So it's your theory that ...
You just don`t want to be held accountable for the inferences of your ideas
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:47:44 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:frame him for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 3:28:14 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:03:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:25:28 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 4:12:24 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:17:49 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to
was upstairs around 12:30. Jarman was not, as his placement of Williams downstairs & outside clearly shows. It's these fortunate little rips in the fabric of the cover-up that reveal that cover-up.Very few had to know anything *beforehand*. For instance, you can see that Jarman didn't have a clue before 11/23/63. His affidavit puts him out front with Williams, in the time just before and/or during the shooting, and Williams (as even you know)You just don`t want to be held accountable for the inferences of your ideas, and what naturally follows from them. You have a large number of people acting in concert, and either they got instruction on what to do before the assassinationTechnically, this is called Jumping to Concussions.So a whole bunch of people (how many people would it take to make sure all the film and photos were confiscated?) were told before the assassination that the President was going to be killedSee my answer to John (Mooney Tunes) Corbett.Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:How would the conspiracy know how many witnesses to the shooter they would have before the assassination?
"I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
How would they know there wouldn`t be photos or film of the shooter?
The SS and/or the FBI and the DPD controlled witness evidence immediately after the shooting,
I think what Bud was alluding to was all those people who immediately went out and started
gathering up cameras. Wouldn't they have to know ahead of time to do that?
As for Jarman. How would your conspirators know neither he, nor anyone else was going to
take up a position on the 5th floor.
maybe the 6th floor. Oh, wait. Maybe that's what happened.
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 9:57:17 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:frame him for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:47:44 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 3:28:14 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:03:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:25:28 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 4:12:24 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:17:49 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to
was upstairs around 12:30. Jarman was not, as his placement of Williams downstairs & outside clearly shows. It's these fortunate little rips in the fabric of the cover-up that reveal that cover-up.Very few had to know anything *beforehand*. For instance, you can see that Jarman didn't have a clue before 11/23/63. His affidavit puts him out front with Williams, in the time just before and/or during the shooting, and Williams (as even you know)You just don`t want to be held accountable for the inferences of your ideas, and what naturally follows from them. You have a large number of people acting in concert, and either they got instruction on what to do before the assassinationTechnically, this is called Jumping to Concussions.So a whole bunch of people (how many people would it take to make sure all the film and photos were confiscated?) were told before the assassination that the President was going to be killedSee my answer to John (Mooney Tunes) Corbett.Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:How would the conspiracy know how many witnesses to the shooter they would have before the assassination?
"I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
How would they know there wouldn`t be photos or film of the shooter?
The SS and/or the FBI and the DPD controlled witness evidence immediately after the shooting,
I think what Bud was alluding to was all those people who immediately went out and started
gathering up cameras. Wouldn't they have to know ahead of time to do that?
As for Jarman. How would your conspirators know neither he, nor anyone else was going to
take up a position on the 5th floor.
Well, since Williams was part of the conspiracy...
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 11:42:54?AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 9:57:17?AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:47:44?AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 3:28:14?AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:03:13?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:25:28?PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 4:12:24?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:17:49?AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37?PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07?AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40?PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT >>>>>>>>>>>
was upstairs around 12:30. Jarman was not, as his placement of Williams downstairs & outside clearly shows. It's these fortunate little rips in the fabric of the cover-up that reveal that cover-up.Very few had to know anything *beforehand*. For instance, you can see that Jarman didn't have a clue before 11/23/63. His affidavit puts him out front with Williams, in the time just before and/or during the shooting, and Williams (as even you know)You just don`t want to be held accountable for the inferences of your ideas, and what naturally follows from them. You have a large number of people acting in concert, and either they got instruction on what to do before the assassinationTechnically, this is called Jumping to Concussions.So a whole bunch of people (how many people would it take to make sure all the film and photos were confiscated?) were told before the assassination that the President was going to be killedSee my answer to John (Mooney Tunes) Corbett.Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:How would the conspiracy know how many witnesses to the shooter they would have before the assassination?
"I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
How would they know there wouldn`t be photos or film of the shooter? >>>>>>>> The SS and/or the FBI and the DPD controlled witness evidence immediately after the shooting,
I think what Bud was alluding to was all those people who immediately went out and started
gathering up cameras. Wouldn't they have to know ahead of time to do that? >>>
As for Jarman. How would your conspirators know neither he, nor anyone else was going to
take up a position on the 5th floor.
Well, since Williams was part of the conspiracy...
<chuckle>
Excuse me. Continue...
...As for Jarman, I take Roy Truly's word that he saw Norman & Jarman leaving Dealey to go with Givens somewhere, perhaps to the crowds on Main (v7p385).
Why don't you take the word of Jarman, Norman, and Williams that they were on the fifth floor
when the shots were fired, especially since two of them were photographed there?
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 11:42:54 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:frame him for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 9:57:17 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:47:44 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 3:28:14 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:03:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:25:28 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 4:12:24 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:17:49 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to
Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
"I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
know) was upstairs around 12:30. Jarman was not, as his placement of Williams downstairs & outside clearly shows. It's these fortunate little rips in the fabric of the cover-up that reveal that cover-up.Very few had to know anything *beforehand*. For instance, you can see that Jarman didn't have a clue before 11/23/63. His affidavit puts him out front with Williams, in the time just before and/or during the shooting, and Williams (as even youYou just don`t want to be held accountable for the inferences of your ideas, and what naturally follows from them. You have a large number of people acting in concert, and either they got instruction on what to do before the assassinationTechnically, this is called Jumping to Concussions.So a whole bunch of people (how many people would it take to make sure all the film and photos were confiscated?) were told before the assassination that the President was going to be killedHow would the conspiracy know how many witnesses to the shooter they would have before the assassination?See my answer to John (Mooney Tunes) Corbett.
How would they know there wouldn`t be photos or film of the shooter?
The SS and/or the FBI and the DPD controlled witness evidence immediately after the shooting,
I think what Bud was alluding to was all those people who immediately went out and started
gathering up cameras. Wouldn't they have to know ahead of time to do that?
As for Jarman. How would your conspirators know neither he, nor anyone else was going to
take up a position on the 5th floor.
Well, since Williams was part of the conspiracy...<chuckle>
Excuse me. Continue...
...As for Jarman, I take Roy Truly's word that he saw Norman & Jarman leaving Dealey to go with Givens somewhere, perhaps to the crowds on Main (v7p385).
Why don't you take the word of Jarman, Norman, and Williams that they were on the fifth floor
when the shots were fired, especially since two of them were photographed there?
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 8:50:17 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:to frame him for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 11:42:54 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 9:57:17 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:47:44 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 3:28:14 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:03:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:25:28 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 4:12:24 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:17:49 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was
p207).Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
"I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice
know) was upstairs around 12:30. Jarman was not, as his placement of Williams downstairs & outside clearly shows. It's these fortunate little rips in the fabric of the cover-up that reveal that cover-up.Very few had to know anything *beforehand*. For instance, you can see that Jarman didn't have a clue before 11/23/63. His affidavit puts him out front with Williams, in the time just before and/or during the shooting, and Williams (as even youYou just don`t want to be held accountable for the inferences of your ideas, and what naturally follows from them. You have a large number of people acting in concert, and either they got instruction on what to do before the assassinationTechnically, this is called Jumping to Concussions.So a whole bunch of people (how many people would it take to make sure all the film and photos were confiscated?) were told before the assassination that the President was going to be killedHow would the conspiracy know how many witnesses to the shooter they would have before the assassination?See my answer to John (Mooney Tunes) Corbett.
How would they know there wouldn`t be photos or film of the shooter?
The SS and/or the FBI and the DPD controlled witness evidence immediately after the shooting,
I think what Bud was alluding to was all those people who immediately went out and started
gathering up cameras. Wouldn't they have to know ahead of time to do that?
As for Jarman. How would your conspirators know neither he, nor anyone else was going to
take up a position on the 5th floor.
Well, since Williams was part of the conspiracy...<chuckle>
Excuse me. Continue...
...As for Jarman, I take Roy Truly's word that he saw Norman & Jarman leaving Dealey to go with Givens somewhere, perhaps to the crowds on Main (v7p385).
Why don't you take the word of Jarman, Norman, and Williams that they were on the fifth floorI take Jarman's word in his 11/23/63 affidavit that he was out front for the parade. And Williams had to be up there since he was a co-conspirator. Brennan testified that there was no one in the "Norman" window.
when the shots were fired, especially since two of them were photographed there?Which two? I assume you mean Williams & Norman. Possibly. But Jarman left with Givens circa 12:20.
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:21:55 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:to frame him for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 8:50:17 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 11:42:54 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 9:57:17 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:47:44 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 3:28:14 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:03:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:25:28 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 4:12:24 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:17:49 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was
p207).Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
"I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice
you know) was upstairs around 12:30. Jarman was not, as his placement of Williams downstairs & outside clearly shows. It's these fortunate little rips in the fabric of the cover-up that reveal that cover-up.Very few had to know anything *beforehand*. For instance, you can see that Jarman didn't have a clue before 11/23/63. His affidavit puts him out front with Williams, in the time just before and/or during the shooting, and Williams (as evenYou just don`t want to be held accountable for the inferences of your ideas, and what naturally follows from them. You have a large number of people acting in concert, and either they got instruction on what to do before the assassinationTechnically, this is called Jumping to Concussions.So a whole bunch of people (how many people would it take to make sure all the film and photos were confiscated?) were told before the assassination that the President was going to be killedHow would the conspiracy know how many witnesses to the shooter they would have before the assassination?See my answer to John (Mooney Tunes) Corbett.
How would they know there wouldn`t be photos or film of the shooter?
The SS and/or the FBI and the DPD controlled witness evidence immediately after the shooting,
Careful. That could be an ad hominem.I think what Bud was alluding to was all those people who immediately went out and started
gathering up cameras. Wouldn't they have to know ahead of time to do that?
As for Jarman. How would your conspirators know neither he, nor anyone else was going to
take up a position on the 5th floor.
Well, since Williams was part of the conspiracy...<chuckle>
Excuse me. Continue...
...As for Jarman, I take Roy Truly's word that he saw Norman & Jarman leaving Dealey to go with Givens somewhere, perhaps to the crowds on Main (v7p385).
You're bonkers, Don.Why don't you take the word of Jarman, Norman, and Williams that they were on the fifth floorI take Jarman's word in his 11/23/63 affidavit that he was out front for the parade. And Williams had to be up there since he was a co-conspirator. Brennan testified that there was no one in the "Norman" window.
when the shots were fired, especially since two of them were photographed there?Which two? I assume you mean Williams & Norman. Possibly. But Jarman left with Givens circa 12:20.
On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 10:00:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:47:44?AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 3:28:14?AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:03:13?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: >>>> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:25:28?PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 4:12:24?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:17:49?AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37?PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07?AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40?PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT >>>>>>>>>
Very few had to know anything *beforehand*. For instance,You just don`t want to be held accountable for the inferences of your ideas, and what naturally follows from them. You have a large number of people acting in concert, and either they got instruction on what to do before the assassinationTechnically, this is called Jumping to Concussions.So a whole bunch of people (how many people would it take to make sure all the film and photos were confiscated?) were told before the assassination that the President was going to be killedSee my answer to John (Mooney Tunes) Corbett.Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:How would the conspiracy know how many witnesses to the shooter they would have before the assassination?
"I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
How would they know there wouldn`t be photos or film of the shooter? >>>>>> The SS and/or the FBI and the DPD controlled witness evidence immediately after the shooting,
Off on a tangent right away. Focus Don, you said...
"The SS and/or the FBI and the DPD controlled witness evidence immediately after the shooting"
Your idea requires that they *do* need instructions right away. What form could those instructions take?Let's examine what this moron is saying.
The cameras should have been taken PRIOR to the motorcade.
Sadly, Chickenshit can't explain what happened,
so he relies on
logical fallacies.
On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 03:28:12 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
You just don`t want to be held accountable for the inferences of your ideasNo-one who's intelligent would wish to be "accountable" for your wacky "inferences."
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 08:50:15 -0700 (PDT), John Corbetthim for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 11:42:54?AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 9:57:17?AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:47:44?AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 3:28:14?AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:03:13?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:25:28?PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 4:12:24?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:17:49?AM UTC-7, Bud wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37?PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07?AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40?PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT >>>>>>>>>>>
know) was upstairs around 12:30. Jarman was not, as his placement of Williams downstairs & outside clearly shows. It's these fortunate little rips in the fabric of the cover-up that reveal that cover-up.Very few had to know anything *beforehand*. For instance, you can see that Jarman didn't have a clue before 11/23/63. His affidavit puts him out front with Williams, in the time just before and/or during the shooting, and Williams (as even youYou just don`t want to be held accountable for the inferences of your ideas, and what naturally follows from them. You have a large number of people acting in concert, and either they got instruction on what to do before the assassinationTechnically, this is called Jumping to Concussions.So a whole bunch of people (how many people would it take to make sure all the film and photos were confiscated?) were told before the assassination that the President was going to be killedSee my answer to John (Mooney Tunes) Corbett.Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:How would the conspiracy know how many witnesses to the shooter they would have before the assassination?
"I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
How would they know there wouldn`t be photos or film of the shooter?
The SS and/or the FBI and the DPD controlled witness evidence immediately after the shooting,
I think what Bud was alluding to was all those people who immediately went out and started
gathering up cameras. Wouldn't they have to know ahead of time to do that?
As for Jarman. How would your conspirators know neither he, nor anyone else was going to
take up a position on the 5th floor.
Well, since Williams was part of the conspiracy...
<chuckle>
Excuse me. Continue...
...As for Jarman, I take Roy Truly's word that he saw Norman & Jarman leaving Dealey to go with Givens somewhere, perhaps to the crowds on Main (v7p385).
Why don't you take the word of Jarman, Norman, and Williams that they were on the fifth floorWhy don't you take the corroborated word of several dozen medically
when the shots were fired, especially since two of them were photographed there?
trained eyewitnesses who said that the large wound was on the BACK of
JFK's head?
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:33:15 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:was to frame him for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:21:55 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 8:50:17 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 11:42:54 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 9:57:17 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:47:44 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 3:28:14 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:03:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:25:28 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 4:12:24 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:17:49 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal
p207).Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
"I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice
you know) was upstairs around 12:30. Jarman was not, as his placement of Williams downstairs & outside clearly shows. It's these fortunate little rips in the fabric of the cover-up that reveal that cover-up.Very few had to know anything *beforehand*. For instance, you can see that Jarman didn't have a clue before 11/23/63. His affidavit puts him out front with Williams, in the time just before and/or during the shooting, and Williams (as evenYou just don`t want to be held accountable for the inferences of your ideas, and what naturally follows from them. You have a large number of people acting in concert, and either they got instruction on what to do before the assassinationTechnically, this is called Jumping to Concussions.So a whole bunch of people (how many people would it take to make sure all the film and photos were confiscated?) were told before the assassination that the President was going to be killedHow would the conspiracy know how many witnesses to the shooter they would have before the assassination?See my answer to John (Mooney Tunes) Corbett.
How would they know there wouldn`t be photos or film of the shooter?
The SS and/or the FBI and the DPD controlled witness evidence immediately after the shooting,
I think what Bud was alluding to was all those people who immediately went out and started
gathering up cameras. Wouldn't they have to know ahead of time to do that?
As for Jarman. How would your conspirators know neither he, nor anyone else was going to
take up a position on the 5th floor.
Well, since Williams was part of the conspiracy...<chuckle>
Excuse me. Continue...
...As for Jarman, I take Roy Truly's word that he saw Norman & Jarman leaving Dealey to go with Givens somewhere, perhaps to the crowds on Main (v7p385).
Careful. That could be an ad hominem.You're bonkers, Don.Why don't you take the word of Jarman, Norman, and Williams that they were on the fifth floorI take Jarman's word in his 11/23/63 affidavit that he was out front for the parade. And Williams had to be up there since he was a co-conspirator. Brennan testified that there was no one in the "Norman" window.
when the shots were fired, especially since two of them were photographed there?Which two? I assume you mean Williams & Norman. Possibly. But Jarman left with Givens circa 12:20.
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 2:19:29 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:was to frame him for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:33:15 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:21:55 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 8:50:17 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 11:42:54 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 9:57:17 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:47:44 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 3:28:14 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:03:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:25:28 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 4:12:24 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:17:49 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal
Malice p207).Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
"I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With
assassinationYou just don`t want to be held accountable for the inferences of your ideas, and what naturally follows from them. You have a large number of people acting in concert, and either they got instruction on what to do before theTechnically, this is called Jumping to Concussions.So a whole bunch of people (how many people would it take to make sure all the film and photos were confiscated?) were told before the assassination that the President was going to be killedHow would the conspiracy know how many witnesses to the shooter they would have before the assassination?See my answer to John (Mooney Tunes) Corbett.
How would they know there wouldn`t be photos or film of the shooter?
The SS and/or the FBI and the DPD controlled witness evidence immediately after the shooting,
even you know) was upstairs around 12:30. Jarman was not, as his placement of Williams downstairs & outside clearly shows. It's these fortunate little rips in the fabric of the cover-up that reveal that cover-up.Very few had to know anything *beforehand*. For instance, you can see that Jarman didn't have a clue before 11/23/63. His affidavit puts him out front with Williams, in the time just before and/or during the shooting, and Williams (as
I think what Bud was alluding to was all those people who immediately went out and started
gathering up cameras. Wouldn't they have to know ahead of time to do that?
As for Jarman. How would your conspirators know neither he, nor anyone else was going to
take up a position on the 5th floor.
Well, since Williams was part of the conspiracy...<chuckle>
Excuse me. Continue...
...As for Jarman, I take Roy Truly's word that he saw Norman & Jarman leaving Dealey to go with Givens somewhere, perhaps to the crowds on Main (v7p385).
It was intended to be ad hominem. Rational discussion went out the window with Don a longCareful. That could be an ad hominem.You're bonkers, Don.Why don't you take the word of Jarman, Norman, and Williams that they were on the fifth floorI take Jarman's word in his 11/23/63 affidavit that he was out front for the parade. And Williams had to be up there since he was a co-conspirator. Brennan testified that there was no one in the "Norman" window.
when the shots were fired, especially since two of them were photographed there?Which two? I assume you mean Williams & Norman. Possibly. But Jarman left with Givens circa 12:20.
time ago.
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 8:44:34 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:goal was to frame him for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 6:15:33 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 2:19:29 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:33:15 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:21:55 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 8:50:17 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 11:42:54 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 9:57:17 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:47:44 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 3:28:14 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:03:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:25:28 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 4:12:24 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:17:49 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the
Malice p207).Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
"I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With
assassinationYou just don`t want to be held accountable for the inferences of your ideas, and what naturally follows from them. You have a large number of people acting in concert, and either they got instruction on what to do before theTechnically, this is called Jumping to Concussions.So a whole bunch of people (how many people would it take to make sure all the film and photos were confiscated?) were told before the assassination that the President was going to be killedHow would the conspiracy know how many witnesses to the shooter they would have before the assassination?See my answer to John (Mooney Tunes) Corbett.
How would they know there wouldn`t be photos or film of the shooter?
The SS and/or the FBI and the DPD controlled witness evidence immediately after the shooting,
even you know) was upstairs around 12:30. Jarman was not, as his placement of Williams downstairs & outside clearly shows. It's these fortunate little rips in the fabric of the cover-up that reveal that cover-up.Very few had to know anything *beforehand*. For instance, you can see that Jarman didn't have a clue before 11/23/63. His affidavit puts him out front with Williams, in the time just before and/or during the shooting, and Williams (as
another Nutter Hypocrite, and only admonishes CT's who are spanking him silly as a diversional smokescreen ploy to aid in his running away to go cry in a closet with his favorite dollies.I think what Bud was alluding to was all those people who immediately went out and started
gathering up cameras. Wouldn't they have to know ahead of time to do that?
As for Jarman. How would your conspirators know neither he, nor anyone else was going to
take up a position on the 5th floor.
Well, since Williams was part of the conspiracy...<chuckle>
Excuse me. Continue...
...As for Jarman, I take Roy Truly's word that he saw Norman & Jarman leaving Dealey to go with Givens somewhere, perhaps to the crowds on Main (v7p385).
Well, be on your lookout, Little Buddy. Fucktard Seinzant has a strict debating policy against ad hominems and he's likely to admonish you in the most severe of terms. Brace yourself for the onslaught! That is, unless Fucktard Seinzant is justIt was intended to be ad hominem. Rational discussion went out the window with Don a longCareful. That could be an ad hominem.You're bonkers, Don.Why don't you take the word of Jarman, Norman, and Williams that they were on the fifth floorI take Jarman's word in his 11/23/63 affidavit that he was out front for the parade. And Williams had to be up there since he was a co-conspirator. Brennan testified that there was no one in the "Norman" window.
when the shots were fired, especially since two of them were photographed there?Which two? I assume you mean Williams & Norman. Possibly. But Jarman left with Givens circa 12:20.
time ago.
Hank speaks for himself. I speak for myself.
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 6:15:33 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:goal was to frame him for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 2:19:29 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:33:15 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:21:55 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 8:50:17 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 11:42:54 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 9:57:17 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:47:44 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 3:28:14 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:03:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:25:28 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 4:12:24 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:17:49 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the
Malice p207).Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
"I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With
assassinationYou just don`t want to be held accountable for the inferences of your ideas, and what naturally follows from them. You have a large number of people acting in concert, and either they got instruction on what to do before theTechnically, this is called Jumping to Concussions.So a whole bunch of people (how many people would it take to make sure all the film and photos were confiscated?) were told before the assassination that the President was going to be killedHow would the conspiracy know how many witnesses to the shooter they would have before the assassination?See my answer to John (Mooney Tunes) Corbett.
How would they know there wouldn`t be photos or film of the shooter?
The SS and/or the FBI and the DPD controlled witness evidence immediately after the shooting,
even you know) was upstairs around 12:30. Jarman was not, as his placement of Williams downstairs & outside clearly shows. It's these fortunate little rips in the fabric of the cover-up that reveal that cover-up.Very few had to know anything *beforehand*. For instance, you can see that Jarman didn't have a clue before 11/23/63. His affidavit puts him out front with Williams, in the time just before and/or during the shooting, and Williams (as
Nutter Hypocrite, and only admonishes CT's who are spanking him silly as a diversional smokescreen ploy to aid in his running away to go cry in a closet with his favorite dollies.I think what Bud was alluding to was all those people who immediately went out and started
gathering up cameras. Wouldn't they have to know ahead of time to do that?
As for Jarman. How would your conspirators know neither he, nor anyone else was going to
take up a position on the 5th floor.
Well, since Williams was part of the conspiracy...<chuckle>
Excuse me. Continue...
...As for Jarman, I take Roy Truly's word that he saw Norman & Jarman leaving Dealey to go with Givens somewhere, perhaps to the crowds on Main (v7p385).
Well, be on your lookout, Little Buddy. Fucktard Seinzant has a strict debating policy against ad hominems and he's likely to admonish you in the most severe of terms. Brace yourself for the onslaught! That is, unless Fucktard Seinzant is just anotherIt was intended to be ad hominem. Rational discussion went out the window with Don a longCareful. That could be an ad hominem.You're bonkers, Don.Why don't you take the word of Jarman, Norman, and Williams that they were on the fifth floorI take Jarman's word in his 11/23/63 affidavit that he was out front for the parade. And Williams had to be up there since he was a co-conspirator. Brennan testified that there was no one in the "Norman" window.
when the shots were fired, especially since two of them were photographed there?Which two? I assume you mean Williams & Norman. Possibly. But Jarman left with Givens circa 12:20.
time ago.
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 9:30:19 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:the goal was to frame him for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 8:44:34 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 6:15:33 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 2:19:29 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:33:15 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:21:55 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 8:50:17 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 11:42:54 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 9:57:17 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:47:44 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 3:28:14 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:03:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:25:28 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 4:12:24 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:17:49 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought
With Malice p207).Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
"I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (
assassinationYou just don`t want to be held accountable for the inferences of your ideas, and what naturally follows from them. You have a large number of people acting in concert, and either they got instruction on what to do before theTechnically, this is called Jumping to Concussions.So a whole bunch of people (how many people would it take to make sure all the film and photos were confiscated?) were told before the assassination that the President was going to be killedHow would the conspiracy know how many witnesses to the shooter they would have before the assassination?See my answer to John (Mooney Tunes) Corbett. How would they know there wouldn`t be photos or film of the shooter?
The SS and/or the FBI and the DPD controlled witness evidence immediately after the shooting,
as even you know) was upstairs around 12:30. Jarman was not, as his placement of Williams downstairs & outside clearly shows. It's these fortunate little rips in the fabric of the cover-up that reveal that cover-up.Very few had to know anything *beforehand*. For instance, you can see that Jarman didn't have a clue before 11/23/63. His affidavit puts him out front with Williams, in the time just before and/or during the shooting, and Williams (
another Nutter Hypocrite, and only admonishes CT's who are spanking him silly as a diversional smokescreen ploy to aid in his running away to go cry in a closet with his favorite dollies.I think what Bud was alluding to was all those people who immediately went out and started
gathering up cameras. Wouldn't they have to know ahead of time to do that?
As for Jarman. How would your conspirators know neither he, nor anyone else was going to
take up a position on the 5th floor.
Well, since Williams was part of the conspiracy...<chuckle>
Excuse me. Continue...
...As for Jarman, I take Roy Truly's word that he saw Norman & Jarman leaving Dealey to go with Givens somewhere, perhaps to the crowds on Main (v7p385).
Well, be on your lookout, Little Buddy. Fucktard Seinzant has a strict debating policy against ad hominems and he's likely to admonish you in the most severe of terms. Brace yourself for the onslaught! That is, unless Fucktard Seinzant is justIt was intended to be ad hominem. Rational discussion went out the window with Don a longCareful. That could be an ad hominem.You're bonkers, Don.Why don't you take the word of Jarman, Norman, and Williams that they were on the fifth floorI take Jarman's word in his 11/23/63 affidavit that he was out front for the parade. And Williams had to be up there since he was a co-conspirator. Brennan testified that there was no one in the "Norman" window.
when the shots were fired, especially since two of them were photographed there?Which two? I assume you mean Williams & Norman. Possibly. But Jarman left with Givens circa 12:20.
time ago.
Hank speaks for himself. I speak for myself.Typical Nutter. But you all speak for the murderers of John Kennedy.
You're bonkers, Don.
Hank speaks for himself. I speak for myself.
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 2:19:29?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:...
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:33:15?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
You're bonkers, Don.Careful. That could be an ad hominem.
It was intended to be ad hominem. Rational discussion went out the window with Don a long
time ago.
There was only one and he died two days after JFK.
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:21:55 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:to frame him for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 8:50:17 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 11:42:54 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 9:57:17 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:47:44 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 3:28:14 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:03:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:25:28 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 4:12:24 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:17:49 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was
p207).Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
"I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice
you know) was upstairs around 12:30. Jarman was not, as his placement of Williams downstairs & outside clearly shows. It's these fortunate little rips in the fabric of the cover-up that reveal that cover-up.Very few had to know anything *beforehand*. For instance, you can see that Jarman didn't have a clue before 11/23/63. His affidavit puts him out front with Williams, in the time just before and/or during the shooting, and Williams (as evenYou just don`t want to be held accountable for the inferences of your ideas, and what naturally follows from them. You have a large number of people acting in concert, and either they got instruction on what to do before the assassinationTechnically, this is called Jumping to Concussions.So a whole bunch of people (how many people would it take to make sure all the film and photos were confiscated?) were told before the assassination that the President was going to be killedHow would the conspiracy know how many witnesses to the shooter they would have before the assassination?See my answer to John (Mooney Tunes) Corbett.
How would they know there wouldn`t be photos or film of the shooter?
The SS and/or the FBI and the DPD controlled witness evidence immediately after the shooting,
I think what Bud was alluding to was all those people who immediately went out and started
gathering up cameras. Wouldn't they have to know ahead of time to do that?
As for Jarman. How would your conspirators know neither he, nor anyone else was going to
take up a position on the 5th floor.
Well, since Williams was part of the conspiracy...<chuckle>
Excuse me. Continue...
...As for Jarman, I take Roy Truly's word that he saw Norman & Jarman leaving Dealey to go with Givens somewhere, perhaps to the crowds on Main (v7p385).
You're bonkers, DonWhy don't you take the word of Jarman, Norman, and Williams that they were on the fifth floorI take Jarman's word in his 11/23/63 affidavit that he was out front for the parade. And Williams had to be up there since he was a co-conspirator. Brennan testified that there was no one in the "Norman" window.
when the shots were fired, especially since two of them were photographed there?Which two? I assume you mean Williams & Norman. Possibly. But Jarman left with Givens circa 12:20.
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him for the
Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:simply assume it is an either/or situation, and artificially ignore the possibility of both occurring.
"I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
Thank you, Willy. You'll make Hank very happy.
Since other witnesses claim the gunman discarded the shells from a revolver as he crossed the yard, it makes more sense to understand she simply spoke of witnessing both him crossing yard and then the street. But you need a conflict, so you
temporally, of his testimony.Reading their affidavits and testimony, one story emerges: a young, slender white male shot Tippit and emptied and reloaded his revolver as he walked away, discarding the shells as he did so.
A point lost in a thicket of >>>>,,,Don ignored this point.A false tale, as Virginia's affidavit shows.You need do more than simply allege this, based on your interpretation of her claims.
You are begging the question and using circular reasoning here once more.
The discarded shells in evidence match the gun linked to Oswald through paperwork, that was wrested from his hand in the movie theatre after he slugged Officer McDonald.
Pretty damning evidence.
I say "supposedly" because Sgt Hill later said that Benavides didn't handle any shells. And it took some 4 months for Benavides, in his testimony, to say that he did see the perp drop shells and that he did pick them up. Problems on both sides,Don ignored this point.If you believe in shells initially handled by civilians, supposedly,Yes, civilians reported finding shells in the yard. So?
interviewers that she saw the suspect run into the alley.1) According to the police radio logs, the Davises called the dispatcher about a minute AFTER the first witness called from the scene. (Myers avoided the issue of this delayed response by not including it in his timeline.)Don ignored this point.and falsely witnessed by the Davises.Another unproven allegation by you.
2) Both Davises testified that they first saw the perp when Mrs. Markham started shouting about him. Mrs. M testified that she did not start shouting UNTIL the perp was running down Patton! Again, "falsely witnessed".
Again, point lost in a thicket of >>>>Don ignored this point.Did I summarize your beliefs correctly here? You didn't quibble over this, so it appears I did.To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.
As it happen, No. The initial crime scene sketch of the 10th/Patton area notes that the perp went "W on all(e)y to Crawford". The sketch was drawn by Sgt. Barnes, who mentioned only one witness in his WC testimony--Mrs M. And Mrs. M later toldYou’re assuming it was as well, an error where she inadvertently stated the truth and revealed the coverup. Aren’t you?Who the fuck said it was an error? You're assuming.People are human. Everyone makes mistakes. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to throw out everything she said based on one error.Moreover, in the 60 years since the murder (ok, minus a few months - conspiracy mongers do like to quibble, don't they?) none of the Tippit witnesses recanted and none admitted to anything like Don and other critics suggest.Mrs. Markham kept insisting that the gunman ran down the alley off Patton, in later interviews.
It doesn't work that way.
You were assuming that I was assuming, when the finger is actually pointing at you....that he last saw the guy headed.) In fact, that footage is better than a recantation.
It's got everything to do with the broader subject of witness lineup IDs. The McW case shows that the IDs are as problematic as their testimony.Don ignored this point.McWatters recanted on his ID of Oswald in the lineup. Then, yes, later, in his testimony, he recanted on his recantation!He was the bus driver, wasn't he? What's that got to do with the Tippit shooting?
