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

On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 at 6:10:18 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Saturday, March 6, 2021 at 12:55:23 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, March 2, 2021 at 5:37:08 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote: 
> > > On Monday, March 1, 2021 at 7:54:32 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote: 
> > > > On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 6:59:21 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote: 
> > > > > On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 10:02:54 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote: 
> > > > > > On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 5:45:07 PM UTC-8, Hank CUT! 
> > > > > You don't allow for human error of any kind. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Meanwhile, Senkel records that Mrs. Johnson said that they had 17 rooms 
> > > > > > with 16 occupied. That has nothing to do with searching Oswald's room. 
> > > > > > And it's a sight less important than the (non-)fact that Oswald was there 
> > > > > > within the last 2 hours. 
> > > > > You go from a failure to note something to the argument that Oswald didn't 
> > > > > go to the rooming house and Roberts is lying. But Oswald admitted in 
> > > > > custody he went there. 
> > > > 
> > > > You mean in those unrecorded interviews? 
> > > Asked and answered. You dont have any evidence, so you harp on the gaps in the evidence, and pretend that is sufficient. 
> > > > 
> > > > And Whaley (the cab driver) said he took him to 
> > > > > within a few blocks of the rooming house. 
> > > > 
> > > > Whaley was too accommodating. He told his interviewers anything he 
> > > > thought they wanted to hear. Although I really don't think that they 
> > > > wanted to hear that Oswald was wearing two jackets & an overshirt! 
> > > "Whaley was too accomodating and he told his interviewers anything they 
> > > want to hear" according to whom? Why, you, of course. 
> > > 
> > > Remember: His testimony is evidence. 
> > 
> > Yes, of being very accommodating to his interviewers! Thank you.
> Straw man argument. It's not what I said.
> > 
> > 
> > Your opinion of his testimony is not 
> > 
> > > evidence. 
> > > > 
> > > > And Oswald had a revolver on him 
> > > > > when arrested, and the holster was found by Senkel and Potts at the 
> > > > > rooming house - but no weapon was found there. Where'd Oswald get the 
> > > > > weapon he was arrested with if not at the rooming house? 
> > > > 
> > > > Didn't say he didn't go to the rooming house, just a bit later, say 1:11, 
> > > > than commonly believed. 
> > > Whoa, Nellie. You tried to throw out Roberts claim that Oswald came to the 
> > > rooming house on the basis that she didn't mention it when the police 
> > > (Senkel and Potts?) first arrived. Now you're conceding that entire line 
> > > of argument by you was a diversionary tactic only, as you're conceding now 
> > > Oswald did in fact go to the rooming house. 
> > 
> > Good point. But Roberts didn't necessarily see him, at any time.
> Make up your mind. He either went to the rooming house or not. You have 
> him getting there at 1:11 and not going there at all. Which is it?

Ooh!--an ultimatum.  Not everyone can be as sure of everything as you are.

> > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Why was Oswald 
> > > > > armed at 1:50 and why did he pull it on officer McDonald in the movie 
> > > > > theatre when Oswald slugged McDonald? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Everyone is lying to frame Oswald? Why? 
> > > > 
> > > > To get the DPD off the hook. Fritz, shells.... 
> > > Not an answer. Your assumption of a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the 
> > > shooting of Tippit is not a justification of your assumption of a coverup 
> > > in the TSBD involving the DPD. 
> > 
> > If the same personnel are involved in Dealey and Oak Cliff, then it is. 
> > Or, rather, vice versa....
> No, an assumption doesn't justify other assumptions, nor make either 
> assumption true.
> > 
> > 
> > And vice-versa. Your assumption of a 
> > > coverup in the TSBD does not sufficiently justify the assumption of a 
> > > conspiracy to frame Oswald for killing Tippit. 
> > > 
> > Does. 
> >
> At least you're admitting everything you argue is an assumption on your 
> part.