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

On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 at 10:37:04 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> 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.

Whoa, Don. You went from claiming Fritz's memo was *fraudulent* to 
backtracking into "plenty of time for extraneous information to get into 
it". You still haven't established the extraneous info nor the fraud. 
You're just making unsubstantiated assertions.

> 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.
 

Other memos do mention it. It happened on the second 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.
     Ok, walk me through how you know it didn't happen, or how you know 
it didn't happen on the second floor. You're arguing that an inconsistent 
response means the entire encounter should be discarded, it appears.

> 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.

What am I denying, Don? The evidence indicates there was an encounter on 
the second floor between Oswald and Officer Baker shortly after the 
assassination. In fact, numerous Warren Commission critics argue this 
encounter gives Oswald an alibi, because he didn't have time to get down 
to the second floor by the time Baker got there, so that means Oswald 
couldn't have pulled the trigger on the sixth floor. What exactly are you 
arguing for? Can you spell it out? Or don't you know?

> > > 
> > > 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.

Where'd it happen then? There is one piece of evidence you're overlooking 
in your desire to move the encounter from the second floor lunchroom.

It's Roy Truly's testimony. Baker wasn't familiar with the Depository, and 
Oswald's words were reported by various LEO's a bit differently, so any 
discrepancies in those reports can be chalked up as simple errors of 
recollection or understanding.

But Roy Truly was familiar with the Depository and he reported the 
encounter happened on the second floor, in the lunchroom. His testimony 
can be read here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly1.htm

== QUOTE ==
Mr. TRULY. I suppose I was up two or three steps before I realized the officer wasn't following me.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. TRULY. I came back to the second floor landing.
Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
Mr. TRULY. I heard some voices, or a voice, coming from the area of the lunchroom, or the inside vestibule, the area of 24.
Mr. BELIN. All right. And I see that there appears to be on the second floor diagram, a room marked lunchroom.
Mr. TRULY. That is right.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. TRULY. I ran over and looked in this door No. 23.
Mr. BELIN. Through the glass, or was the door open?
Mr. TRULY. I don't know. I think I opened the door. I feel like I did. I don't remember.
Mr. BELIN. It could have been open or it could have been closed, you do not remember?
Mr. TRULY. The chances are it was closed.
Mr. BELIN. You thought you opened it?
Mr. TRULY. I think I opened it. I opened the door back and leaned in this way.
Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
Mr. TRULY. I saw the officer almost directly in the doorway of the lunch-room facing Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. And where was Lee Harvey Oswald at the time you saw him?
Mr. TRULY. He was at the front of the lunchroom, not very far inside he was just inside the lunchroom door.
... 
Mr. BELIN. ... What did you see or hear the officer say or do?
Mr. TRULY. When I reached there, the officer had his gun pointing at Oswald. The officer turned this way and said, "This man work here?" And I said, "Yes."
Mr. BELIN. And then what happened?
Mr. TRULY. Then we left Lee Harvey Oswald immediately and continued to run up the stairways until we reached the fifth floor.
== UNQUOTE ==

Does that not resolve for all time where the encounter took place? Or is 
Roy Truly lying about this encounter in your conspiracy and cover-up 
ladden world?

> > > 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. 

Right, and there was a separate encounter at the front door, most likely 
involving Oswald and a person in a suit, that Oswald described (as 
reported by a LEO in a separate memo) as a "Secret Service Agent". More 
than likely, it was a newsman looking for a phone to call his TV network 
or newspaper.

It didn't involve a person readily recognized as a police officer. Officer 
Baker was in uniform, and had been on his motorcycle in the motorcade 
until the shots were fired. There's no way you could be suggesting Oswald 
thought Officer Baker was a Secret Service agent. Like I said, it sounds 
like Holmes confabulated two different stories Oswald told into one.

> You're speculating, though it's interesting speculation....

It's speculation supported by the evidence.

> > > 
> > > 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.

I've got two words for you, Don: Roy Truly. Seriously.
His is not second hand reports. He was there. His is an eyewitness report.
He puts the encounter on the second floor, inside the lunchroom. 
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
Mr. TRULY. I saw the officer almost directly in the doorway of the lunch-room facing Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. And where was Lee Harvey Oswald at the time you saw him?
Mr. TRULY. He was at the front of the lunchroom, not very far inside he was just inside the lunchroom door.
...
Mr. TRULY. When I reached there, the officer had his gun pointing at Oswald. The officer turned this way and said, "This man work here?" And I said, "Yes."
== UNQUOTE ==
    
    
> 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. 
 

You ignored my point here.

> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 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.... 

Hilarious.

It only happened in one location, with one Lee Oswald. And one Roy Truly. 
And one Officer Baker.

And that's the second floor lunchroom.

And the memos for the record by various LEOs mention the encounter, 
although they get some things wrong.

Those errors don't call into question the encounter itself.

Hank