Same-day TV footage showed that Warren Reynolds changed his story for the Commission, where he testified that he last saw the guy headed for the parking lot. (The footage shows him before one of the two old houses, where he was telling police
Malice.Ah! Time for you to go into your "fallacy" mode... It took me several postings to convince Bud--some years back--that Reynolds was telling police that the guy ran into one of the old houses--one of the convincers was a clip from news footage, in WithIf there was ever a perp there at all.Didn't the police search those old houses and find nothing suspicious?Yeah--15 minutes or so after the guy would have left. You think perps are going to hang around for the police?
Once more you are assuming what you need to prove and imbedding that assumption in your argument as a given. That’s the logical fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION. I’ve asked you to stop committing these logical fallacies but you just keep doing so.
SEE ABOVEExplain why killing Tippit was necessary to frame Oswald for a crime of killing Kennedy. You are alleging Oswald was framed for killing Tippit.Both were necessary to the villains.Do you disagree?At this point it looks from here more like the purpose of the plot was to frame Oswald, and the killing of Kennedy was merely incidental to that frame-up.
Explain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.SEE ABOVE.
dcw
dcw
Hank
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him for the
Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:simply assume it is an either/or situation, and artificially ignore the possibility of both occurring.
"I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
Thank you, Willy. You'll make Hank very happy.
Since other witnesses claim the gunman discarded the shells from a revolver as he crossed the yard, it makes more sense to understand she simply spoke of witnessing both him crossing yard and then the street. But you need a conflict, so you
temporally, of his testimony.Reading their affidavits and testimony, one story emerges: a young, slender white male shot Tippit and emptied and reloaded his revolver as he walked away, discarding the shells as he did so.
A point lost in a thicket of >>>>,,,Don ignored this point.A false tale, as Virginia's affidavit shows.You need do more than simply allege this, based on your interpretation of her claims.
You are begging the question and using circular reasoning here once more.
The discarded shells in evidence match the gun linked to Oswald through paperwork, that was wrested from his hand in the movie theatre after he slugged Officer McDonald.
Pretty damning evidence.
I say "supposedly" because Sgt Hill later said that Benavides didn't handle any shells. And it took some 4 months for Benavides, in his testimony, to say that he did see the perp drop shells and that he did pick them up. Problems on both sides,Don ignored this point.If you believe in shells initially handled by civilians, supposedly,Yes, civilians reported finding shells in the yard. So?
interviewers that she saw the suspect run into the alley.1) According to the police radio logs, the Davises called the dispatcher about a minute AFTER the first witness called from the scene. (Myers avoided the issue of this delayed response by not including it in his timeline.)Don ignored this point.and falsely witnessed by the Davises.Another unproven allegation by you.
2) Both Davises testified that they first saw the perp when Mrs. Markham started shouting about him. Mrs. M testified that she did not start shouting UNTIL the perp was running down Patton! Again, "falsely witnessed".
Again, point lost in a thicket of >>>>Don ignored this point.Did I summarize your beliefs correctly here? You didn't quibble over this, so it appears I did.To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.
As it happen, No. The initial crime scene sketch of the 10th/Patton area notes that the perp went "W on all(e)y to Crawford". The sketch was drawn by Sgt. Barnes, who mentioned only one witness in his WC testimony--Mrs M. And Mrs. M later toldYou’re assuming it was as well, an error where she inadvertently stated the truth and revealed the coverup. Aren’t you?Who the fuck said it was an error? You're assuming.People are human. Everyone makes mistakes. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to throw out everything she said based on one error.Moreover, in the 60 years since the murder (ok, minus a few months - conspiracy mongers do like to quibble, don't they?) none of the Tippit witnesses recanted and none admitted to anything like Don and other critics suggest.Mrs. Markham kept insisting that the gunman ran down the alley off Patton, in later interviews.
It doesn't work that way.
You were assuming that I was assuming, when the finger is actually pointing at you....that he last saw the guy headed.) In fact, that footage is better than a recantation.
It's got everything to do with the broader subject of witness lineup IDs. The McW case shows that the IDs are as problematic as their testimony.Don ignored this point.McWatters recanted on his ID of Oswald in the lineup. Then, yes, later, in his testimony, he recanted on his recantation!He was the bus driver, wasn't he? What's that got to do with the Tippit shooting?
Same-day TV footage showed that Warren Reynolds changed his story for the Commission, where he testified that he last saw the guy headed for the parking lot. (The footage shows him before one of the two old houses, where he was telling police
Malice.Ah! Time for you to go into your "fallacy" mode... It took me several postings to convince Bud--some years back--that Reynolds was telling police that the guy ran into one of the old houses--one of the convincers was a clip from news footage, in WithIf there was ever a perp there at all.Didn't the police search those old houses and find nothing suspicious?Yeah--15 minutes or so after the guy would have left. You think perps are going to hang around for the police?
Once more you are assuming what you need to prove and imbedding that assumption in your argument as a given. That’s the logical fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION. I’ve asked you to stop committing these logical fallacies but you just keep doing so.
SEE ABOVEExplain why killing Tippit was necessary to frame Oswald for a crime of killing Kennedy. You are alleging Oswald was framed for killing Tippit.Both were necessary to the villains.Do you disagree?At this point it looks from here more like the purpose of the plot was to frame Oswald, and the killing of Kennedy was merely incidental to that frame-up.
Explain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.SEE ABOVE.
dcw
dcw
Hank
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 11:20:20 AM UTC-7, donald willis wrote:the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
I guess I'll have to keep re-running this until Hank comes out of summer hibernation....
Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him for
simply assume it is an either/or situation, and artificially ignore the possibility of both occurring.Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
"I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
Thank you, Willy. You'll make Hank very happy.
Since other witnesses claim the gunman discarded the shells from a revolver as he crossed the yard, it makes more sense to understand she simply spoke of witnessing both him crossing yard and then the street. But you need a conflict, so you
temporally, of his testimony.Reading their affidavits and testimony, one story emerges: a young, slender white male shot Tippit and emptied and reloaded his revolver as he walked away, discarding the shells as he did so.
A point lost in a thicket of >>>>,,,Don ignored this point.A false tale, as Virginia's affidavit shows.You need do more than simply allege this, based on your interpretation of her claims.
You are begging the question and using circular reasoning here once more.
The discarded shells in evidence match the gun linked to Oswald through paperwork, that was wrested from his hand in the movie theatre after he slugged Officer McDonald.
Pretty damning evidence.
I say "supposedly" because Sgt Hill later said that Benavides didn't handle any shells. And it took some 4 months for Benavides, in his testimony, to say that he did see the perp drop shells and that he did pick them up. Problems on both sides,Don ignored this point.If you believe in shells initially handled by civilians, supposedly,Yes, civilians reported finding shells in the yard. So?
interviewers that she saw the suspect run into the alley.1) According to the police radio logs, the Davises called the dispatcher about a minute AFTER the first witness called from the scene. (Myers avoided the issue of this delayed response by not including it in his timeline.)Don ignored this point.and falsely witnessed by the Davises.Another unproven allegation by you.
2) Both Davises testified that they first saw the perp when Mrs. Markham started shouting about him. Mrs. M testified that she did not start shouting UNTIL the perp was running down Patton! Again, "falsely witnessed".
Again, point lost in a thicket of >>>>Don ignored this point.Did I summarize your beliefs correctly here? You didn't quibble over this, so it appears I did.To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.
As it happen, No. The initial crime scene sketch of the 10th/Patton area notes that the perp went "W on all(e)y to Crawford". The sketch was drawn by Sgt. Barnes, who mentioned only one witness in his WC testimony--Mrs M. And Mrs. M later toldYou’re assuming it was as well, an error where she inadvertently stated the truth and revealed the coverup. Aren’t you?Who the fuck said it was an error? You're assuming.People are human. Everyone makes mistakes. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to throw out everything she said based on one error.Moreover, in the 60 years since the murder (ok, minus a few months - conspiracy mongers do like to quibble, don't they?) none of the Tippit witnesses recanted and none admitted to anything like Don and other critics suggest.Mrs. Markham kept insisting that the gunman ran down the alley off Patton, in later interviews.
It doesn't work that way.
that he last saw the guy headed.) In fact, that footage is better than a recantation.You were assuming that I was assuming, when the finger is actually pointing at you....
It's got everything to do with the broader subject of witness lineup IDs. The McW case shows that the IDs are as problematic as their testimony.Don ignored this point.McWatters recanted on his ID of Oswald in the lineup. Then, yes, later, in his testimony, he recanted on his recantation!He was the bus driver, wasn't he? What's that got to do with the Tippit shooting?
Same-day TV footage showed that Warren Reynolds changed his story for the Commission, where he testified that he last saw the guy headed for the parking lot. (The footage shows him before one of the two old houses, where he was telling police
Malice.Ah! Time for you to go into your "fallacy" mode... It took me several postings to convince Bud--some years back--that Reynolds was telling police that the guy ran into one of the old houses--one of the convincers was a clip from news footage, in WithIf there was ever a perp there at all.Didn't the police search those old houses and find nothing suspicious?Yeah--15 minutes or so after the guy would have left. You think perps are going to hang around for the police?
so.Once more you are assuming what you need to prove and imbedding that assumption in your argument as a given. That’s the logical fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION. I’ve asked you to stop committing these logical fallacies but you just keep doing
SEE ABOVEExplain why killing Tippit was necessary to frame Oswald for a crime of killing Kennedy. You are alleging Oswald was framed for killing Tippit.Both were necessary to the villains.Do you disagree?At this point it looks from here more like the purpose of the plot was to frame Oswald, and the killing of Kennedy was merely incidental to that frame-up.
Explain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.SEE ABOVE.
dcw
dcw
Hank
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:p383). The dispatchers then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 > E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57).
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 1:17:46 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 12:21:19 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 12:56:24 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 11:59:48 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 5:53:40 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:45:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 12:56:48 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 6:15:30 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, > 1:15pm (
saw the boy cutting across the street"You wrote this...What's silly about showing that Myers omits only the dispatcher's response to the Davis call, which response came about 2 minutes after his response to the Wright call? I guess it's like Kryptonite to both of you superboys....I didn`t care about your ideas at all, which is why I didn`t respond to your silly game playing. I objected to Gil`s idea that your silly game playing reflected poorly on us.Sometimes all it takes is a word or a few words--remember "Z", which was based on fact: the phrase "lithe like a tiger" gave it all away.So Willis decides to take one word of context (from a witness he ignores 97% of the information she related) and somehow this reflects poorly on us?Wright address, on the police radio, in his text (pp104-105), he omits the only, belated mention of the Davis address.That's what these Warren Commission supporters do. They only tell you what they want you to know.
They NEVER tell you the whole story.
It's called deception by omission.
"She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her affidavit into even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We
your conclusion (there was a coverup).This is silly game playing not worthy of a response.
No, that’s still the logical fallacy of begging the question with a large dash of circular reasoning. HereAnd, as noted above, with Bud, it was a very good cover-up, hence the small but significant chinks in its armor.I would phrase it as “grasping at straws”.From her affidavit...That one word "street" reinforces Virginia Davis' statement in her original affidavit that she was at the side door on Patton.dcw
"I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."
"Yard", not "street".
The gunman was then not in the yard,From her affidavit...
"I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."
She said Oswald was in the yard.
but further away, too far for an accurate ID, and nowhere near where the spent shells were supposed to have been found, near the walk & window on the side.You are playing silly games, Don.
you simply use the conclusion (it was a very good coverup) to support the premise (your interpretation of the discrepancies in testimony). Originally, you were using the premise (your interpretation of the discrepancies in testimony) to support
clearly said into something none of them said.Please read up on circular reasoning and try to eliminate it from your arguments.
Your argument is fallacious.
(”The idiom 'grasping at straws' is used to mean an attempt to succeed—such as in an argument, debate or attempt at a solution—when nothing you choose is likely to work.”)
The affidavit was on the afternoon of 11/22/63, within a few hours of Tippit’s murder. Let’s call it three hours later.
Let's call these three hours one unit of time, thus there are eight such units per day (3 hours x 8 = 24).
Her testimony was on April 2nd, 1964 - 132 days later. Or more than 1056 such units unitsof time (8 x 132 = 1056).
Those are not the only choices. You are utilizing the logical fallacy of a false dilemma.Which is more likely to be accurate, her memory from one unit of time later, or her memory from over a thousand units of time later?Take your pick--the Virginia Davis of "side door on Patton" (affidavit), or the Virginia Davis of "saw him crossing the STREET" (testimony).
In the affidavit, for example, she said “I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun.” You ignored this.
In her testimony, she said “Then we heard the second shot and that is when we ran to the front door.”
Don ignored this point.So please tell us how you determined which version is correct. You appear to be starting with the idea that a coverup existed, and interpreting all those statements through that coverup lens.
Don asserts - without evidence - the Tippit witnesses were all lying in their signed affidavits on the afternoon of the assassination, and then plucks a word or a phrase out of their testimony or affidavit to attempt to turn what they each
front yard unloading a gun. A woman was standing across the street screaming that "he shot him, he killed him" and pointed towards a police car. That is the first time I noticed a police car there. I ran back in the house and called the operator andBarb Davis affidavit from the day of the shooting: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htmUnfortunately for you and JC, the Davises testified that they couldn't see the guy after he went around the corner of the front yard. So they couldn't have seen him cross ANY street.You tell me how the word "street" got into her testimony. It doesn't fit. Unless she means "crossing Patton", as in her affidavit. What other street would the guy be crossing?She also says “yard” in her affidavit and testimony.
The gunman had to cross her yard before he crossed the street.
== quote ==
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Barbara Jeanette Davis w/f/22, 400 E. 10th, WH3 8120. Bus: same who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Today November 22, 1963 shortly after 1:00 pm, my sister-in-law, Virginia Davis, and I were lying on the bed with the kids. I heard a shot and jumped up and heard another shot. I put on my shoes and went to the door and I saw this man walking across my
/s/ Barbara Jeanette Davis
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Mary Rattan
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== unquote ==
Virginia Davis affidavit: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/vdavis.htmPatton 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". This woman told Jeanette to call the Police and she did [sic]. I saw the officer that had
== quote ==
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Mrs. Virginia Davis, w/m/16 [sic], of 400 E. 10th WH-3-8120 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Today November 22, 1963 about 1:30 pm my sister-in-law and myself were lying down in our apartment. My sister-in-law is Jeanette Davis, we live in the same house in different apartments. We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to the side door at
/s/ Mrs. Virginia Davis
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Patsy Collins
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== unquote ==
murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him for the
Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
"I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
Thank you, Willy. You'll make Hank very happy.
simply assume it is an either/or situation, and artificially ignore the possibility of both occurring.Since other witnesses claim the gunman discarded the shells from a revolver as he crossed the yard, it makes more sense to understand she simply spoke of witnessing both him crossing yard and then the street. But you need a conflict, so you
Reading their affidavits and testimony, one story emerges: a young, slender white male shot Tippit and emptied and reloaded his revolver as he walked away, discarding the shells as he did so.
A point lost in a thicket of >>>>,,,Don ignored this point.A false tale, as Virginia's affidavit shows.You need do more than simply allege this, based on your interpretation of her claims.
You are begging the question and using circular reasoning here once more.
temporally, of his testimony.The discarded shells in evidence match the gun linked to Oswald through paperwork, that was wrested from his hand in the movie theatre after he slugged Officer McDonald.
Pretty damning evidence.
I say "supposedly" because Sgt Hill later said that Benavides didn't handle any shells. And it took some 4 months for Benavides, in his testimony, to say that he did see the perp drop shells and that he did pick them up. Problems on both sides,Don ignored this point.If you believe in shells initially handled by civilians, supposedly,Yes, civilians reported finding shells in the yard. So?
1) According to the police radio logs, the Davises called the dispatcher about a minute AFTER the first witness called from the scene. (Myers avoided the issue of this delayed response by not including it in his timeline.)Don ignored this point.and falsely witnessed by the Davises.Another unproven allegation by you.
2) Both Davises testified that they first saw the perp when Mrs. Markham started shouting about him. Mrs. M testified that she did not start shouting UNTIL the perp was running down Patton! Again, "falsely witnessed".
Again, point lost in a thicket of >>>>Don ignored this point.Did I summarize your beliefs correctly here? You didn't quibble over this, so it appears I did.To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.
interviewers that she saw the suspect run into the alley.As it happen, No. The initial crime scene sketch of the 10th/Patton area notes that the perp went "W on all(e)y to Crawford". The sketch was drawn by Sgt. Barnes, who mentioned only one witness in his WC testimony--Mrs M. And Mrs. M later toldYou’re assuming it was as well, an error where she inadvertently stated the truth and revealed the coverup. Aren’t you?Who the fuck said it was an error? You're assuming.People are human. Everyone makes mistakes. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to throw out everything she said based on one error.Moreover, in the 60 years since the murder (ok, minus a few months - conspiracy mongers do like to quibble, don't they?) none of the Tippit witnesses recanted and none admitted to anything like Don and other critics suggest.Mrs. Markham kept insisting that the gunman ran down the alley off Patton, in later interviews.
It doesn't work that way.
You were assuming that I was assuming, when the finger is actually pointing at you....
It's got everything to do with the broader subject of witness lineup IDs. The McW case shows that the IDs are as problematic as their testimony.Don ignored this point.McWatters recanted on his ID of Oswald in the lineup. Then, yes, later, in his testimony, he recanted on his recantation!He was the bus driver, wasn't he? What's that got to do with the Tippit shooting?
that he last saw the guy headed.) In fact, that footage is better than a recantation.Same-day TV footage showed that Warren Reynolds changed his story for the Commission, where he testified that he last saw the guy headed for the parking lot. (The footage shows him before one of the two old houses, where he was telling police
Malice.Ah! Time for you to go into your "fallacy" mode... It took me several postings to convince Bud--some years back--that Reynolds was telling police that the guy ran into one of the old houses--one of the convincers was a clip from news footage, in WithIf there was ever a perp there at all.Didn't the police search those old houses and find nothing suspicious?Yeah--15 minutes or so after the guy would have left. You think perps are going to hang around for the police?
Once more you are assuming what you need to prove and imbedding that assumption in your argument as a given. That’s the logical fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION. I’ve asked you to stop committing these logical fallacies but you just keep doing so.
SEE ABOVEExplain why killing Tippit was necessary to frame Oswald for a crime of killing Kennedy. You are alleging Oswald was framed for killing Tippit.Both were necessary to the villains.Do you disagree?At this point it looks from here more like the purpose of the plot was to frame Oswald, and the killing of Kennedy was merely incidental to that frame-up.
Explain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.SEE ABOVE.
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:p383). The dispatchers then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 > E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57).
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:First, let's put back everything you cut. It's pertinent to the questions I asked:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 7:16:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 1:17:46 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 12:21:19 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 12:56:24 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 11:59:48 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 5:53:40 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:45:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 12:56:48 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 6:15:30 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, > 1:15pm (
saw the boy cutting across the street"You wrote this...What's silly about showing that Myers omits only the dispatcher's response to the Davis call, which response came about 2 minutes after his response to the Wright call? I guess it's like Kryptonite to both of you superboys....I didn`t care about your ideas at all, which is why I didn`t respond to your silly game playing. I objected to Gil`s idea that your silly game playing reflected poorly on us.Sometimes all it takes is a word or a few words--remember "Z", which was based on fact: the phrase "lithe like a tiger" gave it all away.So Willis decides to take one word of context (from a witness he ignores 97% of the information she related) and somehow this reflects poorly on us?Wright address, on the police radio, in his text (pp104-105), he omits the only, belated mention of the Davis address.That's what these Warren Commission supporters do. They only tell you what they want you to know. They NEVER tell you the whole story.
It's called deception by omission.
"She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her affidavit into even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We
your conclusion (there was a coverup).This is silly game playing not worthy of a response.
No, that’s still the logical fallacy of begging the question with a large dash of circular reasoning. HereAnd, as noted above, with Bud, it was a very good cover-up, hence the small but significant chinks in its armor.I would phrase it as “grasping at straws”.From her affidavit...That one word "street" reinforces Virginia Davis' statement in her original affidavit that she was at the side door on Patton.dcw
"I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."
"Yard", not "street".
The gunman was then not in the yard,From her affidavit...
"I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."
She said Oswald was in the yard.
but further away, too far for an accurate ID, and nowhere near where the spent shells were supposed to have been found, near the walk & window on the side.You are playing silly games, Don.
you simply use the conclusion (it was a very good coverup) to support the premise (your interpretation of the discrepancies in testimony). Originally, you were using the premise (your interpretation of the discrepancies in testimony) to support
clearly said into something none of them said.Please read up on circular reasoning and try to eliminate it from your arguments.
Your argument is fallacious.
(”The idiom 'grasping at straws' is used to mean an attempt to succeed—such as in an argument, debate or attempt at a solution—when nothing you choose is likely to work.”)
The affidavit was on the afternoon of 11/22/63, within a few hours of Tippit’s murder. Let’s call it three hours later.
Let's call these three hours one unit of time, thus there are eight such units per day (3 hours x 8 = 24).
Her testimony was on April 2nd, 1964 - 132 days later. Or more than 1056 such units unitsof time (8 x 132 = 1056).
Those are not the only choices. You are utilizing the logical fallacy of a false dilemma.Which is more likely to be accurate, her memory from one unit of time later, or her memory from over a thousand units of time later?Take your pick--the Virginia Davis of "side door on Patton" (affidavit), or the Virginia Davis of "saw him crossing the STREET" (testimony).
In the affidavit, for example, she said “I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun.” You ignored this.
In her testimony, she said “Then we heard the second shot and that is when we ran to the front door.”
Don ignored this point.So please tell us how you determined which version is correct. You appear to be starting with the idea that a coverup existed, and interpreting all those statements through that coverup lens.
Don asserts - without evidence - the Tippit witnesses were all lying in their signed affidavits on the afternoon of the assassination, and then plucks a word or a phrase out of their testimony or affidavit to attempt to turn what they each
my front yard unloading a gun. A woman was standing across the street screaming that "he shot him, he killed him" and pointed towards a police car. That is the first time I noticed a police car there. I ran back in the house and called the operator andBarb Davis affidavit from the day of the shooting: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htmUnfortunately for you and JC, the Davises testified that they couldn't see the guy after he went around the corner of the front yard. So they couldn't have seen him cross ANY street.You tell me how the word "street" got into her testimony. It doesn't fit. Unless she means "crossing Patton", as in her affidavit. What other street would the guy be crossing?She also says “yard” in her affidavit and testimony.
The gunman had to cross her yard before he crossed the street.
== quote ==
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Barbara Jeanette Davis w/f/22, 400 E. 10th, WH3 8120. Bus: same who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Today November 22, 1963 shortly after 1:00 pm, my sister-in-law, Virginia Davis, and I were lying on the bed with the kids. I heard a shot and jumped up and heard another shot. I put on my shoes and went to the door and I saw this man walking across
/s/ Barbara Jeanette Davis
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Mary Rattan
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== unquote ==
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". This woman told Jeanette to call the Police and she did [sic]. I saw the officer that hadVirginia Davis affidavit: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
== quote ==
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Mrs. Virginia Davis, w/m/16 [sic], of 400 E. 10th WH-3-8120 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Today November 22, 1963 about 1:30 pm my sister-in-law and myself were lying down in our apartment. My sister-in-law is Jeanette Davis, we live in the same house in different apartments. We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to the side door
/s/ Mrs. Virginia Davis
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Patsy Collins
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== unquote ==
You ignored all the above.
the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him for
simply assume it is an either/or situation, and artificially ignore the possibility of both occurring.Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
"I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
Thank you, Willy. You'll make Hank very happy.Sorry, no. Your *interpretation* of this statement is that Fritz was instructing his officers to frame Oswald for the murder of of a fellow police officer.
My *interpretation* of this statement is that Fritz was instructing his officers to gather the evidence that Oswald shot Tippit.
Note the wording: "I instructed my officers to *prepare a real good case* on the officer's killing" ... Not "I instructed my officers to *frame Oswald* on the officer's killing".
Your quote doesn't say what you need it to say. You merely take the quote out of context and pretend it does to justify your belief that Oswald was framed. It doesn't say that.
And as always, you leave unanswered questions in the wake of your interpretation, like
A. Why would Fritz want to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and let the real cop killer go free?
B. Why would Fritz think every officer under his command would accede to his wishes (as your interpretation argues) to frame an innocent man and let J.D.Tippit's real killer go free? And do this in the first hours after the murder of Tippit?
An extraordinary explanation demands extraordinary evidence. Not simply a unique *interpretation* of a clear instruction to build a solid case.
Your *interpretations* of the evidence are not evidence.
Since other witnesses claim the gunman discarded the shells from a revolver as he crossed the yard, it makes more sense to understand she simply spoke of witnessing both him crossing yard and then the street. But you need a conflict, so you
temporally, of his testimony.Reading their affidavits and testimony, one story emerges: a young, slender white male shot Tippit and emptied and reloaded his revolver as he walked away, discarding the shells as he did so.
And you still don't explain it!A point lost in a thicket of >>>>,,,Don ignored this point.A false tale, as Virginia's affidavit shows.You need do more than simply allege this, based on your interpretation of her claims.
You are begging the question and using circular reasoning here once more.
Hilarious!
The discarded shells in evidence match the gun linked to Oswald through paperwork, that was wrested from his hand in the movie theatre after he slugged Officer McDonald.
Pretty damning evidence.
I say "supposedly" because Sgt Hill later said that Benavides didn't handle any shells. And it took some 4 months for Benavides, in his testimony, to say that he did see the perp drop shells and that he did pick them up. Problems on both sides,Don ignored this point.If you believe in shells initially handled by civilians, supposedly,Yes, civilians reported finding shells in the yard. So?
Again, your *interpretation* of this alleged conflict is that Hill (who was supposedly instructed by Fritz to frame Oswald, according to your *interpretation* of Fritz's words above), didn't do that, and helped reveal the frame-up, but only to you. Youneither quote Hill's words nor provide a link to them. Alleging things is not the same as establishing them. You also appear to suggest, based on nothing whatsoever, that Benavides lied in his testimony.
Hill's testimony is here: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/hill_gl.htmcurrently simply assuming both of these.
He mentions "Benavides" not at all.
Even if you provide a legitimate source for Hill's claim, you need to do more: You need to establish that Hill's hearsay assertion is accurate (How would Hill know whether Benavides handled any shells?), and Benavides testimony is false. You are
Poe testified that Benavides provided the shells to him (Poe): https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/poe.htmcigarettes I had and picked them up with a little stick and put them in this cigarette package; a chrome looking shell.
== quote ==
Mr. POE. I talked to a Spanish man, but I don't remember his name. Dominique, I believe.
Mr. BALL. Domingo Benavides?
Mr. POE. I believe that is correct; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did he tell you?
Mr. POE. He told me, give me the same, or similar description of the man, and told me he was running out across this lawn. He was unloading his pistol as he ran, and he picked the shells up.
Mr. BALL. Domingo told you who was running across the lawn?
Mr. POE. A man, white man.
Mr. BALL. What was he doing?
Mr. POE. He was unloading his pistol as he run.
Mr. BALL. And what did he say?
Mr. POE. He said he picked the two hulls up.
Mr. BALL. Did he hand you the hulls?
Mr. POE. Yes, sir.
== unquote ==
Benavides testified to it this way: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/benavide.htm
== quote ==
Mr. BELIN - Now you saw him throw two shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - You saw where he threw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Did you later go back in that area and try and find the shells? Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes. Well, right after that I went back and I knew exactly where they was at, and I went over and picked up one in my hand, not thinking and I dropped it, that maybe they want fingerprints off it, so I took out an empty pack of
...interviewers that she saw the suspect run into the alley.
Mr. BELIN - When you put these two shells that you found in this cigarette package, what did you do with them?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I gave them to an officer.
Mr. BELIN - That came out to the scene shortly after?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember the name of the officer?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No, sir; I didn't even ask him. I just told him that this was the shells that he had fired, and I handed them to him.
== unquote ==
How quickly might you think someone might think to look up the number of the Dallas Police in their phone book and dial their rotary phone?1) According to the police radio logs, the Davises called the dispatcher about a minute AFTER the first witness called from the scene. (Myers avoided the issue of this delayed response by not including it in his timeline.)Don ignored this point.and falsely witnessed by the Davises.Another unproven allegation by you.
Moreover, this is another unproven allegation by you. You neither cite the police radio logs to establish when the first witness called from the scene, nor establish when the Davis' call was made.
You really need to step up your game. Your *interpretations* of the evidence are not evidence.
2) Both Davises testified that they first saw the perp when Mrs. Markham started shouting about him. Mrs. M testified that she did not start shouting UNTIL the perp was running down Patton! Again, "falsely witnessed".Barbara Davis' affidavit: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm
She was lying on the evening of the assassination to frame Oswald?
BD was more than happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and even pick the poor schmuck out of a lineup to help frame him? And she never had a change of heart and came forward to say otherwise?
Ditto with Virginia Davis? https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
She was lying on the evening of the assassination to frame Oswald?
VD was more than happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and even pick the poor schmuck out of a lineup to help frame him? And she never had a change of heart and came forward to say otherwise?
Your claims are contrary to the evidence.
And you still don't explain it!Again, point lost in a thicket of >>>>Don ignored this point.Did I summarize your beliefs correctly here? You didn't quibble over this, so it appears I did.To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.
Hilarious!
As it happen, No. The initial crime scene sketch of the 10th/Patton area notes that the perp went "W on all(e)y to Crawford". The sketch was drawn by Sgt. Barnes, who mentioned only one witness in his WC testimony--Mrs M. And Mrs. M later toldYou’re assuming it was as well, an error where she inadvertently stated the truth and revealed the coverup. Aren’t you?Who the fuck said it was an error? You're assuming.People are human. Everyone makes mistakes. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to throw out everything she said based on one error.Moreover, in the 60 years since the murder (ok, minus a few months - conspiracy mongers do like to quibble, don't they?) none of the Tippit witnesses recanted and none admitted to anything like Don and other critics suggest.Mrs. Markham kept insisting that the gunman ran down the alley off Patton, in later interviews.
It doesn't work that way.
statement from somewhere else...You were assuming that I was assuming, when the finger is actually pointing at you....Okay, granting that for the sake of argument (but you again don't cite for it and apparently expect us to just take your word for it), how does that establish that Markham was accurate in her recollection?
You're assuming it wasn't an error. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to rejigger the murder of Tippit so that Oswald comes out framed, by selecting a tidbit from here, a mis-statement from there, a re-interpretation of a
that he last saw the guy headed.) In fact, that footage is better than a recantation.Again you cite for neither assertion you make, nor do you show how McWatters testimony about who rode his bus taints the lineups shown the witnesses of the Tippit murder and its immediate aftermath.It's got everything to do with the broader subject of witness lineup IDs. The McW case shows that the IDs are as problematic as their testimony.Don ignored this point.McWatters recanted on his ID of Oswald in the lineup. Then, yes, later, in his testimony, he recanted on his recantation!He was the bus driver, wasn't he? What's that got to do with the Tippit shooting?
Same-day TV footage showed that Warren Reynolds changed his story for the Commission, where he testified that he last saw the guy headed for the parking lot. (The footage shows him before one of the two old houses, where he was telling police
Malice.Ah! Time for you to go into your "fallacy" mode... It took me several postings to convince Bud--some years back--that Reynolds was telling police that the guy ran into one of the old houses--one of the convincers was a clip from news footage, in WithIf there was ever a perp there at all.Didn't the police search those old houses and find nothing suspicious?Yeah--15 minutes or so after the guy would have left. You think perps are going to hang around for the police?
yes, it is a fallacy to assume what you need to prove. It's called Begging the Question. And you are clearly assuming it, and imbedding it into your point with the argument "You think perps are going to hang around for the police?"therefore as much evidence of unicorns acting as spotters as there was for a shooter in the Dal-Tex building. He didn't get the point. I doubt you will.
This is akin to another CT's assertion that there were shots from the Dal-Tex Building. When asked for the evidence of this other weapon, he argued the building was never searched, so of course he couldn't provide any evidence! I pointed out there was
so.Once more you are assuming what you need to prove and imbedding that assumption in your argument as a given. That’s the logical fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION. I’ve asked you to stop committing these logical fallacies but you just keep doing
I see I already explained this to you. But you persisted in the fallacy.
