Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #30  (Read 310 times)

Online Rob Caprio

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 347
  • You only receive flak when you are over the target
Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #30
« on: February 12, 2018, 04:17:31 AM »
Disclaimer: I will no longer respond to any posts that are off topic and/or meant to derail the issue of the opening post. This should not be taken as me running, but instead seen as me keeping the topic on track.

I have no issue with any WC defender, therefore, I am happy to discuss the case in a manner that uses the actual evidence with them. IF the WC was correct in their final conclusion as they claim then this should be no problem for them.

I will not participate in any personal discussions with them as these are meant to distract and discredit instead of focusing on the JFK assassination. I come here to discuss and learn about the JFK assassination and nothing more.
No more games with the LNers. The LNers have to to discuss the WC's, HSCA's and ARRB's evidence or move along.

******************************************

I have covered the ballistic evidence in the JD Tippit (JDT) shooting before.  I will now look at some of the witnesses (save Helen Markham as she deserves her own post since she was the "star" witness for the Warren Commission (WC)) and see if they really did identify Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) as the shooter with NO assistance.

*******************************************

William Scoggins was one of the most vehement (as we have seen in Bill Brown's recent post) of the witnesses that said he identified Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) as the shooter.  Let's see what he said.

Mr. BELIN. Sometime after you got there after the noon meal you saw the lineup, is that correct?

Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. How many people were in the lineup, if you can remember?

Mr. SCOGGINS. Four.

Mr. BELIN. Four? Did any one of the people look anything like strike that. Did you identify anyone in the lineup?

Mr. SCOGGINS. I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I identified him.

This sounds good, huh? But let's read on and see if he saw any pictures of LHO or was given any assistance in his ID of LHO.

Mr. BELIN. Did anyone tell you any particular man was Oswald in the lineup?

Mr. SCOGGINS. No.

-----------

Mr. BELIN. Did they tell you one of the men was the man you saw or not, or did they tell you "See if you can"--just what did they say? Did they say "Here is a lineup, see if you-can identify anyone," or did they say, "One of the men in the lineup"--

Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes, I believe those are the words they used. I am not--

So it appears some coaching was going on and he knew for sure the man the police had claimed done it was in the lineup for him to pick.

Mr. BELIN. Did all of these men look different to you? Were most of them fat, or were most of them thin, or some fat, some thin, some tall, some short?

Mr. SCOGGINS. There were two of them--the one that I identified as the one I saw over at Oak Cliff, and there was one I saw similar to him, and the other two was a little bit shorter.

We see there were two men that looked similar, but Scoggins picked LHO out instead of the other man.  Why?  Well, one reason the defense could argue is because he saw LHO's picture in the newspaper and NOT the other man's!

Mr. DULLES. Had you been looking at television or seeing television prior to your appearance here at the lineup?

Mr. SCOGGINS. No.

Mr. DULLES. You had not?

Mr. SCOGGINS. No, sir.

Notice the WC lawyer seemed surprised that he had NOT been watching television since so much of the country was.

Mr. BELIN. Had you seen any pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald in the newspapers prior to the time you went to the police station lineup?

Mr. SCOGGINS. I think I saw one in the morning paper.

Mr. BELIN. Do you subscribe to the morning or evening paper?

Mr. SCOGGINS. I take the evening paper myself.

Mr. BELIN. You went down and bought a morning paper?

Mr. SCOGGINS. No; I didn't go out. I was looking at one of the--some of the cab drivers had it.

So we see he did see the picture of LHO in the newspaper BEFORE he went to view the lineup!  This would cause the defense team to have the ID thrown out due to influence.  Why else did he NOT pick the other man out?  Let's get back to the television angle as well, does anyone believe his excuse for NOT watching television, and thus, seeing even more coverage of LHO being accused of being the man who shot JDT?

Representative FORD. Do you have a television in your home?

Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes sir; I do. But I don't--when I get home I will read the paper, and after you work about 12 hours you don't feel like fooling around with television too much.

Doesn't reading the paper take more effort than blindly watching television? I would think so.  Could it be he was covering, with the WC's help, that he had been watching the coverage like most of the country and therefore saw LHO numerous times being accused of murdering JDT and John F. Kennedy (JFK)?  It is a good possibility. What's this?

Mr. BELIN. What number man in the lineup did you identify as having seen on November 22?

Mr. SCOGGINS. Number 3.

Wasn't he the "number two" man for Markham? I guess they can keep changing his position, but this is different from what Markham said.
 
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember if the number 3 man in the lineup was wearing the same clothes that the man you saw at the Tippit shooting wore?

Mr. SCOGGINS. He had on a different shirt, and he didn't have a jacket on. He had on kind of a polo shirt.

