JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Colin Crow on September 29, 2019, 12:51:43 AM
-
This original post has been updated with some significant events that I have placed in the best chronological order I can determine for now. Some events can be added/modified and sequence changed as knowledge increases.
At about 11.45 - 11.50am Shelley observes Oswald on the first floor.
The Elevator Race - the descending occupants observe Oswald on the 5th filling orders and calling out for an elevator .
Cigarette Trip - Givens claim of returning to the 6th floor and observing Oswald. I do not believe this occurred.
About noon - Piper talks to Oswald on the first floor
Williams arrives on the 6th Floor
Givens saw Oswald reading a paper in the domino room about 20 minutes after the elevator race - 11/23 report
12:15 p.m. Rowland sights a gunman in SW window of 6th floor - also African-American man in SE window.
12.22pm Jarman and Norman head to the 5th floor as motorcade arrived at Main.
12.23pm Ambulance arrives for Belknap
Brennan takes position
12.25pm Ambulance enroute to Parkland
Jarman and Norman arrive on 5th floor
Brennan sees man in 6th floor window who leaves position
Brennan notices two African-American men on 5th floor
Williams arrives on the 5th Floor
Fisher and Edwards see man in 6th floor window
Brennan sees Caucasian man in 6th floor window firing rifle
Ewins sees man with "rifle"
In the domino room alibi https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2187.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2187.0.html) thread certain events that occurred in the half hour before the shots were considered. The balance of the evidence considered clearly showed that Rowland's sighting of a man with a rifle on the 6th floor occurred before the arrival of Jarman and Norman arrived on the 5th floor.
Another event that was used by the WR to place Oswald in the area of the SE corner the 6th floor after the elevator race was the testimony of Charles Givens. Many critics have claimed his revelation was a concoction. I offer the following in support of that notion and propose his "event" be removed entirely from the series of events sequence.
Mr. BELIN. Did you wear a jacket to work that day?
Mr. GIVENS. I wore a raincoat, I believe. It was misting that morning.
Mr. BELIN. Did you hang up your coat in that room (the domino room), too?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. When did you see Lee Harvey Oswald next?
Mr. GIVENS. Next?
Mr. BELIN. Yes.
Mr. GIVENS. Well, it was about a quarter till 12, we were on our way downstairs, and we passed him, and he was standing at the gate on the fifth floor.
I came downstairs, and I discovered I left my cigarettes in my jacket pocket upstairs, and I took the elevator back upstairs to get my jacket with my cigarettes in it. When I got back upstairs, he was on the sixth floor in that vicinity, coming from that way.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you heard them?
Mr. GIVENS. Well, we broke and ran down that way, and by the time we got to the corner down there of Houston and Elm, everybody was running, going toward the underpass over there by the railroad tracks. And we asked--I asked someone some white fellow there, 'What happened ?" And he said, "Somebody shot the President." Like that. So I stood there for a while, and I went over to try to get to the building after they found out the shots came from there, and when I went over to try to get back in the officer at the door wouldn't let me in.
Mr. BELIN. Did you tell him you worked there?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes; but he still wouldn't let me in. He told me he wouldn't let no one in.
Mr. BELIN. This was the front of Elm Street?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes. So I goes back over to the parking lot and I wait until I seen Junior.
Mr. BELIN. Is that Jarman?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes. They were on their way home, and they told me that they let them all go home for the evening, and I said, "I'd better go back and get my hat and coat."
When interviewed by the FBI on the 23rd here is what appears in their report.
(https://i.ibb.co/XFGXy25/5335-DCED-A523-49-E6-984-E-0837-DB6-C68-D5.jpg)
-
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/givens-money.png)
-
His earliest recollection contains the following.
Oswald on the 5th floor by the elevator, filling orders, at the time of the elevator race.
Oswald calls for the elevator when they pass.
This event is corroborated by the others.
Givens also recalled Oswald reading a newspaper in the lunchroom about 20 minutes after. This would put Oswald on the first floor some time after noon. Possibly after the brief conversation with Piper.
-
There was no mention of the cigarette story in Givens’ affidavit or in subsequent interviews by the Secret Service and the FBI. The first appearance of the story was in April 1964, after the report that he would change his story for money.
-
There was no mention of the cigarette story in Givens’ affidavit or in subsequent interviews by the Secret Service and the FBI. The first appearance of the story was in April 1964, after the report that he would change his story for money.
I believe the Givens' "change" is related to the Thayer Waldo story that arose from the Howard brothers. It appears to be an evolution of a story originally "designed" to have a witness observing the assassin firing from the SN and fleeing. Of course Givens could not fulfil that. He became the next best thing.....Oswald near the SN "after the elevator race".
-
As with the domino room alibi thread will we not get any LN members to support Givens' cigarette trip? Of course we all know now that Williams was on the 6th floor the same time as the man with the rifle don’t we?
-
As with the domino room alibi thread will we not get any LN members to support Givens' cigarette trip? Of course we all know now that Williams was on the 6th floor the same time as the man with the rifle don’t we?
we all know now that Williams was on the 6th floor the same time as the man with the rifle don’t we?
Yes, The reports of the witnesses say that they saw a man in light colored clothing with a rifle, on the sixth floor sometime between 12:15 and 12:30.
Unless Williams was asleep....It's hard to believe that he didn't see the man.
-
Vince Bugliosi's timeline from Reclaiming History
Vince made an attempt at providing a narrative timeline in his book. The relevant components appear below with his timestamps.
I do not know why Bugliosi claimed the "elevator Race took place at 11.47am. Those involved claimed it was after Shelley had departed for the first floor, presumably by the west elevator. He would need to shut the gates to allow it to be called up for the flooring crew to access it. Shelley saw Oswald shortly after his return to the first floor about 11.50am. Oswald was observed on the fifth floor by the workers as they descended. Perhaps Oswald took the west elevator up to the fifth floor about 11.50am and shut the gates, allowing it to be "called" by those above? In any event at least a minute or two would pass before the "elevator race" could start after Shelly's departure from the 6th floor for lunch. Most likely 11.55am is a more accurate estimate for this event.
---------------------------------------------------------
11:47 a.m. (The Elevator Race)
Some of the stock boys in the Texas School Book Depository Building are laying new flooring up on the sixth floor. The schoolbook business is a little slow this late in the year, and rather than lay the boys off entirely, Bill Shelley, a Depository manager, put them to work resurfacing the upper floors, where most of the books are stored.* Half a dozen of them are at it-Bill Shelley himself, Bonnie Ray Williams, Charles Givens, Danny Arce, Billy Lovelady, and occasionally Harold Norman, when he has time to give them a hand. The work is pretty straightforward. They have to move the heavy cartons of books from one side of the floor to the other, then back, as they lay new flooring over the old planks. It took them about three weeks to do the fifth floor, and they're just starting in on the sixth, moving as many cartons as they can from the west side of the open floor over to the east. Given the number of books they have to move, they aren't very far along.
They 're still working on the first section, on the westernmost portion of the sixth floor.121 At one point, Bonnie Ray Williams thought he saw Lee Oswald, though he is not sure, messing around with some cartons near the easternmost freight elevator on the sixth floor, during the half hour before noon. He didn't pay much attention though. Oswald is always messing around, kicking and shoving cartons around.122 The warehouse crew usually knocks off about five minutes before noon to give themselves time to wash up for lunch, but today, anxious to see the president, they quit a little earlier. In high spirits, the young men commandeer both of the big freight elevators for a mock race to the bottom. Bonnie Ray, Billy, Danny, and Charlie all pile into the east elevator and head for the bottom. The rest of them take the west elevator. It isn't really much of a race. The east elevator is faster, and they all know it.123
Charlie Givens notices Lee Oswald in front of the elevator shaft on the fifth floor as they flash past on their way to the ground floor. 124 "Guys!" Oswald calls after them. "How about an elevator?" Givens tosses his head back as the freight elevator plunges down. "Come on, boy!" Givens calls out, suggesting Oswald come down to the bottom floor too, though apparently not on their moving elevator. "Close the gate on the elevator," Oswald shouts down the shaft, "and send the elevator back up."125 Oswald means the west elevator. The east elevator has to be manned, but the west one can be summoned from any floor if its gate is closed.126 When they get to the first floor, however, no one bothers with Oswald's request.
12:00 p.m. (Cigarette Trip)
At the Book Depository, some of the stock boys wade into their lunches in the small, first floor employee's lounge, which the architects designated as the recreation room and which employees call the "domino room," after their favorite pastime, while others eat while standing in front of the building. Charlie Givens discovers he left his cigarettes in the pocket of his jacket up on the sixth floor. The thirty-eight-year-old navy veteran goes back up on the elevator. The sixth floor appears deserted as he crosses the wide space they cleared for the new flooring, but when he gets back to the elevator with the cigarettes and prepares to go down, he is startled to see Lee Oswald, whom he had seen a few minutes earlier on the fifth floor, now on the sixth floor, walking along the east aisle, away from the southeast corner of the room, clipboard in hand. "Boy, are you going downstairs?" Givens calls out. "It's near lunchtime."
"No, sir," Oswald replies. Oddly, he again asks for the west elevator gate to be closed when Givens gets back downstairs.
"Okay," Givens shrugs.142
When he returns to the first floor on the east elevator, he turns to close the west elevator gate, as Oswald requested, but finds it missing-it's up on some other floor.143 After eating lunch in front of the building, he joins Harold Norman and James Jarman inside at a first-floor window looking onto Elm Street, but after a bit they decide to go outside for the motorcade. Later, Norman and Jarman change their minds and go back in to watch from the fifth floor, while Givens walks over to the corner of Main and Record to watch the motorcade with a couple of friends.144
12:06 p.m. (Williams arrives on the 6th Floor)
At the Book Depository Building, Bonnie Ray Williams had picked up his lunch in the domino room on the first floor, gotten a Dr. Pepper from the soda machine, and taken the east levator back up to the sixth floor, expecting to find some of the other guys up there. Billy Lovelady said he was going to watch the motorcade from there, and Bonnie had more or less agreed with Danny Arce that they would too-but he doesn't see anyone on the sixth floor when he gets there. Bonnie settles down anyway, in front of the third double-window from the southeast corner overlooking Elm Street, to eat his lunch-a piece of chicken on the bone, two slices of bread, and a bag of Fritos. No one else shows up. After a while he gets up and erches on a "two-wheeler," one of the hand trucks they use to buck the heavy boxes of books around. It's dead quiet up here, nothing moving but specks of dust in the air. To his right
he can see the west wall, because that's where they cleared the books out to resurface the floor. His view to the left is blocked by the unusually high piles of boxes the workers moved there in preparation for the reflooring job. It's so quiet he can hear the pigeons on the roof above and someone moving around on the floor below-someone walking, then moving a window. He hears the traffic and growing murmur of the crowd in the street below. It's finally clear that no one else is coming up to watch from the sixth floor. He finishes off his Dr. Pepper, puts the chicken bones back in the paper sack, leaves the bottle and sack there, and goes back to the elevator to see who's on the floor below.146
12:15 p.m. (Rowland sights a Gunman)
Arnold Rowland and his wife Barbara find a place to watch the motorcade on the sidewalk in front of the Criminal Courts Building on Houston Street, near the west entrance to Sheriff Decker's office. T he young couple are still students at Dallas's Adamson High School, but both got off early today and came downtown to shop for a while before Arnold goes to his job at the Pizza Inn on West Davis Avenue. 148 A hundred yards to the west the Rowlands can see policemen on the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass and another two-dozen or so uniformed officers in the streets around the plaza. Arnold and Barbara remember the nasty incidents involving Adlai Stevenson and Lyndon Johnson not too long ago and understand that security will be tight for the motorcade. 149 Arnold knows the building on the next corner very well several times he has been to the Texas School Book Depository to get books, including a physics notebook he bought there two or three weeks ago.150 He and his wife take note of a number of people looking out the windows of the building, including a black man hanging out of one of the southeast corner windows. 151 A nearby police radio squawks out the progress of the motorcade.
"What's the location?" Inspector J. H. Sawyer asks.
"Now turning onto Cedar Springs Road off of Turtle Creek," the dispatcher informs him.
"Ten-four," Sawyer replies.152
Arnold Rowland can tell from the conversation that the motorcade is about two miles away now.153 As he continues to scan the upper floors of the Depository, Rowland would later say he spotted a man holding a high-powered rifle at port arms (across his chest) in the window at the west end of the sixth floor.T hat's some distance away, but Arnold knows his way around guns, and he can tell by the relative proportion of the scope to the rifle that it's a heavy piece, no .22 caliber. Though the rifleman is a couple of feet back in the shadows, Arnold, whose eyesight is better than 20/20,154 sees him very clearly, a slender man in his early thirties, with a light complexion and either well-combed or close-cut dark hair, wearing a light-colored, open-collared shirt over a T-shirt.155
"Hey, you want to see a Secret Service man?" he asks his wife Barbara.
"Where?" she asks, staring intently at a commotion developing across the street.
"In the building there," Arnold says, pointing back up at the Depository. His wife, however, is paying no attention and instead directs him to look across the street at a couple of police officers assisting a young black man who's having some sort of epileptic fit. By the time Arnold gets his wife's attention and points out the open window, the man with the rifle has disappeared.
"What did he look like?" she asks, disappointed to have missed him. Arnold describes the man and how he was holding a rifle with a scope.
"Oh," she sighs, "I wish I could have seen him. He's probably in another part of the building now, watching people."
Her attention returns back to the action across the street, where an ambulance arrives to take the epileptic to Parkland Hospital. Although Arnold continues to scan the upper floors of the Depository every thirty seconds or so, hoping to catch another glimpse of the man he assumes is a Secret Service agent so that he can point him out to his wife, he
doesn't see the rifleman again. Nor, to his later regret, does he bother to mention what he saw to a nearby police officer.156
12:15 p.m. (Williams arrives on the 5th Floor)
Bonnie Ray Williams steps off the elevator onto the fifth floor of the Depository. He discovers Harold Norman and James "Junior" Jarman there.157 With seven big doublewindows
across the Elm Street face of the building, there's plenty of room for the three of them to watch the motorcade. Harold squats at the window in the southeast corner, and Bonnie Ray joins him there, taking the second window of the pair. Junior kneels at the second double-window, leaning over the low sill. If they lean out far enough, they can talk to each other outside. The view is terrific, since from their perch they can see south to the corner of Houston and Main and beyond, as well as all the way west down the curving sweep of Elm to the Triple Underpass, with nothing in their line of sight but the thick foliage clustered on the branches of an oak tree158 nearly right below them along the north side of Elm. Except for that oak, they will get a pretty good view of the motorcade from Four Days in November the moment it turns off Main Street until it disappears into the shadow of the underpass
leading to the Stemmons Freeway. 159
12:22 p.m. (Motorcade reaches Main)
Deputy Chief Lumpkin turns the pilot car right off Harwood onto Main Street and gets his first good look at the crowds awaiting the motorcade. "Crowd on Main Street's in real good shape," he tells Chief Curry over the police radio. "They've got 'em back off on the curb."
"Good shape," Curry says, barely audible over the shrieks and screams of the cheering crowds. "We're just about to cross Live Oak."
"Ten-four," Lumpkin replies.163
12:23 p.m. (Brennan takes position)
Howard Brennan's hunch was right-he does indeed find a great spot, at the corner of Houston and Elm, right across the street from the Book Depository. He even has a seat, a low, ornamental wall curving around the end of the long reflecting pool-or "lagoon," as Dallas folk call it-along the west side of Houston Street. His aluminum hardhat shields his head from the sun, and he reckons he will have, in a couple of minutes, a good view of the First Family. His eyes rove over the swelling crowd. There's quite a bunch on the steps of the Depository Building across the street, and more people turning up every moment. If the crowd gets too thick he can always stand up on top of the low wall to see well over their heads. He notices quite a few people in the windows of the Texas School Book Depository, in particular three black men on the fifth floor near the southeasternmost side of the building, leaning way out of their windows to chatter to each other, and a fellow just above them on the sixth floor, who for a moment sits sideways on the low windowsill.171 It strikes Brennan as odd that this guy is alone, while almost everyone else is with someone. The man in the sixth-floor window seems to be in his own little world, unsmiling, calm, with no trace of excitement. Brennan, who is farsighted, has especially good vision at a distance, and sees him very clearly.
12.28 p.m (Fisher and Edwards see man in 6th floor window)
On the southwest corner of Elm and Houston, directly across the street from the Book Depository, Ronald Fischer, a young auditor for Dallas County, and Bob Edwards, a utility clerk from the same office, wait at the curb for the motorcade. Edwards notices a white man, on the thin side, among the boxes at the sixth-floor southeast corner window of the Depository Building. "Hey, look at that guy in the window," Edwards says, poking Fischer. "He looks like he's uncomfortable."178 He does look uncomfortable, Fischer thinks, when he spots the man in the window, a slender man with brown hair in his early twenties, casually dressed. Oddly enough, even though the motorcade is likely to appear at any moment now, this guy isn't watching out for it. Instead of looking south toward the corner of Main and Houston like most of the crowd, he's staring west toward the Triple Underpass, or maybe even beyond to the Trinity River. He is curiously still too, not moving his head or anything else. He appears to be kneeling or sitting on something, literally boxed in by the high wall of boxes behind him.
Edwards laughs, wondering who the guy is hiding from. Fischer goes on watching him for a while, but never sees a movement. The man seems "transfixed." It's very strange.179
-
Of course we need to correct Vince. His statement that Brennan saw 3 men on the fifth floor is incorrect. Brennan only saw two, likely because we know Williams did not arrive to join the others until just shortly before the shots.
I would also point out that the idea that Williams had agreed with anyone to view the motorcade from the 6th floor that morning is an uncorroborated claim by Williams. Neither Lovelady or Arce were asked to confirm an any statement or testimony.
-
I see DVP, Denis, Charles and Paul all LN proponents but no defence of Bugliosi (and ghostwriters). We must ask ourselves why are they unable to confront what the investigation revealed? Why the need to pretend that Williams was not on the 6th floor at the same time as the man with a rifle?
It is the inevitable conclusion one has to reach. It seems to be LN kryptonite for some reason.
-
This could become a very, very long thread.
I count five LN members on the forum at present. DVP seems to have left the building. Most would rather engage in Garrison bashing rather than discussing the evidence the WC uncovered and yet deliberately ignored or were unable to digest.
Nothing offered to put Jarman and Norman on the 5th floor before Rowland's gunman. No corroboration for Givens obvious concoction. Yet his early statement suggests he saw Oswald in the domino room 20 minutes after the elevator race. Most likely around 12.10-12.15pm. At 12.25 or so Jarman and Norman walk by the same domino room. The same time Brennan sees someone in the SN.
Shelley saw him around 11.50am on the first floor. He is on the 5th floor at the time of the elevator race and then seen by Piper around noon back on the first floor near the domino room. Givens's sighting is 10-15 minutes later.
-
LNers don’t care about the details, Colin. The narrative must be preserved at all costs.
-
Givens appears to distinguish between his "coat" and his "jacket" in his responses. For example, he indicates that he left a "raincoat" in the domino room that morning. In fact, Belin uses the term "jacket" in that question but Givens responds with "raincoat". And he retrieves his "coat" when he leaves for the day. In response to questions about his trip to the 6th floor, however, he consistently references his "jacket." Maybe that is the distinction. He wore a raincoat to work that morning but also kept a jacket at work. I don't see that distinction as undermining his testimony. And then there is this characterization that brings to mind the many witnesses that described Oswald as wearing a jacket after the assassination when he appears to have had on a long sleeve shirt:
Mr. BELIN. When you got off the elevator, as you were coming back up to get your shirt, did you have any occasion as you were walking out of the elevator to look to see if there was anyone else on the floor?
Mr. GIVENS. Well, no, sir; I wasn't thinking of that. I just happened to glance around as I was on my way back.
Mr. BELIN. Did you wear a jacket to work that day?
Mr. GIVENS. I wore a raincoat, I believe. It was misting that morning.
-
LNers don’t care about the details, Colin. The narrative must be preserved at all costs.
Look who's talking!
John "I Will Allow No Evidence Even Remotely Perceived as Possibly Implicating and/or Not Actually Exonerating Oswald in the Assassination to Be Permitted, No Matter How Devious and Intellectually Dishonest I Must Be to Accomplish My Mission" Iacoletti.
LOL
What a hypocrite.
-- MWT ;)
-
Pure BS from a guy who thinks his speculative nonsense is evidence.
-
Pure BS from a guy who thinks his speculative nonsense is evidence.
John,
I found the photo of the five male models wearing Bermuda shorts that you posted on a thread about the identity of the three skirt and or dresses-under-raincoats-wearing people on the Pergola Patio in Towner, but I can't find the one you posted showing a guy wearing Bermuda shorts in the snow.
Have you deleted it?
I wouldn't be surprised if you have.
-- MWT ;)
-
You really should see somebody about your obsession with men’s shorts.
-
Givens appears to distinguish between his "coat" and his "jacket" in his responses. For example, he indicates that he left a "raincoat" in the domino room that morning. In fact, Belin uses the term "jacket" in that question but Givens responds with "raincoat". And he retrieves his "coat" when he leaves for the day. In response to questions about his trip to the 6th floor, however, he consistently references his "jacket." Maybe that is the distinction. He wore a raincoat to work that morning but also kept a jacket at work. I don't see that distinction as undermining his testimony. And then there is this characterization that brings to mind the many witnesses that described Oswald as wearing a jacket after the assassination when he appears to have had on a long sleeve shirt:
Mr. BELIN. When you got off the elevator, as you were coming back up to get your shirt, did you have any occasion as you were walking out of the elevator to look to see if there was anyone else on the floor?
Mr. GIVENS. Well, no, sir; I wasn't thinking of that. I just happened to glance around as I was on my way back.
Mr. BELIN. Did you wear a jacket to work that day?
Mr. GIVENS. I wore a raincoat, I believe. It was misting that morning.
I can see where you are coming from Richard. Certainly worth a considered response. Belin specifically mentioned “jacket”, as he was obviously aware of the significance that this will play later when Givens claimed collecting his jacket because his cigarettes were in the pocket. It seems the normal practice was to leave jackets, coats and hats in the domino room. Givens replied with raincoat. He did not say “I wore a jacket and coat”….simply raincoat. Belin asked if he hung his “coat” in the domino room and Givens simply confirms. As the jacket was central to the argument one would think that Belin should have clarified and then moved on.
-
Of course we need to correct Vince. His statement that Brennan saw 3 men on the fifth floor is incorrect. Brennan only saw two, likely because we know Williams did not arrive to join the others until just shortly before the shots.
I would also point out that the idea that Williams had agreed with anyone to view the motorcade from the 6th floor that morning is an uncorroborated claim by Williams. Neither Lovelady or Arce were asked to confirm an any statement or testimony.
From "You are the Jury" by David Belin......
"Mr. Belin. I believe that you testified that you thought you recognized two of the people that you saw looking out of the fifth floor of the School Book Depository Building ... outside of the building sometime after the assassination, is that correct?
The two people that you saw, are they any of these three people here?
Mr. Brennan. Yes. I believe it is the one on the end and this one here, I am not sure.
The employee that Brennan immediately identified was Harold Norman. But he seemed to hesitate about the other, although he said that he thought
that it was James Jarman Jr. I deliberately tried to trip up Brennan:
Mr. Belin. Could it have been neither one of these persons that you saw?
Mr. Brennan. I think it was one of them. I think it was this boy on the end.
Mr. Belin. You thought it was Mr. Norman. And what about Mr. Jarman?
Mr. Brennan. I believe it was him too. Am I right or wrong?
Mr. Ball. I don't know.
And at that time, neither Joe Ball nor I did know whether Brennan was right or wrong. The answer depended on the testimony of Harold Norman and James Jarman Jr."
I somehow doubt the truthfulness of Belin's last statement. Ball and Belin visited Dallas immediately before these testimonies. They spent considerable time with Williams, Norman and Jarman in reconstructing their movements in the TSBD.
-
Please note that I have updated the original post with a sequence that I believe is supported by analysis of the accumulated evidence. Happy to have serious debate and modify where appropriate.
-
He wore a raincoat to work that morning but also kept a jacket at work. I don't see that distinction as undermining his testimony.
Of course you wouldn't. But the phrase 'I also kept a jacket at work' was never used.
-
I can see where you are coming from Richard. Certainly worth a considered response. Belin specifically mentioned “jacket”, as he was obviously aware of the significance that this will play later when Givens claimed collecting his jacket because his cigarettes were in the pocket. It seems the normal practice was to leave jackets, coats and hats in the domino room. Givens replied with raincoat. He did not say “I wore a jacket and coat”….simply raincoat. Belin asked if he hung his “coat” in the domino room and Givens simply confirms. As the jacket was central to the argument one would think that Belin should have clarified and then moved on.
No one can ever sort these details out with absolute certainty. It is curious, however, that (I believe) in every reference to the 6th floor trip Givens calls it a "jacket" and in references to the domino room he calls it a "coat" or "raincoat" even when the question involves a "jacket." He does that consistently. It is possible that he wore a raincoat that morning but kept a jacket at work. Maybe it was chilly in the building. Who knows? It is just a plausible explanation. I just don't see that ambiguity undermining his entire testimony. And if there was some frame up or lie going on involving Givens why would Belin seek specific clarification that he hung it in the domino room? Why not just gloss over that? Why even involve a jacket at all in a fake 6th floor story? Why not just say he left his cigarettes on the 6th floor? The jacket doesn't make much sense as part of a contrived story. There is some piece of information missing like Givens kept a jacket or long work shirt that might be referred too as a jacket in the building.
-
Of course you wouldn't. But the phrase 'I also kept a jacket at work' was never used.
Was he ever asked that question? I just pointed out a plausible explanation based on his responses to the questions he was asked. If we knew the answer with certainty, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Do you have some reason to believe he didn't keep a jacket at work?
-
No one can ever sort these details out with absolute certainty. It is curious, however, that (I believe) in every reference to the 6th floor trip Givens calls it a "jacket" and in references to the domino room he calls it a "coat" or "raincoat" even when the question involves a "jacket." He does that consistently. It is possible the he wore a raincoat that morning but kept a jacket at work. Maybe it was chilly in the building. Who knows? It is just a plausible explanation. I just don't see that ambiguity undermining his entire testimony. And if there was some frame up or lie going on involving Givens why would Belin seek specific clarification that he hung it in the domino room? Why not just gloss over that? Why even involve a jacket at all in a fake 6th floor story? Why not just say he left his cigarettes on the 6th floor? The jacket doesn't make much sense as part of a contrived story. There is some piece of information missing like Givens kept a jacket or long work shirt that might be referred too as a jacket in the building.
Thanks for your reply Richard. I think we would both agree it would have been preferable if Belin clarified the issue by asking if he wore a jacket upstairs that morning.
As for Givens, it was in this testimony, months after the event that he first mentioned the cigarette trip sighting of Oswald on the sixth floor. His description of the event, particularly his position at the time and Oswald's makes it difficult to believe. He was interviewed on the day of the assassination and the following day. On that occasion the report stated he saw Oswald about 20 minutes after the elevator race, not on the sixth floor, but in the domino room reading a paper. In any event, his supposed sighting happened just a few minutes after the elevator race. Then Oswald was on the 5th floor, his appearance on the 6th floor would be followed by the Piper sighting at noon on the first floor.
-
Thanks for your reply Richard. I think we would both agree it would have been preferable if Belin clarified the issue by asking if he wore a jacket upstairs that morning.
As for Givens, it was in this testimony, months after the event that he first mentioned the cigarette trip sighting of Oswald on the sixth floor. His description of the event, particularly his position at the time and Oswald's makes it difficult to believe. He was interviewed on the day of the assassination and the following day. On that occasion the report stated he saw Oswald about 20 minutes after the elevator race, not on the sixth floor, but in the domino room reading a paper. In any event, his supposed sighting happened just a few minutes after the elevator race. Then Oswald was on the 5th floor, his appearance on the 6th floor would be followed by the Piper sighting at noon on the first floor.
It's an interesting discussion, but I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference to the case whether Givens made his trip to the 6th floor or not. I doubt any CTers believes that it would mean that Oswald was the assassin if Givens story is true. Conversely, no LNer would believe Oswald is innocent if Givens made the whole thing up. We know Oswald was in the building and can't be accounted for at the moment of the assassination. The presence of Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor is the most important piece of evidence in the case. Until someone can explain its presence there in a credible way that does not involve Oswald as the assassin, it is damning evidence. His flight, involvement in another murder, lies and absence of an alibi are just icing on the cake.
-
It's an interesting discussion, but I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference to the case whether Givens made his trip to the 6th floor or not. I doubt any CTers believes that it would mean that Oswald was the assassin if Givens story is true. Conversely, no LNer would believe Oswald is innocent if Givens made the whole thing up. We know Oswald was in the building and can't be accounted for at the moment of the assassination. The presence of Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor is the most important piece of evidence in the case. Until someone can explain its presence there in a credible way that does not involve Oswald as the assassin, it is damning evidence. His flight, involvement in another murder, lies and absence of an alibi are just icing on the cake.
Ultimately, Givens sighting on the 6th floor, does little for either side. We have the corroborated sighting of him on the 5th floor just before noon during the elevator race and then Piper (and possibly Givens) placing him on the first floor closer to noon.
We haven’t discussed the implications of Carolyn Arnold's statements yet. What do we make of them? Lunchroom at 12.15 or first floor at 12.25, or neither??
-
Vince Bugliosi's timeline from Reclaiming History
Vince made an attempt at providing a narrative timeline in his book. The relevant components appear below with his timestamps.
I do not know why Bugliosi claimed the "elevator Race took place at 11.47am. Those involved claimed it was after Shelley had departed for the first floor, presumably by the west elevator. He would need to shut the gates to allow it to be called up for the flooring crew to access it. Shelley saw Oswald shortly after his return to the first floor about 11.50am. Oswald was observed on the fifth floor by the workers as they descended. Perhaps Oswald took the west elevator up to the fifth floor about 11.50am and shut the gates, allowing it to be "called" by those above? In any event at least a minute or two would pass before the "elevator race" could start after Shelly's departure from the 6th floor for lunch. Most likely 11.55am is a more accurate estimate for this event.
---------------------------------------------------------
11:47 a.m. (The Elevator Race)
Some of the stock boys in the Texas School Book Depository Building are laying new flooring up on the sixth floor. The schoolbook business is a little slow this late in the year, and rather than lay the boys off entirely, Bill Shelley, a Depository manager, put them to work resurfacing the upper floors, where most of the books are stored.* Half a dozen of them are at it-Bill Shelley himself, Bonnie Ray Williams, Charles Givens, Danny Arce, Billy Lovelady, and occasionally Harold Norman, when he has time to give them a hand. The work is pretty straightforward. They have to move the heavy cartons of books from one side of the floor to the other, then back, as they lay new flooring over the old planks. It took them about three weeks to do the fifth floor, and they're just starting in on the sixth, moving as many cartons as they can from the west side of the open floor over to the east. Given the number of books they have to move, they aren't very far along.
They 're still working on the first section, on the westernmost portion of the sixth floor.121 At one point, Bonnie Ray Williams thought he saw Lee Oswald, though he is not sure, messing around with some cartons near the easternmost freight elevator on the sixth floor, during the half hour before noon. He didn't pay much attention though. Oswald is always messing around, kicking and shoving cartons around.122 The warehouse crew usually knocks off about five minutes before noon to give themselves time to wash up for lunch, but today, anxious to see the president, they quit a little earlier. In high spirits, the young men commandeer both of the big freight elevators for a mock race to the bottom. Bonnie Ray, Billy, Danny, and Charlie all pile into the east elevator and head for the bottom. The rest of them take the west elevator. It isn't really much of a race. The east elevator is faster, and they all know it.123
Charlie Givens notices Lee Oswald in front of the elevator shaft on the fifth floor as they flash past on their way to the ground floor. 124 "Guys!" Oswald calls after them. "How about an elevator?" Givens tosses his head back as the freight elevator plunges down. "Come on, boy!" Givens calls out, suggesting Oswald come down to the bottom floor too, though apparently not on their moving elevator. "Close the gate on the elevator," Oswald shouts down the shaft, "and send the elevator back up."125 Oswald means the west elevator. The east elevator has to be manned, but the west one can be summoned from any floor if its gate is closed.126 When they get to the first floor, however, no one bothers with Oswald's request.
12:00 p.m. (Cigarette Trip)
At the Book Depository, some of the stock boys wade into their lunches in the small, first floor employee's lounge, which the architects designated as the recreation room and which employees call the "domino room," after their favorite pastime, while others eat while standing in front of the building. Charlie Givens discovers he left his cigarettes in the pocket of his jacket up on the sixth floor. The thirty-eight-year-old navy veteran goes back up on the elevator. The sixth floor appears deserted as he crosses the wide space they cleared for the new flooring, but when he gets back to the elevator with the cigarettes and prepares to go down, he is startled to see Lee Oswald, whom he had seen a few minutes earlier on the fifth floor, now on the sixth floor, walking along the east aisle, away from the southeast corner of the room, clipboard in hand. "Boy, are you going downstairs?" Givens calls out. "It's near lunchtime."
"No, sir," Oswald replies. Oddly, he again asks for the west elevator gate to be closed when Givens gets back downstairs.
"Okay," Givens shrugs.142
When he returns to the first floor on the east elevator, he turns to close the west elevator gate, as Oswald requested, but finds it missing-it's up on some other floor.143 After eating lunch in front of the building, he joins Harold Norman and James Jarman inside at a first-floor window looking onto Elm Street, but after a bit they decide to go outside for the motorcade. Later, Norman and Jarman change their minds and go back in to watch from the fifth floor, while Givens walks over to the corner of Main and Record to watch the motorcade with a couple of friends.144
12:06 p.m. (Williams arrives on the 6th Floor)
At the Book Depository Building, Bonnie Ray Williams had picked up his lunch in the domino room on the first floor, gotten a Dr. Pepper from the soda machine, and taken the east levator back up to the sixth floor, expecting to find some of the other guys up there. Billy Lovelady said he was going to watch the motorcade from there, and Bonnie had more or less agreed with Danny Arce that they would too-but he doesn't see anyone on the sixth floor when he gets there. Bonnie settles down anyway, in front of the third double-window from the southeast corner overlooking Elm Street, to eat his lunch-a piece of chicken on the bone, two slices of bread, and a bag of Fritos. No one else shows up. After a while he gets up and erches on a "two-wheeler," one of the hand trucks they use to buck the heavy boxes of books around. It's dead quiet up here, nothing moving but specks of dust in the air. To his right
he can see the west wall, because that's where they cleared the books out to resurface the floor. His view to the left is blocked by the unusually high piles of boxes the workers moved there in preparation for the reflooring job. It's so quiet he can hear the pigeons on the roof above and someone moving around on the floor below-someone walking, then moving a window. He hears the traffic and growing murmur of the crowd in the street below. It's finally clear that no one else is coming up to watch from the sixth floor. He finishes off his Dr. Pepper, puts the chicken bones back in the paper sack, leaves the bottle and sack there, and goes back to the elevator to see who's on the floor below.146
12:15 p.m. (Rowland sights a Gunman)
Arnold Rowland and his wife Barbara find a place to watch the motorcade on the sidewalk in front of the Criminal Courts Building on Houston Street, near the west entrance to Sheriff Decker's office. T he young couple are still students at Dallas's Adamson High School, but both got off early today and came downtown to shop for a while before Arnold goes to his job at the Pizza Inn on West Davis Avenue. 148 A hundred yards to the west the Rowlands can see policemen on the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass and another two-dozen or so uniformed officers in the streets around the plaza. Arnold and Barbara remember the nasty incidents involving Adlai Stevenson and Lyndon Johnson not too long ago and understand that security will be tight for the motorcade. 149 Arnold knows the building on the next corner very well several times he has been to the Texas School Book Depository to get books, including a physics notebook he bought there two or three weeks ago.150 He and his wife take note of a number of people looking out the windows of the building, including a black man hanging out of one of the southeast corner windows. 151 A nearby police radio squawks out the progress of the motorcade.
"What's the location?" Inspector J. H. Sawyer asks.
"Now turning onto Cedar Springs Road off of Turtle Creek," the dispatcher informs him.
"Ten-four," Sawyer replies.152
Arnold Rowland can tell from the conversation that the motorcade is about two miles away now.153 As he continues to scan the upper floors of the Depository, Rowland would later say he spotted a man holding a high-powered rifle at port arms (across his chest) in the window at the west end of the sixth floor.T hat's some distance away, but Arnold knows his way around guns, and he can tell by the relative proportion of the scope to the rifle that it's a heavy piece, no .22 caliber. Though the rifleman is a couple of feet back in the shadows, Arnold, whose eyesight is better than 20/20,154 sees him very clearly, a slender man in his early thirties, with a light complexion and either well-combed or close-cut dark hair, wearing a light-colored, open-collared shirt over a T-shirt.155
"Hey, you want to see a Secret Service man?" he asks his wife Barbara.
"Where?" she asks, staring intently at a commotion developing across the street.
"In the building there," Arnold says, pointing back up at the Depository. His wife, however, is paying no attention and instead directs him to look across the street at a couple of police officers assisting a young black man who's having some sort of epileptic fit. By the time Arnold gets his wife's attention and points out the open window, the man with the rifle has disappeared.
"What did he look like?" she asks, disappointed to have missed him. Arnold describes the man and how he was holding a rifle with a scope.
"Oh," she sighs, "I wish I could have seen him. He's probably in another part of the building now, watching people."
Her attention returns back to the action across the street, where an ambulance arrives to take the epileptic to Parkland Hospital. Although Arnold continues to scan the upper floors of the Depository every thirty seconds or so, hoping to catch another glimpse of the man he assumes is a Secret Service agent so that he can point him out to his wife, he
doesn't see the rifleman again. Nor, to his later regret, does he bother to mention what he saw to a nearby police officer.156
12:15 p.m. (Williams arrives on the 5th Floor)
Bonnie Ray Williams steps off the elevator onto the fifth floor of the Depository. He discovers Harold Norman and James "Junior" Jarman there.157 With seven big doublewindows
across the Elm Street face of the building, there's plenty of room for the three of them to watch the motorcade. Harold squats at the window in the southeast corner, and Bonnie Ray joins him there, taking the second window of the pair. Junior kneels at the second double-window, leaning over the low sill. If they lean out far enough, they can talk to each other outside. The view is terrific, since from their perch they can see south to the corner of Houston and Main and beyond, as well as all the way west down the curving sweep of Elm to the Triple Underpass, with nothing in their line of sight but the thick foliage clustered on the branches of an oak tree158 nearly right below them along the north side of Elm. Except for that oak, they will get a pretty good view of the motorcade from Four Days in November the moment it turns off Main Street until it disappears into the shadow of the underpass
leading to the Stemmons Freeway. 159
12:22 p.m. (Motorcade reaches Main)
Deputy Chief Lumpkin turns the pilot car right off Harwood onto Main Street and gets his first good look at the crowds awaiting the motorcade. "Crowd on Main Street's in real good shape," he tells Chief Curry over the police radio. "They've got 'em back off on the curb."
"Good shape," Curry says, barely audible over the shrieks and screams of the cheering crowds. "We're just about to cross Live Oak."
"Ten-four," Lumpkin replies.163
12:23 p.m. (Brennan takes position)
Howard Brennan's hunch was right-he does indeed find a great spot, at the corner of Houston and Elm, right across the street from the Book Depository. He even has a seat, a low, ornamental wall curving around the end of the long reflecting pool-or "lagoon," as Dallas folk call it-along the west side of Houston Street. His aluminum hardhat shields his head from the sun, and he reckons he will have, in a couple of minutes, a good view of the First Family. His eyes rove over the swelling crowd. There's quite a bunch on the steps of the Depository Building across the street, and more people turning up every moment. If the crowd gets too thick he can always stand up on top of the low wall to see well over their heads. He notices quite a few people in the windows of the Texas School Book Depository, in particular three black men on the fifth floor near the southeasternmost side of the building, leaning way out of their windows to chatter to each other, and a fellow just above them on the sixth floor, who for a moment sits sideways on the low windowsill.171 It strikes Brennan as odd that this guy is alone, while almost everyone else is with someone. The man in the sixth-floor window seems to be in his own little world, unsmiling, calm, with no trace of excitement. Brennan, who is farsighted, has especially good vision at a distance, and sees him very clearly.
12.28 p.m (Fisher and Edwards see man in 6th floor window)
On the southwest corner of Elm and Houston, directly across the street from the Book Depository, Ronald Fischer, a young auditor for Dallas County, and Bob Edwards, a utility clerk from the same office, wait at the curb for the motorcade. Edwards notices a white man, on the thin side, among the boxes at the sixth-floor southeast corner window of the Depository Building. "Hey, look at that guy in the window," Edwards says, poking Fischer. "He looks like he's uncomfortable."178 He does look uncomfortable, Fischer thinks, when he spots the man in the window, a slender man with brown hair in his early twenties, casually dressed. Oddly enough, even though the motorcade is likely to appear at any moment now, this guy isn't watching out for it. Instead of looking south toward the corner of Main and Houston like most of the crowd, he's staring west toward the Triple Underpass, or maybe even beyond to the Trinity River. He is curiously still too, not moving his head or anything else. He appears to be kneeling or sitting on something, literally boxed in by the high wall of boxes behind him.
Edwards laughs, wondering who the guy is hiding from. Fischer goes on watching him for a while, but never sees a movement. The man seems "transfixed." It's very strange.179
12:15 p.m. (Williams arrives on the 5th Floor)
It's possible that BRW did take the west elevator to the fifth floor...BUT..He did NOT remain on the fifth floor....There is mountains of testimony in which Williams himself testifies that he was on the SIXTH floor at 12:15.... What a pathetic legacy for Bugliosi..... A blatant lie....
Bonnie Ray Williams steps off the elevator onto the fifth floor of the Depository. He discovers Harold Norman and James "Junior" Jarman there.157
James Jarman testified that he and Norman arrived on the fifth floor at about 12:28.....
-
12:15 p.m. (Williams arrives on the 5th Floor)
It's possible that BRW did take the west elevator to the fifth floor...BUT..He did NOT remain on the fifth floor....There is mountains of testimony in which Williams himself testifies that he was on the SIXTH floor at 12:15.... What a pathetic legacy for Bugliosi..... A blatant lie....
Bonnie Ray Williams steps off the elevator onto the fifth floor of the Depository. He discovers Harold Norman and James "Junior" Jarman there.157
James Jarman testified that he and Norman arrived on the fifth floor at about 12:28.....
Here is Jarman's testimony Walt.
Representative FORD - How could you tell this elevator was at six?
Mr. JARMAN - Because after we got around to the other side we looked up.
Representative FORD - You could see it was on six?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes.
Representative FORD - This was about what time?
Mr. JARMAN - That was about 12:25 or 12:28.
Jarman is referring to the time he and Norman got off the elevator on the 5th floor. Norman’s recollection that the motorcade had reached Main is timestamped as 12.22pm by police radio transcripts. They had about 200 feet to walk, about 40 seconds at normal walking pace, and then the elevator to 5 took about 40 seconds also. This could put them at the windows at about 12.24 (earliest) and certainly probably by 12.25pm. If Williams left the SN immediately they were below him he likely joined them close to 12.26 or 12.27pm.
The late arrival by Williams provides an explanation for the identification of only two men below the SN. He also had some trouble identifying exactly which window they were in. Jarman occupied the second window from the SE corner while Norman was directly under the SN.
This means the assassin could not take residency in the SN until after 12.25.....ie was only in position for about 5 minutes.
Interesting comment by Brennan.....
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you please tell the Commission what happened from the time you sat on that retaining wall, what you saw?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I was more or less observing the crowd and the people in different building windows, including the fire escape across from the Texas Book Store on the east side of the Texas Book Store, and also the Texas Book Store Building windows. I observed quite a few people in different windows. In particular, I saw this one man on the sixth floor which left the window to my knowledge a couple of times.
Was Williams departing what initially drew Brennan's attention to the SN?
-
Here is Jarman's testimony Walt.
Representative FORD - How could you tell this elevator was at six?
Mr. JARMAN - Because after we got around to the other side we looked up.
Representative FORD - You could see it was on six?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes.
Representative FORD - This was about what time?
Mr. JARMAN - That was about 12:25 or 12:28.
Jarman is referring to the time he and Norman got off the elevator on the 5th floor. Norman’s recollection that the motorcade had reached Main is timestamped as 12.22pm by police radio transcripts. They had about 200 feet to walk, about 40 seconds at normal walking pace, and then the elevator to 5 took about 40 seconds also. This could put them at the windows at about 12.24 (earliest) and certainly probably by 12.25pm. If Williams left the SN immediately they were below him he likely joined them close to 12.26 or 12.27pm.
The late arrival by Williams provides an explanation for the identification of only two men below the SN. He also had some trouble identifying exactly which window they were in. Jarman occupied the second window from the SE corner while Norman was directly under the SN.
This means the assassin could not take residency in the SN until after 12.25.....ie was only in position for about 5 minutes.
Interesting comment by Brennan.....
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you please tell the Commission what happened from the time you sat on that retaining wall, what you saw?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I was more or less observing the crowd and the people in different building windows, including the fire escape across from the Texas Book Store on the east side of the Texas Book Store, and also the Texas Book Store Building windows. I observed quite a few people in different windows. In particular, I saw this one man on the sixth floor which left the window to my knowledge a couple of times.
Was Williams departing what initially drew Brennan's attention to the SN?
Brennan is talking about the shooter being seen multiple times. He identifies the same person who is shooting from the sixth floor as having been seen earlier.
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, then something, just right after this explosion, made me think that it was a firecracker being thrown from the Texas Book Store. And I glanced up. And this man that I saw previous was aiming for his last shot.
Mr. BELIN. This man you saw previous? Which man are you talking about now?
Mr. BRENNAN. The man in the sixth story window.
-
Brennan is talking about the shooter being seen multiple times. He identifies the same person who is shooting from the sixth floor as having been seen earlier.
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, then something, just right after this explosion, made me think that it was a firecracker being thrown from the Texas Book Store. And I glanced up. And this man that I saw previous was aiming for his last shot.
Mr. BELIN. This man you saw previous? Which man are you talking about now?
Mr. BRENNAN. The man in the sixth story window.
Brennan claimed that someone left the SN a couple of times. Did he leave twice prior to the shots or once before and once after? These movements occurred over about a 5 minute period. Williams departed about the time Brennan took up position. My speculation was simply that Brennan may have assumed the initial movement of Williams out was movement by the shooter.
-
Brennan claimed that someone left the SN a couple of times. Did he leave twice prior to the shots or once before and once after? These movements occurred over about a 5 minute period. Williams departed about the time Brennan took up position. My speculation was simply that Brennan may have assumed the initial movement of Williams out was movement by the shooter.
Brennan said it was the person he had seen previously. He makes no reference to two separate people having been in the SN nor states it was the one specific person and not the other.
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I was more or less observing the crowd and the people in different building windows, including the fire escape across from the Texas Book Store on the east side of the Texas Book Store, and also the Texas Book Store Building windows. I observed quite a few people in different windows. In particular, I saw this one man on the sixth floor which left the window to my knowledge a couple of times.
-
Brennan claimed that someone left the SN a couple of times. Did he leave twice prior to the shots or once before and once after? These movements occurred over about a 5 minute period. Williams departed about the time Brennan took up position. My speculation was simply that Brennan may have assumed the initial movement of Williams out was movement by the shooter.
I've always maintained that Brennan was NOT referring to the SE corner window....In his affidavit which was recorded only an hour or so after the murder, he said that the man was STANDING and aiming the HI POWERED rifle ( ie; Hunting rifle) and he had the rifle through the open window. ( I could see all of the barrel ) Brennan said that he could see all of the man's upper body from his waist up.
Isn't it obvious that Brennan was NOT referring to the SE corner window? A man couldn't possibly stand behind that SE window and aim a rifle out of the window...
What's so difficult to understand about this?
-
Brennan thought everybody was standing. He didn’t know how close the windows were to the floor.
But how could he know that the person he saw “taking aim for the final shot” (which would necessitate crouching behind and being almost completely obscured by boxes) was the same person he saw earlier “hanging out of the window” with no rifle? He probably just assumed it.
-
Brennan thought everybody was standing. He didn’t know how close the windows were to the floor.
