The Curious Case Of Arnold Rowland

[Dan O'meara]

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".

You are a believer in the Miracle On Elm Street.
Arnold Rowland describes a man on the 6th floor of the TSBD carrying a high-powered, scoped rifle.
He describes the man as a white male, slender in proportion to his size, short hair, wearing a white/light coloured open-necked shirt.
Ronald Fischer describes a white male, slender, short hair, wearing a white/light coloured open-necked shirt.
Robert Edwards describes a white male, slender, wearing a white/light coloured open-necked shirt.
Howard Brennan describes a white male, slender, short hair, wearing a light coloured/dingy white shirt.

Wow Mr Rowland! Take a bow.
By some incredible coincidence you've managed to describe the man in a way totally consistent with other witnesses.
If you were making up a Secret Service Agent, why not have him in a black suit?

Barbara Rowland reports that Arnold told her about the man with the rifle before the assassination.
Roger Craig reports Rowland telling him about a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
As does D V Harkness.
As does F M Turner.
As does Forest V Sorrels.

So, you believe that Arnold Rowland is running around telling everyone he can that there was a man on the 6th floor with a scoped rifle and that this was just a figment of his imagination and that it was just some unbelievably miraculous coincidence that there was indeed a white male, slender, short hair, wearing a light coloured/white open-necked shirt carrying a high-powered, scoped rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
Not the 5th floor.
Or the fourth floor.

Have a think about that.

You believe that Rowland just happened to describe, by sheer luck, a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD, whose description perfectly fits that of other witnesses!

Is that what you actually believe?

[Jack Nessan]

You are a believer in the Miracle On Elm Street.
Arnold Rowland describes a man on the 6th floor of the TSBD carrying a high-powered, scoped rifle.
He describes the man as a white male, slender in proportion to his size, short hair, wearing a white/light coloured open-necked shirt.
Ronald Fischer describes a white male, slender, short hair, wearing a white/light coloured open-necked shirt.
Robert Edwards describes a white male, slender, wearing a white/light coloured open-necked shirt.
Howard Brennan describes a white male, slender, short hair, wearing a light coloured/dingy white shirt.

Wow Mr Rowland! Take a bow.
By some incredible coincidence you've managed to describe the man in a way totally consistent with other witnesses.
If you were making up a Secret Service Agent, why not have him in a black suit?

Barbara Rowland reports that Arnold told her about the man with the rifle before the assassination.
Roger Craig reports Rowland telling him about a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
As does D V Harkness.
As does F M Turner.
As does Forest V Sorrels.

So, you believe that Arnold Rowland is running around telling everyone he can that there was a man on the 6th floor with a scoped rifle and that this was just a figment of his imagination and that it was just some unbelievably miraculous coincidence that there was indeed a white male, slender, short hair, wearing a light coloured/white open-necked shirt carrying a high-powered, scoped rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
Not the 5th floor.
Or the fourth floor.

Have a think about that.

You believe that Rowland just happened to describe, by sheer luck, a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD, whose description perfectly fits that of other witnesses!

Is that what you actually believe?

BRW who was actually on the 6th floor states he could see all the way to the west wall and could see no one.

Barbara Rowland when she looks could not see anyone standing there. Rowland gives a description of a person framed in the window that is not even remotely possible given the construction of the window starting 14 inches off the ground. He made the whole story up for whatever his reasons were.

Barbara only stated Arnold told her this story for whatever his reason was but basically based on the conversation about Mr Stevenson"s visit. What she confirmed, which is what Specter suspicioned and BRW confirmed, was there was no person there and never was a person in the window.
------------------

Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, my husband and I were talking about Mr. Stevenson's visit and the way the people had acted, and we were talking about security measures, and he said he saw a man on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building, and when I looked up there I didn't see the man, because I didn't know exactly what window he was talking about at first.
And when I found out which window it was, the man had apparently stepped back, because I didn't see him.

Mr. BELIN. What do you mean "generally agree"? Did you see the man?
Mrs. ROWLAND. No; I didn't see the man but I said I guess that was what it was.


Mr. BALL. Did you see anyone else up there that day?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, I did not.


Mr. DULLES. How much of the room could you see as you finished your lunch there? Was your view obstructed by boxes of books, or could you see a good bit of the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time I couldn't see too much of the sixth floor, because the books at the time were stacked so high. I could see only in the path that I was standing--as I remember, I could not possibly see anything to the east side of the building. But just one aisle, the aisle I was standing in I could see just about to the west side of the building. So far as seeing to the east and behind me, I could only see down the aisle behind me and the aisle to the west of me.



