From: samamcclung@gmail.com   
      
   On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 11:16:13 PM UTC-6, Donald Willis wrote:   
   > Turnabout: Guinyard undercuts Callaway undercuts Guinyard    
   >    
   > In "Ted Callaway & the '55 feet'", we found Sam Guinyard contradicting,   
   compellingly, Callaway's claim that the latter was, at the closest, about 55   
   feet away from the man with the gun, who (said Callaway) was running down the   
   west side of Patton.    
   Never to be outdone--Callaway wasn't shy about criticizing fellow witnesses   
   like W.W. Scoggins and Domingo Benavides--Callaway, in turn--with the   
   west-side story assigned (and apparently happily accepted by) him--Callaway   
   undercut Guinyard's claim that    
   the latter saw the gunman knocking out shells all along the (east) sidewalk of   
   Patton.    
   >    
   > Guinyard: "Just as [the gunman] come around the corner on Patton, he cut   
   through the yard and missed the corner on 10th... He came through there   
   running and knocking empty shells out of his pistol... [Benavides] picked up   
   all them empty hulls that come    
   out of the gun..."    
   > Counsel Ball: "Where were they?"    
   > Guinyard: "Laying across the yard as he kicked them out all around the   
   sidewalk." (v7pp397-399)    
   >    
   > Callaway: "[The gunman] had come through this yard and cut behind this   
   taxicab, over to this side of [Patton]... the west side of the street..."   
   (v3p353) Nowhere in his testimony does Callaway mention the man discarding   
   shells. Again, an inexplicable    
   little contretemps. Of course, if Callaway had backed Guinyard's story of the   
   shells, he would have, at the same time, negated his own story of a "mistake"   
   re an automatic, which he could not or would not then have made. That is, he   
   could not have seen    
   both manual discarding of shells *and* loading of an automatic. The Guinyard   
   story cannot be reconciled with the Callaway story. Ironic, because,   
   individually, the two stories have the same goal--positing the presence of a   
   revolver on Patton.    
   >    
   > Now if Guinyard had cut off his story of the shells right at the point where   
   the gunman is discarding them, it might have had some traction. However...    
   >    
   > A lesser implication of Guinyard's testimony is that he pointed out the   
   shells on Patton to Benavides. But another, more serious one is that Benavides   
   picked up *all* the shells the shooter left behind. Benavides himself   
   testified that he picked up    
   shells only from the front yard, on 10th; Guinyard says that Benavides picked   
   up shells on Patton, too. That is, the shells that the Davises testified that   
   they pointed out or picked up. Guinyard is undercut by everyone on this point.    
   >    
   > Guinyard doth witness too much, it seems. Like Callaway, he seems to be   
   bending over backwards, in his own way, to help the police nullify reports of   
   an automatic at the scene. Callaway has the gunman shunted over to the west   
   side of Patton; Guinyard    
   brings him right back, scattering shells on the east side. They can't both be   
   wrong. Or can they?    
   >    
   > They can--they effectively make a hash of each other's testimony. Together,   
   they have the gunman running down both sides of the street, at the same time,   
   shouting from one side, discarding shells on the other side. The magic Oswald.   
   Both, in fact, ID'd    
   Oswald in a lineup, but it can't be ruled out that, once again, they were just   
   trying their darnedest to help out the authorities. If they can't agree on   
   what they saw, it's hard to take their word re *who* they saw. And was it the   
   shooter, an accomplice,   
    or some vigilante with a gun? Maybe the two were *not* together, and one saw   
   the shooter or an accomplice, the other saw a vigilante.    
   >    
   > At any rate, the man, or one of the men, thus spotted was wielding an   
   automatic, although the detritus of the respective, dueling testimonies of   
   Guinyard and Callaway was meant to suggest, but oh so haplessly, that the   
   gunman--whoever or whatever he    
   was--was wielding a revolver. Both versions were credibly undercut, Callaway's   
   by Guinyard, Guinyard's by everyone else. Even his buddy Benavides ("Donnie")   
   couldn't help him.    
   >    
   > dcw   
      
      
   The Warren Commission forged testimony making it hard to figure out and argue.   
      
   "What the Commission did was to publish a printed version but in Volume 1 of   
   the Report the Commission states that it reserves the right to edit the   
   testimony edit the transcript to improve the accuracy and the clarity of the   
   witness's statement. Doesn't    
   that frighten you a little bit?" Mark Lane   
      
   Most of the text from my webpage on Warren Commission altering documents:   
      
   Neither Callaway nor Guinyard apparently read nor signed the testimony   
   produced for them by the Warren Commission.   
      
   Benavides may have read his testimony but if so I have found no record of it   
   being read nor signed by Benavides.   
   Mr. BELIN. Now you have a right, if you want to, to come back and read the   
   deposition and sign it, or you can just rely on the court reporter’s   
   accuracy and   
   waive the signing of it. Do you want to waive it or not?   
   Mr. BENAVIDES. I would like to read it.   
   Mr. BELIN. All right.   
   Mr. BENA~IDES. Maybe I could add something I didn’t add.   
   Mr. BELIN. All right, I will ask the court reporter to trr and get in touch   
   with you.   
   Mr. BENAVIDEB. 3112 June Drive.   
   Mr. BELIN. She can reach you at Dootch Motors?   
   Mr. BENAVIDES. D‘ootch Motors.   
   Mr. BELIN. What is the address?   
   Mr. BENAVIDES. 501 East Jefferson.   
   Mr. BELIN. You did get notice of the taking of this deposition here today?   
   Mr. BENAVIDES. Yes, sir.   
   Mr. BELIN. You are here voluntarily appearing in front of the Commission?   
   Mr. BENAVIDES. Yes, sir.   
   Mr. BELIN. Well, we surely appreciate all of the cooperation you have   
   shown here, sir, and if there is anything else that you think is important, we   
   would appreciate your getting in touch with us.   
   Mr. BENAVIDEB. That is the reason I wanted to read this, in case I might   
   have left out something.   
   Mr. BELIN. Would you please thank whoever is the general manager at Dootch   
   Motors for letting you come here and appear before us?   
   Mr. RENAVIDRR. That is Mr. Harris.   
   Mr. BELIN. Thank you very much.   
      
      
   In his memo, ["WC assistant counsel "] Hubert wrote:   
   "1. At the [WC] staff meeting on Friday, I raised objections to 'editing' of   
   the transcripts of depositions; but I did not make one objection which I   
   thought of later and what perhaps is stronger than any else I made."   
      
   Later in the memo, Hubert added:   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)