But how could he know that the person he saw “taking aim for the final shot” (which would necessitate crouching behind and being almost completely obscured by boxes) was the same person he saw earlier “hanging out of the window” with no rifle? He probably just assumed it.
But Brennan specifically said that he could see all of the upper body of the man....from his waist up. Therefore the man had to have been standing immediately behind the window. Which would have been impossible if he was referring to the SE window because the boxes would have been in that area..... And furthermore Brennan said the man who was STANDING was aiming the hi powered rifle (aka known as a hunting rifle) out of the window. Since the SE window was only halfway open a standing man with a rile to his shoulder as needed to AIM the rifle could NOT stick the rifle barrel out of the window. ( he would have needed to squat very low to get his shoulder and head low enough to aim a rife out of that Se corner window.
Do you understand this, John?
-
But does any of this prevent Oswald getting to the 6th, assembling the MC, taking up his position,and killing JFK..no. Rowlands claim that he saw a man with a high powered rifle in the west end og the 6th floor, at about 12.15.If that is true it follows that Williams goes down to the 5th before 12.15. Which in turn means Jarman & Norman are back on the 5th much earlier than the 12.25-12.28 timeslot.
The accuracy of these witnesses times or locations cannot be completely guaranteed. And no concoction or interpretation of their various comings and goings during the 11.45-12.30 timeslot can be pointed to to make any real claim that prevented a determined and cunning person from being on the 6th floor to carry out an assassination.
I believe that determined and cunning person was Oswald.Nothing in this thread disproves that possibility.
-
But does any of this prevent Oswald getting to the 6th, assembling the MC, taking up his position,and killing JFK..no. Rowlands claim that he saw a man with a high powered rifle in the west end og the 6th floor, at about 12.15.If that is true it follows that Williams goes down to the 5th before 12.15. Which in turn means Jarman & Norman are back on the 5th much earlier than the 12.25-12.28 timeslot.
The accuracy of these witnesses times or locations cannot be completely guaranteed. And no concoction or interpretation of their various comings and goings during the 11.45-12.30 timeslot can be pointed to to make any real claim that prevented a determined and cunning person from being on the 6th floor to carry out an assassination.
I believe that determined and cunning person was Oswald.Nothing in this thread disproves that possibility.
Tell me how if Rowland's claim is true it follows that Williams descends before 12.15? Give me one piece of corroborated evidence that suggests this? Tell me why Jarman and Norman claimed Williams rode up with them to the 5th floor prior to their WC testimony.
Tell me why the first officers at the SN (Mooney, Hill, Craig etc) all reported the chicken lunch there and not near the two wheeler.
You are entitled to your beliefs.......I am not claiming it was not Oswald.....but I cannot ignore what the corroborated evidence implies.
Why did Williams need to change his story on numerous occasions prior to testifying?
Why do you need to impose a sequence that is not supported by any corroboration? In fact, Rowland's testimony confirms what the other evidence tells us. Williams was in the SN until about 12.25pm. Nothing disproves the assassin fired from the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD. The consolidated evidence suggests he took up position just minutes before the motorcade passed.
You are entitled to believe the assassin was Oswald......that belief does not change what the sequence of other events clearly show. Even Ball and Belin knew Williams had to be on the 6th floor at the same time as the assassin. This is clear from Williams appearance before the WC.
-
Tell me how if Rowland's claim is true it follows that Williams descends before 12.15? Give me one piece of corroborated evidence that suggests this? Tell me why Jarman and Norman claimed Williams rode up with them to the 5th floor prior to their WC testimony.
Tell me why the first officers at the SN (Mooney, Hill, Craig etc) all reported the chicken lunch there and not near the two wheeler.
You are entitled to your beliefs.......I am not claiming it was not Oswald.....but I cannot ignore what the corroborated evidence implies.
Why did Williams need to change his story on numerous occasions prior to testifying?
Why do you need to impose a sequence that is not supported by any corroboration? In fact, Rowland's testimony confirms what the other evidence tells us. Williams was in the SN until about 12.25pm. Nothing disproves the assassin fired from the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD. The consolidated evidence suggests he took up position just minutes before the motorcade passed.
You are entitled to believe the assassin was Oswald......that belief does not change what the sequence of other events clearly show. Even Ball and Belin knew Williams had to be on the 6th floor at the same time as the assassin. This is clear from Williams appearance before the WC.
If Rowland sees a man with a highpowered rifle at "port arms"about 12.15 on 6th floor, it could be that gunman was looking at other windows to assess the shot. It follows that Williams must've left the 6th floor at this point, otherwise he would've seen Oswald. And Williams would, at this point be on the 5th or making his way to the 5th to meet up with the other two workers, Jarman & Norman. And if there's anything in that, it must be that Jarman & Norman arrived at the 5th floor on or slightly after 12.15
Arnold and his wife take note of a "black man hanging out of one of the southeast corner windows" That could easily have been Williams,Jarman or Norman on the 5th floor. I'm not sure why you mention the location of the remains of Williams lunch. He had ample time to eat his lunch and then go down to the 5th within the time frame I suggested.
If I was on the jury I would not be that surprised that some of the witness statements did show some level of inconsistencies.It's not easy to get everything in chronological order due to chaos and also some people have a better level of recall than others. I would only give consideration to inconsistencies if they was any significant difference in the evidence given by any witness statements.
It's a little bit disingenuous to say every opinion or every single sighting or incident that I or anybody else comments, on has to be corroborated.Do you apply that criteria to your own remarks?
-
If Rowland sees a man with a highpowered rifle at "port arms"about 12.15 on 6th floor it could be that gunman was looking at other windows to assess the shot. It follows that Williams must've left the 6th floor at this point, otherwise he would've seen Oswald. And Williams would, at this point be on the 5th or making his way to the 5th to meet up with the other two workers, Jarman & Norman. And if there's anything in that it must be that Jarman & Norman arrived at the 5th floor on or slightly after 12.15
Arnold and his wife take note of a "black man hanging out of one of the southeast corner windows" That could easily have been Williams,Jarman or Norman on the 5th floor. I'm not sure why you mention the location of the remains of Williams lunch. He had ample time to eat his lunch and then go down to the 5th within the time frame I suggested.
If I was on the jury I would not be that surprised that some of the witness statements did show some level of inconsistencies.It's not easy to get everything in chronological order due to chaos and also some people have a better level of recall than others. I would only give consideration to inconsistencies if they was any significant difference in the evidence given by any witenesses
It's a little bit disingenuous to say every opinion or every single sighting or incident that I or anybody else comments on has to be corroborated.Do you apply that criteria to your own remarks?
The chicken lunch was in the SN
The following 9 officers who arrived at the SN prior to the arrival of Fritz all reported the components of the chicken lunch there;
Luke Mooney, Gerald Hill, AD McCurley, Eugene Boone, Harry Weatherford, Jack Faulkner, Roger Craig, Officer Brewer and Officer Haygood.
Jarman and Norman left the front of the TSBD at 12.22pm
Jarman's WC testimony...
Mr. BALL - Where did you stand?
Mr. JARMAN - I was standing over to the right in front of the building going toward the west.
Mr. BALL - Were you on the sidewalk or curb?
Mr. JARMAN - On the sidewalk.
Mr. BALL - The sidewalk in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - How long did you stand there?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, until about 12:20, between 12:20 and 12:25.
Norman's WC testimony....
Mr. BALL. Did you stay there?
Mr. NORMAN. Well, we stayed there I believe until we got the news that the motorcade was coming down, let's see, is that Commerce, no Main, because Commerce- we went back in the building, James Jarman and I.
The motorcade arrived at Main at 12.22pm. DPD Police transcripts.
Truly's testimony
Mr. BELIN. Now, when did you leave for lunch, Mr. Truly?
Mr. TRULY. As near as I know, it was between somewheres around 12:10 or shortly after, possibly 12:15.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember where you were standing with Mr. Campbell?
Mr. TRULY. I would judge out in Elm Street, 10 to 15 or 20 feet from the front steps. We first stood on the steps, the bottom steps a few minutes, and then we walked out in the line of spectators on the side of Elm Street.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Do you know approximately what time you got there, Mr. Truly? To the best of your recollection.
Mr. TRULY. 3 or 4 minutes after we reached the entrance, the walkway, we stood on the steps 2 or 3 minutes, and then I don't believe we just gradually moved out a bit.
Mr. BELIN. Did you notice any other company employees with you other than Mr. Campbell at that time?
Mr. TRULY. Well, I did. I noticed several. Mrs. Reid was standing there close. And it seemed like there were several of the other employees standing out in front of the building. But I cannot--I think Bill Shelley was standing over to my right as I faced the motorcade--somewheres in that area.
I noticed just before the motorcade passed there were, I believe, three of our colored boys had come out and started up, and two of them came back. And I didn't see them when the motorcade passed.
But they had started across Houston Street up Elm, and they came back later on, and I think those were the ones that were two of them were the ones on the fifth floor. Possibly they could not see over the crowd. They are short boys. I wasn't doing too well at that, myself.
Brennan arrived at his position about 12.24. He noticed only two men on the 5th floor. That was because Williams had not yet joined them.
Rowland confirmed Williams was in the SN during his WC testimony
Mr. SPECTER - At about what time was it that you observed someone hanging out of the window that you have marked as window "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - Again about 12:15 just before I noticed the other man.
Mr. SPECTER - You have marked the double window there. Would you draw the arrow in the red pencil indicating specifically which window it was.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe with as much particularity as you can what that man looked like?
Mr. ROWLAND - It seemed to me an elderly Negro, that is about all. I didn't pay very much attention to him.
Mr. SPECTER - At or about that time did you observe anyone else hanging out any window or observe any one through any window on the same floor where you have drawn the two circles on Exhibit 356?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; no one else on that floor.
Mr. ROWLAND - Let me see, the exact time I do not remember, but the man, the colored man, was in that window until the procession reached Commerce I mean Main, and Ervay. I was looking back quite often, as I stated.
The motorcade passed Ervay about 12.25pm.
You have offered nothing to support your contention that "it follows" Williams has left the floor by 12.15pm. This is consistent with DVP's "better sequence"....better for the LN belief....but not consistent with the corroborated evidence....sorry. At least you have tried to engage which is more than can be said for the other WC supporters on the forum. The facts stand based on the evidence that was collected for the investigation.
-
Thank you for your considered reply. Time is against me today but I'll try again later.
-
The chicken lunch was in the SN
The following 9 officers who arrived at the SN prior to the arrival of Fritz all reported the components of the chicken lunch there;
Luke Mooney, Gerald Hill, AD McCurley, Eugene Boone, Harry Weatherford, Jack Faulkner, Roger Craig, Officer Brewer and Officer Haygood.
Jarman and Norman left the front of the TSBD at 12.22pm
Jarman's WC testimony...
Mr. BALL - Where did you stand?
Mr. JARMAN - I was standing over to the right in front of the building going toward the west.
Mr. BALL - Were you on the sidewalk or curb?
Mr. JARMAN - On the sidewalk.
Mr. BALL - The sidewalk in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - How long did you stand there?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, until about 12:20, between 12:20 and 12:25.
Norman's WC testimony....
Mr. BALL. Did you stay there?
Mr. NORMAN. Well, we stayed there I believe until we got the news that the motorcade was coming down, let's see, is that Commerce, no Main, because Commerce- we went back in the building, James Jarman and I.
The motorcade arrived at Main at 12.22pm. DPD Police transcripts.
Truly's testimony
Mr. BELIN. Now, when did you leave for lunch, Mr. Truly?
Mr. TRULY. As near as I know, it was between somewheres around 12:10 or shortly after, possibly 12:15.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember where you were standing with Mr. Campbell?
Mr. TRULY. I would judge out in Elm Street, 10 to 15 or 20 feet from the front steps. We first stood on the steps, the bottom steps a few minutes, and then we walked out in the line of spectators on the side of Elm Street.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Do you know approximately what time you got there, Mr. Truly? To the best of your recollection.
Mr. TRULY. 3 or 4 minutes after we reached the entrance, the walkway, we stood on the steps 2 or 3 minutes, and then I don't believe we just gradually moved out a bit.
Mr. BELIN. Did you notice any other company employees with you other than Mr. Campbell at that time?
Mr. TRULY. Well, I did. I noticed several. Mrs. Reid was standing there close. And it seemed like there were several of the other employees standing out in front of the building. But I cannot--I think Bill Shelley was standing over to my right as I faced the motorcade--somewheres in that area.
I noticed just before the motorcade passed there were, I believe, three of our colored boys had come out and started up, and two of them came back. And I didn't see them when the motorcade passed.
But they had started across Houston Street up Elm, and they came back later on, and I think those were the ones that were two of them were the ones on the fifth floor. Possibly they could not see over the crowd. They are short boys. I wasn't doing too well at that, myself.
Brennan arrived at his position about 12.24. He noticed only two men on the 5th floor. That was because Williams had not yet joined them.
Rowland confirmed Williams was in the SN during his WC testimony
Mr. SPECTER - At about what time was it that you observed someone hanging out of the window that you have marked as window "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - Again about 12:15 just before I noticed the other man.
Mr. SPECTER - You have marked the double window there. Would you draw the arrow in the red pencil indicating specifically which window it was.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe with as much particularity as you can what that man looked like?
Mr. ROWLAND - It seemed to me an elderly Negro, that is about all. I didn't pay very much attention to him.
Mr. SPECTER - At or about that time did you observe anyone else hanging out any window or observe any one through any window on the same floor where you have drawn the two circles on Exhibit 356?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; no one else on that floor.
Mr. ROWLAND - Let me see, the exact time I do not remember, but the man, the colored man, was in that window until the procession reached Commerce I mean Main, and Ervay. I was looking back quite often, as I stated.
The motorcade passed Ervay about 12.25pm.
You have offered nothing to support your contention that "it follows" Williams has left the floor by 12.15pm. This is consistent with DVP's "better sequence"....better for the LN belief....but not consistent with the corroborated evidence....sorry. At least you have tried to engage which is more than can be said for the other WC supporters on the forum. The facts stand based on the evidence that was collected for the investigation.
The answer to Ford’s question about returning to Dealey Plaza explains Arnold’s ever changing story. Rowland repeatedly changed and altered his story as time went on and at no time did his description of who he supposedly saw ever resemble BRW as the person he fabricated as having seen in the SN.
The CHAIRMAN - Anything further, Congressman Ford?
Representative FORD - Mr. Rowland, have you ever had occasion to go back to the scene and reconstruct it? Have you ever gone back--
The CHAIRMAN - Supposing we take a few minutes recess.
Mr. ROWLAND - The answer to that question is yes; I do all the time. I pass that area very frequently.
Rowland reconstructed the assassination in his mind until he finally convinces himself there was another person.
Rowland fabricated numerous parts of his testimony, an additional person in the SN was just one of them.
1) Seeing the initial gunman on the 6th floor. The reporting of this person is the only reason any one was talking to him in the first place and starting his 15 minutes of fame. He tells his wife about the sighting but she does not see any one. He never looks back at the window when he hears the shots, which defies the imagination on how a person would think and react.
2) Seeing another person in the SN. This is what made the WC react and determine if he was telling the truth about seeing someone. Interesting he would go back to "seeing someone" to try and recapture his 15 minutes of fame.
3) He volunteers the information about his grades and his wife then volunteers the information about the fact he is not telling the truth.
4) Rowland went in front of the WC and gave them three different answers to the question “did you look back at the 6th floor?” Rowland states he looks back at the window, he doesn't look back at the window, and maybe he looks back at the window. All in the same testimony.
5) Specter shows Arnold does not get the orientation of the person originally reported with the gun in the window before the assassination in the SW corner of the TSBD .
6) He represents himself as being knowledgeable about guns, but then makes up his own caliber and makes the statement it is an import and he knows the caliber "30 odd size 6" from 200 feet away. There is no such rifle as a “30 odd size 6”. A 30-06 is not an import rifle it was the standard cartridge of the US Military through two world wars and the Korean conflict. Everything about Rowlands statement indicates he was making it up as he went.
7) He never tells anyone not even his wife about seeing an additional person in the SN despite being interviewed numerous times.
8) He makes claims that not only the FBI didn't record his statement properly but he doesn't like how his description of the person in the SW corner sounds so he accuses the Dallas Sheriffs Dept of changing his statement from the person standing 15 feet from the window to 3 to 5 feet back from the window .
9) Even Roger Craig then gets involved. He does not get the race or location of 2nd person correct. Not only that but in any of his previous statements he does not mention Rowland making any other statement except for their being 1 person in the SW corner.
Rowlands description of the person he supposedly seen is even more bizarre.
-
Tell me how if Rowland's claim is true it follows that Williams descends before 12.15? Give me one piece of corroborated evidence that suggests this? Tell me why Jarman and Norman claimed Williams rode up with them to the 5th floor prior to their WC testimony.
Tell me why the first officers at the SN (Mooney, Hill, Craig etc) all reported the chicken lunch there and not near the two wheeler.
You are entitled to your beliefs.......I am not claiming it was not Oswald.....but I cannot ignore what the corroborated evidence implies.
Why did Williams need to change his story on numerous occasions prior to testifying?
Why do you need to impose a sequence that is not supported by any corroboration? In fact, Rowland's testimony confirms what the other evidence tells us. Williams was in the SN until about 12.25pm. Nothing disproves the assassin fired from the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD. The consolidated evidence suggests he took up position just minutes before the motorcade passed.
You are entitled to believe the assassin was Oswald......that belief does not change what the sequence of other events clearly show. Even Ball and Belin knew Williams had to be on the 6th floor at the same time as the assassin. This is clear from Williams appearance before the WC.
Nothing disproves the assassin fired from the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD.
I believe that you are flat wrong on this point, Colin.... If the boxes were arranged as the crime scene photos depict them.....It would have been physically impossible for a man to fire from that SE corner window down onto Elm street. The boxes would have prevented a man from getting up to the window.....(and in fact the investigators claimed that LHO fired from BEHIND the Rolling Readers boxes ) If the man couldn't get up to the window and stick the rifle out of the window then it wouldn't have been possible for him to decline the muzzle down onto Elm street. If he was behind the Rolling readers boxes the rifle couldn't have protruded out of the window because the rifle is only 40 inches long and only about 12 inches of the rifle is forward of the place a man would hold the rifle when aiming and firing it...
I can only hope that I've made myself clear.....
-
The chicken lunch was in the SN
The following 9 officers who arrived at the SN prior to the arrival of Fritz all reported the components of the chicken lunch there;
Luke Mooney, Gerald Hill, AD McCurley, Eugene Boone, Harry Weatherford, Jack Faulkner, Roger Craig, Officer Brewer and Officer Haygood.
Jarman and Norman left the front of the TSBD at 12.22pm
Jarman's WC testimony...
Mr. BALL - Where did you stand?
Mr. JARMAN - I was standing over to the right in front of the building going toward the west.
Mr. BALL - Were you on the sidewalk or curb?
Mr. JARMAN - On the sidewalk.
Mr. BALL - The sidewalk in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - How long did you stand there?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, until about 12:20, between 12:20 and 12:25.
Norman's WC testimony....
Mr. BALL. Did you stay there?
Mr. NORMAN. Well, we stayed there I believe until we got the news that the motorcade was coming down, let's see, is that Commerce, no Main, because Commerce- we went back in the building, James Jarman and I.
The motorcade arrived at Main at 12.22pm. DPD Police transcripts.
Truly's testimony
Mr. BELIN. Now, when did you leave for lunch, Mr. Truly?
Mr. TRULY. As near as I know, it was between somewheres around 12:10 or shortly after, possibly 12:15.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember where you were standing with Mr. Campbell?
Mr. TRULY. I would judge out in Elm Street, 10 to 15 or 20 feet from the front steps. We first stood on the steps, the bottom steps a few minutes, and then we walked out in the line of spectators on the side of Elm Street.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Do you know approximately what time you got there, Mr. Truly? To the best of your recollection.
Mr. TRULY. 3 or 4 minutes after we reached the entrance, the walkway, we stood on the steps 2 or 3 minutes, and then I don't believe we just gradually moved out a bit.
Mr. BELIN. Did you notice any other company employees with you other than Mr. Campbell at that time?
Mr. TRULY. Well, I did. I noticed several. Mrs. Reid was standing there close. And it seemed like there were several of the other employees standing out in front of the building. But I cannot--I think Bill Shelley was standing over to my right as I faced the motorcade--somewheres in that area.
I noticed just before the motorcade passed there were, I believe, three of our colored boys had come out and started up, and two of them came back. And I didn't see them when the motorcade passed.
But they had started across Houston Street up Elm, and they came back later on, and I think those were the ones that were two of them were the ones on the fifth floor. Possibly they could not see over the crowd. They are short boys. I wasn't doing too well at that, myself.
Brennan arrived at his position about 12.24. He noticed only two men on the 5th floor. That was because Williams had not yet joined them.
Rowland confirmed Williams was in the SN during his WC testimony
Mr. SPECTER - At about what time was it that you observed someone hanging out of the window that you have marked as window "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - Again about 12:15 just before I noticed the other man.
Mr. SPECTER - You have marked the double window there. Would you draw the arrow in the red pencil indicating specifically which window it was.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe with as much particularity as you can what that man looked like?
Mr. ROWLAND - It seemed to me an elderly Negro, that is about all. I didn't pay very much attention to him.
Mr. SPECTER - At or about that time did you observe anyone else hanging out any window or observe any one through any window on the same floor where you have drawn the two circles on Exhibit 356?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; no one else on that floor.
Mr. ROWLAND - Let me see, the exact time I do not remember, but the man, the colored man, was in that window until the procession reached Commerce I mean Main, and Ervay. I was looking back quite often, as I stated.
The motorcade passed Ervay about 12.25pm.
You have offered nothing to support your contention that "it follows" Williams has left the floor by 12.15pm. This is consistent with DVP's "better sequence"....better for the LN belief....but not consistent with the corroborated evidence....sorry. At least you have tried to engage which is more than can be said for the other WC supporters on the forum. The facts stand based on the evidence that was collected for the investigation.
There are numerous inconsistencies with regard to timing. Most of the witnesses are vague on detail and timing..Jarman.."untill about"..Mr.Truly.."somewhere around".."came back later on"
"Brennan arrived at his position about 12.24.He noticed two men....." That does not confirm his exact time and doesn't confirm the number of men on the second floor.
Nearly all the witnesses are a bit vague on timings etc. That is not surprising in any way. But it does mean that, in some instances, a 5 minutes or even longer, can be added, on a give or take basis, and can be applied to a fair number of witnesses statements throughout this case.
But it doesn't alter the claim that any determined cunning person, in relation to avoiding any movements by other TSBD employees, could get in place, within the time frame, to murder JFK.
-
The answer to Ford’s question about returning to Dealey Plaza explains Arnold’s ever changing story. Rowland repeatedly changed and altered his story as time went on and at no time did his description of who he supposedly saw ever resemble BRW as the person he fabricated as having seen in the SN.
The CHAIRMAN - Anything further, Congressman Ford?
Representative FORD - Mr. Rowland, have you ever had occasion to go back to the scene and reconstruct it? Have you ever gone back--
The CHAIRMAN - Supposing we take a few minutes recess.
Mr. ROWLAND - The answer to that question is yes; I do all the time. I pass that area very frequently.
Rowland reconstructed the assassination in his mind until he finally convinces himself there was another person.
Rowland fabricated numerous parts of his testimony, an additional person in the SN was just one of them.
1) Seeing the initial gunman on the 6th floor. The reporting of this person is the only reason any one was talking to him in the first place and starting his 15 minutes of fame. He tells his wife about the sighting but she does not see any one. He never looks back at the window when he hears the shots, which defies the imagination on how a person would think and react.
2) Seeing another person in the SN. This is what made the WC react and determine if he was telling the truth about seeing someone. Interesting he would go back to "seeing someone" to try and recapture his 15 minutes of fame.
3) He volunteers the information about his grades and his wife then volunteers the information about the fact he is not telling the truth.
4) Rowland went in front of the WC and gave them three different answers to the question “did you look back at the 6th floor?” Rowland states he looks back at the window, he doesn't look back at the window, and maybe he looks back at the window. All in the same testimony.
5) Specter shows Arnold does not get the orientation of the person originally reported with the gun in the window before the assassination in the SW corner of the TSBD .
6) He represents himself as being knowledgeable about guns, but then makes up his own caliber and makes the statement it is an import and he knows the caliber "30 odd size 6" from 200 feet away. There is no such rifle as a “30 odd size 6”. A 30-06 is not an import rifle it was the standard cartridge of the US Military through two world wars and the Korean conflict. Everything about Rowlands statement indicates he was making it up as he went.
7) He never tells anyone not even his wife about seeing an additional person in the SN despite being interviewed numerous times.
8) He makes claims that not only the FBI didn't record his statement properly but he doesn't like how his description of the person in the SW corner sounds so he accuses the Dallas Sheriffs Dept of changing his statement from the person standing 15 feet from the window to 3 to 5 feet back from the window .
9) Even Roger Craig then gets involved. He does not get the race or location of 2nd person correct. Not only that but in any of his previous statements he does not mention Rowland making any other statement except for their being 1 person in the SW corner.
Rowlands description of the person he supposedly seen is even more bizarre.
The facts are that Rowland sighted a man with a gun in the SW window at 12.15pm. He told his wife of this and he reported it to authorities immediately after the shots. Do you really believe that he was after 15 minutes of fame? Was he clairvoyant? What the WC did to him was shameless. He correctly reported under oath that he saw a black man in the SN until about 12.25. This is the precise time that Williams left the SN. He said he paid little attention to the man. How would he know the 6th floor was an open area and not a series of rooms from his position? We know Williams was there because his chicken lunch was found there and reported as such by 9 officers first on the scene.
The WC knew Williams was on the floor after lunch and yet only obtained photos of West and Piper, both of them were on the first floor at the relevant time......no photo of Williams.
Such hypocrisy for those who target Rowland yet believe Givens, who did not report the cigarette trip sighting of Oswald until he testified. Jarman and Norman told authorities that Williams went with them in the elevator to the 5th floor consistently until their WC changed the story. Williams changed his story repeatedly in every recounting of it.
The irony of all this is it does not preclude Oswald as the assassin per se.....yet WC supporters are unable to comprehend a scenario that has him occupy the SN just 5 minutes before the shots...why is that?
-
Nothing disproves the assassin fired from the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD.
I believe that you are flat wrong on this point, Colin.... If the boxes were arranged as the crime scene photos depict them.....It would have been physically impossible for a man to fire from that SE corner window down onto Elm street. The boxes would have prevented a man from getting up to the window.....(and in fact the investigators claimed that LHO fired from BEHIND the Rolling Readers boxes ) If the man couldn't get up to the window and stick the rifle out of the window then it wouldn't have been possible for him to decline the muzzle down onto Elm street. If he was behind the Rolling readers boxes the rifle couldn't have protruded out of the window because the rifle is only 40 inches long and only about 12 inches of the rifle is forward of the place a man would hold the rifle when aiming and firing it...
I can only hope that I've made myself clear.....
None of what I posted about precludes it Walt. I made no mention of what you describe about the arrangement of boxes.
-
There are numerous inconsistencies with regard to timing. Most of the witnesses are vague on detail and timing..Jarman.."untill about"..Mr.Truly.."somewhere around".."came back later on"
"Brennan arrived at his position about 12.24.He noticed two men....." That does not confirm his exact time and doesn't confirm the number of men on the second floor.
Nearly all the witnesses are a bit vague on timings etc. That is not surprising in any way. But it does mean that, in some instances, a 5 minutes or even longer, can be added, on a give or take basis, and can be applied to a fair number of witnesses statements throughout this case.
But it doesn't alter the claim that any determined cunning person, in relation to avoiding any movements by other TSBD employees, could get in place, within the time frame, to murder JFK.
Only the contrary, I contend that the testimonies essentially corroborate each other with respect to the timing. There is nothing that places Jarman and Norman on the 5th floor by 12.15pm.
Brennan testified he only saw two men on the 5th floor.
None of what I posted precluded anyone occupying the SN at 12.30pm. I contend that the overwhelming evidence shows that if anyone fired from the SN they did not take up position until after 12.25pm.
-
I think any objective person looking at the arrangement of boxes or the way they stack would conclude that they would not prevent a fit and active person from conjuring or configuring them in such a way to be able to fire a weapon thru a window.The boxes would not prevent such action. They might be a tad awkward or require a bit of dexterity or whatever but it is a bit extream to claim they could conceivably prevent a man from firing a weapon thru an open window.
-
Alan why does "it follow" that Williams left the 6th floor before 12.15pm. Can you provide any testimony by anyone that would support that claim?
-
Only the contrary, I contend that the testimonies essentially corroborate each other with respect to the timing. There is nothing that places Jarman and Norman on the 5th floor by 12.15pm.
Brennan testified he only saw two men on the 5th floor.
None of what I posted precluded anyone occupying the SN at 12.30pm. I contend that the overwhelming evidence shows that if anyone fired from the SN they did not take up position until after 12.25pm.
That's a very fair and reasonable assumption. I might add that I am not as knowledgeable as some on this forum but I continue to learn about the event from posters like yourself and Mr.Cakebread and others.
One of the many problems is the conduct of the Dallas Police. Totally inept and incompetent with regard to keeping proper record of the 10-12 hours of interrogation. Obviously he might have lied his way thru but somewhere along the line his lies would've come back and bitten him on the backside. Many will obviously conclude that the DPD had a good reason to destroy all or nearly all of any notes made of the interrogation.
-
Alan why does "it follow" that Williams left the 6th floor before 12.15pm. Can you provide any testimony by anyone that would support that claim?
No I can't. The timelines, as I claimed are a bit fuzzy,but do you think Oswald was lurking behind boxes as Williams was eating his lunch and waiting or hoping for him to go. Bearing in mind that Oswald might have expected the motorcade to pass the TSBD at about 12.20. So to have any chance of carrying out his crazy plan he had to be set by 12.20. Oswald might have had the mindset of thinking that it was very unlikely that he will, in reality kill JFK, and that might help explain his erratic departure and the subsequent mahem.
-
Rowland reconstructed the assassination in his mind until he finally convinces himself there was another person.
Howard Brennan reconstructed the assassination in his mind until he finally convinced himself that he saw Oswald.
Why didn’t the WC subject Brennan to the same grilling and investigation of his past, questioning his wife about him, etc. that they did to Rowland? I think we all know the answer to that.
-
It might've occured to Oswald, if he was the assassin that is, to have considered the 5th floor as a more suitable snipers nest location, given that the 6th floor was being relayed and that there might be more workers knocking about that normal. But not enough credit is given for Oswald's deviousness and cunning. He was probably slightly over qualified for the position of order filler, mentally at least.
In terms of the sequence of events on the day and the movements of other workers. It has to be remembered that Oswald was not "one of the lads"..he was a loner, an outsider.Probably by choice at the TSBD. So his movements would not be as predictable as others. This undoubtable helped him keep a low profile on the day. Keep him from being noticed. For this reason and other considerations it doesn't seem all that difficult for him to smuggle the weapon in and get into place to have a chance. Some issues with regard to some of the timings and sightings, before the assassination, but nothing that really affects Oswalds intentions.
-
If Rowland sees a man with a highpowered rifle at "port arms"about 12.15 on 6th floor, it could be that gunman was looking at other windows to assess the shot. It follows that Williams must've left the 6th floor at this point, otherwise he would've seen Oswald.
Who says it was Oswald that Rowland saw at 12:15? And maybe Williams did see the gunman. That’s the whole point.
-
Who says it was Oswald that Rowland saw at 12:15? And maybe Williams did see the gunman. That’s the whole point.
My own veiw is that Oswald was on the 6th floor and he did willfully assassinate JFK. It's not a open & shut case against Oswald but there is more than enough evidence to get a conviction.IMO.
-
Howard Brennan reconstructed the assassination in his mind until he finally convinced himself that he saw Oswald.
Why didn’t the WC subject Brennan to the same grilling and investigation of his past, questioning his wife about him, etc. that they did to Rowland? I think we all know the answer to that.
Could be suggested a lot of people "reconstructed" the assassination in their minds and come up with a conclusion that fits their agenda.
-
My own veiw is that Oswald was on the 6th floor and he did willfully assassinate JFK. It's not a open & shut case against Oswald but there is more than enough evidence to get a conviction.IMO.
Was that conclusion reached before you were presented the evidence that Williams likely vacated the 6th floor just prior to the shooting, leaving his unfinished chicken on a SN box?
Williams had repeatedly lied about his lunch trip to authorities. Jarman and Norman also gave no indication prior to their testifying before the WC that Williams joined them just before the motorcade arrived. Why might that be?
-
Was that conclusion reached before you were presented the evidence that Williams likely vacated the 6th floor just prior to the shooting, leaving his unfinished chicken on a SN box?
Williams had repeatedly lied about his lunch trip to authorities. Jarman and Norman also gave no indication prior to their testifying before the WC that Williams joined them just before the motorcade arrived. Why might that be?
In fairness yes it was. Well it might be that Williams took a bit longer to eat his lunch or it might have taken him a bit longer to decide to go down. He expected others to join him but they didn't so he went down. How does any of the movements of other workers effect Oswald other than to slightly delay him getting into position. I'm not at all sure these guys lied.It's more a case of poor recall and OK it might be construed that they were fibbing when in truth they were probably a bit muddled as to their recollections. I don't suppose they thought at the time that they would have to be 100% accurate as to their movements that day.
Their testimony does contain vital evidence in some instances like Jarman, Norman and Williams hearing the gunshots etc coming from the floor above their 5th floor vantage point.
-
None of what I posted about precludes it Walt. I made no mention of what you describe about the arrangement of boxes.
The configuration of the boxes behind the SE window most certainly DO preclude ( make impossible) the scenario of a man up next to the window ( as would have been necessary for a 40 inch long rifle to protrude out of the window so witnesses could report seeing it. The TSBD walls are over two feet thick and the cement ledge beneath the window extends another 4 inches out from the face of the building.....
PS... On page 536 of Pictures of the Pain there is a photo of Detective Studebaker behind the sixth floor window that illustrates perfectly the point I'm attempting to make. The photo was taken from near where Howard Brennan was located at the time of the murder. Studebaker is shown bent over at the waist as he photographs the interior SE corner of the sixth floor, (near the pipes beside the window ) The photo illustrates perfectly the impossibility of a gunman STANDING and aiming a rifle from that window.
-
The configuration of the boxes behind the SE window most certainly DO preclude ( make impossible) the scenario of a man up next to the window ( as would have been necessary for a 40 inch long rifle to protrude out of the window so witnesses could report seeing it. The TSBD walls are over two feet thick and the cement ledge beneath the window extends another 4 inches out from the face of the building.....
Surely any sniper would just move the boxes back enough so that the rifle is not protruding so far out. Doesn't seem beyond a fit,active determined sniper to arrange the boxes in such a way as to make it possible to fire.
-
Surely any sniper would just move the boxes back enough so that the rifle is not protruding so far out. Doesn't seem beyond a fit,active determined sniper to arrange the boxes in such a way as to make it possible to fire.
Huh?? The crime scene photos show that the boxes were in the way ( prevented anybody from getting up to the window) And the WC in their imaginary scenario said that Lee Harrrrvey Osssswald ( boooo Hissss) depated immediately so that he arrived at the 2nd floor lunchroom just 1 second ahead of officer Baker...
-
Huh?? The crime scene photos show that the boxes were in the way ( prevented anybody from getting up to the window) And the WC in their imaginary scenario said that Lee Harrrrvey Osssswald ( boooo Hissss) depated immediately so that he arrived at the 2nd floor lunchroom just 1 second ahead of officer Baker...
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/SN/intro.htm
If your referring to this photo, on the face of it, it does look a bit cramped but there is room at the far end of the stacks for any person to position themselves with a bit of configuring and dexterity.
-
My own veiw is that Oswald was on the 6th floor and he did willfully assassinate JFK. It's not a open & shut case against Oswald but there is more than enough evidence to get a conviction.IMO.
You’re entitled to it. IMO what little evidence there is, is weak, circumstantial, and tainted in some way and doesn’t come close to meeting a reasonable doubt standard.
-
You’re entitled to it. IMO what little evidence there is, is weak. circumstantial, and taunted in some way and doesn’t come close to meeting a reasonable doubt standard.
IMO there is not a single piece of evidence that can indisputably link Lee to the murder of JFK....
-
The facts are that Rowland sighted a man with a gun in the SW window at 12.15pm. He told his wife of this and he reported it to authorities immediately after the shots. Do you really believe that he was after 15 minutes of fame? Was he clairvoyant? What the WC did to him was shameless. He correctly reported under oath that he saw a black man in the SN until about 12.25. This is the precise time that Williams left the SN. He said he paid little attention to the man. How would he know the 6th floor was an open area and not a series of rooms from his position? We know Williams was there because his chicken lunch was found there and reported as such by 9 officers first on the scene.
The WC knew Williams was on the floor after lunch and yet only obtained photos of West and Piper, both of them were on the first floor at the relevant time......no photo of Williams.
Such hypocrisy for those who target Rowland yet believe Givens, who did not report the cigarette trip sighting of Oswald until he testified. Jarman and Norman told authorities that Williams went with them in the elevator to the 5th floor consistently until their WC changed the story. Williams changed his story repeatedly in every recounting of it.
The irony of all this is it does not preclude Oswald as the assassin per se.....yet WC supporters are unable to comprehend a scenario that has him occupy the SN just 5 minutes before the shots...why is that?
The irony of all this is it does not preclude Oswald as the assassin per se.....yet WC supporters are unable to comprehend a scenario that has him occupy the SN just 5 minutes before the shots...why is that?
Because BRW wasn't ever in the SN. The irony of it all, to even believe this theory you must believe LHO was the assassin because under this scenario BRW would have obviously have known and been friendly with the person who was in the SN----- Oswald. The problem with it is BRW had no clue as to who was firing above him.
--------------------------------------
Such hypocrisy for those who target Rowland yet believe Givens,
Hypocrisy is glossing over a great deal of fabricated testimony by Rowland and then comparing it to Given's stating he saw LHO on the 6th floor with his clipboard. Oswald is a real person. Rowland is describing a fictional character completely conjured up in his imagination. Rowland never told a soul about a second person in the SN until he shows up in front of the WC, yet Givens is villified for doing the same. Given's statement was also made under oath but it is stated he was not telling the truth.
--------------------------------------------
He correctly reported under oath that he saw a black man in the SN until about 12.25.
Arnold Rowland never told anyone there was a second person in the Sniper's Nest. Not one person. Despite endless opportunities he never told the DPD, he never told the Sheriff's Dept, he never told the FBI, he never told the Secret Service, he never told Roger Craig, and he never said a single word to his wife Barbara Rowland about a second gunman being in the Snipers Nest. What he did was make up a story developed from countless trips to Dealey Plaza where he stared at the TSBD and reconstructed the assassination in his mind. He finally convinced himself of something that wasn't true and then stated it to the Warren Commission. Fortunately Barbara Rowland had a sense of History and refused to support Arnold's assertion of an additional person in the Sniper's Nest.
----------------------------------------------------------
The WC knew Williams was on the floor after lunch and yet only obtained photos of West and Piper, both of them were on the first floor at the relevant time......no photo of Williams.
Why would they? At no point in time could the description Rowland gave of this second person be misconstrued to have been BRW. Typical of Rowland's testimony the story grows as he is telling and embellishing it. Rowland's description of an old Negro with a wrinkled face is not a description of a twenty something BRW.
FIRST DESCRIPTION
Mr. ROWLAND - At the time I saw the man in the other window, I saw this man hanging out the window first. It was a colored man, I think.
----------------------------
SECOND DESCRIPTION
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe with as much particularity as you can what that man looked like?
Mr. ROWLAND - It seemed to me an elderly Negro, that is about all. I didn't pay very much attention to him.
-----------------------------
THE GRAND FINALE DESCRIPTION
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.
Wow, he does it again. He went from Zero to Mach 1 and completely describes this person including wrinkles on his face. Great witness why wouldn't you believe him. Even his height, on a man "hanging" out of a window.
--------------------------------------------------------
What the WC did to him was shameless.
What Rowland did was shameless.
The WC did not need to speak to Rowland's wife. Rowland's own testimony proved you can not believe a word he said. Which one of his listed fabrications is wrong? They knew he was full of it from the moment he told then he was at the eye doctor and his eyesight was better then 20/20. Why was he even at the eye doctor?
Where is Rowland's descriptions of the other person described by Brennan ? All the descriptions of the person in the SN. Not one of them is a description of BRW. Where is his description of the shooter? He said he was supposedly looking back every few seconds. Brennan gave a description of the shooter so obviously he was visible. He mentioned seeing the wrinkles on the second persons face. Stated he was older. Somehow he knows he is tall and slender. How could he possibly know that? Like his description of the man with a rifle Rowland does not know the window is only 14 inches off the floor, but he describes the person with the belief they are normal configured windows.
--------------------------------------
He told his wife of this and he reported it to authorities immediately after the shots.
He supposedly told Roger Craig. Why not post Roger Craig's testimony about this very subject? Is it because it in no manner resembles Rowland's and yet he is trying to support Rowland's fabricated account. Craig, another witness also under oath, describes to the WC two white men but both in the SW corner of the 6th floor not the SE corner.
-
The irony Jack is that Rowland merely confirmed what the other evidence tells us.....by his own admission he paid the man little attention.
The chicken lunch was in the SN
The following 9 officers who arrived at the SN prior to the arrival of Fritz all reported the components of the chicken lunch there;
Luke Mooney, Gerald Hill, AD McCurley, Eugene Boone, Harry Weatherford, Jack Faulkner, Roger Craig, Officer Brewer and Officer Haygood.
I suppose all these officers were mistaken or had some form of group hallucination. The lunch was in originally the SN....fact. Williams (eventually) admitted it was his....QED.
Jarman and Norman left the front of the TSBD at 12.22pm
Jarman's WC testimony...
Mr. BALL - Where did you stand?
Mr. JARMAN - I was standing over to the right in front of the building going toward the west.
Mr. BALL - Were you on the sidewalk or curb?
Mr. JARMAN - On the sidewalk.
Mr. BALL - The sidewalk in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - How long did you stand there?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, until about 12:20, between 12:20 and 12:25.
Norman's WC testimony....
Mr. BALL. Did you stay there?
Mr. NORMAN. Well, we stayed there I believe until we got the news that the motorcade was coming down, let's see, is that Commerce, no Main, because Commerce- we went back in the building, James Jarman and I.
The motorcade arrived at Main at 12.22pm. DPD Police transcripts.
Truly's testimony
Mr. BELIN. Now, when did you leave for lunch, Mr. Truly?
Mr. TRULY. As near as I know, it was between somewheres around 12:10 or shortly after, possibly 12:15.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember where you were standing with Mr. Campbell?
Mr. TRULY. I would judge out in Elm Street, 10 to 15 or 20 feet from the front steps. We first stood on the steps, the bottom steps a few minutes, and then we walked out in the line of spectators on the side of Elm Street.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Do you know approximately what time you got there, Mr. Truly? To the best of your recollection.
Mr. TRULY. 3 or 4 minutes after we reached the entrance, the walkway, we stood on the steps 2 or 3 minutes, and then I don't believe we just gradually moved out a bit.
Mr. BELIN. Did you notice any other company employees with you other than Mr. Campbell at that time?
Mr. TRULY. Well, I did. I noticed several. Mrs. Reid was standing there close. And it seemed like there were several of the other employees standing out in front of the building. But I cannot--I think Bill Shelley was standing over to my right as I faced the motorcade--somewheres in that area.
I noticed just before the motorcade passed there were, I believe, three of our colored boys had come out and started up, and two of them came back. And I didn't see them when the motorcade passed.
But they had started across Houston Street up Elm, and they came back later on, and I think those were the ones that were two of them were the ones on the fifth floor. Possibly they could not see over the crowd. They are short boys. I wasn't doing too well at that, myself.
Seems remarkably consistent to me. All three witnesses put the timeframe well after 12.15pm.
Brennan arrived at his position about 12.24. He noticed only two men on the 5th floor. That was because Williams had not yet joined them.
Rowland merely confirmed Williams was in the SN during his WC testimony
Mr. SPECTER - At about what time was it that you observed someone hanging out of the window that you have marked as window "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - Again about 12:15 just before I noticed the other man.
Mr. SPECTER - You have marked the double window there. Would you draw the arrow in the red pencil indicating specifically which window it was.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe with as much particularity as you can what that man looked like?
Mr. ROWLAND - It seemed to me an elderly Negro, that is about all. I didn't pay very much attention to him.
Mr. SPECTER - At or about that time did you observe anyone else hanging out any window or observe any one through any window on the same floor where you have drawn the two circles on Exhibit 356?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; no one else on that floor.
Mr. ROWLAND - Let me see, the exact time I do not remember, but the man, the colored man, was in that window until the procession reached Commerce I mean Main, and Ervay. I was looking back quite often, as I stated.
The motorcade passed Ervay about 12.25pm.
I don’t care if you want to throw Rowland away Jack. As I have said previously Williams in the SN until 12.25pm seems to be kryptonite to LNs (except JohnM). Only you know why. I prefer to accept what the consolidated evidence proved without doubt. The vague filter is used to explain anything that might discount the official story....eg Length of CE142.....Frazier didn’t pay much attention.....Rowland says the same thing and is crucified. Blatant changes to statements can be accepted for Williams, Jarman, Norman and Givens without question and Rowland gets the Spanish Inquisition. I can’t convince you to change your "religion" but don’t expect me to consume the official Kool-Aid.
-
Hypocrisy is glossing over a great deal of fabricated testimony by Rowland and then comparing it to Given's stating he saw LHO on the 6th floor with his clipboard. Oswald is a real person. Rowland is describing a fictional character completely conjured up in his imagination. Rowland never told a soul about a second person in the SN until he shows up in front of the WC, yet Givens is villified for doing the same. Given's statement was also made under oath but it is stated he was not telling the truth.
This is such special pleading. Rowland was under oath too. Givens didn’t tell a soul about seeing Oswald in the sixth floor until he showed up in front of the WC. Rowland never told anyone he’d be willing to change his story for money. There’s also the Thayer Waldo story about the scared negro on the sixth floor who saw a gunman, but didn’t say anything because he had been in trouble with the law. What negro who had been in trouble with the law was known to have been on the sixth floor immediately before the assassination?
Where is Rowland's descriptions of the other person described by Brennan ? All the descriptions of the person in the SN. Not one of them is a description of BRW. Where is his description of the shooter? He said he was supposedly looking back every few seconds. Brennan gave a description of the shooter so obviously he was visible. He mentioned seeing the wrinkles on the second persons face. Stated he was older. Somehow he knows he is tall and slender. How could he possibly know that? Like his description of the man with a rifle Rowland does not know the window is only 14 inches off the floor, but he describes the person with the belief they are normal configured windows.
Every one of your objections applies to Brennan just as much. He described his rifle aimer’s age, height, weight, and clothing. The difference is that Brennan’s rifle aimer would have to have been hidden behind boxes.
Admit it, you’re just believing who you want to believe.
-
The irony Jack is that Rowland merely confirmed what the other evidence tells us.....by his own admission he paid the man little attention.
The chicken lunch was in the SN
The following 9 officers who arrived at the SN prior to the arrival of Fritz all reported the components of the chicken lunch there;
Luke Mooney, Gerald Hill, AD McCurley, Eugene Boone, Harry Weatherford, Jack Faulkner, Roger Craig, Officer Brewer and Officer Haygood.
I suppose all these officers were mistaken or had some form of group hallucination. The lunch was in originally the SN....fact. Williams (eventually) admitted it was his....QED.
Jarman and Norman left the front of the TSBD at 12.22pm
Jarman's WC testimony...
Mr. BALL - Where did you stand?
Mr. JARMAN - I was standing over to the right in front of the building going toward the west.
Mr. BALL - Were you on the sidewalk or curb?
Mr. JARMAN - On the sidewalk.
Mr. BALL - The sidewalk in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - How long did you stand there?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, until about 12:20, between 12:20 and 12:25.
Norman's WC testimony....
Mr. BALL. Did you stay there?
Mr. NORMAN. Well, we stayed there I believe until we got the news that the motorcade was coming down, let's see, is that Commerce, no Main, because Commerce- we went back in the building, James Jarman and I.
The motorcade arrived at Main at 12.22pm. DPD Police transcripts.
