I've long known that WW Scoggins was with the police early in the day on the 22nd, and thus, if he'd seen the perp--as he said he did--he logically would have ID'd Oswald on the evening of the 22nd.

But there's also evidence right in fellow witness Domingo Benavides' testimony that he, too, for some reason, could have ID'd the suspect, but did not formally ID Oswald at a lineup, not just that day, but ever. He hemmed and hawed about reporters and
this & that:
"[The police] asked me if I could identify him, and I said I don't think I could. At this time I was sure, I wasn't sure that I could or not. I wasn't going to say I could identify and go down and couldn't have."

But other parts of his testimony indicate that he certainly could have identified the suspect. He was closer to him than was Mrs. Markham:
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you now, I would like to have you relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. BENAVIDES. As I saw him, I really---I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired, he had just turned. He was just turning away
(v6p449)

"I really got a good view of the man..." But did Benavides see his face?:
Mr. Benavides: I would say he is about your complexion, sir. Of course he looked, his skin looked a little bit ruddier than mine. (p451)

"Complexion"--Benavides, then, got a good view of his face. In the end, his explanations as to why he did not ID Oswald on Friday don't pass muster.

In the absence of a credible explanation from Benavides himself as to why he did not ID Oswald, we are left with the strong possibility that he did not ID him because Oswald was not the man that he saw. But of course the DPD could not accept that
ruinous (for them) explanation. Hence, Benavides' hem-and-haw act.

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 3:35:02 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

I've long known that WW Scoggins was with the police early in the day on the 22nd, and thus, if he'd seen the perp--as he said he did--he logically would have ID'd Oswald on the evening of the 22nd.

But there's also evidence right in fellow witness Domingo Benavides' testimony that he, too, for some reason, could have ID'd the suspect, but did not formally ID Oswald at a lineup, not just that day, but ever. He hemmed and hawed about reporters and

this & that:

"[The police] asked me if I could identify him, and I said I don't think I could. At this time I was sure, I wasn't sure that I could or not. I wasn't going to say I could identify and go down and couldn't have."

But other parts of his testimony indicate that he certainly could have identified the suspect. He was closer to him than was Mrs. Markham:
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you now, I would like to have you relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. BENAVIDES. As I saw him, I really---I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired, he had just turned. He was just turning away
(v6p449)

"I really got a good view of the man..." But did Benavides see his face?: Mr. Benavides: I would say he is about your complexion, sir. Of course he looked, his skin looked a little bit ruddier than mine. (p451)

"Complexion"--Benavides, then, got a good view of his face. In the end, his explanations as to why he did not ID Oswald on Friday don't pass muster.

In the absence of a credible explanation from Benavides himself as to why he did not ID Oswald, we are left with the strong possibility that he did not ID him because Oswald was not the man that he saw. But of course the DPD could not accept that

ruinous (for them) explanation. Hence, Benavides' hem-and-haw act.

Instead of focusing on the people who couldn't ID the perp, why don't you pay attention to
the ones who could. They all said it was Oswald. That would be looking at the correct things
correctly. So would looking at the forensic evidence that tells us the shells recovered at the
scene of the crime could only have been fired by Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all other
weapons in the world.

A witness who can't ID a perp isn't evidence of anything. If a witness testified Oswald was not
the perp would be evidence. Got any of those? Didn't think so.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 3:35:02 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

I've long known that WW Scoggins was with the police early in the day on the 22nd, and thus, if he'd seen the perp--as he said he did--he logically would have ID'd Oswald on the evening of the 22nd.

But there's also evidence right in fellow witness Domingo Benavides' testimony that he, too, for some reason, could have ID'd the suspect, but did not formally ID Oswald at a lineup, not just that day, but ever. He hemmed and hawed about reporters and

this & that:

"[The police] asked me if I could identify him, and I said I don't think I could. At this time I was sure, I wasn't sure that I could or not. I wasn't going to say I could identify and go down and couldn't have."

