A Better Sequence (TM DVP)

[Colin Crow]

Brennan did not see a black person in the SN because there wasn't one.

Yet, by his own admission, BRW was on the sixth floor, where he ate his "chicken on the bone" lunch. He left the sixth floor to join Jarman and Norman on the 5th, where according to the testimony he arrived only minutes prior to the motorcade passing. Brennan may not have seen a black person, but Rowland said he did and the evidence shows that there was indeed a black man on the 6th floor until around 12.24. Coincidence?

Exactly Martin. Was Rowland a clairvoyant? How did he know there was an African American man on the sixth floor at all at the time he testified? Was it widely publicised? Was BRW on a speaking tour? The reason he had to be discredited was that the WC had no answer if he was right. They assumed it meant "conspiracy". Two men on the floor at the same time so soon before the shots meant they had to be associated....right? What we now know was it did not mean conspiracy at all......just that BRW decided to vacate the SN about 5minutes before the shots. The problem for the WC would then become how to explain his late exit and a sniper who hoped he would leave so he could take a shot from that position.

As we have seen, the chicken lunch is like kryptonite to the LN supporters here. DVP has done the usual, we saw an initial engagement and not has taken the "if I retreat it might go away" stance. No doubt he will continue to use selected comments on his website, not to inform but to promote his position. One that suggests a sequence of events leading up to the assassination that is totally contradicted by the collected evidence of the WC. Only JohnM, to his credit, has attempted to explain the implications of Williams movements in a LN narrative.

Strange that a group who are normally so vocal steer clear of a thread that is based on analysis of information that was collected by the WC and is now freely available to anyone. I assumed that members here were because they wished to debate the evidence, maybe I am mistaken.

[Jack Nessan]

Brennan did not see a black person in the SN because there wasn't one.

Yet, by his own admission, BRW was on the sixth floor, where he ate his "chicken on the bone" lunch. He left the sixth floor to join Jarman and Norman on the 5th, where according to the testimony he arrived only minutes prior to the motorcade passing. Brennan may not have seen a black person, but Rowland said he did and the evidence shows that there was indeed a black man on the 6th floor until around 12.24. Coincidence?

There was a black man on the floor, but BRW did not even remotely resemble the man described by Rowland. Not even close given Arnold's extremely detailed description of a person he did not pay any attention to.

How can Brennan be expected to see someone that was conjured up out of Rowland's imagination? Rowland described in great detail a person that nobody knew, let alone expected to believe it was description of BRW. The better question is how can Rowland look back at the window for the next five minutes and not see the gunman that was seen by six other people? According to Arnold the SE corner of the 6th floor was vacant after the old wrinkled negro departed, as in there was no one was in the window any more.

[Jack Nessan]

Brennan is he saw the rifle being fired and he initially stated there was only two shots.

No, Brennan DID NOT see the rifle being fired ....  He said that he saw the man STANDING and AIMING the rifle.....  AIMING the rifle....

Howard Brennan stated he did see him fire the rifle on at least three different occasions:

Dallas Morning News Saturday Nov 23, 1964 ---- The Assassin Crouched And Took Deadly Aim by Kent Biffle
"After the first shot, I looked up and saw him. The gun was sticking out of the window. I saw him fire a second time.

FBI Report 11/22
“…... He said the rifle was pointed in the direction of the President’s car when he saw it fired.”

FBI Report 1/7/64
“The car passed out of sight and shortly thereafter, he heard one shot, which he first believed to have been a firecracker, and he immediately looked toward the TSBD building and saw a man on the sixth floor in the same window, near the southeast corner of the building, and noticed that this man took deliberate aim and shot the rifle again.”

[Jack Nessan]

What Studebaker said...

Mr. BALL. Now, did you find a two-wheeled truck up there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And did you take a picture of it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Let me see that one.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. All right - it has the Dr. Pepper bottle and the paper sack that was sitting there in the picture.
Mr. BALL. Let me see that one.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. (Handed instrument to Counsel Ball)
There are two different views of it - there's one and here's one. That was before anything was touched and before it was dusted. This is a shot - I believe that's in the third aisle and let's see what it is marked - it's the sixth floor of 411 Elm Street looking south and the third aisle from Houston Street on the south side of the building. That was taken looking directly into that - this is the sack with those chicken bones and all that mess was in there too.
Mr. BALL. Is the sack shown there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes; it's a little ole brown sack - yes; it's right there.
Mr. BALL. We will mark this as "Exhibit H," which is your No. 6.
(Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit H," for identification.)
Mr. BALL. That's the sack, is that right?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And it shows - it has some chicken bones in it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Any chicken bones in any other place?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
Mr. BALL. None outside the sack?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; they were all inside the sack, wrapped up and put right back in. It had a little piece of Fritos in the sack, too.

