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.
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.
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.What physical evidence of Oswald's guilt?Anything he would have done would be considered "incriminating" by you in true Monday morning quarterback fashion.
The entirety of the evidence...
but you have to deny Arnold Rowland's observation....
Why do the vast majority of LN true believers (excluding JohnM here) have to religiously stick to the unlikely sequence of events trotted out by the WR?
As opposed to the "CTer" way of solving the case, which would include:Inventing conspiracy scenarios that make no sense (e.g., having FRONTAL gunmen shoot at Kennedy within a "LET'S FRAME ONLY OSWALD" plot)....Pretending everybody's a liar (or pert-near everybody anyway)....Pretending that Oswald's actions and movements on 11/21/63 and 11/22/63 weren't the slightest bit unusual or out of the ordinary....Pretending Oswald never told any lies at all to the police....Pretending that certain events just never happened at all (e.g., the Lunchroom Encounter....and Oswald carrying a large-ish brown package into the Book Depository Building on the morning of 11/22/63)....Etc. (to CT infinity).