But other parts of his testimony indicate that he certainly could have identified the suspect. He was closer to him than was Mrs. Markham:
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you now, I would like to have you relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. BENAVIDES. As I saw him, I really---I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired, he had just turned. He was just turning away
(v6p449)

"I really got a good view of the man..." But did Benavides see his face?: Mr. Benavides: I would say he is about your complexion, sir. Of course he looked, his skin looked a little bit ruddier than mine. (p451)

"Complexion"--Benavides, then, got a good view of his face. In the end, his explanations as to why he did not ID Oswald on Friday don't pass muster.

In the absence of a credible explanation from Benavides himself as to why he did not ID Oswald, we are left with the strong possibility that he did not ID him because Oswald was not the man that he saw. But of course the DPD could not accept that

ruinous (for them) explanation. Hence, Benavides' hem-and-haw act.

dcw

Benavides practically identified the shooter as David Belin, who denied he had even been in Dallas on that day.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 12:42:30 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

Instead of focusing on the people who couldn't ID the perp, why don't you pay attention to
the ones who could.

Picking and choosing the witnesses you want is what cowards do...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 5:57:48 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 12:42:30 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Instead of focusing on the people who couldn't ID the perp, why don't you pay attention to
the ones who could.

Picking and choosing the witnesses you want is what cowards do...

Looking at information correctly is what people who aren`t conspiracy crackpots do.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 12:42:31 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 3:35:02 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

I've long known that WW Scoggins was with the police early in the day on the 22nd, and thus, if he'd seen the perp--as he said he did--he logically would have ID'd Oswald on the evening of the 22nd.

But there's also evidence right in fellow witness Domingo Benavides' testimony that he, too, for some reason, could have ID'd the suspect, but did not formally ID Oswald at a lineup, not just that day, but ever. He hemmed and hawed about reporters

and this & that:

"[The police] asked me if I could identify him, and I said I don't think I could. At this time I was sure, I wasn't sure that I could or not. I wasn't going to say I could identify and go down and couldn't have."

But other parts of his testimony indicate that he certainly could have identified the suspect. He was closer to him than was Mrs. Markham:
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you now, I would like to have you relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. BENAVIDES. As I saw him, I really---I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired, he had just turned. He was just turning away
(v6p449)

"I really got a good view of the man..." But did Benavides see his face?: Mr. Benavides: I would say he is about your complexion, sir. Of course he looked, his skin looked a little bit ruddier than mine. (p451)

"Complexion"--Benavides, then, got a good view of his face. In the end, his explanations as to why he did not ID Oswald on Friday don't pass muster.

In the absence of a credible explanation from Benavides himself as to why he did not ID Oswald, we are left with the strong possibility that he did not ID him because Oswald was not the man that he saw. But of course the DPD could not accept that

ruinous (for them) explanation. Hence, Benavides' hem-and-haw act.

Instead of focusing on the people who couldn't ID the perp, why don't you pay attention to
the ones who could. They all said it was Oswald.

Tell that to Cecil McWatters. Of course Oswald wasn't the (supposed) perp in Oak Cliff yet, but McW is another one who had trouble IDing him.

That would be looking at the correct things

correctly.

Tell me how it's not correct to discuss Benavides and Scoggins in a discussion of Tippit's murder.

So would looking at the forensic evidence that tells us the shells recovered at the

scene of the crime could only have been fired by Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all other
weapons in the world.

The cases of Benavides & Scoggins suggest that there's something very wrong with that "exclusive" evidence.

dcw

A witness who can't ID a perp isn't evidence of anything. If a witness testified Oswald was not
the perp would be evidence. Got any of those? Didn't think so.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 1:04:29 PM UTC-7, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 3:35:02 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

I've long known that WW Scoggins was with the police early in the day on the 22nd, and thus, if he'd seen the perp--as he said he did--he logically would have ID'd Oswald on the evening of the 22nd.

