The Curious Case Of Arnold Rowland

[Mitch Todd]

What do questions about her husband's grades, or places of employment, or whether she can rely on what he tells her have to do with what she witnessed in Dealey Plaza?

If it were only about all that you'd have a point. But they did ask her about what he said and what she saw (or didn't). Just as she was asked to swear out an affidavit. Just as the FBI came asking her about the matter.

And yes, they, asked her about her husband's background. That was because his previous testimony had already raised any number of read flags concerning his credibility.

[John Iacoletti]

...the "red flags" primarily being that his observations didn't fit the preconceived narrative.

[Mitch Todd]

...the "red flags" primarily being that his observations didn't fit the preconceived narrative.

Just sour grapes on your part, Kid.

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that your unsupported assertion was true.

Would that mean that Rowland's IQ really was 147, as he claimed? No.

Would it mean that Rowland kept good grades, as he claimed? No.

Would it mean that Rowland had graduated from High School by the time he testified, as he claimed? No.

Would it mean that Rowland had been accepted to SMU, as he claimed? No.

Would it mean that Rowland had performed "a long study of sound and study of echo effects [...] in physics in the past three years," as he claimed? No.

Would it mean that Rowland's eyesight had been judged to be "much better than" 2020 by the "firm of doctors" Finn and Finn, as he claimed? No.

Would it mean that the curious addition of the "elderly negro" in the sniper's nest isn't a curious and unexpected addition? No.
 
Any assertion that the WC had it in for Rowland doesn't change what Rowland said nor the truthfulness and trustworthiness (or lack thereof) of what Rowland said.

[John Iacoletti]

Just sour grapes on your part, Kid.

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that your unsupported assertion was true.

Would that mean that Rowland's IQ really was 147, as he claimed? No.

Would it mean that Rowland kept good grades, as he claimed? No.

Would it mean that Rowland had graduated from High School by the time he testified, as he claimed? No.

Would it mean that Rowland had been accepted to SMU, as he claimed? No.

Would it mean that Rowland had performed "a long study of sound and study of echo effects [...] in physics in the past three years," as he claimed? No.

Would it mean that Rowland's eyesight had been judged to be "much better than" 2020 by the "firm of doctors" Finn and Finn, as he claimed? No.

Would it mean that the curious addition of the "elderly negro" in the sniper's nest isn't a curious and unexpected addition? No.
 
Any assertion that the WC had it in for Rowland doesn't change what Rowland said nor the truthfulness and trustworthiness (or lack thereof) of what Rowland said.

Do any of these things have the slightest thing to do with the JFK assassination?  No.

Did the Warren Commission subject witnesses who supported their version of events to the same scrutiny about unrelated matters?  No.

[Robert Reeves]

To begin with, Rowland wasn't "mercilessly grilled." He was questioned with about the same intensity as any of the other witnesses. That being said, Rowland isn't "a threat" to anything but verisimilitude.   

Initially, I didn't have an issue with what Rowland said. Then again, I was relying on the story second hand, only taking in what different authors had to say on the matter.

Then I actually bothered to read Rowland's testimony. On his own, he raised a number of red flags. His claims: to have super human vision, to have conducted fairly advance experiments in gunfire acoustics, to be taking "post-graduate" classes at a local high school, 147 IQ etc, etc, stretched credulity to the limit. I then read his wife's testimony. Her word deflated his puffery: he wasn't a straight "a" student, by any means. He hadn't graduated from high school, as he'd claimed. In fact, her testimony gives the impression that she really didn't believe him, either in as to the "gunman", or just in general. There were no special lesions or experiments in echo acoustics (for that matter, Rowland failed his basic physics class). 

Rowland's statements raised the same red flags with the WC staff that it did for me. A few days after his deposition, they asked for a background check to be run against the various claims he'd made about himself. The result is interesting reading, to say the least. None of his grandiose claims were true. Once the balloon had been punctured, it shriveled into the shape of a big dreamer was was noting more than an itinerant high school dropout. A young man who flitted from school to school after wearing out his welcome, who did the same from job to job and from one domicile to another. A young man whom others had learned not to believe long before November 22.

The biggest issue I have is, someone who wishes to assassinate the President is not going stand up and proudly show off his rifle to everyone in Dealey Plaza 15 minutes before the act. After all, the first rule of covert action club is to keep the action covert. And, there is the way the gunman starts out 15 feet behind the window, then systematically moves closer and closer once Rowland realizes that someone so far inside the building would be lost in the shadows. Then he tries to come back in the WC deposition and claim that he didn't say the rifle guy was that far back. I guess he forgot he said differently, first to the Dallas Sheriff's Department, then to the FBI. There is the mysterious, late appearance of the "elderly negro,"  who only appears in his WC deposition. I know that a lot of people want to believe that this man was Bonnie Ray Williams, but Williams was only 20 in 1963. How did he age so fast? Nessan also has a good point about Rowland's description of the bottom of the window appearing to be 18" above the rifle guy's head. Given the low window sill, and the limited height the sash could be raised, Rowland's description is best described as, "impossible".

Kinda interesting you say "To begin with, Rowland wasn't "mercilessly grilled." ... and then proceed to tell us all about his human flaws and wreck his psychological profile.

[Mitch Todd]

Kinda interesting you say "To begin with, Rowland wasn't "mercilessly grilled." ... and then proceed to tell us all about his human flaws and wreck his psychological profile.

Two different things, Mr Reeves. This is like watching a nine year old trying to make a lego house out of curlers and turnips.

Had the WC staff wanted to "mercilessly grill" Rowland, they would have done the backgrounder first, then confronted him with it during his testimony.

It's Rowland's improbable claims and additions in his testimony that prompted them to look into his background and see if it matched what he had told them. TL;DR: it didn't.

[Mitch Todd]

Do any of these things have the slightest thing to do with the JFK assassination?  No.

Did the Warren Commission subject witnesses who supported their version of events to the same scrutiny about unrelated matters?  No.

More sour grapes from you, kid.

You know as well as anyone else that the epic string of fanciful tales spouted by Mr Rowland's in his testimony negatively affects his credibility quite a bit. Especially since he went out of his way to put them in there.