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

On Friday, March 5, 2021 at 2:59:01 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Friday, March 5, 2021 at 12:45:03 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote: 
> > 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   CUT
> > > > > > 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.
> Right. If it conflicts with your conclusions just call it fraudulent and 
> ignore it thereafter. 
> 
> Sorry, no. We need more than your say-so that it's fraudulent. Fritz was 
> there, you were not. He took notes and prepared a summary document.

He said that he wrote that up some time later, plenty of time for 
extraneous information to get into it.

 You don't 
> get to reject it solely because you're unhappy with what it says.
> > 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....
> Or maybe Oswald didn't mention it initially, until the encounter was 
> relayed to Fritz and it came up in the interrogation session.

The Hosty-Bookhout report is about that first session, and the encounter 
is NOT mentioned, just a trip to the soda machine on the 2nd floor.

 You're 
> basing your rejection of the LEOs reports (which as far as you know relay 
> precisely what Oswald said) on perhaps nothing more than perhaps Oswald's 
> inconsistent statements in custody.

No, on Bookhout's inconsistent reports of what Oswald said in the first 
interview.


 So if the suspect tells inconsistent 
> stories in custody, you find that's a reason to question the police 
> reporting, not the suspect's. That's funny.

Not as funny as your state of denial.


> > 
> > 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.
> So what? Please explain how this means the encounter that is mentioned by 
> Holmes, Bookhout, and Fritz (three different law enforcement agencies) 
> never happened.

Again, it happened, but not necessarily in the 2nd-floor lunchroom.  
Holmes, for one, said Oswald didn't mention the latter.


> > And in his testimony he clarifies 
> > that the encounter took place in the front-door vestibule!
> So what? This sounds like he's talking about the encounter with a newman 
> that Oswald mistook for a secret service agent. In other words, he 
> confabulated two different encounters into one. Or Oswald did that. 
> Again, you're accusing Holmes of errors that you haven't established he 
> made. You're simply assuming he made them.

"Errors"?  No, I'm not.  I believe that Holmes at least thought that 
Oswald had mentioned a front-door encounter with a cop.  You're 
speculating, though it's interesting speculation....


> > 
> > 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!
> Yes, so? None of those men were there for the encounter in question. They 
> were reporting what Oswald said.

Then refrain from adducing these 2nd-hand reports as proof that the 
encounter took place on the 2nd floor.

 You don't know where the errors were 
> introduced and by whom (it could have been Oswald who made those 
> statements that the police faithfully reported). Holmes did point out in 
> his testimony he hadn't been in the building.
> > 
> > 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?
> That's something you need to establish, I don't. I'm not arguing for a 
> frame-up of Oswald. You're the one doing that.
> > 
> > 
> > > 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".
> Asked and answered. You ignored it. Baker did mention the encounter, his 
> error was he put it on the third or fourth floor. That error doesn't mean 
> it didn't happen.

Note that I said "the lunchroom", not "the encounter", which could have 
happened in any one of 5 different locations, unless you wish to posit 5 
Oswalds....

dcw