There's nothing above that explains this.SEE ABOVEExplain why killing Tippit was necessary to frame Oswald for a crime of killing Kennedy. You are alleging Oswald was framed for killing Tippit.Both were necessary to the villains.Do you disagree?At this point it looks from here more like the purpose of the plot was to frame Oswald, and the killing of Kennedy was merely incidental to that frame-up.
There's nothing above that explains this.Explain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.SEE ABOVE.
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:p383). The dispatchers then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 > E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57).
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:First, let's put back everything you cut. It's pertinent to the questions I asked:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 7:16:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 1:17:46 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 12:21:19 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 12:56:24 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 11:59:48 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 5:53:40 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:45:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 12:56:48 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 6:15:30 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, > 1:15pm (
saw the boy cutting across the street"You wrote this...What's silly about showing that Myers omits only the dispatcher's response to the Davis call, which response came about 2 minutes after his response to the Wright call? I guess it's like Kryptonite to both of you superboys....I didn`t care about your ideas at all, which is why I didn`t respond to your silly game playing. I objected to Gil`s idea that your silly game playing reflected poorly on us.Sometimes all it takes is a word or a few words--remember "Z", which was based on fact: the phrase "lithe like a tiger" gave it all away.So Willis decides to take one word of context (from a witness he ignores 97% of the information she related) and somehow this reflects poorly on us?Wright address, on the police radio, in his text (pp104-105), he omits the only, belated mention of the Davis address.That's what these Warren Commission supporters do. They only tell you what they want you to know. They NEVER tell you the whole story.
It's called deception by omission.
"She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her affidavit into even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We
your conclusion (there was a coverup).This is silly game playing not worthy of a response.
No, that’s still the logical fallacy of begging the question with a large dash of circular reasoning. HereAnd, as noted above, with Bud, it was a very good cover-up, hence the small but significant chinks in its armor.I would phrase it as “grasping at straws”.From her affidavit...That one word "street" reinforces Virginia Davis' statement in her original affidavit that she was at the side door on Patton.dcw
"I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."
"Yard", not "street".
The gunman was then not in the yard,From her affidavit...
"I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."
She said Oswald was in the yard.
but further away, too far for an accurate ID, and nowhere near where the spent shells were supposed to have been found, near the walk & window on the side.You are playing silly games, Don.
you simply use the conclusion (it was a very good coverup) to support the premise (your interpretation of the discrepancies in testimony). Originally, you were using the premise (your interpretation of the discrepancies in testimony) to support
clearly said into something none of them said.Please read up on circular reasoning and try to eliminate it from your arguments.
Your argument is fallacious.
(”The idiom 'grasping at straws' is used to mean an attempt to succeed—such as in an argument, debate or attempt at a solution—when nothing you choose is likely to work.”)
The affidavit was on the afternoon of 11/22/63, within a few hours of Tippit’s murder. Let’s call it three hours later.
Let's call these three hours one unit of time, thus there are eight such units per day (3 hours x 8 = 24).
Her testimony was on April 2nd, 1964 - 132 days later. Or more than 1056 such units unitsof time (8 x 132 = 1056).
Those are not the only choices. You are utilizing the logical fallacy of a false dilemma.Which is more likely to be accurate, her memory from one unit of time later, or her memory from over a thousand units of time later?Take your pick--the Virginia Davis of "side door on Patton" (affidavit), or the Virginia Davis of "saw him crossing the STREET" (testimony).
In the affidavit, for example, she said “I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun.” You ignored this.
In her testimony, she said “Then we heard the second shot and that is when we ran to the front door.”
Don ignored this point.So please tell us how you determined which version is correct. You appear to be starting with the idea that a coverup existed, and interpreting all those statements through that coverup lens.
Don asserts - without evidence - the Tippit witnesses were all lying in their signed affidavits on the afternoon of the assassination, and then plucks a word or a phrase out of their testimony or affidavit to attempt to turn what they each
my front yard unloading a gun. A woman was standing across the street screaming that "he shot him, he killed him" and pointed towards a police car. That is the first time I noticed a police car there. I ran back in the house and called the operator andBarb Davis affidavit from the day of the shooting: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htmUnfortunately for you and JC, the Davises testified that they couldn't see the guy after he went around the corner of the front yard. So they couldn't have seen him cross ANY street.You tell me how the word "street" got into her testimony. It doesn't fit. Unless she means "crossing Patton", as in her affidavit. What other street would the guy be crossing?She also says “yard” in her affidavit and testimony.
The gunman had to cross her yard before he crossed the street.
== quote ==
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Barbara Jeanette Davis w/f/22, 400 E. 10th, WH3 8120. Bus: same who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Today November 22, 1963 shortly after 1:00 pm, my sister-in-law, Virginia Davis, and I were lying on the bed with the kids. I heard a shot and jumped up and heard another shot. I put on my shoes and went to the door and I saw this man walking across
/s/ Barbara Jeanette Davis
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Mary Rattan
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== unquote ==
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". This woman told Jeanette to call the Police and she did [sic]. I saw the officer that hadVirginia Davis affidavit: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
== quote ==
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Mrs. Virginia Davis, w/m/16 [sic], of 400 E. 10th WH-3-8120 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Today November 22, 1963 about 1:30 pm my sister-in-law and myself were lying down in our apartment. My sister-in-law is Jeanette Davis, we live in the same house in different apartments. We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to the side door
/s/ Mrs. Virginia Davis
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Patsy Collins
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== unquote ==
You ignored all the above.the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him for
Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
"I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
Thank you, Willy. You'll make Hank very happy.Sorry, no. Your *interpretation* of this statement is that Fritz was instructing his officers to frame Oswald for the murder of of a fellow police officer.
My *interpretation* of this statement is that Fritz was instructing his officers to gather the evidence that Oswald shot Tippit.
Note the wording: "I instructed my officers to *prepare a real good case* on the officer's killing" ... Not "I instructed my officers to *frame Oswald* on the officer's killing".
Your quote doesn't say what you need it to say. You merely take the quote out of context and pretend it does to justify your belief that Oswald was framed. It doesn't say that.
And as always, you leave unanswered questions in the wake of your interpretation, like
A. Why would Fritz want to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and let the real cop killer go free?
B. Why would Fritz think every officer under his command would accede to his wishes (as your interpretation argues) to frame an innocent man and let J.D.Tippit's real killer go free? And do this in the first hours after the murder of Tippit?
An extraordinary explanation demands extraordinary evidence. Not simply a unique *interpretation* of a clear instruction to build a solid case.
Your *interpretations* of the evidence are not evidence.
simply assume it is an either/or situation, and artificially ignore the possibility of both occurring.Since other witnesses claim the gunman discarded the shells from a revolver as he crossed the yard, it makes more sense to understand she simply spoke of witnessing both him crossing yard and then the street. But you need a conflict, so you
Reading their affidavits and testimony, one story emerges: a young, slender white male shot Tippit and emptied and reloaded his revolver as he walked away, discarding the shells as he did so.
And you still don't explain it!A point lost in a thicket of >>>>,,,Don ignored this point.A false tale, as Virginia's affidavit shows.You need do more than simply allege this, based on your interpretation of her claims.
You are begging the question and using circular reasoning here once more.
Hilarious!temporally, of his testimony.
The discarded shells in evidence match the gun linked to Oswald through paperwork, that was wrested from his hand in the movie theatre after he slugged Officer McDonald.
Pretty damning evidence.
I say "supposedly" because Sgt Hill later said that Benavides didn't handle any shells. And it took some 4 months for Benavides, in his testimony, to say that he did see the perp drop shells and that he did pick them up. Problems on both sides,Don ignored this point.If you believe in shells initially handled by civilians, supposedly,Yes, civilians reported finding shells in the yard. So?
Again, your *interpretation* of this alleged conflict is that Hill (who was supposedly instructed by Fritz to frame Oswald, according to your *interpretation* of Fritz's words above
Hill's testimony is here: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/hill_gl.htm
He mentions "Benavides" not at all.
Even if you provide a legitimate source for Hill's claim, you need to do more: You need to establish that Hill's hearsay assertion is accurate (How would Hill know whether Benavides handled any shells?)
Poe testified that Benavides provided the shells to him (Poe): https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/poe.htmcigarettes I had and picked them up with a little stick and put them in this cigarette package; a chrome looking shell.
== quote ==
Mr. POE. I talked to a Spanish man, but I don't remember his name. Dominique, I believe.
Mr. BALL. Domingo Benavides?
Mr. POE. I believe that is correct; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did he tell you?
Mr. POE. He told me, give me the same, or similar description of the man, and told me he was running out across this lawn. He was unloading his pistol as he ran, and he picked the shells up.
Mr. BALL. Domingo told you who was running across the lawn?
Mr. POE. A man, white man.
Mr. BALL. What was he doing?
Mr. POE. He was unloading his pistol as he run.
Mr. BALL. And what did he say?
Mr. POE. He said he picked the two hulls up.
Mr. BALL. Did he hand you the hulls?
Mr. POE. Yes, sir.
== unquote ==
Benavides testified to it this way: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/benavide.htm
== quote ==
Mr. BELIN - Now you saw him throw two shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - You saw where he threw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Did you later go back in that area and try and find the shells? Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes. Well, right after that I went back and I knew exactly where they was at, and I went over and picked up one in my hand, not thinking and I dropped it, that maybe they want fingerprints off it, so I took out an empty pack of
...
Mr. BELIN - When you put these two shells that you found in this cigarette package, what did you do with them?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I gave them to an officer.
Mr. BELIN - That came out to the scene shortly after?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember the name of the officer?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No, sir; I didn't even ask him. I just told him that this was the shells that he had fired, and I handed them to him.
== unquote ==
How quickly might you think someone might think to look up the number of the Dallas Police in their phone book and dial their rotary phone?1) According to the police radio logs, the Davises called the dispatcher about a minute AFTER the first witness called from the scene. (Myers avoided the issue of this delayed response by not including it in his timeline.)Don ignored this point.and falsely witnessed by the Davises.Another unproven allegation by you.
Moreover, this is another unproven allegation by you. You neither cite the police radio logs to establish when the first witness called from the scene
You really need to step up your game. Your *interpretations* of the evidence are not evidence.interviewers that she saw the suspect run into the alley.
2) Both Davises testified that they first saw the perp when Mrs. Markham started shouting about him. Mrs. M testified that she did not start shouting UNTIL the perp was running down Patton! Again, "falsely witnessed".Barbara Davis' affidavit: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm
She was lying on the evening of the assassination to frame Oswald?
BD was more than happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and even pick the poor schmuck out of a lineup to help frame him? And she never had a change of heart and came forward to say otherwise?
Ditto with Virginia Davis? https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
She was lying on the evening of the assassination to frame Oswald?
VD was more than happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and even pick the poor schmuck out of a lineup to help frame him? And she never had a change of heart and came forward to say otherwise?
Your claims are contrary to the evidence.
And you still don't explain it!Again, point lost in a thicket of >>>>Don ignored this point.Did I summarize your beliefs correctly here? You didn't quibble over this, so it appears I did.To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.
Hilarious!
As it happen, No. The initial crime scene sketch of the 10th/Patton area notes that the perp went "W on all(e)y to Crawford". The sketch was drawn by Sgt. Barnes, who mentioned only one witness in his WC testimony--Mrs M. And Mrs. M later toldYou’re assuming it was as well, an error where she inadvertently stated the truth and revealed the coverup. Aren’t you?Who the fuck said it was an error? You're assuming.People are human. Everyone makes mistakes. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to throw out everything she said based on one error.Moreover, in the 60 years since the murder (ok, minus a few months - conspiracy mongers do like to quibble, don't they?) none of the Tippit witnesses recanted and none admitted to anything like Don and other critics suggest.Mrs. Markham kept insisting that the gunman ran down the alley off Patton, in later interviews.
It doesn't work that way.
statement from somewhere else...You were assuming that I was assuming, when the finger is actually pointing at you....Okay, granting that for the sake of argument (but you again don't cite for it and apparently expect us to just take your word for it), how does that establish that Markham was accurate in her recollection?
You're assuming it wasn't an error. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to rejigger the murder of Tippit so that Oswald comes out framed, by selecting a tidbit from here, a mis-statement from there, a re-interpretation of a
that he last saw the guy headed.) In fact, that footage is better than a recantation.Again you cite for neither assertion you make, nor do you show how McWatters testimony about who rode his bus taints the lineups shown the witnesses of the Tippit murder and its immediate aftermath.It's got everything to do with the broader subject of witness lineup IDs. The McW case shows that the IDs are as problematic as their testimony.Don ignored this point.McWatters recanted on his ID of Oswald in the lineup. Then, yes, later, in his testimony, he recanted on his recantation!He was the bus driver, wasn't he? What's that got to do with the Tippit shooting?
Same-day TV footage showed that Warren Reynolds changed his story for the Commission, where he testified that he last saw the guy headed for the parking lot. (The footage shows him before one of the two old houses, where he was telling police
Malice.Ah! Time for you to go into your "fallacy" mode... It took me several postings to convince Bud--some years back--that Reynolds was telling police that the guy ran into one of the old houses--one of the convincers was a clip from news footage, in WithIf there was ever a perp there at all.Didn't the police search those old houses and find nothing suspicious?Yeah--15 minutes or so after the guy would have left. You think perps are going to hang around for the police?
yes, it is a fallacy to assume what you need to prove. It's called Begging the Question. And you are clearly assuming it, and imbedding it into your point with the argument "You think perps are going to hang around for the police?"therefore as much evidence of unicorns acting as spotters as there was for a shooter in the Dal-Tex building. He didn't get the point. I doubt you will.
This is akin to another CT's assertion that there were shots from the Dal-Tex Building. When asked for the evidence of this other weapon, he argued the building was never searched, so of course he couldn't provide any evidence! I pointed out there was
so.Once more you are assuming what you need to prove and imbedding that assumption in your argument as a given. That’s the logical fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION. I’ve asked you to stop committing these logical fallacies but you just keep doing
I see I already explained this to you. But you persisted in the fallacy.
There's nothing above that explains this.SEE ABOVEExplain why killing Tippit was necessary to frame Oswald for a crime of killing Kennedy. You are alleging Oswald was framed for killing Tippit.Both were necessary to the villains.Do you disagree?At this point it looks from here more like the purpose of the plot was to frame Oswald, and the killing of Kennedy was merely incidental to that frame-up.
There's nothing above that explains this.Explain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.SEE ABOVE.
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:First, let's put back everything you cut. It's pertinent to the questions I asked:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 7:16:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 20 CUT
2) Both Davises testified that they first saw the perp when Mrs. Markham started shouting about him. Mrs. M testified that she did not start shouting UNTIL the perp was running down Patton! Again, "falsely witnessed".Barbara Davis' affidavit: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm
She was lying on the evening of the assassination to frame Oswald?
BD was more than happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and even pick the poor schmuck out of a lineup to help frame him? And she never had a change of heart and came forward to say otherwise?
Ditto with Virginia Davis?
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
She was lying on the evening of the assassination to frame Oswald?
VD was more than happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and even pick the poor schmuck out of a lineup to help frame him? And she never had a change of heart and came forward to say otherwise?
Your claims are contrary to the evidence.
And you still don't explain it!Again, point lost in a thicket of >>>>Don ignored this point.Did I summarize your beliefs correctly here? You didn't quibble over this, so it appears I did.To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.
Hilarious!interviewers that she saw the suspect run into the alley.
As it happen, No. The initial crime scene sketch of the 10th/Patton area notes that the perp went "W on all(e)y to Crawford". The sketch was drawn by Sgt. Barnes, who mentioned only one witness in his WC testimony--Mrs M. And Mrs. M later toldYou’re assuming it was as well, an error where she inadvertently stated the truth and revealed the coverup. Aren’t you?Who the fuck said it was an error? You're assuming.People are human. Everyone makes mistakes. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to throw out everything she said based on one error.Moreover, in the 60 years since the murder (ok, minus a few months - conspiracy mongers do like to quibble, don't they?) none of the Tippit witnesses recanted and none admitted to anything like Don and other critics suggest.Mrs. Markham kept insisting that the gunman ran down the alley off Patton, in later interviews.
It doesn't work that way.
You were assuming that I was assuming, when the finger is actually pointing at you....Okay, granting that for the sake of argument (but you again don't cite for it and apparently expect us to just take your word for it), how does that establish that Markham was accurate in her recollection?
You're assuming it wasn't an error. You are looking at one witness in isolation
Again you cite for neither assertion you makeIt's got everything to do with the broader subject of witness lineup IDs. The McW case shows that the IDs are as problematic as their testimony.Don ignored this point.McWatters recanted on his ID of Oswald in the lineup. Then, yes, later, in his testimony, he recanted on his recantation!He was the bus driver, wasn't he? What's that got to do with the Tippit shooting?
that he last saw the guy headed.) In fact, that footage is better than a recantation.Same-day TV footage showed that Warren Reynolds changed his story for the Commission, where he testified that he last saw the guy headed for the parking lot. (The footage shows him before one of the two old houses, where he was telling police
Malice.Ah! Time for you to go into your "fallacy" mode... It took me several postings to convince Bud--some years back--that Reynolds was telling police that the guy ran into one of the old houses--one of the convincers was a clip from news footage, in WithIf there was ever a perp there at all.Didn't the police search those old houses and find nothing suspicious?Yeah--15 minutes or so after the guy would have left. You think perps are going to hang around for the police?
yes, it is a fallacy to assume what you need to prove.
This is akin to another CT's assertion that there were shots from the Dal-Tex Building. When asked for the evidence of this other weapon, he argued the building was never searched, so of course he couldn't provide any evidence! I pointed out there wastherefore as much evidence of unicorns acting as spotters as there was for a shooter in the Dal-Tex building. He didn't get the point. I doubt you will.
so.Once more you are assuming what you need to prove and imbedding that assumption in your argument as a given. That’s the logical fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION. I’ve asked you to stop committing these logical fallacies but you just keep doing
I see I already explained this to you. But you persisted in the fallacy.
There's nothing above that explains this.SEE ABOVEExplain why killing Tippit was necessary to frame Oswald for a crime of killing Kennedy. You are alleging Oswald was framed for killing Tippit.Both were necessary to the villains.Do you disagree?At this point it looks from here more like the purpose of the plot was to frame Oswald, and the killing of Kennedy was merely incidental to that frame-up.
There's nothing above that explains this.Explain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.SEE ABOVE.
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 2:16:56 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:interviewers that she saw the suspect run into the alley.
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:First, let's put back everything you cut. It's pertinent to the questions I asked:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 7:16:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 20 CUT
Here's where I left off....
2) Both Davises testified that they first saw the perp when Mrs. Markham started shouting about him. Mrs. M testified that she did not start shouting UNTIL the perp was running down Patton! Again, "falsely witnessed".Barbara Davis' affidavit: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm
She was lying on the evening of the assassination to frame Oswald?
BD was more than happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and even pick the poor schmuck out of a lineup to help frame him? And she never had a change of heart and came forward to say otherwise?
Ditto with Virginia Davis?Yes and yes. Though you're speculating with your "more than happy".
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
She was lying on the evening of the assassination to frame Oswald?
VD was more than happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and even pick the poor schmuck out of a lineup to help frame him? And she never had a change of heart and came forward to say otherwise?
Your claims are contrary to the evidence.Why, you seemed to answer your own question. Don't want to get in your way.
And you still don't explain it!Again, point lost in a thicket of >>>>Don ignored this point.Did I summarize your beliefs correctly here? You didn't quibble over this, so it appears I did.To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.
Hilarious!
As it happen, No. The initial crime scene sketch of the 10th/Patton area notes that the perp went "W on all(e)y to Crawford". The sketch was drawn by Sgt. Barnes, who mentioned only one witness in his WC testimony--Mrs M. And Mrs. M later toldYou’re assuming it was as well, an error where she inadvertently stated the truth and revealed the coverup. Aren’t you?Who the fuck said it was an error? You're assuming.People are human. Everyone makes mistakes. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to throw out everything she said based on one error.Moreover, in the 60 years since the murder (ok, minus a few months - conspiracy mongers do like to quibble, don't they?) none of the Tippit witnesses recanted and none admitted to anything like Don and other critics suggest.Mrs. Markham kept insisting that the gunman ran down the alley off Patton, in later interviews.
It doesn't work that way.
affidavit reinforces this: She says there that she didn't see the gunman until he was on Patton. She seemed uncomfortably aware that their call was a little late for what it was supposed to be--she kept insisting, in her testimony, that they called theYou were assuming that I was assuming, when the finger is actually pointing at you....Okay, granting that for the sake of argument (but you again don't cite for it and apparently expect us to just take your word for it), how does that establish that Markham was accurate in her recollection?
You're assuming it wasn't an error. You are looking at one witness in isolationNo. The police radio logs indicate that the Davises called the dispatcher 1-2 minutes after the first call from a resident on 10th, which indicates that they saw him a bit later than they testified--running down Patton, not 10th. And Virginia D's
, and attempting to rejigger the murder of Tippit so that Oswald comes out framed, by selecting a tidbit from here, a mis-statement from there, a re-interpretation of a statement from somewhere else...police that he last saw the guy headed.) In fact, that footage is better than a recantation.
Huh? You need to be told that McW recanted? Common knowledge, Hank.Again you cite for neither assertion you makeIt's got everything to do with the broader subject of witness lineup IDs. The McW case shows that the IDs are as problematic as their testimony.Don ignored this point.McWatters recanted on his ID of Oswald in the lineup. Then, yes, later, in his testimony, he recanted on his recantation!He was the bus driver, wasn't he? What's that got to do with the Tippit shooting?
, nor do you show how McWatters testimony about who rode his bus taints the lineups shown the witnesses of the Tippit murder and its immediate aftermath.
Again, jumping to concussions. Just shows that lineup IDs can be problematic.
Same-day TV footage showed that Warren Reynolds changed his story for the Commission, where he testified that he last saw the guy headed for the parking lot. (The footage shows him before one of the two old houses, where he was telling
With Malice.Ah! Time for you to go into your "fallacy" mode... It took me several postings to convince Bud--some years back--that Reynolds was telling police that the guy ran into one of the old houses--one of the convincers was a clip from news footage, inIf there was ever a perp there at all.Didn't the police search those old houses and find nothing suspicious?Yeah--15 minutes or so after the guy would have left. You think perps are going to hang around for the police?
yes, it is a fallacy to assume what you need to prove.I proved it to Bud's satisfaction. Talk to him about it.
It's called Begging the Question. And you are clearly assuming it, and imbedding it into your point with the argument "You think perps are going to hang around for the police?"
was therefore as much evidence of unicorns acting as spotters as there was for a shooter in the Dal-Tex building. He didn't get the point. I doubt you will.This is akin to another CT's assertion that there were shots from the Dal-Tex Building. When asked for the evidence of this other weapon, he argued the building was never searched, so of course he couldn't provide any evidence! I pointed out there
so.Once more you are assuming what you need to prove and imbedding that assumption in your argument as a given. That’s the logical fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION. I’ve asked you to stop committing these logical fallacies but you just keep doing
I see I already explained this to you. But you persisted in the fallacy.
It seems that way to you because you misinterpreted my use of the Fritz quote.There's nothing above that explains this.SEE ABOVEExplain why killing Tippit was necessary to frame Oswald for a crime of killing Kennedy. You are alleging Oswald was framed for killing Tippit.Both were necessary to the villains.Do you disagree?At this point it looks from here more like the purpose of the plot was to frame Oswald, and the killing of Kennedy was merely incidental to that frame-up.
It seems that way...There's nothing above that explains this.Explain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.SEE ABOVE.
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 9:38:37 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:interviewers that she saw the suspect run into the alley.
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 2:16:56 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:First, let's put back everything you cut. It's pertinent to the questions I asked:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 7:16:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 20 CUT
Here's where I left off....
2) Both Davises testified that they first saw the perp when Mrs. Markham started shouting about him. Mrs. M testified that she did not start shouting UNTIL the perp was running down Patton! Again, "falsely witnessed".Barbara Davis' affidavit: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm
She was lying on the evening of the assassination to frame Oswald?
BD was more than happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and even pick the poor schmuck out of a lineup to help frame him? And she never had a change of heart and came forward to say otherwise?
Ditto with Virginia Davis?Yes and yes. Though you're speculating with your "more than happy".
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
She was lying on the evening of the assassination to frame Oswald?
VD was more than happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and even pick the poor schmuck out of a lineup to help frame him? And she never had a change of heart and came forward to say otherwise?
Your claims are contrary to the evidence.Why, you seemed to answer your own question. Don't want to get in your way.
And you still don't explain it!Again, point lost in a thicket of >>>>Don ignored this point.Did I summarize your beliefs correctly here? You didn't quibble over this, so it appears I did.To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.
Hilarious!
As it happen, No. The initial crime scene sketch of the 10th/Patton area notes that the perp went "W on all(e)y to Crawford". The sketch was drawn by Sgt. Barnes, who mentioned only one witness in his WC testimony--Mrs M. And Mrs. M later toldYou’re assuming it was as well, an error where she inadvertently stated the truth and revealed the coverup. Aren’t you?Who the fuck said it was an error? You're assuming.People are human. Everyone makes mistakes. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to throw out everything she said based on one error.Moreover, in the 60 years since the murder (ok, minus a few months - conspiracy mongers do like to quibble, don't they?) none of the Tippit witnesses recanted and none admitted to anything like Don and other critics suggest.Mrs. Markham kept insisting that the gunman ran down the alley off Patton, in later interviews.
It doesn't work that way.
affidavit reinforces this: She says there that she didn't see the gunman until he was on Patton. She seemed uncomfortably aware that their call was a little late for what it was supposed to be--she kept insisting, in her testimony, that they called theYou were assuming that I was assuming, when the finger is actually pointing at you....Okay, granting that for the sake of argument (but you again don't cite for it and apparently expect us to just take your word for it), how does that establish that Markham was accurate in her recollection?
You're assuming it wasn't an error. You are looking at one witness in isolationNo. The police radio logs indicate that the Davises called the dispatcher 1-2 minutes after the first call from a resident on 10th, which indicates that they saw him a bit later than they testified--running down Patton, not 10th. And Virginia D's
police that he last saw the guy headed.) In fact, that footage is better than a recantation., and attempting to rejigger the murder of Tippit so that Oswald comes out framed, by selecting a tidbit from here, a mis-statement from there, a re-interpretation of a statement from somewhere else...
Huh? You need to be told that McW recanted? Common knowledge, Hank.Again you cite for neither assertion you makeIt's got everything to do with the broader subject of witness lineup IDs. The McW case shows that the IDs are as problematic as their testimony.Don ignored this point.McWatters recanted on his ID of Oswald in the lineup. Then, yes, later, in his testimony, he recanted on his recantation!He was the bus driver, wasn't he? What's that got to do with the Tippit shooting?
, nor do you show how McWatters testimony about who rode his bus taints the lineups shown the witnesses of the Tippit murder and its immediate aftermath.
Again, jumping to concussions. Just shows that lineup IDs can be problematic.
Same-day TV footage showed that Warren Reynolds changed his story for the Commission, where he testified that he last saw the guy headed for the parking lot. (The footage shows him before one of the two old houses, where he was telling
With Malice.Ah! Time for you to go into your "fallacy" mode... It took me several postings to convince Bud--some years back--that Reynolds was telling police that the guy ran into one of the old houses--one of the convincers was a clip from news footage, inIf there was ever a perp there at all.Didn't the police search those old houses and find nothing suspicious?Yeah--15 minutes or so after the guy would have left. You think perps are going to hang around for the police?
yes, it is a fallacy to assume what you need to prove.I proved it to Bud's satisfaction. Talk to him about it.
It's called Begging the Question. And you are clearly assuming it, and imbedding it into your point with the argument "You think perps are going to hang around for the police?"
was therefore as much evidence of unicorns acting as spotters as there was for a shooter in the Dal-Tex building. He didn't get the point. I doubt you will.This is akin to another CT's assertion that there were shots from the Dal-Tex Building. When asked for the evidence of this other weapon, he argued the building was never searched, so of course he couldn't provide any evidence! I pointed out there
doing so.Once more you are assuming what you need to prove and imbedding that assumption in your argument as a given. That’s the logical fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION. I’ve asked you to stop committing these logical fallacies but you just keep
I see I already explained this to you. But you persisted in the fallacy.
It seems that way to you because you misinterpreted my use of the Fritz quote.There's nothing above that explains this.SEE ABOVEExplain why killing Tippit was necessary to frame Oswald for a crime of killing Kennedy. You are alleging Oswald was framed for killing Tippit.Both were necessary to the villains.Do you disagree?At this point it looks from here more like the purpose of the plot was to frame Oswald, and the killing of Kennedy was merely incidental to that frame-up.
It seems that way...There's nothing above that explains this.Explain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.SEE ABOVE.
dcwThere are two problems arguing with Willis. First you must know what he is talking about. And second, you must know what you are talking about. Otherwise it just won't work.
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 2:16:56 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:interviewers that she saw the suspect run into the alley.
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:First, let's put back everything you cut. It's pertinent to the questions I asked:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 7:16:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 20 CUT
Here's where I left off....
2) Both Davises testified that they first saw the perp when Mrs. Markham started shouting about him. Mrs. M testified that she did not start shouting UNTIL the perp was running down Patton! Again, "falsely witnessed".Barbara Davis' affidavit: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm
She was lying on the evening of the assassination to frame Oswald?
BD was more than happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and even pick the poor schmuck out of a lineup to help frame him? And she never had a change of heart and came forward to say otherwise?
Ditto with Virginia Davis?Yes and yes. Though you're speculating with your "more than happy".
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
She was lying on the evening of the assassination to frame Oswald?
VD was more than happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and even pick the poor schmuck out of a lineup to help frame him? And she never had a change of heart and came forward to say otherwise?
Your claims are contrary to the evidence.Why, you seemed to answer your own question. Don't want to get in your way.
And you still don't explain it!Again, point lost in a thicket of >>>>Don ignored this point.Did I summarize your beliefs correctly here? You didn't quibble over this, so it appears I did.To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.
Hilarious!
As it happen, No. The initial crime scene sketch of the 10th/Patton area notes that the perp went "W on all(e)y to Crawford". The sketch was drawn by Sgt. Barnes, who mentioned only one witness in his WC testimony--Mrs M. And Mrs. M later toldYou’re assuming it was as well, an error where she inadvertently stated the truth and revealed the coverup. Aren’t you?Who the fuck said it was an error? You're assuming.People are human. Everyone makes mistakes. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to throw out everything she said based on one error.Moreover, in the 60 years since the murder (ok, minus a few months - conspiracy mongers do like to quibble, don't they?) none of the Tippit witnesses recanted and none admitted to anything like Don and other critics suggest.Mrs. Markham kept insisting that the gunman ran down the alley off Patton, in later interviews.
It doesn't work that way.
affidavit reinforces this: She says there that she didn't see the gunman until he was on Patton. She seemed uncomfortably aware that their call was a little late for what it was supposed to be--she kept insisting, in her testimony, that they called theYou were assuming that I was assuming, when the finger is actually pointing at you....Okay, granting that for the sake of argument (but you again don't cite for it and apparently expect us to just take your word for it), how does that establish that Markham was accurate in her recollection?
You're assuming it wasn't an error. You are looking at one witness in isolationNo. The police radio logs indicate that the Davises called the dispatcher 1-2 minutes after the first call from a resident on 10th, which indicates that they saw him a bit later than they testified--running down Patton, not 10th. And Virginia D's
, and attempting to rejigger the murder of Tippit so that Oswald comes out framed, by selecting a tidbit from here, a mis-statement from there, a re-interpretation of a statement from somewhere else...police that he last saw the guy headed.) In fact, that footage is better than a recantation.
