Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 26, 2021, 5:10:02 PM2/26/21
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.

> She noticed it, or it was pointed out to her, when Sorrels showed her the
> shirt, but she hadn't necessarily seen it before.

And you can establish this because? Oh, you can't. You're just wishing upon
a star.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bledsoe1.htm

Bledsoe's affidavit from the day after the assassination says not only
that she was on the bus and saw Oswald, but she mentions that someone said
the President had been shot. She further mentions that Oswald got on about
Murphy Street and left after only two or three blocks.

She was lying about all that?

Hank



Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 26, 2021, 8:29:18 PM2/26/21
to
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 9:13:26 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> 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.

Nobody cares what Walt Cakebread insisted. We also don't care if he held
his breath and stamped his feet. It doesn't change the facts any. And your
diversionary tactic doesn't answer my question... If the LEO's 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?

Instead, you want to talk about what Cakebread "insisted", which is the BY
photos are frauds -- totally off the point of my question and doesn't
address or support your claims in any way.


> All I know is that it was thoughtful of Oswald to
> leave more evidence around. He was good about that....

Sigh. Critics attempt to have it both ways. If the evidence points to
Oswald, it's because he was framed, so of course the evidence points to
him. If there's no evidence (like where he purchased the MC ammo), then
it's because he was framed, so of course there's no evidence pointing to
him.

You're doing it here, attempting to dismiss solid evidence against Oswald
solely because it's solid evidence against Oswald.

And of course, this is diversionary tactic #2, as it doesn't begin to
answer my question in regards to your claim above, that the LEO's were
making up Oswald's interview answers after the fact ("Fritz, Bookhout, &
Kelley, who wrote Oswald's interviews. ... So they ... changed
everything, rewrote the interviews...").

If they were making up Oswald's responses after the fact, why didn't they
put more admissions of guilt into Oswald's mouth?


> 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.

Hilarious. The second floor encounter is confirmed by all three parties to
it (Truly, Baker, and Oswald) so of course you think it never happened.


> I believe that
> that was what he *claimed*, and Hosty & Bookhout accurately reported that.

You mean they didn't mention the encounter in their first affidavits on
their interogation of Oswald, I take it? So if it wasn't mentioned, it
didn't happen?

Did they mention the Titanic sinking? WWI? WWII? The Packers winning the
NFL Championship in 1962? Those aren't mentioned either, so those never
happened also, right?


> 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....

You assert this 'stuff' as if you can prove it, but it's all supposition
on your part.

Suspects often trip themselves up by telling a different story in each
retelling, forgetting what they said the first time. So LEO's
interrogating a suspect will have them repeat the story, and often will
jump around in asking questions, not covering everything in chronological
order, as it makes the story harder for the suspect to make up.

You appear not to know any of this, and presume if the LEOs note different
stories from the suspect in different memorandum, it's because the LEOs
are lying and rewriting, rather than the suspect adding, deleting, or
changing things as he fails to remember everything he claimed earlier.

How did you eliminate Oswald not mentioning the encounter in his earliest
interrogations, then admitting to it in later ones?

Oh, you didn't? You just assumed? You are good about that.....

Hank

donald willis

unread,
Feb 26, 2021, 8:29:23 PM2/26/21
to
The "thin air" of Commission testimony. At least 8 times, Virginia Davis
testified that they called the cops, THEN saw the man with the gun. The
man, then, could not have been the shooter, and could not have flung
shells around all around Oak Cliff, "some distance away" from Tippit's
car.

dcw

donald willis

unread,
Feb 26, 2021, 8:29:27 PM2/26/21
to
I'm accusing her of changing her story. As you note, she said, in her
affidavit, "the shell was found where she saw the man emptying his gun",
on the front lawn. In her later testimony, she said it was found on the
side yard, on Patton.

> > 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.

The key word is "found". In their testimony, both Davises now said that
they only SAW the man emptying his gun into his HAND. They now (in their
testimony) say they did NOT see the suspect dropping the shell in the
grass.

dcw (don't fret, I'll get to the rest here later)

donald willis

unread,
Feb 26, 2021, 8:29:37 PM2/26/21
to
On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 10:43:50 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 5:54:13 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 6:23:12 PM UTC- CUT (already answered that section)
Back at you!
We don't have much of anything from him about the shells until his
testimony, where, you'll recall, he denied sending the "auto"
transmission! If he lied about that, he had to lie re the finding of the
shells, to make the "auto" lie good. Dale Myers interviewed Hill in the
80s, and the latter said that he and Poe picked up the shells.

He had not
> handled any at that point. He simply conjectured an automatic because he
> was told of shells.

He changed that story in the 80s.


> > 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?

Yes. But some loose ends had to be covered up later.

> Why not frame Oswald for owning an automatic?
>

That might have been a little difficult. Everyone and his mother was
there in or outside the theater.

dcw

donald willis

unread,
Feb 26, 2021, 8:46:23 PM2/26/21
to
I could have it if it were true. But it isn't.

>
> Hank

donald willis

unread,
Feb 26, 2021, 8:46:27 PM2/26/21
to
You didn't give this much thought. If Jones isn't on Oswald's bus, then
it was in fact Oswald who took McWatters' bus all the way to Oak Cliff,
getting there about 1:23, as I detail in "Only Oswald...."

dcw

John Corbett

unread,
Feb 27, 2021, 8:12:56 AM2/27/21
to
Don doesn't need to prove the things he alleges. He finds it sufficient
just to show it is a theoretical possibility, no matter how remote.

John Corbett

unread,
Feb 27, 2021, 8:12:59 AM2/27/21
to
I'm wondering if he tossed them or just emptied them from the cylinder.
Since shells expand when they are fired, often they will not slide easily
out of the chambers of the cylinder. That's why most revolvers, and I
think all Smith and Wesson revolvers, are equipped with an ejector rod
that will lift the shells out of the cylinder. That would likely be a two
hand operation with one hand on the handle and the other pushing the
ejector rod at the front of the cylinder. With the muzzle pointed to the
sky, the shells would probably just fall to the ground.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 27, 2021, 9:57:20 AM2/27/21
to
You ignored this entirely.


> > > 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.
> I'm accusing her of changing her story. As you note, she said, in her
> affidavit, "the shell was found where she saw the man emptying his gun",
> on the front lawn. In her later testimony, she said it was found on the
> side yard, on Patton.

No, you're not simply accusing her of changing her story.


You're claiming there's a massive cover-up / conspiracy to frame Oswald:
"That's why *THEY* [emphasis added] had Ms Davis change her story for her
testimony," And so it's not as simple as accusing her of changing her
story. There is a whole other story imbedded in your claim. Who is "they"
and what evidence do you have of that? You have none. And so we come to
you constantly imbedding your premise into your arguments, begging the
question, because you have no evidence of this cover-up / conspiracy you
suggest, just so changes of testimony that you figure must lead somewhere,
whether they be nothing more than either a clarification / forgetfulness
on the part of the witness or a misunderstanding of the evidence on your
part.

> > > 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.
> The key word is "found". In their testimony, both Davises now said that
> they only SAW the man emptying his gun into his HAND. They now (in their
> testimony) say they did NOT see the suspect dropping the shell in the
> grass.

Virginia Davis did NOT say she saw the suspect dropping the shell on the
ground in her affidavit either:
...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". This woman told Jeanette to call the Police and she did [sic]. I
saw the officer that had been shot lying on Tenth street after Jeanette
had called the police. Jeanette found a empty shell [sic] that the man had
unloaded and gave it to the police. After the Police had left I found a
empty shell [sic] in our yard. This is the same shell I gave to Detective
Dhority [sic]. The man that was unloading the gun was the same man I saw
tonight as number 2 man in a line up.

== UNQUOTE ==

Barbara Davis did NOT say she saw the suspect dropping the shell on the
ground in her affidavit either:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm

== QUOTE ==

I heard a shot and jumped up and heard another shot. I put on my shoes and
went to the door and I saw this man walking across my front yard unloading
a gun. ... When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of them where I saw
this man emptying his gun and we found a shell. After the police had left
I went back into the yard and Virginia found another shell which I turned
over to the police. About 8:00 pm the same day, the police came after me
and took me downtown to the city hall where I saw this man in a lineup.
The #2 man in a 4-man lineup was the same man I saw in my yard, also the
one that was unloading the gun.

