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

On Sunday, February 28, 2021 at 11:35:04 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. 
> > > 
> > > 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. 
> > . 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? 
> > > > 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. 
> > > > > > 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;
> I covered the other stuff in an earlier post, but I missed this. That's a 
> half-truth, the kind critics specialize in. The kind that leaves an 
> impression to the unknowledgable reader of one thing, when the exact 
> opposite is true. 
> 
> Baker's 11/22/63 memorandum for the record mentions an encounter involving 
> himself, "the manager", which can only be Truly, and a third male, which 
> can only be Oswald. 
> 
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm 
> 
> == QUOTE == 
> 
> As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the 
> stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward 
> me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the 
> man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man 
> approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a 
> light brown jacket. 
> 
> == UNQUOTE == 
> 
> All it misstates is the floor. Baker put the encounter on the third or 
> fourth floor. The encounter actually occurred on the second floor. Of 
> course you stress the one thing he got wrong in the original affidavit, 
> neglecting to even mention that he did note the encounter between himself, 
> Truly and Oswald. Is that an honest accounting of what transpired? 
> 

I don't think I ever said that the encounter did not happen.  The question 
was where; and at different times, people placed it on the 3rd or 4th 
floor, the 2nd-floor lunchroom, the first-floor lunchroom, and the front 
door to the building.  This uncertainty re Oswald's alibi was what made 
me, finally, believe that he was involved in the shooting upstairs.

dcw

CUT