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

[Colin Crow]

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

I think I dealt with in my series.....the one that got lost in the forum hack. Let me see if I can find it.

and here it is.....at the end of Part One of Bags, Bones, Bungling and Bonnie Ray. I thought you had it archived except for part 4?

"What really happened.

I suggest the evidence presented above indicates clearly that the unfinished chicken piece and lunch sack were originally positioned on top of a box within 5 feet north of the box that  Oswald's right palm print was lifted from. At some time before the arrival of Capt Fritz in the SN the chicken piece and lunch sack was moved westward and placed on top of a box near the second set of windows. Interestingly in the book "No More Silence" by Larry Sneed the reporter Jim Ewell related the following account of events and provides the missing piece of the puzzle.

"Meanwhile Jerry Hill worked his way up to the sixth floor, leaned out an open window, and he had what was thought to be Oswald’s little fried chicken lunch. It was in a little pop box. Jerry was holding that box and holding up one of the chicken bones exclaiming to everybody that listened to him down on the street that the fried chicken was what he had been eating. About that time there was a commotion around one of the squad cars, and we could hear a radio saying that an officer had been shot in Oak Cliff."   

I propose that Hill was the first officer to move the bag and chicken piece from the SN. He likely dropped it on the box near the second set of windows (note his position in the photo above) after calling out to those below and departed the TSBD after on his way to the Tippit shooting site. He did not tell of his failure to preserve the crime scene.

The chicken piece and lunch sack remained in this position, unnoticed by Day and Studebaker in their few minutes in the SN before the call by Fritz after the discovery of the rifle. The piece and likely other bones noticed by Montgomery and Johnson were eventually collected and placed into the bag by Johnson who placed the bag further westward near the pop bottle and two-wheeler. Although Mooney, Hill, Montgomery and Johnson were aware of preserving the crime scene and "not touching anything", it seems only Mooney was able to resist the temptation to do so. Montgomery discovered the bag somewhere near the SN but it is unlikely it was what we have been lead to believe. The SN was observed by Mooney, Vickery, Webster, McCurley, Craig, Hill, Fritz, Sims, Boyd, Day, Studebaker prior to the discovery of the rifle. Montgomery were guarding the SN for at least half an hour and then Montgomery discovers the bag. Clearly it was not in the southeast corner by the pipes when first found. Both Johnson and Montgomery did not inform Studebaker of the original find and it was "discovered" a second time, now in the south east corner near the pipes and only folded in half. We can add Johnson and Montgomery to the group who "failed to preserve the crime scene".

The notion that the bag was found elsewhere explains why Day and Studebaker did not photograph it when they first arrived, it simply was not there. We also have evidence that the bag was about 2 feet long as stated on numerous occasions by Johnson. Studebaker strangely decided the bag was significant enough to fingerprint but not photograph at all in the SN. When questioned about its length he originally states he did not know how long it was and later claims it was almost 4 feet in length.

Of course a close look at this reality stimulates a variety of questions. The majority of these relate to Bonnie Ray Williams. I suggest it is now clear that Bonnie Ray is the black man who occupied the SN described by Arnold Rowland from about 12.15-12.25pm.
If he was in the SN, why did he drop his unfinished his lunch on the way out? Why did he not say he was there? If it was Oswald who disturbed him, why didn't he say so? Oswald was captured while he was still in the police station making a statement. If the lunch sack was Bonnie Ray's, why did the DPD not confirm his prints were on the bag (and bottle)? If Bonnie Ray was in the SN at 12.15, the man seen by Rowland he would not be seen by the man holding the rifle at the southwest window (and vice versa). Was it this man who disturbed him or did he disturb the rifleman?

We also have a logical explanation regarding the discovery of the long bag in the corner and the lack of photographic evidence when the SN was originally captured on film. Of the 12 known witnesses (13 if you count Tom Alyea) none recall seeing the bag next to the pipes in the SN until Johnson sees Montgomery pick it up, possibly about an hour after the SN was discovered by Mooney. Importantly there is evidence by Johnson that the original bag was approximately 2 feet long. Where have we heard that size before? Why weren't Montgomery and Johnson shown CE142 during their appearance before the commission?

Bugliosi's Analysis (via David von Pein)

I know there will be further questions arising from this work that I have yet to think of. It has taken me best part of 4 days on an off to compile and analyse. As a comparison let's see what WC champion Vincent Bugliosi (and his assistant writers) had to say……I wonder how long it took them.


From Vince Bugliosi's book.....


"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"

You be the judge of reality."