== UNQUOTE ==


There is nothing in either first day affidavit about seeing the man
actually drop a shell onto the ground. They both simply say they saw him
'unloading a gun" or "emptying his gun". Nothing in either about what
specifically happened to the shells, whether the shells were simply
emptied into his palm or tossed onto the ground.

Your entire argument is premised around an change between the testimony
and the affidavit that you claim happened, but didn't. You are simply
assuming what you need to prove, and using your assumption as the basis of
the assertion for the invented cover up / conspiracy claim: "That's why
*THEY* [emphasis added] had Ms Davis change her story for her testimony,"

>
> dcw (don't fret, I'll get to the rest here later)

Somehow I doubt that.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 27, 2021, 9:57:22 AM2/27/21
to
The witnesses and the hard evidence establish otherwise.

Your assumptions, begged questions, and assertions based on false premises
are not evidence.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 27, 2021, 9:57:39 AM2/27/21
to
That assumption doesn't hold water. You're ignoring the evidence I already
spelled out above.

1. McWatters said he gave a transfer out on that trip to one man who got
off the bus after only a few blocks.

2. When Oswald was arrested, he had that transfer.

3. Bledsoe said Oswald was on the bus only a few blocks.

4. Bledsoe and McWatters both allude to the same incident with someone
coming to the bus door and saying the President was shot: (Bledsoe:
"During that time someone made the statement that the President had
been shot") (McWatters: "Well, I was sitting in the bus, there was some
gentleman in front of me in a car, and he came back and walked up to
the bus and I opened the door and he said, "I have heard over my radio
in my car that the President has been--" I believe he used the
word--"has been shot.").

5. Oswald admitted in custody he got off the bus and took a cab. This is
noted in different LEO's memos for the record, working for different
agencies.

6. Whaley puts him in his cab because of Oswald's ID bracelet.

7. Roberts puts him rushing into the rooming house at about 1PM and
leaving after a few minutes zipping up a jacket.

8. Numerous witnesses put Oswald at the scene of the Tippit shooting.

9. The hard evidence of the shells puts Oswald as Tippit's killer.

You need to claim all these people (and others) are part of the frame-up
of Oswald to make Oswald go all the way to Oak Cliff on McWatters bus.
What evidence do you have that they all colluded in this way?

A bit fat nothing.

Can you even get Oswald from the bus route in Oak Cliff to Jefferson and
Brewer's shoe store in about seven minutes? What is the closest point to
Brewer's shoe store along the bus route? What is the distance?

Hank

John Corbett

unread,
Feb 27, 2021, 9:58:16 AM2/27/21
to
So who do you think Whaley took to Oak Cliff in his cab? Who do you think
Earlene Roberts saw come into her rooming house around 1:00?

John Corbett

unread,
Feb 27, 2021, 9:58:20 AM2/27/21
to
Pure nonsense.

Mr. BELIN. Now you heard the shots. You heard, you say, the second shot
and then what did you do?
Mrs. DAVIS. We was already up. We ran to the door.
Mr. BELIN. By we, who do you mean?
Mrs. DAVIS. Jeanette and I.
Mr. BELIN. You went to which door?
Mrs. DAVIS. The front door.
Mr. BELIN. That would be the front of the house facing East 10th Street?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you got to the door?
Mrs. DAVIS. Mrs. Markham was standing at the tree.
Mr. BELIN. If we can picture the street intersection, was she standing
in the middle of the street or on the sidewalk?

They went to the door first. They would have no reason to call the cops
until they went to the door and saw and heard Markham screaming.

A little later in her testimony

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?

She saw Oswald as she heard Markham screaming. That would have been right
after they ran to the front door.

> The man, then, could not have been the shooter, and could not have flung
> shells around all around Oak Cliff, "some distance away" from Tippit's
> car.
>

Nobody flung shells. Oswald dumped them from his revolver to reload.


Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 27, 2021, 3:33:26 PM2/27/21
to
> > And this is ignored.

> Back at you!

Uh, no. I'm not the one accusing all the witnesses of lying and all the
hard evidence of being manufactured and all the LEOs memorandum for the
record being changed to frame Oswald.

That's you.

I'm not ignoring the evidence or arguing it's all fraudulent.

I'm the one citing the evidence and pointing out how it all points to
Oswald.

So you don't get to say "Back at you!" because our arguments and our
positions on the evidence are not close to being in the same vicinity of
reality.

> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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.

You ignored this, I see.
Another point you ignored. "Back at you!" doesn't cover this.


> > > 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..
> We don't have much of anything from him about the shells until his
> testimony, where, you'll recall, he denied sending the "auto"
> transmission!

I see he denied handling the shells that early.
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. Had anyone at anytime given you any cartridge cases of any kind?
Mr. HILL. No; they had not. This came much later.
== UNQUOTE ==

I don't see where he denied sending the automatic transmission. Can you
cite that -- with links to the evidence, please -- that establishes you're
not misinterpreting something again?


> If he lied about that, he had to lie re the finding of the
> shells, to make the "auto" lie good.

You preface a lot of your remarks with "If", then a short while later, you
appear to forget that little word entirely.

> Dale Myers interviewed Hill in the
> 80s, and the latter said that he and Poe picked up the shells.


Did he say when they were picked up in relation to the automatic radio
call? Do we put much stock in 20-year-later recollections?

> He had not
> > handled any at that point. He simply conjectured an automatic because he
> > was told of shells.
> He changed that story in the 80s.

Did he? I see nothing but your assertion to that effect. I see nothing
that moves the needle, either. How much stock do you put into that
supposed change of testimony, given you've already suggested he would lie
to the Presidential Commission investigating the assassination of
Kennedy?


> > > 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.

And of course, "Back at ya!" doesn't cover this either.


> > > 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?
> Yes. But some loose ends had to be covered up later.

"Yes"??!

Evidence for this assertion is what?

Does "Back at ya!" cover that, too?


> > Why not frame Oswald for owning an automatic?
> >
> That might have been a little difficult. Everyone and his mother was
> there in or outside the theater.
>

Why? You've alleged everyone and his mother was lying about the evidence.

Better yet, why not have Tippit shot with a revolver and have the guilty
man simply reload his revolver as he fled the scene, dropping his shells
as he fled?

Oh, that's too easy an explanation, right? It's got to be some big cover-up
to frame Oswald somehow, right?

Why bother with framing him for killing a cop? What was wrong with the
evidence found at the Depository.

As even Oswald understood, they could only execute him once, regardless of
how many people he took out on 11/22/63.

Hank

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 27, 2021, 9:58:11 PM2/27/21
to
Just because you are wrong or stupid does not, mean you are lying.

donald willis

unread,
Feb 27, 2021, 9:58:39 PM2/27/21
to
Oh, you're quick!

donald willis

unread,
Feb 27, 2021, 9:58:44 PM2/27/21
to
We don't know WHAT he admitted or did not admit--we have no recordings of
the interviews.

>
> Instead, you want to talk about what Cakebread "insisted", which is the BY
> photos are frauds -- totally off the point of my question and doesn't
> address or support your claims in any way.
> > All I know is that it was thoughtful of Oswald to
> > leave more evidence around. He was good about that....
> Sigh. Critics attempt to have it both ways. If the evidence points to
> Oswald, it's because he was framed, so of course the evidence points to
> him

I'm not in your Critics group here--I don't think that Oswald was framed
for shooting JFK.

. If there's no evidence (like where he purchased the MC ammo), then
> it's because he was framed, so of course there's no evidence pointing to
> him.
>
> You're doing it here, attempting to dismiss solid evidence against Oswald
> solely because it's solid evidence against Oswald.
>
> And of course, this is diversionary tactic #2, as it doesn't begin to
> answer my question in regards to your claim above, that the LEO's were
> making up Oswald's interview answers after the fact ("Fritz, Bookhout, &
> Kelley, who wrote Oswald's interviews. ... So they ... changed
> everything, rewrote the interviews...").
>
> If they were making up Oswald's responses after the fact, why didn't they
> put more admissions of guilt into Oswald's mouth?
> > 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!

I shouldn't have said "changed everything"--the rifle seems to have been
his and seems to have been used by him.

> > > > 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.
> Hilarious. The second floor encounter is confirmed by all three parties to
> it (Truly, Baker, and Oswald) so of course you think it never happened.

Baker neglected to mention a lunchroom in his 11/22 affidavit; Oswald only
"confirmed" the 2nd-floor encounter in the fraudulent Bookhout report.