Truly's testimony
Mr. BELIN. Now, when did you leave for lunch, Mr. Truly?
Mr. TRULY. As near as I know, it was between somewheres around 12:10 or shortly after, possibly 12:15.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember where you were standing with Mr. Campbell?
Mr. TRULY. I would judge out in Elm Street, 10 to 15 or 20 feet from the front steps. We first stood on the steps, the bottom steps a few minutes, and then we walked out in the line of spectators on the side of Elm Street.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Do you know approximately what time you got there, Mr. Truly? To the best of your recollection.
Mr. TRULY. 3 or 4 minutes after we reached the entrance, the walkway, we stood on the steps 2 or 3 minutes, and then I don't believe we just gradually moved out a bit.
Mr. BELIN. Did you notice any other company employees with you other than Mr. Campbell at that time?
Mr. TRULY. Well, I did. I noticed several. Mrs. Reid was standing there close. And it seemed like there were several of the other employees standing out in front of the building. But I cannot--I think Bill Shelley was standing over to my right as I faced the motorcade--somewheres in that area.
I noticed just before the motorcade passed there were, I believe, three of our colored boys had come out and started up, and two of them came back. And I didn't see them when the motorcade passed.
But they had started across Houston Street up Elm, and they came back later on, and I think those were the ones that were two of them were the ones on the fifth floor. Possibly they could not see over the crowd. They are short boys. I wasn't doing too well at that, myself.
Seems remarkably consistent to me. All three witnesses put the timeframe well after 12.15pm.
Brennan arrived at his position about 12.24. He noticed only two men on the 5th floor. That was because Williams had not yet joined them.
Rowland merely confirmed Williams was in the SN during his WC testimony
Mr. SPECTER - At about what time was it that you observed someone hanging out of the window that you have marked as window "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - Again about 12:15 just before I noticed the other man.
Mr. SPECTER - You have marked the double window there. Would you draw the arrow in the red pencil indicating specifically which window it was.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe with as much particularity as you can what that man looked like?
Mr. ROWLAND - It seemed to me an elderly Negro, that is about all. I didn't pay very much attention to him.
Mr. SPECTER - At or about that time did you observe anyone else hanging out any window or observe any one through any window on the same floor where you have drawn the two circles on Exhibit 356?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; no one else on that floor.
Mr. ROWLAND - Let me see, the exact time I do not remember, but the man, the colored man, was in that window until the procession reached Commerce I mean Main, and Ervay. I was looking back quite often, as I stated.
The motorcade passed Ervay about 12.25pm.
I don’t care if you want to throw Rowland away Jack. As I have said previously Williams in the SN until 12.25pm seems to be kryptonite to LNs (except JohnM). Only you know why. I prefer to accept what the consolidated evidence proved without doubt. The vague filter is used to explain anything that might discount the official story....eg Length of CE142.....Frazier didn’t pay much attention.....Rowland says the same thing and is crucified. Blatant changes to statements can be accepted for Williams, Jarman, Norman and Givens without question and Rowland gets the Spanish Inquisition. I can’t convince you to change your "religion" but don’t expect me to consume the official Kool-Aid.
Rowland looked back every 15 to 30 seconds until the motorcade arrived to see if the imaginary person was there. That is not "paid little attention." He kept looking back after the supposed person left or how would he know when he left. This theory has BRW squeezing into th SN for what reason? Just to visit with Oswald? There was only room for one person there. Rowland should have seen the same thing Brennan saw but did not. There would have been interaction between them yet BRW was unaware of who was firing the rifle let alone walked away alive to go tell the others about LHO with his rifle.
Mr. ROWLAND - As the motorcade came along, there was quite a bit of excitement. I didn't look back from then. I was very interested in trying to see the President myself. I had seen him twice before but I was interested in seeing him again.
Shelley and Montgomery both state there were multiple locations for the pieces of chicken. The witnesses listed don't even corroborate each other let alone make a case BRW was eating chicken in the SN. Mooney has the piece of chicken on the rifle rest boxes and then moves that in a subsequent statement 5 feet. BRW's lunch was found by the third window where he had eaten it.
Alyea believed the witnesses were influenced by the radio reports
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."
BRW was never in the SN. To believe otherwise is fitting only select pieces of information into a theory to create the desired result.
-
This is such special pleading. Rowland was under oath too. Givens didn’t tell a soul about seeing Oswald in the sixth floor until he showed up in front of the WC. Rowland never told anyone he’d be willing to change his story for money.
Every one of your objections applies to Brennan just as much. He described his rifle aimer’s age, height, weight, and clothing. The difference is that Brennan’s rifle aimer would have to have been hidden behind boxes.
Admit it, you’re just believing who you want to believe.
Brennan had his chance to identify the shooter and, according to Chief Curry's statement about not being able to place LHO as the shooter, did not identify him to the satisfaction of all. Brennan saw a white person in the SN prior to the shooting. Rowland did not despite looking back at the window repeatedly.
Given's just said he saw Oswald on the 6th floor. He was in the building and had to be somewhere.
-
Rowland looked back every 15 to 30 seconds until the motorcade arrived to see if the imaginary person was there. That is not "paid little attention." He kept looking back after the supposed person left or how would he know when he left. This theory has BRW squeezing into th SN for what reason? Just to visit with Oswald? There was only room for one person there. Rowland should have seen the same thing Brennan saw but did not. There would have been interaction between them yet BRW was unaware of who was firing the rifle let alone walked away alive to go tell the others about LHO with his rifle.
Mr. ROWLAND - As the motorcade came along, there was quite a bit of excitement. I didn't look back from then. I was very interested in trying to see the President myself. I had seen him twice before but I was interested in seeing him again.
Shelley and Montgomery both state there were multiple locations for the pieces of chicken. The witnesses listed don't even corroborate each other let alone make a case BRW was eating chicken in the SN. Mooney has the piece of chicken on the rifle rest boxes and then moves that in a subsequent statement 5 feet. BRW's lunch was found by the third window where he had eaten it.
Alyea believed the witnesses were influenced by the radio reports
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."
BRW was never in the SN. To believe otherwise is fitting only select pieces of information into a theory to create the desired result.
Rowland's comment about not paying attention was to Williams not the rifle man......
Brennan was not in position until about 12.24.
Mr. ROWLAND - I understand the question.
Let me see, the exact time I do not remember, but the man, the colored man, was in that window until the procession reached Commerce I mean Main, and Ervay. I was looking back quite often, as I stated.
Mr. ROWLAND - He was there before I noticed the man with the rifle and approximately 12:30 or when the motorcade was at Main and Ervay he was gone when I looked back and I had looked up there about 30 seconds before or a minute before.
The motorcade passed Ervay about 12.25pm
Nine officers who observed the SN before Fritz's arrival all claimed seeing lunch remnants in the SN.
It became quite clear what the corroborated evidence showed. Even Belin and Ball understood that Williams had to be on the 6th floor at the same time as the assassin. This is obvious from Williams WC questioning.
When researching this there was no desired result Jack. I suggest it is you who is selective in your use of information.
-
Brennan had his chance to identify the shooter and, according to Chief Curry's statement about not being able to place LHO as the shooter, did not identify him to the satisfaction of all. Brennan saw a white person in the SN prior to the shooting. Rowland did not despite looking back at the window repeatedly.
Given's just said he saw Oswald on the 6th floor. He was in the building and had to be somewhere.
When interviewed by the FBI on the 23rd here is what appears in their report.
(https://i.ibb.co/XFGXy25/5335-DCED-A523-49-E6-984-E-0837-DB6-C68-D5.jpg)
[/quote]
Seems he saw Oswald on the first floor in the domino room 20 minutes after the elevator race.
-
This theory has BRW squeezing into th SN for what reason? Just to visit with Oswald? There was only room for one person there.
To eat his lunch. What makes you think Oswald was there?
Rowland should have seen the same thing Brennan saw but did not.
Yeah, well Brennan saw a lot of things. Brennan simultaneously saw the gunman fire the head shot and Kennedy’s head explode.
There would have been interaction between them yet BRW was unaware of who was firing the rifle let alone walked away alive to go tell the others about LHO with his rifle.
“LHO with his rifle”. LOL.
Shelley and Montgomery both state there were multiple locations for the pieces of chicken. The witnesses listed don't even corroborate each other let alone make a case BRW was eating chicken in the SN. Mooney has the piece of chicken on the rifle rest boxes and then moves that in a subsequent statement 5 feet. BRW's lunch was found by the third window where he had eaten it.
So all the deputies who saw chicken in the SN when it was first discovered we’re having a mass hallucination?
BRW was never in the SN. To believe otherwise is fitting only select pieces of information into a theory to create the desired result.
That’s easy for you to say. I could just as easily say “Oswald was never in the SN. To believe otherwise is fitting only select pieces of information into a theory to create the desired result.”
-
. SPECTER - You testified before that there were other windows where you had seen people hanging out, is that correct?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you tell us and indicate on the picture, Exhibit 356, to the best of your ability to recollect just which those windows were?
Mr. ROWLAND - There was either two or three people in this window.
Mr. SPECTER - Mark that with a "B" if you would, please.
(https://i.ibb.co/zWdGnfV/8-C944791-D435-41-DF-B1-AA-6-B2-FDB7-C558-A.jpg)
Note that this is the 5th Floor. A "B" is noted in the window immediately below the SN in CE356. If 2 people it is likely Jarman and Norman who arrived around 12.25. Before they arrived the windows were closed so it is likely that Rowland did look back around after the time of the ambulance leaving (12.25).
-
Brennan had his chance to identify the shooter and, according to Chief Curry's statement about not being able to place LHO as the shooter, did not identify him to the satisfaction of all. Brennan saw a white person in the SN prior to the shooting. Rowland did not despite looking back at the window repeatedly.
Rowland saw a black person in the SN prior to the shooting (so did Euins according to one account). Brennan did not despite looking back at the window repeatedly.
Given's just said he saw Oswald on the 6th floor. He was in the building and had to be somewhere.
True enough. But Shelley, Piper, and even Givens (originally) reported seeing Oswald on the first floor at about the time Givens later decided he saw him on the sixth floor.
-
. SPECTER - You testified before that there were other windows where you had seen people hanging out, is that correct?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you tell us and indicate on the picture, Exhibit 356, to the best of your ability to recollect just which those windows were?
Mr. ROWLAND - There was [/b]either two or three[/b] people in this window.
Mr. SPECTER - Mark that with a "B" if you would, please.
(https://i.ibb.co/zWdGnfV/8-C944791-D435-41-DF-B1-AA-6-B2-FDB7-C558-A.jpg)
Note that this is the 5th Floor. A "B" is noted in the window immediately below the SN in CE356. If 2 people it is likely Jarman and Norman who arrived around 12.25. Before they arrived the windows were closed so it is likely that Rowland did look back around after the time of the ambulance leaving (12.25).
I can see that the fifth floor window appears to be circled...but I can't discern the letter "B" .....Who circled the 6th floor windows?
-
Rowland saw a black person in the SN prior to the shooting (so did Euins according to one account). Brennan did not despite looking back at the window repeatedly.
True enough. But Shelley, Piper, and even Givens (originally) reported seeing Oswald on the first floor at about the time Givens later decided he saw him on the sixth floor.
Anybody who uses Givens statements to bolster their point is merely weakening their point. It should be obvious that James Givens was not of sterling character.
He'd been confined a couple of years prior to November 1963, and he would say what ever the authorities wanted him to say......
-
Anybody who uses Givens statements to bolster their point is merely weakening their point. It should be obvious that James Givens was not of sterling character.
But what about Charles Givens?
-
Rowland's comment about not paying attention was to Williams not the rifle man......
Brennan was not in position until about 12.24.
Mr. ROWLAND - I understand the question.
Let me see, the exact time I do not remember, but the man, the colored man, was in that window until the procession reached Commerce I mean Main, and Ervay. I was looking back quite often, as I stated.
Mr. ROWLAND - He was there before I noticed the man with the rifle and approximately 12:30 or when the motorcade was at Main and Ervay he was gone when I looked back and I had looked up there about 30 seconds before or a minute before.
The motorcade passed Ervay about 12.25pm
Nine officers who observed the SN before Fritz's arrival all claimed seeing lunch remnants in the SN.
It became quite clear what the corroborated evidence showed. Even Belin and Ball understood that Williams had to be on the 6th floor at the same time as the assassin. This is obvious from Williams WC questioning.
When researching this there was no desired result Jack. I suggest it is you who is selective in your use of information.
No, I think I have it right. Ignoring every piece of information that is contrary to this theory does not make them go away. The only piece if information that could lead you to that conclusion is the pieces of chicken. Unfortuneately there was more than one person eating chicken on the 6th floor.
+There was multiple pieces of chicken on the 6th floor, explainations courtesy of LD Montgomery and Bill Shelley.
+Rowland was observing and watching the SN at the same time as Brennan. The only way he could have known that the imaginary negro person was gone was to keep looking for him. Which he did until the motorcade arrived. He never saw the assassin but others certainly saw him. It must have not occurred to Arnold that stating he saw the gunman in that window would be important.
Mr. ROWLAND - As the motorcade came along, there was quite a bit of excitement. I didn't look back from then. I was very interested in trying to see the President myself. I had seen him twice before but I was interested in seeing him again.
+Rowland could not wait to tell them how smart he was, it must have been embarrassing to completely miss having seen the assassin. Rowland claims to have seen elderly black people and a midget with a rifle all on the 6th floor but he completely missed seeing the real assassin who was in full view for over 5 minutes.
+Sure, he barely noticed the second person, unfortunately he gave this very detailed description.
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.
The desired goal seems to be to place BRW in the SN. The only problem is he never was there and there is a great deal of testimony that is being ignored to achieve that end.
Rowland time and time again embellished his testimony on so many different topics. Rowland time and time again was shown to be making up his story as he went. They did not need anyone else's testimony to discredit him. He did that all on his own. Ignoring this fact doesn't somehow help prove BRW was in the SN.
-
To eat his lunch. What makes you think Oswald was there?
Yeah, well Brennan saw a lot of things. Brennan simultaneously saw the gunman fire the head shot and Kennedy’s head explode.
“LHO with his rifle”. LOL.
So all the deputies who saw chicken in the SN when it was first discovered we’re having a mass hallucination?
That’s easy for you to say. I could just as easily say “Oswald was never in the SN. To believe otherwise is fitting only select pieces of information into a theory to create the desired result.”
By the time these witnesses reached the WC they all seem to do the same thing, embellish their statements. Brennan really seems to upset you. The only importance that on Brennan is I place on Brennan is he saw the rifle being fired and he initially stated there was only two shots.
If BRW had shared the SN with the assassin they would have found BRW's corpse.
According to Alyea, the WC, and the HSCA the media had a heavy influence on the statements of the witnesses not just the Detectives. Someone who continually demonstrates the ability to apply critical thinking must have noticed the ever fluid statements of the witnesses.
-
Rowland saw a black person in the SN prior to the shooting (so did Euins according to one account). Brennan did not despite looking back at the window repeatedly.
True enough. But Shelley, Piper, and even Givens (originally) reported seeing Oswald on the first floor at about the time Givens later decided he saw him on the sixth floor.
Brennan did not see a black person in the SN because there wasn't one.
Givens gave a statement like every one else. What is so disturbing about it? Oswald was known to have been on the fifth and sixth floor. His clipboard, described by Givens and others, was found near the rifle.
-
Brennan did not see a black person in the SN because there wasn't one.
Givens gave a statement like every one else. What is so disturbing about it? Oswald was known to have been on the fifth and sixth floor. His clipboard, described by Givens and others, was found near the rifle.
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?
-
No, I think I have it right. Ignoring every piece of information that is contrary to this theory does not make them go away. The only piece if information that could lead you to that conclusion is the pieces of chicken. Unfortuneately there was more than one person eating chicken on the 6th floor.
+There was multiple pieces of chicken on the 6th floor, explainations courtesy of LD Montgomery and Bill Shelley.
The desired goal seems to be to place BRW in the SN. The only problem is he never was there and there is a great deal of testimony that is being ignored to achieve that end.
You claim Shelley and Mongomery in support of your notion that there were multiple pieces of chicken. Let's see what they actually said.
Mr. SHELLEY - I was, I believe I was on the sixth floor when they found the gun but we were searching all parts of that floor.
Mr. BALL - Now, did you find any chicken bones up there or see any?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, I went up later on that day; I believe after we had gotten back from City Hall with someone, I don't remember who it was, one of the officers and they got them.
Mr. BALL - They did what?
Mr. SHELLEY - They got the bones.
Mr. BALL - Where were they?
Mr. SHELLEY - They were on the third--yeah, it would be the third window from the southeast corner.
Mr. BALL - And were they in a sack?
Mr. SHELLEY - Laying on a sack.
Mr. BALL - Laying on a sack?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, sir; with a coke bottle sitting in the window.
Mr. BALL - Did you see any other chicken bones anyplace around there?
Mr. SHELLEY - No, sir; that's all.
Mr. BALL - That's the only ones?
Mr. SHELLEY - That's all.
Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody eating fried chicken on that floor that morning?
Mr. SHELLEY - At one time I think I said I did but Charles Givens was the guy that was eating and he was further on over toward the west side and he was eating a sandwich so he says.
Mr. BALL - Now you say that you thought that you had seen someone had eaten fried chicken that morning?
Mr. SHELLEY - I thought I had; those colored boys are always eating chicken.
Mr. BALL - Do you think you did or do you know?
Mr. SHELLEY - I asked Charles Givens whether it was him that was eating and he said it was a sandwich.
Mr. BALL - Was that before you went down for lunch?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, sir; it was pretty early in the morning, about 9:30.
Mr. BALL - Where was it?
Mr. SHELLEY - It was two-thirds across the building toward the west because I didn't put plywood over there and he didn't get too far from where we were actually working.
So Shelley seems pretty clear. He was not there at the time the SN was found. He most likely heard of the chicken second hand as the Officer (Johnson) took it back to City Hall at 3pm. When asked he offered Givens but was not sure. He thought it might have been in the morning and close to where they were laying the flooring.
What did Givens say....
Mr. BELIN. That day had you eaten any chicken at all, or anything on the sixth floor?
Mr. GIVENS. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Had you eaten any chicken or left a pep bottle on any previous days on the sixth floor?
Mr. GIVENS. No, sir.
So Shelley only talks about one chicken lunch. The one he was told about. Where is was finally placed after the SN was discovered.
What does Montgomery say....
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---right there on the floor.
Mr. BALL On the floor?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. All right.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, let me see, there was one piece of chicken on a box and there was a piece on the floor--just kind of scattered around right there.
Mr. BALL. Where was the paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Let's see--the paper sack--I don't recall for sure if it was on the floor or on the box, but I know it was just there----one of those pictures might show exactly where it was.
Mr. BALL. I don't have a picture of the paper sack.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. You don't? Well, it was there--I can't recall for sure if it was on one of the boxes or on the floor there.
Mr. BALL. It was over in what corner?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It would be the southeast corner of the building there where the shooting was.
Mr. BALL. Did you turn the sack over to anybody or did you pick it up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes---let's see Lieutenant Day and Detective Studebaker came up and took pictures and everything, and then we took a Dr. Pepper bottle and that sack that we found that looked like the rifle was wrapped up in.
Mr. BALL. Now, where was the Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It was over a little more to the west of that window.
Mr. BALL. There was a sack of chicken bones with that--near that Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. No; the Dr. Pepper bottle, the best I can recall, was sitting over there by itself.
Mr. BALL. Where was the sack with the chicken in it?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It was right around where the boxes were--where the hulls there were.
Mr. BALL. The picture was taken of the sack by Mr. Studebaker, and he said it was the third set of windows near the little two-wheel truck?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Over there by the Dr. Pepper bottle.
Mr. BALL. Correct.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I was thinking it was right there--it was probably that sack I'm thinking about---the one we found on the floor there that was used.
Mr. BALL. Here are two pictures, which are Exhibits H and I in the Studebaker depositions, which show the paper sack and the Dr. Pepper bottle and a two-wheel truck, and that is in Exhibit H, and Exhibit I shows the Dr. Pepper bottle and a two-wheel truck.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Is this the sack right here, now?
Mr. BALL. That's right--do you remember that?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I don't remember the sack being right there--I remember it was there somewhere, but exactly--I don't.
Mr. BALL. Evidently you don't know?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Now, was there some more chicken some place there also?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes--there would be some more chicken over here around where the hulls were found.
Mr. BALL. Now, I will show you a picture of----
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I know there was one piece laying up on top of the box there.
Mr. BALL. I show you a picture which is Exhibit J, which shows some boxes in the picture that's in the southeast corner there.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Can you tell me where the chicken was?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I believe it was right up on these boxes right along in there. There's some boxes coming along in there.
Mr. BALL. Coming along in there you mean it's outside of the view of the pictures?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir; right along in here.
Mr. BALL. And that would be to the north, of that point?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And what did you see on top of those boxes?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. There was one piece of chicken there.
Mr. BALL. Partially eaten?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes; I believe it was partially eaten---on that picture right there I was just looking at.
Sounds to me like he is saying there was at least one unfinished chicken piece associated with the boxes close to the SN. There were bones as well and sometime thy were all placed in the lunchsack and taken by Johnson to city Hall. he does not remember the chicken and sack close to the two wheeler.....not where Studebaker "found" them. Not where Williams, foggy memory placed them when he testified.
The chicken lunch was originally found in the SN by Mooney and was moved prior to the arrival by Fritz.
Mr. BALL - Can you take this and point out about where the crease was on 509?
Now, was there anything you saw over in the corner?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; I didn't see anything over in the corner. I did see this one partially eaten piece of fried chicken laying over to the right. It looked like he was facing--
Mr. BALL - Now, I show you Exhibit 513.
Mr. BALL - This is another view of that window.
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Did you see it from that angle?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; I never did.
Mr. BALL - You don't think you have ever seen it---
Mr. MOONEY - From that angle.
Mr. BALL - Does that show any place where you saw the chicken bone?
Mr. MOONEY - If I recall correctly, the chicken bone could have been laying on this box or it might have been laying on this box right here.
Mr. BALL - Make a couple of marks there to indicate where possibly the chicken bone was lying.
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Make two "X's". You think there was a chicken bone on the top of either one of those two?
Mr. MOONEY - There was one of them partially eaten. And there was a little small paper poke.
Mr. BALL - By poke, you mean a paper sack?
Mr. MOONEY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Where was that?
Mr. MOONEY - Saw the chicken bone was laying here. The poke was laying about a foot away from it.
Mr. BALL - On the same carton?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. In close relation to each other. But as to what was in the sack--it was kind of together, and I didn't open it. I didn't put my hands on it to open it. I only saw one piece of chicken.
Senator COOPER - How far was the chicken, the piece of chicken you saw, and the paper bag from the boxes near the window, and particularly the box that had the crease in it?
Mr. MOONEY - I would say they might have been 5 feet or something like that. He 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.
Senator COOPER - You mean if someone had been standing near the box with the crease in it?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER - It would have been that approximate distance to the chicken leg and paper bag?
Mr. MOONEY - Sir?
Senator COOPER - And the paper bag you spoke of?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir; they were in close relation to each other, yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - How big a bag was it?
Mr. MOONEY - Well, as to the number--these bags are numbered, I understand. But it was--I don't know what the number you would call it, but it didn't stand more than that high.
Mr. BALL - About 12 inches?
Mr. MOONEY - About 8 to 10 inches, at the most.
Mr. BALL - What color was the bag?
Mr. MOONEY - It was brown. Just a regular paper bag. Just as a grocery store uses for their produce and what-have-you.
Mr. BALL - Did you see any soda pop?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; I did not.
Mr. BALL - Did you see a paper bag at any other window?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. BALL - Any other chicken bones?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - Did you see a Dr. Pepper bottle any place?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; except in the picture.
Mr. BALL - You didn't see it?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir.
Seems pretty clear....the chicken and bag were within 5 feet of the "seating" box.
Who else observed the chicken lunch before Fritz arrived?
Officer A. D. McCurley, Deputy Sheriff, Dallas County Sheriff's Office (Statement 11/22/63)
Officer Jack Faulkner and I, together with several other City officers went to the building and started checking the floors. We were searching the 6th floor when Deputy Sheriff Mooney, who was also on the 6th floor, hollered that he had found the place where the assassin had fired from. I went over and saw 3 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 hide from the view of anyone who happened to come up on that floor and had arranged 3 other cartons of books next to the window as though to make a rifle rest. This area was roped off and guarded until Captain Will Fritz of Dallas Police Department Homicide Bureau arrived. It was about this same time that Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone yelled that he had found the rifle which had been placed between some rows of cardboard boxes near the staircase which leads down to the 5th floor.
Officer Jack Faulkner told of the chicken bones and how they felt he had eaten his lunch there. (No More Silence).
Officer Roger Craig, Deputy Sheriff, Dallas County Sheriff's Office
Mr. BELIN - Why did you go up on the sixth floor?
Mr. CRAIG - Well, someone said that's where the shots came from. One of the city officers, if I'm not mistaken.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Mr. CRAIG - So, we went to the sixth floor where--uh--some empty cartridges were found.
Mr. BELIN - Did you see the empty cartridges when they were found?
Mr. CRAIG - I didn't see them when they were found. I saw them laying on the floor.
Mr. BELIN - About how soon after they were found did you see them, laying on the floor?
Mr. CRAIG - Oh, a couple of minutes. I went right on over there. I was at the far north end of the building. The cartridges were on the southeast corner.
Mr. BELIN - Well, how did you know they had been found there? Did someone yell---or what?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; someone yelled across the room that "here's the shells."
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember who that was?
Mr. CRAIG - No; I couldn't recognize the voice.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Then, what did you do?
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.
Mr. BELIN - Was there any long sack laying in the floor there that you remember seeing, or not?
Mr. CRAIG - No; I don't remember seeing any.
Gerald Hill also recalls the finding of the SN and the Chicken Leg and Bag of top of the SN Boxes
Mr. HILL. We hadn't been there but a minute until someone yelled, "Here it is," or words to that effect.
I moved over and found they had found an area where the boxes had been stacked in sort of a triangle shape with three sides over near the window.
Mr. BELIN. What did you see over there?
Mr. HILL. There was the boxes. 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. In front of this window and to the left or east corner of the window, there were two boxes, cardboard boxes that had the words "Roller books," on them.
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. I wouldn't know what the sizes were. It was a sack, I would say extended, it would probably be 12 inches high, 10 inches long, and about 4 inches thick. At this point, I asked the deputy sheriff to guard the scene, not to let anybody touch anything, and I went over still further west to another window about the middle of the building on the south side and yelled down to the street for them to send us the crime lab.
Officer Brewer
Mr. BELIN. Were you on the sixth floor when you found anything there?
Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What did you find?
Mr. BREWER. I was on the sixth floor when they found those spent cases from the rifle.
Mr. BELIN. Where were you when they found them?
Mr. BREWER. I don't know exactly. I was on the floor searching around in among some boxes that were stacked up there.
Mr. BELIN. Hear anyone say anything about cartridge cases or anything?
Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir. Whoever found them turned around and let ito be known to one of the supervisor officers that he had found them, or that they had been found over there.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you heard the news?
Mr. BREWER. I continued searching.
Mr. BELIN. Did you go and take a look at the cartridge cases?
Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir.
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 at chicken.
Officer Haygood
Mr. BELIN. Did you search the building on the sixth floor or not?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Were you there when they found the rifle?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Were you there when they found the shells?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Where were you when the shells were found?
Mr. HAYGOOD. I was on the sixth floor when the shells were found. I was still on the sixth when they found the rifle on the fifth.
Mr. BELIN. On the fifth?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Sixth floor, rather, I am sorry.
Mr. BELIN. Where on the sixth floor were you when the shells were found?
Mr. HAYGOOD. I don't recall just exactly where it was at. It was on the floor though. It was just a big open floor.
Mr. BELIN. Do you mean they were somewhere on that open floor?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did you hear someone say they have shells, something like that?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember who that was?
Mr. HAYGOOD. No; I don't.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Went up to another location there.
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.
Harry Weatherford
The 11-23-63 report of Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford notes "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 3 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."
Officer Eugene Boone
Recalled seeing the chicken in the SN before discovering the rifle in a 6th floor Museum oral history.
The chicken lunch was originally found in the SN NOT by the two wheeler trolley 30 feet away..
-
To eat his lunch. What makes you think Oswald was there?
Yeah, well Brennan saw a lot of things. Brennan simultaneously saw the gunman fire the head shot and Kennedy’s head explode.
“LHO with his rifle”. LOL.
So all the deputies who saw chicken in the SN when it was first discovered we’re having a mass hallucination?
That’s easy for you to say. I could just as easily say “Oswald was never in the SN. To believe otherwise is fitting only select pieces of information into a theory to create the desired result.”
Yeah, well Brennan saw a lot of things. Brennan simultaneously saw the gunman fire the head shot and Kennedy’s head explode
>>> Nah, thats what his ghostwriter said in Brennan's book.
This is what he said under oath
Mr. DULLES. Could you see who or what he was aiming at? You testified as to the declination of the rifle, the angle of the rifle. But could you see what he was firing at?
Mr. BRENNAN. Subconsciously I knew what he was firing at. But immediately I looked towards where President Kennedy's car should be, and there was something obstructing my view. I could not see the President or his car at that time.
And I still don't know what was obstructing my view, because I was high enough that I should have been able to see it. I could not see it.
-
You claim Shelley and Mongomery in support of your notion that there were multiple pieces of chicken. Let's see what they actually said.
Mr. SHELLEY - I was, I believe I was on the sixth floor when they found the gun but we were searching all parts of that floor.
Mr. BALL - Now, did you find any chicken bones up there or see any?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, I went up later on that day; I believe after we had gotten back from City Hall with someone, I don't remember who it was, one of the officers and they got them.
Mr. BALL - They did what?
Mr. SHELLEY - They got the bones.
Mr. BALL - Where were they?
Mr. SHELLEY - They were on the third--yeah, it would be the third window from the southeast corner.
Mr. BALL - And were they in a sack?
Mr. SHELLEY - Laying on a sack.
Mr. BALL - Laying on a sack?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, sir; with a coke bottle sitting in the window.
Mr. BALL - Did you see any other chicken bones anyplace around there?
Mr. SHELLEY - No, sir; that's all.
Mr. BALL - That's the only ones?
Mr. SHELLEY - That's all.
Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody eating fried chicken on that floor that morning?
Mr. SHELLEY - At one time I think I said I did but Charles Givens was the guy that was eating and he was further on over toward the west side and he was eating a sandwich so he says.
Mr. BALL - Now you say that you thought that you had seen someone had eaten fried chicken that morning?
Mr. SHELLEY - I thought I had; those colored boys are always eating chicken.
Mr. BALL - Do you think you did or do you know?
Mr. SHELLEY - I asked Charles Givens whether it was him that was eating and he said it was a sandwich.
Mr. BALL - Was that before you went down for lunch?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, sir; it was pretty early in the morning, about 9:30.
Mr. BALL - Where was it?
Mr. SHELLEY - It was two-thirds across the building toward the west because I didn't put plywood over there and he didn't get too far from where we were actually working.
So Shelley seems pretty clear. He was not there at the time the SN was found. He most likely heard of the chicken second hand as the Officer (Johnson) took it back to City Hall at 3pm. When asked he offered Givens but was not sure. He thought it might have been in the morning and close to where they were laying the flooring.
What did Givens say....
Mr. BELIN. That day had you eaten any chicken at all, or anything on the sixth floor?
Mr. GIVENS. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Had you eaten any chicken or left a pep bottle on any previous days on the sixth floor?
Mr. GIVENS. No, sir.
So Shelley only talks about one chicken lunch. The one he was told about. Where is was finally placed after the SN was discovered.
What does Montgomery say....
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---right there on the floor.
Mr. BALL On the floor?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. All right.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, let me see, there was one piece of chicken on a box and there was a piece on the floor--just kind of scattered around right there.
Mr. BALL. Where was the paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Let's see--the paper sack--I don't recall for sure if it was on the floor or on the box, but I know it was just there----one of those pictures might show exactly where it was.
Mr. BALL. I don't have a picture of the paper sack.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. You don't? Well, it was there--I can't recall for sure if it was on one of the boxes or on the floor there.
Mr. BALL. It was over in what corner?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It would be the southeast corner of the building there where the shooting was.
Mr. BALL. Did you turn the sack over to anybody or did you pick it up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes---let's see Lieutenant Day and Detective Studebaker came up and took pictures and everything, and then we took a Dr. Pepper bottle and that sack that we found that looked like the rifle was wrapped up in.
Mr. BALL. Now, where was the Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It was over a little more to the west of that window.
Mr. BALL. There was a sack of chicken bones with that--near that Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. No; the Dr. Pepper bottle, the best I can recall, was sitting over there by itself.
Mr. BALL. Where was the sack with the chicken in it?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It was right around where the boxes were--where the hulls there were.
Mr. BALL. The picture was taken of the sack by Mr. Studebaker, and he said it was the third set of windows near the little two-wheel truck?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Over there by the Dr. Pepper bottle.
Mr. BALL. Correct.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I was thinking it was right there--it was probably that sack I'm thinking about---the one we found on the floor there that was used.
Mr. BALL. Here are two pictures, which are Exhibits H and I in the Studebaker depositions, which show the paper sack and the Dr. Pepper bottle and a two-wheel truck, and that is in Exhibit H, and Exhibit I shows the Dr. Pepper bottle and a two-wheel truck.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Is this the sack right here, now?
Mr. BALL. That's right--do you remember that?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I don't remember the sack being right there--I remember it was there somewhere, but exactly--I don't.
Mr. BALL. Evidently you don't know?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Now, was there some more chicken some place there also?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes--there would be some more chicken over here around where the hulls were found.
Mr. BALL. Now, I will show you a picture of----
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I know there was one piece laying up on top of the box there.
Mr. BALL. I show you a picture which is Exhibit J, which shows some boxes in the picture that's in the southeast corner there.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Can you tell me where the chicken was?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I believe it was right up on these boxes right along in there. There's some boxes coming along in there.
Mr. BALL. Coming along in there you mean it's outside of the view of the pictures?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir; right along in here.
Mr. BALL. And that would be to the north, of that point?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And what did you see on top of those boxes?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. There was one piece of chicken there.
Mr. BALL. Partially eaten?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes; I believe it was partially eaten---on that picture right there I was just looking at.
Sounds to me like he is saying there was at least one unfinished chicken piece associated with the boxes close to the SN. There were bones as well and sometime thy were all placed in the lunchsack and taken by Johnson to city Hall. he does not remember the chicken and sack close to the two wheeler.....not where Studebaker "found" them. Not where Williams, foggy memory placed them when he testified.
The chicken lunch was originally found in the SN by Mooney and was moved prior to the arrival by Fritz.
Mr. BALL - Can you take this and point out about where the crease was on 509?
Now, was there anything you saw over in the corner?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; I didn't see anything over in the corner. I did see this one partially eaten piece of fried chicken laying over to the right. It looked like he was facing--
Mr. BALL - Now, I show you Exhibit 513.
Mr. BALL - This is another view of that window.
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Did you see it from that angle?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; I never did.
Mr. BALL - You don't think you have ever seen it---
Mr. MOONEY - From that angle.
Mr. BALL - Does that show any place where you saw the chicken bone?
Mr. MOONEY - If I recall correctly, the chicken bone could have been laying on this box or it might have been laying on this box right here.
Mr. BALL - Make a couple of marks there to indicate where possibly the chicken bone was lying.
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Make two "X's". You think there was a chicken bone on the top of either one of those two?
Mr. MOONEY - There was one of them partially eaten. And there was a little small paper poke.
Mr. BALL - By poke, you mean a paper sack?
Mr. MOONEY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Where was that?
Mr. MOONEY - Saw the chicken bone was laying here. The poke was laying about a foot away from it.
Mr. BALL - On the same carton?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. In close relation to each other. But as to what was in the sack--it was kind of together, and I didn't open it. I didn't put my hands on it to open it. I only saw one piece of chicken.
Senator COOPER - How far was the chicken, the piece of chicken you saw, and the paper bag from the boxes near the window, and particularly the box that had the crease in it?
Mr. MOONEY - I would say they might have been 5 feet or something like that. He 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.
Senator COOPER - You mean if someone had been standing near the box with the crease in it?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER - It would have been that approximate distance to the chicken leg and paper bag?
Mr. MOONEY - Sir?
Senator COOPER - And the paper bag you spoke of?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir; they were in close relation to each other, yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - How big a bag was it?
Mr. MOONEY - Well, as to the number--these bags are numbered, I understand. But it was--I don't know what the number you would call it, but it didn't stand more than that high.
Mr. BALL - About 12 inches?
Mr. MOONEY - About 8 to 10 inches, at the most.
Mr. BALL - What color was the bag?
Mr. MOONEY - It was brown. Just a regular paper bag. Just as a grocery store uses for their produce and what-have-you.
Mr. BALL - Did you see any soda pop?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; I did not.
Mr. BALL - Did you see a paper bag at any other window?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. BALL - Any other chicken bones?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - Did you see a Dr. Pepper bottle any place?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; except in the picture.
Mr. BALL - You didn't see it?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir.
Seems pretty clear....the chicken and bag were within 5 feet of the "seating" box.
Who else observed the chicken lunch before Fritz arrived?
Officer A. D. McCurley, Deputy Sheriff, Dallas County Sheriff's Office (Statement 11/22/63)
Officer Jack Faulkner and I, together with several other City officers went to the building and started checking the floors. We were searching the 6th floor when Deputy Sheriff Mooney, who was also on the 6th floor, hollered that he had found the place where the assassin had fired from. I went over and saw 3 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 hide from the view of anyone who happened to come up on that floor and had arranged 3 other cartons of books next to the window as though to make a rifle rest. This area was roped off and guarded until Captain Will Fritz of Dallas Police Department Homicide Bureau arrived. It was about this same time that Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone yelled that he had found the rifle which had been placed between some rows of cardboard boxes near the staircase which leads down to the 5th floor.
Officer Jack Faulkner told of the chicken bones and how they felt he had eaten his lunch there. (No More Silence).
Officer Roger Craig, Deputy Sheriff, Dallas County Sheriff's Office
Mr. BELIN - Why did you go up on the sixth floor?
Mr. CRAIG - Well, someone said that's where the shots came from. One of the city officers, if I'm not mistaken.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Mr. CRAIG - So, we went to the sixth floor where--uh--some empty cartridges were found.
Mr. BELIN - Did you see the empty cartridges when they were found?
Mr. CRAIG - I didn't see them when they were found. I saw them laying on the floor.
Mr. BELIN - About how soon after they were found did you see them, laying on the floor?
Mr. CRAIG - Oh, a couple of minutes. I went right on over there. I was at the far north end of the building. The cartridges were on the southeast corner.
Mr. BELIN - Well, how did you know they had been found there? Did someone yell---or what?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; someone yelled across the room that "here's the shells."
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember who that was?
Mr. CRAIG - No; I couldn't recognize the voice.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Then, what did you do?
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.
Mr. BELIN - Was there any long sack laying in the floor there that you remember seeing, or not?
Mr. CRAIG - No; I don't remember seeing any.
Gerald Hill also recalls the finding of the SN and the Chicken Leg and Bag of top of the SN Boxes
Mr. HILL. We hadn't been there but a minute until someone yelled, "Here it is," or words to that effect.
I moved over and found they had found an area where the boxes had been stacked in sort of a triangle shape with three sides over near the window.
Mr. BELIN. What did you see over there?
Mr. HILL. There was the boxes. 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. In front of this window and to the left or east corner of the window, there were two boxes, cardboard boxes that had the words "Roller books," on them.
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. I wouldn't know what the sizes were. It was a sack, I would say extended, it would probably be 12 inches high, 10 inches long, and about 4 inches thick. At this point, I asked the deputy sheriff to guard the scene, not to let anybody touch anything, and I went over still further west to another window about the middle of the building on the south side and yelled down to the street for them to send us the crime lab.
Officer Brewer
Mr. BELIN. Were you on the sixth floor when you found anything there?
Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What did you find?
Mr. BREWER. I was on the sixth floor when they found those spent cases from the rifle.
Mr. BELIN. Where were you when they found them?
Mr. BREWER. I don't know exactly. I was on the floor searching around in among some boxes that were stacked up there.
Mr. BELIN. Hear anyone say anything about cartridge cases or anything?
Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir. Whoever found them turned around and let ito be known to one of the supervisor officers that he had found them, or that they had been found over there.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you heard the news?
Mr. BREWER. I continued searching.
Mr. BELIN. Did you go and take a look at the cartridge cases?
Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir.
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 at chicken.
Officer Haygood
Mr. BELIN. Did you search the building on the sixth floor or not?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Were you there when they found the rifle?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Were you there when they found the shells?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Where were you when the shells were found?
Mr. HAYGOOD. I was on the sixth floor when the shells were found. I was still on the sixth when they found the rifle on the fifth.
Mr. BELIN. On the fifth?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Sixth floor, rather, I am sorry.
Mr. BELIN. Where on the sixth floor were you when the shells were found?
Mr. HAYGOOD. I don't recall just exactly where it was at. It was on the floor though. It was just a big open floor.
Mr. BELIN. Do you mean they were somewhere on that open floor?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did you hear someone say they have shells, something like that?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember who that was?
Mr. HAYGOOD. No; I don't.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Went up to another location there.
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.
Harry Weatherford
The 11-23-63 report of Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford notes "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 3 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."
Officer Eugene Boone
Recalled seeing the chicken in the SN before discovering the rifle in a 6th floor Museum oral history.
The chicken lunch was originally found in the SN NOT by the two wheeler trolley 30 feet away..
Interesting but you missed the point. Both Montgomery and Shelley state there were multiple pieces of chicken in different locations on the 6th floor. Montgomery states there was and Shelley says they were doing it every day not just on 11/22. The other detectives noted, depending on when there statements were taken place the chicken in varying locations with varying descriptions including Mooney who starts out with a piece on the rifle rest itself and later moves it to a new location in his WC deposition. None of this places BRW in the SN, they found his lunch by the third window. Nobody screwed with it or moved it or did anything with it. If anything it is exactly what Alyea alluded to and explains the variance in description and location.
"..... 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."
-
By the time these witnesses reached the WC they all seem to do the same thing, embellish their statements. Brennan really seems to upset you. The only importance that on Brennan is I place on Brennan is he saw the rifle being fired and he initially stated there was only two shots.
If BRW had shared the SN with the assassin they would have found BRW's corpse.
According to Alyea, the WC, and the HSCA the media had a heavy influence on the statements of the witnesses not just the Detectives. Someone who continually demonstrates the ability to apply critical thinking must have noticed the ever fluid statements of the witnesses.
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....
-
Interesting but you missed the point. Both Montgomery and Shelley state there were multiple pieces of chicken in different locations on the 6th floor. Montgomery states there was and Shelley says they were doing it every day not just on 11/22. The other detectives noted, depending on when there statements were taken place the chicken in varying locations with varying descriptions including Mooney who starts out with a piece on the rifle rest itself and later moves it to a new location in his WC deposition. None of this places BRW in the SN, they found his lunch by the third window. Nobody screwed with it or moved it or did anything with it. If anything it is exactly what Alyea alluded to and explains the variance in description and location.
"..... 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."
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.”
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
By the time these witnesses reached the WC they all seem to do the same thing, embellish their statements. Brennan really seems to upset you. The only importance that on Brennan is I place on Brennan is he saw the rifle being fired and he initially stated there was only two shots.
I guess you get to decide which embellishments are actually true?
If BRW had shared the SN with the assassin they would have found BRW's corpse.
You couldn’t possibly know that for a fact. Especially if the assassin only brought 4 bullets.
-
Yeah, well Brennan saw a lot of things. Brennan simultaneously saw the gunman fire the head shot and Kennedy’s head explode
>>> Nah, thats what his ghostwriter said in Brennan's book.
You don’t know what parts (if any) were written by the co-author. It’s in a first person account.
This is what he said under oath
So what? He embellished more details every time he told the story.
-
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.
Other than the perception of “wrinkles”, it fit him just fine. In fact, BRW is the only person known to have been on the sixth floor when Rowland was looking.
How can Brennan be expected to see someone that was conjured up out of Rowland's imagination?
Calling it “Rowland’s imagination” doesn’t make it so.
. 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?
That’s pure BS. There weren’t “six other people” who saw a gunman.
-
Howard Brennan stated he did see him fire the rifle on at least three different occasions:
Mr. BRENNAN. I positively thought that the first shot was a backfire of a motorcycle. And then something made me think that someone was throwing firecrackers from the Texas Book Store, and a possibility it was the second shot. But I glanced up or looked up and I saw this man taking aim for his last shot. The first shot and last shot is my only positive recollection of two shots.
Mr. McCLOY. Did you see the rifle explode? Did you see the flash of what was either the second or the third shot?
Mr. BRENNAN. No.
Mr. McCLOY. Could you see that he had discharged the rifle?
Mr. BRENNAN. No. For some reason I did not get an echo at any time. The first shot was positive and clear and the last shot was positive and dear, with no echo on my part.
Mr. McCLOY. Yes. But you saw him aim?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. Did you see the rifle discharge, did you see the recoil or the flash?
Mr. BRENNAN. No.
Mr. McCLOY. But you heard the last shot.
Mr. BRENNAN. The report; yes, sir.
-
In other news, no one saw John Wilkes Booth fire his pistol. They just heard a loud boom, looked in his direction and saw him pointing a pistol (or some object made of wood) at Lincoln's head. They just "assumed" he fired the shot. There is clearly (false) doubt of his guilt. He was just another actor at his place of employment. Nothing to see in the contrarian fantasy world.
-
In other news, no one saw John Wilkes Booth fire his pistol. They just heard a loud boom, looked in his direction and saw him pointing a pistol (or some object made of wood) at Lincoln's head. They just "assumed" he fired the shot. There is clearly (false) doubt of his guilt. He was just another actor at his place of employment. Nothing to see in the contrarian fantasy world.
Oh boy, Richard is spinning out of control and losing it. It must be hard to be so obsessed with a "contrarian fantasy world" that doesn't exist.
-
While I do not wish to stifle debate, the thread is about the sequence of events. One of them is.....
"Brennan sees Caucasian man in 6th floor window firing rifle" This (along with Euins) would be the last entries.
Perhaps Richard would like to comment on the timing of Williams from the 6th floor and his location prior to that.
-
Oh boy, Richard is spinning out of control and losing it. It must be hard to be so obsessed with a "contrarian fantasy world" that doesn't exist.
Richard is spinning out of control and losing it.
Yes indeed!.... He's lost his rudder and he's headed for the falls on that North African river.... De Nile.....
-
In other news, no one saw John Wilkes Booth fire his pistol. They just heard a loud boom, looked in his direction and saw him pointing a pistol (or some object made of wood) at Lincoln's head. They just "assumed" he fired the shot. There is clearly (false) doubt of his guilt. He was just another actor at his place of employment. Nothing to see in the contrarian fantasy world.
This false equivalence again.
The point was that you shouldn’t claim a witness saw a rifle being fired if he didn’t see a rifle fired.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/FhzB9Wt/shelley.jpg)
Shelly's response to the WC about Rowland's observation. What might be the most important criteria for someone momentarily observing an individual at about 200 feet away......
1. Location (On the 6th floor around the time mentioned)
2. Sex
3. Race
4. Build
5. Other characteristics, eg clothing, age etc....
Whoops.....looks like too much placed on age than location by Shelley.
-
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.
I honestly do not understand what the point is you are so desperately trying to make.
Actually judging by your post, it appears you understand very well what it means. Just don't like it. Rowland made the whole story up just like a majority of his testimony.
-
I guess you get to decide which embellishments are actually true?
You couldn’t possibly know that for a fact. Especially if the assassin only brought 4 bullets.
You couldn’t possibly know that for a fact.
That is true. Given what happened to Tippitt when he encountered LHO, it is a logical assumption. Oswald was a Marine with a military rifle. He did not need the cartridges.
-
Other than the perception of “wrinkles”, it fit him just fine. In fact, BRW is the only person known to have been on the sixth floor when Rowland was looking.
Calling it “Rowland’s imagination” doesn’t make it so.
That’s pure BS. There weren’t “six other people” who saw a gunman.
This is the first time I have ever heard that a description of a balding 55 to 60 year old man with wrinkles is a description of a twenty year old. Your slipping John, you are normally way more critical than this.
