Post by Gil Jesus on Sept 25, 2021 7:23:15 GMT -5
THE DAVISES
Barbara Jeanette and Virginia Davis were sisters-in-law married to brothers. They lived in separate apartments in the same building, on the southeast corner of 10th Street and Patton Ave. On November 22, 1963, both women were in the apartment of Barbara when J.D. Tippit was murdered.
Like many of these witnesses, their recollections of what they heard, what they saw and what they did are so different that a reasonable and prudent person has to question their credibility.
They agreed that they only heard two shots, they agreed that they saw a man with a gun cutting across their lawn and they agreed on the seating arrangement when they viewed the lineup.
That was about it.
They did not agree on the sequence of events, the description of the man they saw, or which one of them at the lineup identified Oswald first.
On November 22nd, 1963 Barbara Davis swore out an affidavit to the Dallas Police Department that gave no description of the man she saw. She made no mention of opening the door, no mention of going out onto the porch and no mention that the gunman looked up and smiled at her, all details she would add in subsequent versions of the events.
As time went on, this witness' version of events seemed to take on a life of its own. With each version came an addition producing more drama.
Ten days later, she gave an affidavit to the US Secret Service indicating that " a few minutes after 1:00 pm" she heard two gunshots, ran to the front and "opened the front door and also the screen door" to see a man with a gun cutting across her lawn. (CD 87, pg. 447)
By the time she was deposed on March 25, 1964, her story had expanded. She repeated opening the front door and screen door in her testimony ( 3 H 343 ) and added that she was standing on the porch (ibid., pg. 344).
That's a pretty brave lady.
She said that she saw the man with the gun in his right hand shaking the shells out into his left hand. (ibid.)
She saw Mrs. Markham and heard her screaming that "he killed him " and noticed the police car when Markham pointed at it. She claimed that the gunman looked first at Mrs. Markham, then at her and smiled. (3 H 344)
She then went inside to call police.
For the first time, she described the man she saw as 23-24 years old with dark hair, average height and weight, wearing a dark colored woolen sports coat with dark trousers and a light colored shirt. In fact, she called his coat a black coat. (3 H 347)
Her description of the killer's clothing eliminates Oswald as that killer. Oswald was wearing neither a dark colored woolen sports coat nor a light colored shirt when he was arrested.
In fact, when she was shown the jacket and shirt currently in evidence, she refused to identify either as the jacket and shirt the killer was wearing. (ibid.)
So according to the official record, Barbara's "positive identification" was that Oswald killed Tippit wearing a dark colored woolen sports jacket, dark pants and a light colored shirt.
Ridiculous.
What's even more ridiculous was the confusing testimony of her sister-in-law, Virginia.
Virginia agreed that they heard two shots and ran to the door, but in her affidavit given to Dallas Police on the evening of November 22nd, ( which BTW lists her as a 16 year old white male ) she said that "we ran to the side door on Patton Street". (19 H 429)
Like her sister-in-law, she offered no description of the man she saw.
Ten days later she swore out another affidavit, this one to the Secret Service, that they heard two gunshots and "ran to the front door" and "went out on the porch." (CD 87, pg. 447)
In this affidavit, she swears that the man she saw had the weapon in his left hand and was shaking the shells out into his right.
But in her deposition given on April 2, 1964, she reverses that, saying that the gunman had the weapon in his right hand and was emptying the shells into his left palm.(6 H 459-460)
She testified that the gunman "didn't look like he was over 20 " and for the first time she describes him wearing a tan jacket and dark trousers. (ibid., pg. 457)
Her "description" comes almost 6 months after the assassination, well after Oswald and his clothing were known.
She testifies that when they ran to the front door, they never opened the door and never went out onto the porch, but instead looked out a screen door that remained closed. (ibid., pg. 459)
She's asked if the gunman looked up at them and she replied no. (ibid. pg. 466)
Then there's the sequence of when Barbara called the police. Was it before or after they saw the man with the gun ? First she claims it was before (ibid., pg. 460) then after (ibid, pg 466).
It's at this point that her testimony becomes so confusing, the Commission's counsel has to give her an unprecedented 3 minute break in order to get the sequence right. (ibid., pg. 467)
She finally settles on Barbara calling the police after they saw the man with the gun.
At the police lineup, each one of the Davises testified that she was the first one who identified Oswald. Barbara claimed that right (3 H 350) as did Virginia (6 H 462).
The Davises viewed lineup # 3. Detective Sims conducted lineup # 3 at 6:30 pm on Friday. As I've said before, the person conducting the lineup is not supposed to know which man is the suspect.
