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

On Sunday, February 28, 2021 at 3:44:13 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 9:58:44 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote: 
> > On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 5:29:18 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote: 
> > > On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 9:13:26 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote: 
> > > > On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 10:43:27 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote: 
> > > > > On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 5:54:10 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote: 
> > > > > > On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 6:23:00 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 6:13:58 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote: BIG CUT 
> > > > > > > > a straight line. You and Hank invoke "zigzagging" to account for the 
> > > > > > > > travels of a suspect and a vigilante. 
> > > > > > > > You seem to think that because a 
> > > > > > > > > witness says something that establishes it as a fact. Unless of course 
> > > > > > > > > that witness says something that conflicts with what you want to believe. 
> > > > > > > > You're perfectly describing the mindset of Fritz, Bookhout, & Kelley, who 
> > > > > > > > wrote Oswald's interviews. Oh, yes, "wrote". What, that is, McW wrote in 
> > > > > > > > his 11/22 affidavit "conflicted" with what the DPD, FBI & SS wanted to 
> > > > > > > > hear. So they demolished that affidavit, changed everything, rewrote the 
> > > > > > > > interviews, and discredited McW's ID of Oswald. If you don't believe me, 
> > > > > > > > listen to the recording of the interviews. Oh, that's right.... 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > dcw 
> > > > > > > Bizarre. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > If the LEOs were making up Oswald's answers after the fact, why didn't 
> > > > > > > they make up that Oswald admitted that he admitted to owning a rifle? Or 
> > > > > > > make up that Oswald admitted it was a legit photo of him with his rifle in 
> > > > > > > the Neely Street backyard. 
> > > > Former poster here Walt Cakebread insisted that the photo of him & the 
> > > > rifle was a fraud. 
> > > Nobody cares what Walt Cakebread insisted. We also don't care if he held 
> > > his breath and stamped his feet. It doesn't change the facts any. And your 
> > > diversionary tactic doesn't answer my question... If the LEO's were making 
> > > up Oswald's answers after the fact, why didn't they make up that Oswald 
> > > admitted that he admitted to owning a rifle? Or make up that Oswald 
> > > admitted it was a legit photo of him with his rifle in the Neely Street 
> > > backyard? 
> > We don't know WHAT he admitted or did not admit--we have no recordings of 
> > the interviews.
> You avoided answering my question. I know there's no recordings - in 1963 
> it wasn't standard procedure. I asked why - if they wanted to frame 
> Oswald, why didn't they make up where he admitted owning a rifle or 
> admitted that was a photo of him in the Neely Street back yard? 
> 
> We have memorandum for the record compiled by law enforcement officers 
> from four different agencies. You couldn't get those agencies to 
> coordinate working together back in 1963 to empty a waste basket, but they 
> all agreed on the day of the assassination to work together to frame 
> Oswald? 
> 
> And they all felt the best approach was to make up and put in their memos 
> a bunch of denials Oswald made (like he didn't shoot the President, he 
> didn't kill any police officer

Didn't he make a public statement that he didn't kill anyone?

, he didn't bring any long package to work, 
> he didn't own a rifle) rather than a bunch of admissions? 
> 
> Your argument makes no sense.
> > > 
> > > Instead, you want to talk about what Cakebread "insisted", which is the BY 
> > > photos are frauds -- totally off the point of my question and doesn't 
> > > address or support your claims in any way. 
> > > > All I know is that it was thoughtful of Oswald to 
> > > > leave more evidence around. He was good about that.... 
> > > Sigh. Critics attempt to have it both ways. If the evidence points to 
> > > Oswald, it's because he was framed, so of course the evidence points to
> > > him.
> > I'm not in your Critics group here--I don't think that Oswald was framed 
> > for shooting JFK.
> You're in the critics group on the TIppit murder, and you employ the same 
> routine. You're not any different. 
> 
> You're the one suggesting it was thoughtful of Oswald to leave evidence 
> behind -- you're trying to suggest Oswald didn't leave the evidence behind 
> and it was planted to frame him in the murder of Tippit. You suggest the 
> witnesses are lying, the police are lying, the FBI memos are falsified, 
> the Secret Service was in on the frame up, and the evidence was swapped or 
> planted to better frame Oswald. 
> 
> We've seen all that nonsense before. You're not any different in that 
> regard.
> > > If there's no evidence (like where he purchased the MC ammo), then 
> > > it's because he was framed, so of course there's no evidence pointing to 
> > > him. 
> > > 
> > > You're doing it here, attempting to dismiss solid evidence against Oswald 
> > > solely because it's solid evidence against Oswald. 
> > > 
> > > And of course, this is diversionary tactic #2, as it doesn't begin to 
> > > answer my question in regards to your claim above, that the LEO's were 
> > > making up Oswald's interview answers after the fact ("Fritz, Bookhout, & 
> > > Kelley, who wrote Oswald's interviews. ... So they ... changed 
> > > everything, rewrote the interviews..."). 
> > > 
> > > If they were making up Oswald's responses after the fact, why didn't they 
> > > put more admissions of guilt into Oswald's mouth?
> This is what you're avoiding answering?
> > > > Or make up that he admitted bringing it to the 
> > > > > > > Depository? Or make up that he admitted shooting the President. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Instead, you proclaim they "rewrote the interviews" of Oswald to better 
> > > > > > > frame him by having him proclaim his innocence and denying he ever owned a 
> > > > > > > rifle! 
> > I shouldn't have said "changed everything"--the rifle seems to have been 
> > his and seems to have been used by him.
> What did they make up about the Tippit shooting? Why did they put denials 
> in his mouth there instead of admissions? 
> 
> More than one LEO said Oswald knew his way around an interrogation -- he 
> would admit things he felt were of no consequence but deny things he felt 
> could tie him to the murders.
> > > > > > He had proclaimed his innocence in public. 
> > > > > Yes, so? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > In your world, guilty people *always* admit guilt, and never proclaim 
> > > > > their innocence? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I fail to understand your point. Again, while he was proclaiming his 
> > > > > innocence in public, he made no public statements about his rifle that I 
> > > > > recall. Why not rewrite his statements to include an admission he owned a 
> > > > > rifle, and yeah, he brought it to work that day to show to his co-workers, 
> > > > > as another employee did earlier that week? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > He made no public denials about the backyard photos either. Why not better 
> > > > > frame him by admitting, "Yeah, that's me in the photo, and that's my 
> > > > > rifle, so what?" 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Instead, they "rewrite" his claims in custory by having him deny 
> > > > > everything! 
> > > > > 
> > > > > What do you think Oswald's original claims were, before your claim of 
> > > > > "rewriting"? 
> > > > The statement of his that I have studied was that he went to the second 
> > > > floor & got a soda. That's all. No 2nd-floor encounter. 
> > > Hilarious. The second floor encounter is confirmed by all three parties to 
> > > it (Truly, Baker, and Oswald) so of course you think it never happened. 
> > Baker neglected to mention a lunchroom in his 11/22 affidavit; Oswald only 
> > "confirmed" the 2nd-floor encounter in the fraudulent Bookhout report.
> False. I checked Fritz' report and he admitted it to Fritz