How does Rowland know he is tall and slender when all he supposedly sees is that he is leaning out of a window?
Excuse me, it was five. I accidently included Rowland's imaginary man with a rifle.
-
Mr. BRENNAN. I positively thought that the first shot was a backfire of a motorcycle. And then something made me think that someone was throwing firecrackers from the Texas Book Store, and a possibility it was the second shot. But I glanced up or looked up and I saw this man taking aim for his last shot. The first shot and last shot is my only positive recollection of two shots.
Mr. McCLOY. Did you see the rifle explode? Did you see the flash of what was either the second or the third shot?
Mr. BRENNAN. No.
Mr. McCLOY. Could you see that he had discharged the rifle?
Mr. BRENNAN. No. For some reason I did not get an echo at any time. The first shot was positive and clear and the last shot was positive and dear, with no echo on my part.
Mr. McCLOY. Yes. But you saw him aim?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. Did you see the rifle discharge, did you see the recoil or the flash?
Mr. BRENNAN. No.
Mr. McCLOY. But you heard the last shot.
Mr. BRENNAN. The report; yes, sir.
Brennan is correct. There are videos of the carcano being fired from the front and there is no muzzle flash and very little recoil.
He stated he seen him fire the rifle at least three different times.
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.”
-
Oh boy, Richard is spinning out of control and losing it. It must be hard to be so obsessed with a "contrarian fantasy world" that doesn't exist.
You can always tell when Roger is running scared. He starts with this kind of rambling nonsense to deflect. I simply applied the same standard that he and his contrarian fantasy buddy apply to Oswald. Witnesses heard a loud boom - a gun shot - looked in that direction and saw a man pointing a rifle at JFK who had just been shot. But they take issue with characterizing this as the witness having seen him shoot JFK. You can't make that up. It's the exact analogy to the Booth situation. But for some reason they don't like that one as it highlights the absolute absurdity of their desperate, pedantic attempt to conjure false doubt. What do they think happened here if the person pointing the rifle at the moment of the assassination did not fire it? Let me guess. They don't care to explain it. No one is suggesting a conspiracy. That is a strawman. It just is. Nothing to see there. People can go around pointing rifles out the window without firing them. Happens all the time. And on and on and on. Down the rabbit hole of lunacy.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/FhzB9Wt/shelley.jpg)
Shelly's response to the WC about Rowland's observation. What might be the most important criteria for someone momentarily observing an individual at about 200 feet away......
1. Location (On the 6th floor around the time mentioned)
2. Sex
3. Race
4. Build
5. Other characteristics, eg clothing, age etc....
Whoops.....looks like too much placed on age than location by Shelley.
Did Rowland know about your list and that he was supposed to follow it? Nobody had a clue as to who Rowland described. The reason for that is Rowland made the whole story up. Now you know why they only looked at pictures of West and Piper. Nobody else was even close. Certainly not twenty something BRW. It is almost bizarre that he would make up a story of a negro instead of claiming to have seen the assassin. The assassin was really there.
BRW stated he did not see anyone else on the 6hth floor. He definitely confirmed Rowland's testimony of man with a rifle in the SW corner was false. Rowland did not remotely give a description of BRW and completely missed there actually was a real gunman in that window, despite claiming he looked repeatedly at the window right up until the time the motorcade arrived. He fabricated this like he did all the other parts of his statement. Until he spoke to the WC he never told a soul about a negro in the SE corner. Not one person.
-
Did Rowland know about your list and that he was supposed to follow it? Nobody had a clue as to who Rowland described. The reason for that is Rowland made the whole story up. Now you know why they only looked at pictures of West and Piper. Nobody else was even close. Certainly not twenty something BRW. It is almost bizarre that he would make up a story of a negro instead of claiming to have seen the assassin. The assassin was really there.
BRW stated he did not see anyone else on the 6hth floor. He definitely confirmed Rowland's testimony of man with a rifle in the SW corner was false. Rowland did not remotely give a description of BRW and completely missed there actually was a real gunman in that window, despite claiming he looked repeatedly at the window right up until the time the motorcade arrived. He fabricated this like he did all the other parts of his statement. Until he spoke to the WC he never told a soul about a negro in the SE corner. Not one person.
If Williams was not on the 2 wheeler but sitting in the SN he would not see the gunman Rowland saw at 12.15. Remember the WC did experiments to prove it. Another piece that fits nicely.
What happened to the bones stuff Jack? Are you going with a 6th floor littered with chicken remnants (Shelley and Momtgomery) or a chicken free 6th floor but on the 5th floor (Alyea), or both? How many lunch sacks? Where were they?
Do I understand your position now to be that Rowland made everything up? No gunman at all...just got his wife to go along but only half a story....she only agreed to lie about one but not two men? He just put information together from what he heard after the shots and decided to get famous I guess.
-
Mr. SPECTER - Now, at the time you made the Saturday statement, which you say was transcribed and appears as Exhibit 358, did you at that time tell the interviewing FBI agents about the colored gentleman who you testified was in the window which you marked with an "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you ask them at that time to include the information in the statement which they took from you?
Mr. ROWLAND - No. I think I told them about it after the statement, as an afterthought, an afterthought came up, it came into my mind. I also told the agents that took a statement from me on Sunday. They didn't seem very interested, so I just forgot about it for a while.
Mr. SPECTER - Was that information included in the written portion of the statement which was taken from you on Sunday?
Mr. ROWLAND - No, it wasn't. It shouldn't but the agent deleted it though himself, I mean I included it in what I gave.
Mr. SPECTER - When you say deleted it, did he strike it out after putting it in, or did he omit it in the transcription?
Mr. ROWLAND - Omitted it.
Senator COOPER - I think you said a while ago that when you told the FBI agents on Saturday that you had seen this Negro man in the window, that they indicated to you that they weren't interested in it at all. What did they say which gave you that impression?
Mr. ROWLAND - I don't remember exactly what was said. The context was again the agents were trying to find out if I could positively identify the man that I saw. They were concerned mainly with this, and I brought up to them about the Negro man after I had signed the statement, and at that time he just told me that they were just trying to find out about or if anyone could identify the man who was up there. They just didn't seem interested at all. They didn't pursue the point. They didn't take it down in the notation as such.
Mr. SPECTER - It was more of the fact that they didn't pursue it, didn't include it?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Or that they said something which led you to believe they were not interested?
Mr. ROWLAND - It was just the fact they didn't pursue it. I mean, I just mentioned that I saw him in that window. They didn't ask me, you know, if was this at the same time or such. They just didn't seem very interested in that at all.
Gee Otto, are you suggesting someone in the FBI might have altered, destroyed or removed evidence regarding the assassination......oh yeah, I forgot......good point.
-
I honestly do not understand what the point is you are so desperately trying to make.
Actually judging by your post, it appears you understand very well what it means. Just don't like it. Rowland made the whole story up just like a majority of his testimony.
I am not sure why you would say that I don't like it, when I don't even know what "it" is supposed to be. Besides, I have no horse in this race and don't really care either way. I just want to make sense of the evidence, that's all.
So, according to you, was there a black man on the 6th floor, or not?
Why do you keep avoiding the fact that BRW confirmed he was on the 6th floor until he joined Norman and Jarman on the 5th only minutes post shots?
Btw, you first said six people saw the shooter. You've now changed it to 5 people, but you have failed to name them. Why is that?
-
You can always tell when Roger is running scared. He starts with this kind of rambling nonsense to deflect. I simply applied the same standard that he and his contrarian fantasy buddy apply to Oswald. Witnesses heard a loud boom - a gun shot - looked in that direction and saw a man pointing a rifle at JFK who had just been shot. But they take issue with characterizing this as the witness having seen him shoot JFK. You can't make that up. It's the exact analogy to the Booth situation. But for some reason they don't like that one as it highlights the absolute absurdity of their desperate, pedantic attempt to conjure false doubt. What do they think happened here if the person pointing the rifle at the moment of the assassination did not fire it? Let me guess. They don't care to explain it. No one is suggesting a conspiracy. That is a strawman. It just is. Nothing to see there. People can go around pointing rifles out the window without firing them. Happens all the time. And on and on and on. Down the rabbit hole of lunacy.
The only thing worth responding to is this;
What do they think happened here if the person pointing the rifle at the moment of the assassination did not fire it? Let me guess. They don't care to explain it. No one is suggesting a conspiracy. That is a strawman.
The only thing correct in your entire rambling post is that the above is indeed a strawman, i.e. an argument you made up only to knock it down later!
straw man
noun
noun: strawman
1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"
2.
a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
"a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"
-
This is the first time I have ever heard that a description of a balding 55 to 60 year old man with wrinkles is a description of a twenty year old. Your slipping John, you are normally way more critical than this.
So what? Brennan thought he saw a 30 year old. Euins saw a guy with a bald spot. They’re six floors down. Any specific details are largely interpreted. The point is, Rowland saw a black guy in the 6th floor SE window. That black guy (who left his lunch bag there) was Bonnie Ray Williams.
How does Rowland know he is tall and slender when all he supposedly sees is that he is leaning out of a window?
I dunno. Same way Brennan knew his guy was 5’10” and 165 pounds?
Excuse me, it was five. I accidently included Rowland's imaginary man with a rifle.
No, not 5. Try again.
-
Brennan is correct. There are videos of the carcano being fired from the front and there is no muzzle flash and very little recoil.
So then how did he determine that the man he saw aiming actually fired?
-
You can always tell when Roger is running scared. He starts with this kind of rambling nonsense to deflect. I simply applied the same standard that he and his contrarian fantasy buddy apply to Oswald. Witnesses heard a loud boom - a gun shot - looked in that direction and saw a man pointing a rifle at JFK who had just been shot. But they take issue with characterizing this as the witness having seen him shoot JFK.
Just because strawman “Richard” can’t distinguish between assumption and fact doesn’t mean that there isn’t a difference.
-
It is almost bizarre that he would make up a story of a negro instead of claiming to have seen the assassin. The assassin was really there.
You don’t know where the assassin was. But the negro was there.
BRW stated he did not see anyone else on the 6hth floor. He definitely confirmed Rowland's testimony of man with a rifle in the SW corner was false.
On the contrary. It confirms he wasn’t at the two-wheeler.
-
So then how did he determine that the man he saw aiming actually fired?
Where did the killer shoot from
The f'kn sewer, troll?
-
Where did the killer shoot from
The f'kn sewer, troll?
Speaking of trolling, when did I ever claim a killer shot from the sewer?
-
Speaking of trolling, when did I ever claim a killer shot from the sewer?
Point out where I said you did, troll.
-
Point out where I said you did, troll.
Then why did you ask me where the killer shot from the f’kn sewer?
Punctuation is your friend.
-
Where did the killer shoot from
The f'kn sewer, troll?
John you could tell Chappie just about anyplace, and he'd reject any place but the SE corner window on the sixth floor of the TSBD. He might accept the roof of the parking garage on the west side of the TSBD...as the location of a gunman, IF you told him that Lee Harrrrrrvey Ossssswald (Booooo, Hissss, Spit)......was the shooter.....
-
Of all the kooky claims and desperate attempts to conjure false doubt as to Oswald's guilt, the one that takes the prize has to be that there is somehow doubt that someone seen pointing a rifle at JFK at the moment he was assassinated fired a shot from that rifle. Imagine the lunacy of this claim. For some inexplicable reason, an individual decides to point a rifle out the window but not fire it. Why this implausible and bizarre action would be taken by someone is left entirely unexplained. Just like John Wilkes Booth seen pointing a gun at Lincoln's head an instant after he was shot. We can only apparently "assume" what happened. No logical inference is permitted. Any unbiased person would conclude that it is accurate to state that a witness saw someone shot when they hear a gunshot and look in that very instance toward a person pointing a gun at the individual who has been shot. It is the literal smoking gun. To take pedantic issue with that without offering any explanation as to why someone would be pointing a gun at an individual who has just been shot is a great example of the dishonest, defense attorney tactics that substitutes for an honest discussion of this case.
-
Mr. SPECTER - Now, at the time you made the Saturday statement, which you say was transcribed and appears as Exhibit 358, did you at that time tell the interviewing FBI agents about the colored gentleman who you testified was in the window which you marked with an "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you ask them at that time to include the information in the statement which they took from you?
Mr. ROWLAND - No. I think I told them about it after the statement, as an afterthought, an afterthought came up, it came into my mind. I also told the agents that took a statement from me on Sunday. They didn't seem very interested, so I just forgot about it for a while.
Mr. SPECTER - Was that information included in the written portion of the statement which was taken from you on Sunday?
Mr. ROWLAND - No, it wasn't. It shouldn't but the agent deleted it though himself, I mean I included it in what I gave.
Mr. SPECTER - When you say deleted it, did he strike it out after putting it in, or did he omit it in the transcription?
Mr. ROWLAND - Omitted it.
Senator COOPER - I think you said a while ago that when you told the FBI agents on Saturday that you had seen this Negro man in the window, that they indicated to you that they weren't interested in it at all. What did they say which gave you that impression?
Mr. ROWLAND - I don't remember exactly what was said. The context was again the agents were trying to find out if I could positively identify the man that I saw. They were concerned mainly with this, and I brought up to them about the Negro man after I had signed the statement, and at that time he just told me that they were just trying to find out about or if anyone could identify the man who was up there. They just didn't seem interested at all. They didn't pursue the point. They didn't take it down in the notation as such.
Mr. SPECTER - It was more of the fact that they didn't pursue it, didn't include it?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Or that they said something which led you to believe they were not interested?
Mr. ROWLAND - It was just the fact they didn't pursue it. I mean, I just mentioned that I saw him in that window. They didn't ask me, you know, if was this at the same time or such. They just didn't seem very interested in that at all.
It wasn't just the FBI, Rowland claimed the Sheriff Dept changed his statement from stating he had seen the man with a rifle 5 feet back from the window to 15 feet back from the window.
Seemed to be a pattern with him.
-
If Williams was not on the 2 wheeler but sitting in the SN he would not see the gunman Rowland saw at 12.15. Remember the WC did experiments to prove it. Another piece that fits nicely.
What happened to the bones stuff Jack? Are you going with a 6th floor littered with chicken remnants (Shelley and Momtgomery) or a chicken free 6th floor but on the 5th floor (Alyea), or both? How many lunch sacks? Where were they?
Do I understand your position now to be that Rowland made everything up? No gunman at all...just got his wife to go along but only half a story....she only agreed to lie about one but not two men? He just put information together from what he heard after the shots and decided to get famous I guess.
So you are good with the description of the man with a rifle provided by Rowland? A three foot tall man with what Rowland stated was an imported "30 odd size 6?" Arnold started out blowing smoke up his wife's ass about a gunman on the 6th floor because of the conversation they were having about the Adlai Stevens visit, then he took it to a whole new level with the assassination investigation and the WC. How many times does it take catching him making up stories to not believe him. Is 6 or 8 or 10? The WC knew he was fabricating the whole story that is why Ford asked him:
The CHAIRMAN - Anything further, Congressman Ford?
Representative FORD - Mr. Rowland, have you ever had occasion to go back to the scene and reconstruct it? Have you ever gone back--
The CHAIRMAN - Supposing we take a few minutes recess.
Mr. ROWLAND - The answer to that question is yes; I do all the time. I pass that area very frequently.
--------------
What about the sacks? Weatherford only mentioned seeing CE 142 the sack the rifle came in.
Montgomery and Shelley only stated there was multiple locations for the chicken bones. The different detectives' statements placed them all over the place. Including Mooney who originally discovered the SN. Quite a discovery given Brennan told them where the shots were fired from and a description of the shooter.
Alyea is commenting on the psychology of witness statements, nothing more. Feel free to provide an explanation for the detectives statements and there variance placing the chicken all over the different barricade boxes. Start with Mooney. Gerald Hill was photographed holding his hat not a piece of chicken.
-
Gee Otto, are you suggesting someone in the FBI might have altered, destroyed or removed evidence regarding the assassination......oh yeah, I forgot......good point.
What happened to "who said anything about a conspiracy"?
-
I am not sure why you would say that I don't like it, when I don't even know what "it" is supposed to be. Besides, I have no horse in this race and don't really care either way. I just want to make sense of the evidence, that's all.
So, according to you, was there a black man on the 6th floor, or not?
Why do you keep avoiding the fact that BRW confirmed he was on the 6th floor until he joined Norman and Jarman on the 5th only minutes post shots?
Btw, you first said six people saw the shooter. You've now changed it to 5 people, but you have failed to name them. Why is that?
BRW was on the floor until he went to join Jarman and Norman. He just was never in the SN. That is Colin's hopeful addition.
Brennan, Euins, Fischer, Edwards, Unknown person talking to detective Herbert Sawyer (basically who told him about the Winchester 30-30 rifle?)
www.22november1963.org.uk/who-saw-oswald-in-the-sixth-floor-window
-
So what? Brennan thought he saw a 30 year old. Euins saw a guy with a bald spot. They’re six floors down. Any specific details are largely interpreted. The point is, Rowland saw a black guy in the 6th floor SE window. That black guy (who left his lunch bag there) was Bonnie Ray Williams.
I dunno. Same way Brennan knew his guy was 5’10” and 165 pounds?
No, not 5. Try again.
Bonnie Ray Williams left his lunch bag by the two wheeler by the third set of windows.
How could you possibly know that, when his description was of somebody else entirely different? Here is a little John I , being a negro on the 6th floor and eating his lunch by the two wheeler doesn't place him in the SN.
BRW knew where he was at and it was never in the SN.
No it is five.
Pat Speer:
www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence
P Speer: "So where did Sawyer get his information about the 30-30 and Winchester?
While some have mused that the witness providing the info to Sawyer was not Howard Brennan, but some unnamed conspirator trying to frame Oswald, others have mused that Sawyer combined the description provided by Brennan with the statements of one or more other witnesses. "
-
So then how did he determine that the man he saw aiming actually fired?
Smoke and sound. Hard to see a bullet leave the barrel. Any explanation for why he would aim a rifle and not fire it?
As he testified to no muzzle flash and little to no recoil.
(http://)
(http://)
-
BRW was on the floor until he went to join Jarman and Norman. He just was never in the SN. That is Colin's hopeful addition.
Brennan, Euins, Fischer, Edwards, Unknown person talking to detective Herbert Sawyer (basically who told him about the Winchester 30-30 rifle?)
www.22november1963.org.uk/who-saw-oswald-in-the-sixth-floor-window
BRW was on the floor until he went to join Jarman and Norman. He just was never in the SN.
And how exactly do you know for sure he was never in the SN?
-
Smoke and sound. Hard to see a bullet leave the barrel. Any explanation for why he would aim a rifle and not fire it?
Maybe it had one of those flags that comes out and says "bang" on it when you pull the trigger. You will never get an explanation because there isn't one. The only objective of these contrarians is to conjure up false doubt via outrageous, pedantic standards of proof that defy common sense and leave no room for logical inference. How are they to know why someone who aimed a gun did not fire it? Has everyone who ever aimed a gun shot someone? And on and on they will go down that path of nonsense. The fact remains that a shooter was seen pointing the rifle at JFK from that window at the moment of the assassination. Oswald's rifle was found on that floor. His prints are on the boxes by the window. Shell casings fired from his rifle are found by that window. And Oswald has no credible alibi for the moment when the shots were fired. He then fled the scene. If you were dealing with rational people, there would be no doubt about what happened.
-
BRW was on the floor until he went to join Jarman and Norman. He just was never in the SN. That is Colin's hopeful addition.
Brennan, Euins, Fischer, Edwards, Unknown person talking to detective Herbert Sawyer (basically who told him about the Winchester 30-30 rifle?)
www.22november1963.org.uk/who-saw-oswald-in-the-sixth-floor-window
Unknown person talking to detective Herbert Sawyer (basically who told him about the Winchester 30-30 rifle?)
The only person who went immediately to the police and reported that he'd seen a man aiming a hunting rifle rrom an upper floor window was Howard Brennan...
Brennan knew little about guns but he referred to the rifle as a "Hi Powered rifle" which is synonymous with "Hunting rifle" ..... and Brennan ventured a WAG that the rifle could have been a 30-30 Winchester, because he could see all of the metal barrel as the man aimed the rifle from the window.
-
What about the sacks? Weatherford only mentioned seeing CE 142 the sack the rifle came in.
There’s no evidence that a rifle was ever in CE142.
-
Brennan, Euins, Fischer, Edwards, Unknown person talking to detective Herbert Sawyer (basically who told him about the Winchester 30-30 rifle?)
www.22november1963.org.uk/who-saw-oswald-in-the-sixth-floor-window
Neither Fischer nor Edwards saw a shooter (or even a weapon).
-
Bonnie Ray Williams left his lunch bag by the two wheeler by the third set of windows.
Then why did so many deputies see it in the so-called sniper’s nest? Mass hallucination?
-
Smoke and sound. Hard to see a bullet leave the barrel. Any explanation for why he would aim a rifle and not fire it?
As he testified to no muzzle flash and little to no recoil.
Brennan saw smoke? News to me. Yes, he heard a sound, but he couldn’t pinpoint the source any more accurately that anybody else in Dealey Plaza. Are you making the argument that aiming a rifle proves that it was actually fired?
-
Who said that they saw a shooter “pointing the rifle at JFK from that window at the moment of the assassination”?
“Richard” likes to conjure up false guilt by misrepresenting the evidence.
-
Brennan saw smoke? News to me. Yes, he heard a sound, but he couldn’t pinpoint the source any more accurately that anybody else in Dealey Plaza. Are you making the argument that aiming a rifle proves that it was actually fired?
IMO Brennan was puzzled ( perplexed) because he saw the man ( from his waist up) STANDING and AIMING the HI POWERED rifle, but he didn't hear the noise of the rifle being fired. He said something about "the echoes".....He expected to hear the sound of the gun being fired but he did not hear the sounds from that location....
-
What happened to "who said anything about a conspiracy"?
That comment related you your claim that I was suggesting conspiracy about the movement of the lunch by police. I was not. I gather the nuance of the conspiracy between Hosty and Shanklin was lost on you. Maybe you don't agree that they conspired.
-
It wasn't just the FBI, Rowland claimed the Sheriff Dept changed his statement from stating he had seen the man with a rifle 5 feet back from the window to 15 feet back from the window.
Seemed to be a pattern with him.
But I thought he was supposed to be an exaggerator Jack. This seems to buck the trend. Your straw clutching is remarkably consistent by comparison. :)
Perhaps you can find someone else here that believes Rowland concocted the whole thing. Is anyone else convinced?
By the way, still waiting for your call on how all the bones got into the bag and folded it over near the two wheeler when "discovered" by Studebaker.
-
Then why did so many deputies see it in the so-called sniper’s nest? Mass hallucination?
John,
Maybe he didn't finish it and Oswald was hungry so he kiped it?
Maybe Oswald realized it would really screw up the investigators and future so-called JFK assassination "researchers" if he moved it, himself, to his cozy little sniper's nest?
-- MWT ;)
-
Maybe he didn't finish it and Oswald was hungry so he kiped it?
Maybe Oswald realized it would really screw up the investigators and future so-called JFK assassination "researchers" if he moved it, himself, to his cozy little sniper's nest?
Maybe your made-up BS is tiresome.
-
Maybe your made-up BS is tiresome.
John,
Why don't you leave, then?
(Just an idea.)
-- MWT ;)
-
That comment related you your claim that I was suggesting conspiracy about the movement of the lunch by police. I was not. I gather the nuance of the conspiracy between Hosty and Shanklin was lost on you. Maybe you don't agree that they conspired.
Police moving the lunch around is not a conspiracy? The sack with BRW's lunch in it was by the two wheeler. No one but BRW placed it there.
No it was not. It was a claim the Dallas police conspired to move the chicken bones out of the SN area. Completely unrelated to the FBI, Hosty, Shanklin, and Oswald's note. What happened to Rowland and the fabricated Negro in the SN storyline, the thread has now become about Hosty and Shanklin and your denial of promoting a conspiracy?
-
But I thought he was supposed to be an exaggerator Jack. This seems to buck the trend. Your straw clutching is remarkably consistent by comparison. :)
Perhaps you can find someone else here that believes Rowland concocted the whole thing. Is anyone else convinced?
By the way, still waiting for your call on how all the bones got into the bag and folded it over near the two wheeler when "discovered" by Studebaker.
Exaggerator maybe, fabricator definitely.
The WC was convinced he was making it up. I don't know how you could read his testimony and not see all the inconsistencies in it. Specter completely exposed him during his testimony as did his wife. Until Arnold attempted to put another person in the SN his fabrication was somewhat harmless because for real there was a man with a rifle on the 6th floor. Attempting to place another person in the SN took the whole fabrication to a new level. People who want to desperately believe there was conspiracy and what Rowland stated, regardless of whether it was factual or not, are not convinced and never will be.
-
Why don't you leave, then?
(Just an idea.)
I have a better idea. Why don’t you stop vomiting your made up BS all over yet another forum before you’re banned from this one too?
-
Police moving the lunch around is not a conspiracy? The sack with BRW's lunch in it was by the two wheeler. No one but BRW placed it there.
Because you said so?
No it was not. It was a claim the Dallas police conspired to move the chicken bones out of the SN area.
Where did Colin say that the police conspired to move the lunch? He’s just pointing out the evidence that it was moved.
-
The WC was convinced he was making it up.
Sure, because it conflicted with their predetermined narrative.
I don't know how you could read his testimony and not see all the inconsistencies in it.
The inconsistencies in Helen Markham’s and Howard Brennan’s testimonies (just to name two) didn’t seem to bother them much...
-
I have a better idea. Why don’t you stop vomiting your made up BS all over yet another forum before you’re banned from this one too?
John,
What have I "made up"?
Whatever it is, can you "prove" that I "made it up"?
Did you make it up when you refered to the black-blouse-and-black-headscarf-wearing gal in Betzner-3 (Gloria Calvery) as "glasses woman"?
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
What have I "made up"?
What haven’t you made up? Your suggestion that Oswald moved BRW’s lunch bag to foil future assassination researchers is just your latest idiotic waste of time.
Did you make it up when you refered to the black-blouse-and-black-headscarf-wearing gal in Betzner-3 (Gloria Calvery) as "glasses woman"?
No, but you made it up when you called that person “black-blouse-and-black-headscarf-wearing gal in Betzner-3 (Gloria Calvery)”. Every time you label one of your blobs with a name (like you have any clue what you’re talking about), it’s made-up BS.
-
Police moving the lunch around is not a conspiracy? The sack with BRW's lunch in it was by the two wheeler. No one but BRW placed it there.
No it was not. It was a claim the Dallas police conspired to move the chicken bones out of the SN area. Completely unrelated to the FBI, Hosty, Shanklin, and Oswald's note. What happened to Rowland and the fabricated Negro in the SN storyline, the thread has now become about Hosty and Shanklin and your denial of promoting a conspiracy?
From my original post....I have never claimed that the movement and rearrangement of the lunch was a conspiracy of any kind. In my original series on this "Bags, Bones, Bungling and Bonnie Ray, this is exactly the reason Bungling was in the title.
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.
The sack was in the SN.
Mooney WC testimony
Mr. MOONEY - Saw the chicken bone was laying here. The poke was laying about a foot away from it.
Mr. BALL - On the same carton?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. In close relation to each other. But as to what was in the sack--it was kind of together, and I didn't open it. I didn't put my hands on it to open it. I only saw one piece of chicken.
Senator COOPER - How far was the chicken, the piece of chicken you saw, and the paper bag from the boxes near the window, and particularly the box that had the crease in it?
Mr. MOONEY - I would say they might have been 5 feet or something like that. He 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.
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - And you did not see that two-wheel truck?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - You did not see the Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir.
Gerald Hill WC Testimony
Mr. HILL. We hadn't been there but a minute until someone yelled, "Here it is," or words to that effect.
I moved over and found they had found an area where the boxes had been stacked in sort of a triangle shape with three sides over near the window.
Mr. BELIN. What did you see over there?
Mr. HILL. There was the boxes. 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. In front of this window and to the left or east corner of the window, there were two boxes, cardboard boxes that had the words "Roller books," on them.
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. I wouldn't know what the sizes were. It was a sack, I would say extended, it would probably be 12 inches high, 10 inches long, and about 4 inches thick.
Roger Craig WC testimony
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.
Officer A. D. McCurley (Statement 11/22/63)
Officer Jack Faulkner and I, together with several other City officers went to the building and started checking the floors. We were searching the 6th floor when Deputy Sheriff Mooney, who was also on the 6th floor, hollered that he had found the place where the assassin had fired from. I went over and saw 3 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 hide from the view of anyone who happened to come up on that floor and had arranged 3 other cartons of books next to the window as though to make a rifle rest. This area was roped off and guarded until Captain Will Fritz of Dallas Police Department Homicide Bureau arrived. It was about this same time that Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone yelled that he had found the rifle which had been placed between some rows of cardboard boxes near the staircase which leads down to the 5th floor.
Harry Weatherford (11-23-63 report)
"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 3 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."
All these officers observed the SN prior to the arrival of Will Fritz, Sims and Boyd. Montgomery and Johnson arrived shortly after them and were told by Fritz to "guard the SN while the rifle was being examined by Day and Studebaker.
Fritz's WC testimony
Mr. McCLOY. Did you see any signs of a lunch there, a chicken there?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I will tell you where that story about the chicken comes from. At the other window above there, where people in days past, you know had eaten their lunches, they left chicken bones and pieces of bread, all kinds of things up and down there. That isn't where he was at all. He was in a different window, so I don't think those things have anything to do with it. Someone wrote a story about it in the papers, and we have got all kinds of bad publicity from it and they wrote in telling us how to check those chicken bones and how to get them from the stomach and everything.
Not surprisingly Fritz was clueless as the lunch was moved prior to his arrival. He spent only a few minutes near the SN before he was drawn to the rifle....never to return to the SE corner that afternoon.
Boyd WC testimony
Mr. BALL. When you heard that they found some hulls, just tell us what you did.
Mr. BOYD. We went down to the sixth floor and found the hulls over on the southeast corner of the building and they had some books, I suppose it was books--boxes of books stacked up back over there that way.
Mr. BALL. Did you see the hulls on the floor?
Mr. BOYD. Yes.
Mr. BALL Did you see anything else around there where the hulls were on the floor?
Mr. BOYD. Well, over to the west there was some paper sacks, and I think some chicken bones up on top of some boxes.
Mr. BALL. That was west?
Mr. BOYD. Right; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Near the windows?
Mr. BOYD. Yes, sir; they were near the windows.
Mr. BALL. How far west from where the hulls were located?
Mr. BOYD. Oh, I would say roughly between 30 and 40 feet, probably.
Boyd describes lunch remnants now to the west of the hulls.
Montgomery WC testimony
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---right there on the floor.
Mr. BALL On the floor?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. All right.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, let me see, there was one piece of chicken on a box and there was a piece on the floor--just kind of scattered around right there.
Mr. BALL. Where was the paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Let's see--the paper sack--I don't recall for sure if it was on the floor or on the box, but I know it was just there----one of those pictures might show exactly where it was.
Mr. BALL. I don't have a picture of the paper sack.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. You don't? Well, it was there--I can't recall for sure if it was on one of the boxes or on the floor there.
Mr. BALL. It was over in what corner?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It would be the southeast corner of the building there where the shooting was.
Mr. BALL. Now, where was the Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It was over a little more to the west of that window.
Mr. BALL. There was a sack of chicken bones with that--near that Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. No; the Dr. Pepper bottle, the best I can recall, was sitting over there by itself.
Mr. BALL. Where was the sack with the chicken in it?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It was right around where the boxes were--where the hulls there were.
Mr. BALL. Here are two pictures, which are Exhibits H and I in the Studebaker depositions, which show the paper sack and the Dr. Pepper bottle and a two-wheel truck, and that is in Exhibit H, and Exhibit I shows the Dr. Pepper bottle and a two-wheel truck.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Is this the sack right here, now?
Mr. BALL. That's right--do you remember that?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I don't remember the sack being right there--I remember it was there somewhere, but exactly--I don't.
Ball had shown Montgomery the photo of the two wheeler taken by Studebaker. It was not where he remembered it.
Mr. BALL. Now, was there some more chicken some place there also?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes--there would be some more chicken over here around where the hulls were found.
Mr. BALL. Now, I will show you a picture of----
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I know there was one piece laying up on top of the box there.
Mr. BALL. I show you a picture which is Exhibit J, which shows some boxes in the picture that's in the southeast corner there.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Can you tell me where the chicken was?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I believe it was right up on these boxes right along in there. There's some boxes coming along in there.
Mr. BALL. Coming along in there you mean it's outside of the view of the pictures?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir; right along in here.
Mr. BALL. And that would be to the north, of that point?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And what did you see on top of those boxes?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. There was one piece of chicken there.
Mr. BALL. Partially eaten?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes; I believe it was partially eaten---on that picture right there I was just looking at.
Ball suggests to Montgomery there was "more chicken". The photo had contained "the chicken" placed in the bag. They were talking about the same piece in different places. Montgomery states again the chicken piece was around the SN and not near the two wheeler.
Johnson WC testimony
Mr. BELIN. Now there was a sack and a pop bottle. Was there anything else other than the sack and the pop bottle?
Mr. JOHNSON. And the remnants of fried chicken.
Mr. BELIN. The remnants of fried chicken, was that right by that window, or was it by another set of windows?
Mr. JOHNSON. That was by some other window.
Mr. BELIN. Now there are, I believe, on the south side of the building, seven pairs of windows?
Mr. JOHNSON. I didn't count them. I couldn't say.
Mr. BELIN. Would you say it was toward the east, or the west, or the center?
Mr. JOHNSON. Where the sack was?
Mr. BELIN. Yes.
Mr. JOHNSON. It would be toward the west. I believe the next set of windows to my--I am pretty sure it was.
Mr. BELIN. You said it would be in the second pair of windows counting from the east wall?
Mr. JOHNSON. To the west.
Mr. BELIN. Is where you found it, was it between the second and the third set of windows or between the first and the second, or right by the second?
Mr. JOHNSON. Right by the second pair of windows.
Mr. BELIN. Now you stayed over there?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Still no one reporting the lunch remnants near the two wheeler. The unfinished chicken piece was outside the bag.
Studebaker WC testimony - note that Studebaker moved back to the SE corner to continue processing after Day left the TSBD with the rifle about 2pm.
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.
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.
Mr. BALL. Then, we will have the next picture marked Exhibit I, which shows the Dr. Pepper bottle with the two - wheeler, is that right?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And that's your No. 7.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. That's the third row over?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. That's the third aisle from Houston Street.
Mr. BALL. That would be the third set of windows?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. That would be the third set of windows - it would be - one, two, three.
Mr. BALL. The third set of windows from Houston Street - you mark it.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Now, did you see a chicken bone over near the boxes in the south-east corner, over near where you found the cartridges and the paper sack?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I don't believe there was one there.
Mr. BALL. You didn't see any. One witness, a deputy sheriff named Luke Mooney said he found a piece of chicken partly eaten up on top of one of the boxes; did you see anything like that?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
It is apparent from the above corroborated evidence that at some time prior to the arrival of Studebaker back to the SE corner the chicken bone(s) were "cleaned up" and placed into the bag. Some Fritos as well other bones may well have been in the bag all along and it was finally positioned on the floor near the two wheeler close to the pop bottle. Someone did this after the rifle was discovered and after the chicken piece and sack were originally moved originally westward by one set of windows.
-
Exaggerator maybe, fabricator definitely.
The WC was convinced he was making it up. I don't know how you could read his testimony and not see all the inconsistencies in it. Specter completely exposed him during his testimony as did his wife. Until Arnold attempted to put another person in the SN his fabrication was somewhat harmless because for real there was a man with a rifle on the 6th floor. Attempting to place another person in the SN took the whole fabrication to a new level. People who want to desperately believe there was conspiracy and what Rowland stated, regardless of whether it was factual or not, are not convinced and never will be.
(https://i.ibb.co/94gsZL0/barbara.jpg)
She supported in general everything he said about seeing a man with a rifle gunman in the SW windows of the 6th floor about 12.15pm. Do you think there was a man on the 6th floor with an assembled rifle about 10 minutes before the expected arrival of the motorcade? If not in the SW windows where do you think?
-
What haven’t you made up? Your suggestion that Oswald moved BRW’s lunch bag to foil future assassination researchers is just your latest idiotic waste of time.
No, but you made it up when you called that person “black-blouse-and-black-headscarf-wearing gal in Betzner-3 (Gloria Calvery)”. Every time you label one of your blobs with a name (like you have any clue what you’re talking about), it’s made-up BS.
John,
Funny how you were able to detect glasses on that black-blouse-and-black-headscrf-wearing "blob" in Betzner-3, and actually referred to her as "glasses woman".
Until, that is, you realized Gloria Calvery wore glasses.
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
Funny how you were able to detect glasses on that black-blouse-and-black-headscrf-wearing "blob" in Betzner-3, and actually referred to her as "glasses woman".
Until, that is, you realized Gloria Calvery wore glasses.
Let it go, Captain Obsession. Betzner-blob isn’t Calvery just because you want it to be.
Nobody really cares who you want your blobs to be.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/betzner-blob.png)
-
Let it go, Captain Obsession. Betzner-blob isn’t Calvery just because you want it to be.
Nobody really cares who you want your blobs to be.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/betzner-blob.png)
John,
How could you have been so convinced that the gal in the Betzner-3 blow-up you posted, above, is wearing glasses that you actually referred to her as "Glasses Woman"? (No doubt because, out of sheer obstinacy, you didn't want to agree with my labeling her "black-blouse-and-black-headscarf-wearing woman," or some-such thing. LOL)
And how do you explain the fact that you stopped calling her that as soon as you realized (or maybe even remembered) that Gloria Calvery always wore big, black-framed glasses?
Answer: "Simple: I kept zooming farther and farther in until the resolution was so poor that all I could see were blobs."
-- MWT ;)
-
As I never got an answer to my question from Jack, I'll give it a second try.
BRW was on the floor until he went to join Jarman and Norman. He just was never in the SN. That is Colin's hopeful addition.
Brennan, Euins, Fischer, Edwards, Unknown person talking to detective Herbert Sawyer (basically who told him about the Winchester 30-30 rifle?)
www.22november1963.org.uk/who-saw-oswald-in-the-sixth-floor-window
BRW was on the floor until he went to join Jarman and Norman. He just was never in the SN.
And how exactly do you know for sure he was never in the SN?
-
As I never got an answer to my question from Jack, I'll give it a second try.
BRW was on the floor until he went to join Jarman and Norman. He just was never in the SN.
And how exactly do you know for sure he was never in the SN?
Martin, Williams failed to mention his chicken lunch to authorities until Dec 2. It was widely reported in the media within hours of the assassination that the assassin was in position for some time and had eaten a chicken lunch while waiting for the motorcade to arrive. Oswald was dead by the early afternoon of the 24th. Lt Day had visited the TSBD on the 25th and spoken to the workers about the lunch and this is when it was discovered that it was tied to Williams.
The overwhelming evidence places the lunch remnants in the SN when first discovered. The overwhelming evidence shows that Williams did not join Jarman and Norman until minutes before the shooting. Willliams' various statements show obvious signs of deception regarding his movements after the elevator race. Prior to their appearance before the WC, Jarman and Norman invariably claimed he ascended with them to the 5th floor to watch the motorcade that day.
Jack, for what ever reason, doesn’t want to address these facts. Presumably it does not align with his "belief" of events. At least he is attempting to debate at some level.
Other members of the LN clan presumably would rather just ignore the consolidated statements that were collected and available to the WC investigators. Only they can explain the reason for their absence from this thread and others that have attempted to make sense of what has been presented.
-
Exaggerator maybe, fabricator definitely.
The WC was convinced he was making it up. I don't know how you could read his testimony and not see all the inconsistencies in it. Specter completely exposed him during his testimony as did his wife. Until Arnold attempted to put another person in the SN his fabrication was somewhat harmless because for real there was a man with a rifle on the 6th floor. Attempting to place another person in the SN took the whole fabrication to a new level. People who want to desperately believe there was conspiracy and what Rowland stated, regardless of whether it was factual or not, are not convinced and never will be.
The WC was convinced he was making it up.
Of course the WC wanted to discredit Rowland.... Is the reason they wanted to discredit him, a mystery to you?
-
The WC was convinced he was making it up.
Of course the WC wanted to discredit Rowland.... Is the reason they wanted to discredit him, a mystery to you?
Walt, you just need to see the significance 12.15pm plays in Williams' previous statements to know that his presence was dynamite to the offical "story".
-
Martin, Williams failed to mention his chicken lunch to authorities until Dec 2. It was widely reported in the media within hours of the assassination that the assassin was in position for some time and had eaten a chicken lunch while waiting for the motorcade to arrive. Oswald was dead by the early afternoon of the 24th. Lt Day had visited the TSBD on the 25th and spoken to the workers about the lunch and this is when it was discovered that it was tied to Williams.
The overwhelming evidence places the lunch remnants in the SN when first discovered. The overwhelming evidence shows that Williams did not join Jarman and Norman until minutes before the shooting. Willliams' various statements show obvious signs of deception regarding his movements after the elevator race. Prior to their appearance before the WC, Jarman and Norman invariably claimed he ascended with them to the 5th floor to watch the motorcade that day.
Jack, for what ever reason, doesn’t want to address these facts. Presumably it does not align with his "belief" of events. At least he is attempting to debate at some level.
Other members of the LN clan presumably would rather just ignore the consolidated statements that were collected and available to the WC investigators. Only they can explain the reason for their absence from this thread and others that have attempted to make sense of what has been presented.
Other members of the LN clan presumably would rather just ignore the consolidated statements that were collected and available to the WC investigators. Only they can explain the reason for their absence from this thread and others that have attempted to make sense of what has been presented.
Indeed, when LNs run from, or simply ignore, posts containing evidence they can not explain, it's the best indicator of just how weak their case really is.
-
How could you have been so convinced that the gal in the Betzner-3 blow-up you posted, above, is wearing glasses that you actually referred to her as "Glasses Woman"?
Who said I was convinced? Oh yeah, that’s just another thing you made up.
But let’s say that Betzner-blob is actually wearing glasses. How does that prove it’s Calvery? Just because you want it to be?
And how do you know that Calvery “always wore big black-framed glasses”? Oh yeah, you made that up too.
Answer: "Simple: I kept zooming farther and farther in until the resolution was so poor that all I could see were blobs."
Feel free to post Betzner-3 in whatever resolution you think will unequivocally identify glasses being present. Oh yeah, you can’t. All you can do is flap your gums.
-
Martin, Williams failed to mention his chicken lunch to authorities until Dec 2. It was widely reported in the media within hours of the assassination that the assassin was in position for some time and had eaten a chicken lunch while waiting for the motorcade to arrive. Oswald was dead by the early afternoon of the 24th. Lt Day had visited the TSBD on the 25th and spoken to the workers about the lunch and this is when it was discovered that it was tied to Williams.
The overwhelming evidence places the lunch remnants in the SN when first discovered. The overwhelming evidence shows that Williams did not join Jarman and Norman until minutes before the shooting. Willliams' various statements show obvious signs of deception regarding his movements after the elevator race. Prior to their appearance before the WC, Jarman and Norman invariably claimed he ascended with them to the 5th floor to watch the motorcade that day.
Jack, for what ever reason, doesn’t want to address these facts. Presumably it does not align with his "belief" of events. At least he is attempting to debate at some level.
Other members of the LN clan presumably would rather just ignore the consolidated statements that were collected and available to the WC investigators. Only they can explain the reason for their absence from this thread and others that have attempted to make sense of what has been presented.
Other members of the LN clan presumably would rather just ignore the consolidated statements that were collected and available to the WC investigators. Only they can explain the reason for their absence from this thread and others that have attempted to make sense of what has been presented.
Indeed, when LNs run from, or simply ignore, posts containing evidence they can not explain, it's the best indicator of just how weak their case really is.
I'll take a whack at it. Williams ate his lunch in the sniper's nest while he was having a friendly conversation with the assassin who has the rifle ready to assassinate the president (likely Oswald, possibly somebody else, let's say Oswald). Willams, at about 12:25 PM (Williams must have seen the assassin's rifle at this late time), said bye bye to Oswald and inexplicably left the remnants of his lunch right on the boxes in the sniper's nest (evidence that he could be named a suspect or an accessory to murdering the president). The lunch remains are in the assassin's way but Oswald smartly leaves the lunch on the boxes, shoots the president and tries to hide the rifle. Oswald now hopes the authorities think Williams shot the president as Williams idiodically left his lunch in the sniper's nest (people do dumb things sometimes).
How's that sound guys?
-
I'll take a whack at it. Williams ate his lunch in the sniper's nest while he was having a friendly conversation with the assassin who has the rifle ready to assassinate the president (likely Oswald, possibly somebody else, let's say Oswald). Willams, at about 12:25 PM (Williams must have seen the assassin's rifle at this late time), said bye bye to Oswald and inexplicably left the remnants of his lunch right on the boxes in the sniper's nest (evidence that he could be named a suspect or an accessory to murdering the president). The lunch remains are in the assassin's way but Oswald smartly leaves the lunch on the boxes, shoots the president and tries to hide the rifle. Oswald now hopes the authorities think Williams shot the president as Williams idiodically left his lunch in the sniper's nest (people do dumb things sometimes).
How's that sound guys?
How's that sound guys?
As if you have nothing serious to offer and thus go with ridicule.
-
How's that sound guys?
As if you have nothing serious to offer and thus go with ridicule.
At least the sequence of events, although unlikely, with fit the complete analysis of the evidence. Unlike what was offered by the WC/Bugliosi/DVP sequence.
-
To Williams it was a win-win as 'they' had their man and and he didn't have to deal with the sixth floor....so he thought.
Seems he only thought that for a short period. His story starts to "evolve" on the Saturday with a mention of a brief trip to the 6th floor around "noon". The chicken lunch is not admitted to by him until the 25th to Lt Day. Nothing in any official documentation about his chicken lunch until Dec 2.
At his first statement around 2pm on the Friday, consider what he knew? He knew the shots came from above, maybe just where he had been. He had left his unfinished lunch there. Maybe someone had seen him (Rowland!). He knows the 6th floor is of interest as that is the reason Fritz ordered Stenkel to round up those workers on the 6th floor that day for questioning. He knows he has an alibi for the time of the shooting (Jarman and Norman). He likely does not know of the Dillard photo at this early stage. He knows Oswald is of particular interest and is questioned about him. he knows Oswald has been arrested and is in custody. At this stage the cops do not know if Oswald did any shooting at the TSBD, maybe he had co-conspirators who he assisted In the plot.
The chicken lunch is being referred to as the assassin's lunch by that afternoon all over the media.
Does anyone think if Williams noticed Oswald on the 6th floor any time after the elevator race that day he would not ever mention it to the cops? Interesting comparison to Givens.
-
Seems he only thought that for a short period. His story starts to "evolve" on the Saturday with a mention of a brief trip to the 6th floor around "noon". The chicken lunch is not admitted to by him until the 25th to Lt Day. Nothing in any official documentation about his chicken lunch until Dec 2.
At his first statement around 2pm on the Friday, consider what he knew? He knew the shots came from above, maybe just where he had been. He had left his unfinished lunch there. Maybe someone had seen him (Rowland!). He knows the 6th floor is of interest as that is the reason Fritz ordered Stenkel to round up those workers on the 6th floor that day for questioning. He knows he has an alibi for the time of the shooting (Jarman and Norman). He likely does not know of the Dillard photo at this early stage. He knows Oswald is of particular interest and is questioned about him. he knows Oswald has been arrested and is in custody. At this stage the cops do not know if Oswald did any shooting at the TSBD, maybe he had co-conspirators who he assisted In the plot.
The chicken lunch is being referred to as the assassin's lunch by that afternoon all over the media.
Does anyone think if Williams noticed Oswald on the 6th floor any time after the elevator race that day he would not ever mention it to the cops? Interesting comparison to Givens.
He knew the shots came from above,
He did??.... How did he know? Had he seen a deputy sheriff up there with a rifle? There are many photos of Williams in custody after the ambush murder.... And they all show the epitome if a very worried man..... What was BRW so worried about?
-
He knew the shots came from above,
He did??.... How did he know? Had he seen a deputy sheriff up there with a rifle? There are many photos of Williams in custody after the ambush murder.... And they all show the epitome if a very worried man..... What was BRW so worried about?
