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

[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?

[Jerry Organ]

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

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.

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

Rowland		From where I was standing I could see from his head to about 6 inches below his waist, below his belt.
		Asked about how much of rifleman's body was       in the open view where there was no window
		From where I was standing I could see from his head to about 6 inches below his waist, below his belt.
		Mid point between the waist and the knees ... To the top of his head. There was some space on top of that where I could see  the wall behind him ... Two and a half, three feet, something on that

SW sixth-floor window captured in Dillard photo shown in right inset above. This was the one indicated by Rowland in CE-356 where he saw the rifleman. It was open as much as one of the fifth-floor windows.

Rowland said the rifleman was always standing. One cannot see the figure from "his head to about 6 inches below his waist"

[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.

[Jerry Organ]

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

Brennan thought the gunman was "standing" in the same sense as the black men were "standing" on the fifth floor.
 

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.

But Rowland claimed he saw the standing rifleman from the top of his head to "about 6 inches below his waist, below his belt."

And standing back (as towards the North) even a few feet would mean he was obscured from Rowland's view by the building's brick facade. If the rifleman went to the West, he would appear in the adjoining window.

[Colin Crow]

And how do we explain the deception attempted by Williams, Jarman and Norman that continued for some time. The statements that implied Williams ascended to the 5th floor with the others?

[John Iacoletti]

Brennan thought the gunman was "standing" in the same sense as the black men were "standing" on the fifth floor.

Right.  So if the guy Brennan saw had actually stood up after the last shot then Brennan would have known that he wasn't standing prior to that.  But he didn't.

But Rowland claimed he saw the standing rifleman from the top of his head to "about 6 inches below his waist, below his belt."

Again, that works if the guy is standing far enough behind the window.

And standing back (as towards the North) even a few feet would mean he was obscured from Rowland's view by the building's brick facade.

I don't agree.  Not at Rowland's angle.  Look at the Hess video again.  Well, I guess it depends on how far back the gunman was.  How about back towards the northwest?