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

On Friday, March 19, 2021 at 7:38:21 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> 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? 

Not the point.  I'm just saying that Bookhout cannot be adduced as one who 
heard Oswald say "2nd floor".

dcw