> > I believe that
> > that was what he *claimed*, and Hosty & Bookhout accurately reported that.
> You mean they didn't mention the encounter in their first affidavits on
> their interogation of Oswald, I take it? So if it wasn't mentioned, it
> didn't happen?
>

They DID mention that he went upstairs to get a coke. Bookhout had to
make up for the omission of the encounter with his orphan report.


> Did they mention the Titanic sinking? WWI? WWII? The Packers winning the
> NFL Championship in 1962? Those aren't mentioned either, so those never
> happened also, right?
> > 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....
> You assert this 'stuff' as if you can prove it, but it's all supposition
> on your part.
>
> Suspects often trip themselves up by telling a different story in each
> retelling, forgetting what they said the first time. So LEO's
> interrogating a suspect will have them repeat the story, and often will
> jump around in asking questions, not covering everything in chronological
> order, as it makes the story harder for the suspect to make up.
>
> You appear not to know any of this, and presume if the LEOs note different
> stories from the suspect in different memorandum, it's because the LEOs
> are lying and rewriting, rather than the suspect adding, deleting, or
> changing things as he fails to remember everything he claimed earlier.
>
> How did you eliminate Oswald not mentioning the encounter in his earliest
> interrogations, then admitting to it in later ones?

In what "later" interview did he mention a 2nd-floor-lunchroom encounter?

dcw

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 28, 2021, 6:43:50 AM2/28/21
to
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're talking about
Mrs. Bledsoe, not me, and you just worded it poorly. Otherwise, of course,
it would be the logical fallacy of ad hominem, where you attack the
messenger, rather than the message.

As I mentioned, she reported she saw Oswald on the bus by the day after
the assassination, and she reported the part where someone mentioned the
President had been shot as well. How does any of that make her wrong or
stupid?

Hank


Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 28, 2021, 6:43:53 AM2/28/21
to
"Oh, you're quick!" is another remark that's not responsive to my points.
It's neither a concession you're wrong, nor an argument for why you're
right.

Why do I suspect you'll drop this line of argument for a month or two and
then bring it up anew as if we never had this discussion about Bledsoe -
in a fringe reset?

Hank

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 28, 2021, 6:44:13 AM2/28/21
to
You avoided answering my question. I know there's no recordings - in 1963
it wasn't standard procedure. I asked why - if they wanted to frame
Oswald, why didn't they make up where he admitted owning a rifle or
admitted that was a photo of him in the Neely Street back yard?

We have memorandum for the record compiled by law enforcement officers
from four different agencies. You couldn't get those agencies to
coordinate working together back in 1963 to empty a waste basket, but they
all agreed on the day of the assassination to work together to frame
Oswald?

And they all felt the best approach was to make up and put in their memos
a bunch of denials Oswald made (like he didn't shoot the President, he
didn't kill any police officer, he didn't bring any long package to work,
he didn't own a rifle) rather than a bunch of admissions?

Your argument makes no sense.

> >
> > Instead, you want to talk about what Cakebread "insisted", which is the BY
> > photos are frauds -- totally off the point of my question and doesn't
> > address or support your claims in any way.
> > > All I know is that it was thoughtful of Oswald to
> > > leave more evidence around. He was good about that....
> > Sigh. Critics attempt to have it both ways. If the evidence points to
> > Oswald, it's because he was framed, so of course the evidence points to
> > him.
> I'm not in your Critics group here--I don't think that Oswald was framed
> for shooting JFK.

You're in the critics group on the TIppit murder, and you employ the same
routine. You're not any different.

You're the one suggesting it was thoughtful of Oswald to leave evidence
behind -- you're trying to suggest Oswald didn't leave the evidence behind
and it was planted to frame him in the murder of Tippit. You suggest the
witnesses are lying, the police are lying, the FBI memos are falsified,
the Secret Service was in on the frame up, and the evidence was swapped or
planted to better frame Oswald.

We've seen all that nonsense before. You're not any different in that
regard.

> > If there's no evidence (like where he purchased the MC ammo), then
> > it's because he was framed, so of course there's no evidence pointing to
> > him.
> >
> > You're doing it here, attempting to dismiss solid evidence against Oswald
> > solely because it's solid evidence against Oswald.
> >
> > And of course, this is diversionary tactic #2, as it doesn't begin to
> > answer my question in regards to your claim above, that the LEO's were
> > making up Oswald's interview answers after the fact ("Fritz, Bookhout, &
> > Kelley, who wrote Oswald's interviews. ... So they ... changed
> > everything, rewrote the interviews...").
> >
> > If they were making up Oswald's responses after the fact, why didn't they
> > put more admissions of guilt into Oswald's mouth?

This is what you're avoiding answering?

> > > 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!
> I shouldn't have said "changed everything"--the rifle seems to have been
> his and seems to have been used by him.

What did they make up about the Tippit shooting? Why did they put denials
in his mouth there instead of admissions?

More than one LEO said Oswald knew his way around an interrogation -- he
would admit things he felt were of no consequence but deny things he felt
could tie him to the murders.

> > > > > 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.
> > Hilarious. The second floor encounter is confirmed by all three parties to
> > it (Truly, Baker, and Oswald) so of course you think it never happened.
> Baker neglected to mention a lunchroom in his 11/22 affidavit; Oswald only
> "confirmed" the 2nd-floor encounter in the fraudulent Bookhout report.

False. I checked Fritz' report and he admitted it to Fritz at the bottom of page two:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0312b.htm
Fritz worked for the Dallas Police Department.

Bookout, who was an FBI agent, mentions it here as you concede:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm

Harry Holmes, an inspector for the Postal Service, mentions it here in his
second full paragraph on the below page:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0330b.htm


> > > I believe that
> > > that was what he *claimed*, and Hosty & Bookhout accurately reported that.
> > You mean they didn't mention the encounter in their first affidavits on
> > their interogation of Oswald, I take it? So if it wasn't mentioned, it
> > didn't happen?
> >
> They DID mention that he went upstairs to get a coke. Bookhout had to
> make up for the omission of the encounter with his orphan report.

All three of the above reports (Fritz, Bookhout, and Holmes) mention an
encounter with a police officer in the building. Oswald admitted it during
his interrogations, they noted it in their reports.

> > Did they mention the Titanic sinking? WWI? WWII? The Packers winning the
> > NFL Championship in 1962? Those aren't mentioned either, so those never
> > happened also, right?
> > > 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....

And Fritz and Holmes all cooperated by framing Oswald as well, right?
Truly and Baker cooperated by reporting this fake encounter also?

> > You assert this 'stuff' as if you can prove it, but it's all supposition
> > on your part.
> >
> > Suspects often trip themselves up by telling a different story in each
> > retelling, forgetting what they said the first time. So LEO's
> > interrogating a suspect will have them repeat the story, and often will
> > jump around in asking questions, not covering everything in chronological
> > order, as it makes the story harder for the suspect to make up.
> >
> > You appear not to know any of this, and presume if the LEOs note different
> > stories from the suspect in different memorandum, it's because the LEOs
> > are lying and rewriting, rather than the suspect adding, deleting, or
> > changing things as he fails to remember everything he claimed earlier.
> >
> > How did you eliminate Oswald not mentioning the encounter in his earliest
> > interrogations, then admitting to it in later ones?
> In what "later" interview did he mention a 2nd-floor-lunchroom encounter?
>

Holmes for one.

But I misspoke. Oswald apparently mentioned it more than once -- Fritz
says that was one of the first questions he asked Oswald in the first
interrogation session, Holmes mentions in the last interrogation session,
which was the only one he sat in on. Bookhout mentioned it, and Oswald,
Truly, and Baker all confirm the encounter in their statements. You're in
the position of arguing the Titanic never sank because that wasn't
specifically mentioned in every memo as well.

We know it did sink, not get towed back to port. And we know the second
floor encounter between Oswald, Truly, and Baker actually happened. And we
know that because Oswald admitted it in custody, and both Truly and Baker
independently confirmed it.

When the police, the FBI, a postal inspector, the suspect, and a neutral
party all agree, that's usually a good sign it happened. Not to you. To
you it's evidence it was all made up.