But there's also evidence right in fellow witness Domingo Benavides' testimony that he, too, for some reason, could have ID'd the suspect, but did not formally ID Oswald at a lineup, not just that day, but ever. He hemmed and hawed about reporters

and this & that:

"[The police] asked me if I could identify him, and I said I don't think I could. At this time I was sure, I wasn't sure that I could or not. I wasn't going to say I could identify and go down and couldn't have."

But other parts of his testimony indicate that he certainly could have identified the suspect. He was closer to him than was Mrs. Markham:
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you now, I would like to have you relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. BENAVIDES. As I saw him, I really---I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired, he had just turned. He was just turning away
(v6p449)

"I really got a good view of the man..." But did Benavides see his face?: Mr. Benavides: I would say he is about your complexion, sir. Of course he looked, his skin looked a little bit ruddier than mine. (p451)

"Complexion"--Benavides, then, got a good view of his face. In the end, his explanations as to why he did not ID Oswald on Friday don't pass muster.

In the absence of a credible explanation from Benavides himself as to why he did not ID Oswald, we are left with the strong possibility that he did not ID him because Oswald was not the man that he saw. But of course the DPD could not accept that

ruinous (for them) explanation. Hence, Benavides' hem-and-haw act.

dcw

Benavides practically identified the shooter as David Belin, who denied he had even been in Dallas on that day.

That was funny.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 9:09:45 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 12:42:31 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 3:35:02 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

I've long known that WW Scoggins was with the police early in the day on the 22nd, and thus, if he'd seen the perp--as he said he did--he logically would have ID'd Oswald on the evening of the 22nd.

But there's also evidence right in fellow witness Domingo Benavides' testimony that he, too, for some reason, could have ID'd the suspect, but did not formally ID Oswald at a lineup, not just that day, but ever. He hemmed and hawed about reporters

and this & that:

"[The police] asked me if I could identify him, and I said I don't think I could. At this time I was sure, I wasn't sure that I could or not. I wasn't going to say I could identify and go down and couldn't have."

But other parts of his testimony indicate that he certainly could have identified the suspect. He was closer to him than was Mrs. Markham:
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you now, I would like to have you relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. BENAVIDES. As I saw him, I really---I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired, he had just turned. He was just turning away
(v6p449)

"I really got a good view of the man..." But did Benavides see his face?:
Mr. Benavides: I would say he is about your complexion, sir. Of course he looked, his skin looked a little bit ruddier than mine. (p451)

"Complexion"--Benavides, then, got a good view of his face. In the end, his explanations as to why he did not ID Oswald on Friday don't pass muster.

In the absence of a credible explanation from Benavides himself as to why he did not ID Oswald, we are left with the strong possibility that he did not ID him because Oswald was not the man that he saw. But of course the DPD could not accept that

ruinous (for them) explanation. Hence, Benavides' hem-and-haw act.

Instead of focusing on the people who couldn't ID the perp, why don't you pay attention to
the ones who could. They all said it was Oswald.

Tell that to Cecil McWatters. Of course Oswald wasn't the (supposed) perp in Oak Cliff yet, but McW is another one who had trouble IDing him.

Once again, Don, there is no significance to a witness being unable to identify a perp. It is only
significant when a witness can positively identify a perp or can positively rule him out. If a
witness is unsure, it doesn't mean squat.

That would be looking at the correct things

correctly.

Tell me how it's not correct to discuss Benavides and Scoggins in a discussion of Tippit's murder.

There is nothing wrong with discussing those people. It is when you claim their inability to
positively ID the perp somehow exonerates Oswald that you go off the rails. The fact that there
were multiple witnesses who did ID Oswald as the shooter or the one seen fleeing the scene
with a gun in his hand is what is significant. So is the forensic evidence that ties Oswald to the
shells the shooter dumped at the scene.

So would looking at the forensic evidence that tells us the shells recovered at the

scene of the crime could only have been fired by Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all other
weapons in the world.