Mitch Todd gives an excellent analysis of who A. Rowland was, and how he fabricated a number of stories. Even his wife doesn't believe him. Maybe you shouldn't either. A Rowland when asked if he looked back at the window after hearing the shots cannot even give a straight answer to the question. He tells them first No, then Yes, then Maybe. The WC knew who he was, and Specter just allowed him to show it in his answers.

[Bill Chapman]

You are a believer in the Miracle On Elm Street.
Arnold Rowland describes a man on the 6th floor of the TSBD carrying a high-powered, scoped rifle.
He describes the man as a white male, slender in proportion to his size, short hair, wearing a white/light coloured open-necked shirt.
Ronald Fischer describes a white male, slender, short hair, wearing a white/light coloured open-necked shirt.
Robert Edwards describes a white male, slender, wearing a white/light coloured open-necked shirt.
Howard Brennan describes a white male, slender, short hair, wearing a light coloured/dingy white shirt.

Wow Mr Rowland! Take a bow.
By some incredible coincidence you've managed to describe the man in a way totally consistent with other witnesses.
If you were making up a Secret Service Agent, why not have him in a black suit?

Barbara Rowland reports that Arnold told her about the man with the rifle before the assassination.
Roger Craig reports Rowland telling him about a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
As does D V Harkness.
As does F M Turner.
As does Forest V Sorrels.

So, you believe that Arnold Rowland is running around telling everyone he can that there was a man on the 6th floor with a scoped rifle and that this was just a figment of his imagination and that it was just some unbelievably miraculous coincidence that there was indeed a white male, slender, short hair, wearing a light coloured/white open-necked shirt carrying a high-powered, scoped rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
Not the 5th floor.
Or the fourth floor.

Have a think about that.

You believe that Rowland just happened to describe, by sheer luck, a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD, whose description perfectly fits that of other witnesses!

Is that what you actually believe?

Rowland #ownz# you

[Dan O'meara]

BRW who was actually on the 6th floor states he could see all the way to the west wall and could see no one.

Barbara Rowland when she looks could not see anyone standing there. Rowland gives a description of a person framed in the window that is not even remotely possible given the construction of the window starting 14 inches off the ground. He made the whole story up for whatever his reasons were.

Barbara only stated Arnold told her this story for whatever his reason was but basically based on the conversation about Mr Stevenson"s visit. What she confirmed, which is what Specter suspicioned and BRW confirmed, was there was no person there and never was a person in the window.
------------------

Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, my husband and I were talking about Mr. Stevenson's visit and the way the people had acted, and we were talking about security measures, and he said he saw a man on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building, and when I looked up there I didn't see the man, because I didn't know exactly what window he was talking about at first.
And when I found out which window it was, the man had apparently stepped back, because I didn't see him.

Mr. BELIN. What do you mean "generally agree"? Did you see the man?
Mrs. ROWLAND. No; I didn't see the man but I said I guess that was what it was.


Mr. BALL. Did you see anyone else up there that day?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, I did not.


Mr. DULLES. How much of the room could you see as you finished your lunch there? Was your view obstructed by boxes of books, or could you see a good bit of the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time I couldn't see too much of the sixth floor, because the books at the time were stacked so high. I could see only in the path that I was standing--as I remember, I could not possibly see anything to the east side of the building. But just one aisle, the aisle I was standing in I could see just about to the west side of the building. So far as seeing to the east and behind me, I could only see down the aisle behind me and the aisle to the west of me.



Mitch Todd gives an excellent analysis of who A. Rowland was, and how he fabricated a number of stories. Even his wife doesn't believe him. Maybe you shouldn't either. A Rowland when asked if he looked back at the window after hearing the shots cannot even give a straight answer to the question. He tells them first No, then Yes, then Maybe. The WC knew who he was, and Specter just allowed him to show it in his answers.

So you too believe in the Miracle On Elm Street.
You believe that Rowland makes up a description of a man on the 6th floor that is almost exactly the same as three other eye-witnesses.
That he makes up a story about a man holding a scoped rifle on the 6th floor and by some miraculous coincidence there is indeed a man on the 6th floor with a scoped rifle.
You really believe that?

[Dan O'meara]

Rowland #ownz# you

It must be nice to believe in miracles.