Hank

John Corbett

unread,
Feb 28, 2021, 2:34:35 PM2/28/21
to
On Sunday, February 28, 2021 at 6:44:13 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
>
> But I misspoke. Oswald apparently mentioned it more than once -- Fritz
> says that was one of the first questions he asked Oswald in the first
> interrogation session, Holmes mentions in the last interrogation session,
> which was the only one he sat in on. Bookhout mentioned it, and Oswald,
> Truly, and Baker all confirm the encounter in their statements. You're in
> the position of arguing the Titanic never sank because that wasn't
> specifically mentioned in every memo as well.
>
> We know it did sink, not get towed back to port.

In fact, just a few weeks ago I posted a next day newspaper report by the
New York Sun that the Titanic did not sink and there was no loss of life.
It had only been damaged and was being towed to Halifax. I later learned
that the New York Sun was not the only paper to make this false report.
Many of the country's papers were reporting the same thing. It was only
the New York Times which accurately reported the ship had sunk and there
was a massive loss of life. The other newspapers who incorrectly reported
the story were vilifying the New York Times for sensationalizing the
story. If we were to adopt Don's approach to the evidence, we would
conclude that the Titanic after surviving its collision with the iceberg,
was torpedoed and that the New York Times was in on the cover up.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Feb 28, 2021, 2:35:04 PM2/28/21
to
I covered the other stuff in an earlier post, but I missed this. That's a
half-truth, the kind critics specialize in. The kind that leaves an
impression to the unknowledgable reader of one thing, when the exact
opposite is true.

Baker's 11/22/63 memorandum for the record mentions an encounter involving
himself, "the manager", which can only be Truly, and a third male, which
can only be Oswald.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm

== QUOTE ==

As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the
stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward
me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the
man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man
approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a
light brown jacket.

== UNQUOTE ==

All it misstates is the floor. Baker put the encounter on the third or
fourth floor. The encounter actually occurred on the second floor. Of
course you stress the one thing he got wrong in the original affidavit,
neglecting to even mention that he did note the encounter between himself,
Truly and Oswald. Is that an honest accounting of what transpired?

Truly described it in his testimony this way:
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
Mr. TRULY. I saw the officer almost directly in the doorway of the lunch-room facing Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. And where was Lee Harvey Oswald at the time you saw him?
Mr. TRULY. He was at the front of the lunchroom, not very far inside he was just inside the lunchroom door.
...
Mr. TRULY. When I reached there, the officer had his gun pointing at Oswald. The officer turned this way and said, "This man work here?" And I said, "Yes."
Mr. BELIN. And then what happened?
Mr. TRULY. Then we left Lee Harvey Oswald immediately and continued to run up the stairways until we reached the fifth floor.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
== UNQUOTE ==


So let's summarize. We've got:
1) Oswald mentioning it during at least two interrogation sessions, as noted
by three LEOs for three different law enforcement agencies (DPD Fritz,
FBI Bookhout, and PO Holmes).
2) Roy Truly confirming it in his testimony.
3) Baker confirming it in his 11/22/63 affidavit and his testimony.

All three parties to the encounter confirm it took place, so of course --
being a critic -- you assert it never happened.

We're on to the this nonsense.

donald willis

unread,
Feb 28, 2021, 4:20:10 PM2/28/21
to
Nor did she say there that she saw him emptying the gun into his *hand*.
The hand business turned up only later in their statements & testimony.

> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
>
> == QUOTE ==
> ...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". This woman told Jeanette to call the Police and she did [sic]. I
> saw the officer that had been shot lying on Tenth street after Jeanette
> had called the police. Jeanette found a empty shell [sic] that the man had
> unloaded and gave it to the police. After the Police had left I found a
> empty shell [sic] in our yard. This is the same shell I gave to Detective
> Dhority [sic]. The man that was unloading the gun was the same man I saw
> tonight as number 2 man in a line up.

Notice that Virginia talks only of "unloading". And her "unloaded" re
Barbara Jeanette's shell implies dropping.

>
> == UNQUOTE ==
>
> Barbara Davis did NOT say she saw the suspect dropping the shell on the
> ground in her affidavit either:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm
>
> == QUOTE ==
>
> I heard a shot and jumped up and heard another shot. I put on my shoes and
> went to the door and I saw this man walking across my front yard unloading
> a gun. ... When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of them where I saw
> this man emptying his gun and we found a shell. After the police had left
> I went back into the yard and Virginia found another shell which I turned
> over to the police. About 8:00 pm the same day, the police came after me
> and took me downtown to the city hall where I saw this man in a lineup.
> The #2 man in a 4-man lineup was the same man I saw in my yard, also the
> one that was unloading the gun.
> == UNQUOTE ==
>
>
> There is nothing in either first day affidavit about seeing the man
> actually drop a shell onto the ground. They both simply say they saw him
> 'unloading a gun" or "emptying his gun". Nothing in either about what
> specifically happened to the shells, whether the shells were simply
> emptied into his palm or tossed onto the ground.
>

However, BJ implies in her affidavit that the shell was dropped where she
saw the man "emptying his gun": "When the police arrived Ishowed [sic]
one of them where I saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell."

> Your entire argument is premised around an change between the testimony
> and the affidavit that you claim happened, but didn't.

A change certainly happened with Virginia--in the affidavit, the action
takes place on the Patton side of the house; in her testimony, it has
CHANGED to the front, 10th St. side. She even, as I recall, has to
reject, explicitly, in her testimony, what she said in her affidavit.
And a CHANGE does take place between affidavit and testimony with Barbara
Jeanette, too: In her affidavit, she says that they found a shell "where
I saw this man emptying his gun", i.e., the front yard. In her testimony,
the shell is now found in the side yard. You're wrong on both counts.

You are simply
> assuming what you need to prove, and using your assumption as the basis of
> the assertion for the invented cover up / conspiracy claim: "That's why
> *THEY* [emphasis added] had Ms Davis change her story for her testimony,"
> >
> > dcw (don't fret, I'll get to the rest here later)
> Somehow I doubt that.

That's your privilege.

dcw

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 28, 2021, 4:20:16 PM2/28/21
to
OMG, what if I accientally worded it poorly intentionally?
You have McAdams to protect you. Oh darn, he may be busy at CPAC!

John Corbett

unread,
Feb 28, 2021, 10:42:51 PM2/28/21
to
Why do you think that is the least bit important? What difference does it
make whether he dumped the shells on the ground or into his hand? The fact
is he emptied the spent shells so he could reload with live rounds.

> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
> >
> > == QUOTE ==
> > ...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". This woman told Jeanette to call the Police and she did [sic]. I
> > saw the officer that had been shot lying on Tenth street after Jeanette
> > had called the police. Jeanette found a empty shell [sic] that the man had
> > unloaded and gave it to the police. After the Police had left I found a
> > empty shell [sic] in our yard. This is the same shell I gave to Detective
> > Dhority [sic]. The man that was unloading the gun was the same man I saw
> > tonight as number 2 man in a line up.
> Notice that Virginia talks only of "unloading". And her "unloaded" re
> Barbara Jeanette's shell implies dropping.

Unbelievable the things you think are significant.

There are any number of ways Oswald could have emptied the shells. He
could have flipped open the cylinder and dumped them on the ground or he
could have dumped them into his hand and then tossed them on the ground.
The likelihood is he would have used the ejector rod because when rounds
are fired, the shell expands so he doesn't slide easily out of the
chamber. Just turning the cylinder down often won't empty all or even some
of the shells. That's way most revolvers have an ejector rod to push the
stubborn shells out of the chamber. If he had to use that, it's likely he
would have dumped the shells on the ground because that is a two hand
operation. One hand holds the gun while the other hand presses the ejector
rod. Again. What difference does it make. He got the shells out and
reloaded his gun.
Why do you find it odd that witnesses don't tell a story exactly the same
way from one telling to the next? It's not as if our memories have
playback buttons.

> > assuming what you need to prove, and using your assumption as the basis of
> > the assertion for the invented cover up / conspiracy claim: "That's why
> > *THEY* [emphasis added] had Ms Davis change her story for her testimony,"
> > >

THEY??? <snicker>

donald willis

unread,
Mar 1, 2021, 12:55:29 PM3/1/21
to
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 6:59:14 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 9:18:28 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 16, 2021 at 6:39:37 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > > 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)
I thought that he was at the theater about then....

and Roberts puts him at
> the rooming house at "about 1:00 PM".
>
> And, lest I forget, numerous witnesses and some physical evidence puts him
> at the scene or in the vicinity of the Tippit killing at 1:15PM.
>
> Unless of course all those people and more were colluding to frame Oswald
> because they are all hostile witnesses and already didn't like him, or
> something like that.
>
> I don't see how your argument(s) removes Oswald from the scene of the
> crime whatsoever.
>
> Hank

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Mar 1, 2021, 12:55:33 PM3/1/21
to
Still ignoring it.
Ignoring this, too.

