Are these two photos legit?

[Dan O'meara]

Mooney (oh yeah, the only one who said that he saw Fritz pickup the shells) is again the only one who said the lunch remains were that close to the sniper's nest. The southeast corner of the sixth floor is a vague description. With only that description, it could conceivably include everything in the southeast quadrant of that floor, which would include the area where the BRW's lunch remains were found and photographed. Like I said before, you can interpret the words to mean whatever you want. But there is no one who was there who claimed the lunch remains were moved and staged before photographs were made. All you have demonstrated is what I said earlier, people interpret the vague words to mean whatever they want them to mean. For someone who isn't biased against the authorities and sees no sinister motives, it is clear that Montgomery was confused. Your interpretation is, as Jake put it, "theater".

Why would you even bother to post this?
Statements like "the southeast corner...could conceivably include everything in the southeast quadrant of that floor, which would include the area where the BRW's lunch remains were found and photographed", make you look very silly indeed.

"Mooney (oh yeah, the only one who said that he saw Fritz pickup the shells) is again the only one who said the lunch remains were that close to the sniper's nest)."

If you'd actually read my post you would know three officers - Mooney, Hill and Weatherford - specifically stated the remains were on top of the boxes that formed the Sniper's Nest.

McCurley - "I went over and saw three expended shells laying by the window that faced onto Elm Street, along with a half-eaten piece
                 of chicken that was laying on a cardboard carton."

Brewer - "Mr. Belin: See anything else there at the time by the window [in the southeast corner]?
              Mr. Brewer:Paper lunch sack and some chicken bones or partially eaten piece of chicken, or a piece of chicken."

Haygood - "...at the same location where the shells were."

Craig -  "...because the shells were laying on the ground and there was--uh--oh, a sack and a bunch of things laying over there."

Montgomery - "It was right around where the boxes were--where the hulls there were."

All eight officers are specific - in the southeast corner, where the SN/shells were situated. There is absolutely no doubt about this and, equally, no doubt these remains were then removed and photographed.
Mooney's observations about the lunch remains are confirmed by seven other officers. His observation of Fritz picking up the shells is confirmed by Alyea. The pictures of the shells in evidence are staged, just like the pictures of the lunch remains are, just like the pictures of the Sniper's Perch are.
They didn't even bother to stage the rifle "bag" position - they just got Studebaker to draw it on a photograph 

Was just watching some of Alyea's footage and noticed this moment.
It is taken before the "rifle" footage and shows Fritz and other officers congregating in the southeast corner. There is then a very short clip showing Fritz and an officer I can't make out crouched down in the SN where the shells lie on the floor. There is a very brief glimpse of Fritz's hand coming into view as he holds something small in his fingers (red circle). It's impossible to make out what it is but it does raise a few questions, like "what small thing could Fritz be picking up from the area where the shells are lying?"

[Charles Collins]

Or a clown circus.

Is the following incompetence or a case of someone trying to cover up something?

It concerns Day marking the three shell casings (hulls) found in the SN. In order to mark all three casings he has to use a diamond tipped pen to carefully scratch his name onto each of the hulls. If he did it at the scene there is no reason for him not being aware he did that - he remembers marking the rifle and the live round ejected from it, so he should remember carefully marking all three hulls. It is something that would have taken him a few minutes to do.
During his WC testimony it is revealed that Day had a meeting with Belin a couple of weeks before he gave his testimony to discuss what he will be saying (is that weird or not?). During this "interview" Day states that he marked all three hulls at the scene, presumably because he can remember doing that. However, after the "interview" Day checks his records which revealed he hadn't marked all three hulls:

Mr. Day: ...I told you in our conversation in Dallas that I marked those at the scene. After reviewing my records, I didn't think I was on all three of those hulls that you have, indicating I did not mark them at the scene, then I remembered putting them in the envelope, and Sims taking them.

What "records" did Day suddenly come across that changed his certainty about marking all three hulls at the scene? The answer is that there are no such records! The markings on the hulls are the record. It turns out Day was telling a bit of a porkie about his "records" and that what actually changed his mind is that he examined the hulls just before he gave his testimony (is that weird or not?):

"It was further confirmed today when I noticed that the third hull, which I did not give you, or come to me through you, does not have my mark on it."

What does "which I did not give to you, or come to me through you"mean?