Perhaps we could agree that , he knew the 6th floor was a place of interest. That’s why he was collected to go to City Hall before 2pm. On instruction from Fritz. After the discovery of the shells (and chicken lunch remnants).
-
The chicken lunch is being referred to as the assassin's lunch by that afternoon all over the media.
That's why it bothers me BRW would "own up", especially after the 24th around noon.
The chicken lunch was moved from the SN to the two wheeler. It was likely moved in two stages, initially one set of windows westward (Hill) and then all bones pieces put into the bag and the top folded over (Johnson would be my bet). It finished near the two wheeler to be "discovered" there and processed by Studebaker upon his return from the wrapping paper on the first floor, after 2pm. This was aligned with the third set of windows. It was here that Studebaker told Day they were found. Day returned to the TSBD on Monday the 25th and likely relayed news of the lunch position and presentation to the workers. Williams was now identified and appeared "in the clear" due to the movement of his lunch from the SN. It was only now that he owned up to it. Surely he would be thinking, even at this time, that the bag would have been fingerprinted. Also he had no way of knowing if someone might come forward with a picture of him in the SN before the shots.
-
The chicken lunch is being referred to as the assassin's lunch by that afternoon all over the media.
That's why it bothers me BRW would "own up", especially after the 24th around noon.
If BRW saw Oswald on the sixth floor after the elevator race why wouldn’t he "own up"? Givens had no trouble doing that "eventually".
-
Regardless of seeing Oswald or not that would place him on the 6th floor with "their man". When Oswald was taken out the assassin's lunch would most likely live on and BRW could be fairly sure 'they' would buy his 5th floor story, IMO. His problem was that he saw someone on the 6th floor who was not Oswald, not good for self preservation to break that to Fritz!
Givens behavior is an entirely different thing since there was an APB out on him based on a tip that no one owned up to!
I think the indicators are that he saw "something". He decided to leave his lunch unfinished and go downstairs to the fifth floor in the elevator and join Jarman and Norman just before the shots. Something that convinced Jarman and Norman to tell stories that he came up in the elevator with them. The question is, what that "something" might have been.
Givens was the exact opposite, told of the cigarette trip sighting for the first time months later. Given likely never saw Oswald then but claimed he did, if williams had seen Oswald would he have never said anything?
-
At least the sequence of events, although unlikely, with fit the complete analysis of the evidence. Unlike what was offered by the WC/Bugliosi/DVP sequence.
Do you think Williams ate his lunch in the sniper's nest?
-
Do you think Williams ate his lunch in the sniper's nest?
Williams' lunch remnants were originally discovered in the SN.
Mooney WC testimony
Mr. MOONEY - Saw the chicken bone was laying here. The poke was laying about a foot away from it.
Mr. BALL - On the same carton?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. In close relation to each other. But as to what was in the sack--it was kind of together, and I didn't open it. I didn't put my hands on it to open it. I only saw one piece of chicken.
Senator COOPER - How far was the chicken, the piece of chicken you saw, and the paper bag from the boxes near the window, and particularly the box that had the crease in it?
Mr. MOONEY - I would say they might have been 5 feet or something like that. He 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.
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - And you did not see that two-wheel truck?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - You did not see the Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir.
Gerald Hill WC Testimony
Mr. HILL. We hadn't been there but a minute until someone yelled, "Here it is," or words to that effect.
I moved over and found they had found an area where the boxes had been stacked in sort of a triangle shape with three sides over near the window.
Mr. BELIN. What did you see over there?
Mr. HILL. There was the boxes. 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. In front of this window and to the left or east corner of the window, there were two boxes, cardboard boxes that had the words "Roller books," on them.
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. I wouldn't know what the sizes were. It was a sack, I would say extended, it would probably be 12 inches high, 10 inches long, and about 4 inches thick.
Roger Craig WC testimony
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.
Officer A. D. McCurley (Statement 11/22/63)
Officer Jack Faulkner and I, together with several other City officers went to the building and started checking the floors. We were searching the 6th floor when Deputy Sheriff Mooney, who was also on the 6th floor, hollered that he had found the place where the assassin had fired from. I went over and saw 3 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 hide from the view of anyone who happened to come up on that floor and had arranged 3 other cartons of books next to the window as though to make a rifle rest. This area was roped off and guarded until Captain Will Fritz of Dallas Police Department Homicide Bureau arrived. It was about this same time that Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone yelled that he had found the rifle which had been placed between some rows of cardboard boxes near the staircase which leads down to the 5th floor.
Harry Weatherford (11-23-63 report)
"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 3 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."
All these officers observed the SN prior to the arrival of Will Fritz, Sims and Boyd. Montgomery and Johnson arrived shortly after them and were told by Fritz to "guard the SN while the rifle was being examined by Day and Studebaker.
Fritz's WC testimony
Mr. McCLOY. Did you see any signs of a lunch there, a chicken there?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I will tell you where that story about the chicken comes from. At the other window above there, where people in days past, you know had eaten their lunches, they left chicken bones and pieces of bread, all kinds of things up and down there. That isn't where he was at all. He was in a different window, so I don't think those things have anything to do with it. Someone wrote a story about it in the papers, and we have got all kinds of bad publicity from it and they wrote in telling us how to check those chicken bones and how to get them from the stomach and everything.
Not surprisingly Fritz was clueless as the lunch was moved prior to his arrival. He spent only a few minutes near the SN before he was drawn to the rifle....never to return to the SE corner that afternoon.
Boyd WC testimony
Mr. BALL. When you heard that they found some hulls, just tell us what you did.
Mr. BOYD. We went down to the sixth floor and found the hulls over on the southeast corner of the building and they had some books, I suppose it was books--boxes of books stacked up back over there that way.
Mr. BALL. Did you see the hulls on the floor?
Mr. BOYD. Yes.
Mr. BALL Did you see anything else around there where the hulls were on the floor?
Mr. BOYD. Well, over to the west there was some paper sacks, and I think some chicken bones up on top of some boxes.
Mr. BALL. That was west?
Mr. BOYD. Right; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Near the windows?
Mr. BOYD. Yes, sir; they were near the windows.
Mr. BALL. How far west from where the hulls were located?
Mr. BOYD. Oh, I would say roughly between 30 and 40 feet, probably.
Boyd now describes the lunch remnants now to the west of the hulls.
Montgomery WC testimony
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---right there on the floor.
Mr. BALL On the floor?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. All right.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, let me see, there was one piece of chicken on a box and there was a piece on the floor--just kind of scattered around right there.
Mr. BALL. Where was the paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Let's see--the paper sack--I don't recall for sure if it was on the floor or on the box, but I know it was just there----one of those pictures might show exactly where it was.
Mr. BALL. I don't have a picture of the paper sack.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. You don't? Well, it was there--I can't recall for sure if it was on one of the boxes or on the floor there.
Mr. BALL. It was over in what corner?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It would be the southeast corner of the building there where the shooting was.
Mr. BALL. Now, where was the Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It was over a little more to the west of that window.
Mr. BALL. There was a sack of chicken bones with that--near that Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. No; the Dr. Pepper bottle, the best I can recall, was sitting over there by itself.
Mr. BALL. Where was the sack with the chicken in it?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It was right around where the boxes were--where the hulls there were.
Mr. BALL. Here are two pictures, which are Exhibits H and I in the Studebaker depositions, which show the paper sack and the Dr. Pepper bottle and a two-wheel truck, and that is in Exhibit H, and Exhibit I shows the Dr. Pepper bottle and a two-wheel truck.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Is this the sack right here, now?
Mr. BALL. That's right--do you remember that?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I don't remember the sack being right there--I remember it was there somewhere, but exactly--I don't.
Ball had shown Montgomery the photo of the two wheeler taken by Studebaker. It was not where he remembered it.
Mr. BALL. Now, was there some more chicken some place there also?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes--there would be some more chicken over here around where the hulls were found.
Mr. BALL. Now, I will show you a picture of----
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I know there was one piece laying up on top of the box there.
Mr. BALL. I show you a picture which is Exhibit J, which shows some boxes in the picture that's in the southeast corner there.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Can you tell me where the chicken was?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I believe it was right up on these boxes right along in there. There's some boxes coming along in there.
Mr. BALL. Coming along in there you mean it's outside of the view of the pictures?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir; right along in here.
Mr. BALL. And that would be to the north, of that point?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And what did you see on top of those boxes?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. There was one piece of chicken there.
Mr. BALL. Partially eaten?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes; I believe it was partially eaten---on that picture right there I was just looking at.
Ball suggests to Montgomery there was "more chicken". The photo had contained "the chicken" placed in the bag. They were talking about the same piece in different places. Montgomery states again the chicken piece was around the SN and not near the two wheeler.
Johnson WC testimony
Mr. BELIN. Now there was a sack and a pop bottle. Was there anything else other than the sack and the pop bottle?
Mr. JOHNSON. And the remnants of fried chicken.
Mr. BELIN. The remnants of fried chicken, was that right by that window, or was it by another set of windows?
Mr. JOHNSON. That was by some other window.
Mr. BELIN. Now there are, I believe, on the south side of the building, seven pairs of windows?
Mr. JOHNSON. I didn't count them. I couldn't say.
Mr. BELIN. Would you say it was toward the east, or the west, or the center?
Mr. JOHNSON. Where the sack was?
Mr. BELIN. Yes.
Mr. JOHNSON. It would be toward the west. I believe the next set of windows to my--I am pretty sure it was.
Mr. BELIN. You said it would be in the second pair of windows counting from the east wall?
Mr. JOHNSON. To the west.
Mr. BELIN. Is where you found it, was it between the second and the third set of windows or between the first and the second, or right by the second?
Mr. JOHNSON. Right by the second pair of windows.
Mr. BELIN. Now you stayed over there?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Still no one reporting the lunch remnants near the two wheeler. The unfinished chicken piece was outside the bag.
Studebaker WC testimony - note that Studebaker moved back to the SE corner to continue processing after Day left the TSBD with the rifle about 2pm.
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.
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.
Mr. BALL. Then, we will have the next picture marked Exhibit I, which shows the Dr. Pepper bottle with the two - wheeler, is that right?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And that's your No. 7.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. That's the third row over?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. That's the third aisle from Houston Street.
Mr. BALL. That would be the third set of windows?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. That would be the third set of windows - it would be - one, two, three.
Mr. BALL. The third set of windows from Houston Street - you mark it.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Now, did you see a chicken bone over near the boxes in the south-east corner, over near where you found the cartridges and the paper sack?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I don't believe there was one there.
Mr. BALL. You didn't see any. One witness, a deputy sheriff named Luke Mooney said he found a piece of chicken partly eaten up on top of one of the boxes; did you see anything like that?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
It is apparent from the above corroborated evidence that at some time prior to the arrival of Studebaker back to the SE corner after 2 pm, the chicken bone(s) were "cleaned up" and placed into the bag. Some Fritos as well other bones may well have been in the bag all along and it was finally positioned on the floor near the two wheeler close to the pop bottle. Someone did this after the rifle was discovered and after the chicken piece and sack were originally moved originally westward by one set of windows.
To me the evidence shows the lunch was originally positioned in the SN. The position and timing fits with Rowland's WC testimony.
-
Agree, but I would substitute "someone" for "something".
What if someone mistook Givens for Williams?
An interesting suggestion. Are you familiar with the Waldo Thayer story and the role of the Howard brothers?
-
To me the evidence shows the lunch was originally positioned in the SN. The position and timing fits with Rowland's WC testimony.
What still doesn't fit IMHO, Mr Crow, is Mr Rowland's description of the man in the SN window as an 'elderly Negro' wearing a plaid shirt. Doesn't sound like Mr Williams.
Also, Mr Williams' description of the chicken on the bone sandwich is plain... weird. It's like he's not quite sure what he's supposed to be describing!
-
What still doesn't fit IMHO, Mr Crow, is Mr Rowland's description of the man in the SN window as an 'elderly Negro' wearing a plaid shirt. Doesn't sound like Mr Williams.
Also, Mr Williams' description of the chicken on the bone sandwich is plain... weird. It's like he's not quite sure what he's supposed to be describing!
So, Rowland got the age and clothing wrong. The kid was pressured to provide something. He was about 200 feet from the position. There is no escaping that the essentials are consistent, species, sex, race, build, position and timing.
Williams previous statements and WC testimony all appear to be deceptive to varying degrees. Initially no trip to the 6th floor. Then a quick trip at noon, no mention of lunch. Then lunch for a few minutes but unsure of where exactly. He describes the condition of the sack provided by Studebaker to Day. Not surprising as Day enquired about the lunch on the 25th with the workers. He just went along with the story as Day (and Studebaker) knew it.
-
So, Rowland got the age and clothing wrong. The kid was pressured to provide something. He was about 200 feet from the position. There is no escaping that the essentials are consistent, species, sex, race, build, position and timing.
Williams previous statements and WC testimony all appear to be deceptive to varying degrees. Initially no trip to the 6th floor. Then a quick trip at noon, no mention of lunch. Then lunch for a few minutes but unsure of where exactly. He describes the condition of the sack provided by Studebaker to Day. Not surprising as Day enquired about the lunch on the 25th with the workers. He just went along with the story as Day (and Studebaker) knew it.
Yes, I agree that Mr Williams saw something/someone, his story is all over the place. But young Mr Rowland does not seem to have been one to give in to pressure--------the story he told was disastrous to the story the Warren people wanted to tell. That's why they tried very hard to discredit him.
If Mr Howard Brennan had said the man in the SN was 'elderly', we'd be slow to ignore the detail! There's a big divergence between 'elderly negro' and BRW... Couple that with the shirt discrepancy and I'm still minded to think Mr Williams was up there at the time but wasn't the man seen in SN window by Mr Rowland.
-
Yes, I agree that Mr Williams saw something/someone, his story is all over the place. But young Mr Rowland does not seem to have been one to give in to pressure--------the story he told was disastrous to the story the Warren people wanted to tell. That's why they tried very hard to discredit him.
If Mr Howard Brennan had said the man in the SN was 'elderly', we'd be slow to ignore the detail! There's a big divergence between 'elderly negro' and BRW... Couple that with the shirt discrepancy and I'm still minded to think Mr Williams was up there at the time but wasn't the man seen in SN window by Mr Rowland.
I understand where your coming from Alan. But I am a firm believer in William of Occam. The simplest explanation was he got some aspects wrong. His observations preceded Brennan's by about 10 minutes or so. I agree that his testimony threw them into panic. Largely because BRW (and his partners) had attempted to deceive the investigators about his 6th floor visit. Ball and Belin had visited Dallas in late March to sort thing out with those three. Now Rowland had thrown a spanner into the works they attempted to explain by the "faulty" positioning of Williams.
Rowland was an emotional mess, he had suffered enormous guilt over the event because he failed to alert police of the gunman before the arrival of the motorcade. He had to be consoled during his testimony. It explains why he kept visiting Dealey Plaza after the event. It also explains why he became a recluse, not providing interviews to anyone.
-
Williams' lunch remnants were originally discovered in the SN.
Mooney WC testimony
Mr. MOONEY - Saw the chicken bone was laying here. The poke was laying about a foot away from it.
Mr. BALL - On the same carton?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. In close relation to each other. But as to what was in the sack--it was kind of together, and I didn't open it. I didn't put my hands on it to open it. I only saw one piece of chicken.
Senator COOPER - How far was the chicken, the piece of chicken you saw, and the paper bag from the boxes near the window, and particularly the box that had the crease in it?
Mr. MOONEY - I would say they might have been 5 feet or something like that. He 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.
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - And you did not see that two-wheel truck?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - You did not see the Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir.
Gerald Hill WC Testimony
Mr. HILL. We hadn't been there but a minute until someone yelled, "Here it is," or words to that effect.
I moved over and found they had found an area where the boxes had been stacked in sort of a triangle shape with three sides over near the window.
Mr. BELIN. What did you see over there?
Mr. HILL. There was the boxes. 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. In front of this window and to the left or east corner of the window, there were two boxes, cardboard boxes that had the words "Roller books," on them.
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. I wouldn't know what the sizes were. It was a sack, I would say extended, it would probably be 12 inches high, 10 inches long, and about 4 inches thick.
Roger Craig WC testimony
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.
Officer A. D. McCurley (Statement 11/22/63)
Officer Jack Faulkner and I, together with several other City officers went to the building and started checking the floors. We were searching the 6th floor when Deputy Sheriff Mooney, who was also on the 6th floor, hollered that he had found the place where the assassin had fired from. I went over and saw 3 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 hide from the view of anyone who happened to come up on that floor and had arranged 3 other cartons of books next to the window as though to make a rifle rest. This area was roped off and guarded until Captain Will Fritz of Dallas Police Department Homicide Bureau arrived. It was about this same time that Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone yelled that he had found the rifle which had been placed between some rows of cardboard boxes near the staircase which leads down to the 5th floor.
Harry Weatherford (11-23-63 report)
"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 3 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."
All these officers observed the SN prior to the arrival of Will Fritz, Sims and Boyd. Montgomery and Johnson arrived shortly after them and were told by Fritz to "guard the SN while the rifle was being examined by Day and Studebaker.
Fritz's WC testimony
Mr. McCLOY. Did you see any signs of a lunch there, a chicken there?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I will tell you where that story about the chicken comes from. At the other window above there, where people in days past, you know had eaten their lunches, they left chicken bones and pieces of bread, all kinds of things up and down there. That isn't where he was at all. He was in a different window, so I don't think those things have anything to do with it. Someone wrote a story about it in the papers, and we have got all kinds of bad publicity from it and they wrote in telling us how to check those chicken bones and how to get them from the stomach and everything.
Not surprisingly Fritz was clueless as the lunch was moved prior to his arrival. He spent only a few minutes near the SN before he was drawn to the rifle....never to return to the SE corner that afternoon.
Boyd WC testimony
Mr. BALL. When you heard that they found some hulls, just tell us what you did.
Mr. BOYD. We went down to the sixth floor and found the hulls over on the southeast corner of the building and they had some books, I suppose it was books--boxes of books stacked up back over there that way.
Mr. BALL. Did you see the hulls on the floor?
Mr. BOYD. Yes.
Mr. BALL Did you see anything else around there where the hulls were on the floor?
Mr. BOYD. Well, over to the west there was some paper sacks, and I think some chicken bones up on top of some boxes.
Mr. BALL. That was west?
Mr. BOYD. Right; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Near the windows?
Mr. BOYD. Yes, sir; they were near the windows.
Mr. BALL. How far west from where the hulls were located?
Mr. BOYD. Oh, I would say roughly between 30 and 40 feet, probably.
Boyd now describes the lunch remnants now to the west of the hulls.
Montgomery WC testimony
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---right there on the floor.
Mr. BALL On the floor?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. All right.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, let me see, there was one piece of chicken on a box and there was a piece on the floor--just kind of scattered around right there.
Mr. BALL. Where was the paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Let's see--the paper sack--I don't recall for sure if it was on the floor or on the box, but I know it was just there----one of those pictures might show exactly where it was.
Mr. BALL. I don't have a picture of the paper sack.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. You don't? Well, it was there--I can't recall for sure if it was on one of the boxes or on the floor there.
Mr. BALL. It was over in what corner?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It would be the southeast corner of the building there where the shooting was.
Mr. BALL. Now, where was the Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It was over a little more to the west of that window.
Mr. BALL. There was a sack of chicken bones with that--near that Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. No; the Dr. Pepper bottle, the best I can recall, was sitting over there by itself.
Mr. BALL. Where was the sack with the chicken in it?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It was right around where the boxes were--where the hulls there were.
Mr. BALL. Here are two pictures, which are Exhibits H and I in the Studebaker depositions, which show the paper sack and the Dr. Pepper bottle and a two-wheel truck, and that is in Exhibit H, and Exhibit I shows the Dr. Pepper bottle and a two-wheel truck.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Is this the sack right here, now?
Mr. BALL. That's right--do you remember that?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I don't remember the sack being right there--I remember it was there somewhere, but exactly--I don't.
Ball had shown Montgomery the photo of the two wheeler taken by Studebaker. It was not where he remembered it.
Mr. BALL. Now, was there some more chicken some place there also?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes--there would be some more chicken over here around where the hulls were found.
Mr. BALL. Now, I will show you a picture of----
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I know there was one piece laying up on top of the box there.
Mr. BALL. I show you a picture which is Exhibit J, which shows some boxes in the picture that's in the southeast corner there.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Can you tell me where the chicken was?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I believe it was right up on these boxes right along in there. There's some boxes coming along in there.
Mr. BALL. Coming along in there you mean it's outside of the view of the pictures?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir; right along in here.
Mr. BALL. And that would be to the north, of that point?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And what did you see on top of those boxes?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. There was one piece of chicken there.
Mr. BALL. Partially eaten?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes; I believe it was partially eaten---on that picture right there I was just looking at.
Ball suggests to Montgomery there was "more chicken". The photo had contained "the chicken" placed in the bag. They were talking about the same piece in different places. Montgomery states again the chicken piece was around the SN and not near the two wheeler.
Johnson WC testimony
Mr. BELIN. Now there was a sack and a pop bottle. Was there anything else other than the sack and the pop bottle?
Mr. JOHNSON. And the remnants of fried chicken.
Mr. BELIN. The remnants of fried chicken, was that right by that window, or was it by another set of windows?
Mr. JOHNSON. That was by some other window.
Mr. BELIN. Now there are, I believe, on the south side of the building, seven pairs of windows?
Mr. JOHNSON. I didn't count them. I couldn't say.
Mr. BELIN. Would you say it was toward the east, or the west, or the center?
Mr. JOHNSON. Where the sack was?
Mr. BELIN. Yes.
Mr. JOHNSON. It would be toward the west. I believe the next set of windows to my--I am pretty sure it was.
Mr. BELIN. You said it would be in the second pair of windows counting from the east wall?
Mr. JOHNSON. To the west.
Mr. BELIN. Is where you found it, was it between the second and the third set of windows or between the first and the second, or right by the second?
Mr. JOHNSON. Right by the second pair of windows.
Mr. BELIN. Now you stayed over there?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Still no one reporting the lunch remnants near the two wheeler. The unfinished chicken piece was outside the bag.
Studebaker WC testimony - note that Studebaker moved back to the SE corner to continue processing after Day left the TSBD with the rifle about 2pm.
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.
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.
Mr. BALL. Then, we will have the next picture marked Exhibit I, which shows the Dr. Pepper bottle with the two - wheeler, is that right?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And that's your No. 7.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. That's the third row over?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. That's the third aisle from Houston Street.
Mr. BALL. That would be the third set of windows?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. That would be the third set of windows - it would be - one, two, three.
Mr. BALL. The third set of windows from Houston Street - you mark it.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Now, did you see a chicken bone over near the boxes in the south-east corner, over near where you found the cartridges and the paper sack?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I don't believe there was one there.
Mr. BALL. You didn't see any. One witness, a deputy sheriff named Luke Mooney said he found a piece of chicken partly eaten up on top of one of the boxes; did you see anything like that?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
It is apparent from the above corroborated evidence that at some time prior to the arrival of Studebaker back to the SE corner after 2 pm, the chicken bone(s) were "cleaned up" and placed into the bag. Some Fritos as well other bones may well have been in the bag all along and it was finally positioned on the floor near the two wheeler close to the pop bottle. Someone did this after the rifle was discovered and after the chicken piece and sack were originally moved originally westward by one set of windows.
To me the evidence shows the lunch was originally positioned in the SN. The position and timing fits with Rowland's WC testimony.
BRW was never in the SN. BRW ate his lunch by the third set of windows and left his lunch and pop bottle where it was photographed. No other mention of a pop bottle or lunch sack was noted by the detectives.
Fritz states the same sentiment that Alyea stated. Media influence.
Also, Fritz states exactly what Montgomery and Shelley stated:
Mr. McCLOY. Did you see any signs of a lunch there, a chicken there?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I will tell you where that story about the chicken comes from. At the other window above there, where people in days past, you know had eaten their lunches, they left chicken bones and pieces of bread, all kinds of things up and down there. That isn't where he was at all. He was in a different window, so I don't think those things have anything to do with it. Someone wrote a story about it in the papers, and we have got all kinds of bad publicity from it and they wrote in telling us how to check those chicken bones and how to get them from the stomach and everything.
Montgomery and Shelley explain multiple locations of chicken pieces,
Mooney no sack: Mr. BALL - You didn't see a paper sack anywhere near a two-wheel truck or a Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; in my running around up there, I didn't observe it. Possibly it was there. I am sure it was But I didn't check it.
McCurley-- no sack
Weatherford the rifle --sack was CE 142
Boyd saw multiple sacks. --"some paper sacks," 30 to 40 feet to the west
Montgomery --sack was somewhere
None of these detectives mention the pop bottle.
Rowland started his testimony by telling the WC his eyesight was better than perfect, and after getting caught repeatedly fabricating the details of his testimony, ends the testimony weeping because he knows they caught him. Rowland's description of a person in the SN did not match a single person known to the other employees of the TSBD as evidenced by your posting of Shelley's affidavit.
-
Rowland started his testimony by telling the WC his eyesight was better than perfect, and after getting caught repeatedly fabricating the details of his testimony, ends the testimony weeping because he knows they caught him. Rowland's description of a person in the SN did not match a single person known to the other employees of the TSBD as evidenced by your posting of Shelley's affidavit.
:D
What an utter distortion! Mr Rowland broke down because of the memory of not having alerted police to the presence of the man at the window, whom he took for part of the security detail.
As for Mr Rowland's description of the 'elderly negro' in the SN not matching 'a single person known to the other employees of the TSBD', that is simply not true--it sounds very like Mr Eddie Piper. And if it is not Mr Piper, then it is an individual not known to TSBD employees. How exactly would this undermine Mr Rowland's credibility?
-
BRW was never in the SN. BRW ate his lunch by the third set of windows and left his lunch and pop bottle where it was photographed. No other mention of a pop bottle or lunch sack was noted by the detectives.
Fritz states the same sentiment that Alyea stated. Media influence.
Also, Fritz states exactly what Montgomery and Shelley stated:
Mr. McCLOY. Did you see any signs of a lunch there, a chicken there?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I will tell you where that story about the chicken comes from. At the other window above there, where people in days past, you know had eaten their lunches, they left chicken bones and pieces of bread, all kinds of things up and down there. That isn't where he was at all. He was in a different window, so I don't think those things have anything to do with it. Someone wrote a story about it in the papers, and we have got all kinds of bad publicity from it and they wrote in telling us how to check those chicken bones and how to get them from the stomach and everything.
Montgomery and Shelley explain multiple locations of chicken pieces,
Mooney no sack: Mr. BALL - You didn't see a paper sack anywhere near a two-wheel truck or a Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; in my running around up there, I didn't observe it. Possibly it was there. I am sure it was But I didn't check it.
McCurley-- no sack
Weatherford the rifle --sack was CE 142
Boyd saw multiple sacks. --"some paper sacks," 30 to 40 feet to the west
Montgomery --sack was somewhere
None of these detectives mention the pop bottle.
Rowland started his testimony by telling the WC his eyesight was better than perfect, and after getting caught repeatedly fabricating the details of his testimony, ends the testimony weeping because he knows they caught him. Rowland's description of a person in the SN did not match a single person known to the other employees of the TSBD as evidenced by your posting of Shelley's affidavit.
BRW was never in the SN.
I've asked you this twice without getting a reply. So, I'll ask again; how can you possibly know this for sure? You wouldn't be making it up, would you?
-
BRW was never in the SN. BRW ate his lunch by the third set of windows and left his lunch and pop bottle where it was photographed. No other mention of a pop bottle or lunch sack was noted by the detectives.
Fritz states the same sentiment that Alyea stated. Media influence.
Also, Fritz states exactly what Montgomery and Shelley stated:
Mr. McCLOY. Did you see any signs of a lunch there, a chicken there?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I will tell you where that story about the chicken comes from. At the other window above there, where people in days past, you know had eaten their lunches, they left chicken bones and pieces of bread, all kinds of things up and down there. That isn't where he was at all. He was in a different window, so I don't think those things have anything to do with it. Someone wrote a story about it in the papers, and we have got all kinds of bad publicity from it and they wrote in telling us how to check those chicken bones and how to get them from the stomach and everything.
Montgomery and Shelley explain multiple locations of chicken pieces,
Mooney no sack: Mr. BALL - You didn't see a paper sack anywhere near a two-wheel truck or a Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; in my running around up there, I didn't observe it. Possibly it was there. I am sure it was But I didn't check it.
McCurley-- no sack
Weatherford the rifle --sack was CE 142
Boyd saw multiple sacks. --"some paper sacks," 30 to 40 feet to the west
Montgomery --sack was somewhere
None of these detectives mention the pop bottle.
Rowland started his testimony by telling the WC his eyesight was better than perfect, and after getting caught repeatedly fabricating the details of his testimony, ends the testimony weeping because he knows they caught him. Rowland's description of a person in the SN did not match a single person known to the other employees of the TSBD as evidenced by your posting of Shelley's affidavit.
Jack, can we deal with one at a time?
Here is another comment attributed to Alyea by Dale Meyers/Dave Reizes
"..I ran on upstairs with the Secret Service men. Then other units came in - the Riot Squad. I thought I was going to film a gun fight. They ran to the 4th floor and I went with them. Some of the other units went to the top of the building. They were conducting a systematic search. It boiled down to the sixth floor. After awhile it was obvious that the assassin was not in the building. They looked for the gun. I filmed 400 ft. of film of the Secret Service men looking for the assassin, climbing over boxes, over the rafters, and the actual finding of the gun. At the time it was suspected that the assassin had stayed quite a time there. There was a stack with a stack of chicken bones on it. There was a Dr. Pepper bottle which they dusted for fingerprints."
http://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html (http://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html)
This is the full article that quite honestly appears to be a rambling mess. If true, virtually all the police who testified purged and made made significantly false statements. Just one example is that he claimed Mooney did not arrive on the 6th floor until after the discovery of the rifle. I can find virtually no corroboration of almost any of his "story". Do you really wish to use him as part of your argument? If so I would appreciate the source material you have used to base your opinion on and exactly what conclusions you have derived from his material.
-
Jack, can we deal with one at a time?
Here is another comment attributed to Alyea by Dale Meyers/Dave Reizes
"..I ran on upstairs with the Secret Service men. Then other units came in - the Riot Squad. I thought I was going to film a gun fight. They ran to the 4th floor and I went with them. Some of the other units went to the top of the building. They were conducting a systematic search. It boiled down to the sixth floor. After awhile it was obvious that the assassin was not in the building. They looked for the gun. I filmed 400 ft. of film of the Secret Service men looking for the assassin, climbing over boxes, over the rafters, and the actual finding of the gun. At the time it was suspected that the assassin had stayed quite a time there. There was a stack with a stack of chicken bones on it. There was a Dr. Pepper bottle which they dusted for fingerprints."
http://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html (http://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html)
This is the full article that quite honestly appears to be a rambling mess. If true, virtually all the police who testified purged and made made significantly false statements. Just one example is that he claimed Mooney did not arrive on the 6th floor until after the discovery of the rifle. I can find virtually no corroboration of almost any of his "story". Do you really wish to use him as part of your argument? If so I would appreciate the source material you have used to base your opinion on and exactly what conclusions you have derived from his material.
Alyea wrote his story long after 11/22/63..... Here's an example from his distorted story....
I looked over the barricade and saw three shell casings laying on the floor in front of the second window in the two window casement. They were scattered in an area that could be covered by a bushel basket. They were located about half way between the inside of the barricade.
Detective JC Day wrote that there were only TWO spent shells and a "lever action 6.5 rilfle" ... And there is not a single photo that shows three spent shells lying on the floor as described by Alyea.... The official DPD crime scene photos DO NOT show the shells on the floor in an area that could be "covered by a bushel basket". In the DPD photos the shells are lying next to the wall.
Tom Alyea is a LNer....He believes that Lee Oswald was guilty of murdering JFK.....Even though he knows without any doubt that the DPD created false evidence to incriminate Lee Oswald.
-
Alyea wrote his story long after 11/22/63..... Here's an example from his distorted story....
I looked over the barricade and saw three shell casings laying on the floor in front of the second window in the two window casement. They were scattered in an area that could be covered by a bushel basket. They were located about half way between the inside of the barricade.
Detective JC Day wrote that there were only TWO spent shells and a "lever action 6.5 rilfle" ... And there is not a single photo that shows three spent shells lying on the floor as described by Alyea.... The official DPD crime scene photos DO NOT show the shells on the floor in an area that could be "covered by a bushel basket". In the DPD photos the shells are lying next to the wall.
Tom Alyea is a LNer....He believes that Lee Oswald was guilty of murdering JFK.....Even though he knows without any doubt that the DPD created false evidence to incriminate Lee Oswald.
Walt, I am trying to understand how Jack is using Alyea to support his argument. So far I have seen Jack claim that the chicken lunch was on the 5th floor according to Alyea and that there was no chicken on the 6th. Those that saw chicken were mistaken and only recalling what they heard second hand. So, is that what happened, a chicken free 6th floor (Alyea) or not? Once Jack clarifies what the exact argument is with Alyea we can hopefully make some progress.
-
Walt, I am trying to understand how Jack is using Alyea to support his argument. So far I have seen Jack claim that the chicken lunch was on the 5th floor according to Alyea and that there was no chicken on the 6th. Those that saw chicken were mistaken and only recalling what they heard second hand. So, is that what happened, a chicken free 6th floor (Alyea) or not? Once Jack clarifies what the exact argument is with Alyea we can hopefully make some progress.
Colin.... How do you hope to prove anything in debating chicken bones? The chicken bones are not evidence of anything....except they seem to prove that someone ate some fried chicken for lunch.....
-
Walt, I am trying to understand how Jack is using Alyea to support his argument. So far I have seen Jack claim that the chicken lunch was on the 5th floor according to Alyea and that there was no chicken on the 6th. Those that saw chicken were mistaken and only recalling what they heard second hand. So, is that what happened, a chicken free 6th floor (Alyea) or not? Once Jack clarifies what the exact argument is with Alyea we can hopefully make some progress.
Don't try to muddy the waters with Alyea. This theory does not revolve around Alyea. It appears to revolve around Rowland.
Alyea's contribution was to echo the WC observation that the witnesses were heavily influenced by the media. In Alyea's case it was the detectives statements about having seen pieces of chicken in different locations on the 6th floor. The rest who knows, if anything he is confused by the floor count. The WC observed this phenomenon as witness after witness embellished their testimonies with additional or new revelations as time passed between the assassination and the telling. Your personal favorite, Givens, surprised Belin with his statement about having seen LHO on the 6th floor. The line of questioning by Belin clearly indicated his surprise.
Mr. BELIN. Just a second, where did you go? Where were you when you saw him on the sixth floor?
Mr. GIVENS. I had went and got my jacket and was on my way back to the elevator.
Walt is right, there is no case to be built about who ate what and when and where. The detective statements place the chicken piece in different places in the SN and even multiple locations by the same detective. Montgomery states there was multiple locations, Shelley states there were employees snacking during the day, and Fritz mentions different pieces of food on the floor. BRW stated where he ate his lunch and that is where it was photographed.
The primary witness to this theory, Rowland, gets caught fabricating his testimony time and time again.
-
Alyea's contribution was to echo the WC observation that the witnesses were heavily influenced by the media.
Does that include Brennan?
-
Don't try to muddy the waters with Alyea. This theory does not revolve around Alyea. It appears to revolve around Rowland.
Alyea's contribution was to echo the WC observation that the witnesses were heavily influenced by the media. In Alyea's case it was the detectives statements about having seen pieces of chicken in different locations on the 6th floor. The rest who knows, if anything he is confused by the floor count. The WC observed this phenomenon as witness after witness embellished their testimonies with additional or new revelations as time passed between the assassination and the telling. Your personal favorite, Givens, surprised Belin with his statement about having seen LHO on the 6th floor. The line of questioning by Belin clearly indicated his surprise.
Mr. BELIN. Just a second, where did you go? Where were you when you saw him on the sixth floor?
Mr. GIVENS. I had went and got my jacket and was on my way back to the elevator.
Walt is right, there is no case to be built about who ate what and when and where. The detective statements place the chicken piece in different places in the SN and even multiple locations by the same detective. Montgomery states there was multiple locations, Shelley states there were employees snacking during the day, and Fritz mentions different pieces of food on the floor. BRW stated where he ate his lunch and that is where it was photographed.
The primary witness to this theory, Rowland, gets caught fabricating his testimony time and time again.
gets caught fabricating his testimony
Just like you fabricated your so far unsupported claim that BRW was never in the SN?
-
Don't try to muddy the waters with Alyea. This theory does not revolve around Alyea. It appears to revolve around Rowland.
Alyea's contribution was to echo the WC observation that the witnesses were heavily influenced by the media. In Alyea's case it was the detectives statements about having seen pieces of chicken in different locations on the 6th floor. The rest who knows, if anything he is confused by the floor count. The WC observed this phenomenon as witness after witness embellished their testimonies with additional or new revelations as time passed between the assassination and the telling. Your personal favorite, Givens, surprised Belin with his statement about having seen LHO on the 6th floor. The line of questioning by Belin clearly indicated his surprise.
Mr. BELIN. Just a second, where did you go? Where were you when you saw him on the sixth floor?
Mr. GIVENS. I had went and got my jacket and was on my way back to the elevator.
Walt is right, there is no case to be built about who ate what and when and where. The detective statements place the chicken piece in different places in the SN and even multiple locations by the same detective. Montgomery states there was multiple locations, Shelley states there were employees snacking during the day, and Fritz mentions different pieces of food on the floor. BRW stated where he ate his lunch and that is where it was photographed.
The primary witness to this theory, Rowland, gets caught fabricating his testimony time and time again.
It was you who introduced Alyea to muddy the debate. Your retreat is now noted. You haven’t abandoned Shelley, yet. Let's move to him now. I am happy to look at his various statements regarding the chicken. You do realise he was taken from the TSBD before 2pm and did not return until about 5 pm. He saw nothing of the lunch remnants on the 6th floor before they were removed by Johnson at 3pm.
Do you want to put his statements up for review or would you prefer me to do that?
-
Does that include Brennan?
Both the WC and the HSCA make a statement about the medias influence. I don't see how Brennan would be immune to that observation.
-
It was you who introduced Alyea to muddy the debate. Your retreat is now noted. You haven’t abandoned Shelley, yet. Let's move to him now. I am happy to look at his various statements regarding the chicken. You do realise he was taken from the TSBD before 2pm and did not return until about 5 pm. He saw nothing of the lunch remnants on the 6th floor before they were removed by Johnson at 3pm.
Do you want to put his statements up for review or would you prefer me to do that?
No I don't think so, I think you ahead of yourself. You don't seem to want to address the issue and I understand why. Alyea's point is still very valid. Explain Mooney changing the location of the chicken bones from the rifle rest on 11/23 to the other set of boxes during his WC testimony. Mooney also reported it in a completely different location than other detectives.
Mooney 11/23 "Inside this cubby hole affair was three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle On one of these cartons was a half-eaten piece of chicken."
Mooney, WC testimony
Mr. BALL - Tell us where you found it?
Mr. MOONEY - It would be laying over on the top of these other boxes. This here is kind of blurred.
-
gets caught fabricating his testimony
Just like you fabricated your so far unsupported claim that BRW was never in the SN?
BRW was never in the SN. Neither BRW's statement nor anyone else places him in the SN. If you have a statement or evidence of him being in the SN feel free to post it.
-
No I don't think so, I think you ahead of yourself. You don't seem to want to address the issue and I understand why. Alyea's point is still very valid. Explain Mooney changing the location of the chicken bones from the rifle rest on 11/23 to the other set of boxes during his WC testimony. Mooney also reported it in a completely different location than other detectives.
Mooney 11/23 "Inside this cubby hole affair was three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle On one of these cartons was a half-eaten piece of chicken."
Mooney, WC testimony
Mr. BALL - Tell us where you found it?
Mr. MOONEY - It would be laying over on the top of these other boxes. This here is kind of blurred.
So now you don’t want to address Shelley......you want to abandon him too? Should we deal with Mooney? The guy Alyea claimed didn’t arrive until after the rifle. That guy. Do you believe he discovered the SN. Just trying to establish some commonality.
-
BRW was never in the SN. Neither BRW's statement nor anyone else places him in the SN. If you have a statement or evidence of him being in the SN feel free to post it.
- Rowland’s sighting of a negro in that window.
- the presence of a lunch bag when the SN was discovered.
-
BRW was never in the SN. Neither BRW's statement nor anyone else places him in the SN. If you have a statement or evidence of him being in the SN feel free to post it.
So your entire claim that BRW was never in the SN is based upon nothing else but the lack of a statement placing BRW in the SN?
Well, Oswald nor anyone else places him in the SN just prior or during the shots, so by your "reasoning" Oswald wasn't there either, right?
Knowing that shots were possibly or likely fired from that exact location, do you really think that BRW would have any incentive to say "yeah, I was there a few minutes prior to the shots"?
-
Two competing scenarios!
SCENARIO A:
Mr Bonnie Ray Williams is Mr Rowland's 'elderly negro'
-----------------he is leaning out the SN window at the same time as a man with a rifle is standing back a little from the southwest window
Questions pertaining to Scenario A:
----------------Would Mr Williams have had a clear line of sight from the southeast window to where the other man was standing?
----------------If so (and I believe the answer is yes), how was Mr Williams persuaded to stand there in full knowledge that a man with a rifle was awaiting JFK's arrival?
----------------If, for example, the man told him he was security detail, and Mr Williams accepted this, why did Mr Williams leave and why was he allowed to leave?
SCENARIO B:
Mr Bonnie Ray Williams is not Mr Rowland's 'elderly negro'
----------------Mr Williams is just where he will say he was-------is a couple of windows down, sitting a two-wheeler somewhat back from the window
----------------an 'elderly negro' is leaning out the window
Questions pertaining to Scenario B:
---------------Would Mr Williams have had a clear line of sight from the two-wheeler to where the man with the rifle was standing?
---------------If so, how was Mr Williams persuaded to sit there in full knowledge that a man with a rifle was awaiting JFK's arrival?
---------------If not (and I believe this to have been the case), why did Mr Williams leave and why was he allowed to leave?
Both Scenario A and Scenario B are obviously kryptonite to the LN fairytale. But! I lean more towards Scenario B.
MY OWN TAKE, which is far from a settled conclusion!:
----------------Mr Williams goes up onto the fifth, and finds the 'elderly negro' up there already
----------------The 'elderly negro' is doing lookout for the man with the rifle, who is hiding behind some boxes awaiting his moment to come to the SN window
----------------Mr Williams' arrival causes consternation----so much so, that the man with the rifle has to make a snap decision to change plan and switch to the southwest window as his SN. When Mr Rowland spots him, he is surveying the scene below from this new vantage point
----------------But luck is with the conspirators: Mr Williams, just a very few minutes before the motorcade arrives, hears his buddies arrive on the floor below him and decides to join them.
Question pertaining to 'My Own Take'!:
Who was the 'elderly negro'?
Was he someone already known to Mr Williams, i.e. a co-worker?
If so, then there's only one candidate: Mr Eddie Piper (a Depository employee who will tell a ridiculous story of having watched the motorcade through those awful glazed front windows on the first floor!)
Now! Supposing Mr Piper, after the assassination, knows that Mr Williams can put him at the SN window just before the motorcade.
What does Mr Piper do? He-----------in his capacity as 'porter'-------------initially feeds the police a story about having brought Mr Oswald up to the sixth floor. Least worst option now available to Mr Piper! He can't hide that he was up there, so he paints himself as an unwitting pawn in Mr Oswald's machinations... The press make much of this at first. (Did the later Thayer Waldo story originate in this very early Piper fable?)
'Thankfully', someone gets to Mr Williams in time to let him know that he should shut up about what he saw on the sixth floor. This allows Mr Piper to change his story to the ridiculous one about watching the motorcade from the first floor window.
Cf!:
Mr. BALL. Did you at any time go above the fourth floor on that date?
Mr. PIPER. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you at any time go that day up above the fourth floor?
Mr. PIPER. No--no, sir.
Mr. BALL. You never did---either before or after the shots?
Mr. PIPER. No, sir.
I beg to wonder!
-
So your entire claim that BRW was never in the SN is based upon nothing else but the lack of a statement placing BRW in the SN?
Well, Oswald nor anyone else places him in the SN just prior or during the shots, so by your "reasoning" Oswald wasn't there either, right?
Knowing that shots were possibly or likely fired from that exact location, do you really think that BRW would have any incentive to say "yeah, I was there a few minutes prior to the shots"?
LOL. You are equating the evidence of BRW's and Oswald's presence in the SN. Oswald's prints were found on the SN boxes and fired bullet casings from his rifle are by the window. But nothing to see there. And, of course, you are not suggesting a conspiracy by expressing doubt of Oswald's presence in the SN. Instead we are led to believe that BRW, for some unknown reason, decided to eat lunch by squeezing between these boxes. Even though he was waiting for his coworkers to join him. And then he encountered the assassin who kindly let him go about his business trusting him not to raise an alarm or later identify him. And then for some unknown reason BRW forever stayed silent about this. Very credible! Aren't you ashamed to peddle this nonsense? That's a rhetorical question. So no need to consult Roger Collins for his legal advice.
-
LOL. You are equating the evidence of BRW's and Oswald's presence in the SN. Oswald's prints were found on the SN boxes and fired bullet casings from his rifle are by the window. But nothing to see there. And, of course, you are not suggesting a conspiracy by expressing doubt of Oswald's presence in the SN. Instead we are led to believe that BRW, for some unknown reason, decided to eat lunch by squeezing between these boxes. Even though he was waiting for his coworkers to join him. And then he encountered the assassin who kindly let him go about his business trusting him not to raise an alarm or later identify him. And then for some unknown reason BRW forever stayed silent about this. Very credible! Aren't you ashamed to peddle this nonsense? That's a rhetorical question. So no need to consult Roger Collins for his legal advice.
Did you say something, King straw man?
-
No I don't think so, I think you ahead of yourself. You don't seem to want to address the issue and I understand why. Alyea's point is still very valid. Explain Mooney changing the location of the chicken bones from the rifle rest on 11/23 to the other set of boxes during his WC testimony. Mooney also reported it in a completely different location than other detectives.
Mooney 11/23 "Inside this cubby hole affair was three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle On one of these cartons was a half-eaten piece of chicken."
Mooney, WC testimony
Mr. BALL - Tell us where you found it?
Mr. MOONEY - It would be laying over on the top of these other boxes. This here is kind of blurred.
Let’s go with Mooney.....if you want to bring up Shelley again or abandon him along with Alyea, up to you.
Here is Mooney's 11/23 report
COUNTY OF DALLAS
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
SUPPLEMENTARY INVESTIGATION REPORT
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY
Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney, Dallas County Sheriff's Department.
Date: November 23 1963
I was standing in front of the Sheriff's office at 505 Main Street, Dallas, When President Kennedy and the motorcade passed by. Within a few seconds after he had passed me and the motorcade had turned the corner I heard a shot and I immediately started running towards the front of the motorcade and within seconds heard a second and a third shot. I started running across Houston Street and down across the lawn to the triple underpass and up the terrace to the railroad yards. I searched along with many other officers, this area, when Sheriff Bill Decker came up and told me and the Officers Sam Webster and Billy Joe Victory to surround the Texas School Book Depository building. As we approached the two big steel wire gates to the building dockat the back of the building on Elm Street side, we saw saw that the loading dock had locks on it and I then pulled the steel gates closed and requested of a citizen standing there to see that no-one came out or went in until I could get a uniformed officer there, which he did. Officers Webster, Victory, and myself took to the building. Officers Webster and Victory took the stairs and I told them I would take the freight elevator. At the time I got on the elevator two women who work in the building got on the elevator, saying they wanted to go to their offive. As the elevator started up, we went up one floor and the power to the elevator was cut off. I got out on the floor with theese women and looked around in their office and I then took to the stairs and went to the 6th floor, and Officers Webster and Victory went up to the 7th floor. I was the only person on the 6th floor when I searched it and was reasonably sure that there was no one else on this floor as I searched it and then criss-crossed it, seeing only stacks of cartons of books. I was at that time also checking for open windows and fire escapes. I found where someone had been using a skill saw in laying some flooring in one corner of this floor and I then went to the 7th floor and was assisting in searching it out and crawled into the attic opening and decided it was too dark and came down to order flash lights. I then went on back to the 6th floor and went direct to the far corner and then discovered a cubby hole which had been constructed out of cartons which protected it from sight and found where someone had been in an area of perhaps 2 feet surrounded by cardboard cartons of books. Inside this cubby hole affair was three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle. On one of these cartons was a half-eaten piece of chicken. The minute that I saw the expended shells on the floor, I hung my head out of the half opened window and signaled to Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz who were outside the building and advised them to send up the Crime Lab Officers at once that I had located the area from which the shots had been fired. At this time, Officers Webstr, Victory, and McCurley came over to this spot and we guarded this spot until Crime Lab Officers got upstairs within a matter of a few minutes. We then turned this area over to Captain Fritz and his officers for processing.
