Why didn't the Conspirators plant Eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza?

[Colin Crow]

Rowland initially testified to parading man to being 12-15 feet back of the window. Then later changed that to 3-5 feet when, he said, he realized that no one would be able to see the man.

I remain suspicious. After all, the missus informed us of Arnie's fondness for exaggeration.

Yeah he was only 2-3 feet back and Rowland exaggerated......

Perhaps because Brennan claimed the assassin was sitting on the window ledge he wasn't there at all......ya think?

Qualitative vs quantitative Bill. A Rowland who failed to mention Williams in the SN five minutes before the shots would have been a star witness.

[John Iacoletti]

Barbara did not see him.

But Barbara did acknowledge that he mentioned the SW gunman at the time, which would imply that Rowland didn't invent or embellish the sighting at a later time.

[John Iacoletti]

Rowland initially testified to 'parading man' being 12-15 feet back of the window. Then later changed that to 3-5 feet when, he said, he realized that no one would be able to see the man.

LOL.  Brennan initially said that he could not make a positive identification.  Then later changed that to Oswald.

[John Iacoletti]

Rowland was shown to be wrong about six different instances in his testimony. Maybe you need to find a different witness. If you want a credible witness go find one.

Yeah, like the guy who saw Oswald crouched down behind boxes taking aim for the head shot FROM THE BELT UP.

[John Iacoletti]

John, l agree. But that isn't a form of corroboration per se. Arnold could well have made that up about seeing a gunman. I don't believe anyone else in Dealey Plaza saw a gunman at the SW corner of the 6th floor at around 12.15 pm. So just because Arnold mentioned it to Barbara didn't immediately imply it was true. On the other hand because he never mentioned seeing the African American to Barbara, at 12.15 pm, didn't mean it was false.

So why did the WC accept one part of his testimony (no corroboration) but rejected his other part of his testimony (no corroboration)?

Shouldn't they had rejected his entire testimony?

Because they still wanted to tick off the "saw a guy with a rifle on the 6th floor" box.  They just couldn't have another guy being there at the time.  So they had to also disregard Carolyn Walther, Ruby Henderson, Norman Similas, and Johnny Powell.

Whatever it takes.

[Nicholas Turner]

So, reading the reports online I see Rowland said initially that he saw someone with a rifle on the sixth floor at about 12.15. He later said this man was in the window at the opposite end of the building (left hand end as you look at it) and added he also saw an elderly black man hanging out of the window where the snipers nest was (right hand end) around 12.25. Is that correct?

[John Iacoletti]

I think Brennan was describing what he saw of the gunman during the head shot and immediately afterward, when the gunman stood up and might have been bend forward for a few seconds as he moved back into the room.

The problem with that is that Brennan didn't describe the guy "standing up" afterwards.  He thought he was standing the entire time.

Rowland's got a different problem. He's describing a rifleman who was never bend and who was always standing.

That's what Hess was trying to model.  With the guy standing up but 5 (or 15 feet) back from the window, he can be seen up to his head from Rowland's position.  The guy in Brennan's window didn't have the luxury of being back from the window.

I wish Hess had tried to model the view from Brennan's position.  It would have been quite enlightening.