That Day changed his mind after examining the hulls on the day of his testimony is confirmed in one of two affidavits Day has to do to clear up the mess he makes of his testimony on this issue:

"When I appeared before the commission April 22, 1964, I could not find my name on one of the hulls, identified as commission number 543, and thought this was the hull that had been retained by Dhority."

We'll come back to this affidavit later as the whole thing descends into farce. Getting back to his WC testimony, Day clarifies his new position:

Mr. Day: I remember you asking me if I marked them.
Mr. Belin: Yes.
Mr. Day: I remember I told you I did.
Mr. Belin: All right.
Mr. Day: I got to reviewing this, and I got to wondering about whether I did mark those at the scene.
Mr. Belin: Your testimony now is that you did not mark any of the hulls at the scene?
Mr. Day: Those three; no, sir.
Mr. Belin: I believe you said that you examined the three shells today?
Mr. Day: Yes, sir.
Mr. Belin: While you were waiting to have your testimony taken here?
Mr. Day: Yes, sir; that is what confirmed my thinking on this. The envelope now was marked.
Mr. Belin: And the shells were in the same envelope that it was marked?
Mr. Day: Yes.


So now Day is testifying that he did not carefully scratch his name onto each of the three hulls at the crime scene. Why can't he remember?
One of the hulls does not have Day's name on it so he can't have marked all three at the crime scene:

Mr. Belin: Now, I am going to ask you to state if you know what Commission Exhibit 543 is?
Mr. Day: That is a hull that does not have my marking on it.
Mr. Belin: Do you know whether or not this was one of the hulls that was found at the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. Day: I think it is.
Mr. Belin: What makes you think it is?
Mr. Day: It has the initials "G. D." on it, which is George Doughty, the captain that I worked under.
Mr. Belin: Was he there at the scene?
Mr. Day: No, sir; this hull came up, this hull that is not marked came up, later. I didn't send that.
Mr. Belin: This was----
Mr. Day: That was retained. That is the hull that was retained by homicide division when the other two were originally sent in with the gun.
Mr. Belin: You are referring now to Commission Exhibit 543 as being the one that was retained in your possession for a while?
Mr. Day: It is the one that I did not see again.

When Belin asks whether Doughty was at the scene he is basically asking when Doughty put his initials on the hull. This has Day babbling again - "...this hull came up, this hull that is not marked came up, later. I didn't send that."
Day tries to clarify the situation by stating that the hull that did not have his name on, CE 543, was retained by the homicide division and that the other two hulls came to him separately.
Day makes the point that, after seeing CE 543 at the scene, he didn't see it again. Remember this as it gets complicated.
Also remember that Day is saying, even though the homicide division retained hull CE 543, George Doughty [Captain of the Crime Lab] still got his initials on it.
So, when did Day scratch his name onto the other two hulls? In his testimony Day sums up the new situation:

I processed these three hulls for fingerprints, using a powder. Mr. Sims picked them up by the ends and handed them to me. I processed each of the three; did not find fingerprints...At that time they were placed in an envelope and the envelope marked. The three hulls were not marked at that time. Mr. Sims took possession of them.
About 10 o'clock in the evening this envelope came back to me with two hulls in it. I say it came to me, it was in a group of stuff, a group of evidence, we were getting ready to release to the FBI. I don't know who brought them back. Vince Drain, FBI, was present with the stuff, the first I noticed it. At that time there were two hulls inside.
I was advised the homicide division was retaining the third for their use. At that time I marked the two hulls inside of this, still inside this envelope."

In an earlier post I pointed out that Sims had absolutely no memory of taking possession of the hulls even though he is supposed to have signed his initials and put the date and time on the envelope before putting it in his pocket.
Also, Day is saying that no marks were put on the hulls at the crime scene and the envelope was never sealed, thus destroying the chain of evidence (how many times does that happen?)
Day seems to have finally got his story straight but this soon unravels. One month after his WC testimony Day has to do the first of two affidavits that try to clear up a few issues with the story he came up with in his testimony. This is where things get tricky:

"When testifying before the President's Commission, I stated I did not remember who returned the two spent 6.5 hulls and envelope to my possession on the night of November 22, 1963. Since returning to Dallas Detective C. N. Dhority has called my attention to the fact he brought the three hulls in the envelope to me and asked me to check them again for fingerprints even though I had checked them when they were picked up on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository about 1:20 p.m. November 22, 1963 by Detective R. M. Sims and myself and placed in a manila envelope. Since talking to Dhority I remember now that he was the one who returned the shells to me about 10:00 p.m. and stated that his office wanted to retain one. He left me two shells and the envelope that Detective Sims and I had previously marked. It was then that I scratched my name on the two shells that were released at 11:45 p.m. Agent Vince Drain along with the rifle and other evidence."