At this time I continued to search this 6th floor along with many other officers and within a few minutes, I heard Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone holler out that he had found the rifle near the staircase between some rows of cartons.
We continued to search the building for a suspect....
Mooney says he noticed a half finished piece of chicken on top of a carton. He had talked of a cubby hole arrangement of cartons. He talked of some boxes that appeared to be part of a rifle rest in the sentence preceding the mention of the chicken. On one of "these cartons" may well relate to the those comprising the "cubby hole" and not the rifle rest boxes. You are assuming the latter option.
Mooney was called before the WC to testify and the from following is clear that the chicken piece he saw was not on one of the three boxes against the window but one further north of the window. This was the reason witnesses a were asked to testify, to clarify their statements where required. He elaborated further by talking of the lunch sack also near the chicken piece.
Mr. BALL - Does that show any place where you saw the chicken bone?
Mr. MOONEY - If I recall correctly, the chicken bone could have been laying on this box or it might have been laying on this box right here.
Mr. BALL - Make a couple of marks there to indicate where possibly the chicken bone was lying.
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Make two "X's". You think there was a chicken bone on the top of either one of those two?
Mr. MOONEY - There was one of them partially eaten. And there was a little small paper poke.
Mr. BALL - By poke, you mean a paper sack?
Mr. MOONEY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Where was that?
Mr. MOONEY - Saw the chicken bone was laying here. The poke was laying about a foot away from it.
Mr. BALL - On the same carton?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. In close relation to each other. But as to what was in the sack--it was kind of together, and I didn't open it. I didn't put my hands on it to open it. I only saw one piece of chicken.
Senator COOPER - How far was the chicken, the piece of chicken you saw, and the paper bag from the boxes near the window, and particularly the box that had the crease in it?
Mr. MOONEY - I would say they might have been 5 feet or something like that. He 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.
Senator COOPER - You mean if someone had been standing near the box with the crease in it?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER - It would have been that approximate distance to the chicken leg and paper bag?
Mr. MOONEY - Sir?
Senator COOPER - And the paper bag you spoke of?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir; they were in close relation to each other, yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - How big a bag was it?
Mr. MOONEY - Well, as to the number--these bags are numbered, I understand. But it was--I don't know what the number you would call it, but it didn't stand more than that high.
Mr. BALL - About 12 inches?
Mr. MOONEY - About 8 to 10 inches, at the most.
Mr. BALL - What color was the bag?
Mr. MOONEY - It was brown. Just a regular paper bag. Just as a grocery store uses for their produce and what-have-you.
Mr. BALL - Did you see any soda pop?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; I did not.
Mr. BALL - Did you see a paper bag at any other window?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. BALL - Any other chicken bones?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - Did you see a Dr. Pepper bottle any place?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; except in the picture.
Mr. BALL - You didn't see it?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - When you say you have seen the picture, I will show you the picture, and let me see if that is the one you mean you have seen. That is Commission 484. This picture has been shown to you, hasn't it?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - I showed you that.
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - And you did not see that two-wheel truck?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - You did not see the Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - You didn't see a paper sack anywhere near a two-wheel truck or a Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir
Senator COOPER - May I ask---did you change the position of the shells which you have identified?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; I didn't have my hands on them.
Senator COOPER - Or the bag, or chicken leg?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir.
To summarise Mooney's testimony regarding the lunch. He clarified that he saw just one piece of chicken and it was a half eaten piece lying on a carton north of, and within 5 feet of the boxes against the window (and the shells). He saw a paper bag about one foot from the unfinished chicken piece. He did not see a drink bottle or anything near the two wheeler. He did not move the lunch.
At no time did he suggest there was more than one piece of chicken on the sixth floor. He stayed until the arrival of Fritz and after the departure of Gerald Hill.
Who you want to go with next? Montgomery?
-
So now you don’t want to address Shelley......you want to abandon him too? Should we deal with Mooney? The guy Alyea claimed didn’t arrive until after the rifle. That guy. Do you believe he discovered the SN. Just trying to establish some commonality.
Alyea's later timeline recollection is seriously flawed. Alyea is an excellent example of his own "media influenced" observation. This is his original statement on 12/19/63.
"...I ran on upstairs with the Secret Service men. Then other units came in - the Riot Squad. I thought I was going to film a gun fight. They ran to the 4th floor and I went with them. Some of the other units went to the top of the building. They were conducting a systematic search. It boiled down to the sixth floor. After awhile it was obvious that the assassin was not in the building. They looked for the gun. I filmed 400 ft. of film of the Secret Service men looking for the assassin, climbing over boxes, over the rafters, and the actual finding of the gun. At the time it was suspected that the assassin had stayed quite a time there. There was a stack with a stack of chicken bones on it. There was a Dr. Pepper bottle which they dusted for fingerprints. The fingerprints were not Oswald's. You know how he piled the boxes up? The gun was found across the length of the room from where he fired. It was stashed between boxes. I had difficulty in filming. They did not want me closeto the window or to the gun. I asked permission to go to the window to film. A Secret Service man said, 'You are close enough.' I asked the Secret Service man to take pictures of the stashed gun. I set the camera but he wiggled the camera. I got a picture of them taking the gun from the hiding place and dusting it for fingerprints. After this the Crime Lab man, Captain Will Fritz - and I have footage of this - pulled the bolt back and a live round came out. They dusted the gun for fingerprints. This was my third camera. They wouldn't let me out of the building and they wouldn't let anyone else in. .....
This description of the search is similar to what the detectives stated. Alyea's later statements seem to be totally of his own making.
-
Did you say something, King straw man?
Actually, Richard states it best. There is a complete lack of evidence that BRW was ever in the SN, LHO not so much.
Knowing that shots were possibly or likely fired from that exact location, do you really think that BRW would have any incentive to say "yeah, I was there a few minutes prior to the shots"?
I don't know about BRW but I would not. It is clear he was reluctant to place himself on the 6th floor and with good reason . The fact he walked to the 5th floor before the assassination instead of being carried off the 6th floor after the assassination indicates he never had a chance encounter with LHO like Tippit.
-
Let’s go with Mooney.....if you want to bring up Shelley again or abandon him along with Alyea, up to you.
Here is Mooney's 11/23 report
COUNTY OF DALLAS
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
SUPPLEMENTARY INVESTIGATION REPORT
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY
Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney, Dallas County Sheriff's Department.
Date: November 23 1963
I was standing in front of the Sheriff's office at 505 Main Street, Dallas, When President Kennedy and the motorcade passed by. Within a few seconds after he had passed me and the motorcade had turned the corner I heard a shot and I immediately started running towards the front of the motorcade and within seconds heard a second and a third shot. I started running across Houston Street and down across the lawn to the triple underpass and up the terrace to the railroad yards. I searched along with many other officers, this area, when Sheriff Bill Decker came up and told me and the Officers Sam Webster and Billy Joe Victory to surround the Texas School Book Depository building. As we approached the two big steel wire gates to the building dockat the back of the building on Elm Street side, we saw saw that the loading dock had locks on it and I then pulled the steel gates closed and requested of a citizen standing there to see that no-one came out or went in until I could get a uniformed officer there, which he did. Officers Webster, Victory, and myself took to the building. Officers Webster and Victory took the stairs and I told them I would take the freight elevator. At the time I got on the elevator two women who work in the building got on the elevator, saying they wanted to go to their offive. As the elevator started up, we went up one floor and the power to the elevator was cut off. I got out on the floor with theese women and looked around in their office and I then took to the stairs and went to the 6th floor, and Officers Webster and Victory went up to the 7th floor. I was the only person on the 6th floor when I searched it and was reasonably sure that there was no one else on this floor as I searched it and then criss-crossed it, seeing only stacks of cartons of books. I was at that time also checking for open windows and fire escapes. I found where someone had been using a skill saw in laying some flooring in one corner of this floor and I then went to the 7th floor and was assisting in searching it out and crawled into the attic opening and decided it was too dark and came down to order flash lights. I then went on back to the 6th floor and went direct to the far corner and then discovered a cubby hole which had been constructed out of cartons which protected it from sight and found where someone had been in an area of perhaps 2 feet surrounded by cardboard cartons of books. Inside this cubby hole affair was three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle. On one of these cartons was a half-eaten piece of chicken. The minute that I saw the expended shells on the floor, I hung my head out of the half opened window and signaled to Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz who were outside the building and advised them to send up the Crime Lab Officers at once that I had located the area from which the shots had been fired. At this time, Officers Webstr, Victory, and McCurley came over to this spot and we guarded this spot until Crime Lab Officers got upstairs within a matter of a few minutes. We then turned this area over to Captain Fritz and his officers for processing.
At this time I continued to search this 6th floor along with many other officers and within a few minutes, I heard Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone holler out that he had found the rifle near the staircase between some rows of cartons.
We continued to search the building for a suspect....
Mooney says he noticed a half finished piece of chicken on top of a carton. He had talked of a cubby hole arrangement of cartons. He talked of some boxes that appeared to be part of a rifle rest in the sentence preceding the mention of the chicken. On one of "these cartons" may well relate to the those comprising the "cubby hole" and not the rifle rest boxes. You are assuming the latter option.
Mooney was called before the WC to testify and the from following is clear that the chicken piece he saw was not on one of the three boxes against the window but one further north of the window. This was the reason witnesses a were asked to testify, to clarify their statements where required. He elaborated further by talking of the lunch sack also near the chicken piece.
Mr. BALL - Does that show any place where you saw the chicken bone?
Mr. MOONEY - If I recall correctly, the chicken bone could have been laying on this box or it might have been laying on this box right here.
Mr. BALL - Make a couple of marks there to indicate where possibly the chicken bone was lying.
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Make two "X's". You think there was a chicken bone on the top of either one of those two?
Mr. MOONEY - There was one of them partially eaten. And there was a little small paper poke.
Mr. BALL - By poke, you mean a paper sack?
Mr. MOONEY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Where was that?
Mr. MOONEY - Saw the chicken bone was laying here. The poke was laying about a foot away from it.
Mr. BALL - On the same carton?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. In close relation to each other. But as to what was in the sack--it was kind of together, and I didn't open it. I didn't put my hands on it to open it. I only saw one piece of chicken.
Senator COOPER - How far was the chicken, the piece of chicken you saw, and the paper bag from the boxes near the window, and particularly the box that had the crease in it?
Mr. MOONEY - I would say they might have been 5 feet or something like that. He 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.
Senator COOPER - You mean if someone had been standing near the box with the crease in it?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER - It would have been that approximate distance to the chicken leg and paper bag?
Mr. MOONEY - Sir?
Senator COOPER - And the paper bag you spoke of?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir; they were in close relation to each other, yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - How big a bag was it?
Mr. MOONEY - Well, as to the number--these bags are numbered, I understand. But it was--I don't know what the number you would call it, but it didn't stand more than that high.
Mr. BALL - About 12 inches?
Mr. MOONEY - About 8 to 10 inches, at the most.
Mr. BALL - What color was the bag?
Mr. MOONEY - It was brown. Just a regular paper bag. Just as a grocery store uses for their produce and what-have-you.
Mr. BALL - Did you see any soda pop?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; I did not.
Mr. BALL - Did you see a paper bag at any other window?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. BALL - Any other chicken bones?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - Did you see a Dr. Pepper bottle any place?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; except in the picture.
Mr. BALL - You didn't see it?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - When you say you have seen the picture, I will show you the picture, and let me see if that is the one you mean you have seen. That is Commission 484. This picture has been shown to you, hasn't it?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - I showed you that.
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - And you did not see that two-wheel truck?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - You did not see the Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - You didn't see a paper sack anywhere near a two-wheel truck or a Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir
Senator COOPER - May I ask---did you change the position of the shells which you have identified?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; I didn't have my hands on them.
Senator COOPER - Or the bag, or chicken leg?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir.
To summarise Mooney's testimony regarding the lunch. He clarified that he saw just one piece of chicken and it was a half eaten piece lying on a carton north of, and within 5 feet of the boxes against the window (and the shells). He saw a paper bag about one foot from the unfinished chicken piece. He did not see a drink bottle or anything near the two wheeler. He did not move the lunch.
At no time did he suggest there was more than one piece of chicken on the sixth floor. He stayed until the arrival of Fritz and after the departure of Gerald Hill.
Who you want to go with next? Montgomery?
No, Mooney is describing the rifle rest in the 11/23 statement. In his WC testimony he is describing a completely different location. Both are a completely different locations than described by the other detectives and witnesses. Maybe Alyea's "media influence" ?
Mooney 11/23: "Inside this cubby hole affair was three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle On one of these cartons was a half-eaten piece of chicken."
Mooney, WC testimony:
Mr. BALL - Tell us where you found it?
Mr. MOONEY - It would be laying over on the top of these other boxes. This here is kind of blurred.
Det. Mooney stated did not know about BRW lunch by the third window.
Mr. BALL - You didn't see a paper sack anywhere near a two-wheel truck or a Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; in my running around up there, I didn't observe it. Possibly it was there. I am sure it was But I didn't check it.
BRW stated he left his lunch there where eventually it was photographed and also referenced by Det. Boyd, "40 feet to the west" of the SN.
-
Alyea's later timeline recollection is seriously flawed. Alyea is an excellent example of his own "media influenced" observation. This is his original statement on 12/19/63.
"...I ran on upstairs with the Secret Service men. Then other units came in - the Riot Squad. I thought I was going to film a gun fight. They ran to the 4th floor and I went with them. Some of the other units went to the top of the building. They were conducting a systematic search. It boiled down to the sixth floor. After awhile it was obvious that the assassin was not in the building. They looked for the gun. I filmed 400 ft. of film of the Secret Service men looking for the assassin, climbing over boxes, over the rafters, and the actual finding of the gun. At the time it was suspected that the assassin had stayed quite a time there. There was a stack with a stack of chicken bones on it. There was a Dr. Pepper bottle which they dusted for fingerprints. The fingerprints were not Oswald's. You know how he piled the boxes up? The gun was found across the length of the room from where he fired. It was stashed between boxes. I had difficulty in filming. They did not want me closeto the window or to the gun. I asked permission to go to the window to film. A Secret Service man said, 'You are close enough.' I asked the Secret Service man to take pictures of the stashed gun. I set the camera but he wiggled the camera. I got a picture of them taking the gun from the hiding place and dusting it for fingerprints. After this the Crime Lab man, Captain Will Fritz - and I have footage of this - pulled the bolt back and a live round came out. They dusted the gun for fingerprints. This was my third camera. They wouldn't let me out of the building and they wouldn't let anyone else in. .....
This description of the search is similar to what the detectives stated. Alyea's later statements seem to be totally of his own making.
Sounds just like one would expect. He went to the rifle....then came back to the bottle and lunch sack. This was where Studebaker "found it" after it had been moved. Note bones in the sack. Just as we would expect by 2pm.
-
Actually, Richard states it best. There is a complete lack of evidence that BRW was ever in the SN, LHO not so much.
Knowing that shots were possibly or likely fired from that exact location, do you really think that BRW would have any incentive to say "yeah, I was there a few minutes prior to the shots"?
I don't know about BRW but I would not. It is clear he was reluctant to place himself on the 6th floor and with good reason . The fact he walked to the 5th floor before the assassination instead of being carried off the 6th floor after the assassination indicates he never had a chance encounter with LHO like Tippit.
I suspect you are right Jack. BRW did not have an encounter with LHO on the 6th floor.
-
No, Mooney is describing the rifle rest in the 11/23 statement. In his WC testimony he is describing a completely different location. Both are a completely different locations than described by the other detectives and witnesses. Maybe Alyea's "media influence" ?
Mooney 11/23: "Inside this cubby hole affair was three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle On one of these cartons was a half-eaten piece of chicken."
Mooney, WC testimony:
Mr. BALL - Tell us where you found it?
Mr. MOONEY - It would be laying over on the top of these other boxes. This here is kind of blurred.
Det. Mooney stated did not know about BRW lunch by the third window.
Mr. BALL - You didn't see a paper sack anywhere near a two-wheel truck or a Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; in my running around up there, I didn't observe it. Possibly it was there. I am sure it was But I didn't check it.
BRW stated he left his lunch there where eventually it was photographed and also referenced by Det. Boyd, "40 feet to the west" of the SN.
No, Mooney was describing what became known as the snipers nest.....the "cubby hole" constructed of cartons.
I then went on back to the 6th floor and went direct to the far corner and then discovered a cubby hole which had been constructed out of cartons which protected it from sight and found where someone had been in an area of perhaps 2 feet surrounded by cardboard cartons of books. Inside this cubby hole affair was three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle. On one of these cartons was a half-eaten piece of chicken.
He distinguishes between cartons that were used to construct the "cubby hole" and boxes for the rifle rest. He distinctly clarified this in his WC testimony. The chicken and lunch sack was no more than 5 feet from the boxes. He was in the SN area from the time he found it until after Fritz arrived. Probably 10 minutes or so. In that time Gerald Hill came to observe the scene. He was photographed hanging ut out the next window along and reporter Tom Ewell told of him announcing about the unfinished chicken in the SN. A number of other officers who observed the SN prior to the arrival of Fritz provided reports consistent with the lunch remnants in the SN.
Mooney knew of no lunch sack by the third window because it wasn’t there at that time. Obviously someone put the chicken piece inside the sack before Studebaker processed it.
BRW said nothing of his lunch, position or how it was "discovered" by Studebaker, until Day asked the employees "who left their chicken bones in a sack by the two wheeler" on Monday 25th. He was influenced by Day, who was told of the lunch by Studebaker.
Who thinks BRW sat behind a closed window on the 6th floor for almost 15 minutes waiting to see the President? Yet as soon as he went down stairs he decided that the window should be opened.
I suggest Boyd is a prime candidate for your media influenced/talking to others chinese whispers. At the time he was present the chicken lunch was not 30-40 feet away.
-
LOL. You are equating the evidence of BRW's and Oswald's presence in the SN. Oswald's prints were found on the SN boxes and fired bullet casings from his rifle are by the window.
“His rifle”. LOL.
-
It is clear he was reluctant to place himself The fact he walked to the 5th floor before the assassination instead of being carried off the 6th floor after the assassination indicates he never had a chance encounter with LHO like Tippit.
a) there’s no reason to think the same person killed Tippit
b) the alleged TSBD assassin only brought 4 bullets
-
Actually, Richard states it best. There is a complete lack of evidence that BRW was ever in the SN, LHO not so much.
Knowing that shots were possibly or likely fired from that exact location, do you really think that BRW would have any incentive to say "yeah, I was there a few minutes prior to the shots"?
I don't know about BRW but I would not. It is clear he was reluctant to place himself on the 6th floor and with good reason . The fact he walked to the 5th floor before the assassination instead of being carried off the 6th floor after the assassination indicates he never had a chance encounter with LHO like Tippit.
There is a complete lack of evidence that BRW was ever in the SN
The only way this statement could be true is if the available evidence, which is being completely ignored, wouldn't exist.
-
No, Mooney was describing what became known as the snipers nest.....the "cubby hole" constructed of cartons.
I then went on back to the 6th floor and went direct to the far corner and then discovered a cubby hole which had been constructed out of cartons which protected it from sight and found where someone had been in an area of perhaps 2 feet surrounded by cardboard cartons of books. Inside this cubby hole affair was three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle. On one of these cartons was a half-eaten piece of chicken.
He distinguishes between cartons that were used to construct the "cubby hole" and boxes for the rifle rest. He distinctly clarified this in his WC testimony. The chicken and lunch sack was no more than 5 feet from the boxes. He was in the SN area from the time he found it until after Fritz arrived. Probably 10 minutes or so. In that time Gerald Hill came to observe the scene. He was photographed hanging ut out the next window along and reporter Tom Ewell told of him announcing about the unfinished chicken in the SN. A number of other officers who observed the SN prior to the arrival of Fritz provided reports consistent with the lunch remnants in the SN.
Mooney knew of no lunch sack by the third window because it wasn’t there at that time. Obviously someone put the chicken piece inside the sack before Studebaker processed it.
BRW said nothing of his lunch, position or how it was "discovered" by Studebaker, until Day asked the employees "who left their chicken bones in a sack by the two wheeler" on Monday 25th. He was influenced by Day, who was told of the lunch by Studebaker.
Who thinks BRW sat behind a closed window on the 6th floor for almost 15 minutes waiting to see the President? Yet as soon as he went down stairs he decided that the window should be opened.
I suggest Boyd is a prime candidate for your media influenced/talking to others chinese whispers. At the time he was present the chicken lunch was not 30-40 feet away.
It is a huge stretch to interpret Mooney's statement as being anything other than the rifle rest. That he was somehow mentally making the distinction between boxes and cartons in a simple affidavit. Other detectives place the chicken in completely different places which is what brings you back to Alyea's statement.
"Mooney knew of no lunch sack by the third window"
Not knowing about the lunch does not mean they weren't there. He did not know about the rifle until is was found. I doubt anyone cried out I found a lunch sack with chicken in it and a frito bag and next to it is a Dr Pepper pop bottle.
"In that time Gerald Hill came to observe the scene. He was photographed hanging ut out the next window along and reporter Tom Ewell told of him announcing about the unfinished chicken in the SN."
The rest of the observation by Ewell is that Hill was waving a piece of chicken. That never happened.
"Mooney knew of no lunch sack by the third window because it wasn’t there at that time. Obviously someone put the chicken piece inside the sack before Studebaker processed it."
This is where this train of thought really goes off the rails. Why would these people just assume it does or does not belong to the assassin? The news media obviously believed that to be the case because they were told that was the case by someone. Why would the detectives conspire to do this evidence tampering in full view of all the other detectives, news media, employees and witnesses searching the 6th floor? How would they possibly know the age of the bones or anything about their history? Why would they assume moving them a short distance would have any impact on the investigation?
-
There is a complete lack of evidence that BRW was ever in the SN
The only way this statement could be true if the available evidence which is being completely ignored wouldn't exist.
What is the "available evidence" that is being ignored?
-
Jack, why would you assume that if the bag was moved, it was done to intentionally thwart the investigation?
-
What is the "available evidence" that is being ignored?
Do you participate in this thread without actually reading the posts of others? John Iacolletti already answered your question;
- Rowland’s sighting of a negro in that window.
- the presence of a lunch bag when the SN was discovered.
I will only add BRW's own admission that he was on the 6th floor until a few minutes prior to the shots.
Now, what evidence places Oswald in the SN any time after 12.00 ?
-
Do you participate in this thread without actually reading the posts of others? John Iacolletti already answered your question;
I will only add BRW's own admission that he was on the 6th floor until a few minutes post shots.
Now, what evidence places Oswald in the SN any time between after 12.00 ?
There is no such evidence..... However, Lee told Captain Fritz, that he was in the first floor lunchroom at the time the President passed by the TSBD. "At the time the President passed by" is a generalization, and ambiguous term.....It does not necessarily indicate a precise time. We know that JFK's Lincoln passed the TSBD at 12:30....And we Know that James (Junior) Jarman, and Harold Norman walked by the 1st floor lunchroom circa 12:26 / 12:27. ( just 3 or 4 minutes before JFK passed by the TSBD,)... and Lee Oswald saw them as they walked by...... So there IS verification that Lee Oswald was NOT on the sixth floor at 12:27, which makes it unbelievable that he could have been on the 6th floor and firing a rifle out of a window at 12:30.
-
It is a huge stretch to interpret Mooney's statement as being anything other than the rifle rest. That he was somehow mentally making the distinction between boxes and cartons in a simple affidavit. Other detectives place the chicken in completely different places which is what brings you back to Alyea's statement.
"Mooney knew of no lunch sack by the third window"
Not knowing about the lunch does not mean they weren't there. He did not know about the rifle until is was found. I doubt anyone cried out I found a lunch sack with chicken in it and a frito bag and next to it is a Dr Pepper pop bottle.
"In that time Gerald Hill came to observe the scene. He was photographed hanging ut out the next window along and reporter Tom Ewell told of him announcing about the unfinished chicken in the SN."
The rest of the observation by Ewell is that Hill was waving a piece of chicken. That never happened.
"Mooney knew of no lunch sack by the third window because it wasn’t there at that time. Obviously someone put the chicken piece inside the sack before Studebaker processed it."
This is where this train of thought really goes off the rails. Why would these people just assume it does or does not belong to the assassin? The news media obviously believed that to be the case because they were told that was the case by someone. Why would the detectives conspire to do this evidence tampering in full view of all the other detectives, news media, employees and witnesses searching the 6th floor? How would they possibly know the age of the bones or anything about their history? Why would they assume moving them a short distance would have any impact on the investigation?
I have no idea why you want to "muddy the waters" once again with Alyea, Jack. He was not deposed, he did not provide a motorised statement, he did not testify. He was not at the SN at the time of his discovery. He did not testify to the WC. His recollections are largely unsupported by many of those who described the scene to the WC.
Mooney did make the distinction between "cartons" of the cubby hole and "boxes" of the rifle rest. It is there in black and white? You assumed he was referring to the rest because the sentence followed on from description of the rest. The WC rightly clarified Mooney's position for the lunch sack and unfinished chicken. He was clear in that there was one piece and it was on a SN carton. Hill confirmed Mooney. Ewell remembered Hill yelling about the lunch to those below. The picture does not show him holding the lunch. So what, maybe it was taken before or after Hill held it. Maybe Ewell was mistaken about him holding it but he still remembered him yelling down from the window next to the SN. It was the police who first announced the chicken lunch in the SN......the cold hearted assassin waiting for JFK. How could the press know what was in the sack as it left the TSBD?
In any event, Williams was consistently deceptive about his movements just before the shots all the way to his WC testimony. He never admitted to it being his lunch until the Monday when asked by Day, who merely repeated the final resting position described by Studebaker.
I will agree that some police were influenced by the media/ superiors. Boyd is a good example. His description of 30-40 feet away is unsupported by anyone else at the scene at that time but reflects the final resting place of Studebaker.
-
Do you participate in this thread without actually reading the posts of others? John Iacolletti already answered your question;
I will only add BRW's own admission that he was on the 6th floor until a few minutes post shots.
Now, what evidence places Oswald in the SN any time after 12.00 ?
Martin, not "post" shots my friend.
-
There is no such evidence..... However, Lee told Captain Fritz, that he was in the first floor lunchroom at the time the President passed by the TSBD. "At the time the President passed by" is a generalization, and ambiguous term.....It does not necessarily indicate a precise time. We know that JFK's Lincoln passed the TSBD at 12:30....And we Know that James (Junior) Jarman, and Harold Norman walked by the 1st floor lunchroom circa 12:26 / 12:27. ( just 3 or 4 minutes before JFK passed by the TSBD,)... and Lee Oswald saw them as they walked by...... So there IS verification that Lee Oswald was NOT on the sixth floor at 12:27, which makes it unbelievable that he could have been on the 6th floor and firing a rifle out of a window at 12:30.
Walt, we know Norman claimed they left for the 5th floor when the motorcade reached Main. This was about 12.22pm. They had to walk about 200 feet and take the elevator to the 5th floor. I estimate the walk to be about 40 seconds and the elevator ride about 50 seconds.
They would have passed the domino room about 12.22:30 and arrive at the SE corner of the fifth floor about 12.25pm.
-
Martin, not "post" shots my friend.
Indeed Colin, my bad... Don't know what I was thinking.
Error corrected.
Thanks.
-
Walt, we know Norman claimed they left for the 5th floor when the motorcade reached Main. This was about 12.22pm. They had to walk about 200 feet and take the elevator to the 5th floor. I estimate the walk to be about 40 seconds and the elevator ride about 50 seconds.
They would have passed the domino room about 12.22:30 and arrive at the SE corner of the fifth floor about 12.25pm.
They would have passed the domino room about 12.22:30 and arrive at the SE corner of the fifth floor about 12.25pm.
That could very well be correct. And I think we can all agree that even if Oswald saw them walking towards the elevator at that time (as I think he did), it, by itself, would not provide him an alibi for the shooting at 12:30, as he could have made it to the 6th floor within the time frame.
If only there were no witnesses who saw activity in the SN window as early as approx. 12:15.
-
Walt, we know Norman claimed they left for the 5th floor when the motorcade reached Main. This was about 12.22pm. They had to walk about 200 feet and take the elevator to the 5th floor. I estimate the walk to be about 40 seconds and the elevator ride about 50 seconds.
They would have passed the domino room about 12.22:30 and arrive at the SE corner of the fifth floor about 12.25pm.
Well you can take that up with Junior Jarman...He testified that he and Norman arrived on the 5th floor at 12:28....
-
Well you can take that up with Junior Jarman...He testified that he and Norman arrived on the 5th floor at 12:28....
Mr. BALL - The sidewalk in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - How long did you stand there?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, until about 12:20, between 12:20 and 12:25.
Mr. NORMAN. I remember seeing Mr. Truly and Mr. Campbell. They were standing somewhere behind us, not exactly behind us but they were back of us.
Mr. BALL. Anybody else?
Mr. NORMAN. Well, I believe Billy Lovelady, I think. He was sitting on the steps there.
Mr. BALL. He was?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes. That is about all the employees I remember seeing out there. There were more people out there.
Mr. BALL. Did you stay there?
Mr. NORMAN. Well, we stayed there I believe until we got the news that the motorcade was coming down, let's see, is that Commerce, no Main, because Commerce- we went beck in the building, James Jarman and I.
Police transcript.....
12.22 - 1 - Escort drop back, go real slow now approaching Main.
Representative FORD - This was about what time?
Mr. JARMAN - That was about 12:25 or 12:28.
Representative FORD - You got off the fifth floor?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
If you use 12.28 it virtually leaves no time for Williams to leave the SN and meet them downstairs before the shots. Arrival at 12.25pm works fine for me.
-
Do you participate in this thread without actually reading the posts of others? John Iacolletti already answered your question;
I will only add BRW's own admission that he was on the 6th floor until a few minutes prior to the shots.
Now, what evidence places Oswald in the SN any time after 12.00 ?
I already know there is no evidence of BRW in the SN. I apologize for having a little fun to see your explanation, but don't worry I won't let the secret out that you to don't believe there is any evidence of BRW in the SN.
You are stating BRW was on the 6th floor.
You obviously think there was a conspiracy. Can you explain this theory as to why these detectives would even bother to move evidence to a new location when nothing is known and so early in the investigation?
-
I have no idea why you want to "muddy the waters" once again with Alyea, Jack. He was not deposed, he did not provide a motorised statement, he did not testify. He was not at the SN at the time of his discovery. He did not testify to the WC. His recollections are largely unsupported by many of those who described the scene to the WC.
Mooney did make the distinction between "cartons" of the cubby hole and "boxes" of the rifle rest. It is there in black and white? You assumed he was referring to the rest because the sentence followed on from description of the rest. The WC rightly clarified Mooney's position for the lunch sack and unfinished chicken. He was clear in that there was one piece and it was on a SN carton. Hill confirmed Mooney. Ewell remembered Hill yelling about the lunch to those below. The picture does not show him holding the lunch. So what, maybe it was taken before or after Hill held it. Maybe Ewell was mistaken about him holding it but he still remembered him yelling down from the window next to the SN. It was the police who first announced the chicken lunch in the SN......the cold hearted assassin waiting for JFK. How could the press know what was in the sack as it left the TSBD?
In any event, Williams was consistently deceptive about his movements just before the shots all the way to his WC testimony. He never admitted to it being his lunch until the Monday when asked by Day, who merely repeated the final resting position described by Studebaker.
I will agree that some police were influenced by the media/ superiors. Boyd is a good example. His description of 30-40 feet away is unsupported by anyone else at the scene at that time but reflects the final resting place of Studebaker.
Notarized and deposed? You mean like Rowland or Craig or pick your own favorite witness? They changed their story like they changed their underwear.
Alyea makes the same observation as the WC and the HSCA. Nothing more. He was questioning their statements when he himself did not see any piece of chicken in the SN. Does his film show any? It is possible he seen some on the other floors.
No Mooney interchanged the term cartons and boxes, he described the rifle rest as three more boxes. He was interchanging cartons and boxes not differentiating between the two
Mooney: ....then discovered a cubby hole which had been constructed out of cartons which protected it from sight and found where someone had been in an area of perhaps 2 feet surrounded by cardboard cartons of books. Inside this cubby hole affair was three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle.
But BRW does finally admits to having lunch by the third window. Maybe examining what he did do should be viewed through the lense of what would you have done. Obviously it is no easy decision to place yourself on the 6th floor.
-
Notarized and deposed? You mean like Rowland or Craig or pick your own favorite witness? They changed their story like they changed their underwear.
Alyea makes the same observation as the WC and the HSCA. Nothing more. He was questioning their statements when he himself did not see any piece of chicken in the SN. Does his film show any? It is possible he seen some on the other floors.
No Mooney interchanged the term cartons and boxes, he described the rifle rest as three more boxes. He was interchanging cartons and boxes not differentiating between the two
Mooney: ....then discovered a cubby hole which had been constructed out of cartons which protected it from sight and found where someone had been in an area of perhaps 2 feet surrounded by cardboard cartons of books. Inside this cubby hole affair was three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle.
But BRW does finally admits to having lunch by the third window. Maybe examining what he did do should be viewed through the lense of what would you have done. Obviously it is no easy decision to place yourself on the 6th floor.
How many of the cops lied about the chicken lunch under oath or in a signed statement? Does Alyea's film show Fritz holding shells? Were "The shells "scattered in an area that could be covered by a bushel basket"? Did Mooney only arrive on the 6th floor until after the rifle was found? Alyea was FOS......sorry Jack but his account is full of holes and he never appeared before the WC. He's obviously a favourite of yours.
Do you believe that Mooney did not discover the SN? I am unsure which of Alyea's "contributions" to use. Was Mooney the one who discovered the SN or not?
As for Williams and his various statements, I believe if he went to watch the motorcade he would sit behind an open window. I believe if he had seen Oswald on the 6th floor before the shots, he would have admitted it, after Oswald was dead. Just as Givens had no trouble doing, eventually.
-
I already know there is no evidence of BRW in the SN. I apologize for having a little fun to see your explanation, but don't worry I won't let the secret out that you to don't believe there is any evidence of BRW in the SN.
You are stating BRW was on the 6th floor.
You obviously think there was a conspiracy. Can you explain this theory as to why these detectives would even bother to move evidence to a new location when nothing is known and so early in the investigation?
Evidence moved=incompetence.......not conspiracy. Just as the "wrapper" was moved.....just look how many of them claimed that nothing was touched....methinks they protested too much.
-
I already know there is no evidence of BRW in the SN. I apologize for having a little fun to see your explanation, but don't worry I won't let the secret out that you to don't believe there is any evidence of BRW in the SN.
You are stating BRW was on the 6th floor.
You obviously think there was a conspiracy. Can you explain this theory as to why these detectives would even bother to move evidence to a new location when nothing is known and so early in the investigation?
I already know there is no evidence of BRW in the SN.
Richard Smith's favorite word "contrarian" comes to mind. You can not "already know there is no evidence of BRW in the SN" when exactly such circumstantial evidence has just been provided to you.
You are stating BRW was on the 6th floor.
BRW himself stated he was on the 6th floor to eat his lunch, prior to joining Norman and Jarman on the 5th.
You obviously think there was a conspiracy.
Just because I do not agree with LN speculation and utter rubbish, does in no way make it obvious what I think. Why do you want to place me in a category, when in fact I am only trying to make sense of the evidence?
Can you explain this theory as to why these detectives would even bother to move evidence to a new location when nothing is known and so early in the investigation?
Oh boy, this seems to leading up to another flawed "I can't see it, so it isn't there" argument. In this case there are a great many things I can not explain, yet they happened anyway.
Instead of placing it in the evidence locker upon arrival at the police station, why did Hill carry the revolver, allegedly taken from Oswald at the Texas Theatre, around for some two hours before letting it be marked by officers, some of which were not even present at the arrest?
Why did Bentley say that when he pulled Oswald's wallet out of his pocket in the car en route to the police station, he found a driver's license and a credit card and why did he not mention the Hidell card?
Why did Studebaker fail to photograph in situ the paper bag some officers said was in the SN?
Why did Fritz pick up the shells in the SN and threw them on the floor again?
Why were boxes moved in the SN?
Perhaps I could explain all these things and more if I knew what has really been going on, but the lack of an explanation doesn't mean it didn't happen, which is what you seem to imply.
Oh yeah, btw what was that evidence again that places Oswald in the SN at any time after 12:00?
-
Mr. BALL - The sidewalk in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - How long did you stand there?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, until about 12:20, between 12:20 and 12:25.
Mr. NORMAN. I remember seeing Mr. Truly and Mr. Campbell. They were standing somewhere behind us, not exactly behind us but they were back of us.
Mr. BALL. Anybody else?
Mr. NORMAN. Well, I believe Billy Lovelady, I think. He was sitting on the steps there.
Mr. BALL. He was?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes. That is about all the employees I remember seeing out there. There were more people out there.
Mr. BALL. Did you stay there?
Mr. NORMAN. Well, we stayed there I believe until we got the news that the motorcade was coming down, let's see, is that Commerce, no Main, because Commerce- we went beck in the building, James Jarman and I.
Police transcript.....
12.22 - 1 - Escort drop back, go real slow now approaching Main.
Representative FORD - This was about what time?
Mr. JARMAN - That was about 12:25 or 12:28.
Representative FORD - You got off the fifth floor?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
If you use 12.28 it virtually leaves no time for Williams to leave the SN and meet them downstairs before the shots. Arrival at 12.25pm works fine for me.
Jarman said they left the front of the TSBD at about 12:25.... And arrived on the fifth floor at about 12:28. This makes sense....
I don't believe BRW words are solid rock to stand on..... I suspect that BRW was chased off the 6th floor about 12:25 ( possibly a little sooner) and was already on the 5th floor when he heard the west elevator rising ( carrying Jarman and Norman) He had been frightened by the rifle toting, khaki clad "Deputy Sheriff" on the sixth floor so he stayed out of sight until he knew who had arrived on the fifth floor.....
I know this is NOT what he testified ....He claimed that he heard Jarman and Norman talking on the floor beneath his feet.....But he was in the SE corner and Jarman and Norman were in the SW corner..... before they moved to the SE corner just prior to the arrival of the motorcade. ( All thre of them moved to the SE corner together and took positions behind the windows.
-
LOL. You are equating the evidence of BRW's and Oswald's presence in the SN. Oswald's prints were found on the SN boxes and fired bullet casings from his rifle are by the window. But nothing to see there. And, of course, you are not suggesting a conspiracy by expressing doubt of Oswald's presence in the SN. Instead we are led to believe that BRW, for some unknown reason, decided to eat lunch by squeezing between these boxes. Even though he was waiting for his coworkers to join him. And then he encountered the assassin who kindly let him go about his business trusting him not to raise an alarm or later identify him. And then for some unknown reason BRW forever stayed silent about this. Very credible! Aren't you ashamed to peddle this nonsense? That's a rhetorical question. So no need to consult Roger Collins for his legal advice.
Richard you seem to think that Williams would not have taken position in the SN because entry to that spot was "uncomfortable". If this notion is because of the following exchange...
Mr. BALL - Did you look at your watch?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; I didn't. I should have, but I didn't look at my watch at the time to see what time it was.
Mr. BALL - Were you the only officer in that corner?
Mr. MOONEY - At that very moment I was.
Mr. BALL - You say you squeezed behind certain boxes. Can you point out for me what boxes you squeezed through?
Mr. MOONEY - IF I remember correctly, I went in there from this angle right here right through here. There could be a space. There is a space there I squeezed in between here, and that is when I got into the opening, because the minute I squeezed through there there lay the shells.
Mr. BALL - All right. Let's make a mark here. Is this the space?
Mr. MOONEY - I believe that is going to be the space; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - If I make an arrow on that, would that indicate it?
(https://i.postimg.cc/qMpYWdbq/CE-508.jpg)
Note the dark arrow on the right side of the barricade.
Then this exchange....
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. There is another picture I have seen later that shows an opening in through here, but I didn't see that opening at that time.
Mr. BALL - That is the opening through which you squeezed? And it is an arrow shown on Exhibit 508.
It seems that Mooney did not take the easier entry point because he didn’t notice it. The easier entry/exit is the one used by SS agent Howlett in the reenactment movie.
-
Entry looks to be not so squeezy from the left.
(https://i.ibb.co/fNKHZTS/howlett.jpg)
-
Richard you seem to think that Williams would not have taken position in the SN because entry to that spot was "uncomfortable". If this notion is because of the following exchange...
Mr. BALL - Did you look at your watch?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; I didn't. I should have, but I didn't look at my watch at the time to see what time it was.
Mr. BALL - Were you the only officer in that corner?
Mr. MOONEY - At that very moment I was.
Mr. BALL - You say you squeezed behind certain boxes. Can you point out for me what boxes you squeezed through?
Mr. MOONEY - IF I remember correctly, I went in there from this angle right here right through here. There could be a space. There is a space there I squeezed in between here, and that is when I got into the opening, because the minute I squeezed through there there lay the shells.
Mr. BALL - All right. Let's make a mark here. Is this the space?
Mr. MOONEY - I believe that is going to be the space; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - If I make an arrow on that, would that indicate it?
(https://i.postimg.cc/qMpYWdbq/CE-508.jpg)
Note the dark arrow on the right side of the barricade.
Then this exchange....
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. There is another picture I have seen later that shows an opening in through here, but I didn't see that opening at that time.
Mr. BALL - That is the opening through which you squeezed? And it is an arrow shown on Exhibit 508.
It seems that Mooney did not take the easier entry point because he didn’t notice it. The easier entry/exit is the one used by SS agent Howlett in the reenactment movie.
The easier entry/exit is the one used by SS agent Howlett in the reenactment movie.
"reenactment movie.".... LOL! How can something that never happened be reenacted ??
-
The easier entry/exit is the one used by SS agent Howlett in the reenactment movie.
"reenactment movie.".... LOL! How can something that never happened be reenacted ??
The point being Walt, that the assumption that Williams would not have occupied the SN because of difficulty of access using Mooney's testimony is actually unfounded by Mooney's testimony.
-
The point being Walt, that the assumption that Williams would not have occupied the SN because of difficulty of access using Mooney's testimony is actually unfounded by Mooney's testimony.
I don't know how anybody can positively prove that BRW was, or was not, in that cubby hole erroneously called "the Sniper's Nest" .....
IMO it's unimportant..... Because there were no shots fired from that site.
-
Entry looks to be not so squeezy from the left.
(https://i.ibb.co/fNKHZTS/howlett.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/fNKHZTS/howlett.jpg)
Do you have a couple of film clips of the conspirator John Howlett as he placed that light weight piece of wood behind the stack of boxes that formed the aisle at the top of the stairs? The south side of that row of boxes is 13 feet from the north wall of the TSBD. Detective Robert Studebaker measured the distance from the north wall to the carcano on the floor, at 15 feet 4 inches.... Why didn't conspirator Howlett place that silly substitution for the rifle at the location that Studebaker documented?
-
The point being Walt, that the assumption that Williams would not have occupied the SN because of difficulty of access using Mooney's testimony is actually unfounded by Mooney's testimony.
Walt always has a lot of trouble focusing on the subject at hand.
-
Walt always has a lot of trouble focusing on the subject at hand.
Who is it that has his head somewhere that occludes his ability to see that the 3 x 5 card was sent to the FBI at midnight 11 / 22 /63 ?
-
I think you mean the ability to fabricate a story that the card was sent to the FBI at midnight 11/22/63.
-
I think you mean the ability to fabricate a story that the card was sent to the FBI at midnight 11/22/63.
Huh?? You think I mean?..... Have I not been perfectly clear? There is an evidence inventory list for the evidence that was turned over to FBI agent Vince Drain at midnight 11 /22/63. ( You won't find this list in the Warren Commission documents because the conspirators did not want us to see that list.) But a copy of the evidence inventory was found by J. Gary Shaw in the files of the Texas Rangers, so thanks to Mr Shaw we can see with our own eyes the list of evidence that FBI agent, Drain received at midnight 11 / 22 /63. And the 3 X 5 card which had a 1 inch wide piece of cellophane tape stuck to it, was one of those items ( #14) on the list.
The reason the conspirators didn't want us pissants ( as LBJ called us) to see the original list is because it lists that 3 X 5 card and both the DPD and the FBI claimed that the so called "palm print" that Lt Day swore that he found on the bottom of the metal barrel of C2766 was not turned over to the FBI and Day had neglected to tell the FBI about his discovery of the palm print on the barrel. ( one of the key conspirators, Henry Wade, lied when he told reporters that Lee Harrrrrrvey Ossssswald's prints had been found on the rifle and there had been NO identifiable prints found on the rifle, so they were forced to bring the 3 x 5 card back to Dallas where they could fabricate the palm print evidence.
P.S.---- CE 1304 ( page 132 WR) is a photo of the disassembled Carcano ..... The photo clearly shows the bayonet lug that surrounds the barrel at the place that Lt Day swore that he found the palm print of Lee Oswald..... That bayonet lug proves that Day was a damned liar.
-
Huh?? You think I mean?..... Have I not been perfectly clear? There is an evidence inventory list for the evidence that was turned over to FBI agent Vince Drain at midnight 11 /22/63.
A list which you cannot prove was an inventory for the FBI or that it was written on 11/22/63.
( You won't find this list in the Warren Commission documents
Uh, Walt...that list is in the WC documents.
The reason the conspirators didn't want us pissants ( as LBJ called us) to see the original list is because it lists that 3 X 5 card and both the DPD and the FBI claimed that the so called "palm print" that Lt Day swore that he found on the bottom of the metal barrel of C2766 was not turned over to the FBI and Day had neglected to tell the FBI about his discovery of the palm print on the barrel.
The card is on both versions of the list. So much for that fabrication.
-
But a copy of the evidence inventory was found by J. Gary Shaw in the files of the Texas Rangers, so thanks to Mr Shaw we can see with our own eyes the list of evidence that FBI agent, Drain received at midnight 11 / 22 /63.
You're now at page 26 with zero evidence to support your claim.
I have no intention of trying to prove anything to dumb asses who are unable to reason.... I've presented the evidence...but some dumb asses can't figger out the word mississippi ...if an "i" isn't dotted..... The evidence list is not dated but there can be no doubt that it was created to document the evidence that was turned over to FBI agent Vince Drain at midnight 11 / 22 /63 ..... Excuse me... I shouldn't have said there can be no doubt ..... I should have said intelligent reasonable people will not doubt the evidence list was created on 11 /22/63.
-
A list which you cannot prove was an inventory for the FBI or that it was written on 11/22/63.
Uh, Walt...that list is in the WC documents.
The card is on both versions of the list. So much for that fabrication.
Uh, Walt...that list is in the WC documents.
Show me.... You wouldn't lie, would you?
The card is on both versions of the list. So much for that fabrication.
Huh.... What fabrication.... I've always said that the two lists are similar.... The list for 11/26/ 63 is merely a altered photo copy of the list that was created on 11/22/63. The lazy clerk used a photcopy of the original list from 11/22/63 when he created the list of evidence that was released to the FBI on 11 /26/ 63.
The 3 X 5 card is on both lists ....but when the list was created on 11 /22/63 there was no identifiable print on that cellophane tape....but when it was released to the FBI on 11/26/ 63 it had the palm print of Lee Oswald on the cellophene tape....
-
I have no intention of trying to prove anything to dumb asses who are unable to reason....
Walt always gets insulting when someone doesn’t just blindly accept one of his fanciful stories. That’s how you can always tell that he has no evidence.
Which is what nutters do. They say there is “no doubt” about something they invent and think that’s somehow persuasive.
-
Uh, Walt...that list is in the WC documents.
Show me.... You wouldn't lie, would you?
