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

On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 5:58:41 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 2:21:31 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote: 
> > 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.
> Like Bookhout's solo report. At the hearings not only did Bookhout not 
> mention it, but he testified that the Hosty-Bookhout report was the only 
> statement remaining which he made re the first interview.

Yes, and? How does his failure to mention it at all move it from the 
second floor?

It either happened or it didn't. It either happened on the second floor or 
it didn't.

You're pretending a failure to mention it at all means it happened, but it 
didn't happen on the second floor.

> >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.
> You keep saying that. I keep saying that, yes, there was an encounter, 
> but not necessarily on the 2nd floor.

I asked you to walk me through your logic. It appears you ignored that.

So how does Bookhout's failure to mention the encounter at all move it 
from the second floor?

> > > 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?
> I'm simply arguing for encounter somewhere, not necessarily on the 2nd 
> floor.

Yes, I understand that. But you're using Bookhout's failure to mention the 
encounter in one of his memos for the record as the reason to move it from 
the second floor, and that makes no sense. Truly knew the building, and he 
put it on the second floor.


> > > > > 
> > > > > 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 if Kent Biffle's source (in his news story that weekend) re Oswald 
> being stopped at the front door was Truly, then that was Truly's original 
> take. One of Biffle's early sources was Truly.... 

Again, that sounds more like the story Oswald told in custody as relayed 
here:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0327a.htm
Truly wasn't involved in that encounter.

You don't resolve the issue in your favor merely by suggesting "maybe 
Biffle's source was Truly". Where's the evidence Biffle's source was 
Truly? You have none, so you're forced to resort to conjecture to support 
your previous conjecture and your conjecture below that "maybe Truly was 
lying about where the encounter took place".

> > 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?
> He might have been. 

Hilarious. For what purpose? For every instance of your reconstruction 
invoking someone lying, you lose credibility and your reconstruction 
becomes less likely. Eventually, your credibility approaches zero as does 
the likelihood of your reconstruction being true.

What's the evidence Roy Truly was lying, and what's his motivation for 
doing so?


> Do you mean "laden"? If so, what other conspiracies 
> have I maintained existed, other than the Kennedy & Tippit ones? 
> 
> dcw

Those are the only two murders in Dallas we're discussing, so yeah, it's 
your conspiracy-laden world.