Huh? You need to be told that McW recanted? Common knowledge, Hank.Again you cite for neither assertion you makeIt's got everything to do with the broader subject of witness lineup IDs. The McW case shows that the IDs are as problematic as their testimony.Don ignored this point.McWatters recanted on his ID of Oswald in the lineup. Then, yes, later, in his testimony, he recanted on his recantation!He was the bus driver, wasn't he? What's that got to do with the Tippit shooting?
, nor do you show how McWatters testimony about who rode his bus taints the lineups shown the witnesses of the Tippit murder and its immediate aftermath.
Again, jumping to concussions. Just shows that lineup IDs can be problematic.
Same-day TV footage showed that Warren Reynolds changed his story for the Commission, where he testified that he last saw the guy headed for the parking lot. (The footage shows him before one of the two old houses, where he was telling
With Malice.Ah! Time for you to go into your "fallacy" mode... It took me several postings to convince Bud--some years back--that Reynolds was telling police that the guy ran into one of the old houses--one of the convincers was a clip from news footage, inIf there was ever a perp there at all.Didn't the police search those old houses and find nothing suspicious?Yeah--15 minutes or so after the guy would have left. You think perps are going to hang around for the police?
yes, it is a fallacy to assume what you need to prove.I proved it to Bud's satisfaction. Talk to him about it.
It's called Begging the Question. And you are clearly assuming it, and imbedding it into your point with the argument "You think perps are going to hang around for the police?"
was therefore as much evidence of unicorns acting as spotters as there was for a shooter in the Dal-Tex building. He didn't get the point. I doubt you will.This is akin to another CT's assertion that there were shots from the Dal-Tex Building. When asked for the evidence of this other weapon, he argued the building was never searched, so of course he couldn't provide any evidence! I pointed out there
so.Once more you are assuming what you need to prove and imbedding that assumption in your argument as a given. That’s the logical fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION. I’ve asked you to stop committing these logical fallacies but you just keep doing
I see I already explained this to you. But you persisted in the fallacy.
It seems that way to you because you misinterpreted my use of the Fritz quote.There's nothing above that explains this.SEE ABOVEExplain why killing Tippit was necessary to frame Oswald for a crime of killing Kennedy. You are alleging Oswald was framed for killing Tippit.Both were necessary to the villains.Do you disagree?At this point it looks from here more like the purpose of the plot was to frame Oswald, and the killing of Kennedy was merely incidental to that frame-up.
It seems that way...There's nothing above that explains this.Explain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.SEE ABOVE.
dcw
Another Myers omission covers for the Davisescite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the Davises called a
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, 1:15pm (p383). The dispatchers then
The two-minute gap before the mention of the Davis address may suggest a corresponding gap in the time the Davises called. Which further suggests that the Davises did not see all that they said they had seen, in their WC interviews. In those fewminutes, or less, the killer would have already been going down Patton. In fact, Virginia Davis wrote as much in her original affidavit: "We ran to the side door on Patton St. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."
It seems that--unlike her sister-in-law--poor Virginia Davis couldn't be weaned quite quickly enough from what had actually happened. She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her affidavit intoeven sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street" (v6p461). A slip, but a devastating one. It means that (a) the two picked up the westward
Further, the sisters-in-law very closely coordinated their spotting of the "boy" with the concurrent screaming of Mrs. Markham (Virginia: v6p457 / Barbara v3p343). Unfortunately for them, the latter averred that she did not start screaming--understandably--until the boy was walking away from her and cutting across Patton (v3p321).
All the above signs: the belated phone call, Virginia Davis's "street" slip, and Mrs. Markham's belated screaming: point to a retrospectively diminished role for the Davises in the Oak Cliff story.
dcw
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 9:38:37 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:interviewers that she saw the suspect run into the alley.
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 2:16:56 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:First, let's put back everything you cut. It's pertinent to the questions I asked:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 7:16:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 20 CUT
Here's where I left off....
2) Both Davises testified that they first saw the perp when Mrs. Markham started shouting about him. Mrs. M testified that she did not start shouting UNTIL the perp was running down Patton! Again, "falsely witnessed".Barbara Davis' affidavit: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm
She was lying on the evening of the assassination to frame Oswald?
BD was more than happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and even pick the poor schmuck out of a lineup to help frame him? And she never had a change of heart and came forward to say otherwise?
Ditto with Virginia Davis?Yes and yes. Though you're speculating with your "more than happy".
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
She was lying on the evening of the assassination to frame Oswald?
VD was more than happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and even pick the poor schmuck out of a lineup to help frame him? And she never had a change of heart and came forward to say otherwise?
Your claims are contrary to the evidence.Why, you seemed to answer your own question. Don't want to get in your way.
And you still don't explain it!Again, point lost in a thicket of >>>>Don ignored this point.Did I summarize your beliefs correctly here? You didn't quibble over this, so it appears I did.To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.
Hilarious!
As it happen, No. The initial crime scene sketch of the 10th/Patton area notes that the perp went "W on all(e)y to Crawford". The sketch was drawn by Sgt. Barnes, who mentioned only one witness in his WC testimony--Mrs M. And Mrs. M later toldYou’re assuming it was as well, an error where she inadvertently stated the truth and revealed the coverup. Aren’t you?Who the fuck said it was an error? You're assuming.People are human. Everyone makes mistakes. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to throw out everything she said based on one error.Moreover, in the 60 years since the murder (ok, minus a few months - conspiracy mongers do like to quibble, don't they?) none of the Tippit witnesses recanted and none admitted to anything like Don and other critics suggest.Mrs. Markham kept insisting that the gunman ran down the alley off Patton, in later interviews.
It doesn't work that way.
affidavit reinforces this: She says there that she didn't see the gunman until he was on Patton. She seemed uncomfortably aware that their call was a little late for what it was supposed to be--she kept insisting, in her testimony, that they called theYou were assuming that I was assuming, when the finger is actually pointing at you....Okay, granting that for the sake of argument (but you again don't cite for it and apparently expect us to just take your word for it), how does that establish that Markham was accurate in her recollection?
You're assuming it wasn't an error. You are looking at one witness in isolationNo. The police radio logs indicate that the Davises called the dispatcher 1-2 minutes after the first call from a resident on 10th, which indicates that they saw him a bit later than they testified--running down Patton, not 10th. And Virginia D's
police that he last saw the guy headed.) In fact, that footage is better than a recantation., and attempting to rejigger the murder of Tippit so that Oswald comes out framed, by selecting a tidbit from here, a mis-statement from there, a re-interpretation of a statement from somewhere else...
Huh? You need to be told that McW recanted? Common knowledge, Hank.Again you cite for neither assertion you makeIt's got everything to do with the broader subject of witness lineup IDs. The McW case shows that the IDs are as problematic as their testimony.Don ignored this point.McWatters recanted on his ID of Oswald in the lineup. Then, yes, later, in his testimony, he recanted on his recantation!He was the bus driver, wasn't he? What's that got to do with the Tippit shooting?
, nor do you show how McWatters testimony about who rode his bus taints the lineups shown the witnesses of the Tippit murder and its immediate aftermath.
Again, jumping to concussions. Just shows that lineup IDs can be problematic.
Same-day TV footage showed that Warren Reynolds changed his story for the Commission, where he testified that he last saw the guy headed for the parking lot. (The footage shows him before one of the two old houses, where he was telling
With Malice.Ah! Time for you to go into your "fallacy" mode... It took me several postings to convince Bud--some years back--that Reynolds was telling police that the guy ran into one of the old houses--one of the convincers was a clip from news footage, inIf there was ever a perp there at all.Didn't the police search those old houses and find nothing suspicious?Yeah--15 minutes or so after the guy would have left. You think perps are going to hang around for the police?
yes, it is a fallacy to assume what you need to prove.I proved it to Bud's satisfaction. Talk to him about it.
It's called Begging the Question. And you are clearly assuming it, and imbedding it into your point with the argument "You think perps are going to hang around for the police?"
was therefore as much evidence of unicorns acting as spotters as there was for a shooter in the Dal-Tex building. He didn't get the point. I doubt you will.This is akin to another CT's assertion that there were shots from the Dal-Tex Building. When asked for the evidence of this other weapon, he argued the building was never searched, so of course he couldn't provide any evidence! I pointed out there
doing so.Once more you are assuming what you need to prove and imbedding that assumption in your argument as a given. That’s the logical fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION. I’ve asked you to stop committing these logical fallacies but you just keep
I see I already explained this to you. But you persisted in the fallacy.
It seems that way to you because you misinterpreted my use of the Fritz quote.There's nothing above that explains this.SEE ABOVEExplain why killing Tippit was necessary to frame Oswald for a crime of killing Kennedy. You are alleging Oswald was framed for killing Tippit.Both were necessary to the villains.Do you disagree?At this point it looks from here more like the purpose of the plot was to frame Oswald, and the killing of Kennedy was merely incidental to that frame-up.
It seems that way...There's nothing above that explains this.Explain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.SEE ABOVE.
Don, your posts just keep getting nuttier and nuttier.
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the Davises called a
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, 1:15pm (p383). The dispatchers then
minutes, or less, the killer would have already been going down Patton. In fact, Virginia Davis wrote as much in her original affidavit: "We ran to the side door on Patton St. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."The two-minute gap before the mention of the Davis address may suggest a corresponding gap in the time the Davises called. Which further suggests that the Davises did not see all that they said they had seen, in their WC interviews. In those few
even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street" (v6p461). A slip, but a devastating one. It means that (a) the two picked up the westwardIt seems that--unlike her sister-in-law--poor Virginia Davis couldn't be weaned quite quickly enough from what had actually happened. She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her affidavit into
understandably--until the boy was walking away from her and cutting across Patton (v3p321).Further, the sisters-in-law very closely coordinated their spotting of the "boy" with the concurrent screaming of Mrs. Markham (Virginia: v6p457 / Barbara v3p343). Unfortunately for them, the latter averred that she did not start screaming--
All the above signs: the belated phone call, Virginia Davis's "street" slip, and Mrs. Markham's belated screaming: point to a retrospectively diminished role for the Davises in the Oak Cliff story.
dcw
Does Myers mention that neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor Scoggins
positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore ?
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the Davises called a
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, 1:15pm (p383). The dispatchers then
minutes, or less, the killer would have already been going down Patton. In fact, Virginia Davis wrote as much in her original affidavit: "We ran to the side door on Patton St. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."The two-minute gap before the mention of the Davis address may suggest a corresponding gap in the time the Davises called. Which further suggests that the Davises did not see all that they said they had seen, in their WC interviews. In those few
even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street" (v6p461). A slip, but a devastating one. It means that (a) the two picked up the westwardIt seems that--unlike her sister-in-law--poor Virginia Davis couldn't be weaned quite quickly enough from what had actually happened. She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her affidavit into
understandably--until the boy was walking away from her and cutting across Patton (v3p321).Further, the sisters-in-law very closely coordinated their spotting of the "boy" with the concurrent screaming of Mrs. Markham (Virginia: v6p457 / Barbara v3p343). Unfortunately for them, the latter averred that she did not start screaming--
All the above signs: the belated phone call, Virginia Davis's "street" slip, and Mrs. Markham's belated screaming: point to a retrospectively diminished role for the Davises in the Oak Cliff story.
dcw
Does Myers mention that neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor Scoggins
positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore ?
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:43:49 AM UTC-7, Gil Jesus wrote:then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the Davises called a
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, 1:15pm (p383). The dispatchers
minutes, or less, the killer would have already been going down Patton. In fact, Virginia Davis wrote as much in her original affidavit: "We ran to the side door on Patton St. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."The two-minute gap before the mention of the Davis address may suggest a corresponding gap in the time the Davises called. Which further suggests that the Davises did not see all that they said they had seen, in their WC interviews. In those few
even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street" (v6p461). A slip, but a devastating one. It means that (a) the two picked up the westwardIt seems that--unlike her sister-in-law--poor Virginia Davis couldn't be weaned quite quickly enough from what had actually happened. She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her affidavit into
understandably--until the boy was walking away from her and cutting across Patton (v3p321).Further, the sisters-in-law very closely coordinated their spotting of the "boy" with the concurrent screaming of Mrs. Markham (Virginia: v6p457 / Barbara v3p343). Unfortunately for them, the latter averred that she did not start screaming--
have been surprised" (With Malice p54). Then he quotes reporter Hugh Aynesworth: "She really could not see, I could tell. One time I went to see her and she didn't recognize me, even though I had been there 3 or 4 times before" (p54). Very perspicaciousAll the above signs: the belated phone call, Virginia Davis's "street" slip, and Mrs. Markham's belated screaming: point to a retrospectively diminished role for the Davises in the Oak Cliff story.
dcw
Does Myers mention that neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor ScogginsNo, he doesn't talk about clothing identification. But it's worse than that. Dale Myers quotes Bill Alexander: "[Mrs. Roberts'] powers of observation were a little weak. If she had told us that she had seen angels come out of the TV set, I wouldn't
positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore ?
A footnote: The first officers to Mrs. Roberts', Senkel and Potts, say nothing in their respective reports (v24 p245, [Senkel]and page 1 of Potts' report) which would suggest that Oswald had even been to the house some 2 hours earlier.
dcw
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:12:31 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the Davises called a
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:43:49 AM UTC-7, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, 1:15pm (p383). The dispatchers
minutes, or less, the killer would have already been going down Patton. In fact, Virginia Davis wrote as much in her original affidavit: "We ran to the side door on Patton St. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."The two-minute gap before the mention of the Davis address may suggest a corresponding gap in the time the Davises called. Which further suggests that the Davises did not see all that they said they had seen, in their WC interviews. In those few
into even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street" (v6p461). A slip, but a devastating one. It means that (a) the two picked up the westwardIt seems that--unlike her sister-in-law--poor Virginia Davis couldn't be weaned quite quickly enough from what had actually happened. She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her affidavit
understandably--until the boy was walking away from her and cutting across Patton (v3p321).Further, the sisters-in-law very closely coordinated their spotting of the "boy" with the concurrent screaming of Mrs. Markham (Virginia: v6p457 / Barbara v3p343). Unfortunately for them, the latter averred that she did not start screaming--
have been surprised" (With Malice p54). Then he quotes reporter Hugh Aynesworth: "She really could not see, I could tell. One time I went to see her and she didn't recognize me, even though I had been there 3 or 4 times before" (p54). Very perspicaciousAll the above signs: the belated phone call, Virginia Davis's "street" slip, and Mrs. Markham's belated screaming: point to a retrospectively diminished role for the Davises in the Oak Cliff story.
dcw
Does Myers mention that neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor ScogginsNo, he doesn't talk about clothing identification. But it's worse than that. Dale Myers quotes Bill Alexander: "[Mrs. Roberts'] powers of observation were a little weak. If she had told us that she had seen angels come out of the TV set, I wouldn't
positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore ?
They need to discredit her for car 207. That's something they can't explain except by discrediting Earlene Roberts.A footnote: The first officers to Mrs. Roberts', Senkel and Potts, say nothing in their respective reports (v24 p245, [Senkel]and page 1 of Potts' report) which would suggest that Oswald had even been to the house some 2 hours earlier.
dcwNaw. The Nutters do a character assassination on Earlene Roberts. You would trust anything Hugh Aynesworth says? Is there a more despicable slime ball? And Myers! And don't forget Posner. He also did a job on her. They don't need her for the jacket.
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 2:53:33 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:dispatchers then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:12:31 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:43:49 AM UTC-7, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, 1:15pm (p383). The
few minutes, or less, the killer would have already been going down Patton. In fact, Virginia Davis wrote as much in her original affidavit: "We ran to the side door on Patton St. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."The two-minute gap before the mention of the Davis address may suggest a corresponding gap in the time the Davises called. Which further suggests that the Davises did not see all that they said they had seen, in their WC interviews. In those
into even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street" (v6p461). A slip, but a devastating one. It means that (a) the two picked up the westwardIt seems that--unlike her sister-in-law--poor Virginia Davis couldn't be weaned quite quickly enough from what had actually happened. She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her affidavit
understandably--until the boy was walking away from her and cutting across Patton (v3p321).Further, the sisters-in-law very closely coordinated their spotting of the "boy" with the concurrent screaming of Mrs. Markham (Virginia: v6p457 / Barbara v3p343). Unfortunately for them, the latter averred that she did not start screaming--
have been surprised" (With Malice p54). Then he quotes reporter Hugh Aynesworth: "She really could not see, I could tell. One time I went to see her and she didn't recognize me, even though I had been there 3 or 4 times before" (p54). Very perspicaciousAll the above signs: the belated phone call, Virginia Davis's "street" slip, and Mrs. Markham's belated screaming: point to a retrospectively diminished role for the Davises in the Oak Cliff story.
dcw
Does Myers mention that neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor ScogginsNo, he doesn't talk about clothing identification. But it's worse than that. Dale Myers quotes Bill Alexander: "[Mrs. Roberts'] powers of observation were a little weak. If she had told us that she had seen angels come out of the TV set, I wouldn't
positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore ?
They need to discredit her for car 207. That's something they can't explain except by discrediting Earlene Roberts.A footnote: The first officers to Mrs. Roberts', Senkel and Potts, say nothing in their respective reports (v24 p245, [Senkel]and page 1 of Potts' report) which would suggest that Oswald had even been to the house some 2 hours earlier.
dcwNaw. The Nutters do a character assassination on Earlene Roberts. You would trust anything Hugh Aynesworth says? Is there a more despicable slime ball? And Myers! And don't forget Posner. He also did a job on her. They don't need her for the jacket.
They cut their own throats then. Without Roberts, there's no jacket for Oswald, not after the lady on the bus so perfectly ID'd his shirt. For that matter, there's no cabbie adorning Oswald with two coats. We love the bus lady!
dcw
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 7:01:48 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:dispatchers then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 2:53:33 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:12:31 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:43:49 AM UTC-7, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, 1:15pm (p383). The
few minutes, or less, the killer would have already been going down Patton. In fact, Virginia Davis wrote as much in her original affidavit: "We ran to the side door on Patton St. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."The two-minute gap before the mention of the Davis address may suggest a corresponding gap in the time the Davises called. Which further suggests that the Davises did not see all that they said they had seen, in their WC interviews. In those
affidavit into even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street" (v6p461). A slip, but a devastating one. It means that (a) the two picked up theIt seems that--unlike her sister-in-law--poor Virginia Davis couldn't be weaned quite quickly enough from what had actually happened. She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her
understandably--until the boy was walking away from her and cutting across Patton (v3p321).Further, the sisters-in-law very closely coordinated their spotting of the "boy" with the concurrent screaming of Mrs. Markham (Virginia: v6p457 / Barbara v3p343). Unfortunately for them, the latter averred that she did not start screaming--
t have been surprised" (With Malice p54). Then he quotes reporter Hugh Aynesworth: "She really could not see, I could tell. One time I went to see her and she didn't recognize me, even though I had been there 3 or 4 times before" (p54). VeryAll the above signs: the belated phone call, Virginia Davis's "street" slip, and Mrs. Markham's belated screaming: point to a retrospectively diminished role for the Davises in the Oak Cliff story.
dcw
Does Myers mention that neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor ScogginsNo, he doesn't talk about clothing identification. But it's worse than that. Dale Myers quotes Bill Alexander: "[Mrs. Roberts'] powers of observation were a little weak. If she had told us that she had seen angels come out of the TV set, I wouldn'
positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore ?
They need to discredit her for car 207. That's something they can't explain except by discrediting Earlene Roberts.A footnote: The first officers to Mrs. Roberts', Senkel and Potts, say nothing in their respective reports (v24 p245, [Senkel]and page 1 of Potts' report) which would suggest that Oswald had even been to the house some 2 hours earlier.
dcwNaw. The Nutters do a character assassination on Earlene Roberts. You would trust anything Hugh Aynesworth says? Is there a more despicable slime ball? And Myers! And don't forget Posner. He also did a job on her. They don't need her for the jacket.
They cut their own throats then. Without Roberts, there's no jacket for Oswald, not after the lady on the bus so perfectly ID'd his shirt. For that matter, there's no cabbie adorning Oswald with two coats. We love the bus lady!
dcwWell, if Roberts is so blind and stupid and fantastical then Oswald could have come in and got a jacket whatever she may have said.
They didn't need to worry about the jacket. It's car 207 that would have sunk them, if there had been a real investigation.
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 11:11:22 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:dispatchers then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 7:01:48 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 2:53:33 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:12:31 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:43:49 AM UTC-7, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, 1:15pm (p383). The
those few minutes, or less, the killer would have already been going down Patton. In fact, Virginia Davis wrote as much in her original affidavit: "We ran to the side door on Patton St. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."The two-minute gap before the mention of the Davis address may suggest a corresponding gap in the time the Davises called. Which further suggests that the Davises did not see all that they said they had seen, in their WC interviews. In
affidavit into even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street" (v6p461). A slip, but a devastating one. It means that (a) the two picked up theIt seems that--unlike her sister-in-law--poor Virginia Davis couldn't be weaned quite quickly enough from what had actually happened. She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her
understandably--until the boy was walking away from her and cutting across Patton (v3p321).Further, the sisters-in-law very closely coordinated their spotting of the "boy" with the concurrent screaming of Mrs. Markham (Virginia: v6p457 / Barbara v3p343). Unfortunately for them, the latter averred that she did not start screaming--
wouldn't have been surprised" (With Malice p54). Then he quotes reporter Hugh Aynesworth: "She really could not see, I could tell. One time I went to see her and she didn't recognize me, even though I had been there 3 or 4 times before" (p54). VeryAll the above signs: the belated phone call, Virginia Davis's "street" slip, and Mrs. Markham's belated screaming: point to a retrospectively diminished role for the Davises in the Oak Cliff story.
dcw
Does Myers mention that neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor ScogginsNo, he doesn't talk about clothing identification. But it's worse than that. Dale Myers quotes Bill Alexander: "[Mrs. Roberts'] powers of observation were a little weak. If she had told us that she had seen angels come out of the TV set, I
positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore ?
jacket. They need to discredit her for car 207. That's something they can't explain except by discrediting Earlene Roberts.A footnote: The first officers to Mrs. Roberts', Senkel and Potts, say nothing in their respective reports (v24 p245, [Senkel]and page 1 of Potts' report) which would suggest that Oswald had even been to the house some 2 hours earlier.
dcwNaw. The Nutters do a character assassination on Earlene Roberts. You would trust anything Hugh Aynesworth says? Is there a more despicable slime ball? And Myers! And don't forget Posner. He also did a job on her. They don't need her for the
They cut their own throats then. Without Roberts, there's no jacket for Oswald, not after the lady on the bus so perfectly ID'd his shirt. For that matter, there's no cabbie adorning Oswald with two coats. We love the bus lady!
But that would have been speculation. After all, O was wearing both his jackets in the fabled cab ride! If Whaley was right (yes, not bloody likely), then O DROPPED OFF one jacket at Roberts'....dcwWell, if Roberts is so blind and stupid and fantastical then Oswald could have come in and got a jacket whatever she may have said.
They didn't need to worry about the jacket. It's car 207 that would have sunk them, if there had been a real investigation.
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 9:38:37 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:interviewers that she saw the suspect run into the alley.
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 2:16:56 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:First, let's put back everything you cut. It's pertinent to the questions I asked:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 7:16:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 20 CUT
Here's where I left off....
2) Both Davises testified that they first saw the perp when Mrs. Markham started shouting about him. Mrs. M testified that she did not start shouting UNTIL the perp was running down Patton! Again, "falsely witnessed".Barbara Davis' affidavit: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm
She was lying on the evening of the assassination to frame Oswald?
BD was more than happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and even pick the poor schmuck out of a lineup to help frame him? And she never had a change of heart and came forward to say otherwise?
Ditto with Virginia Davis?Yes and yes. Though you're speculating with your "more than happy".
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
She was lying on the evening of the assassination to frame Oswald?
VD was more than happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and even pick the poor schmuck out of a lineup to help frame him? And she never had a change of heart and came forward to say otherwise?
Your claims are contrary to the evidence.Why, you seemed to answer your own question. Don't want to get in your way.
And you still don't explain it!Again, point lost in a thicket of >>>>Don ignored this point.Did I summarize your beliefs correctly here? You didn't quibble over this, so it appears I did.To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.
Hilarious!
As it happen, No. The initial crime scene sketch of the 10th/Patton area notes that the perp went "W on all(e)y to Crawford". The sketch was drawn by Sgt. Barnes, who mentioned only one witness in his WC testimony--Mrs M. And Mrs. M later toldYou’re assuming it was as well, an error where she inadvertently stated the truth and revealed the coverup. Aren’t you?Who the fuck said it was an error? You're assuming.People are human. Everyone makes mistakes. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to throw out everything she said based on one error.Moreover, in the 60 years since the murder (ok, minus a few months - conspiracy mongers do like to quibble, don't they?) none of the Tippit witnesses recanted and none admitted to anything like Don and other critics suggest.Mrs. Markham kept insisting that the gunman ran down the alley off Patton, in later interviews.
It doesn't work that way.
affidavit reinforces this: She says there that she didn't see the gunman until he was on Patton. She seemed uncomfortably aware that their call was a little late for what it was supposed to be--she kept insisting, in her testimony, that they called theYou were assuming that I was assuming, when the finger is actually pointing at you....Okay, granting that for the sake of argument (but you again don't cite for it and apparently expect us to just take your word for it), how does that establish that Markham was accurate in her recollection?
You're assuming it wasn't an error. You are looking at one witness in isolationNo. The police radio logs indicate that the Davises called the dispatcher 1-2 minutes after the first call from a resident on 10th, which indicates that they saw him a bit later than they testified--running down Patton, not 10th. And Virginia D's
police that he last saw the guy headed.) In fact, that footage is better than a recantation., and attempting to rejigger the murder of Tippit so that Oswald comes out framed, by selecting a tidbit from here, a mis-statement from there, a re-interpretation of a statement from somewhere else...
Huh? You need to be told that McW recanted? Common knowledge, Hank.Again you cite for neither assertion you makeIt's got everything to do with the broader subject of witness lineup IDs. The McW case shows that the IDs are as problematic as their testimony.Don ignored this point.McWatters recanted on his ID of Oswald in the lineup. Then, yes, later, in his testimony, he recanted on his recantation!He was the bus driver, wasn't he? What's that got to do with the Tippit shooting?
, nor do you show how McWatters testimony about who rode his bus taints the lineups shown the witnesses of the Tippit murder and its immediate aftermath.
Again, jumping to concussions. Just shows that lineup IDs can be problematic.
Same-day TV footage showed that Warren Reynolds changed his story for the Commission, where he testified that he last saw the guy headed for the parking lot. (The footage shows him before one of the two old houses, where he was telling
With Malice.Ah! Time for you to go into your "fallacy" mode... It took me several postings to convince Bud--some years back--that Reynolds was telling police that the guy ran into one of the old houses--one of the convincers was a clip from news footage, inIf there was ever a perp there at all.Didn't the police search those old houses and find nothing suspicious?Yeah--15 minutes or so after the guy would have left. You think perps are going to hang around for the police?
yes, it is a fallacy to assume what you need to prove.I proved it to Bud's satisfaction. Talk to him about it.
It's called Begging the Question. And you are clearly assuming it, and imbedding it into your point with the argument "You think perps are going to hang around for the police?"
was therefore as much evidence of unicorns acting as spotters as there was for a shooter in the Dal-Tex building. He didn't get the point. I doubt you will.This is akin to another CT's assertion that there were shots from the Dal-Tex Building. When asked for the evidence of this other weapon, he argued the building was never searched, so of course he couldn't provide any evidence! I pointed out there
doing so.Once more you are assuming what you need to prove and imbedding that assumption in your argument as a given. That’s the logical fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION. I’ve asked you to stop committing these logical fallacies but you just keep
I see I already explained this to you. But you persisted in the fallacy.
It seems that way to you because you misinterpreted my use of the Fritz quote.There's nothing above that explains this.SEE ABOVEExplain why killing Tippit was necessary to frame Oswald for a crime of killing Kennedy. You are alleging Oswald was framed for killing Tippit.Both were necessary to the villains.Do you disagree?At this point it looks from here more like the purpose of the plot was to frame Oswald, and the killing of Kennedy was merely incidental to that frame-up.
It seems that way...There's nothing above that explains this.Explain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.SEE ABOVE.
dcwThere are two problems arguing with Willis. First you must know what he is talking about. And second, you must know what you are talking about. Otherwise it just won't work.
Another Myers omission covers for the Davisescite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the Davises called a
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, 1:15pm (p383). The dispatchers then
The two-minute gap before the mention of the Davis address may suggest a corresponding gap in the time the Davises called. Which further suggests that the Davises did not see all that they said they had seen, in their WC interviews. In those fewminutes, or less, the killer would have already been going down Patton. In fact, Virginia Davis wrote as much in her original affidavit: "We ran to the side door on Patton St. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."
It seems that--unlike her sister-in-law--poor Virginia Davis couldn't be weaned quite quickly enough from what had actually happened. She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her affidavit intoeven sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street" (v6p461). A slip, but a devastating one. It means that (a) the two picked up the westward
Further, the sisters-in-law very closely coordinated their spotting of the "boy" with the concurrent screaming of Mrs. Markham (Virginia: v6p457 / Barbara v3p343). Unfortunately for them, the latter averred that she did not start screaming--understandably--until the boy was walking away from her and cutting across Patton (v3p321).
All the above signs: the belated phone call, Virginia Davis's "street" slip, and Mrs. Markham's belated screaming: point to a retrospectively diminished role for the Davises in the Oak Cliff story.
dcw
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:43:49 AM UTC-7, Gil Jesus wrote:then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the Davises called a
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, 1:15pm (p383). The dispatchers
The two-minute gap before the mention of the Davis address may suggest a corresponding gap in the time the Davises called. Which further suggests that the Davises did not see all that they said they had seen, in their WC interviews.
In those few minutes, or less, the killer would have already been going down Patton. In fact, Virginia Davis wrote as much in her original affidavit: "We ran to the side door on Patton St. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading hisgun."
even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street" (v6p461). A slip, but a devastating one.It seems that--unlike her sister-in-law--poor Virginia Davis couldn't be weaned quite quickly enough from what had actually happened. She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her affidavit into
It means that (a) the two picked up the westward progress of the perp too late to have seen him in their front yard palming shells, and (b) they saw the guy as he was crossing Patton, away from them, which means that they did not get a very good lookat him.
understandably--until the boy was walking away from her and cutting across Patton (v3p321).Further, the sisters-in-law very closely coordinated their spotting of the "boy" with the concurrent screaming of Mrs. Markham (Virginia: v6p457 / Barbara v3p343). Unfortunately for them, the latter averred that she did not start screaming--
All the above signs: the belated phone call, Virginia Davis's "street" slip, and Mrs. Markham's belated screaming: point to a retrospectively diminished role for the Davises in the Oak Cliff story.
dcw
Does Myers mention that neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor ScogginsNo, he doesn't talk about clothing identification.
positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore ?
But it's worse than that. Dale Myers quotes Bill Alexander: "[Mrs. Roberts'] powers of observation were a little weak. If she had told us that she had seen angels come out of the TV set, I wouldn't have been surprised" (With Malice p54). Then he quotesreporter Hugh Aynesworth: "She really could not see, I could tell. One time I went to see her and she didn't recognize me, even though I had been there 3 or 4 times before" (p54). Very perspicacious of Mr. M. Then jump to page 283: "In the end, two
But of course Warren Report defenders MUST trust Mrs. R since the actual shooter (not Oswald) wore a jacket, and a jacket was found in a nearby parking lot. They MUST take her word for the jacket, even though she had a "reputation for spinning tales" (page 54). Nice of Myers to include information which completely undercuts his conclusion!