[Colin Crow]

Not so fast, Bugs. What happened to the prints lifted off of the bottle by Day?

According to Day they did not match Oswald's so he threw them away some time after. One might question that the evening of the assassination why the bottle and lunch sack were not sent to the FBI via Vince Drain as crime scene evidence. Even if they had excluded Oswald's prints by that time how were they to know he did not have an accomplice who used his rifle or was a spotter for him shooting?

[Colin Crow]

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

I didn’t buy his book. When I saw the superficial treatment of the evidence available (like the dismissal of Mooney in the quote) I figured I didn’t miss much. Maybe he or his ghostwriters hadn’t bothered to analyse all the available information about the chicken lunch by 2007.

[Denis Pointing]

According to Day they did not match Oswald's so he threw them away some time after. One might question that the evening of the assassination why the bottle and lunch sack were not sent to the FBI via Vince Drain as crime scene evidence. Even if they had excluded Oswald's prints by that time how were they to know he did not have an accomplice who used his rifle or was a spotter for him shooting?

Hi Colin, there would have been literally dozens of fingerprints on the bottle and sack. The factory workers where the items were made, workers who packed them, delivery drivers taking them to the stores, the storekeeper etc etc. In this instance, the only value prints would have had was if you trying to prove someone, already suspected of being near the crime scene, was actually there ie Oswald. Once his fingerprints were eliminated the items would have been useless. Saying that, I would agree that in such an important investagation all evidence should have been wrapped n saved.

[Colin Crow]

Hi Colin, there would have been literally dozens of fingerprints on the bottle and sack. The factory workers where the items were made, workers who packed them, delivery drivers taking them to the stores, the storekeeper etc etc. In this instance, the only value prints would have had was if you trying to prove someone, already suspected of being near the crime scene, was actually there ie Oswald. Once his fingerprints were eliminated the items would have been useless. Saying that, I would agree that in such an important investagation all evidence should have been wrapped n saved.

Denis, I take your point, but suppose Oswald admitted bringing in the rifle but claimed Jack Dougherty bought it from him that morning. Just a hypothetical so bear with me. If the rifle was wiped of prints, don’t you think the bottle and lunch sack should have been given to the FBI that night? They would be useful in placing him in the SN.

[Richard Smith]

There is some heavy truth from Bugs here:  "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."

This chicken story goes on and on as a I recall like the endless compulsion driven prayer man discussion.  I give Colin lots of credit for analyzing the evidence (unlike most CTers).  But what ultimately is being suggested?  That Williams was on the 6th floor and Oswald and/or the fantasy conspirators came along with a gun and shooed him away?  Trusting Williams to not raise an alarm before the assassination and forever remain silent afterward?  And Williams never mentions this to anyone even after JFK is assassinated.  That is ludicrous.  The witness testimony is not always precise and often uses language that can be interpreted in many different ways.  The floor was full of boxes and windows.  I seem to recall some instances in which the witnesses and questioner even appear confused about which bag is being discussed (i.e. lunch or rifle bag).  Bottom line:  there is perfectly good explanation for the lunch as confirmed by Williams.  He has no obvious reason to lie.  Nor did he ever indicated that he saw the assassin on that floor.

[Colin Crow]

There is some heavy truth from Bugs here:  "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."

This chicken story goes on and on as a I recall like the endless compulsion driven prayer man discussion.  I give Colin lots of credit for analyzing the evidence (unlike most CTers).  But what ultimately is being suggested?  That Williams was on the 6th floor and Oswald and/or the fantasy conspirators came along with a gun and shooed him away?  Trusting Williams to not raise an alarm before the assassination and forever remain silent afterward?  And Williams never mentions this to anyone even after JFK is assassinated.  That is ludicrous.  The witness testimony is not always precise and often uses language that can be interpreted in many different ways.  The floor was full of boxes and windows.  I seem to recall some instances in which the witnesses and questioner even appear confused about which bag is being discussed (i.e. lunch or rifle bag).  Bottom line:  there is perfectly good explanation for the lunch as confirmed by Williams.  He has no obvious reason to lie.  Nor did he ever indicated that he saw the assassin on that floor.

As I have stated previously Williams had every reason to be fearful after the shooting. The authorities and media were reporting the assassin had a chicken lunch while waiting to shoot the President. It was his! His prints would be all over it. Rowland saw him in the SN minutes before the shots. At that time he had no idea there would be a photo that exonerated him. Without that his only alibi would have to be provided by Jarman and Norman.

Put yourself in his shoes.....with what he knew at that point in time.