The cases of Benavides & Scoggins suggest that there's something very wrong with that "exclusive" evidence.

It only suggests that to idiots like you who can't recognize the case against Oswald in the Tippit
murder is a slam dunk.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:32:17 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:02:39 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

It only suggests that to idiots like you who can't recognize the case against Oswald in the Tippit murder is a slam dunk.

You can't post without insulting someone, can you ?
The guy made no effort to attack you, said nothing derrogatory about you, yet you can't resist that hatred for CTs, can you ?

He just put the ball on the tee and I gave it a good smack.

You're a real piece of work. You already have a reputation as a liar who is ignorant of the evidence.

You don't even know what evidence is.

Here's your "slam dunk"

https://gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-murder/

Hint: Your goofy analysis of the evidence is not evidence.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:02:39 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

It only suggests that to idiots like you who can't recognize the case against Oswald in the Tippit murder is a slam dunk.

You can't post without insulting someone, can you ?
The guy made no effort to attack you, said nothing derrogatory about you, yet you can't resist that hatred for CTs, can you ?

You're a real piece of work. You already have a reputation as a liar who is ignorant of the evidence.

Here's your "slam dunk"

https://gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-murder/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 9:10:17 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 1:04:29 PM UTC-7, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 3:35:02 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

I've long known that WW Scoggins was with the police early in the day on the 22nd, and thus, if he'd seen the perp--as he said he did--he logically would have ID'd Oswald on the evening of the 22nd.

But there's also evidence right in fellow witness Domingo Benavides' testimony that he, too, for some reason, could have ID'd the suspect, but did not formally ID Oswald at a lineup, not just that day, but ever. He hemmed and hawed about reporters

and this & that:

"[The police] asked me if I could identify him, and I said I don't think I could. At this time I was sure, I wasn't sure that I could or not. I wasn't going to say I could identify and go down and couldn't have."

But other parts of his testimony indicate that he certainly could have identified the suspect. He was closer to him than was Mrs. Markham:
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you now, I would like to have you relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. BENAVIDES. As I saw him, I really---I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired, he had just turned. He was just turning away
(v6p449)

"I really got a good view of the man..." But did Benavides see his face?:
Mr. Benavides: I would say he is about your complexion, sir. Of course he looked, his skin looked a little bit ruddier than mine. (p451)

"Complexion"--Benavides, then, got a good view of his face. In the end, his explanations as to why he did not ID Oswald on Friday don't pass muster.

In the absence of a credible explanation from Benavides himself as to why he did not ID Oswald, we are left with the strong possibility that he did not ID him because Oswald was not the man that he saw. But of course the DPD could not accept that

ruinous (for them) explanation. Hence, Benavides' hem-and-haw act.

dcw

Benavides practically identified the shooter as David Belin, who denied he had even been in Dallas on that day.

That was funny.

One of my favorite moments. Mark Lane criticized the levity, but I think a good clown show needs jokes.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 16:48:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:


So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 04:14:14 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

You don't even know what evidence is.

Define it then.

Amusingly, believers have oft lied about what evidence consists of.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 03:32:15 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:02:39?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

It only suggests that to idiots like you who can't recognize the case against Oswald in the Tippit murder is a slam dunk.

You can't post without insulting someone, can you ?
The guy made no effort to attack you, said nothing derrogatory about you, yet you can't resist that hatred for CTs, can you ?

You're a real piece of work. You already have a reputation as a liar who is ignorant of the evidence.

Here's your "slam dunk"

https://gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-murder/

Corbutt *MUST* denigrate critics, that way, he can evade the facts we
point out.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:32:17 AM UTC-7, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:02:39 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

It only suggests that to idiots like you who can't recognize the case against Oswald in the Tippit murder is a slam dunk.

You can't post without insulting someone, can you ?
The guy made no effort to attack you, said nothing derrogatory about you, yet you can't resist that hatred for CTs, can you ?

You're a real piece of work. You already have a reputation as a liar who is ignorant of the evidence.