A footnote: The first officers to Mrs. Roberts', Senkel and Potts, say nothing in their respective reports (v24 p245, [Senkel]and page 1 of Potts' report) which would suggest that Oswald had even been to the house some 2 hours earlier.
dcw
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:12:31 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the Davises called a
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:43:49 AM UTC-7, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, 1:15pm (p383). The dispatchers
Why is that significant? The dispatcher already had the wright phone call on record, and her address, right? Doesn’t giving out conflicting information over the radio lead to confusion on the precise location of the shooting on the part of officerson the street? Is there evidence in the radio logs of exactly such confusion?
his gun."Or they witnessed it all, then decided to call the police. What did Wright witness? Fill this in.The two-minute gap before the mention of the Davis address may suggest a corresponding gap in the time the Davises called. Which further suggests that the Davises did not see all that they said they had seen, in their WC interviews.
In those few minutes, or less, the killer would have already been going down Patton. In fact, Virginia Davis wrote as much in her original affidavit: "We ran to the side door on Patton St. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading
So they did see him unloading his revolver and discarding the shells. If the killer used an automatic, wouldn’t the shells be found near the car, where the shots were fired? Instead, they were found in the yard. Right?into even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street" (v6p461). A slip, but a devastating one.
It seems that--unlike her sister-in-law--poor Virginia Davis couldn't be weaned quite quickly enough from what had actually happened. She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her affidavit
You just admitted they ran to the side door at one point and saw him from that door. What’s the issue? Why couldn’t it have been both?at him.
It means that (a) the two picked up the westward progress of the perp too late to have seen him in their front yard palming shells, and (b) they saw the guy as he was crossing Patton, away from them, which means that they did not get a very good look
Alternately, it means you’re assuming they saw him from one door only, despite their testimony to the contrary.understandably--until the boy was walking away from her and cutting across Patton (v3p321).
Further, the sisters-in-law very closely coordinated their spotting of the "boy" with the concurrent screaming of Mrs. Markham (Virginia: v6p457 / Barbara v3p343). Unfortunately for them, the latter averred that she did not start screaming--
I figured out how Don is approaching this:understand?
A. If the witnesses don’t agree on something, there must be a conspiracy. B. If the witnesses agree on something, there must be collusion, and hence a coverup.
All the above signs: the belated phone call, Virginia Davis's "street" slip, and Mrs. Markham's belated screaming: point to a retrospectively diminished role for the Davises in the Oak Cliff story.
dcw
Hilarious! What part of Gil saying “… neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor Scoggins positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore” did you notDoes Myers mention that neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor ScogginsNo, he doesn't talk about clothing identification.
positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore ?
quotes reporter Hugh Aynesworth: "She really could not see, I could tell. One time I went to see her and she didn't recognize me, even though I had been there 3 or 4 times before" (p54). Very perspicacious of Mr. M. Then jump to page 283: "In the end,But it's worse than that. Dale Myers quotes Bill Alexander: "[Mrs. Roberts'] powers of observation were a little weak. If she had told us that she had seen angels come out of the TV set, I wouldn't have been surprised" (With Malice p54). Then he
She specifically recalled him zipping up his jacket when he left.(page 54). Nice of Myers to include information which completely undercuts his conclusion!
But of course Warren Report defenders MUST trust Mrs. R since the actual shooter (not Oswald) wore a jacket, and a jacket was found in a nearby parking lot. They MUST take her word for the jacket, even though she had a "reputation for spinning tales"
A footnote: The first officers to Mrs. Roberts', Senkel and Potts, say nothing in their respective reports (v24 p245, [Senkel]and page 1 of Potts' report) which would suggest that Oswald had even been to the house some 2 hours earlier.What were Potts and Senkel dispatched to that house to do?
Tell us.
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 6:51:54 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:dispatchers then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:12:31 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:43:49 AM UTC-7, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, 1:15pm (p383). The
on the street? Is there evidence in the radio logs of exactly such confusion?Why is that significant? The dispatcher already had the wright phone call on record, and her address, right? Doesn’t giving out conflicting information over the radio lead to confusion on the precise location of the shooting on the part of officers
his gun."Or they witnessed it all, then decided to call the police. What did Wright witness? Fill this in.The two-minute gap before the mention of the Davis address may suggest a corresponding gap in the time the Davises called. Which further suggests that the Davises did not see all that they said they had seen, in their WC interviews.
In those few minutes, or less, the killer would have already been going down Patton. In fact, Virginia Davis wrote as much in her original affidavit: "We ran to the side door on Patton St. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading
into even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street" (v6p461). A slip, but a devastating one.So they did see him unloading his revolver and discarding the shells. If the killer used an automatic, wouldn’t the shells be found near the car, where the shots were fired? Instead, they were found in the yard. Right?
It seems that--unlike her sister-in-law--poor Virginia Davis couldn't be weaned quite quickly enough from what had actually happened. She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her affidavit
look at him.You just admitted they ran to the side door at one point and saw him from that door. What’s the issue? Why couldn’t it have been both?
It means that (a) the two picked up the westward progress of the perp too late to have seen him in their front yard palming shells, and (b) they saw the guy as he was crossing Patton, away from them, which means that they did not get a very good
understandably--until the boy was walking away from her and cutting across Patton (v3p321).Alternately, it means you’re assuming they saw him from one door only, despite their testimony to the contrary.
Further, the sisters-in-law very closely coordinated their spotting of the "boy" with the concurrent screaming of Mrs. Markham (Virginia: v6p457 / Barbara v3p343). Unfortunately for them, the latter averred that she did not start screaming--
understand?I figured out how Don is approaching this:
A. If the witnesses don’t agree on something, there must be a conspiracy.
B. If the witnesses agree on something, there must be collusion, and hence a coverup.
All the above signs: the belated phone call, Virginia Davis's "street" slip, and Mrs. Markham's belated screaming: point to a retrospectively diminished role for the Davises in the Oak Cliff story.
dcw
Hilarious! What part of Gil saying “… neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor Scoggins positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore” did you notDoes Myers mention that neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor ScogginsNo, he doesn't talk about clothing identification.
positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore ?
quotes reporter Hugh Aynesworth: "She really could not see, I could tell. One time I went to see her and she didn't recognize me, even though I had been there 3 or 4 times before" (p54). Very perspicacious of Mr. M. Then jump to page 283: "In the end,But it's worse than that. Dale Myers quotes Bill Alexander: "[Mrs. Roberts'] powers of observation were a little weak. If she had told us that she had seen angels come out of the TV set, I wouldn't have been surprised" (With Malice p54). Then he
tales" (page 54). Nice of Myers to include information which completely undercuts his conclusion!She specifically recalled him zipping up his jacket when he left.
But of course Warren Report defenders MUST trust Mrs. R since the actual shooter (not Oswald) wore a jacket, and a jacket was found in a nearby parking lot. They MUST take her word for the jacket, even though she had a "reputation for spinning
else entirely — and they know that.A footnote: The first officers to Mrs. Roberts', Senkel and Potts, say nothing in their respective reports (v24 p245, [Senkel]and page 1 of Potts' report) which would suggest that Oswald had even been to the house some 2 hours earlier.What were Potts and Senkel dispatched to that house to do?
Tell us.Potts: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/potts.htm
Potts: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0084a.htm
Senkel: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0171b.htm
They were dispatched to search the room. They waited for the search warrant and then took various items into evidence.
Potts: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0083a.htm
They were not dispatched to talk to the housekeeper or owners and take statements from them. They just did their job. This is the way all the critics work - including Don - they suggest one thing through innuendo but the evidence suggests something
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 6:51:54 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:dispatchers then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:12:31 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:43:49 AM UTC-7, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, 1:15pm (p383). The
on the street? Is there evidence in the radio logs of exactly such confusion?Why is that significant? The dispatcher already had the wright phone call on record, and her address, right? Doesn’t giving out conflicting information over the radio lead to confusion on the precise location of the shooting on the part of officers
his gun."Or they witnessed it all, then decided to call the police. What did Wright witness? Fill this in.The two-minute gap before the mention of the Davis address may suggest a corresponding gap in the time the Davises called. Which further suggests that the Davises did not see all that they said they had seen, in their WC interviews.
In those few minutes, or less, the killer would have already been going down Patton. In fact, Virginia Davis wrote as much in her original affidavit: "We ran to the side door on Patton St. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading
into even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street" (v6p461). A slip, but a devastating one.So they did see him unloading his revolver and discarding the shells. If the killer used an automatic, wouldn’t the shells be found near the car, where the shots were fired? Instead, they were found in the yard. Right?
It seems that--unlike her sister-in-law--poor Virginia Davis couldn't be weaned quite quickly enough from what had actually happened. She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her affidavit
look at him.You just admitted they ran to the side door at one point and saw him from that door. What’s the issue? Why couldn’t it have been both?
It means that (a) the two picked up the westward progress of the perp too late to have seen him in their front yard palming shells, and (b) they saw the guy as he was crossing Patton, away from them, which means that they did not get a very good
understandably--until the boy was walking away from her and cutting across Patton (v3p321).Alternately, it means you’re assuming they saw him from one door only, despite their testimony to the contrary.
Further, the sisters-in-law very closely coordinated their spotting of the "boy" with the concurrent screaming of Mrs. Markham (Virginia: v6p457 / Barbara v3p343). Unfortunately for them, the latter averred that she did not start screaming--
understand?I figured out how Don is approaching this:
A. If the witnesses don’t agree on something, there must be a conspiracy.
B. If the witnesses agree on something, there must be collusion, and hence a coverup.
All the above signs: the belated phone call, Virginia Davis's "street" slip, and Mrs. Markham's belated screaming: point to a retrospectively diminished role for the Davises in the Oak Cliff story.
dcw
Hilarious! What part of Gil saying “… neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor Scoggins positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore” did you notDoes Myers mention that neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor ScogginsNo, he doesn't talk about clothing identification.
positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore ?
quotes reporter Hugh Aynesworth: "She really could not see, I could tell. One time I went to see her and she didn't recognize me, even though I had been there 3 or 4 times before" (p54). Very perspicacious of Mr. M. Then jump to page 283: "In the end,But it's worse than that. Dale Myers quotes Bill Alexander: "[Mrs. Roberts'] powers of observation were a little weak. If she had told us that she had seen angels come out of the TV set, I wouldn't have been surprised" (With Malice p54). Then he
tales" (page 54). Nice of Myers to include information which completely undercuts his conclusion!She specifically recalled him zipping up his jacket when he left.
But of course Warren Report defenders MUST trust Mrs. R since the actual shooter (not Oswald) wore a jacket, and a jacket was found in a nearby parking lot. They MUST take her word for the jacket, even though she had a "reputation for spinning
A footnote: The first officers to Mrs. Roberts', Senkel and Potts, say nothing in their respective reports (v24 p245, [Senkel]and page 1 of Potts' report) which would suggest that Oswald had even been to the house some 2 hours earlier.What were Potts and Senkel dispatched to that house to do?
Tell us.Potts: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/potts.htm
Potts: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0084a.htm
Senkel: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0171b.htm
They were dispatched to search the room. They waited for the search warrant and then took various items into evidence.
Potts: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0083a.htm
They were not dispatched to talk to the housekeeper or owners and take statements from them. They just did their job.
This is the way all the critics work - including Don - they suggest one thing through innuendo but the evidence suggests something else entirely — and they know that.
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 7:43:49?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the Davises called a
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, 1:15pm (p383). The dispatchers then
minutes, or less, the killer would have already been going down Patton. In fact, Virginia Davis wrote as much in her original affidavit: "We ran to the side door on Patton St. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."
The two-minute gap before the mention of the Davis address may suggest a corresponding gap in the time the Davises called. Which further suggests that the Davises did not see all that they said they had seen, in their WC interviews. In those few
even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street" (v6p461). A slip, but a devastating one. It means that (a) the two picked up the westward
It seems that--unlike her sister-in-law--poor Virginia Davis couldn't be weaned quite quickly enough from what had actually happened. She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her affidavit into
understandably--until the boy was walking away from her and cutting across Patton (v3p321).
Further, the sisters-in-law very closely coordinated their spotting of the "boy" with the concurrent screaming of Mrs. Markham (Virginia: v6p457 / Barbara v3p343). Unfortunately for them, the latter averred that she did not start screaming--
All the above signs: the belated phone call, Virginia Davis's "street" slip, and Mrs. Markham's belated screaming: point to a retrospectively diminished role for the Davises in the Oak Cliff story.
dcw
Does Myers mention that neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor Scoggins
positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore ?
This is the way all the critics work - including Don - they suggest
one thing through innuendo but the evidence suggests something else
entirely and they know that.
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:01:01 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:dispatchers then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 7:30:35 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 6:51:54 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:12:31 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:43:49 AM UTC-7, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, 1:15pm (p383). The
officers on the street? Is there evidence in the radio logs of exactly such confusion?Why is that significant? The dispatcher already had the wright phone call on record, and her address, right? Doesn’t giving out conflicting information over the radio lead to confusion on the precise location of the shooting on the part of
unloading his gun."Or they witnessed it all, then decided to call the police. What did Wright witness? Fill this in.The two-minute gap before the mention of the Davis address may suggest a corresponding gap in the time the Davises called. Which further suggests that the Davises did not see all that they said they had seen, in their WC interviews.
In those few minutes, or less, the killer would have already been going down Patton. In fact, Virginia Davis wrote as much in her original affidavit: "We ran to the side door on Patton St. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was
affidavit into even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street" (v6p461). A slip, but a devastating one.So they did see him unloading his revolver and discarding the shells. If the killer used an automatic, wouldn’t the shells be found near the car, where the shots were fired? Instead, they were found in the yard. Right?
It seems that--unlike her sister-in-law--poor Virginia Davis couldn't be weaned quite quickly enough from what had actually happened. She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her
good look at him.You just admitted they ran to the side door at one point and saw him from that door. What’s the issue? Why couldn’t it have been both?
It means that (a) the two picked up the westward progress of the perp too late to have seen him in their front yard palming shells, and (b) they saw the guy as he was crossing Patton, away from them, which means that they did not get a very
understandably--until the boy was walking away from her and cutting across Patton (v3p321).Alternately, it means you’re assuming they saw him from one door only, despite their testimony to the contrary.
Further, the sisters-in-law very closely coordinated their spotting of the "boy" with the concurrent screaming of Mrs. Markham (Virginia: v6p457 / Barbara v3p343). Unfortunately for them, the latter averred that she did not start screaming--
not understand?I figured out how Don is approaching this:
A. If the witnesses don’t agree on something, there must be a conspiracy.
B. If the witnesses agree on something, there must be collusion, and hence a coverup.
All the above signs: the belated phone call, Virginia Davis's "street" slip, and Mrs. Markham's belated screaming: point to a retrospectively diminished role for the Davises in the Oak Cliff story.
dcw
Hilarious! What part of Gil saying “… neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor Scoggins positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore” did youDoes Myers mention that neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor ScogginsNo, he doesn't talk about clothing identification.
positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore ?
he quotes reporter Hugh Aynesworth: "She really could not see, I could tell. One time I went to see her and she didn't recognize me, even though I had been there 3 or 4 times before" (p54). Very perspicacious of Mr. M. Then jump to page 283: "In the end,But it's worse than that. Dale Myers quotes Bill Alexander: "[Mrs. Roberts'] powers of observation were a little weak. If she had told us that she had seen angels come out of the TV set, I wouldn't have been surprised" (With Malice p54). Then
tales" (page 54). Nice of Myers to include information which completely undercuts his conclusion!She specifically recalled him zipping up his jacket when he left.
But of course Warren Report defenders MUST trust Mrs. R since the actual shooter (not Oswald) wore a jacket, and a jacket was found in a nearby parking lot. They MUST take her word for the jacket, even though she had a "reputation for spinning
else entirely — and they know that.A footnote: The first officers to Mrs. Roberts', Senkel and Potts, say nothing in their respective reports (v24 p245, [Senkel]and page 1 of Potts' report) which would suggest that Oswald had even been to the house some 2 hours earlier.What were Potts and Senkel dispatched to that house to do?
Tell us.Potts: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/potts.htm
Potts: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0084a.htm
Senkel: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0171b.htm
They were dispatched to search the room. They waited for the search warrant and then took various items into evidence.
Potts: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0083a.htm
They were not dispatched to talk to the housekeeper or owners and take statements from them. They just did their job. This is the way all the critics work - including Don - they suggest one thing through innuendo but the evidence suggests something
are ad hominems, which he will also criticize you for. Typical Sienzant.In one post Hank criticizes Willis' unique interpretation, and then in the next he says Willis is like "all the critics." This is the way Hank operates. he criticizes you for being unique and then criticizes you for being common, and both comments
Let me clear up your confusion.more example. That makes Don the same as all other critics in the way he works.
Don looks at the evidence with a conclusion in mind, and accepts and discards evidence as desired to reach his desired conclusion. All the critics work this way, and I’ve spent three decades online pointing out where they do it. Above is simply one
Don’s desired conclusion, however, is unique to him (shooting from the fifth floor, anyone?) so he accepts and discards his own unique set of evidence and substitutes his own presumptions and interpretations for what he thinks should have happenedinstead. Again, above is simply one more example. That unique conclusion makes Don unique, as all critics are unique.
Some critics start out with the presumption that organized crime was responsible, some rich oil barons, some the CIA, some Cuba, some the Mossad, some Russia, etc. Each critic has their own initial presumption, and each bends the evidence in their ownunique fashion to reachthei4 desired conclusion.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
Sky Throne to call me names.
Let me clear up your confusion.
Don looks at the evidence with a conclusion in mind, and accepts and
discards evidence as desired to reach his desired conclusion. All the
critics work this way...
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 7:30:35 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:dispatchers then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 6:51:54 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:12:31 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:43:49 AM UTC-7, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, 1:15pm (p383). The
officers on the street? Is there evidence in the radio logs of exactly such confusion?Why is that significant? The dispatcher already had the wright phone call on record, and her address, right? Doesn’t giving out conflicting information over the radio lead to confusion on the precise location of the shooting on the part of
unloading his gun."Or they witnessed it all, then decided to call the police. What did Wright witness? Fill this in.The two-minute gap before the mention of the Davis address may suggest a corresponding gap in the time the Davises called. Which further suggests that the Davises did not see all that they said they had seen, in their WC interviews.
In those few minutes, or less, the killer would have already been going down Patton. In fact, Virginia Davis wrote as much in her original affidavit: "We ran to the side door on Patton St. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was
affidavit into even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street" (v6p461). A slip, but a devastating one.So they did see him unloading his revolver and discarding the shells. If the killer used an automatic, wouldn’t the shells be found near the car, where the shots were fired? Instead, they were found in the yard. Right?
It seems that--unlike her sister-in-law--poor Virginia Davis couldn't be weaned quite quickly enough from what had actually happened. She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her
look at him.You just admitted they ran to the side door at one point and saw him from that door. What’s the issue? Why couldn’t it have been both?
It means that (a) the two picked up the westward progress of the perp too late to have seen him in their front yard palming shells, and (b) they saw the guy as he was crossing Patton, away from them, which means that they did not get a very good
understandably--until the boy was walking away from her and cutting across Patton (v3p321).Alternately, it means you’re assuming they saw him from one door only, despite their testimony to the contrary.
Further, the sisters-in-law very closely coordinated their spotting of the "boy" with the concurrent screaming of Mrs. Markham (Virginia: v6p457 / Barbara v3p343). Unfortunately for them, the latter averred that she did not start screaming--
not understand?I figured out how Don is approaching this:
A. If the witnesses don’t agree on something, there must be a conspiracy.
B. If the witnesses agree on something, there must be collusion, and hence a coverup.
All the above signs: the belated phone call, Virginia Davis's "street" slip, and Mrs. Markham's belated screaming: point to a retrospectively diminished role for the Davises in the Oak Cliff story.
dcw
Hilarious! What part of Gil saying “… neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor Scoggins positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore” did youDoes Myers mention that neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor ScogginsNo, he doesn't talk about clothing identification.
positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore ?
quotes reporter Hugh Aynesworth: "She really could not see, I could tell. One time I went to see her and she didn't recognize me, even though I had been there 3 or 4 times before" (p54). Very perspicacious of Mr. M. Then jump to page 283: "In the end,But it's worse than that. Dale Myers quotes Bill Alexander: "[Mrs. Roberts'] powers of observation were a little weak. If she had told us that she had seen angels come out of the TV set, I wouldn't have been surprised" (With Malice p54). Then he
tales" (page 54). Nice of Myers to include information which completely undercuts his conclusion!She specifically recalled him zipping up his jacket when he left.
But of course Warren Report defenders MUST trust Mrs. R since the actual shooter (not Oswald) wore a jacket, and a jacket was found in a nearby parking lot. They MUST take her word for the jacket, even though she had a "reputation for spinning
else entirely — and they know that.A footnote: The first officers to Mrs. Roberts', Senkel and Potts, say nothing in their respective reports (v24 p245, [Senkel]and page 1 of Potts' report) which would suggest that Oswald had even been to the house some 2 hours earlier.What were Potts and Senkel dispatched to that house to do?
Tell us.Potts: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/potts.htm
Potts: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0084a.htm
Senkel: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0171b.htm
They were dispatched to search the room. They waited for the search warrant and then took various items into evidence.
Potts: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0083a.htm
They were not dispatched to talk to the housekeeper or owners and take statements from them. They just did their job. This is the way all the critics work - including Don - they suggest one thing through innuendo but the evidence suggests something
In one post Hank criticizes Willis' unique interpretation, and then in the next he says Willis is like "all the critics." This is the way Hank operates. he criticizes you for being unique and then criticizes you for being common, and both comments aread hominems, which he will also criticize you for. Typical Sienzant.
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 4:30:35 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:dispatchers then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 6:51:54 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:12:31 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:43:49 AM UTC-7, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, 1:15pm (p383). The
officers on the street? Is there evidence in the radio logs of exactly such confusion?Why is that significant? The dispatcher already had the wright phone call on record, and her address, right? Doesn’t giving out conflicting information over the radio lead to confusion on the precise location of the shooting on the part of
unloading his gun."Or they witnessed it all, then decided to call the police. What did Wright witness? Fill this in.The two-minute gap before the mention of the Davis address may suggest a corresponding gap in the time the Davises called. Which further suggests that the Davises did not see all that they said they had seen, in their WC interviews.
In those few minutes, or less, the killer would have already been going down Patton. In fact, Virginia Davis wrote as much in her original affidavit: "We ran to the side door on Patton St. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was
affidavit into even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street" (v6p461). A slip, but a devastating one.So they did see him unloading his revolver and discarding the shells. If the killer used an automatic, wouldn’t the shells be found near the car, where the shots were fired? Instead, they were found in the yard. Right?
It seems that--unlike her sister-in-law--poor Virginia Davis couldn't be weaned quite quickly enough from what had actually happened. She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her
look at him.You just admitted they ran to the side door at one point and saw him from that door. What’s the issue? Why couldn’t it have been both?
It means that (a) the two picked up the westward progress of the perp too late to have seen him in their front yard palming shells, and (b) they saw the guy as he was crossing Patton, away from them, which means that they did not get a very good
understandably--until the boy was walking away from her and cutting across Patton (v3p321).Alternately, it means you’re assuming they saw him from one door only, despite their testimony to the contrary.
Further, the sisters-in-law very closely coordinated their spotting of the "boy" with the concurrent screaming of Mrs. Markham (Virginia: v6p457 / Barbara v3p343). Unfortunately for them, the latter averred that she did not start screaming--
not understand?I figured out how Don is approaching this:
A. If the witnesses don’t agree on something, there must be a conspiracy.
B. If the witnesses agree on something, there must be collusion, and hence a coverup.
All the above signs: the belated phone call, Virginia Davis's "street" slip, and Mrs. Markham's belated screaming: point to a retrospectively diminished role for the Davises in the Oak Cliff story.
dcw
Hilarious! What part of Gil saying “… neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor Scoggins positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore” did youDoes Myers mention that neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor ScogginsNo, he doesn't talk about clothing identification.
positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore ?
quotes reporter Hugh Aynesworth: "She really could not see, I could tell. One time I went to see her and she didn't recognize me, even though I had been there 3 or 4 times before" (p54). Very perspicacious of Mr. M. Then jump to page 283: "In the end,But it's worse than that. Dale Myers quotes Bill Alexander: "[Mrs. Roberts'] powers of observation were a little weak. If she had told us that she had seen angels come out of the TV set, I wouldn't have been surprised" (With Malice p54). Then he
tales" (page 54). Nice of Myers to include information which completely undercuts his conclusion!She specifically recalled him zipping up his jacket when he left.
But of course Warren Report defenders MUST trust Mrs. R since the actual shooter (not Oswald) wore a jacket, and a jacket was found in a nearby parking lot. They MUST take her word for the jacket, even though she had a "reputation for spinning
mention it, but....A footnote: The first officers to Mrs. Roberts', Senkel and Potts, say nothing in their respective reports (v24 p245, [Senkel]and page 1 of Potts' report) which would suggest that Oswald had even been to the house some 2 hours earlier.What were Potts and Senkel dispatched to that house to do?
Tell us.Potts: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/potts.htm
Potts: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0084a.htm
Senkel: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0171b.htm
They were dispatched to search the room. They waited for the search warrant and then took various items into evidence.
Potts: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0083a.htm
They were not dispatched to talk to the housekeeper or owners and take statements from them. They just did their job.I'd go along with that, but Oswald's (supposed) presence at Roberts' not long before the two got there would seem to have been worthy of a brief sidebar, in their reports, at least. Okay, it's not quite on par with The World Ended, and they didn't
This is the way all the critics work - including Don - they suggest one thing through innuendo but the evidence suggests something else entirely — and they know that.You like to generalize, I can't help but notice.... (Yes, I know that that too is a generalization)
Nearly 60 years of experience reading CT BS (_Who Killed Kennedy?_
by Thomas Buchanan was published in 1964, even *before* the WC
concluded its investigation)
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:12:31 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the Davises called a
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:43:49 AM UTC-7, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, 1:15pm (p383). The dispatchers
Why is that significant? The dispatcher already had the wright phone call on record, and her address, right? Doesn’t giving out conflicting information over the radio lead to confusion on the precise location of the shooting on the part of officerson the street?
Or they witnessed it all, then decided to call the police. What did Wright witness? Fill this in.The two-minute gap before the mention of the Davis address may suggest a corresponding gap in the time the Davises called. Which further suggests that the Davises did not see all that they said they had seen, in their WC interviews.
his gun."In those few minutes, or less, the killer would have already been going down Patton. In fact, Virginia Davis wrote as much in her original affidavit: "We ran to the side door on Patton St. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading
So they did see him unloading his revolver and discarding the shells. If the killer used an automatic, wouldn’t the shells be found near the car, where the shots were fired? Instead, they were found in the yard. Right?
into even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street" (v6p461). A slip, but a devastating one.It seems that--unlike her sister-in-law--poor Virginia Davis couldn't be weaned quite quickly enough from what had actually happened. She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her affidavit
You just admitted they ran to the side door at one point and saw him from that door. What’s the issue? Why couldn’t it have been both?
at him.It means that (a) the two picked up the westward progress of the perp too late to have seen him in their front yard palming shells, and (b) they saw the guy as he was crossing Patton, away from them, which means that they did not get a very good look
Alternately, it means you’re assuming they saw him from one door only, despite their testimony to the contrary.
understandably--until the boy was walking away from her and cutting across Patton (v3p321).Further, the sisters-in-law very closely coordinated their spotting of the "boy" with the concurrent screaming of Mrs. Markham (Virginia: v6p457 / Barbara v3p343). Unfortunately for them, the latter averred that she did not start screaming--
I figured out how Don is approaching this:
A. If the witnesses don’t agree on something, there must be a conspiracy. B. If the witnesses agree on something, there must be collusion, and hence a coverup.
understand?All the above signs: the belated phone call, Virginia Davis's "street" slip, and Mrs. Markham's belated screaming: point to a retrospectively diminished role for the Davises in the Oak Cliff story.
dcw
Hilarious! What part of Gil saying “… neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor Scoggins positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore” did you notDoes Myers mention that neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor ScogginsNo, he doesn't talk about clothing identification.
positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore ?
quotes reporter Hugh Aynesworth: "She really could not see, I could tell. One time I went to see her and she didn't recognize me, even though I had been there 3 or 4 times before" (p54). Very perspicacious of Mr. M. Then jump to page 283: "In the end,But it's worse than that. Dale Myers quotes Bill Alexander: "[Mrs. Roberts'] powers of observation were a little weak. If she had told us that she had seen angels come out of the TV set, I wouldn't have been surprised" (With Malice p54). Then he
She specifically recalled him zipping up his jacket when he left.
(page 54). Nice of Myers to include information which completely undercuts his conclusion!But of course Warren Report defenders MUST trust Mrs. R since the actual shooter (not Oswald) wore a jacket, and a jacket was found in a nearby parking lot. They MUST take her word for the jacket, even though she had a "reputation for spinning tales"
A footnote: The first officers to Mrs. Roberts', Senkel and Potts, say nothing in their respective reports (v24 p245, [Senkel]and page 1 of Potts' report) which would suggest that Oswald had even been to the house some 2 hours earlier.What were Potts and Senkel dispatched to that house to do?
Tell us.
dcw
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 11:30:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the Davises called a
wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 7:43:49?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, 1:15pm (p383). The dispatchers
minutes, or less, the killer would have already been going down Patton. In fact, Virginia Davis wrote as much in her original affidavit: "We ran to the side door on Patton St. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."
The two-minute gap before the mention of the Davis address may suggest a corresponding gap in the time the Davises called. Which further suggests that the Davises did not see all that they said they had seen, in their WC interviews. In those few
even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street" (v6p461). A slip, but a devastating one. It means that (a) the two picked up the westward
It seems that--unlike her sister-in-law--poor Virginia Davis couldn't be weaned quite quickly enough from what had actually happened. She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her affidavit into
understandably--until the boy was walking away from her and cutting across Patton (v3p321).
Further, the sisters-in-law very closely coordinated their spotting of the "boy" with the concurrent screaming of Mrs. Markham (Virginia: v6p457 / Barbara v3p343). Unfortunately for them, the latter averred that she did not start screaming--
Logical fallacy deleted.
All the above signs: the belated phone call, Virginia Davis's "street" slip, and Mrs. Markham's belated screaming: point to a retrospectively diminished role for the Davises in the Oak Cliff story.
dcw
Does Myers mention that neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor Scoggins
positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore ?
You couldn't answer the question, could you?
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the Davises called a
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, 1:15pm (p383). The dispatchers then
minutes, or less, the killer would have already been going down Patton. In fact, Virginia Davis wrote as much in her original affidavit: "We ran to the side door on Patton St. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."The two-minute gap before the mention of the Davis address may suggest a corresponding gap in the time the Davises called. Which further suggests that the Davises did not see all that they said they had seen, in their WC interviews. In those few
even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street" (v6p461). A slip, but a devastating one. It means that (a) the two picked up the westwardIt seems that--unlike her sister-in-law--poor Virginia Davis couldn't be weaned quite quickly enough from what had actually happened. She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her affidavit into
understandably--until the boy was walking away from her and cutting across Patton (v3p321).Further, the sisters-in-law very closely coordinated their spotting of the "boy" with the concurrent screaming of Mrs. Markham (Virginia: v6p457 / Barbara v3p343). Unfortunately for them, the latter averred that she did not start screaming--
Virginia Davis said they ran to the front door before Markham started screaming:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/davis_vc.htm
== quote ==
Mr. BELIN. How many shots did you hear?
Mrs. DAVIS. We heard the first one and then we thought maybe someone had a blowout like a tire or something and we didn't get up to see. Then we heard the second shot and that is when we ran to the front door.
…
Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you got to the door?
Mrs. DAVIS. Mrs. Markham was standing at the tree.
…
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.
== unquote ==
All this happened within a few a seconds of each other. Some of it was concurrent. She could see Oswald and hear Markham screaming at the same time.
All the above signs: the belated phone call, Virginia Davis's "street" slip, and Mrs. Markham's belated screaming: point to a retrospectively diminished role for the Davises in the Oak Cliff story.According to you and your unique interpretation of the evidence.
