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

On Friday, March 5, 2021 at 12:44:59 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> 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 
> > > > > > > > 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

Not at all responsive to all the points I made. You totally avoided those 
points.

John Corbett brought her up here: 
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/vHtMMDoZ45Q/m/_8KKSslzAAAJ

Keep shucking and jiving. 

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? 

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.