I don’t lie. The “spent rounds (3)” version of the list is in CE 2003 (p 130). It says exactly the same thing about the partial palm print as the “spent rounds (2)” version.
The 3 X 5 card is on both lists ....but when the list was created on 11 /22/63 there was no identifiable print on that cellophane tape....but when it was released to the FBI on 11/26/ 63 it had the palm print of Lee Oswald on the cellophene tape....
This fabrication gets more and more absurd every minute. They hid the original list because they didn’t want us to know about the palmprint, so they replaced it with an altered copy that says the exact same thing about the palmprint. Makes perfect sense.
-
So despite having four days to prepare the rifle and fake print Latona shows up before WC and says he can't see any evidence of that print having been lifted from that rifle...
Your story to support your missing evidence sucks even worse than your missing evidence.
A lift was taken from Oswald's rifle and was directly compared to the print Lt. Day took on the 22nd and it was proved that Day's print was lifted off Oswald's rifle meaning that Oswald touched his rifle. Exactly what you'd expect.
(https://i.postimg.cc/rw7xT0TT/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)
Some years later, Vincent Scalise examined some newly found rifle photos and positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald's prints on the Trigger Guard.
(https://i.postimg.cc/J47BMZ2w/scalice-print-oswald-trigger-guard.jpg)
JohnM
-
Gentlemen, please don’t contaminate this thread with rifle stuff any further. The rifle was not discovered until 1.22pm. No dispute about that event in the sequence. No serious dispute that Williams left the 6th floor until about 12.25pm as far it seems.
-
I don’t lie. The “spent rounds (3)” version of the list is in CE 2003 (p 130). It says exactly the same thing about the partial palm print as the “spent rounds (2)” version.
This fabrication gets more and more absurd every minute. They hid the original list because they didn’t want us to know about the palmprint, so they replaced it with an altered copy that says the exact same thing about the palmprint. Makes perfect sense.
The “spent rounds (3)” version of the list is in CE 2003 (p 130). It says exactly the same thing about the partial palm print as the “spent rounds (2)” version.
Yes, I posted that in one of the early posts in this thread....Page 260, of Vol.24...It's part of CE 2003 ( the place where there's a wealth of the stuff the WC wanted to sweep under the rug.) But that is NOT the original list that was created on 11/22/63. That is the altered list that was created from a photocopy of the original list. You said: Quote...."Uh, Walt...that list is in the WC documents."......
Show me.... You wouldn't lie, would you?
-
Yes, I posted that in one of the early posts in this thread....Page 260, of Vol.24...It's part of CE 2003 ( the place where there's a wealth of the stuff the WC wanted to sweep under the rug.) But that is NOT the original list that was created on 11/22/63. That is the altered list that was created from a photocopy of the original list. You said: Quote...."Uh, Walt...that list is in the WC documents."......
Show me.... You wouldn't lie, would you?
I didn’t say the “spent rounds (2)” version was in the WC documents.
You claimed that “the reason the conspirators didn't want us pissants ( as LBJ called us) to see the original list is because it lists that 3 X 5 card”. But that makes no sense whatsoever, because the altered version of that document says the exact same thing about the card.
-
A lift was taken from Oswald's rifle
“Oswald’s rifle”. LOL.
and was directly compared to the print Lt. Day took on the 22nd and it was proved that Day's print was lifted off Oswald's rifle meaning that Oswald touched his rifle. Exactly what you'd expect.
Great “proof”: the say-so of a guy whose stated purpose was to convince the public that Oswald was the real assassin, and a smudge with lines drawn on it.
No sworn testimony. No FBI report detailing who did this test, or how, or when, or where on the rifle this test lift was done, and if or how it matched where Day claimed he did his lift. Nothing. Just a pinkie-swear that there are 5 marks that line up.
Some years later, Vincent Scalise examined some newly found rifle photos and positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald's prints on the Trigger Guard.
“Newly found rifle photos”. LOL.
-
I didn’t say the “spent rounds (2)” version was in the WC documents.
You claimed that “the reason the conspirators didn't want us pissants ( as LBJ called us) to see the original list is because it lists that 3 X 5 card”. But that makes no sense whatsoever, because the altered version of that document says the exact same thing about the card.
I didn’t say the “spent rounds (2)” version was in the WC documents.
Here it is John..... I ( walt )said that the original list that was created on 11 /22/63 ( the one with two 6.5mm spent shells) Could not be found in the WC documents , and you replied .... Quote....Uh, Walt...that list is in the WC documents.....unquote
Quote
( You won't find this list in the Warren Commission documents... Walt C.
Uh, Walt...that list is in the WC documents.
Why did you lie, John?
-
So much for keeping it out of this thread.
No, Walt, I didn’t lie. You’re attempting a bait and switch. See the other thread.
-
So much for keeping it out of this thread.
No, Walt, I didn’t lie. You’re attempting a bait and switch. See the other thread.
No, John I'm doing nothing of the kind....Yes, I added the parenthetical ( "the one with the two spent 6.5 shells) to clarify my original post.
Here it is John..... I ( walt )said that the original list that was created on 11 /22/63 Could not be found in the WC documents , and you replied .... Quote....Uh, Walt...that list is in the WC documents.....unquote
-
No, John I'm doing nothing of the kind....Yes, I added the parenthetical ( "the one with the two spent 6.5 shells) to clarify my original post.
So why are you blaming me for not knowing what you meant before you “clarified”?
-
So why are you blaming me for not knowing what you meant before you “clarified”?
So now you're claiming that you didn't understand that I was referring to the UNALTERED evidence list....??
I doubt that .....
-
So now you're claiming that you didn't understand that I was referring to the UNALTERED evidence list....??
I doubt that .....
Yes because you were talking about the item that says “Partial palm print off underside gun barrel near end of foregrip on rifle C 2766”, which, as I keep reminding you, is exactly the same on both lists.
-
They would have passed the domino room about 12.22:30 and arrive at the SE corner of the fifth floor about 12.25pm.
That could very well be correct. And I think we can all agree that even if Oswald saw them walking towards the elevator at that time (as I think he did), it, by itself, would not provide him an alibi for the shooting at 12:30, as he could have made it to the 6th floor within the time frame.
If only there were no witnesses who saw activity in the SN window as early as approx. 12:15.
If Oswald does not begin his trek from Domino room until seeing Norman/Jarman get on the ground floor rear elevator at 12:23, then Oswald has to cross about 100 ft of 1st floor, then go UP 5 flights of 18 step staircases, and across 5 landings of about 15ft length on the diagonal, that would probably average out to at least 20 sec per floor (due to fatigue climbing against gravity) thus Oswald reaching 5th floor landing approx 100 sec or 1 min 40 sec after 12:23 which = 12:24:40. So yes, it is possible for Williams and Oswald to have missed seeing each other on the 5th floor landing ... HOWEVER..
Oswald still has ONE MORE flight of stairs to ascend, and 180 MORE ft of 6th floor to trek across and also must get his rifle from some hiding place, and that would therefore make it highly improbable to have reached the SN window by 12:25, let alone have time to select which boxes he wanted to use, and move/slide 2 of the boxes up against low wall, and lift a 3rd box onto the window ledge, and then duck out of LOS just before Bronson film starts approx 12:25.
Unless someone can show Bronson film did not start until 12:26 :)
-
If Oswald does not begin his trek from Domino room until seeing Norman/Jarman get on the ground floor rear elevator at 12:23, then Oswald has to cross about 100 ft of 1st floor, then go UP 5 flights of 18 step staircases, and across 5 landings of about 15ft length on the diagonal, that would probably average out to at least 20 sec per floor (due to fatigue climbing against gravity) thus Oswald reaching 5th floor landing approx 100 sec or 1 min 40 sec after 12:23 which = 12:24:40. So yes, it is possible for Williams and Oswald to have missed seeing each other on the 5th floor landing ... HOWEVER..
Oswald still has ONE MORE flight of stairs to ascend, and 180 MORE ft of 6th floor to trek across and also must get his rifle from some hiding place, and that would therefore make it highly improbable to have reached the SN window by 12:25, let alone have time to select which boxes he wanted to use, and move/slide 2 of the boxes up against low wall, and lift a 3rd box onto the window ledge, and then duck out of LOS just before Bronson film starts approx 12:25.
Unless someone can show Bronson film did not start until 12:26 :)
Couple of points Zeon, I am not sure of the landing diagonal but I believe it to be about 3-4 steps. There were doors at each end of each floor landing. We don’t know it they were open or not. Williams claimed to have gone down to the 5th using the east elevator and if so, did not use the landing. The other factor that needs to be considered is the west elevator. The official "story" would require it to be taken from the 1st floor to the 6th after he called it down from the 5th. It was used previously by Jarman and Norman. It would take about 50 seconds each way. Dougherty initially went to the 6th momentarily and then down to the 5th floor using the elevator just before the shots.
-
Couple of points Zeon, I am not sure of the landing diagonal but I believe it to be about 3-4 steps. There were doors at each end of each floor landing. We don’t know it they were open or not. Williams claimed to have gone down to the 5th using the east elevator and if so, did not use the landing. The other factor that needs to be considered is the west elevator. The official "story" would require it to be taken from the 1st floor to the 6th after he called it down from the 5th. It was used previously by Jarman and Norman. It would take about 50 seconds each way. Dougherty initially went to the 6th momentarily and then down to the 5th floor using the elevator just before the shots.
Are you sure the east elevator was on the fifth floor at 12:24 / 12:25? I believe the east elevator was on six when Baker and Truly arrived on the fifth floor.
-
Are you sure the east elevator was on the fifth floor at 12:24 / 12:25? I believe the east elevator was on six when Baker and Truly arrived on the fifth floor.
Truly and Baker claimed to have taken the east elevator up from 5 about 12.33. West elevator was not there. If williams took it to 6 after noon to spend time in the SN, unless someone visited 6 it stayed there. He (eventually) claimed to take it down to 5, likely around 12.25. That’s about all we have to go on. The official story relies on Dougherty moving the west elevator from 5 after Baker and Truly ascent the stairs and before they reach 5.
-
Don't forget what Mr Williams told the FBI 11/23/63!
(https://i.imgur.com/nv0q6WP.jpg)
Thumb1:
-
Don't forget what Mr Williams told the FBI 11/23/63!
(https://i.imgur.com/nv0q6WP.jpg)
Thumb1:
Might this have been the mixing of two events? The moving of the west elevator (Dougherty) and the arrival of Baker (stairs).
(https://i.ibb.co/gdH4DrJ/AD28-DB57-37-AB-468-E-8-CB5-D52-E0-FCFB092.jpg)
Here is Bonnie Ray on his way to City Hall, how old does he look?
-
Here is Bonnie Ray on his way to City Hall, how old does he look?
Elderly.
-
If Oswald does not begin his trek from Domino room until seeing Norman/Jarman get on the ground floor rear elevator at 12:23, then Oswald has to cross about 100 ft of 1st floor, then go UP 5 flights of 18 step staircases, and across 5 landings of about 15ft length on the diagonal, that would probably average out to at least 20 sec per floor (due to fatigue climbing against gravity) thus Oswald reaching 5th floor landing approx 100 sec or 1 min 40 sec after 12:23 which = 12:24:40. So yes, it is possible for Williams and Oswald to have missed seeing each other on the 5th floor landing ... HOWEVER..
Oswald still has ONE MORE flight of stairs to ascend, and 180 MORE ft of 6th floor to trek across and also must get his rifle from some hiding place, and that would therefore make it highly improbable to have reached the SN window by 12:25, let alone have time to select which boxes he wanted to use, and move/slide 2 of the boxes up against low wall, and lift a 3rd box onto the window ledge, and then duck out of LOS just before Bronson film starts approx 12:25.
Unless someone can show Bronson film did not start until 12:26 :)
Junior Jarman said that he and Harold Norman arrived on the fifth floor about 12:28.... Do you believe that it took the west elevator FIVE minutes to rise from the 1st floor to the 5th floor?
-
Might this have been the mixing of two events? The moving of the west elevator (Dougherty) and the arrival of Baker (stairs).
(https://i.ibb.co/gdH4DrJ/AD28-DB57-37-AB-468-E-8-CB5-D52-E0-FCFB092.jpg)
Here is Bonnie Ray on his way to City Hall, how old does he look?
(https://i.ibb.co/gdH4DrJ/AD28-DB57-37-AB-468-E-8-CB5-D52-E0-FCFB092.jpg)
BRW is on the right...He is the epitome of a very worried man....
-
Might this have been the mixing of two events? The moving of the west elevator (Dougherty) and the arrival of Baker (stairs).
Possibly, I suppose, but it would be quite a mistake for Mr Williams to make (and that's assuming Mr Dougherty's story is legit, which is pretty doubtful IMO!)
(https://i.ibb.co/gdH4DrJ/AD28-DB57-37-AB-468-E-8-CB5-D52-E0-FCFB092.jpg)
Here is Bonnie Ray on his way to City Hall, how old does he look?
Mr Rowland didn't see him on blurry TV footage.
Mr Williams did not look like "an elderly gentleman, bald or practically bald, very thin hair if he wasn't bald"...
(https://i.imgur.com/QOi3fG8.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/8vfmzsK.jpg)
And he wasn't wearing a plaid shirt.
Is it possible Mr Rowland got these details badly wrong? Sure. But is it the likely explanation?
-
Junior Jarman said that he and Harold Norman arrived on the fifth floor about 12:28.... Do you believe that it took the west elevator FIVE minutes to rise from the 1st floor to the 5th floor?
Mr. BALL - Where did you stand?
Mr. JARMAN - I was standing over to the right in front of the building going toward the west.
Mr. BALL - Were you on the sidewalk or curb?
Mr. JARMAN - On the sidewalk.
Mr. BALL - The sidewalk in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - How long did you stand there?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, until about 12:20, between 12:20 and 12:25
then later, Jarman changes the story:
Representative FORD - You went by the front to the corner of Houston and Elm, and then down Houston towards the loading dock?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - And where did you get on the elevator?
Mr. JARMAN - We walked around to the back entrance and went through this door here, and this elevator here was up on six, I believe. And we walked around the elevator and took the west elevator up.
Representative FORD - How could you tell this elevator was at six?
Mr. JARMAN - Because after we got around to the other side we looked up.
Representative FORD - You could see it was on six?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes.
Representative FORD - This was about what time?
Mr. JARMAN - That was about 12:25 or 12:28.
Representative FORD - You got off the fifth floor?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - As you rode the elevator, you noticed the other one was on the sixth floor?
Mr. JARMAN - Right, sir.
So Jarman has a range from 12:20 to 12:28 but it is NOT likely 12:28 since Bonnie Ray Willams HAS to leave the SN window by about not later than 12:23:30 so there is enough time for some shooter to walk onto the floor some 180 ft to that window, and place a box on the ledge not later than approx 12:25
-
Possibly, I suppose, but it would be quite a mistake for Mr Williams to make (and that's assuming Mr Dougherty's story is legit, which is pretty doubtful IMO!)
Mr Rowland didn't see him on blurry TV footage.
Mr Williams did not look like "an elderly gentleman, bald or practically bald, very thin hair if he wasn't bald"...
(https://i.imgur.com/QOi3fG8.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/8vfmzsK.jpg)
And he wasn't wearing a plaid shirt.
Is it possible Mr Rowland got these details badly wrong? Sure. But is it the likely explanation?
If Dougherty didn’t move the west elevator after Baker and Truly ascended and before they arrived on the 5th floor, who did? Who called it down to the first, moved it and then left the gates open after Jarman and Norman left it on the 5th? From what I can make out it was either Dougherty or a huge hole in the WC narrative.
Rowland saw the man in the 6th floor window from about 200ft, not from a few feet. He saw him momentarily on a couple of occasions and had no reason to pay him any real attention. So, he got his age wrong, big deal. The clothing was not quite right. Williams "eventually" admitted he was there. Logic shows he was there at the time in question. Half a dozen officers who saw the SN before the arrival of Fritz noted remnants of his chicken lunch. The lunch in the SN was being talked about on the media no later than about 90 minutes after the shots. Gerald Hill called down to those below of the chicken lunch about 1.05pm.
Ball and Belin spent some time with Norman, Jarman and Williams in late March to sort out their "lies". They knew that Williams was there when Rowland testified. Yet what did the WC do? Used the age descriptor to get pictures of West and Piper. They never showed Rowland a picture of the black man they knew was on the sixth floor. At that time it did not fit with the LN senario. So Rowland was shamefully discredited.
Go and test yourself how correct you describe someone from 200 feet away after glancing at them momentarily.
-
Mr. BALL - Where did you stand?
Mr. JARMAN - I was standing over to the right in front of the building going toward the west.
Mr. BALL - Were you on the sidewalk or curb?
Mr. JARMAN - On the sidewalk.
Mr. BALL - The sidewalk in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - How long did you stand there?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, until about 12:20, between 12:20 and 12:25
then later, Jarman changes the story:
Representative FORD - You went by the front to the corner of Houston and Elm, and then down Houston towards the loading dock?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - And where did you get on the elevator?
Mr. JARMAN - We walked around to the back entrance and went through this door here, and this elevator here was up on six, I believe. And we walked around the elevator and took the west elevator up.
Representative FORD - How could you tell this elevator was at six?
Mr. JARMAN - Because after we got around to the other side we looked up.
Representative FORD - You could see it was on six?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes.
Representative FORD - This was about what time?
Mr. JARMAN - That was about 12:25 or 12:28.
Representative FORD - You got off the fifth floor?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - As you rode the elevator, you noticed the other one was on the sixth floor?
Mr. JARMAN - Right, sir.
So Jarman has a range from 12:20 to 12:28 but it is NOT likely 12:28 since Bonnie Ray Willams HAS to leave the SN window by about not later than 12:23:30 so there is enough time for some shooter to walk onto the floor some 180 ft to that window, and place a box on the ledge not later than approx 12:25
Norman and Jarman started up from the front of the TSBD about 12.22pm. They likely arrived about 12.24 or so. Jarman‘s estimate of about 12.25 or later seems about right. Williams' disappearance just after fits with Rowland's observations.
-
If Dougherty didn’t move the west elevator after Baker and Truly ascended and before they arrived on the 5th floor, who did? Who called it down to the first, moved it and then left the gates open after Jarman and Norman left it on the 5th? From what I can make out it was either Dougherty or a huge hole in the WC narrative.
I'm thinking the latter, Mr Crow: i.e., that that elevator was used by whoever had been on the sixth floor.
Rowland saw the man in the 6th floor window from about 200ft, not from a few feet.
OK, so let's not use a blurry dark frame from TV footage taken from a few feet away to press any case! Thumb1:
-
I'm thinking the latter, Mr Crow: i.e., that that elevator was used by whoever had been on the sixth floor.
OK, so let's not use a blurry dark frame from TV footage taken from a few feet away to press any case! Thumb1:
So let’s use something from 200 ft and six floors up.....agree? :) That frame was something I stumbled across on a YouTube video.
-
So let’s use something from 200 ft and six floors up.....agree? :) That frame was something I stumbled across on a YouTube video.
Here's a start (not 200 ft but a start):
(https://i.imgur.com/H9C2I0O.jpg)
I'm still skeptical that Mr Williams seen hanging out at the SN window in bright sunlight would be confused for an elderly man with little or no hair and a plaid shirt. Am I wrong to be skeptical? Maybe!
We must also take note of this from Mr Rowland:
"Had on a plaid shirt. I think it was red and green, very bright color, that is why I remember it."
Mr Williams' shirt was not very bright. At all:
(https://i.imgur.com/ILcWrCI.jpg)
Thumb1:
-
Here's a start (not 200 ft but a start):
(https://i.imgur.com/H9C2I0O.jpg)
I'm still skeptical that Mr Williams seen hanging out at the SN window in bright sunlight would be confused for an elderly man with little or no hair and a plaid shirt. Am I wrong to be skeptical? Maybe!
We must also take note of this from Mr Rowland:
"Had on a plaid shirt. I think it was red and green, very bright color, that is why I remember it."
Mr Williams' shirt was not very bright. At all:
(https://i.imgur.com/ILcWrCI.jpg)
Thumb1:
I accept you criticism Alan, but we can all be wrong about details from a fleeting glimpse of an apparently unimportant individual. I suggest the essential features are consistent, male, black and of thin build. How could Rowland have known that Williams lunch remnants would be originally discovered in the SN? The time he claims for the sightings are consistent too, when all evidence in analysed.
-
Mr. BALL - Where did you stand?
Mr. JARMAN - I was standing over to the right in front of the building going toward the west.
Mr. BALL - Were you on the sidewalk or curb?
Mr. JARMAN - On the sidewalk.
Mr. BALL - The sidewalk in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - How long did you stand there?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, until about 12:20, between 12:20 and 12:25
then later, Jarman changes the story:
Representative FORD - You went by the front to the corner of Houston and Elm, and then down Houston towards the loading dock?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - And where did you get on the elevator?
Mr. JARMAN - We walked around to the back entrance and went through this door here, and this elevator here was up on six, I believe. And we walked around the elevator and took the west elevator up.
Representative FORD - How could you tell this elevator was at six?
Mr. JARMAN - Because after we got around to the other side we looked up.
Representative FORD - You could see it was on six?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes.
Representative FORD - This was about what time?
Mr. JARMAN - That was about 12:25 or 12:28.
Representative FORD - You got off the fifth floor?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - As you rode the elevator, you noticed the other one was on the sixth floor?
Mr. JARMAN - Right, sir.
So Jarman has a range from 12:20 to 12:28 but it is NOT likely 12:28 since Bonnie Ray Willams HAS to leave the SN window by about not later than 12:23:30 so there is enough time for some shooter to walk onto the floor some 180 ft to that window, and place a box on the ledge not later than approx 12:25
It's been demonstrated that there was no gunman firing from that SE corner window.... Several members ( primarily Paul Ernest) have demonstrated that it would have been physically impossible for a gunman to have fired from that cramped cubbyhole. Jarman said that they arrived on the fifth floor at about 12:28. So they had to have passed by the 1st floor lunchroom a couple of minutes prior to 12:28 ( 12:26 / 12:27 ) and Lee Oswald saw them as they walked by.
Believing that a sniper fired from the sixth floor SE corner window after it's been shown to have been impossible is akin to a little kid clinging to a fairy tale as if it is true.
-
I accept you criticism Alan, but we can all be wrong about details from a fleeting glimpse of an apparently unimportant individual. I suggest the essential features are consistent, male, black and of thin build. How could Rowland have known that Williams lunch remnants would be originally discovered in the SN? The time he claims for the sightings are consistent too, when all evidence in analysed.
I honestly have no dog in this hunt, Mr Crow, and you have done brilliant work in exploring the Williams timing issue and its ramifications. Where we agree is that Mr Rowland's witnessing--------however one reads it--------is a disaster for the official story! Thumb1:
Male, black and thin are indeed essential features, but age, hair and color of shirt are hardly inessential ones. Is it possible that the highly observant Mr Rowland just got some key details wrong? Yes. But possible doesn't automatically translate into given. I'm just urging caution, that's all.
As you rightly point out, Messrs Piper and West were photographed because of Mr Rowland's description, but Mr Rowland was never shown a photo of Mr Williams. Ok, but why exactly would an ID of Mr Williams as the 'elderly Negro' have been worse for the 'investigators' than an ID of, say, Mr Piper? Both were employees. To have either of them hanging out that window while an armed man is standing over at the south-west window is, to say the least, problematical... But, all things being equal, Mr Williams' being ID'd as the 'elderly Negro' would surely have been the lesser headache, no?
-
I honestly have no dog in this hunt, Mr Crow, and you have done brilliant work in exploring the Williams timing issue and its ramifications. Where we agree is that Mr Rowland's witnessing--------however one reads it--------is a disaster for the official story! Thumb1:
Male, black and thin are indeed essential features, but age, hair and color of shirt are hardly inessential ones. Is it possible that the highly observant Mr Rowland just got some key details wrong? Yes. But possible doesn't automatically translate into given. I'm just urging caution, that's all.
As you rightly point out, Messrs Piper and West were photographed because of Mr Rowland's description, but Mr Rowland was never shown a photo of Mr Williams. Ok, but why exactly would an ID of Mr Williams as the 'elderly Negro' have been worse for the 'investigators' than an ID of, say, Mr Piper? Both were employees. To have either of them hanging out that window while an armed man is standing over at the south-west window is, to say the least, problematical... But, all things being equal, Mr Williams' being ID'd as the 'elderly Negro' would surely have been the lesser headache, no?
Here is the way they "solved" the Rowland problem. They asked Shelley to comment and constricted him to the specific description supplied by Rowland.
(https://i.ibb.co/gvD2pDr/shelley1.jpg)
The clothing description was of no value due to Shelley's memory. Also he had no recollection of either leaving the first floor! The problem with this was that he had no knowledge over the period in question......12.15-12.33pm as he was outside on the steps before the shots and then wandering down to the rail tracks afterwards...... making his statement effectively meaningless. They never showed any photos to Rowland!
To resolve their headache they simply ignored the obvious candidate at that point in time. I believe primarily because of the late exit by Williams from the SN and the implications of an "unfinished" chicken piece.
-
It's been demonstrated that there was no gunman firing from that SE corner window.... Several members ( primarily Paul Ernest) have demonstrated that it would have been physically impossible for a gunman to have fired from that cramped cubbyhole. Jarman said that they arrived on the fifth floor at about 12:28. So they had to have passed by the 1st floor lunchroom a couple of minutes prior to 12:28 ( 12:26 / 12:27 ) and Lee Oswald saw them as they walked by.
Believing that a sniper fired from the sixth floor SE corner window after it's been shown to have been impossible is akin to a little kid clinging to a fairy tale as if it is true.
Well i did not say anything about the shooter having actually AIMED his shots, I think it was just possible 1 or 2 shots fired and the rifle "holder" put the rifle out far enough so that Couch, and Euins, and Bob Jackson saw it for a couple seconds.
With you on Paul Ernst especially where the 313 shot trajectory and angle relative to JFKs almost 45 degree turned leftward head after the Z223 shot, lines up a lot better with the South WEST window exactly where Arnold Rowland spotted a man with 30.06 rifle standing about 12:15 Thumb1:
-
To further understand the predicament the WC found themselves in, Rowland testified on March 10, Ball and Belin visited Dallas 10 days later and spent considerable time sorting out the "stories" of Williams, Jarman and Norman prior to their testifying a few days later. Shelley's information about West and Piper was supplied on March 25.
It appears that Ball and Belin did not appreciate the significance of those officers who reported the chicken lunch remnants in the SN prior to the arrival of Fritz (and Day and Studebaker). Many of them claimed "nothing was moved" when clearly it was.
-
Well i did not say anything about the shooter having actually AIMED his shots, I think it was just possible 1 or 2 shots fired and the rifle "holder" put the rifle out far enough so that Couch, and Euins, and Bob Jackson saw it for a couple seconds.
With you on Paul Ernst especially where the 313 shot trajectory and angle relative to JFKs almost 45 degree turned leftward head after the Z223 shot, lines up a lot better with the South WEST window exactly where Arnold Rowland spotted a man with 30.06 rifle standing about 12:15 Thumb1:
Zeon, I've said it before and i"ll say it again..... There were NO SHOTS fired from that SE corner window. In fact I have strong doubt that there was any shot fired from the sixth floor.
-
Zeon, I've said it before and i"ll say it again..... There were NO SHOTS fired from that SE corner window. In fact I have strong doubt that there was any shot fired from the sixth floor.
The MC rifle found on the 6th floor, had corrosion in the barrel that should have been removed by 1 shot, let alone 3 shots, so you may be right that THAT MC rifle was not fired that day. However, since Harold Norman heard 3 shots fired in about 4 seconds or less as per his video recorded replication of the spacing, and Euins, Couch,and Jackson SAW a rifle at least for a few seconds, sticking out that SE 6th floor window, then it is entirely possible that SOME OTHER rifle was actually used AND fired from that SE window.
-
The MC rifle found on the 6th floor, had corrosion in the barrel that should have been removed by 1 shot, let alone 3 shots, so you may be right that THAT MC rifle was not fired that day. However, since Harold Norman heard 3 shots fired in about 4 seconds or less as per his video recorded replication of the spacing, and Euins, Couch,and Jackson SAW a rifle at least for a few seconds, sticking out that SE 6th floor window, then it is entirely possible that SOME OTHER rifle was actually used AND fired from that SE window.
The MC rifle found on the 6th floor, had corrosion in the barrel that should have been removed by 1 shot, let alone 3 shots, so you may be right that THAT MC rifle was not fired that day.
That's right....AND Howard Brennan said the rifle that he saw in the hands of the man who was STANDING and AIMING it out of a window was a HIGH POWERED rifle High powered rifle is synonymous with Hunting rifle. And furthermore Brennan ventured a guess that the rifle might have been a 30-30 Winchester because he could see all of the barrel of the rifle. Brennan said that he saw the man aiming the high powered rifle from a window during the shooting.....I've long suspected that Brennan's memory may have played tricks....I believe that he could have seen the man scanning the crowd through the scope on his rifle PRIOR to the shooting.
Harold Norman heard 3 shots fired in about 4 seconds or less as per his video recorded replication of the spacing, and Euins, Couch,and Jackson SAW a rifle at least for a few seconds, sticking out that SE 6th floor window, then it is entirely possible that SOME OTHER rifle was actually used AND fired from that SE window.
Harold Norman is not to be believed....He was putty in the hands of the FBI. They fed him ideas and he invented the tale that they wanted on record.
Euins, Couch,and Jackson SAW a rifle at least for a few seconds, Tom Dillard took a photo of the SE corner of the TSBD...( The WC tells us that Dillard took the photo thirty seconds after the shooting.) .The only figures visible are Jarman, Williams, and Norman. ...And they are just starting to react to the sounds of gunfire.....It doesn't take thirty seconds to react to the sounds of gunfire... If there had been a gunman in that SE corner window he would be visible just as Harold Norman is.... There was NO gunman there!!
-
The MC rifle found on the 6th floor, had corrosion in the barrel that should have been removed by 1 shot, let alone 3 shots, so you may be right that THAT MC rifle was not fired that day.
That's right....AND Howard Brennan said the rifle that he saw in the hands of the man who was STANDING and AIMING it out of a window was a HIGH POWERED rifle High powered rifle is synonymous with Hunting rifle. And furthermore Brennan ventured a guess that the rifle might have been a 30-30 Winchester because he could see all of the barrel of the rifle. Brennan said that he saw the man aiming the high powered rifle from a window during the shooting.....I've long suspected that Brennan's memory may have played tricks....I believe that he could have seen the man scanning the crowd through the scope on his rifle PRIOR to the shooting.
Harold Norman heard 3 shots fired in about 4 seconds or less as per his video recorded replication of the spacing, and Euins, Couch,and Jackson SAW a rifle at least for a few seconds, sticking out that SE 6th floor window, then it is entirely possible that SOME OTHER rifle was actually used AND fired from that SE window.
Harold Norman is not to be believed....He was putty in the hands of the FBI. They fed him ideas and he invented the tale that they wanted on record.
Euins, Couch,and Jackson SAW a rifle at least for a few seconds, Tom Dillard took a photo of the SE corner of the TSBD...( The WC tells us that Dillard took the photo thirty seconds after the shooting.) .The only figures visible are Jarman, Williams, and Norman. ...And they are just starting to react to the sounds of gunfire.....It doesn't take thirty seconds to react to the sounds of gunfire... If there had been a gunman in that SE corner window he would be visible just as Harold Norman is.... There was NO gunman there!!
Yes, Dillard photo may even be as early as 10 seconds post shots. Jackson in the car with Couch, spotted the rifle in the SE window and Couch said he spotted it also and saw it "slowly withdrawn". The Couch stated he immediately reached for his camera, made a quick adjustment and started filming. Yet for some reason, Couch did not START at where he had JUST SEEN A RIFLE, and never filmed that SE window.. HUH???
Also, im seriously not sure that Couch film actually started at 24 sec posts shots, because Couch i do not believe would have waited 24 seconds after having seen a rifle in the window to start his camera, given his own WC testimony that even 10 seconds is a LONG time for a professional cameraman, so I dont see Couch wasting TWICE that long doing nothing.
-
Yes, Dillard photo may even be as early as 10 seconds post shots. Jackson in the car with Couch, spotted the rifle in the SE window and Couch said he spotted it also and saw it "slowly withdrawn". The Couch stated he immediately reached for his camera, made a quick adjustment and started filming. Yet for some reason, Couch did not START at where he had JUST SEEN A RIFLE, and never filmed that SE window.. HUH???
Also, im seriously not sure that Couch film actually started at 24 sec posts shots, because Couch i do not believe would have waited 24 seconds after having seen a rifle in the window to start his camera, given his own WC testimony that even 10 seconds is a LONG time for a professional cameraman, so I dont see Couch wasting TWICE that long doing nothing.
Dillard's primary job was the covering of sporting events....like boxing matches, Dillard had lightning like reflexes...And he was primed and ready at the time the shot was fired..... If there had been a gunman in that sixth floor window Dillard would have captured him on film.
-
Here is the way they "solved" the Rowland problem. They asked Shelley to comment and constricted him to the specific description supplied by Rowland.
(https://i.ibb.co/gvD2pDr/shelley1.jpg)
The clothing description was of no value due to Shelley's memory. Also he had no recollection of either leaving the first floor! The problem with this was that he had no knowledge over the period in question......12.15-12.33pm as he was outside on the steps before the shots and then wandering down to the rail tracks afterwards...... making his statement effectively meaningless. They never showed any photos to Rowland!
To resolve their headache they simply ignored the obvious candidate at that point in time. I believe primarily because of the late exit by Williams from the SN and the implications of an "unfinished" chicken piece.
But this is just the problem, it seems to me---the WC didn't resolve their headache, in fact they made it worse by not pushing Mr Williams as Mr Rowland's 'elderly Negro'!
Mr Rowland's sighting of a black man at the SN window was very... tricky for the official story, yes?
Least worst option by far? Get him explained away as Mr Williams!
This would have had the very large advantage of
---------------IDing the black man as an innocent employee
---------------tying in with Mr Williams' own declared timeline of having innocently left the window as soon as Messrs Jarman & Norman arrived on five (approx. 12.25).
Problem solved!
As for the chicken bones , the WC could very easily have gotten Mr Williams to say he'd had his fill of chicken-on-the-bone-sandwich (a pretty weird-sounding victual btw, as though Mr Williams doesn't quite know what they want from him here!) and that was why he just left it there as soon as he heard his friends arriving a floor below.
This for me is the real question: Why didn't the WC actively push the line that Mr Williams was Mr Rowland's 'elderly Negro'?
It seems to me the answer may be: Because they knew it wasn't true and wouldn't wash (age, hair, shirt), and that Mr Rowland would take one look at a photo of Mr Williams and say, 'No, sir, definitely not him'.
This may also be the reason why they didn't show Mr Rowland the photo of the (physiognomically) much more promising candidate from the pool of Depository employees: Mr Eddie Piper. If Mr Rowland said no to him too, then only one conclusion remained: The 'elderly Negro' wasn't a Depository employee. A non-employee at the SN window at the same time as a man holding a rifle? Disaster!
So...................... they tried to character assassinate Mr Rowland instead.
And so we come back to the difficulty with the theory that Mr Rowland's 'elderly Negro' was Mr Williams. This requires us to believe that
a) Mr Williams hung out at the SN window knowing that an armed man was over on the other side of the room
b) Mr Williams was allowed to leave in response to the happenstance of Messrs Norman & Jarman arriving on the floor below.
I still believe we should seriously consider the following counter-scenario:
1) The 'elderly Negro' was Mr Piper, whose own story of where he waited for and watched the motorcade from (the opaque frosted glass of the first-floor windows!) is clearly a bunch of hooey
2) Mr Piper was the one who ate & left chicken bones
3) Mr Williams ate his sandwich (no bones!) on the three-wheeler a couple of windows down and did not have a line of sight to the armed man by the southwest window-----as far as he knew, the only other person on the floor was Mr Piper, which fact was hardly cause for confusion or alarm
4) Mr Williams was allowed to leave because he was completely oblivious to the presence of an armed man or a non-employee on the sixth floor
5) The Thayer Waldo story had its origin in Eddie Piper; so too did the very early 'porter' who 'brought Oswald up to the sixth floor' story.
-
But this is just the problem, it seems to me---the WC didn't resolve their headache, in fact they made it worse by not pushing Mr Williams as Mr Rowland's 'elderly Negro'!
Mr Rowland's sighting of a black man at the SN window was very... tricky for the official story, yes?
Least worst option by far? Get him explained away as Mr Williams!
This would have had the very large advantage of
---------------IDing the black man as an innocent employee
---------------tying in with Mr Williams' own declared timeline of having innocently left the window as soon as Messrs Jarman & Norman arrived on five (approx. 12.25).
Problem solved!
As for the chicken bones , the WC could very easily have gotten Mr Williams to say he'd had his fill of chicken-on-the-bone-sandwich (a pretty weird-sounding victual btw, as though Mr Williams doesn't quite know what they want from him here!) and that was why he just left it there as soon as he heard his friends arriving a floor below.
This for me is the real question: Why didn't the WC actively push the line that Mr Williams was Mr Rowland's 'elderly Negro'?
It seems to me the answer may be: Because they knew it wasn't true and wouldn't wash (age, hair, shirt), and that Mr Rowland would take one look at a photo of Mr Williams and say, 'No, sir, definitely not him'.
This may also be the reason why they didn't show Mr Rowland the photo of the (physiognomically) much more promising candidate from the pool of Depository employees: Mr Eddie Piper. If Mr Rowland said no to him too, then only one conclusion remained: The 'elderly Negro' wasn't a Depository employee. A non-employee at the SN window at the same time as a man holding a rifle? Disaster!
So...................... they tried to character assassinate Mr Rowland instead.
And so we come back to the difficulty with the theory that Mr Rowland's 'elderly Negro' was Mr Williams. This requires us to believe that
a) Mr Williams hung out at the SN window knowing that an armed man was over on the other side of the room
b) Mr Williams was allowed to leave in response to the happenstance of Messrs Norman & Jarman arriving on the floor below.
I still believe we should seriously consider the following counter-scenario:
1) The 'elderly Negro' was Mr Piper, whose own story of where he waited for and watched the motorcade from (the opaque frosted glass of the first-floor windows!) is clearly a bunch of hooey
2) Mr Piper was the one who ate & left chicken bones
3) Mr Williams ate his sandwich (no bones!) on the three-wheeler a couple of windows down and did not have a line of sight to the armed man by the southwest window-----as far as he knew, the only other person on the floor was Mr Piper, which fact was hardly cause for confusion or alarm
4) Mr Williams was allowed to leave because he was completely oblivious to the presence of an armed man or a non-employee on the sixth floor
5) The Thayer Waldo story had its origin in Eddie Piper; so too did the very early 'porter' who 'brought Oswald up to the sixth floor' story.
I think we can all agree that the assembled evidence does not support the WCR/Bugliosi/DVP "better sequence" scenario.
I think that Ball/Belin adapted some of what was known. I think they "believed" the Studebaker position for the lunch and went with that although they must have suspected it had been moved westward at some point. The real problem for them was that from after 12.15 Oswald had to be in the SN waiting for JFK. Williams sitting behind dirty closed windows in a position unable to see a sitting LHO in the SN and leaving about 12.25 "sort of works" as a fall back. That is what they went with when Williams testified but was eventually abandoned by the WCR.
I agree Piper's story is "strange".
Anyone sitting on the trolley had a good view to the west wall.
I think the Thayer Waldo story had it's genesis with the Howard brothers and may have been designed to pressure Williams into admitting he saw Oswald just prior to the shooting. The story "evolved" and finished up as the Givens "cigarette trip".
-
I think we can all agree that the assembled evidence does not support the WCR/Bugliosi/DVP "better sequence" scenario.
I think that Ball/Belin adapted some of what was known. I think they "believed" the Studebaker position for the lunch and went with that although they must have suspected it had been moved westward at some point. The real problem for them was that from after 12.15 Oswald had to be in the SN waiting for JFK. Williams sitting behind dirty closed windows in a position unable to see a sitting LHO in the SN and leaving about 12.25 "sort of works" as a fall back. That is what they went with when Williams testified but was eventually abandoned by the WCR.
Thank you for this summary, Mr Crow, it's genuinely helpful! Thumb1:
I've seen the Lone Nutters argue two ways on this problem:
1. Mr Rowland was a fantasist------there was no black man at the SN window, Mr Oswald was there behind the boxes the whole time
2. Mr Rowland saw Mr Williams; the armed man back from the southwest window was Mr Oswald, who somehow (!) managed to avoid being noticed by Mr Williams... when Mr Williams left, Mr Oswald went back to Plan A (=shooting from the SN window)
Both explanations------------I know you will agree!-------------are ridiculous ::)
But! My argument is that we need to aim higher than just discrediting the WC garbage, i.e.
------------we need to establish not just what the WC thought needed hiding but but also what actually happened (= not necessarily the same thing!).
What's still bothering me is Mr Williams' not leaving the sixth floor suddenly because of the open presence of an armed man on the same floor, but at the time of the arrival of Messrs. Norman and Jarman a floor below. Why was he let leave? What was his understanding of what was happening?
I agree Piper's story is "strange".
Yes, passing strange---------and the WC knew it (hence the repeated question by the WC about whether he really hadn't gone higher than the fourth floor that day!)
Anyone sitting on the trolley had a good view to the west wall.
This is an important correction to my understanding of the situation-------thank you! Thumb1:
I don't think we should rule out
-----------Mr Williams leaving the sixth floor much more quickly and going down to the fifth
-----------Messrs Jarman & Norman originally going to the sixth floor and being told by... someone the floor was off-limits----->they then join Mr Williams on five
I've always wondered why Messrs Jarman & Norman would have been 'lucky' enough to have chosen the fifth over the sixth (the more obvious vantage point, surely?)...
I think the Thayer Waldo story had it's genesis with the Howard brothers and may have been designed to pressure Williams into admitting he saw Oswald just prior to the shooting. The story "evolved" and finished up as the Givens "cigarette trip".
Possible, but the word 'janitor' in the Waldo story strongly suggests Piper IMO!
-
Yes, Dillard photo may even be as early as 10 seconds post shots. Jackson in the car with Couch, spotted the rifle in the SE window and Couch said he spotted it also and saw it "slowly withdrawn". The Couch stated he immediately reached for his camera, made a quick adjustment and started filming. Yet for some reason, Couch did not START at where he had JUST SEEN A RIFLE, and never filmed that SE window.. HUH???
Also, im seriously not sure that Couch film actually started at 24 sec posts shots, because Couch i do not believe would have waited 24 seconds after having seen a rifle in the window to start his camera, given his own WC testimony that even 10 seconds is a LONG time for a professional cameraman, so I dont see Couch wasting TWICE that long doing nothing.
The shots covered a time period of about 8 seconds....The first shot would have alerted everybody in the vicinity.....any law enforcement, or security detail, as well as reporters, would have been instantly alert and looking for the source of the shot. ( many photos taken at the time show that this statement is true)
So how can anybody actually believe that Tom Dillard was such a dimwit that he waited thirty seconds before taking a photo. ??? I'm here to inform you that Dillard took his photo DURING the shooting and there is NOBODY firing a rifle from that cramped cubby hole behind the SE corner window.
-
The shots covered a time period of about 8 seconds....The first shot would have alerted everybody in the vicinity.....any law enforcement, or security detail, as well as reporters, would have been instantly alert and looking for the source of the shot. ( many photos taken at the time show that this statement is true)
So how can anybody actually believe that Tom Dillard was such a dimwit that he waited thirty seconds before taking a photo. ??? I'm here to inform you that Dillard took his photo DURING the shooting and there is NOBODY firing a rifle from that cramped cubby hole behind the SE corner window.
Fun game!
Compare and Contrast Mr Norman in this version-----------
(https://i.imgur.com/c2Zglox.jpg)
and in this lighter version---------
(https://i.imgur.com/NvYE3B7.jpg)
Thumb1:
-
Fun game!
Compare and Contrast Mr Norman in this version-----------
(https://i.imgur.com/c2Zglox.jpg)
and in this lighter version---------
(https://i.imgur.com/NvYE3B7.jpg)
Thumb1:
What do you think you see?
JohnM
-
What do you think you see?
JohnM
I think I see two young men who are just becoming aware that something exciting is happening down on the Grassy Knoll......
The authorities have told us that this photo was taken 30 seconds after the shooting..... Or about 40 seconds after the first shot was fired....And allegedly from the window about six feet above their heads. Watta CROCK!!..... They would have had to have been the worlds most slow witted persons to not be VERY STIMULATED by explosions in the window over their heads.....if there had been any explosions from that sixth floor window.
-
The shots covered a time period of about 8 seconds....The first shot would have alerted everybody in the vicinity.....any law enforcement, or security detail, as well as reporters, would have been instantly alert and looking for the source of the shot. ( many photos taken at the time show that this statement is true)
So how can anybody actually believe that Tom Dillard was such a dimwit that he waited thirty seconds before taking a photo. ??? I'm here to inform you that Dillard took his photo DURING the shooting and there is NOBODY firing a rifle from that cramped cubby hole behind the SE corner window.
This requires a LOT of eye witnesses to be outright liars, and i am trying to avoid having to resolve this problem that way, it would be a very sad day for me to think THAT MANY people could be low life enough to bald face lie and KEEP up the lie for so many years.
-
This requires a LOT of eye witnesses to be outright liars, and i am trying to avoid having to resolve this problem that way, it would be a very sad day for me to think THAT MANY people could be low life enough to bald face lie and KEEP up the lie for so many years.
Please don't cite people who were manipulated by the authorities..... The Warren Report is a gigantic lie..... LBJ's minions made modeling clay of any witness who testified....
-
Fun game!
Compare and Contrast Mr Norman in this version-----------
(https://i.imgur.com/c2Zglox.jpg)
and in this lighter version---------
(https://i.imgur.com/NvYE3B7.jpg)
Thumb1:
.The first shot would have alerted everybody in the vicinity.....any law enforcement, or security detail, as well as reporters, would have been instantly alert and looking for the source of the shot.
Marrion Baker said that at the sound of the first shot he was scanning the face of the TSBD looking for the gun .. The fact that he was looking at the upper floors of the TSBD and did not see a gun....is a strong indication that there was no gun there to be seen.
-
What do you think you see?
JohnM
(https://i.imgur.com/NvYE3B7.jpg)
Bonnie Ray Williams is just starting to become aware that something has happened down on Elm Street Below....and the slower witted Harold Norman is showing no sign of any unusual occurrence.... And we are being treated as though we are even slower witted than Harold Norman. We are expected to believe that this Dillard photo was taken thirty seconds after the shooting.
-
Bonnie Ray Williams is just starting to become aware that something has happened down on Elm Street Below....and the slower witted Harold Norman is showing no sign of any unusual occurrence.... And we are being treated as though we are even slower witted than Harold Norman. We are expected to believe that this Dillard photo was taken thirty seconds after the shooting.
But there's a lot going on in the motorcade they came to watch, also. Reverberation was being sensed by then, too. To me, you seem to compare their situation with sitting in a windowless room with no distractions and having only to process a rifle being fired overhead.
A few years ago, there was a stadium full of football fans in France who kept watching the game while explosions occurred just outside.
People don't always behave in unison, or conform to predictable behavior, in a crisis. They generally compartmentalize things. Like you do with reality.
Las Vegas Mass Shooting
"‘There’s a shooter!’: Body-cam video shows officers passing unaware casino-goers during Vegas shooting" ( Link (https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/05/03/theres-a-shooter-body-cam-video-shows-officers-passing-unaway-casino-goers-during-vegas-shooting.html) )
"1 October body camera video shows people sleeping in rooms unaware of active shooter" ( Link (https://www.8newsnow.com/news/local-news/1-october-body-camera-video-shows-people-sleeping-in-rooms-unaware-of-active-shooter/) )
-
But there's a lot going on in the motorcade they came to watch, also. Reverberation was being sensed by then, too. To me, you seem to compare their situation with sitting in a windowless room with no distractions and having only to process a rifle being fired overhead.
A few years ago, there was a stadium full of football fans in France who kept watching the game while explosions occurred just outside.
People don't always behave in unison, or conform to predictable behavior, in a crisis. They generally compartmentalize things. Like you do with reality.