When did LHO wear a polo shirt at the DPD?  I'm confused here as to who he picked.  What about you?  This is interesting.

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember if he was an FBI man or a Dallas policeman or a Secret Service agent?

Mr. SCOGGINS. He was an FBI or a Secret Service.

Mr. BELIN. What did he ask you and what did you tell him?

Mr. SCOGGINS. He gave me some pictures, showed me several pictures there,, which was, some of them were, pretty well resembled him, and some of them didn't, and they looked like they was kind of old pictures, and I think I picked the wrong picture. I am not too--

This means when shown photos of LHO and others he did NOT pick LHO as the man he saw with this FBI or SS Agent! This is in direct contrast to this supposed ID of LHO with the DPD.  So we see he had help from a picture in the newspaper (and probably television and radio (I mean what else do you listen to in a cab?)) and when asked to pick the man he saw out of a set of photos given to him by a FBI or SS Agent he failed to pick LHO's!

-------------------------

Domingo Benavides was the CLOSEST witness to the murder of JDT.  And yet, he NEVER ID'd LHO as the shooter in a firm, positive manner to the exclusion of everyone else!  In fact, on the day of the shooting he told the cops that came to speak with him that he could NOT ID the shooter.

Mr. BELIN - What did you see then?

Mr. BENAVIDES - I then pulled on up and I seen this officer standing by the door. The door was open to the car, and I was pretty close to him, and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the other side of the car.

This is the part all LNers quote.  It sounds good if you read it fast!  He mentions LHO's name!  BUT, he also amends it with "or the man that shot him" too!  IF he was saying LHO was the man that shot him he would have NOT added this. In fact, the man quickly began being called "the other man" instead of LHO by both Benavides and the WC!

Mr. BELIN - Where did you see the other man?

Mr. BENAVIDES - The other man was standing to the right side of the car, riders side of the car, and was standing right in front of the windshield on the right front fender. And then I heard the shot. Actually I wasn't looking for anything like that, so I heard the shot, and I just turned into the curb. Looked around to miss a car, I think.

And then I pulled up to the curb, hitting the curb, and I ducked down, and then I heard two more shots.

We do NOT see them saying this was LHO, but rather the "other man."  How did he even know the name Oswald?

Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?

Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.

Mr. BELIN - Were they newspaper pictures or television pictures, or both, or neither?

Mr. BENAVIDES - Well, television pictures and newspaper pictures. The thing lasted about a month, I believe, it seemed like.

Mr. BELIN - Pardon.

Mr. BENAVIDES - I showed--I believe they showed pictures of him every day for a long time there.

So we see he saw LHO's picture in the media for a long time.  The other motivating factor in play here that is NOT mentioned is that Benavides' brother was shot in the head in February 1964 and many have said it was meant for Domingo.  Let's go back to the day of the shooting -- could he ID the shooter?

Mr. BELIN - Then what happened? Did the officers ever get in touch with you?

Mr. BENAVIDES - Later on that evening, about 4 o'clock, there was two officers came by and asked for me, Mr. Callaway asked me---I had told them that I had seen the officer, and the reporters were there and I was trying to hide from the reporters because they will just bother you all the time.

Then I found out that they thought this was the guy that killed the President. At the time I didn't know the President was dead or he had been shot. I was just trying to hide from the reporters and everything, and these two officers came around and asked me if I'd seen him, and I told him yes, and told them what I had seen, and they asked me if I could identify him, and I said I don't think I could. It 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.

So if he couldn't ID the shooter on 11/22/63, why would we think he could in April 1964?  Beyond the intense media coverage blaming LHO what would have changed?  I think an important note is he was never taken in to view a lineup on the day of the shooting. Let's look at the clothing and see if he saw what LHO was wearing.

Mr. BELIN - I am handing you what has been marked "Commission's Exhibit 150," and see if this looks anything like the shirt that he had on?

Mr. BENAVIDES - I think the shirt looked darker than that.

-------------

Mr. BELIN - I am handing you a jacket which has been marked as "Commission's Exhibit 162," and ask you to state whether this bears any similarity to the jacket you saw this man with the gun wearing?

Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say this looks just like it. Looks like he had laundried it, but it looks like it was a newer coat than that.

We see he could NOT ID either the shirt or the jacket as being the one he saw the man wearing.

---------------------------------

Ted Callaway was another witness to the JDT murder.  Let's see what his lineup experience was like. He testified to NOT seeing any pictures of LHO prior to the lineup.

Mr. BALL. Tell us what happened.

Mr. CALLAWAY. We first went into the room. There was Jim Leavelle, the detective, Sam Guinyard, and then this busdriver and myself. We waited down there for probably 20 or 30 minutes. And Jim told us, "When I show you these guys, be sure,. take your time, see if you can make a positive identification."