Seems the chicken was not only partly unfinished but alive and managed to jump inside the bag and fold it over. There were no other bones Jack. Shelly testifed so and so did Studebaker. Montgomery merely confirms what is obvious, someone put the bones in the bag and moved it to the two wheeler before Studebaker came back to process it.

The reason Shelley was asked about the chicken that afternoon was because it was found in the SN! It was reported to be the assassin's lunch! He was taken to City Hall along with Williams and Arce just before 2pm. As we know, Williams said nothing of a visit to the sixth floor with a chicken lunch that day. Shelley mentioned about Givens at that time but his testimony shows he was merely speculating as he suggested a spot on the western side, close to where they were placing the flooring. Givens was asked and denied eating chicken there that day.

Williams was interviewed on Saturday 23rd and mentioned nothing of the chicken lunch again. It was only after Oswald was dead that Williams mentioned eating lunch on the 6th floor.

As for your comment,
"..... these officers heard the report, that stemmed from WFAA-TV's incorrect announcement that the chicken bones were found on the 6th floor. This officer or officers perhaps used this information to formulate their presence at the scene."

I suggest you just made that up. Whether first day statements or WC testimony they all have the lunch remnants associated with the SN. Mooney's testimony was crystal clear, within five feet on the seating box. Montgomery's task was to guard the SN, why would he talk of chicken and a lunch sack 30 feet away sitting under a two wheeler trolley?

If you like we can forget about chicken bones as you seems to believe the floor was completely  littered with them. How many lunch sacks were found? Where was it reported to be by those officers who were there prior to the arrival of Fritz?

To quote Will Fritz "this case is a cinch", the chicken lunch was in the SN when the shells were discovered. Someone put the unfinished piece in the bag and folded it over and moved it to the two wheeler by the time Studebaker came to process it.

What is interesting is the two people most involved with SN, Mooney and Montgomery, seem to place zero importance, in their respective WC testimonies, to the chicken story and are unclear as to its location when testifying before the WC. You would think if there was going to be a big conspiracy about moving some chicken bones around, immediately after the discovery of the SN, they would have involved those two detectives. You know tell them when they "discover" the SN hurry up and move the chicken bones to the west before Fritz arrives.

Studebaker is talking about BRW's lunch by the three wheeler, not the whole 6th floor.

According to Shelley they were eating the chicken every day not just that day, He just mentioned Givens but it could have been someone he did not see.

According to the witness list there were chicken bones all over the place. Each had his recollection of some specific spot. Mooney had two locations. He moved the location of the bones himself. The first location was on the rifle rest itself. Some mention sacks some don't. Hardly a consensus of location or description. Alyea had it right

Tom Alyea:
"..... these officers heard the report, that stemmed from WFAA-TV's incorrect announcement that the chicken bones were found on the 6th floor. This officer or officers perhaps used this information to formulate their presence at the scene."

[Colin Crow]

There was a black man on the floor, but BRW did not even remotely resemble the man described by Rowland. Not even close given Arnold's extremely detailed description of a person he did not pay any attention to.

How can Brennan be expected to see someone that was conjured up out of Rowland's imagination? Rowland described in great detail a person that nobody knew, let alone expected to believe it was description of BRW. The better question is how can Rowland look back at the window for the next five minutes and not see the gunman that was seen by six other people? According to Arnold the SE corner of the 6th floor was vacant after the old wrinkled negro departed, as in there was no one was in the window any more.

Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Rowland, a couple of other questions.
Are you able to give us any other type of a description of the Negro gentleman whom you observed in the window we marked "A" with respect to height, weight, age?
Mr. ROWLAND - He was very thin, an elderly gentleman, bald or practically bald, very thin hair if he wasn't bald. Had on a plaid shirt. I think it was red and green, very bright color, that is why I remember it.
Mr. SPECTER - Can you give us an estimate as to age?
Mr. ROWLAND - Fifty; possibly 55 or 60.
Mr. SPECTER - Can you give us an estimate as to height?
Mr. ROWLAND - 5'8", 5'10", in that neighborhood. He was very slender, very thin.
Mr. SPECTER - Can you give us a more definite description as to complexion?
Mr. ROWLAND - Very dark or fairly dark, not real dark compared to some Negroes, but fairly dark. Seemed like his face was either--I can't recall detail but it was either very wrinkled or marked in some way.