Las Vegas Mass Shooting
"‘There’s a shooter!’: Body-cam video shows officers passing unaware casino-goers during Vegas shooting" ( Link (https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/05/03/theres-a-shooter-body-cam-video-shows-officers-passing-unaway-casino-goers-during-vegas-shooting.html) )
"1 October body camera video shows people sleeping in rooms unaware of active shooter" ( Link (https://www.8newsnow.com/news/local-news/1-october-body-camera-video-shows-people-sleeping-in-rooms-unaware-of-active-shooter/) )
Mr Organ...Your cites are totally unlike the situation that BRW and Harold Norman would have experienced.... Allegedly they were only a few feet from the muzzle of a rifle that was being fired above their heads..... IF that had actually happened thirty seconds before the photo was taken we would not be looking at two men are showing no sign that three ear shattering blasts have occurred just a few feet from their heads.
BRW is displaying a puzzled interest in something happening down on Elm street....And Mr Click - Clack- BOOM , Norman isn't at all interested in anything on Elm Street....He appears to be looking at something on Houston street.... He most certainly isn't cringing away from three ear shattering muzzle blasts, and he most certainly is NOT interested in objects dropping on the floor above his head....
-
I fear this excellent thread has gone off-topic, and I fear it's partly my fault. Apologies, Mr Crow------I was enjoying our dialogue!
-
I fear this excellent thread has gone off-topic, and I fear it's partly my fault. Apologies, Mr Crow------I was enjoying our dialogue!
No problem Alan, I appreciate your concern. I feel that in the absence of any meaningful rebuttal we can at least conclude that the sequence of events alluded to by the WCR/Bugliosi/DVP is pure myth. One that was based on some bungling police work, inadequate analysis and eventually driven by an assumption that Oswald must have been on the 6th floor with an assembled rifle by 12.15pm and in the SN shortly after.
-
No problem Alan, I appreciate your concern. I feel that in the absence of any meaningful rebuttal we can at least conclude that the sequence of events alluded to by the WCR/Bugliosi/DVP is pure myth. One that was based on some bungling police work, inadequate analysis and eventually driven by an assumption that Oswald must have been on the 6th floor with an assembled rifle by 12.15pm and in the SN shortly after.
"Meaningful rebuttal" from the Lone Nut side? You can be sure if there were one available you'd have already heard it many pages back. You have successfully deconstructed the official myth! Thumb1:
Mr Rowland really messed things up for the WC. Again, their only option was to go for his character. Didn't work...
-
"Meaningful rebuttal" from the Lone Nut side? You can be sure if there were one available you'd have already heard it many pages back. You have successfully deconstructed the official myth! Thumb1:
Mr Rowland really messed things up for the WC. Again, their only option was to go for his character. Didn't work...
And as a result of looking at the chicken lunch we now know that Jarman and Norman walked by the domino room window about 12.23-24pm. Nearly 10 minutes after Rowland sighted the rifle man in the SW window of the 6th floor. Also that Williams, for some reason, lied repeatedly of his movements. In addition, until they appeared before the WC, Jarman and Norman continued to claim he rode with them up to the 5th floor.
I am currently working on another under developed storyline. When did Frazier become a "person of interest"? Who visited the Randle's first after the assassination? But seems like another thread....... ;D
-
Another event that, if it occurred happened later than often reported. As one would suspect.
The crowd assembling in Dealy Plaza according to officer Smith.
Mr. SMITH. Well, I stood there and talked some to the crowd after they finally formed. They didn't start forming until around 11 o'clock, and looked over here at the Texas School Book Depository Building and just stood there mainly - there wasn't much to do.
Mr. BALL - Did you talk to him again that morning?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir. I talked to him again later on that morning.
Mr. BALL - About what time?
Mr. JARMAN - It was between 9:30 and 10 o'clock, I believe.
Mr. BALL - Where were you when you talked to him?
Mr. JARMAN - In between two rows of bins.
Mr. BALL - On what floor?
Mr. JARMAN - On the first floor.
Mr. BALL - And what was said by him and by you?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, he was standing up in the window and I went to the window also, and he asked me what were the people gathering around on the corner for, and I told him that the President was supposed to pass that morning, and he asked me did I know which way he was coming, and I told him, yes; he probably come down Main and turn on Houston and then back again on Elm. Then he said, "Oh, I see," and that was all.
Mr. BALL - Did you talk to him again?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir.
-
"Meaningful rebuttal" from the Lone Nut side? You can be sure if there were one available you'd have already heard it many pages back. You have successfully deconstructed the official myth! Thumb1:
Mr Rowland really messed things up for the WC. Again, their only option was to go for his character. Didn't work...
How about just a little meaningful analysis. A random assortment of detectives each placing a piece of chicken in a different place is hardly analysis. Mooney himself places it in two different places in two different statements.
Claiming a description of an elderly negro is really a twenty something BRW, or a detective leaning out of a window and holding his hat is supposedly waving a piece of chicken is meaningful analysis
As far as Rowland, the WC did not have to do anything, Rowland personally and repeatedly cast doubt on his own character.
-
How about just a little meaningful analysis. A random assortment of detectives each placing a piece of chicken in a different place is hardly analysis. Mooney himself places it in two different places in two different statements.
Claiming a description of an elderly negro is really a twenty something BRW, or a detective leaning out of a window and holding his hat is supposedly waving a piece of chicken is meaningful analysis
As far as Rowland, the WC did not have to do anything, Rowland personally and repeatedly cast doubt on his own character.
As far as Rowland, the WC did not have to do anything, Rowland personally and repeatedly cast doubt on his own character.
LBJ's "Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee of Venerated and honorable men" would never have cast doubt on a witnesses testimony....They would never have led the witnesses or put words in their mouths..... Oh, I know that there are hundreds of examples in the hearings where they certainly appear to be twisting the testimony....but You must remember that they were hand picked by the President himself (LBJ) so they were infallible, and as pure as the new fallen snow.
-
How about just a little meaningful analysis. A random assortment of detectives each placing a piece of chicken in a different place is hardly analysis. Mooney himself places it in two different places in two different statements.
Claiming a description of an elderly negro is really a twenty something BRW, or a detective leaning out of a window and holding his hat is supposedly waving a piece of chicken is meaningful analysis
As far as Rowland, the WC did not have to do anything, Rowland personally and repeatedly cast doubt on his own character.
The placement of the lunch is not random. Those present around the time of the discovery of the SN place it in the SN. Over time it was moved westward and the bones finished up inside the bag which was folded over. Studebaker described it as such. It was widely reported that the assassin waited and had a chicken lunch within an hour or so on TV and radio. How did they know there was chicken present when the bones were in the bag? Studebaker only "processed" the bag after Day went to HQ with the rifle at 2pm.
-
As far as Rowland, the WC did not have to do anything, Rowland personally and repeatedly cast doubt on his own character.
No, the WC assassinated his character because of his inconvenient testimony.
-
As far as Rowland, the WC did not have to do anything, Rowland personally and repeatedly cast doubt on his own character.
Please let us have some evidence of this, Jack.
-
No, the WC assassinated his character because of his inconvenient testimony.
And these are the same people who consider this good enough for an ID of Mr Oswald:
Mr. BALL. Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two is the one I picked.
Mr. BALL. Well, I thought you just told me that you hadn't--
Mrs. MARKHAM. I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing.
Mr. BALL. No. I wanted to know if that day when you were in there if you saw anyone in there--
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two.
Mr. BALL. What did you say when you saw number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, let me tell you. I said the second man, and they kept asking me which one, which one. I said, number two. When I said number two, I just got weak.
:D
-
As far as Rowland, the WC did not have to do anything, Rowland personally and repeatedly cast doubt on his own character.
LBJ's "Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee of Venerated and honorable men" would never have cast doubt on a witnesses testimony....They would never have led the witnesses or put words in their mouths..... Oh, I know that there are hundreds of examples in the hearings where they certainly appear to be twisting the testimony....but You must remember that they were hand picked by the President himself (LBJ) so they were infallible, and as pure as the new fallen snow.
Rowland volunteered the info about his grades. Barbara, his wife, volunteered how that info was wrong. Nobody even asked either of them a question about the grades.
-
The placement of the lunch is not random. Those present around the time of the discovery of the SN place it in the SN. Over time it was moved westward and the bones finished up inside the bag which was folded over. Studebaker described it as such. It was widely reported that the assassin waited and had a chicken lunch within an hour or so on TV and radio. How did they know there was chicken present when the bones were in the bag? Studebaker only "processed" the bag after Day went to HQ with the rifle at 2pm.
Multiple pieces in multiple locations? Of course it was being moved around. That is normal for detectives to move evidence around for no real reason.
-
No, the WC assassinated his character because of his inconvenient testimony.
No, fabricating stories led to him assassinating his own character. An 18 year old acting like a 2 year old with snot running out of his nose and his mother's milk still dripping off his chin decided to start making up stories in front of grown men.
-
Please let us have some evidence of this, Jack.
"30 odd sized 6" rifle and from 200 feet away. Rowland telling them how much he knew about guns and scopes too. What a guy.
It must be you don't see anything wrong with his statement.
-
Multiple pieces in multiple locations? Of course it was being moved around. That is normal for detectives to move evidence around for no real reason.
Donald?
-
"30 odd sized 6" rifle and from 200 feet away. Rowland telling them how much he knew about guns and scopes too. What a guy.
It must be you don't see anything wrong with his statement.
"30 odd sized 6" rifle and from 200 feet away. Rowland telling them how much he knew about guns and scopes too. What a guy.
It must be you don't see anything wrong with his statement.
Only a know it all who thinks that he's superior would make an issue out of Rowland's statement......
While it's technically true that there is no such rifle as a 30 odd six ....a truly knowing person would simply dismiss Rowland's statement as his misunderstanding of the often used thirty aught six ( aught being an old fashion term for zero) IOW ...Rowlands was referring to a 30-06....which is actually a cartridge designation and not a rifle at all.... BUT many people refer to a rifle that uses the 30-06 cartridge as a 30-06 rifle. It's not at all uncommon and only a smart ass would make an issue of Rowland's misunderstanding.
-
Rowland volunteered the info about his grades. Barbara, his wife, volunteered how that info was wrong. Nobody even asked either of them a question about the grades.
What in the world are you talking about?
Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Rowland, what was the quality of your grades in high school?
------
Mr. BELIN. Do you know about what his grades were?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Varied.
-
No, fabricating stories led to him assassinating his own character. An 18 year old acting like a 2 year old with snot running out of his nose and his mother's milk still dripping off his chin decided to start making up stories in front of grown men.
Funny how you don't characterize Brennan, Markham, McDonald, or Bledsoe that way. I guess because their stories fit the narrative you like.
-
It's not at all uncommon and only a smart ass would make an issue of Rowland's misunderstanding.
...and/or a person with an agenda.
-
...and/or a person with an agenda.
Yes...you're right..... Jack is not only a "know-it-all".... but his primary motive is to discredit Rowland......
-
Donald?
No. Is that you Hillary?
-
Funny how you don't characterize Brennan, Markham, McDonald, or Bledsoe that way. I guess because their stories fit the narrative you like.
No idea. Read their statements and look for the inconsistencies. Rowland contradicts himself start to finish.
Brennan: Brennan stated he saw a rifle having been fired from the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD. He stated there was only two shots.
-
Yes...you're right..... Jack is not only a "know-it-all".... but his primary motive is to discredit Rowland......
Being called a "know it all" by a "know nothing" can't be a bad thing. Rowland does an excellent job of discrediting his own testimony all by himself. Point out the parts where he doesn't contradict himself. I think he got his name right after that not so much.
Rowland's expertise on firearms seems to rival your own.
"Rowlands was referring to a 30-06....which is actually a cartridge designation and not a rifle at all.."
Huh? Firearms are identified in different ways, the cartridge used in them is just one of them.
So you what you are saying is you can put any cartridge in any rifle and it will work just fine?
Nobody has a clue as to what Rowland was talking about. Especially Arlen Specter
How you tell and the only way to tell what cartridge can be fired in a rifle is by reading what is stamped on the barrel. Rowland claims he knew from 200 feet away by the look of the scope.
-
Being called a "know it all" by a "know nothing" can't be a bad thing. Rowland does an excellent job of discrediting his own testimony all by himself. Point out the parts where he doesn't contradict himself. I think he got his name right after that not so much.
Rowland's expertise on firearms seems to rival your own.
"Rowlands was referring to a 30-06....which is actually a cartridge designation and not a rifle at all.."
Huh? Firearms are identified in different ways, the cartridge used in them is just one of them.
So you what you are saying is you can put any cartridge in any rifle and it will work just fine?
Nobody has a clue as to what Rowland was talking about. Especially Arlen Specter
How you tell and the only way to tell what cartridge can be fired in a rifle is by reading what is stamped on the barrel. Rowland claims he knew from 200 feet away by the look of the scope.
DUH.... Rowland was merely trying to tell the investigators that the rifle that he saw in the hands of the man was a big game hunting rifle. It's as simple as that...He was relating the rifle to his step fathers rifle, which he called a Thirty Odd Six ( he thought that a thirty aught six was a thirty odd six) No big deal...He simply didn't know. And he sure as hell wasn't trying to claim that he could know the caliber of the rifle from 200 hundred feet away. Watta absurd idea! Only a know-it-all who's trying to impress others about his vast knowledge of firearms would make an issue out of Rowland's statement.
-
No idea. Read their statements and look for the inconsistencies. Rowland contradicts himself start to finish.
Brennan: Brennan stated he saw a rifle having been fired from the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD. He stated there was only two shots.
Brennan changed his story every time he told it. If you're going by what Brennan said at any particular time, then it's not about whether someone contradicts himself or not.
-
Nobody has a clue as to what Rowland was talking about. Especially Arlen Specter
There were a lot of things that Arlen Specter didn't have a clue about.
-
Brennan changed his story every time he told it. If you're going by what Brennan said at any particular time, then it's not about whether someone contradicts himself or not.
Initially, Brennan was just a naive citizen trying to help the police..... The best source for information from Brennan is his affidavit which he gave about an hour after the coup d e'tat.
By the evening of the murder he was awakening to the fact that the police were railroading Lee Oswald. Brennan told the police that the man that he'd seen STANDING and aiming a hunting rifle from a TSBD window was NOT there in the line up ( Lee Oswald was in the line up) But the cops would not listen to him and badgered him to identify Lee as the man. The police asked him how he could be so sure that the man with the hunting rifle wasn't in the lineup he said that Lee was not dressed like the gunman....He said that the man was wearing light colored khaki clothing. Whereupon the police told Brennan that Lee had gone to his room at 1:00pm and changed his clothes ( which was true....except there were no light colored khaki clothes in Lee's room when they searched it a couple of hours later.
One must keep in mind that LBJ's "special Select Blue Ribbon Committee" was in fact a crime cover up committee..... They badgered witnesses, and twisted their testimony and ignored what the witnesses were trying to tell them.
-
"30 odd sized 6" rifle and from 200 feet away. Rowland telling them how much he knew about guns and scopes too. What a guy.
It must be you don't see anything wrong with his statement.
Only a know it all who thinks that he's superior would make an issue out of Rowland's statement......
While it's technically true that there is no such rifle as a 30 odd six ....a truly knowing person would simply dismiss Rowland's statement as his misunderstanding of the often used thirty aught six ( aught being an old fashion term for zero) IOW ...Rowlands was referring to a 30-06....which is actually a cartridge designation and not a rifle at all.... BUT many people refer to a rifle that uses the 30-06 cartridge as a 30-06 rifle. It's not at all uncommon and only a smart ass would make an issue of Rowland's misunderstanding.
Imo, Rowland was making the reference to a 30.06 "hunting rifle" with a "large scope" to indirectly defy the idea that it could have been an Mannlicher Carcano rifle with longer woorden stock and smaller diameter scope.
It is doubtful Rowland could have mistaken a wooden stock rifle with only about 5" of barrel extending beyond, vs a 30.06 typical rifle with a barrel that extends about 12" or more past the wooden stock.
It is doubtful that Rowland could have seen the type of off center , smaller diameter scope, of the MC rifle, from over 200 ft away when that scope is barely visible in the BYPs which photo was taken from about 10 ft away.
-
No. Is that you Hillary?
Tenzing?
-
DUH.... Rowland was merely trying to tell the investigators that the rifle that he saw in the hands of the man was a big game hunting rifle. It's as simple as that...He was relating the rifle to his step fathers rifle, which he called a Thirty Odd Six ( he thought that a thirty aught six was a thirty odd six) No big deal...He simply didn't know. And he sure as hell wasn't trying to claim that he could know the caliber of the rifle from 200 hundred feet away. Watta absurd idea! Only a know-it-all who's trying to impress others about his vast knowledge of firearms would make an issue out of Rowland's statement.
DUH..
Your most informative answer to date.
No big deal...He simply didn't know. And he sure as hell wasn't trying to claim that he could know the caliber of the rifle from 200 hundred feet away.
Yes he was. Not a 30 odd six, a 30 odd size 6. I did not know it was possible but he seems to know less about firearms than you do. He seems to share your passion for pretending though.
Mr. ROWLAND - No. In proportion to the scope it appeared to me to be a .30-odd size 6, a deer rifle with a fairly large or powerful scope.
No idea in the world what he is talking about. The scope indicates a caliber?
Mr. SPECTER - When you say, .30-odd-6, exactly what did you mean by that?
Mr. ROWLAND - That is a rifle that is used quite frequently for deer hunting. It is an import.
Just so you know a 30-06 is not an import cartridge.
-
Brennan changed his story every time he told it. If you're going by what Brennan said at any particular time, then it's not about whether someone contradicts himself or not.
I see some differneces in Brennan's statement over time, but Brennan's basic message never changed. Rowland could not hold a thought together in the same interview. I seriously have wondered if Rowland was ADD or had some other learning disability. He seemed unable to remember his previous answers in his WC interview.
-
There were a lot of things that Arlen Specter didn't have a clue about.
Specter obviously knew about firearms, Rowland tried to pass himself off as being knowledgeable about them but proved just the opposite that he had no clue at all. Specter was very good at questioning witnesses and he would pick them apart when he found the inconsistencies like Arnold's description of the person with a rifle.
-
Tenzing?
Yes, tell Bubba (Bill) to stop chasing after the Yeti girls.
-
Yes he was. Not a 30 odd six, a 30 odd size 6.
Why does it even matter if he knew the correct terminology? Brennan (supposedly) saw a 30-30 Winchester. Marina didn't know the difference between a rifle and a shotgun.
-
I see some differneces in Brennan's statement over time, but Brennan's basic message never changed. Rowland could not hold a thought together in the same interview. I seriously have wondered if Rowland was ADD or had some other learning disability. He seemed unable to remember his previous answers in his WC interview.
It happens. Have you read Helen Markham's or Mary Bledsoe's or Jack Dougherty's testimony?
-
Specter obviously knew about firearms, Rowland tried to pass himself off as being knowledgeable about them but proved just the opposite that he had no clue at all. Specter was very good at questioning witnesses and he would pick them apart when he found the inconsistencies like Arnold's description of the person with a rifle.
No, he singled out Rowland for special treatment because he didn't like what Rowland was reporting.
-
DUH..
Your most informative answer to date.
No big deal...He simply didn't know. And he sure as hell wasn't trying to claim that he could know the caliber of the rifle from 200 hundred feet away.
Yes he was. Not a 30 odd six, a 30 odd size 6. I did not know it was possible but he seems to know less about firearms than you do. He seems to share your passion for pretending though.
Mr. ROWLAND - No. In proportion to the scope it appeared to me to be a .30-odd size 6, a deer rifle with a fairly large or powerful scope.
No idea in the world what he is talking about. The scope indicates a caliber?
Mr. SPECTER - When you say, .30-odd-6, exactly what did you mean by that?
Mr. ROWLAND - That is a rifle that is used quite frequently for deer hunting. It is an import.
Just so you know a 30-06 is not an import cartridge.
Ya dumb ass.... Rowland was simply saying that the man was holding a DEER HUNTING RIFLE..... That's all he was trying to say.
You do know the difference between a Big game hunting rifle and a military rifle like a Mannlicher Carcano Don't you?....
-
DUH..
Your most informative answer to date.
No big deal...He simply didn't know. And he sure as hell wasn't trying to claim that he could know the caliber of the rifle from 200 hundred feet away.
Yes he was. Not a 30 odd six, a 30 odd size 6. I did not know it was possible but he seems to know less about firearms than you do. He seems to share your passion for pretending though.
Mr. ROWLAND - No. In proportion to the scope it appeared to me to be a .30-odd size 6, a deer rifle with a fairly large or powerful scope.
No idea in the world what he is talking about. The scope indicates a caliber?
Mr. SPECTER - When you say, .30-odd-6, exactly what did you mean by that?
Mr. ROWLAND - That is a rifle that is used quite frequently for deer hunting. It is an import.
Just so you know a 30-06 is not an import cartridge.
Mr. ROWLAND - No. In proportion to the scope it appeared to me to be a .30-odd size 6, a deer rifle with a fairly large or powerful scope.
No idea in the world what he is talking about.
No big deal...He simply didn't know. And he sure as hell wasn't trying to claim that he could know the caliber of the rifle from 200 hundred feet away.
Yes he was. Not a 30 odd six, a 30 odd size 6.
Does your right hand know what your left hand is doing?.....On one hand you say ... "No idea in the world what he is talking about. " while on the other hand in responding to my pointing out that Rowland simply didn't know, And he sure as hell wasn't trying to claim that he could know the caliber of the rifle from 200 hundred feet away. you say....
Yes he was. Not a 30 odd six, a 30 odd size 6.
-
Why does it even matter if he knew the correct terminology? Brennan (supposedly) saw a 30-30 Winchester. Marina didn't know the difference between a rifle and a shotgun.
Why does it even matter if he knew the correct terminology?
It not only matters...It's vital to an LNer.....Because Rowland clearly stated the the man that he saw behind the west end window was holding a SPORTING RIFLE with a large scope.
And of course the LNer's can't allow that, because their patsy was said to have used a MILITARY rifle, a Mannlicher Carcano. Thus the cretins have to attack Rowland's ignorance about the exact kind of rifle his step dad owned.
-
Why does it even matter if he knew the correct terminology? Brennan (supposedly) saw a 30-30 Winchester. Marina didn't know the difference between a rifle and a shotgun.
Yes!...Both Brennan and Rowland said that they saw a SPORTING RIFLE in the hands of a man who was dressed in light colored (Brennan said khaki) clothing. And yet LBJ's cover up committee said that the murder weapon was a MILITARY rifle......
-
Why does it even matter if he knew the correct terminology? Brennan (supposedly) saw a 30-30 Winchester. Marina didn't know the difference between a rifle and a shotgun.
It became a pattern with Rowland, how he would start a story and then embelish it. There is no way to judge a persons testimonies other than by what is stated. He went into great detail about the man with a rifle and his description of him framed in the window. It proved to be wrong.
------------------------------
It shows you Brennan was not an expert nor claimed to be knowledgeable.
Mr. BRENNAN. I am not an expert on guns. It was, as I could observe, some type of a high-powered rifle.
Now contrast that to Rowland.
Mr. SPECTER - How did you know that?
Mr. ROWLAND - I have been around guns quite a bit in my lifetime.
By Arnold's own statements he proves that was not true.
--------------------------------
Marina? In Russia they were not allowed to own a gun other than a shotgun. Oswald hunted with a shotgun in Russia. Given her upbringing she would have no way of knowing.
-
It happens. Have you read Helen Markham's or Mary Bledsoe's or Jack Dougherty's testimony?
Markham no
Bledsoe no
Dougherty yes. It totally depends on whether you believe him to be mentally challenged or not.
-
No, he singled out Rowland for special treatment because he didn't like what Rowland was reporting.
Special Treatment? Rowland threw the investigation into the realm of conspiracy by making a claim that he had never made before. He forced them to pursue the truth about his claim.
Ultimately Rowland claimed there was two people in the SN. Of course the WC investigators were going to react and investigate him and his claim. His WC testimony was erratic at best. The WC members obviously would have noted his multiple answers to the same question. Nothing in his testimony would lead you to believe he was a credible witness. The WC members saw and heard it first hand.
-
Ya dumb ass.... Rowland was simply saying that the man was holding a DEER HUNTING RIFLE..... That's all he was trying to say.
You do know the difference between a Big game hunting rifle and a military rifle like a Mannlicher Carcano Don't you?....
No he went into great detail about the rifle.
--------------------------------
Yes. One starts with a B and the other with an M. What do you think is the difference?
-
Mr. ROWLAND - No. In proportion to the scope it appeared to me to be a .30-odd size 6, a deer rifle with a fairly large or powerful scope.
No idea in the world what he is talking about.
No big deal...He simply didn't know. And he sure as hell wasn't trying to claim that he could know the caliber of the rifle from 200 hundred feet away.
Yes he was. Not a 30 odd six, a 30 odd size 6.
Does your right hand know what your left hand is doing?.....On one hand you say ... "No idea in the world what he is talking about. " while on the other hand in responding to my pointing out that Rowland simply didn't know, And he sure as hell wasn't trying to claim that he could know the caliber of the rifle from 200 hundred feet away. you say....
Yes he was. Not a 30 odd six, a 30 odd size 6.
No you miss quoted him and are trying to characterizing him as talking about a Thirty aught six. You missed the "odd size." Do you have a thirty odd size six too?
Go to any sporting goods store and tell them you want to buy a thirty odd size six rifle and thirty odd size six ammunition. When they stop laughing they most likely will escort you out before you harm yourself or others.
-
Yes!...Both Brennan and Rowland said that they saw a SPORTING RIFLE in the hands of a man who was dressed in light colored (Brennan said khaki) clothing. And yet LBJ's cover up committee said that the murder weapon was a MILITARY rifle......
Rowland proved he had no idea and Brennan said he was no expert.
I thought it was a big game rifle and a military rifle? Now a sporting rifle?
-
It became a pattern with Rowland, how he would start a story and then embelish it. There is no way to judge a persons testimonies other than by what is stated. He went into great detail about the man with a rifle and his description of him framed in the window. It proved to be wrong.
------------------------------
It shows you Brennan was not an expert nor claimed to be knowledgeable.
Mr. BRENNAN. I am not an expert on guns. It was, as I could observe, some type of a high-powered rifle.
Now contrast that to Rowland.
Mr. SPECTER - How did you know that?
Mr. ROWLAND - I have been around guns quite a bit in my lifetime.
By Arnold's own statements he proves that was not true.
--------------------------------
Marina? In Russia they were not allowed to own a gun other than a shotgun. Oswald hunted with a shotgun in Russia. Given her upbringing she would have no way of knowing.
What's really going on is Jack Nessan is desperately trying to discredit Arnold Rowland..... And even though Rowland made statements that were inaccurate, he DID know the rifle that he saw in the hands of the man behind the sixth floor window was a SPORTING RIFLE ( high powered rifle , or hunting rifle) with a large telescopic sight..... and it was NOT a military rifle with a full wooden stock like a Mannlicher Carcano.
Perhaps Jack Nessan simply wants to belittle Rowland and display his" superior knowledge", which is common for a know-it-all.......
The bottom line is;... BOTH Arnold Rowland and Howard Brennan said that the rifle that they saw in the hands of a man who was wearing light colored clothing was a HIGH POWERED RIFLE.... and definitely NOT a Military rifle.
-
No you miss quoted him and are trying to characterizing him as talking about a Thirty aught six. You missed the "odd size." Do you have a thirty odd size six too?
Go to any sporting goods store and tell them you want to buy a thirty odd size six rifle and thirty odd size six ammunition. When they stop laughing they most likely will escort you out before you harm yourself or others.
Your ego is allowing your ignorance to make an utter fool of yourself....
I'd wager that if I went to a sporting goods store, or gun shop, and told them that I was interested in buying " a thirty odd size six rifle and thirty odd size six ammunition". They would probably say ...Oh, You mean a Thirty Aught Six rifle?..... What brand do you have in mind.....We have that caliber in Remington, Winchester, and Mossberg.....
-
No he went into great detail about the rifle.
--------------------------------
Yes. One starts with a B and the other with an M. What do you think is the difference?
You do know the difference between a Big game hunting rifle and a military rifle like a Mannlicher Carcano Don't you?....
--------------------------------
Yes. One starts with a B and the other with an M.
Thank you.... I believe you've got it....LOL!
-
It became a pattern with Rowland, how he would start a story and then embelish it. There is no way to judge a persons testimonies other than by what is stated. He went into great detail about the man with a rifle and his description of him framed in the window. It proved to be wrong.
What exactly proved it to be wrong?
-
Ultimately Rowland claimed there was two people in the SN. Of course the WC investigators were going to react and investigate him and his claim.
Rowland wasn’t the only one who claimed to see two people there. It’s not at all a bizarre claim.
-
Rowland proved he had no idea and Brennan said he was no expert.
Again, what difference does it make with regard to the people he saw?
Brennan embellished the hell out of his story as time went on. Do you then disregard everything he reported?
-
I'd wager that if I went to a sporting goods store, or gun shop, and told them that I was interested in buying " a thirty odd size six rifle and thirty odd size six ammunition". They would probably say ...Oh, You mean a Thirty Aught Six rifle?..... What brand do you have in mind.....We have that caliber in Remington, Winchester, and Mossberg.....
Thumb1:
Businesses that mock their customers don’t tend to stay in business.
-
It became a pattern with Rowland, how he would start a story and then embelish it. There is no way to judge a persons testimonies other than by what is stated. He went into great detail about the man with a rifle and his description of him framed in the window. It proved to be wrong.
------------------------------
It shows you Brennan was not an expert nor claimed to be knowledgeable.
Mr. BRENNAN. I am not an expert on guns. It was, as I could observe, some type of a high-powered rifle.
Now contrast that to Rowland.
Mr. SPECTER - How did you know that?
Mr. ROWLAND - I have been around guns quite a bit in my lifetime.
By Arnold's own statements he proves that was not true.
--------------------------------
Marina? In Russia they were not allowed to own a gun other than a shotgun. Oswald hunted with a shotgun in Russia. Given her upbringing she would have no way of knowing.
(https://i.ibb.co/87BmQz5/85837-D02-6403-4-F2-E-A06-A-1468-C7-AED8-B5.jpg)
-
Special Treatment? Rowland threw the investigation into the realm of conspiracy by making a claim that he had never made before. He forced them to pursue the truth about his claim.
Ultimately Rowland claimed there was two people in the SN. Of course the WC investigators were going to react and investigate him and his claim. His WC testimony was erratic at best. The WC members obviously would have noted his multiple answers to the same question. Nothing in his testimony would lead you to believe he was a credible witness. The WC members saw and heard it first hand.
Can you post where he claimed that there were two people in the SN?
-
Rowland wasn’t the only one who claimed to see two people there. It’s not at all a bizarre claim.
Don't you get it, Mr Iacoletti? Any witness claim that is not congruent with the official story is, by definition, bizarre. Sheesh ::)
-
Don't you get it, Mr Iacoletti? Any witness claim that is not congruent with the official story is, by definition, bizarre. Sheesh ::)
That's a fact!.... And The bastroids have succeeded in making the term Conspiracy Theorist a synonym for a simpleton and a fool..... "Conspiracy Theorist" has become part of the American vernacular, thanks to LBJ, who viewed us as mere pissants.....
Many of the really bizarre theories were created by LNer's pretending to be CT's.....
-
What's really going on is Jack Nessan is desperately trying to discredit Arnold Rowland..... And even though Rowland made statements that were inaccurate, he DID know the rifle that he saw in the hands of the man behind the sixth floor window was a SPORTING RIFLE ( high powered rifle , or hunting rifle) with a large telescopic sight..... and it was NOT a military rifle with a full wooden stock like a Mannlicher Carcano.
Perhaps Jack Nessan simply wants to belittle Rowland and display his" superior knowledge", which is common for a know-it-all.......
The bottom line is;... BOTH Arnold Rowland and Howard Brennan said that the rifle that they saw in the hands of a man who was wearing light colored clothing was a HIGH POWERED RIFLE.... and definitely NOT a Military rifle.
"And even though Rowland made statements that were inaccurate,"
There you go. Now you understand. Not a few, but a lot
Rowland's own testimony discredits him. He repeatedly embellished, fabricated and changed his story.
-
"And even though Rowland made statements that were inaccurate,"
There you go. Now you understand. Not a few, but a lot
Rowland's own testimony discredits him. He repeatedly embellished, fabricated and changed his story.
Arnold Rowland saw a big game hunting rifle ( Routinely used as "sniper rifles" ) in the hands of a man who was standing behind a sixth floor window at the west end of the TSBD. The man was dressed in light colored clothing.... The MAJOR point that Rowland made was the fact that the rifle was NOT a military rifle, like a Mannlicher Carcano.
-
You do know the difference between a Big game hunting rifle and a military rifle like a Mannlicher Carcano Don't you?....
--------------------------------
Yes. One starts with a B and the other with an M.
Thank you.... I believe you've got it....LOL!
Yes. One starts with a B and the other with an M. What do you think is the difference?
Do you identify with Rowland? You too are always pretending to know about firearms to make some strange point.
-
Again, what difference does it make with regard to the people he saw?
Brennan embellished the hell out of his story as time went on. Do you then disregard everything he reported?
He fabricates endless stories but he gets the people right?
-
Thumb1:
Businesses that mock their customers don’t tend to stay in business.
But letting fools handle guns brings in business?
-
Can you post where he claimed that there were two people in the SN?
Stating he saw an elderly Negro in the SN where a white man had been seen to be firing a rifle is placing a second person in the SN.
-
Arnold Rowland saw a big game hunting rifle ( Routinely used as "sniper rifles" ) in the hands of a man who was standing behind a sixth floor window at the west end of the TSBD. The man was dressed in light colored clothing.... The MAJOR point that Rowland made was the fact that the rifle was NOT a military rifle, like a Mannlicher Carcano.
"big game hunting rifle ( Routinely used as "sniper rifles" )"
So a big game hunting rifle is a military rifle? If the military uses it doesn't that make it a military rifle?
It is an ever changing terminology. Big game rifle - Sporting rifle - High powered rifle - Hunting rifle - Military rifle? You have no idea in the world what you are talking about. None.
Port of Arms? Rowland was attempting to describe a Military terminology?
-
But letting fools handle guns brings in business?
So you believe that simply because a person doesn't use the precise correct terminology he's a fool?..... And he shouldn't be allowed to handle guns? Is that what you believe Nessan ?
I'd remind you that tens of thousands young Americans were ignorant about guns and many didn't know the difference between a .22 caliber rifle and 30 caliber rifle ...but they learned, and went off to war ...... And you should be thankful.
-
"big game hunting rifle ( Routinely used as "sniper rifles" )"
So a big game hunting rifle is a military rifle? If the military uses it doesn't that make it a military rifle?
It is an ever changing terminology. Big game rifle - Sporting rifle - High powered rifle - Hunting rifle - Military rifle? You have no idea in the world what you are talking about. None.
Port of Arms? Rowland was attempting to describe a Military terminology?
So a big game hunting rifle is a military rifle?
NOPE!......A Winchester Model 70 in 300 Magnum caliber is a civilian big game hunting rifle... It is a civilian sporting rifle that is used by the military as a sniper rifle....
But more to the point..... Even a dumb ass like you couldn't mistake a Hunting rifle with a large scope, or a 30-30 Winchester for a Mannlicher Carcano.....
-
He fabricates endless stories but he gets the people right?
So referring to a .30-06 as “thirty odd size six” constitutes “fabricating endless stories”?
-
Stating he saw an elderly Negro in the SN where a white man had been seen to be firing a rifle is placing a second person in the SN.
Who claimed to see this white man firing a rifle?
And how would that preclude Rowland seeing a black man there earlier?
-
But letting fools handle guns brings in business?
Yes. If my business is selling guns, why should I care what the people buying them call them?
Why are you so attached to smearing Rowland?
-
So you believe that simply because a person doesn't use the precise correct terminology he's a fool?..... And he shouldn't be allowed to handle guns? Is that what you believe Nessan ?
I'd remind you that tens of thousands young Americans were ignorant about guns and many didn't know the difference between a .22 caliber rifle and 30 caliber rifle ...but they learned, and went off to war ...... And you should be thankful.
Exactly they did not know and they learned. That is not a description of Rowland.
Did they go in front of the WC and fabricate stories? Did they first tell everyone they were very knowledgeable about the firearms and then prove to WC members they weren't?
-
So a big game hunting rifle is a military rifle?
NOPE!......A Winchester Model 70 in 300 Magnum caliber is a civilian big game hunting rifle... It is a civilian sporting rifle that is used by the military as a sniper rifle....
But more to the point..... Even a dumb ass like you couldn't mistake a Hunting rifle with a large scope, or a 30-30 Winchester for a Mannlicher Carcano.....
Rowland did not know the difference between any of them. Same as you.
You didn't know you were posting a video of a German Gew 88 and telling everyone it was an Italian Carcano until I told you.
So you can't hunt with a military rifle? if you shoot an animal with a military rifle it won't die?
The 300 Win mag was not developed as a sniper rifle until the 1980's.
How about describe a "large" scope. How would Rowland know the caliber and power of the scope from where he was standing?
-
Yes. If my business is selling guns, why should I care what the people buying them call them?
Why are you so attached to smearing Rowland?
I have a friend who accidently shot a customer, father of two, in the head in a sporting goods store. He would give anything to have that millisecond back. Run your business anyway you want but there are consequences for lack of judgement or knowledge of firearms.
It was alright for Rowland to appear before the WC and tell them whatever he wanted? You don't think it was important to get it right?
-
Rowland did not know the difference between any of them. Same as you.
You didn't know you were posting a video of a German Gew 88 and telling everyone it was an Italian Carcano until I told you.
So you can't hunt with a military rifle? if you shoot an animal with a military rifle it won't die?
The 300 Win mag was not developed as a sniper rifle until the 1980's.
How about describe a "large" scope. How would Rowland know the caliber and power of the scope from where he was standing?
You didn't know you were posting a video of a German Gew 88 and telling everyone it was an Italian Carcano until I told you.
You have me misidentified...... You are confused.... I own several Mannlicher Carcanos so I certainly know what a carcano looks like.....
I'm starting to realize that you have a mental problem..... And I'm sorry for you. I hope medication will help.
-
I have a friend who accidently shot a customer, father of two, in the head in a sporting goods store. He would give anything to have that millisecond back. Run your business anyway you want but there are consequences for lack of judgement or knowledge of firearms.
That's tragic, but I doubt it had anything to do with him getting the name of the firearm correct.
P.S. what is a sporting goods store doing with loaded firearms in the store?
It was alright for Rowland to appear before the WC and tell them whatever he wanted? You don't think it was important to get it right?
He was there to tell them what he saw in the windows of the Depository -- not as an expert witness on types of rifles.
-
He was there to tell them what he saw in the windows of the Depository -- not as an expert witness on types of rifles.
And just happened to describe a black man on the 6th floor at the times that Williams was on the 6th floor. Coincidence or clairvoyance?
Specter's brief did not include the "chicken lunch" problem as the segmented inner workings of the WC assigned that problem to Ball and Belin. In addition, my recollection is that Rowland testified before Williams, Jarman and Norman.
-
Here is a possible way to reconcile both Carolyn Arnold sightings of 12:15 in the lunchroom and the 12:25 sighing of Oswald in the lobby, with the Fritz notes of Oswald referencing Norman and Jarman
and the more recent find of the "outside to watch the P. Parade" note
and taking into consideration Eddie Piper sighting at 12:00 and Oswald possibly having told Piper "Im going out"
and Oswald NOT seen by anyone between 12:01 and 12:14 on the 1st floor, even though Norman was still in the Domino room at 12:00- 12:10, and Jarman was wandering around on the 1st floor eating a sandwich from 12:00 to 12:10 approx. After which, both Norman and Jarman exit about 12:10 by the back loading dock door, and arrive at the front TSBD by 12:15
And Buell W. Frazier not having seen Oswald with a lunch size paper bag (unless Oswald put a lunch bag inside the longer 24-27" bag Frazer)
The sequence is therefore:
Oswald comes down to 1st floor at 12:00, meets Piper, and the reason to even say anything at all to Piper, was because Oswald was going to leave the building to go "Out" in order to buy some lunch. Thus Oswald was letting Piper know, so that Mr. Truly would know not to waste his time looking for Oswald inside the building or sending someone to find Oswald.
Just before Oswald returns to the TSBD, probably via back door loading dock, Norman and Jarman leave via that door about 12:10 and go around the outside perimeter. Its possible Oswald could have had LOS to them at this point in time, as they go around the corner, past the Domino room.
Oswald returns into TSBD via back door at about 12:12, stops by the Dr. Pepper machined on the 1st floor by the back staircase, gets the bottle of pop, and goes up to 2nd floor to see if its empty of the office women yet. As he reaches the 2nd floor landing, he sees Sarah Stanton, and Stanton see him. Oswald sees also possibly, a few other women still in the lunchroom so pretends he is just on his way up to another floor. Sarah sees Oswald with the Dr.Pepper in hand, which she may have told a relative some years later, and the relative remembered it as "Pepsi"
Oswald goes up about halfway the next staircase and just sits there,on the midlevel 3rd floor stair waiting and listening, hoping the rest of women will leave and the 2nd floor lunchroom will be vacated. He is out of line of sight here .
About 12:15, Oswald goes back down a half flight of stairs from 3rd floor mid landing where he had been sitting, and he sees that the 2nd floor lunchroom is now vacated. He goes in and sits down. Possibly he may have taken off his jacket and or his brown shirt here too.
Carolyn Arnold then comes to get some water and sees Oswald sitting in the 2nd floor lunchroom approximately 12:15. She then leaves, probably returning to the front staircase, using the outer hallway, where she joins up with Virgie Rachley in the front Lobby by about 12:17 and by 12:20 they are standing near Mrs Reid and Mr. Campbell on the curb of Elm st.
About 12:22, there is radio transmission on one of the motorcycles near Norman and Jarman announcing the JFK motorcade is about to arrive in Dealey Plaza. Norman and Jamans thus depart to return to TSBD, going back around the side and to the rear loadking dock, returning thru the back door, and then to get on the rear West elevator approximately by 12:23
At 12:23, Oswald is still in the 2nd floor lunchroom. He has not quite yet finished his Dr.Pepper, but has finished his lunch. He decides he will go down "to see the P.Parade out front" .
Oswald exits the 2nd floor lunchroom about 12:23:15 and just misses seeing Norman/Jarman on the West elevator going up. However, he does HEAR them talking on the elevator.
Oswald then goes down, to the 1st floor, using the rear staircase, and across the floor, passing by Trulys office and into the front lobby, where he stops to the right side of the glass door entrance, and looks out thru the right side glass partition. This is about 12:25pm
Carolyn Arnold looks back towards the TSBD entrance and sees Oswald inside the Lobby at this time of 12:25, Oswald being visible thru the glass partition.
Now What? Does Oswald go out? Does Oswald stay inside the lobby and witnesses the JFK motorcade going past, hears the shots, then goes where? Back up to the 2nd floor lunchroom? Or to the first floor Storage room beside the front staircase?
-
Now What? Does Oswald go out? Does Oswald stay inside the lobby and witnesses the JFK motorcade going past, hears the shots, then goes where? Back up to the 2nd floor lunchroom? Or to the first floor Storage room beside the front staircase?
No, he goes "outside to watch P. parade". Not difficult! Thumb1:
But what has this got to do with what Mr Rowland saw?
-
No, he goes "outside to watch P. parade". Not difficult! Thumb1:
But what has this got to do with what Mr Rowland saw?
Essentially Rowland's contribution is consistent with the sequence that the assembled evidence clearly shows. Williams departed the 6th floor after the arrival of Jarman and Norman on the 5th. They departed the intersection of Elm and Houston about 12.22pm.
To date, no serious challenge to that sequence as far as I can tell. We are simply debating where Williams was located. Williams was repeated obfuscatory as evidenced by his previous numerous statements prior to his WC testimony. This also cannot be seriously challenged. One might theorise why he felt the need to lie given the gravity of the situation he found himself in. One might also ask why Jarman and Norman felt the need to repeatedly claim he took the elevator up with them until 4 months after the event.
-
Why would Oswald care if the 2nd floor lunchroom was vacated?
-
No, he goes "outside to watch P. parade". Not difficult! Thumb1:
But what has this got to do with what Mr Rowland saw?
If you would admit that Prayerblob just might be Sarah Stanton, and thus is not in the way of the front door, where she would have been if she was with Pauline Sanders initially, THEN it might be a little bit easier to have Oswald slip out behind people and be just BEHIND BW Frazier, rather than in front of him, which might fit your partial face seen in Altgens photo 6.
But if you keep insisting that Oswald must be just behind Lovelady and just in front of BW Frazier, there is NO way I could ever go with that given the probability of Oswald being seen moving INSERTING himself between people as opposed to simply BEHIND ALL of them, just peeking.
See, if Oswalds position is just to right of Prayerblob, and also behind but just to the left of BW Frazier, then it might explain a little better the idea of a black swath that did NOT blacken out Prayer blob and only slight portion of Billy Lovelady
And then the 2 head phenom, can be dismissed as motion blur for a fraction of a second, and that would explain no blackened out portion of that 2nd head since the conspirators probably looked at it and saw it was NOT INDENTIFIABLE as Oswald anyway. The main thing was to get rid of A BODY which would be there just to the right of Prayerblob, and just to the left of and maybe close too, but just slightly behind BWF and Bill Shelly.
-
Essentially Rowland's contribution is consistent with the sequence that the assembled evidence clearly shows. Williams departed the 6th floor after the arrival of Jarman and Norman on the 5th. They departed the intersection of Elm and Houston about 12.22pm.
To date, no serious challenge to that sequence as far as I can tell. We are simply debating where Williams was located. Williams was repeated obfuscatory as evidenced by his previous numerous statements prior to his WC testimony. This also cannot be seriously challenged. One might theorise why he felt the need to lie given the gravity of the situation he found himself in. One might also ask why Jarman and Norman felt the need to repeatedly claim he took the elevator up with them until 4 months after the event.
You agree with my basic timeline for Norman and Jarman that its probably not earlier than 12:23 that they got on the West elevator, and it might even be as late as 12:24
In which case, there is no time really for a shooter even hiding on somewhere near the 6th floor, like the 7th floor staircase, and be able to get to the SE window in time to place that box on the window ledge by 12:25
Norman and Jarman are exiting the West elevator on 5th floor at about 12:24:30 and have to cross about 100 ft to get to the southside wall , so really, BR Williams would have to have not been exiting his East elevator taken down from 6th floor until about 12:24:50
Which means he did not get ON the East elevator on 6th floor until about approx. 12:24:45 since its only about maybe 5-7 sec ride from 6th to 5th.
Therefore, its highly improbable for the hiding shooter on 7th floor staircase to traverse 200 ft then move 2 boxes up against the wall, and then lift one box to the window ledge and then duck out of sight in only 15 seconds after BR Williams gets on the East elevator.
And this all before getting into how Jack Dougherty misses all this activity and vice versa not himself being seen either. Its like Jack was snoozing the whole time up on the 7th floor in the little office area an the shots woke him up :)
-
Why would Oswald care if the 2nd floor lunchroom was vacated?
Billy Lovelady stated that Oswald would sometimes go up to eat lunch in the 2nd floor lunchroom by himself.
The 2nd floor lunchroom was for the 2nd floor office personnel and was NOT supposed to be used by the general labors which their room was the Domino room with exception for getting a soda.
Same protocol for the 2nd floor office, the general laborers were not supposed to go into the 2nd floor office if not directly sent there by Mr Truly. This also according to Billy Lovelady.
So The Mrs Reid seeing Oswald enter from the rear door of 2nd floor office SIMULTANEOSLY as Mrs Reid herself opens the front door, is an inaccurate(imo) story by Mrs Reid, since Oswald knows she is a supervisor and thus why would Oswald continue into the room, seeing Mrs Reid at the other end entering?
-
Billy Lovelady stated that Oswald would sometimes go up to eat lunch in the 2nd floor lunchroom by himself.
The 2nd floor lunchroom was for the 2nd floor office personnel and was NOT supposed to be used by the general labors which their room was the Domino room with exception for getting a soda.
Same protocol for the 2nd floor office, the general laborers were not supposed to go into the 2nd floor office if not directly sent there by Mr Truly. This also according to Billy Lovelady.
Thanks. Can you cite where Lovelady said these things?