Mr. BALL. Had you known him before?

Mr. CALLAWAY. No. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." So they brought four men in.

I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.

Firstly, take note of the comment of a "POSITIVE" ID.  Too often LNers claim things are ID's when they are NOT even close to being positive. Secondly, what is with the comment BEFORE he views the lineup about the man being the same "one that shot the President"? Ditto, IF we can wrap him on this we got him?  Is this the kind of talk you should be using before a lineup is viewed?  I don't think so.

Finally, we get to his claim of knowing LHO was the man.  How can he be sure? Let's see what kind of view he got of the shooter.


Mr. BALL. You mean he looked like the same man?

Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.

Mr. BALL. About what distance was he away from you--the closest that he ever was to you?

Mr. CALLAWAY. About 56 feet.

Mr. BALL. You measured that, did you?

Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.

What??? Now, Bill Brown may say FIFTY SIX FEET is not that far, but when it comes to identifying a suspect for a capital murder it is an extremely long distance.  How can he be sure of anything at this distance?  He can't.  And we know it was this distance because he measured it himself!

Mr. BALL. Last Saturday morning?

Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Measured it with a tape measure?

Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.

Whew. SO much for that ID, huh?  How about the clothing?

Mr. BALL. What kind--when you talked to the police officers before you saw this man, did you give them a description of the clothing he had on?

Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?

Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.

LHO was supposedly wearing a gray jacket with NO tan in it.

Mr. BALL. I have a jacket here Commission's Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that you saw across the street with a gun?

Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes; it sure does. Yes, that is the same type jacket. Actually, I thought it had a little more tan to it.

------------------

Mr. BALL. I show you a shirt, 150. Does it look anything like the shirt he had on under the jacket?

Mr. CALLAWAY. Sir, when I saw him he didn't have--I couldn't see this shirt. I saw--he had it open. That shirt was open, and I could see his white T-shirt underneath.

So again we see NO ID of the jacket or shirt.  His identification of LHO is suspect given the distance of the two men.  He was over a a quarter of a football field away so we can't be sure what he saw.

----------------------------

Barbara Davis was another witness in the vicinity of the JDT shooting. Let's see her testimony regarding the lineup.

Mr. BALL. When those--how many men were shown to you in this lineup?

Mrs. DAVIS. Four.

Mr. BALL. Were they of the same size or of different sizes?

Mrs. DAVIS. Most of them was about the same size.

Mr. BALL. All white men, were they?

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in that room?

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.

Mr. BALL. Number 2 you recognized? Did you tell any policeman there anything after you recognized them?

Mrs. DAVIS. I told the man who had brought us down there.

Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?

Mrs. DAVIS. That I thought number 2 was the man that I saw.

So LHO is back to being the number two man!  Why was he number three with Scoggins? This sounds good for the WC, but is it?

Mr. BALL. Was he dressed the same in the lineup as he was when you saw him running across the lawn?

Mrs. DAVIS. All except he didn't have a black coat on when I saw him in the lineup.

Mr. BALL. Did he have a coat on when you saw him?

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. What color coat?

Mrs. DAVIS. A dark coat.

At NO time did LHO have a DARK coat on.  He owned a dark jacket, but that was left back at the TSBD.

Mr. BALL. Now, did you recognize him from his face or from his clothes when you saw him in the lineup?

Mrs. DAVIS. Well, I looked at his clothes and then his face from the side because I had seen him from a side view of him. I didn't see him fullface.

Mr. BALL. Now answer the question. Did you recognize him from seeing his face or from his clothes?

Mrs. DAVIS. From his face because that was all I was looking at.

Despite the tough attempt by the WC lawyer we see she would have been giving an ID based on a PARTIAL view of the man's face and in DIRECT contradiction to the clothing description she gave.  This again is NOT a firm positive ID. What about the clothing?

Mr. BALL. I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn?

Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. How is it different?

Mrs. DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.

Mr. BALL. I show you a shirt which is Commission Exhibit No. 150. Was that--does that shirt look anything like something he had on, that the man had on who went across your lawn?

Mrs. DAVIS. I thought that the shirt he had on was lighter than that.

Again, when the testimony is read in greater detail we see she could NOT have seen LHO!

----------------------------------

Finally, the last witness before we get to Markham.  Virgina Davis was with Barbara so she should have seen many of the same things. Let's go to the lineup.

Mr. BELIN. Did you ever go down to the police station or identify him?

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir; we had to identify him in the lineup.

Mr. BELIN. What day was that? This same day or another day?

Mrs. DAVIS. Same day.