Day's appalling memory strikes again!
Day had testified that the two hulls showed up in an envelope on Friday night and that one hull, CE 543, had been retained by the homicide division and that he had never seen it again. Now it turns out that Det. Dhority had showed up with all three hulls, Day dusted them for fingerprints (?even though this had already been done this and found no fingerprints?). Dhority left with one of the hulls and Day kept two.
And Day couldn't remember any of this!!
Day also reveals that he marked the two hulls he had before giving them to the FBI. At least he remembered that.
But why didn't he mark all three when he had them?

Now we come to the second affidavit that is supposed to clear everything up but does nothing of the sort:

"The following affidavit is made to clear up confusion regarding the three spent 6.5 hulls, commission numbers 543, 544, and 545, found by the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963. The hulls were picked up by Detective R. M. Sims and Lieutenant J. C. Day and placed in an envelope. Detective R. L. Studebaker was also present. The envelope was marked and dated by Sims and Day. Detective Sims took the hulls after they were checked for fingerprints by Day. The third hull, commission number 545, was later released directly to the FBI by the Dallas Police Department Homicide Division. At 10:00 P.M. November 22, 1963, Detective C. N. Dhority brought the three hulls in the marked envelope back to Lieutenant Day in the Identification Bureau office to recheck for prints. Dhority retained one hull, commission number 545 and left the other two, commission numbers 543, 544 along with the envelope with me to be sent to the FBI. Vince Drain, FBI agent, took custody at 11:45 A.M. the same day.

So far so good...kind of.
The three hulls are given commission numbers 543, 544 and 545.
You will recall, Day thought CE 543 was the hull that was retained by the Homicide Division (that he never saw again...D'oh!) because when he examined it before giving his testimony he couldn't find his name on it. However, he couldn't explain how Capt. George Doughty's initials were on it. This was a big mistake because there was only one opportunity for Doughty to put his initials on it - when the Crime Lab was handing over the hulls to the FBI. This means that CE 543, the hull that was supposed to be retained by Homicide, was actually one of the hulls Day kept when Dhority dropped the hulls off for their second dusting.
As noted in the excerpt from the affidavit above, the hull that was retained by Homicide was CE 545. The problem with this is that CE 545 has Day's name on it but Day testified that he only marked the two hulls that he kept from Dhority.
So, what's going on? The affidavit continues:

When I appeared before the commission April 22, 1964, I could not find my name on one of the hulls, identified as commission number 543, and thought this was the hull that had been retained by Dhority. On June 8, 1964, the three hulls, commission numbers 543, 544, and 545, were back in Dallas and were examined by Captain G. M. Doughty and myself at the local FBI office. Close examination with a magnifying glass under a good light disclosed that my name "Day" was on all three hulls, at the small end. Also GD for Captain George Doughty was on two of them. Commission numbers 543 and 544 were the first two sent to Washington on November 22, 1963. They have Doughty's initials where he marked the hulls as they were released to Vince Drain at 11:45 P.M. on November 22, 1963 by Doughty and Day. The third hull, commission number 545, does not have Doughty's mark, but is plainly marked "Day". In Washington, I had numbers 543 and 545 switched because I didn't find my name on number 543. I can identify commission numbers 543, 544, and 545 from my name on them, as the three hulls found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963.

So, when the hulls arrive back in Dallas, Day feels the need to examine them yet and again and, lo and behold, his name turns up on the hull that was retained by Homicide. Hmmm...
This nicely solves the quandary Day created by identifying CE 543 as the hull retained by Homicide even though it had Doughty's initials on it. The affidavit finishes:

"As to the time I scratched my name on the hulls, I do not remember whether it was at the window when picked up or at 10:00 P.M. November 22, 1963, when they were returned to me by Dhority in the marked envelope. It had to be one or the other, because this is the only time I had all three hulls in my possession. Both Detective R. L. Studebaker and Detective R. M. Sims, who were present at the window when the hulls were picked up, state I marked them as they were found under the window."

