The Ed Forum is having a total Meltdown and chicken bones!

[David Von Pein]

BTW/FYI....

Here's a different photo showing Gerry Hill leaning out the window, and this picture verifies that it is definitely Hill's hat that he is holding....

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184839/m1/1/

[David Von Pein]

I take it you have nothing about the officers who all claimed it was in the SN before the arrival of Fritz.

Only the things I said previously in 2015....

"And a piece of chicken that inexplicably goes from one part of the sixth floor to another (and I cannot explain it;
I have no idea why there is the conflicting testimony regarding the chicken bones) is not going to suddenly ERASE the physical evidence of Oswald's guilt. .... Nobody in this discussion has done anything that diminishes Lee Oswald's guilty status----even if the chicken bones WERE moved around on the sixth floor by somebody (anybody!) on November 22nd." -- DVP; Circa 2015—2016

[David Von Pein]

From Vince Bugliosi's book (re: the chicken bones)....

---quote on---

"During a search of the sixth floor after the assassination, a detective for the Crime Scene Search Section of the Dallas Police Department found a lunch bag with chicken bones, a piece of waxed paper, and a little piece of Fritos in it in front of the “third” double-window over from the southeasternmost window on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building. He also found a Dr. Pepper bottle nearby. (7 H 146, WCT Robert Lee Studebaker; CD 1245, p.84, FBI interview of Robert Studebaker on May 29, 1964)

Since Bonnie Williams had chicken, Fritos, and a Dr. Pepper for lunch at that exact place, that should have been the end of it. Lieutenant J. C. Day dusted the Dr. Pepper bottle for fingerprints, and no prints of Oswald’s were found. When Day later found out the food and drink had belonged to Williams, he decided the lunch bag and Dr. Pepper bottle had no value to the case and threw the sack and bottle away. (CD 1245, p.83)

Not so fast, said conspiracy theorist Sylvia Meagher, who said that since Day “saw no need to check the empty bottle for fingerprints other than Oswald’s, we will never know if fingerprints were on the bottle, or whose they were.” And even though Studebaker, whose job it was to search the sixth floor, saw the food and drink next to the third double-window over, and several other witnesses said they saw them in the same place (e.g., 6 H 330–331, WCT William H. Shelley), and Williams himself said that’s where he ate his lunch, Meagher proceeded to cite other witnesses who said they saw food elsewhere, for example, Luke Mooney (3 H 288–289), who said he saw a piece of chicken on top of the boxes surrounding the sniper’s nest. (Meagher, Accessories after the Fact, pp.39–41)

Other than her and her colleagues’ insatiable passion for pointing out normal (not to them) inconsistencies in the recollections of witnesses, nowhere does Meagher tell her readers what the relevance of these inconsistencies was. Was it her point that Williams was lying, that the chicken eater was the assassin in the sniper’s nest (who wasn’t, Meagher would assure us, Oswald), or Williams was not lying, but the assassin in the sniper’s nest was also eating chicken while he waited to kill the president?

I wish the theorists would tell us the relevance of the many inconsistencies they cite in the Kennedy case instead of feeling that the inconsistencies are an end in themselves and nothing else has to be shown or argued." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 23 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)


---------------- BONUS! ----------------

[Colin Crow]

Only the things I said previously in 2015....

"And a piece of chicken that inexplicably goes from one part of the sixth floor to another (and I cannot explain it;
I have no idea why there is the conflicting testimony regarding the chicken bones) is not going to suddenly ERASE the physical evidence of Oswald's guilt. .... Nobody in this discussion has done anything that diminishes Lee Oswald's guilty status----even if the chicken bones WERE moved around on the sixth floor by somebody (anybody!) on November 22nd." -- DVP; Circa 2015—2016

In reality there is no conflicting testimony once sorted effectively. So, I take it this a sort of admission that the lunch might have been in the SN after all.  But even after what I have presented from the available evidence you still have no idea.

[Colin Crow]

From Vince Bugliosi's book (re: the chicken bones)....

---quote on---

"During a search of the sixth floor after the assassination, a detective for the Crime Scene Search Section of the Dallas Police Department found a lunch bag with chicken bones, a piece of waxed paper, and a little piece of Fritos in it in front of the “third” double-window over from the southeasternmost window on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building. He also found a Dr. Pepper bottle nearby. (7 H 146, WCT Robert Lee Studebaker; CD 1245, p.84, FBI interview of Robert Studebaker on May 29, 1964)

Since Bonnie Williams had chicken, Fritos, and a Dr. Pepper for lunch at that exact place, that should have been the end of it. Lieutenant J. C. Day dusted the Dr. Pepper bottle for fingerprints, and no prints of Oswald’s were found. When Day later found out the food and drink had belonged to Williams, he decided the lunch bag and Dr. Pepper bottle had no value to the case and threw the sack and bottle away. (CD 1245, p.83)

Not so fast, said conspiracy theorist Sylvia Meagher, who said that since Day “saw no need to check the empty bottle for fingerprints other than Oswald’s, we will never know if fingerprints were on the bottle, or whose they were.” And even though Studebaker, whose job it was to search the sixth floor, saw the food and drink next to the third double-window over, and several other witnesses said they saw them in the same place (e.g., 6 H 330–331, WCT William H. Shelley), and Williams himself said that’s where he ate his lunch, Meagher proceeded to cite other witnesses who said they saw food elsewhere, for example, Luke Mooney (3 H 288–289), who said he saw a piece of chicken on top of the boxes surrounding the sniper’s nest. (Meagher, Accessories after the Fact, pp.39–41)

Other than her and her colleagues’ insatiable passion for pointing out normal (not to them) inconsistencies in the recollections of witnesses, nowhere does Meagher tell her readers what the relevance of these inconsistencies was. Was it her point that Williams was lying, that the chicken eater was the assassin in the sniper’s nest (who wasn’t, Meagher would assure us, Oswald), or Williams was not lying, but the assassin in the sniper’s nest was also eating chicken while he waited to kill the president?

I wish the theorists would tell us the relevance of the many inconsistencies they cite in the Kennedy case instead of feeling that the inconsistencies are an end in themselves and nothing else has to be shown or argued." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 23 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"

Thanks David, I will tackle VB in due course.

[David Von Pein]

Thanks David, I will tackle VB in due course.

I guess 12 years hasn't been long enough, eh? After all, his book's only been out since 2007.

[Colin Crow]

BTW/FYI....

Here's a different photo showing Gerry Hill leaning out the window, and this picture verifies that it is definitely Hill's hat that he is holding....

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184839/m1/1/

A comparison for you......transpose the lunch with the rifle and Ewell for Brennan and Hill for Oswald. What would you be saying?