> > > > > 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.
> > > The key word is "found". In their testimony, both Davises now said that
> > > they only SAW the man emptying his gun into his HAND. They now (in their
> > > testimony) say they did NOT see the suspect dropping the shell in the
> > > grass.
> > Virginia Davis did NOT say she saw the suspect dropping the shell on the
> > ground in her affidavit either:
> Nor did she say there that she saw him emptying the gun into his *hand*.


So what? Your entire premise was she saw the gunman emptying his gun onto
the ground originally, and her later testimony was changed to unloading
into his hand. She never said she saw the gunman emptying his gun onto the
ground, that was just *your assumption*. Your assumption is wrong, and you
haven't established she changed her story here.

> The hand business turned up only later in their statements & testimony.
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm


Again, so what? You're treating your assumption as a fact, and it's not.
"The hand business" is nothing more than a clarification in their
testimony.

> >
> > == QUOTE ==
> > ...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". This woman told Jeanette to call the Police and she did [sic]. I
> > saw the officer that had been shot lying on Tenth street after Jeanette
> > had called the police. Jeanette found a empty shell [sic] that the man had
> > unloaded and gave it to the police. After the Police had left I found a
> > empty shell [sic] in our yard. This is the same shell I gave to Detective
> > Dhority [sic]. The man that was unloading the gun was the same man I saw
> > tonight as number 2 man in a line up.
> Notice that Virginia talks only of "unloading". And her "unloaded" re
> Barbara Jeanette's shell implies dropping.

Dropping where? Onto the ground or into the hand? It doesn't imply one or
the other.

You don't get to assume a fact not in evidence, then make that assumption
the cornerstone of your argument for the entire argument for framing
Oswald.

Well, I suppose you can, and in fact, you do. But I'm here to tell you
that's not the right way to resolve discrepancies in this -- or any other
-- case.

> >
> > == UNQUOTE ==
> >
> > Barbara Davis did NOT say she saw the suspect dropping the shell on the
> > ground in her affidavit either:
> >
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm
> >
> > == QUOTE ==
> >
> > I heard a shot and jumped up and heard another shot. I put on my shoes and
> > went to the door and I saw this man walking across my front yard unloading
> > a gun. ... When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of them where I saw
> > this man emptying his gun and we found a shell. After the police had left
> > I went back into the yard and Virginia found another shell which I turned
> > over to the police. About 8:00 pm the same day, the police came after me
> > and took me downtown to the city hall where I saw this man in a lineup.
> > The #2 man in a 4-man lineup was the same man I saw in my yard, also the
> > one that was unloading the gun.
> > == UNQUOTE ==
> >
> >
> > There is nothing in either first day affidavit about seeing the man
> > actually drop a shell onto the ground. They both simply say they saw him
> > 'unloading a gun" or "emptying his gun". Nothing in either about what
> > specifically happened to the shells, whether the shells were simply
> > emptied into his palm or tossed onto the ground.
> >
> However, BJ implies in her affidavit that the shell was dropped where she
> saw the man "emptying his gun": "When the police arrived Ishowed [sic]
> one of them where I saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell."

It doesn't imply he dropped it directly onto the ground. He could have
dropped it into his hand and then tossed it aside. Your assumption is not
a fact.

> > Your entire argument is premised around an change between the testimony
> > and the affidavit that you claim happened, but didn't.
> A change certainly happened with Virginia--in the affidavit, the action
> takes place on the Patton side of the house; in her testimony, it has
> CHANGED to the front, 10th St. side. She even, as I recall, has to
> reject, explicitly, in her testimony, what she said in her affidavit.


And does every change, every clarification, every lapse of memory by a
witness mean a cover up in every case? Not just the JFK case, every case
the police ever investigate?

Does it? If a witness says one thing on day one and another on day 100,
does that mean the witness has changed their story to aid in a cover up?

Your argument is nonsense here. You're assuming the drop, you're assuming
the cover up.

> And a CHANGE does take place between affidavit and testimony with Barbara
> Jeanette, too: In her affidavit, she says that they found a shell "where
> I saw this man emptying his gun", i.e., the front yard. In her testimony,
> the shell is now found in the side yard. You're wrong on both counts.


Your i.e. is unproven.

Hilarious. You're exposing the silliness of your argument as we discuss
this. I don't have to disprove your assertions. You need to prove them.
You need to prove any change automatically means cover up and conspiracy
and show how you eliminated all other possibilities. You never do.

You're assuming what you need to prove. She doesn't say they found the
shell where she saw the man drop the shell *onto the ground*. You're
assuming that. She doesn't specify how far or close the recovered shell
was from where the gunman was. You're assuming it was *right there*,
whereas it might have been found a few feet away from where the man was
unloading his gun. You assume there is a front yard and a side yard, but
in fact it was open ground, and there is no clear demarcation. Someone
looking out the front door may call the yard to their left 'the front
yard', whereas someone looking out the side door on the left of the house
may call the yard to their right 'the side yard'. In other words, there is
a part of the yard that could be either side yard or front yard, depending
on the person's viewpoint. You assume no part of the front yard could ever
be part of the side yard, and that's simply not the case.

> > You are simply
> > assuming what you need to prove, and using your assumption as the basis of
> > the assertion for the invented cover up / conspiracy claim: "That's why
> > *THEY* [emphasis added] had Ms Davis change her story for her testimony,"
> > >
> > > dcw (don't fret, I'll get to the rest here later)
> > Somehow I doubt that.
> That's your privilege.
>


And I exercised it. And you still haven't gotten back to the rest.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Mar 1, 2021, 12:55:37 PM3/1/21
to
We already covered that. Then you'd be guilty of ad hominem -- attacking
the messenger, not the message.

Hank

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Mar 1, 2021, 12:55:41 PM3/1/21
to
He thinks it's important because he has nothing else. Unless he can argue
for the Davis girls (and others) changing their testimony, he can't argue
for the police swapping out the shells to frame an innocent man for the
killing of a police officer, and letting the real cop killer go free to
kill again. Because the police are more interested in closing the case
rather than getting a cop killer off the streets.

In effect, the conflicts (real or assumed) between the affidavits and the
testimony become a hinge by which he hopes to to flip the whole case on
its back.

But since the unspoken premise is the police were okay with framing an
innocent man for the killing of a fellow police officer, and letting the
real cop killer go free, he really needs something more than just a few
minor discrepancies between what was noted in an affidavit and what was
said in the testimony.

I know you know this, I'm answering the question for the lurkers out there
who might be buying into his argument.
He is gifted with hyper perspicacity?

He is special in that way. He sees things that elude the rest of us.
> Why do you find it odd that witnesses don't tell a story exactly the same
> way from one telling to the next? It's not as if our memories have
> playback buttons.

Or, that the person typing the affidavit from what she said understood
every point perfectly and while it was good enough to sign, the person
when testifying feels the need to say, 'Well, that's not exactly what I
said, and what I meant was..."

Don ignores all other reasonable possibilities and goes straight for every
change means cover up and conspiracy.

> > > You are simply
> > > assuming what you need to prove, and using your assumption as the basis of
> > > the assertion for the invented cover up / conspiracy claim: "That's why
> > > *THEY* [emphasis added] had Ms Davis change her story for her testimony,"
> > > >
> THEY??? <snicker>

Yeah, the unknown, unnamed, ever-prescient conspirators that know just
what to change (or 'clarify') in a witness statement to make it frame
Oswald better. While letting the real killer go free. Because it's more
important to clear the case (even if that means framing an innocent man)
than to get the real cop killer off the streets so he can't kill another
cop.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Mar 1, 2021, 7:54:21 PM3/1/21
to
I saw your post on early reports being wrong so I used the Titanic in my
argument.

Your last sentence sums up how Don constructs his arguments in a nutshell.

Hank



donald willis

unread,
Mar 1, 2021, 7:54:32 PM3/1/21
to
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 6:59:21 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 10:02:54 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 5:45:07 PM UTC-8, Hank CUT!
> You don't allow for human error of any kind.
> >
> > 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.
> You go from a failure to note something to the argument that Oswald didn't
> go to the rooming house and Roberts is lying. But Oswald admitted in
> custody he went there.