So, Day can't remember if he carefully scratched his name on each of the hulls at the crime scene.
He can't remember if he scratched them back at the Crime Lab.
He could remember the two hulls showing up with one being retained by Homicide...but this didn't happen...
...because he couldn't remember Dhority bringing the hulls to him, dusting the hulls (again) and handing one hull back.
Why does Day initially tell Belin he marked all three hulls at the scene if he had no memory of it?
Why does Day say he marked the two hulls before giving them to the FBI if he has no memory of it?

Are we talking extreme incompetence here, or someone covering for extreme incompetence or someone covering for something else?

It is a good example of the fallible memories of human beings. It is also demonstrative of what happens when there are “too many cooks in the kitchen” under extremely unusual circumstances. It does reveal some important reasons why proper documentation of the chain of custody of the evidence is necessary. And that some people in the DPD apparently had some bad chain of custody habits that needed to be corrected.

[Charles Collins]

Why would you even bother to post this?
Statements like "the southeast corner...could conceivably include everything in the southeast quadrant of that floor, which would include the area where the BRW's lunch remains were found and photographed", make you look very silly indeed.

"Mooney (oh yeah, the only one who said that he saw Fritz pickup the shells) is again the only one who said the lunch remains were that close to the sniper's nest)."

If you'd actually read my post you would know three officers - Mooney, Hill and Weatherford - specifically stated the remains were on top of the boxes that formed the Sniper's Nest.

McCurley - "I went over and saw three expended shells laying by the window that faced onto Elm Street, along with a half-eaten piece
                 of chicken that was laying on a cardboard carton."

Brewer - "Mr. Belin: See anything else there at the time by the window [in the southeast corner]?
              Mr. Brewer:Paper lunch sack and some chicken bones or partially eaten piece of chicken, or a piece of chicken."

Haygood - "...at the same location where the shells were."

Craig -  "...because the shells were laying on the ground and there was--uh--oh, a sack and a bunch of things laying over there."

Montgomery - "It was right around where the boxes were--where the hulls there were."

All eight officers are specific - in the southeast corner, where the SN/shells were situated. There is absolutely no doubt about this and, equally, no doubt these remains were then removed and photographed.
Mooney's observations about the lunch remains are confirmed by seven other officers. His observation of Fritz picking up the shells is confirmed by Alyea. The pictures of the shells in evidence are staged, just like the pictures of the lunch remains are, just like the pictures of the Sniper's Perch are.
They didn't even bother to stage the rifle "bag" position - they just got Studebaker to draw it on a photograph 

Was just watching some of Alyea's footage and noticed this moment.
It is taken before the "rifle" footage and shows Fritz and other officers congregating in the southeast corner. There is then a very short clip showing Fritz and an officer I can't make out crouched down in the SN where the shells lie on the floor. There is a very brief glimpse of Fritz's hand coming into view as he holds something small in his fingers (red circle). It's impossible to make out what it is but it does raise a few questions, like "what small thing could Fritz be picking up from the area where the shells are lying?"

None of them specifically said what you are implying.

[Dan O'meara]

None of them specifically said what you are implying.

What desperate straw are you grasping at with that comment?

[Charles Collins]

What desperate straw are you grasping at with that comment?

Come on Dan, you think you can read the minds of the people testifying to the Warren Commission by applying your interpretation of their words. What you might want to consider is that these officers were involved with searching the entire building. A statement such as “It was right around where the boxes were, where the hulls were” when put in perspective with even just the sixth floor area could easily mean to include the area where the lunch remains were photographed. Your interpretation is just your opinion. It most definitely is not what he said.

[Dan O'meara]

Come on Dan, you think you can read the minds of the people testifying to the Warren Commission by applying your interpretation of their words. What you might want to consider is that these officers were involved with searching the entire building. A statement such as “It was right around where the boxes were, where the hulls were” when put in perspective with even just the sixth floor area could easily mean to include the area where the lunch remains were photographed. Your interpretation is just your opinion. It most definitely is not what he said.

Really Charles?
You think my interpretation of what the officers say regarding the location of the lunch remains is at fault?
In that case, as it is an important point, I'll go through each statement made by the officers, provide my interpretation of what they're saying and you can show me where I'm going wrong.


Deputy Sheriff A D McCurley

"We were searching the 6th floor when Deputy Sheriff Mooney...hollered that he had found the place where the assassin had fired from. I went over and saw three expended shells laying by the window that faced onto Elm Street, along with a half-eaten piece of chicken that was laying on a cardboard carton. It appeared as if the assassin had piled up a bunch of boxes to hid him from anyone who happened to come up on that floor..."