[Alan Ford]

Rowland describes the man wearing a light coloured/ white shirt, as do Edwards, Fischer and Brennan. This is clothing Oswald did not wear that day and did not own. How did the WC deal with this inconvenient fact? - they just ignored it

Mr Rowland describes the other man wearing a bright plaid shirt. This is clothing Mr Bonnie Ray Williams did not wear that day. How do you deal with this inconvenient fact? - you just ignore it

[Mitch Todd]

You are a believer in the Miracle On Elm Street.

You keep repeating this, like it's some comforting mantra. Unfortunately it proves nothing.

Arnold Rowland describes a man on the 6th floor of the TSBD carrying a high-powered, scoped rifle.
He describes the man as a white male, slender in proportion to his size, short hair, wearing a white/light coloured open-necked shirt.
Ronald Fischer describes a white male, slender, short hair, wearing a white/light coloured open-necked shirt.
Robert Edwards describes a white male, slender, wearing a white/light coloured open-necked shirt.
Howard Brennan describes a white male, slender, short hair, wearing a light coloured/dingy white shirt.

Wow Mr Rowland! Take a bow.
By some incredible coincidence you've managed to describe the man in a way totally consistent with other witnesses.
If you were making up a Secret Service Agent, why not have him in a black suit?

There are a couple more details that apply here.

Robert Edwards described the man as having "light brown" hair. Ron Fischer said that the man he and Edwards saw was "light-headed."  The man whom Rowland claimed to see had "dark hair" that was "probably black." (Euins and Brennan didn't notice or remember the hair colort of the man they saw shooting from the window.)

Edwards and Fischer noted that the man they saw was hunkered down to the point that one remarked that "he must be hiding from somebody." Rowland claimed that he saw a man standing up in front of a window, proudly displaying a rifle.

Now, anyone wanting to conjure up a g-man on a special security detail in a bulding overlooking some public space isn't going to just assemble a description from random bits an pieces. The role implies certain characteristics as to the kind of person it would be, how they dressed, and what tools they used. In Rowland's case, Hollywood already did a lot of the work for him. As he noted in his deposition, "[w]e had seen in the movies before where they have security men up in windows and places like that with rifles to watch the crowds." The location and tool had already been supplied on-screen. The rest falls in place fairly quickly after that. That kind of "security agent" would be epxected to be trim (the SWAT guys are expected to be men of action; no expects the SWAT team to be corpulent or scrawny), and not be wearing a buttoned up collar (since when do the SWAT guys SWAT in 3-piece suits? Or was this to a be a strictly formal assassination?). The role Rowland set for the guy leads straight to a very narrow range of reasonable descriptions. The only range of choices involve colors: the color of the man's shirt, pants, hair, complexion. Rowland got the hair wrong. The choices for shirt color boil down to "light" and "dark" in this case, but that means any random guess would be right half the time.

In short, Where Rowland's description of the man parallels Fischer's and Edwards', it would be expected for Rowland's description to be close, even if Rowland just made the hte man up out of thin air. Rowland doesn't do so well on the aspects that would be expected to be more prone to chance. The kicker is that the man Rowland claims to have seen behaves fundamentally differently than the man that Edwards and Fischer saw. Not to mention the other issues with Rowland's story that have already been brought up.

Barbara Rowland reports that Arnold told her about the man with the rifle before the assassination.
Roger Craig reports Rowland telling him about a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
As does D V Harkness.
As does F M Turner.
As does Forest V Sorrels.

So, you believe that Arnold Rowland is running around telling everyone he can that there was a man on the 6th floor with a scoped rifle and that this was just a figment of his imagination and that it was just some unbelievably miraculous coincidence that there was indeed a white male, slender, short hair, wearing a light coloured/white open-necked shirt carrying a high-powered, scoped rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
Not the 5th floor.
Or the fourth floor.


Have a think about that.

You might want to consider that Rowland lied repeatedly in his deposition, just in his self-description, in areas where there was no reason for him to lie. That is to say, he repeatedly perjured himself, and did so on the biggest stage for it that can be imagined. At least he's pretty bold about it. Someone who will do that will lie to anyone. And telling the same lie to 10 or 100 or 1000 people doesn't put the lie any closer to the truth.

You believe that Rowland just happened to describe, by sheer luck, a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD, whose description perfectly fits that of other witnesses!

Is that what you actually believe?

As I've said before, there really isn't all that much luck involved, if you really think about it. And in the parts where luck actually did matter, Rowland doesn't do so well.

And there are still the issues with Rowland moving the gunman, adding the "elderly negro" late in the game, and the impossible 18" gap between the man's head and the bottom of the window sill.