-------------------

Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you got to the dark room?

Mrs. DAVIS. He told us to sit down.

Mr. BELIN. All right.

Mrs. DAVIS. And then these five boys, or men walked up on this platform, and he was No. 2.

Mr. BELIN. You say he was No. 2. Who was No. 2?

Mrs. DAVIS. The boy that shot Tippit.

Mr. BELIN. You mean the man--did you see him shoot Tippit? Or you mean the man you saw with the gun?

Mrs. DAVIS. The man I saw carrying the gun.

Belin has NO right in correcting her like he does.  IF she thinks the person looked like a boy then that is her testimony.  This would have been prevented in a real trial.  The FACT she thought he was a boy would preclude LHO in my mind since the WC and its defenders claim LHO could pass for THIRTY!  He can't pass for thirty and be viewed as a "boy", now can he?

The WC did NOT even bother to ask her about clothing and that tells us a lot IMO.  We see from these witnesses a consistent pattern of NOT being able to identify what LHO was wearing or get other details correct.  I wonder who Scoggins identified since LHO seemed to be the number two man constantly?

This evidence again shows that the WCs claim was incorrect, therefore, their conclusion is sunk again.

JFK Assassination Forum

Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #30
« on: February 12, 2018, 04:17:31 AM »


Offline John Mytton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #30
« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2018, 04:37:45 AM »



I tell you what's sinking fast and it's not the WC!

Glug glug glug!





JohnM


Online Rob Caprio

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 347
  • You only receive flak when you are over the target
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #30
« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2018, 05:20:46 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


I tell you what's sinking fast and it's not the WC!

Glug glug glug!





JohnM

Of course you ignore the thread topic. Nothing new there. You are right, YOU are sinking fast.

428 posts of nothing already.

Offline Mark Ulrik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #30
« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2018, 04:59:15 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mrs. DAVIS. And then these five boys, or men walked up on this platform, and he was No. 2.

Mr. BELIN. You say he was No. 2. Who was No. 2?

Mrs. DAVIS. The boy that shot Tippit.

Mr. BELIN. You mean the man--did you see him shoot Tippit? Or you mean the man you saw with the gun?

Mrs. DAVIS. The man I saw carrying the gun.

Belin has NO right in correcting her like he does.  IF she thinks the person looked like a boy then that is her testimony.  This would have been prevented in a real trial.  The FACT she thought he was a boy would preclude LHO in my mind since the WC and its defenders claim LHO could pass for THIRTY!  He can't pass for thirty and be viewed as a "boy", now can he?

Silly boy. Have you never Read Truly's testimony? What do you make of the (actual) fact that he calls Oswald "boy" all the time?

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #30
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2018, 06:12:08 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


I tell you what's sinking fast and it's not the WC!

Glug glug glug!





JohnM

Glug, glug, indeed.

The weird irony in Caprio's use of the notion of the WC findings somehow being 'sunk' by his bloated speculations is that he downright scuttles himself practically every time he opens his mouth.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2018, 06:17:51 PM by Bill Chapman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #30
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2018, 06:12:08 PM »


Online Rob Caprio

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 347
  • You only receive flak when you are over the target
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #30
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2018, 06:25:02 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Silly boy. Have you never Read Truly's testimony? What do you make of the (actual) fact that he calls Oswald "boy" all the time?

At 23/24 a man isn't a boy. McWatters said it was NOT LHO. End of story.

Online Rob Caprio

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 347
  • You only receive flak when you are over the target
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #30
« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2018, 06:28:51 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Glug, glug, indeed.

The weird irony in Caprio's use of the notion of the WC findings somehow being 'sunk' by his bloated speculations is that he downright scuttles himself practically every time he opens his mouth.

No rebuttal using the evidence yet again. What else is new? Chapman's continual lack of use of the evidence tells you all that you need to know.

Offline Mark Ulrik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #30
« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2018, 06:43:54 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
At 23/24 a man isn't a boy. McWatters said it was NOT LHO. End of story.

No. Explain why Truly called your client a "boy". Do you think he was confused about his age?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #30
« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2018, 06:43:54 PM »


Online Rob Caprio

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 347
  • You only receive flak when you are over the target
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #30
« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2018, 12:16:57 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No. Explain why Truly called your client a "boy". Do you think he was confused about his age?

It's your claim so you explain it.

Offline Mark Ulrik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #30
« Reply #9 on: February 13, 2018, 10:08:33 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's your claim so you explain it.

Oh boy. So you're unable to determine on your own that Truly uses the word "boy" a lot?

Will you stop avading my question if I quote all the instances of his calling Oswald and other employees boys?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #30
« Reply #9 on: February 13, 2018, 10:08:33 AM »