My interpretation:
McCurley hears Mooney shout from the SN. He goes over to the SN where he sees the shells on the floor and a half-eaten piece of chicken on a box. The lunch remains are, therefore, where the SN is.

Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford

"I came down to the 6th floor and while searching this floor, Deputy Luke Mooney said, "Here are some shells". I went over to where he was and saw three expended rifle shells, a sack on the floor and a partially eaten piece of chicken on top of one of the cartons which was used as a sort of barricade..."

My interpretation:
Weatherford hears Mooney shout from the SN. He goes over to the SN where he sees shells on the floor and a partially eaten piece of chicken on top of one of the boxes that actually forms the SN (barricade). The lunch remains are, therefore, where the SN is.

Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney [describing what he saw while he was stood in the SN]

"I did see this one partially eaten piece of fried chicken laying over to the right...It would be laying over on the top of these other boxes...There was one of them partially eaten. And there was a little small paper poke...Saw the chicken bone was laying here. The poke was laying about a foot away from it...He [the assassin] wouldn't have had to leave the location. He could just maybe take one step and lay it over there, if he was the one that put it there."

My interpretation:
Mooney is stood in the SN. He sees a partially eaten piece of chicken and a lunch sack (poke) on top of one of the boxes there. He makes the point that the assassin could take one step and put the remains on the box. The lunch remains are, therefore, where the SN is.

Officer E. D.Brewer DPD

Mr. Belin: How many cartridge cases did you see?
Mr. Brewer: Three.
Mr. Belin: Where were they?
Mr. Brewer: They were there under, by the window.
Mr. Belin: What window?
Mr. Brewer: In the southeast corner of the building, facing south.
Mr. Belin: See anything else there at the time by the window?
Mr. Brewer:Paper lunch sack and some chicken bones or partially eaten piece of chicken, or a piece of chicken.
Mr. Belin: Anything else?
Mr. Brewer: A drink bottle.
Mr. Belin: What bottle?
Mr. Brewer: A cold drink bottle, soda pop bottle.

My interpretation:
Brewer sees the shells under the window in the southeast corner of the 6th floor. This is where the SN is. By the southeast corner window he also sees a lunch sack, a partially eaten piece of chicken and a soda pop bottle. The lunch remains are, therefore, where the SN is.

Sergeant Gerald Hill DPD

"The boxes were stacked in sort of a three-sided shield. That would have concealed from general view, unless somebody specifically walked up and looked over them, anyone who was in a sitting or crouched position between them and the window...On top of the larger stack of boxes that would have been used for concealment. there was a chicken leg bone and a paper sack which appeared to have been about the size normally used for a lunch sack."

My interpretation:
Hill describes the SN (sort of a three-sided shield). On top of one of the larger boxes that form the SN Hill sees a chicken leg bone and a paper sack. The lunch remains are, therefore, where the SN is.


Motorcycle Officer Clyde Haygood DPD

Mr. Belin: You saw some shells there?
Mr. Haygood: Yes.
Mr. Belin: Where did you see them?
Mr. Haygood: They were there under the window.
Mr. Belin: Which window?
Mr. Haygood: On the southeast corner.
Mr. Belin: South side or east side?
Mr. Haygood: On the southeast corner facing south.
Mr. Belin: See any paper bags or anything around there?
Mr. Haygood: Yes; there was a lunch bag there. You could call it a lunch bag.
Mr. Ball: Where was that?
Mr. Haygood: There at the same location where the shells were.
Mr. Belin: Was there a coke bottle or anything with it?
Mr. Haygood: Dr. Pepper bottle.

My interpretation:
Haygood sees the shells under the window in the southeast corner of the building. At that same location he sees a lunch bag and a Dr Pepper bottle. The lunch remains are, therefore, where the SN is.

Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig

Mr. Craig: I went over there and--uh--didn't get too close because the shells were laying on the ground and there was--uh--oh, a sack and a bunch of things laying over there. So, you know, not to bother the area, I just went back across.
Mr. Belin: Now, you say there was a sack laying there?
Mr. Craig: Yes; I believe it was laying on top of a box, if I'm not mistaken.
Mr. Belin: How big a sack was that?
Mr. Craig: It was a paper bag (indicating with hands)--a small paper bag.
Mr. Belin: Well, the kind-of paper bag that you carry your lunch in?
Mr. Craig: Yeah,--uh-huh.
Mr. Belin: Was it more than a foot long?
Mr. Craig: I don't know. I think it was rolled up kind of.
Mr. Belin: You think it was rolled up?
Mr. Craig: Yeah; you know, kind of crushed up.