How many people share your view?
dcw
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 4:11:27 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the Davises called a
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, 1:15pm (p383). The dispatchers
minutes, or less, the killer would have already been going down Patton. In fact, Virginia Davis wrote as much in her original affidavit: "We ran to the side door on Patton St. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."The two-minute gap before the mention of the Davis address may suggest a corresponding gap in the time the Davises called. Which further suggests that the Davises did not see all that they said they had seen, in their WC interviews. In those few
even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street" (v6p461). A slip, but a devastating one. It means that (a) the two picked up the westwardIt seems that--unlike her sister-in-law--poor Virginia Davis couldn't be weaned quite quickly enough from what had actually happened. She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her affidavit into
understandably--until the boy was walking away from her and cutting across Patton (v3p321).Further, the sisters-in-law very closely coordinated their spotting of the "boy" with the concurrent screaming of Mrs. Markham (Virginia: v6p457 / Barbara v3p343). Unfortunately for them, the latter averred that she did not start screaming--
is very precise about the path the man took: sidewalk to intersection, left, down Patton. Whereas Virginia D says they went to the side door (affidavit), rejects her own words and says front door (testimony).Virginia Davis said they ran to the front door before Markham started screaming:So now you're abandoning your previous support for her affidavit, where she says that they went to the "side door'?
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/davis_vc.htm
== quote ==
Mr. BELIN. How many shots did you hear?
Mrs. DAVIS. We heard the first one and then we thought maybe someone had a blowout like a tire or something and we didn't get up to see. Then we heard the second shot and that is when we ran to the front door.
…
Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you got to the door?
Mrs. DAVIS. Mrs. Markham was standing at the tree.
…
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.
== unquote ==
All this happened within a few a seconds of each other. Some of it was concurrent. She could see Oswald and hear Markham screaming at the same time.And Markham testified that she didn't start screaming until the suspect was running down Patton. Seems logical. You're not going to start screaming at someone who's headed in your direction, as the guy was before he got to the intersection. And Mrs M
Just following the affidavits & testimony & radio logs.All the above signs: the belated phone call, Virginia Davis's "street" slip, and Mrs. Markham's belated screaming: point to a retrospectively diminished role for the Davises in the Oak Cliff story.According to you and your unique interpretation of the evidence.
How many people share your view?
There may be thousands of lurkers...
dcw
dcw
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 4:30:35 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:dispatchers then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 6:51:54 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:12:31 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:43:49 AM UTC-7, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, 1:15pm (p383). The
officers on the street? Is there evidence in the radio logs of exactly such confusion?Why is that significant? The dispatcher already had the wright phone call on record, and her address, right? Doesn’t giving out conflicting information over the radio lead to confusion on the precise location of the shooting on the part of
unloading his gun."Or they witnessed it all, then decided to call the police. What did Wright witness? Fill this in.The two-minute gap before the mention of the Davis address may suggest a corresponding gap in the time the Davises called. Which further suggests that the Davises did not see all that they said they had seen, in their WC interviews.
In those few minutes, or less, the killer would have already been going down Patton. In fact, Virginia Davis wrote as much in her original affidavit: "We ran to the side door on Patton St. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was
affidavit into even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street" (v6p461). A slip, but a devastating one.So they did see him unloading his revolver and discarding the shells. If the killer used an automatic, wouldn’t the shells be found near the car, where the shots were fired? Instead, they were found in the yard. Right?
It seems that--unlike her sister-in-law--poor Virginia Davis couldn't be weaned quite quickly enough from what had actually happened. She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her
look at him.You just admitted they ran to the side door at one point and saw him from that door. What’s the issue? Why couldn’t it have been both?
It means that (a) the two picked up the westward progress of the perp too late to have seen him in their front yard palming shells, and (b) they saw the guy as he was crossing Patton, away from them, which means that they did not get a very good
understandably--until the boy was walking away from her and cutting across Patton (v3p321).Alternately, it means you’re assuming they saw him from one door only, despite their testimony to the contrary.
Further, the sisters-in-law very closely coordinated their spotting of the "boy" with the concurrent screaming of Mrs. Markham (Virginia: v6p457 / Barbara v3p343). Unfortunately for them, the latter averred that she did not start screaming--
not understand?I figured out how Don is approaching this:
A. If the witnesses don’t agree on something, there must be a conspiracy.
B. If the witnesses agree on something, there must be collusion, and hence a coverup.
All the above signs: the belated phone call, Virginia Davis's "street" slip, and Mrs. Markham's belated screaming: point to a retrospectively diminished role for the Davises in the Oak Cliff story.
dcw
Hilarious! What part of Gil saying “… neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor Scoggins positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore” did youDoes Myers mention that neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor ScogginsNo, he doesn't talk about clothing identification.
positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore ?
quotes reporter Hugh Aynesworth: "She really could not see, I could tell. One time I went to see her and she didn't recognize me, even though I had been there 3 or 4 times before" (p54). Very perspicacious of Mr. M. Then jump to page 283: "In the end,But it's worse than that. Dale Myers quotes Bill Alexander: "[Mrs. Roberts'] powers of observation were a little weak. If she had told us that she had seen angels come out of the TV set, I wouldn't have been surprised" (With Malice p54). Then he
tales" (page 54). Nice of Myers to include information which completely undercuts his conclusion!She specifically recalled him zipping up his jacket when he left.
But of course Warren Report defenders MUST trust Mrs. R since the actual shooter (not Oswald) wore a jacket, and a jacket was found in a nearby parking lot. They MUST take her word for the jacket, even though she had a "reputation for spinning
else entirely — and they know that.A footnote: The first officers to Mrs. Roberts', Senkel and Potts, say nothing in their respective reports (v24 p245, [Senkel]and page 1 of Potts' report) which would suggest that Oswald had even been to the house some 2 hours earlier.What were Potts and Senkel dispatched to that house to do?
Tell us.Potts: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/potts.htm
Potts: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0084a.htm
Senkel: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0171b.htm
They were dispatched to search the room. They waited for the search warrant and then took various items into evidence.
Potts: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0083a.htm
They were not dispatched to talk to the housekeeper or owners and take statements from them. They just did their job. This is the way all the critics work - including Don - they suggest one thing through innuendo but the evidence suggests something
"The television... flashedhaving just been to her house, Potts would have said so there. It's not a report. Before the Commission, he's allowed to stray outside the parameters of the report, isn't he? Isn't that what the testimony was for--amplifying what had been in the reports?
Oswald’s picture on there and one of the women, either Mrs. Roberts or Mrs.
Johnson said, “That’s the man that lives here. That’s Mr. Lee-O. H. Lee.” She
said, “His room is right here right off of the living room.”
The cops are just doing their job. OK. But when Mrs. Roberts & the cops saw Oswald's picture on TV it didn't seem to remind her that she had just seen him. The above is from Potts' WC testimony. Testimony. If Mrs R had said anything about Oswald's
(Now Sienzant and SkyThrone are going to gang up on me! An odd couple.)
dcw
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 6:51:54 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:dispatchers then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:12:31 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:43:49 AM UTC-7, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, 1:15pm (p383). The
on the street? Is there evidence in the radio logs of exactly such confusion?Why is that significant? The dispatcher already had the wright phone call on record, and her address, right? Doesn’t giving out conflicting information over the radio lead to confusion on the precise location of the shooting on the part of officers
his gun."Or they witnessed it all, then decided to call the police. What did Wright witness? Fill this in.The two-minute gap before the mention of the Davis address may suggest a corresponding gap in the time the Davises called. Which further suggests that the Davises did not see all that they said they had seen, in their WC interviews.
In those few minutes, or less, the killer would have already been going down Patton. In fact, Virginia Davis wrote as much in her original affidavit: "We ran to the side door on Patton St. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading
into even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street" (v6p461). A slip, but a devastating one.So they did see him unloading his revolver and discarding the shells. If the killer used an automatic, wouldn’t the shells be found near the car, where the shots were fired? Instead, they were found in the yard. Right?
It seems that--unlike her sister-in-law--poor Virginia Davis couldn't be weaned quite quickly enough from what had actually happened. She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her affidavit
look at him.You just admitted they ran to the side door at one point and saw him from that door. What’s the issue? Why couldn’t it have been both?
It means that (a) the two picked up the westward progress of the perp too late to have seen him in their front yard palming shells, and (b) they saw the guy as he was crossing Patton, away from them, which means that they did not get a very good
understandably--until the boy was walking away from her and cutting across Patton (v3p321).Alternately, it means you’re assuming they saw him from one door only, despite their testimony to the contrary.
Further, the sisters-in-law very closely coordinated their spotting of the "boy" with the concurrent screaming of Mrs. Markham (Virginia: v6p457 / Barbara v3p343). Unfortunately for them, the latter averred that she did not start screaming--
understand?I figured out how Don is approaching this:
A. If the witnesses don’t agree on something, there must be a conspiracy.
B. If the witnesses agree on something, there must be collusion, and hence a coverup.
All the above signs: the belated phone call, Virginia Davis's "street" slip, and Mrs. Markham's belated screaming: point to a retrospectively diminished role for the Davises in the Oak Cliff story.
dcw
Hilarious! What part of Gil saying “… neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor Scoggins positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore” did you notDoes Myers mention that neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor ScogginsNo, he doesn't talk about clothing identification.
positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore ?
quotes reporter Hugh Aynesworth: "She really could not see, I could tell. One time I went to see her and she didn't recognize me, even though I had been there 3 or 4 times before" (p54). Very perspicacious of Mr. M. Then jump to page 283: "In the end,But it's worse than that. Dale Myers quotes Bill Alexander: "[Mrs. Roberts'] powers of observation were a little weak. If she had told us that she had seen angels come out of the TV set, I wouldn't have been surprised" (With Malice p54). Then he
tales" (page 54). Nice of Myers to include information which completely undercuts his conclusion!She specifically recalled him zipping up his jacket when he left.
But of course Warren Report defenders MUST trust Mrs. R since the actual shooter (not Oswald) wore a jacket, and a jacket was found in a nearby parking lot. They MUST take her word for the jacket, even though she had a "reputation for spinning
else entirely — and they know that.A footnote: The first officers to Mrs. Roberts', Senkel and Potts, say nothing in their respective reports (v24 p245, [Senkel]and page 1 of Potts' report) which would suggest that Oswald had even been to the house some 2 hours earlier.What were Potts and Senkel dispatched to that house to do?
Tell us.Potts: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/potts.htm
Potts: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0084a.htm
Senkel: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0171b.htm
They were dispatched to search the room. They waited for the search warrant and then took various items into evidence.
Potts: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0083a.htm
They were not dispatched to talk to the housekeeper or owners and take statements from them. They just did their job. This is the way all the critics work - including Don - they suggest one thing through innuendo but the evidence suggests something
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 07:23:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Nearly 60 years of experience reading CT BS (_Who Killed Kennedy?_
by Thomas Buchanan was published in 1964, even *before* the WC
concluded its investigation) plus being familiar with the HSCA 12
volumes and Commission 26 volumes gives me the experience to
generalize. Over 30 years arguing online (going back to Prodigy in the early 1990s) also informs my claim.
I notice you didn’t deny the point, and in fact agree with it somewhat (“I'd go along with that, but…”).
You're too much of a coward ever to blame the FBI for concluding
*their* investigation before the WCR came out.
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 4:30:35 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:dispatchers then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 6:51:54 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:12:31 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:43:49 AM UTC-7, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, 1:15pm (p383). The
officers on the street? Is there evidence in the radio logs of exactly such confusion?Why is that significant? The dispatcher already had the wright phone call on record, and her address, right? Doesn’t giving out conflicting information over the radio lead to confusion on the precise location of the shooting on the part of
unloading his gun."Or they witnessed it all, then decided to call the police. What did Wright witness? Fill this in.The two-minute gap before the mention of the Davis address may suggest a corresponding gap in the time the Davises called. Which further suggests that the Davises did not see all that they said they had seen, in their WC interviews.
In those few minutes, or less, the killer would have already been going down Patton. In fact, Virginia Davis wrote as much in her original affidavit: "We ran to the side door on Patton St. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was
affidavit into even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street" (v6p461). A slip, but a devastating one.So they did see him unloading his revolver and discarding the shells. If the killer used an automatic, wouldn’t the shells be found near the car, where the shots were fired? Instead, they were found in the yard. Right?
It seems that--unlike her sister-in-law--poor Virginia Davis couldn't be weaned quite quickly enough from what had actually happened. She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her
look at him.You just admitted they ran to the side door at one point and saw him from that door. What’s the issue? Why couldn’t it have been both?
It means that (a) the two picked up the westward progress of the perp too late to have seen him in their front yard palming shells, and (b) they saw the guy as he was crossing Patton, away from them, which means that they did not get a very good
understandably--until the boy was walking away from her and cutting across Patton (v3p321).Alternately, it means you’re assuming they saw him from one door only, despite their testimony to the contrary.
Further, the sisters-in-law very closely coordinated their spotting of the "boy" with the concurrent screaming of Mrs. Markham (Virginia: v6p457 / Barbara v3p343). Unfortunately for them, the latter averred that she did not start screaming--
not understand?I figured out how Don is approaching this:
A. If the witnesses don’t agree on something, there must be a conspiracy.
B. If the witnesses agree on something, there must be collusion, and hence a coverup.
All the above signs: the belated phone call, Virginia Davis's "street" slip, and Mrs. Markham's belated screaming: point to a retrospectively diminished role for the Davises in the Oak Cliff story.
dcw
Hilarious! What part of Gil saying “… neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor Scoggins positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore” did youDoes Myers mention that neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor ScogginsNo, he doesn't talk about clothing identification.
positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore ?
quotes reporter Hugh Aynesworth: "She really could not see, I could tell. One time I went to see her and she didn't recognize me, even though I had been there 3 or 4 times before" (p54). Very perspicacious of Mr. M. Then jump to page 283: "In the end,But it's worse than that. Dale Myers quotes Bill Alexander: "[Mrs. Roberts'] powers of observation were a little weak. If she had told us that she had seen angels come out of the TV set, I wouldn't have been surprised" (With Malice p54). Then he
tales" (page 54). Nice of Myers to include information which completely undercuts his conclusion!She specifically recalled him zipping up his jacket when he left.
But of course Warren Report defenders MUST trust Mrs. R since the actual shooter (not Oswald) wore a jacket, and a jacket was found in a nearby parking lot. They MUST take her word for the jacket, even though she had a "reputation for spinning
else entirely — and they know that.A footnote: The first officers to Mrs. Roberts', Senkel and Potts, say nothing in their respective reports (v24 p245, [Senkel]and page 1 of Potts' report) which would suggest that Oswald had even been to the house some 2 hours earlier.What were Potts and Senkel dispatched to that house to do?
Tell us.Potts: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/potts.htm
Potts: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0084a.htm
Senkel: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0171b.htm
They were dispatched to search the room. They waited for the search warrant and then took various items into evidence.
Potts: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0083a.htm
They were not dispatched to talk to the housekeeper or owners and take statements from them. They just did their job. This is the way all the critics work - including Don - they suggest one thing through innuendo but the evidence suggests something
"The television... flashedhaving just been to her house, Potts would have said so there. It's not a report. Before the Commission, he's allowed to stray outside the parameters of the report, isn't he? Isn't that what the testimony was for--amplifying what had been in the reports?
Oswald’s picture on there and one of the women, either Mrs. Roberts or Mrs.
Johnson said, “That’s the man that lives here. That’s Mr. Lee-O. H. Lee.” She
said, “His room is right here right off of the living room.”
The cops are just doing their job. OK. But when Mrs. Roberts & the cops saw Oswald's picture on TV it didn't seem to remind her that she had just seen him. The above is from Potts' WC testimony. Testimony. If Mrs R had said anything about Oswald's
Conclusion: Oswald did not go to the boarding house circa 1pm. The whole jacket story is based on the lie of an (as even Dale Myers admits) inveterate liar. And she came up with this lie somewhat later.
(Now Sienzant and SkyThrone are going to gang up on me! An odd couple.)
dcw
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 5:18:32 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:dispatchers then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 4:30:35 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 6:51:54 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:12:31 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 4:43:49 AM UTC-7, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, 1:15pm (p383). The
officers on the street? Is there evidence in the radio logs of exactly such confusion?Why is that significant? The dispatcher already had the wright phone call on record, and her address, right? Doesn’t giving out conflicting information over the radio lead to confusion on the precise location of the shooting on the part of
unloading his gun."Or they witnessed it all, then decided to call the police. What did Wright witness? Fill this in.The two-minute gap before the mention of the Davis address may suggest a corresponding gap in the time the Davises called. Which further suggests that the Davises did not see all that they said they had seen, in their WC interviews.
In those few minutes, or less, the killer would have already been going down Patton. In fact, Virginia Davis wrote as much in her original affidavit: "We ran to the side door on Patton St. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was
affidavit into even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street" (v6p461). A slip, but a devastating one.So they did see him unloading his revolver and discarding the shells. If the killer used an automatic, wouldn’t the shells be found near the car, where the shots were fired? Instead, they were found in the yard. Right?
It seems that--unlike her sister-in-law--poor Virginia Davis couldn't be weaned quite quickly enough from what had actually happened. She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her
good look at him.You just admitted they ran to the side door at one point and saw him from that door. What’s the issue? Why couldn’t it have been both?
It means that (a) the two picked up the westward progress of the perp too late to have seen him in their front yard palming shells, and (b) they saw the guy as he was crossing Patton, away from them, which means that they did not get a very
understandably--until the boy was walking away from her and cutting across Patton (v3p321).Alternately, it means you’re assuming they saw him from one door only, despite their testimony to the contrary.
Further, the sisters-in-law very closely coordinated their spotting of the "boy" with the concurrent screaming of Mrs. Markham (Virginia: v6p457 / Barbara v3p343). Unfortunately for them, the latter averred that she did not start screaming--
not understand?I figured out how Don is approaching this:
A. If the witnesses don’t agree on something, there must be a conspiracy.
B. If the witnesses agree on something, there must be collusion, and hence a coverup.
All the above signs: the belated phone call, Virginia Davis's "street" slip, and Mrs. Markham's belated screaming: point to a retrospectively diminished role for the Davises in the Oak Cliff story.
dcw
Hilarious! What part of Gil saying “… neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor Scoggins positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore” did youDoes Myers mention that neither of the Davises, nor Mrs. Markham, nor Ted Callaway, nor Benavides, nor ScogginsNo, he doesn't talk about clothing identification.
positively identified CE 162, the "tannish gray" jacket in evidence as the jacket the Tippit killer wore ?
he quotes reporter Hugh Aynesworth: "She really could not see, I could tell. One time I went to see her and she didn't recognize me, even though I had been there 3 or 4 times before" (p54). Very perspicacious of Mr. M. Then jump to page 283: "In the end,But it's worse than that. Dale Myers quotes Bill Alexander: "[Mrs. Roberts'] powers of observation were a little weak. If she had told us that she had seen angels come out of the TV set, I wouldn't have been surprised" (With Malice p54). Then
tales" (page 54). Nice of Myers to include information which completely undercuts his conclusion!She specifically recalled him zipping up his jacket when he left.
But of course Warren Report defenders MUST trust Mrs. R since the actual shooter (not Oswald) wore a jacket, and a jacket was found in a nearby parking lot. They MUST take her word for the jacket, even though she had a "reputation for spinning
else entirely — and they know that.A footnote: The first officers to Mrs. Roberts', Senkel and Potts, say nothing in their respective reports (v24 p245, [Senkel]and page 1 of Potts' report) which would suggest that Oswald had even been to the house some 2 hours earlier.What were Potts and Senkel dispatched to that house to do?
Tell us.Potts: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/potts.htm
Potts: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0084a.htm
Senkel: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0171b.htm
They were dispatched to search the room. They waited for the search warrant and then took various items into evidence.
Potts: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0083a.htm
They were not dispatched to talk to the housekeeper or owners and take statements from them. They just did their job. This is the way all the critics work - including Don - they suggest one thing through innuendo but the evidence suggests something
having just been to her house, Potts would have said so there. It's not a report. Before the Commission, he's allowed to stray outside the parameters of the report, isn't he? Isn't that what the testimony was for--amplifying what had been in the reports?"The television... flashed
Oswald’s picture on there and one of the women, either Mrs. Roberts or Mrs.
Johnson said, “That’s the man that lives here. That’s Mr. Lee-O. H. Lee.” She
said, “His room is right here right off of the living room.”
The cops are just doing their job. OK. But when Mrs. Roberts & the cops saw Oswald's picture on TV it didn't seem to remind her that she had just seen him. The above is from Potts' WC testimony. Testimony. If Mrs R had said anything about Oswald's
Assumption on your part. Maybe she just failed to mention it.
Where’s the evidence supporting your assertion? Somebody failed to mention something you think they should have, and you think you’re therefore entitled to jump to conclusions and conclude i5 never happened.
Conclusion: Oswald did not go to the boarding house circa 1pm. The whole jacket story is based on the lie of an (as even Dale Myers admits) inveterate liar. And she came up with this lie somewhat later.Yet we can put Oswald in a cab taking him near the rooming house (as even Oswald admitted in custody).
Yeah, I know, they were all lying to frame Oswald as well, right?a stopover that’s unnecessary and takes a few minutes out of his day?
Just explain why any of this is necessary. You never did. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, Oswald bypassed the rooming house entirely, as you argue. That gives Oswald more time to get to tenth and Patton after he departs the cab. So why invent
Try explaining the necessity for anyone to create a fake stopover that never happened. How does this improve the supposed frame-up of Oswald?
Alternately, if you believe Oswald was neither on the bus or in the cab, post the evidence that gets him to the parking lot
and then Brewer’s shoe store before sneaking into the theatre, and explain why he would sneak into the theatre instead of paying.
Your problem is you think you’re explaining things, but your explanations leave more loose ends than they explain.
(Now Sienzant and SkyThrone are going to gang up on me! An odd couple.)
dcw
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:15:16?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 07:23:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Nearly 60 years of experience reading CT BS (_Who Killed Kennedy?_
by Thomas Buchanan was published in 1964, even *before* the WC
concluded its investigation) plus being familiar with the HSCA 12
volumes and Commission 26 volumes gives me the experience to
generalize. Over 30 years arguing online (going back to Prodigy in the
early 1990s) also informs my claim.
I notice you didnt deny the point, and in fact agree with it somewhat
(I'd go along with that, but).
You're too much of a coward ever to blame the FBI for concluding
*their* investigation before the WCR came out.
Non sequitur.
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 2:16:56 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:15pm (p383). The dispatchers then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 > E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57).
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:First, let's put back everything you cut. It's pertinent to the questions I asked:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 7:16:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 1:17:46 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 12:21:19 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 12:56:24 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 11:59:48 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 5:53:40 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:45:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 12:56:48 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 6:15:30 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, > 1:
We saw the boy cutting across the street"You wrote this...What's silly about showing that Myers omits only the dispatcher's response to the Davis call, which response came about 2 minutes after his response to the Wright call? I guess it's like Kryptonite to both of you superboys....I didn`t care about your ideas at all, which is why I didn`t respond to your silly game playing. I objected to Gil`s idea that your silly game playing reflected poorly on us.Sometimes all it takes is a word or a few words--remember "Z", which was based on fact: the phrase "lithe like a tiger" gave it all away.So Willis decides to take one word of context (from a witness he ignores 97% of the information she related) and somehow this reflects poorly on us?Wright address, on the police radio, in his text (pp104-105), he omits the only, belated mention of the Davis address.That's what these Warren Commission supporters do.
They only tell you what they want you to know. They NEVER tell you the whole story.
It's called deception by omission.
"She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her affidavit into even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"
your conclusion (there was a coverup).This is silly game playing not worthy of a response.
No, that’s still the logical fallacy of begging the question with a large dash of circular reasoning. HereAnd, as noted above, with Bud, it was a very good cover-up, hence the small but significant chinks in its armor.I would phrase it as “grasping at straws”.From her affidavit...That one word "street" reinforces Virginia Davis' statement in her original affidavit that she was at the side door on Patton.dcw
"I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."
"Yard", not "street".
The gunman was then not in the yard,From her affidavit...
"I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."
She said Oswald was in the yard.
but further away, too far for an accurate ID, and nowhere near where the spent shells were supposed to have been found, near the walk & window on the side.You are playing silly games, Don.
you simply use the conclusion (it was a very good coverup) to support the premise (your interpretation of the discrepancies in testimony). Originally, you were using the premise (your interpretation of the discrepancies in testimony) to support
clearly said into something none of them said.Please read up on circular reasoning and try to eliminate it from your arguments.
Your argument is fallacious.
(”The idiom 'grasping at straws' is used to mean an attempt to succeed—such as in an argument, debate or attempt at a solution—when nothing you choose is likely to work.”)
The affidavit was on the afternoon of 11/22/63, within a few hours of Tippit’s murder. Let’s call it three hours later.
Let's call these three hours one unit of time, thus there are eight such units per day (3 hours x 8 = 24).
Her testimony was on April 2nd, 1964 - 132 days later. Or more than 1056 such units unitsof time (8 x 132 = 1056).
Those are not the only choices. You are utilizing the logical fallacy of a false dilemma.Which is more likely to be accurate, her memory from one unit of time later, or her memory from over a thousand units of time later?Take your pick--the Virginia Davis of "side door on Patton" (affidavit), or the Virginia Davis of "saw him crossing the STREET" (testimony).
In the affidavit, for example, she said “I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun.” You ignored this.
In her testimony, she said “Then we heard the second shot and that is when we ran to the front door.”
Don ignored this point.So please tell us how you determined which version is correct. You appear to be starting with the idea that a coverup existed, and interpreting all those statements through that coverup lens.
Don asserts - without evidence - the Tippit witnesses were all lying in their signed affidavits on the afternoon of the assassination, and then plucks a word or a phrase out of their testimony or affidavit to attempt to turn what they each
across my front yard unloading a gun. A woman was standing across the street screaming that "he shot him, he killed him" and pointed towards a police car. That is the first time I noticed a police car there. I ran back in the house and called theBarb Davis affidavit from the day of the shooting: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htmUnfortunately for you and JC, the Davises testified that they couldn't see the guy after he went around the corner of the front yard. So they couldn't have seen him cross ANY street.You tell me how the word "street" got into her testimony. It doesn't fit. Unless she means "crossing Patton", as in her affidavit. What other street would the guy be crossing?She also says “yard” in her affidavit and testimony.
The gunman had to cross her yard before he crossed the street.
== quote ==
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Barbara Jeanette Davis w/f/22, 400 E. 10th, WH3 8120. Bus: same who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Today November 22, 1963 shortly after 1:00 pm, my sister-in-law, Virginia Davis, and I were lying on the bed with the kids. I heard a shot and jumped up and heard another shot. I put on my shoes and went to the door and I saw this man walking
/s/ Barbara Jeanette Davis
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Mary Rattan
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== unquote ==
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". This woman told Jeanette to call the Police and she did [sic]. I saw the officerVirginia Davis affidavit: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
== quote ==
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Mrs. Virginia Davis, w/m/16 [sic], of 400 E. 10th WH-3-8120 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Today November 22, 1963 about 1:30 pm my sister-in-law and myself were lying down in our apartment. My sister-in-law is Jeanette Davis, we live in the same house in different apartments. We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to the side
/s/ Mrs. Virginia Davis
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Patsy Collins
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== unquote ==
the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?You ignored all the above.
Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him for
simply assume it is an either/or situation, and artificially ignore the possibility of both occurring.Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
"I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
Actually, it was not so intended. You're jumping to conclusions. As I quoted, he just said "prepare" not, say, "invent".Thank you, Willy. You'll make Hank very happy.Sorry, no. Your *interpretation* of this statement is that Fritz was instructing his officers to frame Oswald for the murder of of a fellow police officer.
My *interpretation* of this statement is that Fritz was instructing his officers to gather the evidence that Oswald shot Tippit.
Note the wording: "I instructed my officers to *prepare a real good case* on the officer's killing" ... Not "I instructed my officers to *frame Oswald* on the officer's killing".
Your quote doesn't say what you need it to say. You merely take the quote out of context and pretend it does to justify your belief that Oswald was framed. It doesn't say that.And I didn't say or imply that.
And as always, you leave unanswered questions in the wake of your interpretation, like
A. Why would Fritz want to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and let the real cop killer go free?
B. Why would Fritz think every officer under his command would accede to his wishes (as your interpretation argues) to frame an innocent man and let J.D.Tippit's real killer go free? And do this in the first hours after the murder of Tippit?
An extraordinary explanation demands extraordinary evidence. Not simply a unique *interpretation* of a clear instruction to build a solid case.
Your *interpretations* of the evidence are not evidence.All the foregoing by Hank is based on a false, inferred premise.
Since other witnesses claim the gunman discarded the shells from a revolver as he crossed the yard, it makes more sense to understand she simply spoke of witnessing both him crossing yard and then the street. But you need a conflict, so you
temporally, of his testimony.Reading their affidavits and testimony, one story emerges: a young, slender white male shot Tippit and emptied and reloaded his revolver as he walked away, discarding the shells as he did so.
I'll leave it to you to sort out the >>>>s...And you still don't explain it!A point lost in a thicket of >>>>,,,Don ignored this point.A false tale, as Virginia's affidavit shows.You need do more than simply allege this, based on your interpretation of her claims.
You are begging the question and using circular reasoning here once more.
Hilarious!
The discarded shells in evidence match the gun linked to Oswald through paperwork, that was wrested from his hand in the movie theatre after he slugged Officer McDonald.
Pretty damning evidence.
I say "supposedly" because Sgt Hill later said that Benavides didn't handle any shells. And it took some 4 months for Benavides, in his testimony, to say that he did see the perp drop shells and that he did pick them up. Problems on both sides,Don ignored this point.If you believe in shells initially handled by civilians, supposedly,Yes, civilians reported finding shells in the yard. So?
them my story unless they give me something. Callaway claimed that Benavides ended up with a new Pontiac Firebird, half of which was paid for by CBS." (With Malice pp220-221)Again, your *interpretation* of this alleged conflict is that Hill (who was supposedly instructed by Fritz to frame Oswald, according to your *interpretation* of Fritz's words aboveYou started off on the wrong foot with your assumed "interpretations", then you run the whole race on the wrong foot.
), didn't do that, and helped reveal the frame-up, but only to you. You neither quote Hill's words
"Benavides pointed [the shells] out to us [Hill & Poe], but he didn't handle the shells" (Hill, in a 1986 interview with Dale Myers. With Malice, p259).
nor provide a link to them. Alleging things is not the same as establishing them. You also appear to suggest, based on nothing whatsoever, that Benavides lied in his testimony.
Again, jumping to conclusions. "In a 1996 interview, Ted Callaway said that Benavides came to the used car lot the day after the shooting & confided that he hadn't actually seen the gunman.... He told me, he said 'I ain't gonna go down there & tell
So, did Callaway lie or did Benavides?cigarettes I had and picked them up with a little stick and put them in this cigarette package; a chrome looking shell.
Hill's testimony is here: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/hill_gl.htmOoh, again a nice quote, but (as you see) irrelevant.
He mentions "Benavides" not at all.
Even if you provide a legitimate source for Hill's claim, you need to do more: You need to establish that Hill's hearsay assertion is accurate (How would Hill know whether Benavides handled any shells?)Hill. in that same interview, said he was there when the shells were picked up.
, and Benavides testimony is false. You are currently simply assuming both of these.
Poe testified that Benavides provided the shells to him (Poe): https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/poe.htm
== quote ==
Mr. POE. I talked to a Spanish man, but I don't remember his name. Dominique, I believe.
Mr. BALL. Domingo Benavides?
Mr. POE. I believe that is correct; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did he tell you?
Mr. POE. He told me, give me the same, or similar description of the man, and told me he was running out across this lawn. He was unloading his pistol as he ran, and he picked the shells up.
Mr. BALL. Domingo told you who was running across the lawn?
Mr. POE. A man, white man.