Here's your "slam dunk"

https://gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-murder/

Curry's statement (in "The Witnesses") is an eye opener. I don't remember having read it before. Mrs M not IDing Oswald "at that time". Not surprising, since, as I believe, she didn't see him at the scene.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:02:39 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 9:09:45 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 12:42:31 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 3:35:02 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

I've long known that WW Scoggins was with the police early in the day on the 22nd, and thus, if he'd seen the perp--as he said he did--he logically would have ID'd Oswald on the evening of the 22nd.

But there's also evidence right in fellow witness Domingo Benavides' testimony that he, too, for some reason, could have ID'd the suspect, but did not formally ID Oswald at a lineup, not just that day, but ever. He hemmed and hawed about

reporters and this & that:

"[The police] asked me if I could identify him, and I said I don't think I could. At this time I was sure, I wasn't sure that I could or not. I wasn't going to say I could identify and go down and couldn't have."

But other parts of his testimony indicate that he certainly could have identified the suspect. He was closer to him than was Mrs. Markham:
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you now, I would like to have you relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. BENAVIDES. As I saw him, I really---I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired, he had just turned. He was just turning away
(v6p449)

"I really got a good view of the man..." But did Benavides see his face?:
Mr. Benavides: I would say he is about your complexion, sir. Of course he looked, his skin looked a little bit ruddier than mine. (p451)

"Complexion"--Benavides, then, got a good view of his face. In the end, his explanations as to why he did not ID Oswald on Friday don't pass muster.

In the absence of a credible explanation from Benavides himself as to why he did not ID Oswald, we are left with the strong possibility that he did not ID him because Oswald was not the man that he saw. But of course the DPD could not accept that

ruinous (for them) explanation. Hence, Benavides' hem-and-haw act.

Instead of focusing on the people who couldn't ID the perp, why don't you pay attention to
the ones who could. They all said it was Oswald.

Tell that to Cecil McWatters. Of course Oswald wasn't the (supposed) perp in Oak Cliff yet, but McW is another one who had trouble IDing him.

Once again, Don, there is no significance to a witness being unable to identify a perp. It is only
significant when a witness can positively identify a perp

Yeah, sure. The Davises made positive IDs, but I've shown how they did not even see the perp, only a vigilante following same. It's certainly significant when witnesses FALSELY "positively" IDs a perp. as here.

or can positively rule him out. If a

witness is unsure, it doesn't mean squat.

That would be looking at the correct things

correctly.

Tell me how it's not correct to discuss Benavides and Scoggins in a discussion of Tippit's murder.

There is nothing wrong with discussing those people. It is when you claim their inability to
positively ID the perp somehow exonerates Oswald that you go off the rails. The fact that there
were multiple witnesses who did ID Oswald as the shooter

Multiple witnesses who didn't even see the perp--the Davises and Mrs. Markham, certainly.

dcw

or the one seen fleeing the scene

with a gun in his hand is what is significant. So is the forensic evidence that ties Oswald to the
shells the shooter dumped at the scene.

So would looking at the forensic evidence that tells us the shells recovered at the

scene of the crime could only have been fired by Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all other
weapons in the world.

The cases of Benavides & Scoggins suggest that there's something very wrong with that "exclusive" evidence.

It only suggests that to idiots like you who can't recognize the case against Oswald in the Tippit
murder is a slam dunk.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 4:27:42 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:02:39 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 9:09:45 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 12:42:31 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 3:35:02 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

I've long known that WW Scoggins was with the police early in the day on the 22nd, and thus, if he'd seen the perp--as he said he did--he logically would have ID'd Oswald on the evening of the 22nd.

But there's also evidence right in fellow witness Domingo Benavides' testimony that he, too, for some reason, could have ID'd the suspect, but did not formally ID Oswald at a lineup, not just that day, but ever. He hemmed and hawed about

reporters and this & that:

"[The police] asked me if I could identify him, and I said I don't think I could. At this time I was sure, I wasn't sure that I could or not. I wasn't going to say I could identify and go down and couldn't have."