My interpretation:
Craig goes over to where the shells are lying on the ground. He is at the SN. In the same area he sees a lunch bag on top of a box. The lunch remains are, therefore, where the SN is.

Officer L. D. Montgomery DPD

Mr. Montgomery: Well, first I reported to Captain Fritz, my partner and I and he assigned us to this position over there where the boxes were.
Mr. Ball: Where was that?
Mr. Montgomery: It would be what--the southeast corner of the building--over there from where the shooting took place.
Mr. Ball: Did you see anything else over in the southeast corner of that sixth floor?
Mr. Montgomery: Well, sir, as I say, there was a lot of boxes and there was a sack and there was this pieces of chicken.
Mr. Ball: Was there a piece of chicken over there?
Mr. Montgomery: Yes, sir--there was chicken bones and what not--it looked like somebody had been eating chicken there.
Mr. Ball: Where was that?
Mr. Montgomery: It was right there with the boxes...there was one piece of chicken on a box and there was a piece on the floor--just kind of scattered around right there.

My interpretation:
Montgomery is in the southeast corner "where the shooting took place". He is at the SN. Here he sees a piece of chicken on a box and a piece on the floor "right there with the boxes". The lunch remains are, therefore, where the SN is.

I look forward to your analysis and corrections to my interpretations of the officer's words.
It is clear, to me at least, that all eight officers place the lunch remains at the SN. Some officers actually place the lunch remains on top of the SN.
But this is not where they are photographed, meaning BRW's lunch remains were re-staged about 30ft away, near the third set of windows from the east side.

Good luck 

[Charles Collins]

Really Charles?
You think my interpretation of what the officers say regarding the location of the lunch remains is at fault?
In that case, as it is an important point, I'll go through each statement made by the officers, provide my interpretation of what they're saying and you can show me where I'm going wrong.


Deputy Sheriff A D McCurley

"We were searching the 6th floor when Deputy Sheriff Mooney...hollered that he had found the place where the assassin had fired from. I went over and saw three expended shells laying by the window that faced onto Elm Street, along with a half-eaten piece of chicken that was laying on a cardboard carton. It appeared as if the assassin had piled up a bunch of boxes to hid him from anyone who happened to come up on that floor..."

My interpretation:
McCurley hears Mooney shout from the SN. He goes over to the SN where he sees the shells on the floor and a half-eaten piece of chicken on a box. The lunch remains are, therefore, where the SN is.

Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford

"I came down to the 6th floor and while searching this floor, Deputy Luke Mooney said, "Here are some shells". I went over to where he was and saw three expended rifle shells, a sack on the floor and a partially eaten piece of chicken on top of one of the cartons which was used as a sort of barricade..."

My interpretation:
Weatherford hears Mooney shout from the SN. He goes over to the SN where he sees shells on the floor and a partially eaten piece of chicken on top of one of the boxes that actually forms the SN (barricade). The lunch remains are, therefore, where the SN is.

Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney [describing what he saw while he was stood in the SN]

"I did see this one partially eaten piece of fried chicken laying over to the right...It would be laying over on the top of these other boxes...There was one of them partially eaten. And there was a little small paper poke...Saw the chicken bone was laying here. The poke was laying about a foot away from it...He [the assassin] wouldn't have had to leave the location. He could just maybe take one step and lay it over there, if he was the one that put it there."

My interpretation:
Mooney is stood in the SN. He sees a partially eaten piece of chicken and a lunch sack (poke) on top of one of the boxes there. He makes the point that the assassin could take one step and put the remains on the box. The lunch remains are, therefore, where the SN is.

Officer E. D.Brewer DPD

Mr. Belin: How many cartridge cases did you see?
Mr. Brewer: Three.
Mr. Belin: Where were they?
Mr. Brewer: They were there under, by the window.
Mr. Belin: What window?
Mr. Brewer: In the southeast corner of the building, facing south.
Mr. Belin: See anything else there at the time by the window?
Mr. Brewer:Paper lunch sack and some chicken bones or partially eaten piece of chicken, or a piece of chicken.
Mr. Belin: Anything else?
Mr. Brewer: A drink bottle.
Mr. Belin: What bottle?
Mr. Brewer: A cold drink bottle, soda pop bottle.