Hierarchy of evidence would be, sex, race, build/hair, clothing and age. the main ones right. Just lucky was he? He did his best from memory.

Jack, Williams had gone by about 12.25pm. Only a minute or so after Brennan took up position. He described only 2 men on the 5th floor. This would be correct if Williams had not yet arrived to join them. He could not accurately describe the window they were in during his WC testimony. He recognised only Norman when asked which two he saw. As you know Jarman and Norman opened the windows when they arrived. Rowland correctly described the SE window being opened and two or three men there. He correctly testified that Williams had left the SN by 12.25. I see lots of correct information. How would he have known all this when he testified?

What angle was Rowland on when he observed the building with respect to Brennan and the others? I believe they were all further west than him, thus enabling a better chance to observe someone in the SE corner. BRW may have been sitting further west in the window.

[Martin Weidmann]

There was a black man on the floor, but BRW did not even remotely resemble the man described by Rowland. Not even close given Arnold's extremely detailed description of a person he did not pay any attention to.

How can Brennan be expected to see someone that was conjured up out of Rowland's imagination? Rowland described in great detail a person that nobody knew, let alone expected to believe it was description of BRW. The better question is how can Rowland look back at the window for the next five minutes and not see the gunman that was seen by six other people? According to Arnold the SE corner of the 6th floor was vacant after the old wrinkled negro departed, as in there was no one was in the window any more.

There was a black man on the floor, but BRW did not even remotely resemble the man described by Rowland.

So, Rowland's description of the man was incorrect, so what? BRW confirmed he was on the 6th floor.

How can Brennan be expected to see someone that was conjured up out of Rowland's imagination?

It is of no significance what Brennan didn't see. Just because he did not see the man doesn't mean the man wasn't there.

Rowland described in great detail a person that nobody knew, let alone expected to believe it was description of BRW.

Again, even if Rowland's description was incorrect (as was Brennan's description of the shooter), it does not alter the fact that BRW confirmed he was there. If your argument is that Rowland's description was accurate and thus there was another black man on the 6th floor all it really means is that there were two black men on the floor.

The better question is how can Rowland look back at the window for the next five minutes and not see the gunman that was seen by six other people?

What six people would that be?

According to Arnold the SE corner of the 6th floor was vacant after the old wrinkled negro departed, as in there was no one was in the window any more.

The mere fact that you can not see somebody in a particular window doesn't mean there is nobody there.

I honestly do not understand what the point is you are so desperately trying to make.

[Colin Crow]

What is interesting is the two people most involved with SN, Mooney and Montgomery, seem to place zero importance, in their respective WC testimonies, to the chicken story and are unclear as to its location when testifying before the WC. You would think if there was going to be a big conspiracy about moving some chicken bones around, immediately after the discovery of the SN, they would have involved those two detectives. You know tell them when they "discover" the SN hurry up and move the chicken bones to the west before Fritz arrives.

Studebaker is talking about BRW's lunch by the three wheeler, not the whole 6th floor.

According to Shelley they were eating the chicken every day not just that day, He just mentioned Givens but it could have been someone he did not see.

According to the witness list there were chicken bones all over the place. Each had his recollection of some specific spot. Mooney had two locations. He moved the location of the bones himself. The first location was on the rifle rest itself. Some mention sacks some don't. Hardly a consensus of location or description. Alyea had it right

Tom Alyea:
"..... these officers heard the report, that stemmed from WFAA-TV's incorrect announcement that the chicken bones were found on the 6th floor. This officer or officers perhaps used this information to formulate their presence at the scene."

Who said anything about a conspiracy by authorities involving the bones? What most likely happened was they were simply "tidied" and moved by one of the officers. You know Hill is the likely one....as the report by Tom Ewell in No More Silence suggests. As i said previously, forget the bones if you want, how many lunch sacks were there? How did all the bones get in the sack?

Alyea was not there when Mooney discovered the shells. The bones and sack were moved before he got there. He is just making an assumption. Your quote of his indicates there were no bones on the sixth floor at all. Yet you also say there were bones everywhere on the 6th floor. When you make up your mind which it is, let me know. Hopefully you can see the inconsistency of the argument you put.