According to Capt. Fritz, Sims was present at the first interrogation session between 2:15 and 4:05 (4 H 209) and thus knew that Oswald was the suspect prior to his conducting the 6:30 lineup.
In addition, Sims testified that he KNEW ALL THREE OF THE POLICE FILLERS that were used in the lineup he conducted. (7 H 179)
That's another no-no.
As if having one blond in the first two lineups was not enough, the Dallas Police put TWO blonds in the lineup with Oswald and Ables for lineup # 3.(7 H 179)
In this lineup, the witnesses, Barbara and Virginia Davis described the man they saw running across their lawn as white male, slender, light complexion, with either light brown or black hair. (3 H 349) (6 H 457).
But both fillers Richard Walter Borchgardt and Ellis Carl Brazel had blond hair, and a ruddy complexion. (7 H 179) And Ables also had a ruddy complexion (7 H 242-243, 7 H 168)
None of these men matched the description given by either of the witnesses, making Oswald the only choice.
According to their testimonies, this is how they were seated during the lineup:
Because they were allowed to view the lineup together rather than separately and the fact that the seating was so close together, it was impossible for any identification to not to be heard by the other.
Finally both women denied having seen Oswald in the newspaper before viewing the lineup. While Virginia's excuse was that they didn't get the paper until the following morning, ( 6 H 461 ) Barbara testified that they got an evening paper but she was too busy to read it. (3 H 348)
While the world was glued to its TV sets and the front pages of newspapers around the globe flashed news of the President's assassination, these women were too busy to notice.
These gals couldn't agree on which door they ran to, whether or not that door was opened, which hand the gunman held the weapon, how old he was, what he was wearing, whether or not he looked up at them, when Barbara called police or which one identified Oswald first.
They couldn't even agree on what part of the day they received the newspaper.
But the Commission had no problem with these witnesses' credibility as long as they "positively identified" Oswald as the man they saw.
Their contradictory and ever changing statements create for these witnesses a credibility issue. Their statements and testimony create more questions than they answer.
Which version is correct? Who's telling the truth and who's mistaken? What did they really see?
So far we've seen six witnesses whose stories have consistently changed over the years, whose accounts of what they saw conflicted and whose "positive identification" of Oswald was a result of pressure and manipulation of the lineups by the Dallas Police.
But there is more.
NEXT WEEKEND: PART IV: THE JEFFERSON AVE WITNESSES
Barbara Jeanette and Virginia Davis were sisters-in-law married to brothers. They lived in separate apartments in the same building, on the southeast corner of 10th Street and Patton Ave. On November 22, 1963, both women were in the apartment of Barbara when J.D. Tippit was murdered.
Like many of these witnesses, their recollections of what they heard, what they saw and what they did are so different that a reasonable and prudent person has to question their credibility.
They agreed that they only heard two shots, they agreed that they saw a man with a gun cutting across their lawn and they agreed on the seating arrangement when they viewed the lineup.
That was about it.
They did not agree on the sequence of events, the description of the man they saw, or which one of them at the lineup identified Oswald first.
On November 22nd, 1963 Barbara Davis swore out an affidavit to the Dallas Police Department that gave no description of the man she saw. She made no mention of opening the door, no mention of going out onto the porch and no mention that the gunman looked up and smiled at her, all details she would add in subsequent versions of the events.
As time went on, this witness' version of events seemed to take on a life of its own. With each version came an addition producing more drama.
Ten days later, she gave an affidavit to the US Secret Service indicating that " a few minutes after 1:00 pm" she heard two gunshots, ran to the front and "opened the front door and also the screen door" to see a man with a gun cutting across her lawn. (CD 87, pg. 447)
By the time she was deposed on March 25, 1964, her story had expanded. She repeated opening the front door and screen door in her testimony ( 3 H 343 ) and added that she was standing on the porch (ibid., pg. 344).
That's a pretty brave lady.
She said that she saw the man with the gun in his right hand shaking the shells out into his left hand. (ibid.)
She saw Mrs. Markham and heard her screaming that "he killed him " and noticed the police car when Markham pointed at it. She claimed that the gunman looked first at Mrs. Markham, then at her and smiled. (3 H 344)
She then went inside to call police.
For the first time, she described the man she saw as 23-24 years old with dark hair, average height and weight, wearing a dark colored woolen sports coat with dark trousers and a light colored shirt. In fact, she called his coat a black coat. (3 H 347)
Her description of the killer's clothing eliminates Oswald as that killer. Oswald was wearing neither a dark colored woolen sports coat nor a light colored shirt when he was arrested.
In fact, when she was shown the jacket and shirt currently in evidence, she refused to identify either as the jacket and shirt the killer was wearing. (ibid.)