You mean in those unrecorded interviews?

And Whaley (the cab driver) said he took him to
> within a few blocks of the rooming house.

Whaley was too accommodating. He told his interviewers anything he
thought they wanted to hear. Although I really don't think that they
wanted to hear that Oswald was wearing two jackets & an overshirt!

And Oswald had a revolver on him
> when arrested, and the holster was found by Senkel and Potts at the
> rooming house - but no weapon was found there. Where'd Oswald get the
> weapon he was arrested with if not at the rooming house?

Didn't say he didn't go to the rooming house, just a bit later, say 1:11,
than commonly believed.


Why was Oswald
> armed at 1:50 and why did he pull it on officer McDonald in the movie
> theatre when Oswald slugged McDonald?
>
> Everyone is lying to frame Oswald? Why?

To get the DPD off the hook. Fritz, shells....

> > > > > > 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.
> Still ignoring it.
> > > > > > 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?
> > Moving the goalposts. Not what you asked. I established that Westbrook
> > met with Reynolds. Now that's not enough.
> You established that Westbrook met with Reynolds. But your argument is
> that they concealed his name in their testimony to avoid embarrassing him,
> and that's the point you need to establish, not just assert and assume.

Westbrook & Reynolds talked. And with police officers swarming the old
houses, as they were, I'm sure they took the name of the person who
initiated this search. Common sense....

dcw

donald willis

unread,
Mar 1, 2021, 7:54:36 PM3/1/21
to
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 6:59:17 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 9:18:28 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 16, 2021 at 6:39:37 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > > 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."
> > >
> > Hostile witness! She already didn't like him. Her chance to "get"
> > Oswald....
> Hilarious!
>
> You don't understand what a hostile witness is. There weren't any in the
> WC investigation because you didn't have a prosecution and defense side.
> You only had one fact-finding body.
>
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hostile_witness#:~:text=A%20witness%20who%20testifies%20against,Also%20called%20an%20adverse%20witness.
> == QUOTE ==
> Hostile Witness
>
> A witness who testifies against the party who has called the person to
> testify. The examiner may ask a hostile witness leading questions, as in
> cross-examination. Also called an adverse witness.
>
> == UNQUOTE ==
>
> And since you're already at the point of admitting Oswald was on McWatters
> bus, what's the point of doubting a woman who says she was on that bus and
> recognized him from when he rented a room from her (and stiffed her for
> the final week's rent he owed)?

The authorities fallaciously placed Jones on the same bus with Oswald.
(Jones relates that cops boarded & held up the bus for an hour. In all
his extensive testimony, McW doesn't say one word about such an event.
They were on different busses.) It follows that they fallaciously placed
Bledsoe on that bus.

dcw

donald willis

unread,
Mar 1, 2021, 7:54:39 PM3/1/21
to
On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 2:09:40 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 12:41:28 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > > > > 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 ==
> > > > > 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.
> > > > "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....
> > > >
> > > 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?
>
> > The shells were SAID to have been found "some distance away". Don't think
> > they really were....
> Nobody cares what you think. Opinions are like... you know where I'm
> going, so there's no need to complete it.
>
> The testimony of the witnesses establishes the shells were ejected from a
> revolver and toss away by the gunman. The shells in evidence were examined
> and ballistics establishes they were ejected from Oswald's revolver to the
> exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
>
> You can ignore that evidence all you want or attempt to discredit all the
> witnesses and the expert testimony all you want, but it's not going away
> just because you find it inconvenient, closed you eyes to it and clicked
> your Ruby shoe heels

This from Joe Zircon!

together and wished it to be so.
>
> Hank

John Corbett

unread,
Mar 1, 2021, 10:48:02 PM3/1/21
to
Don seems to have a conditioned reflex that tells him when two or more
statements from the same witness aren't exact in every detail, only the
first one is to be trusted and it can be assumed that all later statements
are evidence that the witness was coerced into changing his statement to
facilitate the cover up. He never bothers to explain how these minor
differences actually aid "they" in their cover up. Just the existence of
these discrepancies is enough to establish a cover up.

John Corbett

unread,
Mar 2, 2021, 8:37:01 AM3/2/21
to
Don, the harder you work to try to save this silly narrative of yours, the
sillier it gets. You ought to quit while you're behind.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Mar 2, 2021, 8:37:08 AM3/2/21
to
On Monday, March 1, 2021 at 7:54:32 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 6:59:21 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 10:02:54 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 5:45:07 PM UTC-8, Hank CUT!
> > You don't allow for human error of any kind.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > You go from a failure to note something to the argument that Oswald didn't
> > go to the rooming house and Roberts is lying. But Oswald admitted in
> > custody he went there.
>
> You mean in those unrecorded interviews?

Asked and answered. You dont have any evidence, so you harp on the gaps in the evidence, and pretend that is sufficient.


>
> And Whaley (the cab driver) said he took him to
> > within a few blocks of the rooming house.
>
> Whaley was too accommodating. He told his interviewers anything he
> thought they wanted to hear. Although I really don't think that they
> wanted to hear that Oswald was wearing two jackets & an overshirt!

"Whaley was too accomodating and he told his interviewers anything they
want to hear" according to whom? Why, you, of course.

Remember: His testimony is evidence. Your opinion of his testimony is not
evidence.


>
> And Oswald had a revolver on him
> > when arrested, and the holster was found by Senkel and Potts at the
> > rooming house - but no weapon was found there. Where'd Oswald get the
> > weapon he was arrested with if not at the rooming house?
>
> Didn't say he didn't go to the rooming house, just a bit later, say 1:11,
> than commonly believed.


Whoa, Nellie. You tried to throw out Roberts claim that Oswald came to the
rooming house on the basis that she didn't mention it when the police
(Senkel and Potts?) first arrived. Now you're conceding that entire line
of argument by you was a diversionary tactic only, as you're conceding now
Oswald did in fact go to the rooming house.

>
>
> Why was Oswald
> > armed at 1:50 and why did he pull it on officer McDonald in the movie
> > theatre when Oswald slugged McDonald?
> >
> > Everyone is lying to frame Oswald? Why?
>
> To get the DPD off the hook. Fritz, shells....


Not an answer. Your assumption of a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the
shooting of Tippit is not a justification of your assumption of a coverup
in the TSBD involving the DPD. And vice-versa. Your assumption of a
coverup in the TSBD does not sufficiently justify the assumption of a
conspiracy to frame Oswald for killing Tippit.

Why would the cops want to frame an innocent man for the murder of a
fellow cop and let the real cop-killer go free?
Hilarious! "Common sense"? Really?

Please read the testimony. Your certitude here is no match for the actual
testimony throughout. The police in many instances did not note the name
of the witnesses. They were more concerned with catching a cop-killer than
documenting the death of Tippit.

We've already discussed Hill to some extent. Here's what Hill had to say
about one witness:
== QUOTE ==

Mr. HILL. ...The first man that came up to me, he said, "The man that
shot him was a white male about 5'10", weighing 160 to 170 pounds, had on
a Jacket and a pair of dark trousers, and brown bushy hair."

At this point the first squad rolled up, and that would have been squad
105, which had been dispatched from downtown. An officer named Joe Poe,
and I believe his partner was a boy named Jez.

I told him to stay at the scene and guard the car and talk to as many
witnesses as they could find to the incident, and that we were going to
start checking the area.

Mr. BELIN. Now, let me interrupt you here, sergeant. Do you remember the
name of the person that gave you the description?

Mr. HILL. No. I turned him over to Poe, and I didn't even get his name.

== UNQUOTE ==

Your certitude here is misplaced. You're still just asserting and
assuming. You need to establish with evidence.

Hank

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Mar 2, 2021, 4:12:59 PM3/2/21
to
Repeating that argument doesn't make it a better one.


> (Jones relates that cops boarded & held up the bus for an hour. In all
> his extensive testimony, McW doesn't say one word about such an event.
> They were on different busses.)