I forgot about the fraudulent Fritz report and notes.  Hosty & Bookhout 
don't mention a 2nd-floor encounter in their joint report.  Bookhout and 
Fritz do, in their later reports.  Somehow Bookhout first did not hear 
Oswald "confirm" it, then he did hear it....

 at the bottom of page two: 
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0312b.htm 
> Fritz worked for the Dallas Police Department. 
> 
> Bookout, who was an FBI agent, mentions it here as you concede: 
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm 
> 
> Harry Holmes, an inspector for the Postal Service, mentions it here

Wrong.  Holmes there doesn't mention exactly where the encounter took 
place, doesn't mention a lunchroom.  And in his testimony he clarifies 
that the encounter took place in the front-door vestibule!

 in his 
> second full paragraph on the below page: 
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0330b.htm
> > > > I believe that 
> > > > that was what he *claimed*, and Hosty & Bookhout accurately reported that. 
> > > You mean they didn't mention the encounter in their first affidavits on 
> > > their interogation of Oswald, I take it? So if it wasn't mentioned, it 
> > > didn't happen? 
> > > 
> > They DID mention that he went upstairs to get a coke. Bookhout had to 
> > make up for the omission of the encounter with his orphan report.
> All three of the above reports (Fritz, Bookhout, and Holmes) mention an 
> encounter with a police officer in the building.

Bookhout was inconsistent re mention of an encounter; Holmes, in his 
testimony, placed it at the front door.  In his testimony, Fritz placed it 
in the 1st-floor lunchroom!

 Oswald admitted it during 
> his interrogations, they noted it in their reports.
> > > Did they mention the Titanic sinking? WWI? WWII? The Packers winning the 
> > > NFL Championship in 1962? Those aren't mentioned either, so those never 
> > > happened also, right? 
> > > > Bookhout later did a retake on the first interview and completely rewrote 
> > > > that episode himself! *Bookhout* did some rewriting to include a 
> > > > 2nd-floor encounter (whether it happened or not) and have Oswald (as I 
> > > > recall) still eating lunch after 12:30....
> And Fritz and Holmes all cooperated by framing Oswald as well, right? 

How could Holmes have taken part in the frame by putting the 
Oswald-Baker-Truly encounter at the front door?


> Truly and Baker cooperated by reporting this fake encounter also?

Baker failed to mention the lunchroom in his 11/22 affidavit, and in his 
contribution to "JFK First Day Evidence".

> > > You assert this 'stuff' as if you can prove it, but it's all supposition 
> > > on your part. 
> > > 
> > > Suspects often trip themselves up by telling a different story in each 
> > > retelling, forgetting what they said the first time. So LEO's 
> > > interrogating a suspect will have them repeat the story, and often will 
> > > jump around in asking questions, not covering everything in chronological 
> > > order, as it makes the story harder for the suspect to make up. 
> > > 
> > > You appear not to know any of this, and presume if the LEOs note different 
> > > stories from the suspect in different memorandum, it's because the LEOs 
> > > are lying and rewriting, rather than the suspect adding, deleting, or 
> > > changing things as he fails to remember everything he claimed earlier. 
> > > 
> > > How did you eliminate Oswald not mentioning the encounter in his earliest 
> > > interrogations, then admitting to it in later ones? 
> > In what "later" interview did he mention a 2nd-floor-lunchroom encounter? 
> >
> Holmes for one. 

False.  (See above.)

dcw