But other parts of his testimony indicate that he certainly could have identified the suspect. He was closer to him than was Mrs. Markham:
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you now, I would like to have you relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. BENAVIDES. As I saw him, I really---I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired, he had just turned. He was just turning away
(v6p449)

"I really got a good view of the man..." But did Benavides see his face?:
Mr. Benavides: I would say he is about your complexion, sir. Of course he looked, his skin looked a little bit ruddier than mine. (p451)

"Complexion"--Benavides, then, got a good view of his face. In the end, his explanations as to why he did not ID Oswald on Friday don't pass muster.

In the absence of a credible explanation from Benavides himself as to why he did not ID Oswald, we are left with the strong possibility that he did not ID him because Oswald was not the man that he saw. But of course the DPD could not accept

that ruinous (for them) explanation. Hence, Benavides' hem-and-haw act.

Instead of focusing on the people who couldn't ID the perp, why don't you pay attention to
the ones who could. They all said it was Oswald.

Tell that to Cecil McWatters. Of course Oswald wasn't the (supposed) perp in Oak Cliff yet, but McW is another one who had trouble IDing him.

Once again, Don, there is no significance to a witness being unable to identify a perp. It is only
significant when a witness can positively identify a perp

Yeah, sure. The Davises made positive IDs, but I've shown how they did not even see the perp, only a vigilante following same. It's certainly significant when witnesses FALSELY "positively" IDs a perp. as here.

The only thing you have shown is that you are really, really bad at figuring things out. That's why
you should strongly consider a new hobby. Maybe stamp collecting might be better suited for
you. This one requires one to have a firm grasp of the obvious. I'm afraid that leaves you out.

or can positively rule him out. If a

witness is unsure, it doesn't mean squat.

That would be looking at the correct things

correctly.

Tell me how it's not correct to discuss Benavides and Scoggins in a discussion of Tippit's murder.

There is nothing wrong with discussing those people. It is when you claim their inability to
positively ID the perp somehow exonerates Oswald that you go off the rails. The fact that there
were multiple witnesses who did ID Oswald as the shooter

Multiple witnesses who didn't even see the perp--the Davises and Mrs. Markham, certainly.

Certainly, you are clueless.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 14:09:27 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 4:27:42?PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:02:39?AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 9:09:45?PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 12:42:31?PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 3:35:02?PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote: >>>>>> I've long known that WW Scoggins was with the police early in the day on the 22nd, and thus, if he'd seen the perp--as he said he did--he logically would have ID'd Oswald on the evening of the 22nd.

But there's also evidence right in fellow witness Domingo Benavides' testimony that he, too, for some reason, could have ID'd the suspect, but did not formally ID Oswald at a lineup, not just that day, but ever. He hemmed and hawed about reporters

and this & that:

"[The police] asked me if I could identify him, and I said I don't think I could. At this time I was sure, I wasn't sure that I could or not. I wasn't going to say I could identify and go down and couldn't have."

But other parts of his testimony indicate that he certainly could have identified the suspect. He was closer to him than was Mrs. Markham:
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you now, I would like to have you relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. BENAVIDES. As I saw him, I really---I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired, he had just turned. He was just turning away
(v6p449)

"I really got a good view of the man..." But did Benavides see his face?:
Mr. Benavides: I would say he is about your complexion, sir. Of course he looked, his skin looked a little bit ruddier than mine. (p451)

"Complexion"--Benavides, then, got a good view of his face. In the end, his explanations as to why he did not ID Oswald on Friday don't pass muster.

In the absence of a credible explanation from Benavides himself as to why he did not ID Oswald, we are left with the strong possibility that he did not ID him because Oswald was not the man that he saw. But of course the DPD could not accept that

ruinous (for them) explanation. Hence, Benavides' hem-and-haw act.

