Re: Was. W.W. Scoggins the only witness at 10th and Patton who actually

On Sunday, February 28, 2021 at 3:43:53 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 9:58:39 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote: 
> > On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 2:10:02 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote: 
> > > On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 12:41:23 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote: 
> > > > On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 5:45:10 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote: 
> > > > > On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 7:03:25 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote: 
> > > > > > On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 4:54:28 PM UTC-8, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 5:04:45 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote: 
> > > > > > > > On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 6:24:56 AM UTC-8, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 6:13:58 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, February 12, 2021 at 5:15:06 AM UTC-8, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 7:47:47 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > And yet I'd be willing to bet that you swear by the lineup IDs of the six 
> > > > > > > > > > > > witnesses. Apparently, lineups clear up memories and make participants 
> > > > > > > > > > > > suddenly more "observant" and unerring. 
> > > > > > > > > > > My position on witnesses has always been consistent. I believe witnesses 
> > > > > > > > > > > who can be corroborated. The fact that these witnesses IDed the guy who 
> > > > > > > > > > > was arrested in possession of the gun that killed Tippit is rock solid 
> > > > > > > > > > > corroboration. If they had IDed somebody else, I would doubt them. 
> > > > > > > > > > McWatters ID'd Oswald, "who was arrested in possession of the gun that 
> > > > > > > > > > killed Tippit." And yet the Commission rejected that ID. So much for 
> > > > > > > > > > "rock solid". McW was "corroborated". I think that my objections to at 
> > > > > > > > > > least 3 other "positive" lineup IDs (Va. Davis, Markham, Scoggins), like 
> > > > > > > > > > McW's, are at least as valid, if not more so, than 
the Commission's. 
> > > > > > > > > The WC did not reject McWatters' ID of Oswald as the man who got on his 
> > > > > > > > > bus and then got off a short time later. 
> > > > > > > > Sounds like they DID: "McWatters' recollection alone was too vague to be 
> > > > > > > > a basis for placing Oswald on the bus." (WR p159) 
> > > > > > > That is not a rejection. It is a qualifier. By itself, McWatters' ID of 
> > > > > > > Oswald would not have been compelling. It required corroboration. They 
> > > > > > > got it in two forms. First was the bus transfer in Oswald's pocket when 
> > > > > > > arrested that contained McWatters' unique punch. Second was the ID of 
> > > > > > > Oswald by Mary Bledsoe, his former landlady. Her testimony is 
> > > > > > > corroborated by the fact she noticed there was a hole in the elbow of 
> > > > > > > Oswald's shirt. 
> > > > > > Yeah, she noticed it when Sorrels brought it to her home! 
> > > > > 
> > > > > So your argument is she noticed it when it was first shown to her and she 
> > > > > reaffirmed she saw that hole when it was shown to her later, in her Warren 
> > > > > Commission testimony. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm curious why you think this helps your cause. 
> > > > She noticed it, or it was pointed out to her, when Sorrels showed her the 
> > > > shirt, but she hadn't necessarily seen it before. 
> > > And you can establish this because? Oh, you can't. You're just wishing upon 
> > > a star. 
> > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bledsoe1.htm 
> > > 
> > > Bledsoe's affidavit from the day after the assassination says not only 
> > > that she was on the bus and saw Oswald, but she mentions that someone said 
> > > the President had been shot. She further mentions that Oswald got on about 
> > > Murphy Street and left after only two or three blocks. 
> > > 
> > > She was lying about all that? 
> > > 
> > > Hank 
> > Oh, you're quick!
> "Oh, you're quick!" is another remark that's not responsive to my points. 
> It's neither a concession you're wrong, nor an argument for why you're 
> right. 
> 
> Why do I suspect you'll drop this line of argument for a month or two and 
> then bring it up anew as if we never had this discussion about Bledsoe - 
> in a fringe reset? 
> 

Weren't you the one who brought her up this time?

> Hank