Then why did Jones and McWatters relate roughly the same incident with the disbelieving woman?
Jones told the FBI:
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/WH25_CE_2641.pdf
== QUOTE ==
JONES estimated the bus was held up by the police officers for about one hour and, after they were permitted to resume, they crossed the Marsalis Bridge, where a woman, abaat forty to forty five years of age, boarded the bus . She sat in the side seat immediately in front of him near the door and the boa driver asked her whether she had heard that the President had been shot . She replied that she had not heard anything in that regard, and stated she did not believe it was true . The driver then pointed to JONES and said, 'Ask him, he saw St ." JONES said the driver was smiling at this time and the woman turned to him and he told her, "I don't know anything about it . I just heard some others say that the President had been shot .' He said that because of the expression on the woman's face both he and the driver were smiling at the time, and she then said, "You are both smiling, so I don't believe it ."
== UNQUOTE ==

McWatters told the Warren Commission in his testimony:
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BALL - Didn't some lady say something?
Mr. McWATTERS - Well, yes, sir.
Now, as we got on out on Marsalis, along about it was either Edgemont or Vermont, I believe it was Vermont Street, there was a lady who was fixing to cross the intersection and I stopped and asked her if she was going to catch the bus into town from the opposite direction, and she said that she was and I told her that we was off schedule, that the other bus had done went into town, and I asked her did she care to just ride on to the end of the line and come back and she wouldn't have to stand there and wait, and she was getting on, and I asked her had she heard the news of the President being shot, at the time that was all I knew about it, and she said, "No, what are you--you are just kidding me."
I said, "No, I really am not kidding you." I said, "It is the truth from all the reliable sources that we have come in contact with," and this teenage boy sitting on the side, I said "Well, now, if you think I am kidding you," I said, "Ask this gentleman sitting over here," and he kind of, I don't know whether it was a grinning or smile or whatever expression it was, and she said, "I know you are kidding now, because he laughed or grinned or made some remark to that effect."
And I just told her no it wasn't no kidding matter, but that was part of the conversation that was said at that time.
== UNQUOTE ==

Beyond that, Jones himself puts himself on McWatters bus, and McWatters puts Jones on his bus, so you're not just arguing with me, you're back to disputing the witnesses. And in fact, they talked about what transpired the day of the assassination the next time Jones rode McWatters bus.

Jones told the FBI:
== QUOTE ==
He said that aa November 22, 1963, he attended the usual morning sessions of classes at high school and got out o school at about 11145 AM. He 88110 he walked to Elm Street near the Capri Theatre, where he waited far the KOrsalis bus, which arrived at approximately 12:10 or 12:15 PM. He said that, upon boarding the bus, he sat in the first seat facing forward on the curb aide of the bus and was alone . He recognized the driver by sight as one who frequently drove the bus at the time of day, but stated he did not know him by name.
...
He said that, in conversation with this same bus driver on the following Monday, the driver told him the Dallas Police Department had him up until one o'clock on Saturday or Sunday morning questioning him about the passenger on his bus who looked like LEE HARVEY OSWALD .
== UNQUOTE ==

Meanwhile, McWatters said this, even naming Milton Jones as the teenager that he talked with:
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BALL - The same teenager?
Mr. McWATTERS - The same teenager rode with me the next day.
Mr. BALL - And you noticed he got off there?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, and I noticed, and I asked him, like I told him, I said that I was--I thought that, you know, that he was, when he first got on down there, I says, "From all indications, we had you kind of pinpointed as the man who might have been mixed up in the assassination and everything." And--
Mr. BALL - Do I understand the day after you made the affidavit, this would be the 23d of November?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes.
Mr. BALL - That this same teenager got on your bus again?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, he got on.
Mr. BALL - And you noticed where you let him off?
Mr. McWATTERS - I noticed where I let him off, yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Is that the reason that today you remember he got off?
Mr. McWATTERS - That is it today I remember, just like I say, I remember I talked to him the next day, and he told me where he got on, and he told me where he got on, and where he got off and where he lived, and, you know that--
Mr. BALL - Has he been on your bus since?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes.
Mr. BALL - He has?
Mr. McWATTERS - He has rode with me since.
Mr. BALL - Yes. I see. Did you give him a transfer that day?
Mr. McWATTERS - No, because he gets on and he lives within about two blocks of the busline, in other words, where he gets off.
Mr. BALL - Do you know this boy's name?
Mr. McWATTERS - I believe his name is Milton Jones.
Mr. BALL - Milton Jones?
Mr. McWATTERS - Milton Jones. I don't believe I know where he lives, but I pass where he lives. But he told me his name was Milton Jones and he told me he was 17.
Mr. BALL - Did he ever tell you where he works?
Mr. McWATTERS - He told me that, I believe, he goes to school half a day, I believe he said and I believe he goes home and he has a part-time job, but he never did state where he works.
Mr. BALL - Did he tell you where he went to school?
Mr. McWATTERS - No, sir; he never did tell me where he went to school.
Mr. BALL - Or where he worked?
Mr. McWATTERS - Where he worked, either one.
== UNQUOTE ==


> It follows that they fallaciously placed
> Bledsoe on that bus.

This argument fails because the previous argument fails. It also fails because Bledsoe places herself on that bus and you're back to arguing with the witness. She said she recognized Oswald, she saw him get on, she observed he was on the bus for a few blocks, and she saw him get off shortly after he got on.

And that agrees with what McWatters said about the man who took the transfer:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/mcwatters.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BALL - What did the man look like who knocked on your door and got on your bus?
Mr. McWATTERS - Well, I didn't pay any particular attention to him. He was to me just dressed in what I would call work clothes, just some type of little old jacket on, and I didn't pay any particular attention to the man when he got on-
Mr. BALL - Paid his fare, did he?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir; he just paid his fare and sat down on the second cross seat on the right.
Mr. BALL - Do you remember whether or not you gave him a transfer?
Mr. McWATTERS - Not when he got on; no, sir.
Mr. BALL - You didn't. Did you ever give him a transfer?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir; I gave him one about two blocks from where he got on.
Mr. BALL - Did he ask you for a transfer?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Do you remember what he said to you when he asked you for the transfer?
Mr. McWATTERS - Well, the reason I recall the incident, I had--there was a lady that when I stopped in this traffic, there was a lady who had a suitcase and she said, "I have got to make a 1 o'clock train at Union Station," and she said, "I don't believe from the looks of this traffic you are going to be held up."
She said, "Would you give me a transfer and I am going to walk on down," which is about from where I was at that time about 7 or 8 blocks to Union Station and she asked me if I would give her a transfer in case I did get through the traffic if I would pick her up on the way.
So, I said, "I sure will." So I gave her a transfer and opened the door and as she was going out the gentleman I had picked up about 2 blocks asked for a transfer and got off at the same place in the middle of the block where the lady did.
== QUOTE ==

The transfer in question was found in Oswald's shirt pocket after his arrest in the movie theatre.

Hank



Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Mar 2, 2021, 4:13:40 PM3/2/21
to
> > your Ruby shoe heels together and wished it to be so.
>
> This from Joe Zircon!
>


Yes. What is your point? There's certainly no refutation or rebuttal of
any of the points I made in your response.

For those who don't know, I used to post here a few decades ago (1998 -
2004 or so) as "Joe Zircon". You can use the search function to find my
old posts if you wish, but I posted a lot more frequently back then. So
you'll find a ton of them.

That alias was to keep my first wife happy. And it comes via the novel
"Winter Kills" by Richard Condon. It's a novel about a presidential
assassination, and the man who kills the accused assassin in the novel is
named "Joe Diamond". I took the alias "Joe Zircon" from that.

What point Don is trying to make with his "This from Joe Zircon!" remark
escapes me. But it certainly is ad hominem, and not at all pertinent.