Instead of focusing on the people who couldn't ID the perp, why don't you pay attention to
the ones who could. They all said it was Oswald.

Tell that to Cecil McWatters. Of course Oswald wasn't the (supposed) perp in Oak Cliff yet, but McW is another one who had trouble IDing him.

Once again, Don, there is no significance to a witness being unable to identify a perp. It is only
significant when a witness can positively identify a perp

Yeah, sure. The Davises made positive IDs, but I've shown how they did not even see the perp, only a vigilante following same. It's certainly significant when witnesses FALSELY "positively" IDs a perp. as here.

The only thing you have shown is that....

You need logical fallacies to argue...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 3:35:02 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

I've long known that WW Scoggins was with the police early in the day on the 22nd, and thus, if he'd seen the perp--as he said he did--he logically would have ID'd Oswald on the evening of the 22nd.

But there's also evidence right in fellow witness Domingo Benavides' testimony that he, too, for some reason, could have ID'd the suspect, but did not formally ID Oswald at a lineup, not just that day, but ever. He hemmed and hawed about reporters and

this & that:

"[The police] asked me if I could identify him, and I said I don't think I could. At this time I was sure, I wasn't sure that I could or not. I wasn't going to say I could identify and go down and couldn't have."

But other parts of his testimony indicate that he certainly could have identified the suspect. He was closer to him than was Mrs. Markham:
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you now, I would like to have you relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. BENAVIDES. As I saw him, I really---I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired, he had just turned. He was just turning away
(v6p449)

"I really got a good view of the man..." But did Benavides see his face?: Mr. Benavides: I would say he is about your complexion, sir. Of course he looked, his skin looked a little bit ruddier than mine. (p451)

"Complexion"--Benavides, then, got a good view of his face. In the end, his explanations as to why he did not ID Oswald on Friday don't pass muster.

In the absence of a credible explanation from Benavides himself as to why he did not ID Oswald, we are left with the strong possibility that he did not ID him because Oswald was not the man that he saw. But of course the DPD could not accept that

ruinous (for them) explanation. Hence, Benavides' hem-and-haw act.

dcw

Benavides has black and bushy hair. He starts with driving a truck, but afterwards, it's as if he did not have one. I think Guinyard is the only person other than Benavides who mentions his truck, but he says that Benavides came by while Guinyard was
already on the scene, after the shooting, so that can't be taken seriously. Too many damned liars here! But maybe Benavides was playing the Oswald role. Maybe he did flee to the church, and then came back to be a witness. Maybe he told Poe he had come
from the church, and Poe thought that meant that he had found the shells there. Too many liars to be sure of anything.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 2:09:29 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 4:27:42 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:02:39 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 9:09:45 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 12:42:31 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 3:35:02 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

I've long known that WW Scoggins was with the police early in the day on the 22nd, and thus, if he'd seen the perp--as he said he did--he logically would have ID'd Oswald on the evening of the 22nd.

But there's also evidence right in fellow witness Domingo Benavides' testimony that he, too, for some reason, could have ID'd the suspect, but did not formally ID Oswald at a lineup, not just that day, but ever. He hemmed and hawed about

reporters and this & that:

"[The police] asked me if I could identify him, and I said I don't think I could. At this time I was sure, I wasn't sure that I could or not. I wasn't going to say I could identify and go down and couldn't have."

But other parts of his testimony indicate that he certainly could have identified the suspect. He was closer to him than was Mrs. Markham:
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you now, I would like to have you relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. BENAVIDES. As I saw him, I really---I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired, he had just turned. He was just turning away
(v6p449)

"I really got a good view of the man..." But did Benavides see his face?:
Mr. Benavides: I would say he is about your complexion, sir. Of course he looked, his skin looked a little bit ruddier than mine. (p451)

"Complexion"--Benavides, then, got a good view of his face. In the end, his explanations as to why he did not ID Oswald on Friday don't pass muster.

