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

[Denis Pointing]

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.

Yes, I agree Richard, kudos to Colin, he raises some interesting points but a great deal of the points (especially pray man) many CT's raise does seem petty and quite irrelevant. As I've said in the past these murders, let's not forget Tippit, have had more investigation than any other murders in history! Many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of both amateur and professionals have picked over the evidence repeatedly, far more thoroughly than the WC could have ever done, for decades and still what evidence there is points directly to Oswald and Oswald alone.

[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.

Quite simply the complied evidence suggest the sequence of events on the 6th floor as suggested in the WR in the half hour before the shots is simply bogus. What we do know is that there was a man in the SW corner with a rifle at about 12.15.pm. At around that time and for some minutes afterwards BRW was in the SN as evidenced by his lunch remnants being discovered there by Mooney (and others) and the independent observation of him there by Arnold.

He vacated the 6th floor and joined Jarman and Norman on the 5th floor around 12.25pm. All three men at various times after the events, up until their WC testimony, deceived the authorities regarding Williams movements prior to the shots. These facts are indisputable as shown by the numerous official documents I have previously provided.

[Richard Smith]

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.

You can understand how wildly implausible it is to suggest that the assassin/conspirators simply let Williams leave the floor and trusted that he would not raise an alarm beforehand and remain silent forever afterward?  Fear of being implicated as the assassin is not persuasive.  Williams has an airtight alibi in the presence of two other people.  There is a photo that exonerates him.  Even if he wasn't aware of the photo at the time, he certainly became aware of it.  He has no realistic reason for him to be concerned that he would ever be deemed a suspect.  It just doesn't add up as plausible excuse for his silence.  Nor would the conspirators have relied on that given the stakes and their obvious willingness to commit murder.  A more plausible narrative in that context is that Williams would have been detained on the floor until after the assassination, at which time he would have been killed with Oswald's rifle.  The story would be that Williams had lunch on the floor and was killed by Oswald during his escape.  A win-win for the fantasy conspirators as it further implicates Oswald and eliminates a witness.  The very last thing they would have done is allow a witness to exit the floor and risk exposing or thwarting the plot. 

[Colin Crow]

You can understand how wildly implausible it is to suggest that the assassin/conspirators simply let Williams leave the floor and trusted that he would not raise an alarm beforehand and remain silent forever afterward?  Fear of being implicated as the assassin is not persuasive.  Williams has an airtight alibi in the presence of two other people.  There is a photo that exonerates him.  Even if he wasn't aware of the photo at the time, he certainly became aware of it.  He has no realistic reason for him to be concerned that he would ever be deemed a suspect.  It just doesn't add up as plausible excuse for his silence.  Nor would the conspirators have relied on that given the stakes and their obvious willingness to commit murder.  A more plausible narrative in that context is that Williams would have been detained on the floor until after the assassination, at which time he would have been killed with Oswald's rifle.  The story would be that Williams had lunch on the floor and was killed by Oswald during his escape.  A win-win for the fantasy conspirators as it further implicates Oswald and eliminates a witness.  The very last thing they would have done is allow a witness to exit the floor and risk exposing or thwarting the plot.

Which is why I am not suggesting anything like that happened Richard. In fact I would agree with you that what you suggest did not happen. You know that Frazier claims that Fritz was pushing him to confess that night. I am sure Frazier had an alibi too. The reality is that for some time after the assassination Williams was reluctant to tell of his 6th floor lunch trip. His alibi pals lied on a number of occasions and told authorities he went up with them on the lift to the 5th floor. Surely you have to ask yourself, in a case of this importance, would you lie about someone who had been at the crime scene just before the shooting? Big risk if you are caught.

[John Iacoletti]

Pat Speer admitted last week that he has done it "dozens if not hundreds" of times....

He said "references to online discussions", not copying entire posts to his own website.  I searched for your name on patspeer.com and found a single reference to your name but not so much as a quote of anything you had written.

[John Iacoletti]

But the theory I'm hearing in this discussion means you guys need to have Bonnie Ray Williams [BRW] lying his head off, plus various police officers lying, and the Warren Commission too. It's just plain silly (not to mention totally unnecessary on ANYONE'S behalf)....and surely you know it's silly. But you insist on making mountains out of nothingness anyway. It's in a CTer's blood. You can't help it, I guess.

I can see why you're such a fan of Bugliosi.  Instead of making an evidence-based argument you try to ridicule the opposition instead.  just like he does.

The entirety of the evidence suggests that the lunch bag was not at the two-wheeler when the SN was first discovered, but that it was moved there afterwards and that BRW just ran with the story.  Why would a black man in 1963 Dallas (or even today) want to admit being next to the window the cops said that shots were fired from?  Not only do you have to deny the word of several witnesses to the lunch bag and the bones, but you have to deny Arnold Rowland's observation of a negro in the SE window at the same time BRW was on the 6th floor, all so you can cherry-pick one account over that of several others.

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.

What physical evidence of Oswald's guilt?

Nor will that piece of chicken (or its bones) erase the known incriminating ACTIONS of one Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63.

Anything he would have done would be considered "incriminating" by you in true Monday morning quarterback fashion.

[John Iacoletti]

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)

Talk about trying to make the evidence fit the suspect...