So according to the official record, Barbara's "positive identification" was that Oswald killed Tippit wearing a dark colored woolen sports jacket, dark pants and a light colored shirt.
Ridiculous.
What's even more ridiculous was the confusing testimony of her sister-in-law, Virginia.
Virginia agreed that they heard two shots and ran to the door, but in her affidavit given to Dallas Police on the evening of November 22nd, ( which BTW lists her as a 16 year old white male ) she said that "we ran to the side door on Patton Street". (19 H 429)
Like her sister-in-law, she offered no description of the man she saw.
Ten days later she swore out another affidavit, this one to the Secret Service, that they heard two gunshots and "ran to the front door" and "went out on the porch." (CD 87, pg. 447)
In this affidavit, she swears that the man she saw had the weapon in his left hand and was shaking the shells out into his right.
But in her deposition given on April 2, 1964, she reverses that, saying that the gunman had the weapon in his right hand and was emptying the shells into his left palm.(6 H 459-460)
She testified that the gunman "didn't look like he was over 20 " and for the first time she describes him wearing a tan jacket and dark trousers. (ibid., pg. 457)
Her "description" comes almost 6 months after the assassination, well after Oswald and his clothing were known.
She testifies that when they ran to the front door, they never opened the door and never went out onto the porch, but instead looked out a screen door that remained closed. (ibid., pg. 459)
She's asked if the gunman looked up at them and she replied no. (ibid. pg. 466)
Then there's the sequence of when Barbara called the police. Was it before or after they saw the man with the gun ? First she claims it was before (ibid., pg. 460) then after (ibid, pg 466).
It's at this point that her testimony becomes so confusing, the Commission's counsel has to give her an unprecedented 3 minute break in order to get the sequence right. (ibid., pg. 467)
She finally settles on Barbara calling the police after they saw the man with the gun.
At the police lineup, each one of the Davises testified that she was the first one who identified Oswald. Barbara claimed that right (3 H 350) as did Virginia (6 H 462).
The Davises viewed lineup # 3. Detective Sims conducted lineup # 3 at 6:30 pm on Friday. As I've said before, the person conducting the lineup is not supposed to know which man is the suspect.
According to Capt. Fritz, Sims was present at the first interrogation session between 2:15 and 4:05 (4 H 209) and thus knew that Oswald was the suspect prior to his conducting the 6:30 lineup.
In addition, Sims testified that he KNEW ALL THREE OF THE POLICE FILLERS that were used in the lineup he conducted. (7 H 179)
That's another no-no.
As if having one blond in the first two lineups was not enough, the Dallas Police put TWO blonds in the lineup with Oswald and Ables for lineup # 3.(7 H 179)
In this lineup, the witnesses, Barbara and Virginia Davis described the man they saw running across their lawn as white male, slender, light complexion, with either light brown or black hair. (3 H 349) (6 H 457).
But both fillers Richard Walter Borchgardt and Ellis Carl Brazel had blond hair, and a ruddy complexion. (7 H 179) And Ables also had a ruddy complexion (7 H 242-243, 7 H 168)
None of these men matched the description given by either of the witnesses, making Oswald the only choice.
According to their testimonies, this is how they were seated during the lineup:
Because they were allowed to view the lineup together rather than separately and the fact that the seating was so close together, it was impossible for any identification to not to be heard by the other.
Finally both women denied having seen Oswald in the newspaper before viewing the lineup. While Virginia's excuse was that they didn't get the paper until the following morning, ( 6 H 461 ) Barbara testified that they got an evening paper but she was too busy to read it. (3 H 348)
While the world was glued to its TV sets and the front pages of newspapers around the globe flashed news of the President's assassination, these women were too busy to notice.
These gals couldn't agree on which door they ran to, whether or not that door was opened, which hand the gunman held the weapon, how old he was, what he was wearing, whether or not he looked up at them, when Barbara called police or which one identified Oswald first.
They couldn't even agree on what part of the day they received the newspaper.
But the Commission had no problem with these witnesses' credibility as long as they "positively identified" Oswald as the man they saw.
Their contradictory and ever changing statements create for these witnesses a credibility issue. Their statements and testimony create more questions than they answer.
Which version is correct? Who's telling the truth and who's mistaken? What did they really see?
So far we've seen six witnesses whose stories have consistently changed over the years, whose accounts of what they saw conflicted and whose "positive identification" of Oswald was a result of pressure and manipulation of the lineups by the Dallas Police.
But there is more.
NEXT WEEKEND: PART IV: THE JEFFERSON AVE WITNESSES