The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate
If Oswald Was The Assassin, Did He Plan His Escape From The TSBD Very Well?
Dan O'meara:
--- Quote from: Alan Ford on July 31, 2020, 12:27:43 PM ---
Where we agree, Mr O'Meara, is on the probability that the black man on 6 seen by Mr Rowland was in on the conspiracy! Thumb1:
--- End quote ---
This is the important point. There is nothing definitive that places Williams there but I do favour this interpretation. The fingerprints on the bottle are a problem for the official narrative whoever they belong to. In Day's WC testimony he is clear the bottle was tested for fingerprints and, although not specifically stated, he seems to be saying fingerprints were found but that they were not Oswald's. This leaves us with the probability they were either Williams or, as you say, a non-employee of the TSBD. Day implies they belonged to a TSBD employee (Williams?) but does not state whether he specifically tested the prints against those of the employee.
If the prints belonged to someone outside the TSBD the implications are staggering. They must surely be the assassin's. That would require someone to step in and take responsibility for the prints (Williams?)
Either way its a big problem for the official narrative.
Colin Crow:
The bottle was fingerprinted by Studebaker before 3pm on site. It appears that he also fingerprinted the lunch sack before its removal by Det. Johnson. It seems Day was unaware of these pieces of evidence prior to his return to the TSBD. At about this time media reports were talking of the cold blooded assassin eating a chicken lunch while waiting for the President to arrive. This notion persisted for some days. It was remnants of the assassin's lunch. Some Dallas police even held that belief for years after.
Day claimed that the lunch remnants were of no value as Oswald's prints were not on them and eventually discarded. It would seem that Oswald could not have had an assistant or the shooter was anyone but Oswald very early on.
The prints of other TSBD employees were not obtained until many months later most likely well after the “assassin's lunch” hit the dumpster.
As for the testimony of Shelley that suggested Given's might have deposited the remnants, I believe this arose when Shelley was assisting police at City Hall when the lunch remnants were considered evidence. As Shelley had no idea of Williams returning to the sixth floor for lunch he merely provided Givens as the only employee he had seen eating that morning. It really counts for little other than providing insight that early on the police were keen to establish the owner of the chicken lunch.
Alan Ford:
Thanks for these thoughts, gents! Thumb1:
I don't believe the rats who killed Pres. Kennedy had any interest in setting up Mr Oswald as the (lone) shooter (the LN narrative was the creation of the 'investigating' authorities after the event). It's quite possible the original DPD line----------that the pop bottle and chicken bones belonged to the ice-cold shooter-----------was correct, and that individual was perfectly unconcerned about leaving behind such evidence.
Again I come back to the question of minimal pre-assassination planning. You plan to shoot (or stage a shooting?) from the sixth floor. Are you seriously going to leave it to chance that no legit employees will wander on to 'your' floor and come to the south-facing windows? Isn't it far more likely that you will contrive a scheme for keeping the floor clear?
A theory that has a non-participant employee being given free reign of the sixth floor up to just a couple of minutes pre-motorcade is v. problematical IMO. If Mr Rowland's description of the black man at the SN window were a good match for Mr Williams, I would be forced to conclude that he was in fact a participant. As things stand, however, it seems to me that Mr Rowland caught simultaneous sight of two members of the assassination team, both non-employees of the Depository.
Colin Crow:
--- Quote from: Alan Ford on August 02, 2020, 11:11:45 AM ---Thanks for these thoughts, gents! Thumb1:
I don't believe the rats who killed Pres. Kennedy had any interest in setting up Mr Oswald as the (lone) shooter (the LN narrative was the creation of the 'investigating' authorities after the event). It's quite possible the original DPD line----------that the pop bottle and chicken bones belonged to the ice-cold shooter-----------was correct, and that individual was perfectly unconcerned about leaving behind such evidence.
Again I come back to the question of minimal pre-assassination planning. You plan to shoot (or stage a shooting?) from the sixth floor. Are you seriously going to leave it to chance that no legit employees will wander on to 'your' floor and come to the south-facing windows? Isn't it far more likely that you will contrive a scheme for keeping the floor clear?
A theory that has a non-participant employee being given free reign of the sixth floor up to just a couple of minutes pre-motorcade is v. problematical IMO. If Mr Rowland's description of the black man at the SN window were a good match for Mr Williams, I would be forced to conclude that he was in fact a participant. As things stand, however, it seems to me that Mr Rowland caught simultaneous sight of two members of the assassination team, both non-employees of the Depository.
--- End quote ---
Alan, I think we are much closer in thoughts than it might appear. When I first started looking at the Chicken lunch story many years ago I had no idea where it would lead. The assembled evidence clearly failEd to support the official narrative. We have employees changing significant events over time, there can be no debate that they did, it’s in the record. The closest I can come to the lone nut version is that Williams was encouraged by Oswald to vacate the sixth floor a few minutes before the shots. If this were the case one must ask, why didn’t Williams convey to this fact to the police on the afternoon of the assassination. He knew Oswald was in custody and was questioned about him. At that point he becomes the star prosecution witness.
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Colin Crow on August 02, 2020, 12:35:10 PM ---Alan, I think we are much closer in thoughts than it might appear. When I first started looking at the Chicken lunch story many years ago I had no idea where it would lead. The assembled evidence clearly failEd to support the official narrative. We have employees changing significant events over time, there can be no debate that they did, it’s in the record. The closest I can come to the lone nut version is that Williams was encouraged by Oswald to vacate the sixth floor a few minutes before the shots. If this were the case one must ask, why didn’t Williams convey to this fact to the police on the afternoon of the assassination. He knew Oswald was in custody and was questioned about him. At that point he becomes the star prosecution witness.
--- End quote ---
Unless it was somebody else who encouraged Williams to leave, in which case he becomes a prime target.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version