In the absence of a credible explanation from Benavides himself as to why he did not ID Oswald, we are left with the strong possibility that he did not ID him because Oswald was not the man that he saw. But of course the DPD could not accept

that ruinous (for them) explanation. Hence, Benavides' hem-and-haw act.

Instead of focusing on the people who couldn't ID the perp, why don't you pay attention to
the ones who could. They all said it was Oswald.

Tell that to Cecil McWatters. Of course Oswald wasn't the (supposed) perp in Oak Cliff yet, but McW is another one who had trouble IDing him.

Once again, Don, there is no significance to a witness being unable to identify a perp. It is only
significant when a witness can positively identify a perp

Yeah, sure. The Davises made positive IDs, but I've shown how they did not even see the perp, only a vigilante following same. It's certainly significant when witnesses FALSELY "positively" IDs a perp. as here.

The only thing you have shown is that you are really, really bad at figuring things out. That's why
you should strongly consider a new hobby. Maybe stamp collecting might be better suited for
you. This one requires one to have a firm grasp of the obvious. I'm afraid that leaves you out.

or can positively rule him out. If a

witness is unsure, it doesn't mean squat.

That would be looking at the correct things

correctly.

Tell me how it's not correct to discuss Benavides and Scoggins in a discussion of Tippit's murder.

There is nothing wrong with discussing those people. It is when you claim their inability to
positively ID the perp somehow exonerates Oswald that you go off the rails. The fact that there
were multiple witnesses who did ID Oswald as the shooter

Multiple witnesses who didn't even see the perp--the Davises and Mrs. Markham, certainly.

Certainly, you are clueless.

Ouch!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:04:21 PM UTC-7, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 3:35:02 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

I've long known that WW Scoggins was with the police early in the day on the 22nd, and thus, if he'd seen the perp--as he said he did--he logically would have ID'd Oswald on the evening of the 22nd.

But there's also evidence right in fellow witness Domingo Benavides' testimony that he, too, for some reason, could have ID'd the suspect, but did not formally ID Oswald at a lineup, not just that day, but ever. He hemmed and hawed about reporters

and this & that:

"[The police] asked me if I could identify him, and I said I don't think I could. At this time I was sure, I wasn't sure that I could or not. I wasn't going to say I could identify and go down and couldn't have."

But other parts of his testimony indicate that he certainly could have identified the suspect. He was closer to him than was Mrs. Markham:
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you now, I would like to have you relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. BENAVIDES. As I saw him, I really---I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired, he had just turned. He was just turning away
(v6p449)

"I really got a good view of the man..." But did Benavides see his face?: Mr. Benavides: I would say he is about your complexion, sir. Of course he looked, his skin looked a little bit ruddier than mine. (p451)

"Complexion"--Benavides, then, got a good view of his face. In the end, his explanations as to why he did not ID Oswald on Friday don't pass muster.

In the absence of a credible explanation from Benavides himself as to why he did not ID Oswald, we are left with the strong possibility that he did not ID him because Oswald was not the man that he saw. But of course the DPD could not accept that

ruinous (for them) explanation. Hence, Benavides' hem-and-haw act.

dcw

Benavides has black and bushy hair. He starts with driving a truck, but afterwards, it's as if he did not have one. I think Guinyard is the only person other than Benavides who mentions his truck, but he says that Benavides came by while Guinyard was

already on the scene, after the shooting, so that can't be taken seriously. Too many damned liars here! But maybe Benavides was playing the Oswald role.

At one point in writing "In Oak Cliff", I floated that idea to myself. In part, because Fritz wanted Oswald as the perp and maybe he just wouldn't accept a Benavides confession, which in any other case, he would gladly have accepted. This would be a
fantastic story, if it were true. And I have me doubts... Still, that would explain the disappearance of Benavides' early statements...

dcw

Maybe he did flee to the church, and then came back to be a witness. Maybe he told Poe he had come from the church, and Poe thought that meant that he had found the shells there. Too many liars to be sure of anything.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)