Mr. BALL. What was he doing?
Mr. POE. He was unloading his pistol as he run.
Mr. BALL. And what did he say?
Mr. POE. He said he picked the two hulls up.
Mr. BALL. Did he hand you the hulls?
Mr. POE. Yes, sir.
== unquote ==
Benavides testified to it this way: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/benavide.htm
== quote ==
Mr. BELIN - Now you saw him throw two shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - You saw where he threw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Did you later go back in that area and try and find the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes. Well, right after that I went back and I knew exactly where they was at, and I went over and picked up one in my hand, not thinking and I dropped it, that maybe they want fingerprints off it, so I took out an empty pack of
interviewers that she saw the suspect run into the alley....Myers' timetable: "Mrs. Mary Wright and Barbara Davis phone police from their homes." (at 1:15:40) WM p383
Mr. BELIN - When you put these two shells that you found in this cigarette package, what did you do with them?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I gave them to an officer.
Mr. BELIN - That came out to the scene shortly after?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember the name of the officer?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No, sir; I didn't even ask him. I just told him that this was the shells that he had fired, and I handed them to him.
== unquote ==
How quickly might you think someone might think to look up the number of the Dallas Police in their phone book and dial their rotary phone?1) According to the police radio logs, the Davises called the dispatcher about a minute AFTER the first witness called from the scene. (Myers avoided the issue of this delayed response by not including it in his timeline.)Don ignored this point.and falsely witnessed by the Davises.Another unproven allegation by you.
Moreover, this is another unproven allegation by you. You neither cite the police radio logs to establish when the first witness called from the scene(Of course the first witness to call from the scene was TF Bowley, but from Tippit's radio, not from a residence.)
, nor establish when the Davis' call was made.
Mary Wright's address, 501 E. 10th, is broadcast 3 times at 1:19 (CE 1974, pp54-55); the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is cited about 1:21 (CE 1974 p57). You won't find a record of that in Myers....
You want citations, you get them. But it takes time to find them, so I'll have to break off here...
dcw
You really need to step up your game. Your *interpretations* of the evidence are not evidence.
2) Both Davises testified that they first saw the perp when Mrs. Markham started shouting about him. Mrs. M testified that she did not start shouting UNTIL the perp was running down Patton! Again, "falsely witnessed".Barbara Davis' affidavit: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm
She was lying on the evening of the assassination to frame Oswald?
BD was more than happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and even pick the poor schmuck out of a lineup to help frame him? And she never had a change of heart and came forward to say otherwise?
Ditto with Virginia Davis? https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
She was lying on the evening of the assassination to frame Oswald?
VD was more than happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and even pick the poor schmuck out of a lineup to help frame him? And she never had a change of heart and came forward to say otherwise?
Your claims are contrary to the evidence.
And you still don't explain it!Again, point lost in a thicket of >>>>Don ignored this point.Did I summarize your beliefs correctly here? You didn't quibble over this, so it appears I did.To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.
Hilarious!
As it happen, No. The initial crime scene sketch of the 10th/Patton area notes that the perp went "W on all(e)y to Crawford". The sketch was drawn by Sgt. Barnes, who mentioned only one witness in his WC testimony--Mrs M. And Mrs. M later toldYou’re assuming it was as well, an error where she inadvertently stated the truth and revealed the coverup. Aren’t you?Who the fuck said it was an error? You're assuming.People are human. Everyone makes mistakes. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to throw out everything she said based on one error.Moreover, in the 60 years since the murder (ok, minus a few months - conspiracy mongers do like to quibble, don't they?) none of the Tippit witnesses recanted and none admitted to anything like Don and other critics suggest.Mrs. Markham kept insisting that the gunman ran down the alley off Patton, in later interviews.
It doesn't work that way.
statement from somewhere else...You were assuming that I was assuming, when the finger is actually pointing at you....Okay, granting that for the sake of argument (but you again don't cite for it and apparently expect us to just take your word for it), how does that establish that Markham was accurate in her recollection?
You're assuming it wasn't an error. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to rejigger the murder of Tippit so that Oswald comes out framed, by selecting a tidbit from here, a mis-statement from there, a re-interpretation of a
police that he last saw the guy headed.) In fact, that footage is better than a recantation.Again you cite for neither assertion you make, nor do you show how McWatters testimony about who rode his bus taints the lineups shown the witnesses of the Tippit murder and its immediate aftermath.It's got everything to do with the broader subject of witness lineup IDs. The McW case shows that the IDs are as problematic as their testimony.Don ignored this point.McWatters recanted on his ID of Oswald in the lineup. Then, yes, later, in his testimony, he recanted on his recantation!He was the bus driver, wasn't he? What's that got to do with the Tippit shooting?
Same-day TV footage showed that Warren Reynolds changed his story for the Commission, where he testified that he last saw the guy headed for the parking lot. (The footage shows him before one of the two old houses, where he was telling
With Malice.Ah! Time for you to go into your "fallacy" mode... It took me several postings to convince Bud--some years back--that Reynolds was telling police that the guy ran into one of the old houses--one of the convincers was a clip from news footage, inIf there was ever a perp there at all.Didn't the police search those old houses and find nothing suspicious?Yeah--15 minutes or so after the guy would have left. You think perps are going to hang around for the police?
was therefore as much evidence of unicorns acting as spotters as there was for a shooter in the Dal-Tex building. He didn't get the point. I doubt you will.yes, it is a fallacy to assume what you need to prove. It's called Begging the Question. And you are clearly assuming it, and imbedding it into your point with the argument "You think perps are going to hang around for the police?"
This is akin to another CT's assertion that there were shots from the Dal-Tex Building. When asked for the evidence of this other weapon, he argued the building was never searched, so of course he couldn't provide any evidence! I pointed out there
so.Once more you are assuming what you need to prove and imbedding that assumption in your argument as a given. That’s the logical fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION. I’ve asked you to stop committing these logical fallacies but you just keep doing
I see I already explained this to you. But you persisted in the fallacy.
There's nothing above that explains this.SEE ABOVEExplain why killing Tippit was necessary to frame Oswald for a crime of killing Kennedy. You are alleging Oswald was framed for killing Tippit.Both were necessary to the villains.Do you disagree?At this point it looks from here more like the purpose of the plot was to frame Oswald, and the killing of Kennedy was merely incidental to that frame-up.
There's nothing above that explains this.Explain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.SEE ABOVE.
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 2:16:56 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:interviewers that she saw the suspect run into the alley.
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:First, let's put back everything you cut. It's pertinent to the questions I asked:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 7:16:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 20 CUT
Here's where I left off....
2) Both Davises testified that they first saw the perp when Mrs. Markham started shouting about him. Mrs. M testified that she did not start shouting UNTIL the perp was running down Patton! Again, "falsely witnessed".Barbara Davis' affidavit: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm
She was lying on the evening of the assassination to frame Oswald?
BD was more than happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and even pick the poor schmuck out of a lineup to help frame him? And she never had a change of heart and came forward to say otherwise?
Ditto with Virginia Davis?Yes and yes. Though you're speculating with your "more than happy".
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
She was lying on the evening of the assassination to frame Oswald?
VD was more than happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and even pick the poor schmuck out of a lineup to help frame him? And she never had a change of heart and came forward to say otherwise?
Your claims are contrary to the evidence.Why, you seemed to answer your own question. Don't want to get in your way.
And you still don't explain it!Again, point lost in a thicket of >>>>Don ignored this point.Did I summarize your beliefs correctly here? You didn't quibble over this, so it appears I did.To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.
Hilarious!
As it happen, No. The initial crime scene sketch of the 10th/Patton area notes that the perp went "W on all(e)y to Crawford". The sketch was drawn by Sgt. Barnes, who mentioned only one witness in his WC testimony--Mrs M. And Mrs. M later toldYou’re assuming it was as well, an error where she inadvertently stated the truth and revealed the coverup. Aren’t you?Who the fuck said it was an error? You're assuming.People are human. Everyone makes mistakes. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to throw out everything she said based on one error.Moreover, in the 60 years since the murder (ok, minus a few months - conspiracy mongers do like to quibble, don't they?) none of the Tippit witnesses recanted and none admitted to anything like Don and other critics suggest.Mrs. Markham kept insisting that the gunman ran down the alley off Patton, in later interviews.
It doesn't work that way.
affidavit reinforces this: She says there that she didn't see the gunman until he was on Patton. She seemed uncomfortably aware that their call was a little late for what it was supposed to be--she kept insisting, in her testimony, that they called theYou were assuming that I was assuming, when the finger is actually pointing at you....Okay, granting that for the sake of argument (but you again don't cite for it and apparently expect us to just take your word for it), how does that establish that Markham was accurate in her recollection?
You're assuming it wasn't an error. You are looking at one witness in isolationNo. The police radio logs indicate that the Davises called the dispatcher 1-2 minutes after the first call from a resident on 10th, which indicates that they saw him a bit later than they testified--running down Patton, not 10th. And Virginia D's
, and attempting to rejigger the murder of Tippit so that Oswald comes out framed, by selecting a tidbit from here, a mis-statement from there, a re-interpretation of a statement from somewhere else...police that he last saw the guy headed.) In fact, that footage is better than a recantation.
Huh? You need to be told that McW recanted? Common knowledge, Hank.Again you cite for neither assertion you makeIt's got everything to do with the broader subject of witness lineup IDs. The McW case shows that the IDs are as problematic as their testimony.Don ignored this point.McWatters recanted on his ID of Oswald in the lineup. Then, yes, later, in his testimony, he recanted on his recantation!He was the bus driver, wasn't he? What's that got to do with the Tippit shooting?
, nor do you show how McWatters testimony about who rode his bus taints the lineups shown the witnesses of the Tippit murder and its immediate aftermath.
Again, jumping to concussions. Just shows that lineup IDs can be problematic.
Same-day TV footage showed that Warren Reynolds changed his story for the Commission, where he testified that he last saw the guy headed for the parking lot. (The footage shows him before one of the two old houses, where he was telling
With Malice.Ah! Time for you to go into your "fallacy" mode... It took me several postings to convince Bud--some years back--that Reynolds was telling police that the guy ran into one of the old houses--one of the convincers was a clip from news footage, inIf there was ever a perp there at all.Didn't the police search those old houses and find nothing suspicious?Yeah--15 minutes or so after the guy would have left. You think perps are going to hang around for the police?
yes, it is a fallacy to assume what you need to prove.I proved it to Bud's satisfaction. Talk to him about it.
It's called Begging the Question. And you are clearly assuming it, and imbedding it into your point with the argument "You think perps are going to hang around for the police?"
was therefore as much evidence of unicorns acting as spotters as there was for a shooter in the Dal-Tex building. He didn't get the point. I doubt you will.This is akin to another CT's assertion that there were shots from the Dal-Tex Building. When asked for the evidence of this other weapon, he argued the building was never searched, so of course he couldn't provide any evidence! I pointed out there
so.Once more you are assuming what you need to prove and imbedding that assumption in your argument as a given. That’s the logical fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION. I’ve asked you to stop committing these logical fallacies but you just keep doing
I see I already explained this to you. But you persisted in the fallacy.
It seems that way to you because you misinterpreted my use of the Fritz quote.There's nothing above that explains this.SEE ABOVEExplain why killing Tippit was necessary to frame Oswald for a crime of killing Kennedy. You are alleging Oswald was framed for killing Tippit.Both were necessary to the villains.Do you disagree?At this point it looks from here more like the purpose of the plot was to frame Oswald, and the killing of Kennedy was merely incidental to that frame-up.
It seems that way...There's nothing above that explains this.Explain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.SEE ABOVE.
dcw
Hank failed to address this post. And he's always saying I ignore him...
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 2:51:29 PM UTC-7, donald willis wrote:15pm (p383). The dispatchers then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 > E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57).
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 2:16:56 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:First, let's put back everything you cut. It's pertinent to the questions I asked:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 7:16:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 1:17:46 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 12:21:19 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 12:56:24 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 11:59:48 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 5:53:40 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:45:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 12:56:48 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 6:15:30 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, > 1:
We saw the boy cutting across the street"You wrote this...What's silly about showing that Myers omits only the dispatcher's response to the Davis call, which response came about 2 minutes after his response to the Wright call? I guess it's like Kryptonite to both of you superboys....I didn`t care about your ideas at all, which is why I didn`t respond to your silly game playing. I objected to Gil`s idea that your silly game playing reflected poorly on us.Sometimes all it takes is a word or a few words--remember "Z", which was based on fact: the phrase "lithe like a tiger" gave it all away.So Willis decides to take one word of context (from a witness he ignores 97% of the information she related) and somehow this reflects poorly on us?Wright address, on the police radio, in his text (pp104-105), he omits the only, belated mention of the Davis address.That's what these Warren Commission supporters do.
They only tell you what they want you to know. They NEVER tell you the whole story.
It's called deception by omission.
"She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her affidavit into even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"
support your conclusion (there was a coverup).This is silly game playing not worthy of a response.
No, that’s still the logical fallacy of begging the question with a large dash of circular reasoning. HereAnd, as noted above, with Bud, it was a very good cover-up, hence the small but significant chinks in its armor.I would phrase it as “grasping at straws”.From her affidavit...That one word "street" reinforces Virginia Davis' statement in her original affidavit that she was at the side door on Patton.dcw
"I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."
"Yard", not "street".
The gunman was then not in the yard,From her affidavit...
"I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."
She said Oswald was in the yard.
but further away, too far for an accurate ID, and nowhere near where the spent shells were supposed to have been found, near the walk & window on the side.You are playing silly games, Don.
you simply use the conclusion (it was a very good coverup) to support the premise (your interpretation of the discrepancies in testimony). Originally, you were using the premise (your interpretation of the discrepancies in testimony) to
each clearly said into something none of them said.Please read up on circular reasoning and try to eliminate it from your arguments.
Your argument is fallacious.
(”The idiom 'grasping at straws' is used to mean an attempt to succeed—such as in an argument, debate or attempt at a solution—when nothing you choose is likely to work.”)
The affidavit was on the afternoon of 11/22/63, within a few hours of Tippit’s murder. Let’s call it three hours later.
Let's call these three hours one unit of time, thus there are eight such units per day (3 hours x 8 = 24).
Her testimony was on April 2nd, 1964 - 132 days later. Or more than 1056 such units unitsof time (8 x 132 = 1056).
Those are not the only choices. You are utilizing the logical fallacy of a false dilemma.Which is more likely to be accurate, her memory from one unit of time later, or her memory from over a thousand units of time later?Take your pick--the Virginia Davis of "side door on Patton" (affidavit), or the Virginia Davis of "saw him crossing the STREET" (testimony).
In the affidavit, for example, she said “I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun.” You ignored this.
In her testimony, she said “Then we heard the second shot and that is when we ran to the front door.”
Don ignored this point.So please tell us how you determined which version is correct. You appear to be starting with the idea that a coverup existed, and interpreting all those statements through that coverup lens.
Don asserts - without evidence - the Tippit witnesses were all lying in their signed affidavits on the afternoon of the assassination, and then plucks a word or a phrase out of their testimony or affidavit to attempt to turn what they
across my front yard unloading a gun. A woman was standing across the street screaming that "he shot him, he killed him" and pointed towards a police car. That is the first time I noticed a police car there. I ran back in the house and called theBarb Davis affidavit from the day of the shooting: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htmUnfortunately for you and JC, the Davises testified that they couldn't see the guy after he went around the corner of the front yard. So they couldn't have seen him cross ANY street.You tell me how the word "street" got into her testimony. It doesn't fit. Unless she means "crossing Patton", as in her affidavit. What other street would the guy be crossing?She also says “yard” in her affidavit and testimony.
The gunman had to cross her yard before he crossed the street.
== quote ==
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Barbara Jeanette Davis w/f/22, 400 E. 10th, WH3 8120. Bus: same who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Today November 22, 1963 shortly after 1:00 pm, my sister-in-law, Virginia Davis, and I were lying on the bed with the kids. I heard a shot and jumped up and heard another shot. I put on my shoes and went to the door and I saw this man walking
/s/ Barbara Jeanette Davis
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Mary Rattan
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== unquote ==
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". This woman told Jeanette to call the Police and she did [sic]. I saw the officerVirginia Davis affidavit: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
== quote ==
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Mrs. Virginia Davis, w/m/16 [sic], of 400 E. 10th WH-3-8120 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Today November 22, 1963 about 1:30 pm my sister-in-law and myself were lying down in our apartment. My sister-in-law is Jeanette Davis, we live in the same house in different apartments. We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to the side
/s/ Mrs. Virginia Davis
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Patsy Collins
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== unquote ==
for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?You ignored all the above.
Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him
simply assume it is an either/or situation, and artificially ignore the possibility of both occurring.Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
"I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
Actually, it was not so intended. You're jumping to conclusions. As I quoted, he just said "prepare" not, say, "invent".Thank you, Willy. You'll make Hank very happy.Sorry, no. Your *interpretation* of this statement is that Fritz was instructing his officers to frame Oswald for the murder of of a fellow police officer.
My *interpretation* of this statement is that Fritz was instructing his officers to gather the evidence that Oswald shot Tippit.
Note the wording: "I instructed my officers to *prepare a real good case* on the officer's killing" ... Not "I instructed my officers to *frame Oswald* on the officer's killing".
Your quote doesn't say what you need it to say. You merely take the quote out of context and pretend it does to justify your belief that Oswald was framed. It doesn't say that.And I didn't say or imply that.
And as always, you leave unanswered questions in the wake of your interpretation, like
A. Why would Fritz want to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and let the real cop killer go free?
B. Why would Fritz think every officer under his command would accede to his wishes (as your interpretation argues) to frame an innocent man and let J.D.Tippit's real killer go free? And do this in the first hours after the murder of Tippit?
An extraordinary explanation demands extraordinary evidence. Not simply a unique *interpretation* of a clear instruction to build a solid case.
Your *interpretations* of the evidence are not evidence.All the foregoing by Hank is based on a false, inferred premise.
Since other witnesses claim the gunman discarded the shells from a revolver as he crossed the yard, it makes more sense to understand she simply spoke of witnessing both him crossing yard and then the street. But you need a conflict, so you
temporally, of his testimony.Reading their affidavits and testimony, one story emerges: a young, slender white male shot Tippit and emptied and reloaded his revolver as he walked away, discarding the shells as he did so.
I'll leave it to you to sort out the >>>>s...And you still don't explain it!A point lost in a thicket of >>>>,,,Don ignored this point.A false tale, as Virginia's affidavit shows.You need do more than simply allege this, based on your interpretation of her claims.
You are begging the question and using circular reasoning here once more.
Hilarious!
The discarded shells in evidence match the gun linked to Oswald through paperwork, that was wrested from his hand in the movie theatre after he slugged Officer McDonald.
Pretty damning evidence.
I say "supposedly" because Sgt Hill later said that Benavides didn't handle any shells. And it took some 4 months for Benavides, in his testimony, to say that he did see the perp drop shells and that he did pick them up. Problems on both sides,Don ignored this point.If you believe in shells initially handled by civilians, supposedly,Yes, civilians reported finding shells in the yard. So?
them my story unless they give me something. Callaway claimed that Benavides ended up with a new Pontiac Firebird, half of which was paid for by CBS." (With Malice pp220-221)Again, your *interpretation* of this alleged conflict is that Hill (who was supposedly instructed by Fritz to frame Oswald, according to your *interpretation* of Fritz's words aboveYou started off on the wrong foot with your assumed "interpretations", then you run the whole race on the wrong foot.
), didn't do that, and helped reveal the frame-up, but only to you. You neither quote Hill's words
"Benavides pointed [the shells] out to us [Hill & Poe], but he didn't handle the shells" (Hill, in a 1986 interview with Dale Myers. With Malice, p259).
nor provide a link to them. Alleging things is not the same as establishing them. You also appear to suggest, based on nothing whatsoever, that Benavides lied in his testimony.
Again, jumping to conclusions. "In a 1996 interview, Ted Callaway said that Benavides came to the used car lot the day after the shooting & confided that he hadn't actually seen the gunman.... He told me, he said 'I ain't gonna go down there & tell
cigarettes I had and picked them up with a little stick and put them in this cigarette package; a chrome looking shell.So, did Callaway lie or did Benavides?
Hill's testimony is here: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/hill_gl.htmOoh, again a nice quote, but (as you see) irrelevant.
He mentions "Benavides" not at all.
Even if you provide a legitimate source for Hill's claim, you need to do more: You need to establish that Hill's hearsay assertion is accurate (How would Hill know whether Benavides handled any shells?)Hill. in that same interview, said he was there when the shells were picked up.
, and Benavides testimony is false. You are currently simply assuming both of these.
Poe testified that Benavides provided the shells to him (Poe): https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/poe.htm
== quote ==
Mr. POE. I talked to a Spanish man, but I don't remember his name. Dominique, I believe.
Mr. BALL. Domingo Benavides?
Mr. POE. I believe that is correct; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did he tell you?
Mr. POE. He told me, give me the same, or similar description of the man, and told me he was running out across this lawn. He was unloading his pistol as he ran, and he picked the shells up.
Mr. BALL. Domingo told you who was running across the lawn?
Mr. POE. A man, white man.
Mr. BALL. What was he doing?
Mr. POE. He was unloading his pistol as he run.
Mr. BALL. And what did he say?
Mr. POE. He said he picked the two hulls up.
Mr. BALL. Did he hand you the hulls?
Mr. POE. Yes, sir.
== unquote ==
Benavides testified to it this way: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/benavide.htm
== quote ==
Mr. BELIN - Now you saw him throw two shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - You saw where he threw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Did you later go back in that area and try and find the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes. Well, right after that I went back and I knew exactly where they was at, and I went over and picked up one in my hand, not thinking and I dropped it, that maybe they want fingerprints off it, so I took out an empty pack of
interviewers that she saw the suspect run into the alley....Myers' timetable: "Mrs. Mary Wright and Barbara Davis phone police from their homes." (at 1:15:40) WM p383
Mr. BELIN - When you put these two shells that you found in this cigarette package, what did you do with them?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I gave them to an officer.
Mr. BELIN - That came out to the scene shortly after?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember the name of the officer?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No, sir; I didn't even ask him. I just told him that this was the shells that he had fired, and I handed them to him.
== unquote ==
How quickly might you think someone might think to look up the number of the Dallas Police in their phone book and dial their rotary phone?1) According to the police radio logs, the Davises called the dispatcher about a minute AFTER the first witness called from the scene. (Myers avoided the issue of this delayed response by not including it in his timeline.)Don ignored this point.and falsely witnessed by the Davises.Another unproven allegation by you.
Moreover, this is another unproven allegation by you. You neither cite the police radio logs to establish when the first witness called from the scene(Of course the first witness to call from the scene was TF Bowley, but from Tippit's radio, not from a residence.)
, nor establish when the Davis' call was made.
Mary Wright's address, 501 E. 10th, is broadcast 3 times at 1:19 (CE 1974, pp54-55); the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is cited about 1:21 (CE 1974 p57). You won't find a record of that in Myers....
You want citations, you get them. But it takes time to find them, so I'll have to break off here...
dcw
You really need to step up your game. Your *interpretations* of the evidence are not evidence.
2) Both Davises testified that they first saw the perp when Mrs. Markham started shouting about him. Mrs. M testified that she did not start shouting UNTIL the perp was running down Patton! Again, "falsely witnessed".Barbara Davis' affidavit: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm
She was lying on the evening of the assassination to frame Oswald?
BD was more than happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and even pick the poor schmuck out of a lineup to help frame him? And she never had a change of heart and came forward to say otherwise?
Ditto with Virginia Davis? https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
She was lying on the evening of the assassination to frame Oswald?
VD was more than happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and even pick the poor schmuck out of a lineup to help frame him? And she never had a change of heart and came forward to say otherwise?
Your claims are contrary to the evidence.
And you still don't explain it!Again, point lost in a thicket of >>>>Don ignored this point.Did I summarize your beliefs correctly here? You didn't quibble over this, so it appears I did.To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.
Hilarious!
As it happen, No. The initial crime scene sketch of the 10th/Patton area notes that the perp went "W on all(e)y to Crawford". The sketch was drawn by Sgt. Barnes, who mentioned only one witness in his WC testimony--Mrs M. And Mrs. M later toldYou’re assuming it was as well, an error where she inadvertently stated the truth and revealed the coverup. Aren’t you?Who the fuck said it was an error? You're assuming.People are human. Everyone makes mistakes. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to throw out everything she said based on one error.Moreover, in the 60 years since the murder (ok, minus a few months - conspiracy mongers do like to quibble, don't they?) none of the Tippit witnesses recanted and none admitted to anything like Don and other critics suggest.Mrs. Markham kept insisting that the gunman ran down the alley off Patton, in later interviews.
It doesn't work that way.
statement from somewhere else...You were assuming that I was assuming, when the finger is actually pointing at you....Okay, granting that for the sake of argument (but you again don't cite for it and apparently expect us to just take your word for it), how does that establish that Markham was accurate in her recollection?
You're assuming it wasn't an error. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to rejigger the murder of Tippit so that Oswald comes out framed, by selecting a tidbit from here, a mis-statement from there, a re-interpretation of a
police that he last saw the guy headed.) In fact, that footage is better than a recantation.Again you cite for neither assertion you make, nor do you show how McWatters testimony about who rode his bus taints the lineups shown the witnesses of the Tippit murder and its immediate aftermath.It's got everything to do with the broader subject of witness lineup IDs. The McW case shows that the IDs are as problematic as their testimony.Don ignored this point.McWatters recanted on his ID of Oswald in the lineup. Then, yes, later, in his testimony, he recanted on his recantation!He was the bus driver, wasn't he? What's that got to do with the Tippit shooting?
Same-day TV footage showed that Warren Reynolds changed his story for the Commission, where he testified that he last saw the guy headed for the parking lot. (The footage shows him before one of the two old houses, where he was telling
With Malice.Ah! Time for you to go into your "fallacy" mode... It took me several postings to convince Bud--some years back--that Reynolds was telling police that the guy ran into one of the old houses--one of the convincers was a clip from news footage, inIf there was ever a perp there at all.Didn't the police search those old houses and find nothing suspicious?Yeah--15 minutes or so after the guy would have left. You think perps are going to hang around for the police?
was therefore as much evidence of unicorns acting as spotters as there was for a shooter in the Dal-Tex building. He didn't get the point. I doubt you will.yes, it is a fallacy to assume what you need to prove. It's called Begging the Question. And you are clearly assuming it, and imbedding it into your point with the argument "You think perps are going to hang around for the police?"
This is akin to another CT's assertion that there were shots from the Dal-Tex Building. When asked for the evidence of this other weapon, he argued the building was never searched, so of course he couldn't provide any evidence! I pointed out there
doing so.Once more you are assuming what you need to prove and imbedding that assumption in your argument as a given. That’s the logical fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION. I’ve asked you to stop committing these logical fallacies but you just keep
I see I already explained this to you. But you persisted in the fallacy.
There's nothing above that explains this.SEE ABOVEExplain why killing Tippit was necessary to frame Oswald for a crime of killing Kennedy. You are alleging Oswald was framed for killing Tippit.Both were necessary to the villains.Do you disagree?At this point it looks from here more like the purpose of the plot was to frame Oswald, and the killing of Kennedy was merely incidental to that frame-up.
There's nothing above that explains this.Explain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.SEE ABOVE.
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 2:16:56 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:15pm (p383). The dispatchers then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 > E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57).
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:First, let's put back everything you cut. It's pertinent to the questions I asked:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 7:16:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 1:17:46 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 12:21:19 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 12:56:24 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 11:59:48 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 5:53:40 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:45:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 12:56:48 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 6:15:30 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, > 1:
We saw the boy cutting across the street"You wrote this...What's silly about showing that Myers omits only the dispatcher's response to the Davis call, which response came about 2 minutes after his response to the Wright call? I guess it's like Kryptonite to both of you superboys....I didn`t care about your ideas at all, which is why I didn`t respond to your silly game playing. I objected to Gil`s idea that your silly game playing reflected poorly on us.Sometimes all it takes is a word or a few words--remember "Z", which was based on fact: the phrase "lithe like a tiger" gave it all away.So Willis decides to take one word of context (from a witness he ignores 97% of the information she related) and somehow this reflects poorly on us?Wright address, on the police radio, in his text (pp104-105), he omits the only, belated mention of the Davis address.That's what these Warren Commission supporters do.
They only tell you what they want you to know. They NEVER tell you the whole story.
It's called deception by omission.
"She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her affidavit into even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"
your conclusion (there was a coverup).This is silly game playing not worthy of a response.
No, that’s still the logical fallacy of begging the question with a large dash of circular reasoning. HereAnd, as noted above, with Bud, it was a very good cover-up, hence the small but significant chinks in its armor.I would phrase it as “grasping at straws”.From her affidavit...That one word "street" reinforces Virginia Davis' statement in her original affidavit that she was at the side door on Patton.dcw
"I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."
"Yard", not "street".
The gunman was then not in the yard,From her affidavit...
"I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."
She said Oswald was in the yard.
but further away, too far for an accurate ID, and nowhere near where the spent shells were supposed to have been found, near the walk & window on the side.You are playing silly games, Don.
you simply use the conclusion (it was a very good coverup) to support the premise (your interpretation of the discrepancies in testimony). Originally, you were using the premise (your interpretation of the discrepancies in testimony) to support
clearly said into something none of them said.Please read up on circular reasoning and try to eliminate it from your arguments.
Your argument is fallacious.
(”The idiom 'grasping at straws' is used to mean an attempt to succeed—such as in an argument, debate or attempt at a solution—when nothing you choose is likely to work.”)
The affidavit was on the afternoon of 11/22/63, within a few hours of Tippit’s murder. Let’s call it three hours later.
Let's call these three hours one unit of time, thus there are eight such units per day (3 hours x 8 = 24).
Her testimony was on April 2nd, 1964 - 132 days later. Or more than 1056 such units unitsof time (8 x 132 = 1056).
Those are not the only choices. You are utilizing the logical fallacy of a false dilemma.Which is more likely to be accurate, her memory from one unit of time later, or her memory from over a thousand units of time later?Take your pick--the Virginia Davis of "side door on Patton" (affidavit), or the Virginia Davis of "saw him crossing the STREET" (testimony).
In the affidavit, for example, she said “I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun.” You ignored this.
In her testimony, she said “Then we heard the second shot and that is when we ran to the front door.”
Don ignored this point.So please tell us how you determined which version is correct. You appear to be starting with the idea that a coverup existed, and interpreting all those statements through that coverup lens.
Don asserts - without evidence - the Tippit witnesses were all lying in their signed affidavits on the afternoon of the assassination, and then plucks a word or a phrase out of their testimony or affidavit to attempt to turn what they each
across my front yard unloading a gun. A woman was standing across the street screaming that "he shot him, he killed him" and pointed towards a police car. That is the first time I noticed a police car there. I ran back in the house and called theBarb Davis affidavit from the day of the shooting: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htmUnfortunately for you and JC, the Davises testified that they couldn't see the guy after he went around the corner of the front yard. So they couldn't have seen him cross ANY street.You tell me how the word "street" got into her testimony. It doesn't fit. Unless she means "crossing Patton", as in her affidavit. What other street would the guy be crossing?She also says “yard” in her affidavit and testimony.
The gunman had to cross her yard before he crossed the street.
== quote ==
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Barbara Jeanette Davis w/f/22, 400 E. 10th, WH3 8120. Bus: same who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Today November 22, 1963 shortly after 1:00 pm, my sister-in-law, Virginia Davis, and I were lying on the bed with the kids. I heard a shot and jumped up and heard another shot. I put on my shoes and went to the door and I saw this man walking
/s/ Barbara Jeanette Davis
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Mary Rattan
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== unquote ==
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". This woman told Jeanette to call the Police and she did [sic]. I saw the officerVirginia Davis affidavit: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
== quote ==
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Mrs. Virginia Davis, w/m/16 [sic], of 400 E. 10th WH-3-8120 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Today November 22, 1963 about 1:30 pm my sister-in-law and myself were lying down in our apartment. My sister-in-law is Jeanette Davis, we live in the same house in different apartments. We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to the side
/s/ Mrs. Virginia Davis
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Patsy Collins
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== unquote ==
(see above) the issue here--crossing a street. But I did say "testified"--the two agreed with each other in their testimony, that they went to the *front* door and could not see the guy after he rounded the corner of the house. So I'm not sure whatYou ignored all the above.And you fail to note that the affidavits contradict each other. Barbara D says that she went to the front door. Virginia D says that she went to the side door. Now of course if you go with Virginia D, she could have seen the man cross Patton--which was
dcw Gotta run. Back later.the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him for
simply assume it is an either/or situation, and artificially ignore the possibility of both occurring.Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
"I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
Thank you, Willy. You'll make Hank very happy.Sorry, no. Your *interpretation* of this statement is that Fritz was instructing his officers to frame Oswald for the murder of of a fellow police officer.
My *interpretation* of this statement is that Fritz was instructing his officers to gather the evidence that Oswald shot Tippit.
Note the wording: "I instructed my officers to *prepare a real good case* on the officer's killing" ... Not "I instructed my officers to *frame Oswald* on the officer's killing".
Your quote doesn't say what you need it to say. You merely take the quote out of context and pretend it does to justify your belief that Oswald was framed. It doesn't say that.
And as always, you leave unanswered questions in the wake of your interpretation, like
A. Why would Fritz want to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and let the real cop killer go free?
B. Why would Fritz think every officer under his command would accede to his wishes (as your interpretation argues) to frame an innocent man and let J.D.Tippit's real killer go free? And do this in the first hours after the murder of Tippit?
An extraordinary explanation demands extraordinary evidence. Not simply a unique *interpretation* of a clear instruction to build a solid case.
Your *interpretations* of the evidence are not evidence.
Since other witnesses claim the gunman discarded the shells from a revolver as he crossed the yard, it makes more sense to understand she simply spoke of witnessing both him crossing yard and then the street. But you need a conflict, so you
temporally, of his testimony.Reading their affidavits and testimony, one story emerges: a young, slender white male shot Tippit and emptied and reloaded his revolver as he walked away, discarding the shells as he did so.
And you still don't explain it!A point lost in a thicket of >>>>,,,Don ignored this point.A false tale, as Virginia's affidavit shows.You need do more than simply allege this, based on your interpretation of her claims.
You are begging the question and using circular reasoning here once more.
Hilarious!
The discarded shells in evidence match the gun linked to Oswald through paperwork, that was wrested from his hand in the movie theatre after he slugged Officer McDonald.
Pretty damning evidence.
I say "supposedly" because Sgt Hill later said that Benavides didn't handle any shells. And it took some 4 months for Benavides, in his testimony, to say that he did see the perp drop shells and that he did pick them up. Problems on both sides,Don ignored this point.If you believe in shells initially handled by civilians, supposedly,Yes, civilians reported finding shells in the yard. So?
You neither quote Hill's words nor provide a link to them. Alleging things is not the same as establishing them. You also appear to suggest, based on nothing whatsoever, that Benavides lied in his testimony.Again, your *interpretation* of this alleged conflict is that Hill (who was supposedly instructed by Fritz to frame Oswald, according to your *interpretation* of Fritz's words above), didn't do that, and helped reveal the frame-up, but only to you.
currently simply assuming both of these.Hill's testimony is here: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/hill_gl.htm
He mentions "Benavides" not at all.
Even if you provide a legitimate source for Hill's claim, you need to do more: You need to establish that Hill's hearsay assertion is accurate (How would Hill know whether Benavides handled any shells?), and Benavides testimony is false. You are
cigarettes I had and picked them up with a little stick and put them in this cigarette package; a chrome looking shell.Poe testified that Benavides provided the shells to him (Poe): https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/poe.htm
== quote ==
Mr. POE. I talked to a Spanish man, but I don't remember his name. Dominique, I believe.
Mr. BALL. Domingo Benavides?
Mr. POE. I believe that is correct; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did he tell you?
Mr. POE. He told me, give me the same, or similar description of the man, and told me he was running out across this lawn. He was unloading his pistol as he ran, and he picked the shells up.
Mr. BALL. Domingo told you who was running across the lawn?
Mr. POE. A man, white man.
Mr. BALL. What was he doing?
Mr. POE. He was unloading his pistol as he run.
Mr. BALL. And what did he say?
Mr. POE. He said he picked the two hulls up.
Mr. BALL. Did he hand you the hulls?
Mr. POE. Yes, sir.
== unquote ==
Benavides testified to it this way: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/benavide.htm
== quote ==
Mr. BELIN - Now you saw him throw two shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - You saw where he threw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Did you later go back in that area and try and find the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes. Well, right after that I went back and I knew exactly where they was at, and I went over and picked up one in my hand, not thinking and I dropped it, that maybe they want fingerprints off it, so I took out an empty pack of
interviewers that she saw the suspect run into the alley....
Mr. BELIN - When you put these two shells that you found in this cigarette package, what did you do with them?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I gave them to an officer.
Mr. BELIN - That came out to the scene shortly after?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember the name of the officer?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No, sir; I didn't even ask him. I just told him that this was the shells that he had fired, and I handed them to him.
== unquote ==
How quickly might you think someone might think to look up the number of the Dallas Police in their phone book and dial their rotary phone?1) According to the police radio logs, the Davises called the dispatcher about a minute AFTER the first witness called from the scene. (Myers avoided the issue of this delayed response by not including it in his timeline.)Don ignored this point.and falsely witnessed by the Davises.Another unproven allegation by you.
Moreover, this is another unproven allegation by you. You neither cite the police radio logs to establish when the first witness called from the scene, nor establish when the Davis' call was made.
You really need to step up your game. Your *interpretations* of the evidence are not evidence.
2) Both Davises testified that they first saw the perp when Mrs. Markham started shouting about him. Mrs. M testified that she did not start shouting UNTIL the perp was running down Patton! Again, "falsely witnessed".Barbara Davis' affidavit: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm
She was lying on the evening of the assassination to frame Oswald?
BD was more than happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and even pick the poor schmuck out of a lineup to help frame him? And she never had a change of heart and came forward to say otherwise?
Ditto with Virginia Davis? https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
She was lying on the evening of the assassination to frame Oswald?
VD was more than happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and even pick the poor schmuck out of a lineup to help frame him? And she never had a change of heart and came forward to say otherwise?
Your claims are contrary to the evidence.
And you still don't explain it!Again, point lost in a thicket of >>>>Don ignored this point.Did I summarize your beliefs correctly here? You didn't quibble over this, so it appears I did.To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.
Hilarious!
As it happen, No. The initial crime scene sketch of the 10th/Patton area notes that the perp went "W on all(e)y to Crawford". The sketch was drawn by Sgt. Barnes, who mentioned only one witness in his WC testimony--Mrs M. And Mrs. M later toldYou’re assuming it was as well, an error where she inadvertently stated the truth and revealed the coverup. Aren’t you?Who the fuck said it was an error? You're assuming.People are human. Everyone makes mistakes. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to throw out everything she said based on one error.Moreover, in the 60 years since the murder (ok, minus a few months - conspiracy mongers do like to quibble, don't they?) none of the Tippit witnesses recanted and none admitted to anything like Don and other critics suggest.Mrs. Markham kept insisting that the gunman ran down the alley off Patton, in later interviews.
It doesn't work that way.
statement from somewhere else...You were assuming that I was assuming, when the finger is actually pointing at you....Okay, granting that for the sake of argument (but you again don't cite for it and apparently expect us to just take your word for it), how does that establish that Markham was accurate in her recollection?
You're assuming it wasn't an error. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to rejigger the murder of Tippit so that Oswald comes out framed, by selecting a tidbit from here, a mis-statement from there, a re-interpretation of a
police that he last saw the guy headed.) In fact, that footage is better than a recantation.Again you cite for neither assertion you make, nor do you show how McWatters testimony about who rode his bus taints the lineups shown the witnesses of the Tippit murder and its immediate aftermath.It's got everything to do with the broader subject of witness lineup IDs. The McW case shows that the IDs are as problematic as their testimony.Don ignored this point.McWatters recanted on his ID of Oswald in the lineup. Then, yes, later, in his testimony, he recanted on his recantation!He was the bus driver, wasn't he? What's that got to do with the Tippit shooting?
Same-day TV footage showed that Warren Reynolds changed his story for the Commission, where he testified that he last saw the guy headed for the parking lot. (The footage shows him before one of the two old houses, where he was telling
With Malice.Ah! Time for you to go into your "fallacy" mode... It took me several postings to convince Bud--some years back--that Reynolds was telling police that the guy ran into one of the old houses--one of the convincers was a clip from news footage, inIf there was ever a perp there at all.Didn't the police search those old houses and find nothing suspicious?Yeah--15 minutes or so after the guy would have left. You think perps are going to hang around for the police?
was therefore as much evidence of unicorns acting as spotters as there was for a shooter in the Dal-Tex building. He didn't get the point. I doubt you will.yes, it is a fallacy to assume what you need to prove. It's called Begging the Question. And you are clearly assuming it, and imbedding it into your point with the argument "You think perps are going to hang around for the police?"
This is akin to another CT's assertion that there were shots from the Dal-Tex Building. When asked for the evidence of this other weapon, he argued the building was never searched, so of course he couldn't provide any evidence! I pointed out there
so.Once more you are assuming what you need to prove and imbedding that assumption in your argument as a given. That’s the logical fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION. I’ve asked you to stop committing these logical fallacies but you just keep doing
I see I already explained this to you. But you persisted in the fallacy.
There's nothing above that explains this.SEE ABOVEExplain why killing Tippit was necessary to frame Oswald for a crime of killing Kennedy. You are alleging Oswald was framed for killing Tippit.Both were necessary to the villains.Do you disagree?At this point it looks from here more like the purpose of the plot was to frame Oswald, and the killing of Kennedy was merely incidental to that frame-up.
There's nothing above that explains this.Explain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.SEE ABOVE.
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 9:14:30 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:15pm (p383). The dispatchers then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 > E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57).
Hank failed to address this post. And he's always saying I ignore him...Boy conspiracy folks are stupid. He didn`t make a commitment to respond to every post you make. He points out that when he does choose to engage you on one of your posts you ignore many of the points he makes.
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 2:51:29 PM UTC-7, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 2:16:56 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:First, let's put back everything you cut. It's pertinent to the questions I asked:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 7:16:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 1:17:46 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 12:21:19 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 12:56:24 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 11:59:48 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 5:53:40 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:45:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 12:56:48 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 6:15:30 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, > 1:
-"We saw the boy cutting across the street"You wrote this...What's silly about showing that Myers omits only the dispatcher's response to the Davis call, which response came about 2 minutes after his response to the Wright call? I guess it's like Kryptonite to both of you superboys....I didn`t care about your ideas at all, which is why I didn`t respond to your silly game playing. I objected to Gil`s idea that your silly game playing reflected poorly on us.Sometimes all it takes is a word or a few words--remember "Z", which was based on fact: the phrase "lithe like a tiger" gave it all away.So Willis decides to take one word of context (from a witness he ignores 97% of the information she related) and somehow this reflects poorly on us?Wright address, on the police radio, in his text (pp104-105), he omits the only, belated mention of the Davis address.That's what these Warren Commission supporters do.
They only tell you what they want you to know.
They NEVER tell you the whole story.
It's called deception by omission.
"She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her affidavit into even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony-
support your conclusion (there was a coverup).This is silly game playing not worthy of a response.
No, that’s still the logical fallacy of begging the question with a large dash of circular reasoning. HereAnd, as noted above, with Bud, it was a very good cover-up, hence the small but significant chinks in its armor.I would phrase it as “grasping at straws”.From her affidavit...That one word "street" reinforces Virginia Davis' statement in her original affidavit that she was at the side door on Patton.dcw
"I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."
"Yard", not "street".
The gunman was then not in the yard,From her affidavit...
"I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."
She said Oswald was in the yard.
but further away, too far for an accurate ID, and nowhere near where the spent shells were supposed to have been found, near the walk & window on the side.You are playing silly games, Don.
you simply use the conclusion (it was a very good coverup) to support the premise (your interpretation of the discrepancies in testimony). Originally, you were using the premise (your interpretation of the discrepancies in testimony) to
each clearly said into something none of them said.Please read up on circular reasoning and try to eliminate it from your arguments.
Your argument is fallacious.
(”The idiom 'grasping at straws' is used to mean an attempt to succeed—such as in an argument, debate or attempt at a solution—when nothing you choose is likely to work.”)
The affidavit was on the afternoon of 11/22/63, within a few hours of Tippit’s murder. Let’s call it three hours later.
Let's call these three hours one unit of time, thus there are eight such units per day (3 hours x 8 = 24).
Her testimony was on April 2nd, 1964 - 132 days later. Or more than 1056 such units unitsof time (8 x 132 = 1056).
Those are not the only choices. You are utilizing the logical fallacy of a false dilemma.Which is more likely to be accurate, her memory from one unit of time later, or her memory from over a thousand units of time later?Take your pick--the Virginia Davis of "side door on Patton" (affidavit), or the Virginia Davis of "saw him crossing the STREET" (testimony).
In the affidavit, for example, she said “I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun.” You ignored this.
In her testimony, she said “Then we heard the second shot and that is when we ran to the front door.”
Don ignored this point.So please tell us how you determined which version is correct. You appear to be starting with the idea that a coverup existed, and interpreting all those statements through that coverup lens.
Don asserts - without evidence - the Tippit witnesses were all lying in their signed affidavits on the afternoon of the assassination, and then plucks a word or a phrase out of their testimony or affidavit to attempt to turn what they
across my front yard unloading a gun. A woman was standing across the street screaming that "he shot him, he killed him" and pointed towards a police car. That is the first time I noticed a police car there. I ran back in the house and called theBarb Davis affidavit from the day of the shooting: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htmUnfortunately for you and JC, the Davises testified that they couldn't see the guy after he went around the corner of the front yard. So they couldn't have seen him cross ANY street.You tell me how the word "street" got into her testimony. It doesn't fit. Unless she means "crossing Patton", as in her affidavit. What other street would the guy be crossing?She also says “yard” in her affidavit and testimony.
The gunman had to cross her yard before he crossed the street.
== quote ==
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Barbara Jeanette Davis w/f/22, 400 E. 10th, WH3 8120. Bus: same who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Today November 22, 1963 shortly after 1:00 pm, my sister-in-law, Virginia Davis, and I were lying on the bed with the kids. I heard a shot and jumped up and heard another shot. I put on my shoes and went to the door and I saw this man walking
/s/ Barbara Jeanette Davis
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Mary Rattan
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== unquote ==
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". This woman told Jeanette to call the Police and she did [sic]. I saw the officerVirginia Davis affidavit: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
== quote ==
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Mrs. Virginia Davis, w/m/16 [sic], of 400 E. 10th WH-3-8120 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Today November 22, 1963 about 1:30 pm my sister-in-law and myself were lying down in our apartment. My sister-in-law is Jeanette Davis, we live in the same house in different apartments. We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to the side
/s/ Mrs. Virginia Davis
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Patsy Collins
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== unquote ==
for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?You ignored all the above.
Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him
you simply assume it is an either/or situation, and artificially ignore the possibility of both occurring.Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
"I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
Actually, it was not so intended. You're jumping to conclusions. As I quoted, he just said "prepare" not, say, "invent".Thank you, Willy. You'll make Hank very happy.Sorry, no. Your *interpretation* of this statement is that Fritz was instructing his officers to frame Oswald for the murder of of a fellow police officer.
My *interpretation* of this statement is that Fritz was instructing his officers to gather the evidence that Oswald shot Tippit.
Note the wording: "I instructed my officers to *prepare a real good case* on the officer's killing" ... Not "I instructed my officers to *frame Oswald* on the officer's killing".
Your quote doesn't say what you need it to say. You merely take the quote out of context and pretend it does to justify your belief that Oswald was framed. It doesn't say that.And I didn't say or imply that.
And as always, you leave unanswered questions in the wake of your interpretation, like
A. Why would Fritz want to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and let the real cop killer go free?
B. Why would Fritz think every officer under his command would accede to his wishes (as your interpretation argues) to frame an innocent man and let J.D.Tippit's real killer go free? And do this in the first hours after the murder of Tippit?
An extraordinary explanation demands extraordinary evidence. Not simply a unique *interpretation* of a clear instruction to build a solid case.
Your *interpretations* of the evidence are not evidence.All the foregoing by Hank is based on a false, inferred premise.
Since other witnesses claim the gunman discarded the shells from a revolver as he crossed the yard, it makes more sense to understand she simply spoke of witnessing both him crossing yard and then the street. But you need a conflict, so
temporally, of his testimony.Reading their affidavits and testimony, one story emerges: a young, slender white male shot Tippit and emptied and reloaded his revolver as he walked away, discarding the shells as he did so.
I'll leave it to you to sort out the >>>>s...And you still don't explain it!A point lost in a thicket of >>>>,,,Don ignored this point.A false tale, as Virginia's affidavit shows.You need do more than simply allege this, based on your interpretation of her claims.
You are begging the question and using circular reasoning here once more.
Hilarious!
The discarded shells in evidence match the gun linked to Oswald through paperwork, that was wrested from his hand in the movie theatre after he slugged Officer McDonald.
Pretty damning evidence.
I say "supposedly" because Sgt Hill later said that Benavides didn't handle any shells. And it took some 4 months for Benavides, in his testimony, to say that he did see the perp drop shells and that he did pick them up. Problems on both sides,Don ignored this point.If you believe in shells initially handled by civilians, supposedly,Yes, civilians reported finding shells in the yard. So?
them my story unless they give me something. Callaway claimed that Benavides ended up with a new Pontiac Firebird, half of which was paid for by CBS." (With Malice pp220-221)Again, your *interpretation* of this alleged conflict is that Hill (who was supposedly instructed by Fritz to frame Oswald, according to your *interpretation* of Fritz's words aboveYou started off on the wrong foot with your assumed "interpretations", then you run the whole race on the wrong foot.
), didn't do that, and helped reveal the frame-up, but only to you. You neither quote Hill's words
"Benavides pointed [the shells] out to us [Hill & Poe], but he didn't handle the shells" (Hill, in a 1986 interview with Dale Myers. With Malice, p259).
nor provide a link to them. Alleging things is not the same as establishing them. You also appear to suggest, based on nothing whatsoever, that Benavides lied in his testimony.
Again, jumping to conclusions. "In a 1996 interview, Ted Callaway said that Benavides came to the used car lot the day after the shooting & confided that he hadn't actually seen the gunman.... He told me, he said 'I ain't gonna go down there & tell
cigarettes I had and picked them up with a little stick and put them in this cigarette package; a chrome looking shell.So, did Callaway lie or did Benavides?
Hill's testimony is here: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/hill_gl.htmOoh, again a nice quote, but (as you see) irrelevant.
He mentions "Benavides" not at all.
Even if you provide a legitimate source for Hill's claim, you need to do more: You need to establish that Hill's hearsay assertion is accurate (How would Hill know whether Benavides handled any shells?)Hill. in that same interview, said he was there when the shells were picked up.
, and Benavides testimony is false. You are currently simply assuming both of these.
Poe testified that Benavides provided the shells to him (Poe): https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/poe.htm
== quote ==
Mr. POE. I talked to a Spanish man, but I don't remember his name. Dominique, I believe.
Mr. BALL. Domingo Benavides?
Mr. POE. I believe that is correct; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did he tell you?
Mr. POE. He told me, give me the same, or similar description of the man, and told me he was running out across this lawn. He was unloading his pistol as he ran, and he picked the shells up.
Mr. BALL. Domingo told you who was running across the lawn?
Mr. POE. A man, white man.
Mr. BALL. What was he doing?
Mr. POE. He was unloading his pistol as he run.
Mr. BALL. And what did he say?
Mr. POE. He said he picked the two hulls up.
Mr. BALL. Did he hand you the hulls?
Mr. POE. Yes, sir.
== unquote ==
Benavides testified to it this way: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/benavide.htm
== quote ==
Mr. BELIN - Now you saw him throw two shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - You saw where he threw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Did you later go back in that area and try and find the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes. Well, right after that I went back and I knew exactly where they was at, and I went over and picked up one in my hand, not thinking and I dropped it, that maybe they want fingerprints off it, so I took out an empty pack of
interviewers that she saw the suspect run into the alley....Myers' timetable: "Mrs. Mary Wright and Barbara Davis phone police from their homes." (at 1:15:40) WM p383
Mr. BELIN - When you put these two shells that you found in this cigarette package, what did you do with them?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I gave them to an officer.
Mr. BELIN - That came out to the scene shortly after?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember the name of the officer?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No, sir; I didn't even ask him. I just told him that this was the shells that he had fired, and I handed them to him.
== unquote ==
How quickly might you think someone might think to look up the number of the Dallas Police in their phone book and dial their rotary phone?1) According to the police radio logs, the Davises called the dispatcher about a minute AFTER the first witness called from the scene. (Myers avoided the issue of this delayed response by not including it in his timeline.)Don ignored this point.and falsely witnessed by the Davises.Another unproven allegation by you.
Moreover, this is another unproven allegation by you. You neither cite the police radio logs to establish when the first witness called from the scene(Of course the first witness to call from the scene was TF Bowley, but from Tippit's radio, not from a residence.)
, nor establish when the Davis' call was made.
Mary Wright's address, 501 E. 10th, is broadcast 3 times at 1:19 (CE 1974, pp54-55); the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is cited about 1:21 (CE 1974 p57). You won't find a record of that in Myers....
You want citations, you get them. But it takes time to find them, so I'll have to break off here...
dcw
You really need to step up your game. Your *interpretations* of the evidence are not evidence.
2) Both Davises testified that they first saw the perp when Mrs. Markham started shouting about him. Mrs. M testified that she did not start shouting UNTIL the perp was running down Patton! Again, "falsely witnessed".Barbara Davis' affidavit: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm
She was lying on the evening of the assassination to frame Oswald?
BD was more than happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and even pick the poor schmuck out of a lineup to help frame him? And she never had a change of heart and came forward to say otherwise?
Ditto with Virginia Davis? https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
She was lying on the evening of the assassination to frame Oswald?
VD was more than happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of a police officer and even pick the poor schmuck out of a lineup to help frame him? And she never had a change of heart and came forward to say otherwise?
Your claims are contrary to the evidence.
And you still don't explain it!Again, point lost in a thicket of >>>>Don ignored this point.Did I summarize your beliefs correctly here? You didn't quibble over this, so it appears I did.To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.
Hilarious!
As it happen, No. The initial crime scene sketch of the 10th/Patton area notes that the perp went "W on all(e)y to Crawford". The sketch was drawn by Sgt. Barnes, who mentioned only one witness in his WC testimony--Mrs M. And Mrs. M later toldYou’re assuming it was as well, an error where she inadvertently stated the truth and revealed the coverup. Aren’t you?Who the fuck said it was an error? You're assuming.People are human. Everyone makes mistakes. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to throw out everything she said based on one error.Moreover, in the 60 years since the murder (ok, minus a few months - conspiracy mongers do like to quibble, don't they?) none of the Tippit witnesses recanted and none admitted to anything like Don and other critics suggest.Mrs. Markham kept insisting that the gunman ran down the alley off Patton, in later interviews.
It doesn't work that way.
a statement from somewhere else...You were assuming that I was assuming, when the finger is actually pointing at you....Okay, granting that for the sake of argument (but you again don't cite for it and apparently expect us to just take your word for it), how does that establish that Markham was accurate in her recollection?
You're assuming it wasn't an error. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to rejigger the murder of Tippit so that Oswald comes out framed, by selecting a tidbit from here, a mis-statement from there, a re-interpretation of
police that he last saw the guy headed.) In fact, that footage is better than a recantation.Again you cite for neither assertion you make, nor do you show how McWatters testimony about who rode his bus taints the lineups shown the witnesses of the Tippit murder and its immediate aftermath.It's got everything to do with the broader subject of witness lineup IDs. The McW case shows that the IDs are as problematic as their testimony.Don ignored this point.McWatters recanted on his ID of Oswald in the lineup. Then, yes, later, in his testimony, he recanted on his recantation!He was the bus driver, wasn't he? What's that got to do with the Tippit shooting?
Same-day TV footage showed that Warren Reynolds changed his story for the Commission, where he testified that he last saw the guy headed for the parking lot. (The footage shows him before one of the two old houses, where he was telling
in With Malice.Ah! Time for you to go into your "fallacy" mode... It took me several postings to convince Bud--some years back--that Reynolds was telling police that the guy ran into one of the old houses--one of the convincers was a clip from news footage,If there was ever a perp there at all.Didn't the police search those old houses and find nothing suspicious?Yeah--15 minutes or so after the guy would have left. You think perps are going to hang around for the police?
there was therefore as much evidence of unicorns acting as spotters as there was for a shooter in the Dal-Tex building. He didn't get the point. I doubt you will.yes, it is a fallacy to assume what you need to prove. It's called Begging the Question. And you are clearly assuming it, and imbedding it into your point with the argument "You think perps are going to hang around for the police?"
This is akin to another CT's assertion that there were shots from the Dal-Tex Building. When asked for the evidence of this other weapon, he argued the building was never searched, so of course he couldn't provide any evidence! I pointed out
doing so.Once more you are assuming what you need to prove and imbedding that assumption in your argument as a given. That’s the logical fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION. I’ve asked you to stop committing these logical fallacies but you just keep
I see I already explained this to you. But you persisted in the fallacy.
There's nothing above that explains this.SEE ABOVEExplain why killing Tippit was necessary to frame Oswald for a crime of killing Kennedy. You are alleging Oswald was framed for killing Tippit.Both were necessary to the villains.Do you disagree?At this point it looks from here more like the purpose of the plot was to frame Oswald, and the killing of Kennedy was merely incidental to that frame-up.
There's nothing above that explains this.Explain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.SEE ABOVE.
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 9:14:30?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Hank failed to address this post. And he's always saying I ignore him...
Boy conspiracy folks are stupid.
He didn`t make a commitment to respond to every post you make..
He points out that when he does choose to engage you on one of your
posts you ignore many of the points he makes.
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 9:14:30 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Hank failed to address this post. And he's always saying I ignore him...Boy conspiracy folks are stupid. He didn`t make a commitment to respond to every post you make.
this.On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 2:51:29 PM UTC-7, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 2:16:56 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
There's nothing above that explains this. CUTExplain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.SEE ABOVE.
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 9:35:35 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 a CUTHank demands that you, well, not YOU, not Nutters, but he demands that those who disagree with him answer every single one of his multitude of Lame Ass Points, no matter how ridiculous they are. He should expect the same in return.
SEE ABOVEThere's nothing above that explains this.
There's nothing above that explains this.Explain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.SEE ABOVE.
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 18:35:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 9:14:30?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
Hank failed to address this post. And he's always saying I ignore him...
Boy conspiracy folks are stupid.Can you name this logical fallacy?
He didn`t make a commitment to respond to every post you make..
Irrelevant.
He points out that when he does choose to engage you on one of yourAnd Don just did THE EXACT SAME THING to Huckster, and you call him
posts you ignore many of the points he makes.
stupid for doing so.
Huckster isn't going to like the fact that you've labeled him
"stupid."
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 6:35:35 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 9:14:30 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:Ignoring the ad hominem... I went out of my way to answer his points.
Hank failed to address this post. And he's always saying I ignore him...Boy conspiracy folks are stupid. He didn`t make a commitment to respond to every post you make.
Seems ignoring HIS points is the way to go....
He points out that when he does choose to engage you on one of your posts you ignore many of the points he makes.
this.On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 2:51:29 PM UTC-7, donald willis wrote:
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 2:16:56 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
There's nothing above that explains this. CUTExplain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.SEE ABOVE.
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 7:01:13 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 9:35:35 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:But King Sienzant has royal privilege. All bow...
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 a CUTHank demands that you, well, not YOU, not Nutters, but he demands that those who disagree with him answer every single one of his multitude of Lame Ass Points, no matter how ridiculous they are. He should expect the same in return.
SEE ABOVEThere's nothing above that explains this.
There's nothing above that explains this.Explain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.SEE ABOVE.
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 12:03:22?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 7:01:13?PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 9:35:35?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
But King Sienzant has royal privilege. All bow...On Thursday, July 20, 2023 a CUTHank demands that you, well, not YOU, not Nutters, but he demands that those who disagree with him answer every single one of his multitude of Lame Ass Points, no matter how ridiculous they are. He should expect the same in return.
SEE ABOVEThere's nothing above that explains this.
There's nothing above that explains this.Explain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy. >>>>>>>> SEE ABOVE.
If Hank makes a point and you don`t respond, that means the point he made stands, and you had no counter. You continue as if the point was never made.
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 09:26:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 12:03:22?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 7:01:13?PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 9:35:35?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
But King Sienzant has royal privilege. All bow...On Thursday, July 20, 2023 a CUTHank demands that you, well, not YOU, not Nutters, but he demands that those who disagree with him answer every single one of his multitude of Lame Ass Points, no matter how ridiculous they are. He should expect the same in return.
SEE ABOVEThere's nothing above that explains this.
There's nothing above that explains this.Explain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.SEE ABOVE.
If Hank makes a point and you don`t respond, that means the point he made stands, and you had no counter. You continue as if the point was never made.Therefore, if Don makes a point, and Huckster runs away, that means
the point Don made stands, and Huckster, Chuckles, Corbutt, and you
had no counter. You continue as if the point was never made.
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 1:26:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 09:26:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 12:03:22?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 7:01:13?PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 9:35:35?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:But King Sienzant has royal privilege. All bow...
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 a CUTHank demands that you, well, not YOU, not Nutters, but he demands that those who disagree with him answer every single one of his multitude of Lame Ass Points, no matter how ridiculous they are. He should expect the same in return.
SEE ABOVEThere's nothing above that explains this.
There's nothing above that explains this.Explain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.SEE ABOVE.
Depends. If I`m in a "give and take" series of exchanges with Don and he makes a point I ignore, than yes, the point stands. If it has been previously addressed then repeating it doesn`t make it a new point.If Hank makes a point and you don`t respond, that means the point he made stands, and you had no counter. You continue as if the point was never made.Therefore, if Don makes a point, and Huckster runs away, that means
the point Don made stands, and Huckster, Chuckles, Corbutt, and you
had no counter. You continue as if the point was never made.
Of course sometimes I will drop in on a post to make a point or comment about one specific issue.
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 2:01:58 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 1:26:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 09:26:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 12:03:22?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 7:01:13?PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 9:35:35?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:But King Sienzant has royal privilege. All bow...
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 a CUTHank demands that you, well, not YOU, not Nutters, but he demands that those who disagree with him answer every single one of his multitude of Lame Ass Points, no matter how ridiculous they are. He should expect the same in return.
SEE ABOVEThere's nothing above that explains this.
There's nothing above that explains this.Explain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.SEE ABOVE.
Depends. If I`m in a "give and take" series of exchanges with Don and he makes a point I ignore, than yes, the point stands. If it has been previously addressed then repeating it doesn`t make it a new point.If Hank makes a point and you don`t respond, that means the point he made stands, and you had no counter. You continue as if the point was never made.Therefore, if Don makes a point, and Huckster runs away, that means
the point Don made stands, and Huckster, Chuckles, Corbutt, and you
had no counter. You continue as if the point was never made.
Of course sometimes I will drop in on a post to make a point or comment about one specific issue.It's so cute how the Little Retards make up rules for discussing shit they don't give a phuck about!
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 12:01:40?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 6:35:35?PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 9:14:30?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:Ignoring the ad hominem... I went out of my way to answer his points.
Hank failed to address this post. And he's always saying I ignore him... >>> Boy conspiracy folks are stupid. He didn`t make a commitment to respond to every post you make.
You are constantly ignoring the points he makes.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 125:45:33 |
| Calls: | 6,663 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,951 |