My interpretation:
Brewer sees the shells under the window in the southeast corner of the 6th floor. This is where the SN is. By the southeast corner window he also sees a lunch sack, a partially eaten piece of chicken and a soda pop bottle. The lunch remains are, therefore, where the SN is.

Sergeant Gerald Hill DPD

"The boxes were stacked in sort of a three-sided shield. That would have concealed from general view, unless somebody specifically walked up and looked over them, anyone who was in a sitting or crouched position between them and the window...On top of the larger stack of boxes that would have been used for concealment. there was a chicken leg bone and a paper sack which appeared to have been about the size normally used for a lunch sack."

My interpretation:
Hill describes the SN (sort of a three-sided shield). On top of one of the larger boxes that form the SN Hill sees a chicken leg bone and a paper sack. The lunch remains are, therefore, where the SN is.


Motorcycle Officer Clyde Haygood DPD

Mr. Belin: You saw some shells there?
Mr. Haygood: Yes.
Mr. Belin: Where did you see them?
Mr. Haygood: They were there under the window.
Mr. Belin: Which window?
Mr. Haygood: On the southeast corner.
Mr. Belin: South side or east side?
Mr. Haygood: On the southeast corner facing south.
Mr. Belin: See any paper bags or anything around there?
Mr. Haygood: Yes; there was a lunch bag there. You could call it a lunch bag.
Mr. Ball: Where was that?
Mr. Haygood: There at the same location where the shells were.
Mr. Belin: Was there a coke bottle or anything with it?
Mr. Haygood: Dr. Pepper bottle.

My interpretation:
Haygood sees the shells under the window in the southeast corner of the building. At that same location he sees a lunch bag and a Dr Pepper bottle. The lunch remains are, therefore, where the SN is.

Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig

Mr. Craig: I went over there and--uh--didn't get too close because the shells were laying on the ground and there was--uh--oh, a sack and a bunch of things laying over there. So, you know, not to bother the area, I just went back across.
Mr. Belin: Now, you say there was a sack laying there?
Mr. Craig: Yes; I believe it was laying on top of a box, if I'm not mistaken.
Mr. Belin: How big a sack was that?
Mr. Craig: It was a paper bag (indicating with hands)--a small paper bag.
Mr. Belin: Well, the kind-of paper bag that you carry your lunch in?
Mr. Craig: Yeah,--uh-huh.
Mr. Belin: Was it more than a foot long?
Mr. Craig: I don't know. I think it was rolled up kind of.
Mr. Belin: You think it was rolled up?
Mr. Craig: Yeah; you know, kind of crushed up.

My interpretation:
Craig goes over to where the shells are lying on the ground. He is at the SN. In the same area he sees a lunch bag on top of a box. The lunch remains are, therefore, where the SN is.

Officer L. D. Montgomery DPD

Mr. Montgomery: Well, first I reported to Captain Fritz, my partner and I and he assigned us to this position over there where the boxes were.
Mr. Ball: Where was that?
Mr. Montgomery: It would be what--the southeast corner of the building--over there from where the shooting took place.
Mr. Ball: Did you see anything else over in the southeast corner of that sixth floor?
Mr. Montgomery: Well, sir, as I say, there was a lot of boxes and there was a sack and there was this pieces of chicken.
Mr. Ball: Was there a piece of chicken over there?
Mr. Montgomery: Yes, sir--there was chicken bones and what not--it looked like somebody had been eating chicken there.
Mr. Ball: Where was that?
Mr. Montgomery: It was right there with the boxes...there was one piece of chicken on a box and there was a piece on the floor--just kind of scattered around right there.

My interpretation:
Montgomery is in the southeast corner "where the shooting took place". He is at the SN. Here he sees a piece of chicken on a box and a piece on the floor "right there with the boxes". The lunch remains are, therefore, where the SN is.

I look forward to your analysis and corrections to my interpretations of the officer's words.
It is clear, to me at least, that all eight officers place the lunch remains at the SN. Some officers actually place the lunch remains on top of the SN.
But this is not where they are photographed, meaning BRW's lunch remains were re-staged about 30ft away, near the third set of windows from the east side.

Good luck 

I repeat, none of these officers specifically say exactly where they saw the lunch remains. Your interpretations are only your opinions. And your conclusion is based on your opinions.