Hank

donald willis

unread,
Mar 2, 2021, 11:42:06 PM3/2/21
to
On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 6:57:39 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 8:46:27 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 6:59:14 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 9:18:28 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, February 16, 2021 at 6:39:37 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > > > > 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 CUT
> > > If they were on different trips, Oswald had to be on the earlier one
> > > because his landlady saw him at 1:00PM, and he was seen on Jefferson by
> > > Brewer about 1:30PM, and he was arrested at 1:50. He also had a transfer
> > > that McWatters punched for 1pm on his person, and McWatters identified
> > > that transfer as one he gave to the man who left the bus. That man would
> > > be Oswald. Whaley puts him in his cab about 1:45 and Roberts puts him at
> > > the rooming house at "about 1:00 PM".
> > >
> > > And, lest I forget, numerous witnesses and some physical evidence puts him
> > > at the scene or in the vicinity of the Tippit killing at 1:15PM.
> > >
> > > Unless of course all those people and more were colluding to frame Oswald
> > > because they are all hostile witnesses and already didn't like him, or
> > > something like that.
> > >
> > > I don't see how your argument(s) removes Oswald from the scene of the
> > > crime whatsoever.
> > >
> > You didn't give this much thought. If Jones isn't on Oswald's bus, then
> > it was in fact Oswald who took McWatters' bus all the way to Oak Cliff,
> > getting there about 1:23, as I detail in "Only Oswald...."
> >
> > dcw
> That assumption doesn't hold water. You're ignoring the evidence I already
> spelled out above.
>
> 1. McWatters said he gave a transfer out on that trip to one man who got
> off the bus after only a few blocks.
>
> 2. When Oswald was arrested, he had that transfer.
>
> 3. Bledsoe said Oswald was on the bus only a few blocks.
>
> 4. Bledsoe and McWatters both allude to the same incident with someone
> coming to the bus door and saying the President was shot: (Bledsoe:
> "During that time someone made the statement that the President had
> been shot") (McWatters: "Well, I was sitting in the bus, there was some
> gentleman in front of me in a car, and he came back and walked up to
> the bus and I opened the door and he said, "I have heard over my radio
> in my car that the President has been--" I believe he used the
> word--"has been shot.").

McWatters said that Oswald (later, Jones) told him that the President had
been "shot in the temple". Jones said that not only did he not say that,
but that no one on the bus had said that. Jones was supposedly the person
whom McW mistook Oswald for. Doesn't hold water.


>
> 5. Oswald admitted in custody he got off the bus and took a cab. This is
> noted in different LEO's memos for the record, working for different
> agencies.

Faith-based "evidence".

>
> 6. Whaley puts him in his cab because of Oswald's ID bracelet.
>

And puts those two jackets on him! Go, Whaley!

> 7. Roberts puts him rushing into the rooming house at about 1PM and
> leaving after a few minutes zipping up a jacket.
>

More like 1:10pm.

> 8. Numerous witnesses put Oswald at the scene of the Tippit shooting.
>

Running down the alley and running down Jefferson, too, a bit earlier.
Nice!

> 9. The hard evidence of the shells puts Oswald as Tippit's killer.
>

Soft.

> You need to claim all these people (and others) are part of the frame-up
> of Oswald to make Oswald go all the way to Oak Cliff on McWatters bus.
> What evidence do you have that they all colluded in this way?
>
> A bit fat nothing.
>
> Can you even get Oswald from the bus route in Oak Cliff to Jefferson and
> Brewer's shoe store in about seven minutes? What is the closest point to
> Brewer's shoe store along the bus route? What is the distance?
>

I have him arriving at the rooming house about 1:11, the theater about
1:35, allowing him time to duck out of sight of cop cars.

dcw

John Corbett

unread,
Mar 3, 2021, 10:07:06 AM3/3/21
to
I'm sure it would fascinating to figure out how you determined Oswald
didn't get to the rooming house until 1:10 pm. I'm equally sure it
wouldn't make a bit of sense, but it would still be fascinating.

donald willis

unread,
Mar 3, 2021, 9:18:03 PM3/3/21
to
On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 6:58:16 AM UTC-8, John Corbett wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 8:46:27 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 6:59:14 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 9:18:28 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, February 16, 2021 at 6:39:37 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > > > > 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:
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > So what's your beef? Let's say they were on separate trips, so what?
> > >
> > > If they were on different trips, Oswald had to be on the earlier one
> > > because his landlady saw him at 1:00PM, and he was seen on Jefferson by
> > > Brewer about 1:30PM, and he was arrested at 1:50. He also had a transfer
> > > that McWatters punched for 1pm on his person, and McWatters identified
> > > that transfer as one he gave to the man who left the bus. That man would
> > > be Oswald. Whaley puts him in his cab about 1:45 and Roberts puts him at
> > > the rooming house at "about 1:00 PM".
> > >
> > > And, lest I forget, numerous witnesses and some physical evidence puts him
> > > at the scene or in the vicinity of the Tippit killing at 1:15PM.
> > >
> > > Unless of course all those people and more were colluding to frame Oswald
> > > because they are all hostile witnesses and already didn't like him, or
> > > something like that.
> > >
> > > I don't see how your argument(s) removes Oswald from the scene of the
> > > crime whatsoever.
> > >
> > You didn't give this much thought. If Jones isn't on Oswald's bus, then
> > it was in fact Oswald who took McWatters' bus all the way to Oak Cliff,
> > getting there about 1:23, as I detail in "Only Oswald...."
> >
> So who do you think Whaley took to Oak Cliff in his cab? Who do you think
> Earlene Roberts saw come into her rooming house around 1:00?

Roberts may have seen Oswald come in... about 1:11. But despite Hank I
still believe that she didn't see him at all between 12:30 & 1:30.

I have no idea who if anyone Whaley took to Oak Cliff when....

dcw


donald willis

unread,
Mar 3, 2021, 9:18:05 PM3/3/21
to
On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 6:58:20 AM UTC-8, John Corbett wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 8:29:23 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 6:13:24 PM UTC-8, John Corbett wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 12:41:28 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
>
> > > > The shells were SAID to have been found "some distance away". Don't think
> > > > they really were....
> >
> > > 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.
> > The "thin air" of Commission testimony. At least 8 times, Virginia Davis
> > testified that they called the cops, THEN saw the man with the gun.

> Pure nonsense.

Pure Commission testimony. At least I assume you're saying that V. Davis'
insistence that they called the cops first is the "nonsense", pure or not.
At least 8 times!


>
> Mr. BELIN. Now you heard the shots. You heard, you say, the second shot
> and then what did you do?
> Mrs. DAVIS. We was already up. We ran to the door.
> Mr. BELIN. By we, who do you mean?
> Mrs. DAVIS. Jeanette and I.
> Mr. BELIN. You went to which door?
> Mrs. DAVIS. The front door.
> Mr. BELIN. That would be the front of the house facing East 10th Street?
> Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
> Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you got to the door?
> Mrs. DAVIS. Mrs. Markham was standing at the tree.
> Mr. BELIN. If we can picture the street intersection, was she standing
> in the middle of the street or on the sidewalk?
>
> They went to the door first. They would have no reason to call the cops
> until they went to the door and saw and heard Markham screaming.

Talk to Virginia D. re "reason"....

dcw

John Corbett

unread,
Mar 3, 2021, 11:45:07 PM3/3/21
to
So everybody just lied to frame poor old LHO.

John Corbett

unread,
Mar 3, 2021, 11:45:58 PM3/3/21
to
I quoted WC testimony to support my contention. It's a shame you can't do
the same.

donald willis

unread,
Mar 4, 2021, 6:54:43 AM3/4/21
to
On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 12:33:26 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 8:29:37 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 10:43:50 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 5:54:13 AM UTC-5, d CUT
> > > We've covered that ad infinitum. Hill admitted he made a reasonable
> > > conjecture based on the mere presence of shells at the scene..
> > We don't have much of anything from him about the shells until his
> > testimony, where, you'll recall, he denied sending the "auto"
> > transmission!

> I see he denied handling the shells that early.
> == QUOTE ==
> Mr. BELIN. Had anyone at anytime given you any cartridge cases of any kind?
> Mr. HILL. No; they had not. This came much later.
> == UNQUOTE ==
>
> I don't see where he denied sending the automatic transmission. Can you
> cite that -- with links to the evidence, please -- that establishes you're
> not misinterpreting something again?

Of course this quote from the McAdams site presupposes that you know that
the 1:40 transmission was the one re "auto" shells, but here it is:

Mr. BELIN. Now, also turning to Sawyer Deposition Exhibit A, I notice that
there is another call on car No. 550-2. Was that you at that time, or not,
at 1:40 p.m.? Would that have been someone else?
Mr. HILL. That probably is R. D. Stringer.
Mr. BELIN. That is not you, then, even though it has a number 550-2?
Mr. HILL. Yes; because Stringer quite probably would have been using the
same call number, because it is more his than it was mine, really, but I
didn't

57

have an assigned call number, so I was using a number I didn't think
anybody would be using, which is call 550-2, instead of the Westbrook to
Batchelor as it indicates here.

dcw

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

unread,
Mar 4, 2021, 6:54:46 AM3/4/21
to
Last time I looked, 1:11 was between 12:30 and 1:30.

Your argument here is contradictory and it appears you yourself don't know
what your argument is.


>
> I have no idea who if anyone Whaley took to Oak Cliff when....

Of course you don't.


>
> dcw

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages