JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Alan J. Ford on March 30, 2021, 07:03:44 PM
-
A much closer examination of Roy Truly (nothing truly about him) and Marrion Baker's reported actions as shared by their hastily contrived script fall way short of anything resembling the truth. Yes, we have been told for going on close to just shy of six decades now how they charged up the backstairs in tandem, encountered the wrongly accused and made their way all the way *atop an otherwise locked roof, etc...
*COUNTY OF DALLAS
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
SUPPLEMENTARY INVESTIGATION REPORT
Name of Compainant
Assassination Of President Kennedy
Offense
John Wiseman, Deputy Sheriff, Dallas County Sheriff's Department.
Date Nov 23, 1963
I was standing in front of the Sheriff's Office at 505 Main Street, Dallas when the President passed and the car went around the corner and a few more cars had passed when I heard a shot and I knew something had happened. I ran at once to the corner of Houston and Main Street and out into the street when the second and third shots ran out. I ran on across Houston Street, then across the park to where a policeman was having trouble with his motorcycle and I saw a man laying on the grass. This man laying on the grass said the shots came from the building and he was pointing to the old Sexton Building. I talked to Marilyn Sitzman, 202 S. Lancaster who said her boss, Abraham Zaprutes, RI 8 6071, had movies of the shooting. She said the shots came from that way and she pointed at the old Sexton Building. I ran at once to the Sexton Building and went in. I askes some woman how many doors lead out of the building and she said 4. I left the building and found some DPD patrolmen and we came back to the building. I ran up the stairs and the patrolman started trying to get more help to search the building. I went up the stairs to the 7th floor and started up into the attic and noticed that the door to the roof was locked on the inside with a gate type hook latch. I stopped and started back down the stairs taking a quick look on each floor.
Two men who would testify to being somewhere they weren't would certainly frame an innocent party amid a phantom encounter. If we thought this lying tandem wasn't enough horse manure to avoid, here comes yet another example of a first-day-statement which later morphs into nothing to see here folks just follow the hastily contrived script...
Here's Bonnie Ray Williams' same day affidavit ---->
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338434/m1/1/
Then for whatever reason(s) it wished to serve, the hastily contrived script amid Mr. Williams' Warren Commission testimony four months later (March, 1964) places him up on the 6th floor to join his fellow coworkers down on the 5th floor much later after devouring a chicken lunch w/Dr. Pepper and Doritos. Why the sudden reversal from his same day affidavit? In this case, one thing that continually emanates throughout when considering all of the "evidence" is the federal-authorities--for whatever reason(s) it wished to serve--changed statements, timelines, etc. even if it meant w/strong arm tactics. The one thing we all can be sure of is the absolute truth requires no revision(s), do overs, etc.
Wondering aloud just how many other of the 69 Texas School Book Depository employees on scene that fateful afternoon shared the following sentiments, but were smart enough to keep quiet...
Tue, Jun 19, 2018 8:58 am
To Alan Ford a1anford@aol.com
Good morning Alan...I can only assume that yes she was suspicious only because it was my understanding through family chit chat during my visits to Texas...they (my father and his side of the family) would say she avoided and didn’t want anything to do with the FBI or CIA whatever it was at the time.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 18, 2018, at 12:16 PM, Alan Ford <a1anford@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Okay, thanks for prompt response, Xxxxxxx, just wanted to be respectful of you is all.
>
> Before signing off here, a quick question, and, always remember, Xxxxxxx, you are at liberty not to answer. Did your paternal-grandmother ever give the impression she was ever suspicious of the official account/version of President Kennedy's death?
>
> Alan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: X Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx <Xxxxxxxx@xxx.com>
> To: Alan Ford <a1anford@aol.com>
> Sent: Mon, Jun 18, 2018 11:39 am
> Subject: Re: Good Morning!
>
> Good morning Alan, family still call me Xxxxxxx...I add the X to avoid confusion
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>>
As you read along, Did you note that Mr. Williams in his same day affidavit noted a plurality of police officers come up the back stairs? Yet this same eyewitness never sees Roy nothing truly about him and Marrion Baker cross his path. There's a reason for that... a hastily contrived script has nothing to do with the absolute truth, which requires no revision (s).
The wrongly accused was framed. The wrongly accused did not shot anybody. Anybody.
-
-
The following men--in the same space & time as the lying rooftop-tandem exposes the hastily contrived script for what it is...
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time I was up there I saw a motorcycle policeman. He came up. And the only thing I saw of him was his white helmet.
Mr. BALL. Did you see anybody with him?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I did not
and now his entourage...
Mr. BALL. Or did you see Mr. Truly come up?
Mr. NORMAN. No, sir; I didn't.
and for further confirmation that the lying rooftop-tandem were nowhere near those backstairs in the hastily contrived scripted time-interval they wish to make fact...
Mr. BALL - Do you remember seeing Mr. Truly?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - Or did you see a motorcycle officer come up?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir.
None of the trio above were deaf, blind and/or dumb. So, IF they would have actually seen the lying rooftop-tandem together on those backstairs they would have confirmed their presence there. Last thought today, wishing all who may pass this way a happy holiday experience (Passover and/or Easter). Stay well, safe and healthy amid the ongoing pandemic challenges we all face. Back next month G-d willing to read & learn more.
-
Nice job on this, Alan. I like the clip of LHO too. He was saying all of the right things an innocent man would have said that day. But of course later - and after he was dead and buried - they made him into a foaming at the mouth raving lunatic. I often like to compare him to Tim McVeigh, who WAS going around, chin jutting out, proud of what he did, wearing his Semper Tyranis shirt and so on. And oops - old Lee was still wearing his Marine Corps ring LOL.
-
Appreciate your response there, Mr. Walton, how encouraging that you still possess the same kindred-spirit you have maintained since our initial encounter way back in May, 2014. The more time I spent on here way back then before my departure in early January, 2015 the body of forum researchers--whether LN or Truth-seeking could always count upon you for thoughtful insights. I was impressed then and am impressed now as well. Oh, and that's even if we may disagree on occasion moving forward, your spirit embodies a sense of objective reasoning amid a responsible & respectful discourse. Carry on sir.
-
You are now suggesting that Truly and Baker lied about going to the roof? Wow. Was everyone in Dallas in on this conspiracy? And why would a "gate type hook latch" preclude anyone from going to the roof? Flip the hook latch and go up. It would only seem to preclude someone from entering the 7th floor from the roof.
-
A much closer examination of Roy Truly (nothing truly about him) and Marrion Baker's reported actions as shared by their hastily contrived script fall way short of anything resembling the truth. Yes, we have been told for going on close to just shy of six decades now how they charged up the backstairs in tandem, encountered the wrongly accused and made their way all the way *atop an otherwise locked roof, etc...
*COUNTY OF DALLAS
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
SUPPLEMENTARY INVESTIGATION REPORT
Name of Compainant
Assassination Of President Kennedy
Offense
John Wiseman, Deputy Sheriff, Dallas County Sheriff's Department.
Date Nov 23, 1963
I was standing in front of the Sheriff's Office at 505 Main Street, Dallas when the President passed and the car went around the corner and a few more cars had passed when I heard a shot and I knew something had happened. I ran at once to the corner of Houston and Main Street and out into the street when the second and third shots ran out. I ran on across Houston Street, then across the park to where a policeman was having trouble with his motorcycle and I saw a man laying on the grass. This man laying on the grass said the shots came from the building and he was pointing to the old Sexton Building. I talked to Marilyn Sitzman, 202 S. Lancaster who said her boss, Abraham Zaprutes, RI 8 6071, had movies of the shooting. She said the shots came from that way and she pointed at the old Sexton Building. I ran at once to the Sexton Building and went in. I askes some woman how many doors lead out of the building and she said 4. I left the building and found some DPD patrolmen and we came back to the building. I ran up the stairs and the patrolman started trying to get more help to search the building. I went up the stairs to the 7th floor and started up into the attic and noticed that the door to the roof was locked on the inside with a gate type hook latch. I stopped and started back down the stairs taking a quick look on each floor.
Two men who would testify to being somewhere they weren't would certainly frame an innocent party amid a phantom encounter. If we thought this lying tandem wasn't enough horse manure to avoid, here comes yet another example of a first-day-statement which later morphs into nothing to see here folks just follow the hastily contrived script...
Here's Bonnie Ray Williams' same day affidavit ---->
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338434/m1/1/
Then for whatever reason(s) it wished to serve, the hastily contrived script amid Mr. Williams' Warren Commission testimony four months later (March, 1964) places him up on the 6th floor to join his fellow coworkers down on the 5th floor much later after devouring a chicken lunch w/Dr. Pepper and Doritos. Why the sudden reversal from his same day affidavit? In this case, one thing that continually emanates throughout when considering all of the "evidence" is the federal-authorities--for whatever reason(s) it wished to serve--changed statements, timelines, etc. even if it meant w/strong arm tactics. The one thing we all can be sure of is the absolute truth requires no revision(s), do overs, etc.
Wondering aloud just how many other of the 69 Texas School Book Depository employees on scene that fateful afternoon shared the following sentiments, but were smart enough to keep quiet...
Tue, Jun 19, 2018 8:58 am
To Alan Ford a1anford@aol.com
Good morning Alan...I can only assume that yes she was suspicious only because it was my understanding through family chit chat during my visits to Texas...they (my father and his side of the family) would say she avoided and didn’t want anything to do with the FBI or CIA whatever it was at the time.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 18, 2018, at 12:16 PM, Alan Ford <a1anford@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Okay, thanks for prompt response, Xxxxxxx, just wanted to be respectful of you is all.
>
> Before signing off here, a quick question, and, always remember, Xxxxxxx, you are at liberty not to answer. Did your paternal-grandmother ever give the impression she was ever suspicious of the official account/version of President Kennedy's death?
>
> Alan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: X Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx <Xxxxxxxx@xxx.com>
> To: Alan Ford <a1anford@aol.com>
> Sent: Mon, Jun 18, 2018 11:39 am
> Subject: Re: Good Morning!
>
> Good morning Alan, family still call me Xxxxxxx...I add the X to avoid confusion
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>>
As you read along, Did you note that Mr. Williams in his same day affidavit noted a plurality of police officers come up the back stairs? Yet this same eyewitness never sees Roy nothing truly about him and Marrion Baker cross his path. There's a reason for that... a hastily contrived script has nothing to do with the absolute truth, which requires no revision (s).
The wrongly accused was framed. The wrongly accused did not shot anybody. Anybody.
The "hastily contrived script" is a new reality that doesn't need explaining. It can just be rolled out.
But surely you have to back up this new reality with some evidence (?)
Who created the "hastily contrived script"?
Who was in on it?
What is the genesis of the "hastily contrived script"?
Or is it something you just get to wheel out when it suits?
Hard evidence please, not just "it must be like this".
-
It's not hard to figure out, Dick. There are numerous incidents where witnesses were coerced behind closed doors to change their statements so it dovetailed nicely with the running narrative. It doesn't mean that these people here were "conspirators." You should know better than this, but then I guess this is your way of offering a rebuttal to what Alan is saying here.
-
It's not hard to figure out, Dick. There are numerous incidents where witnesses were coerced behind closed doors to change their statements so it dovetailed nicely with the running narrative. It doesn't mean that these people here were "conspirators." You should know better than this, but then I guess this is your way of offering a rebuttal to what Alan is saying here.
I get the impression that Richard's rebuttal consists of pointing out that anyone can open the door to the roof.
Are we supposed to believe Truly and Baker couldn't operate the latch?
Isn't it possible Truly put the latch back on after coming back through the roof door?
Am I missing something?
-
It's not hard to figure out, Dick. There are numerous incidents where witnesses were coerced behind closed doors to change their statements so it dovetailed nicely with the running narrative. It doesn't mean that these people here were "conspirators." You should know better than this, but then I guess this is your way of offering a rebuttal to what Alan is saying here.
It apparently is hard for you to figure out. Alan stupidly suggested Truly and Baker lied about going to the roof. And his evidence for this is that they couldn't flip the latch. Obviously, they could unlock the latch and go to the roof. And then latch it back after they came down. To suggest Truly and Baker lied about this for some unknown reason is laughable.
-
The eventual "story" that evolved with many key witnesses (but not all) was developed by Belin and Ball in their March 64 visit to Dallas. This included the troubling conflicting statements of Williams, Jarman and Norman. They
developed the sequence of events that would play out for the various testimonies. Some problematic witnesses like Dougherty could never be resolved (ref Eisenberg memo). These guys all testified just days after the "re-enactments" were decided upon, four months after the real events. Many original statements vary considerably from the final versions.
-
Yes, Oswald was totally innocent. The reason he left work shortly after the assassination and went to him rooming house was because he wanted to retrieve his revolver and hunt down the dirty bastards who killed JFK. He even carried extra bullets in case there were more than a couple of assassins. Heck, maybe a whole bunch of 'em.
And like OJ Simpson looking for the killers on golf courses across America, Oswald knew that they were somewhere on the streets of Dallas.
But first, he wanted to see a movie.
And the rest is, as they say, history.
-
Yes, Oswald was totally innocent. The reason he left work shortly after the assassination and went to him rooming house was because he wanted to retrieve his revolver and hunt down the dirty bastards who killed JFK. He even carried extra bullets in case there were more than a couple of assassins. Heck, maybe a whole bunch of 'em.
And like OJ Simpson looking for the killers on golf courses across America, Oswald knew that they were somewhere on the streets of Dallas.
But first, he wanted to see a movie.
And the rest is, as they say, is history.
The reason he left work shortly after the assassination
There are at least three different accounts of him leaving....
So, how do you know when he actually left the TSBD?
-
The reason he left work shortly after the assassination
There are at least three different accounts of him leaving....
So, how do you know when he actually left the TSBD?
Oswald left at 12:33 p.m. according to the Report, unobserved by anyone. He became a suspect because he was supposedly the only one who left the TSBD without checking with law enforcement first. In reality, about 18 individuals did the same without becoming suspects.
Deputy Roger Craig saw Oswald get into a car with a Black or Latin at the wheel and drive off. What's the third version Martin?
-
The eventual "story" that evolved with many key witnesses (but not all) was developed by Belin and Ball in their March 64 visit to Dallas. This included the troubling conflicting statements of Williams, Jarman and Norman. They
developed the sequence of events that would play out for the various testimonies. Some problematic witnesses like Dougherty could never be resolved (ref Eisenberg memo). These guys all testified just days after the "re-enactments" were decided upon, four months after the real events. Many original statements vary considerably from the final versions.
Nothing "evolved" if by that you mean there was a frame up of Oswald. A few details may have been left out or omitted from the initial statements as expected. Over time there was a more in depth investigation. When all was said and done Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor. Fired bullet casings from his rifle were found by the SN window. He fled the scene and murdered a police officer. It's a stone cold case against Oswald. To suggest that a latch on a door to the roof precludes Baker and Truly from going there after the assassination is somehow evidence of a conspiracy is laughable.
-
Nothing "evolved" if by that you mean there was a frame up of Oswald. A few details may have been left out or omitted from the initial statements as expected. Over time there was a more in depth investigation. When all was said and done Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor. Fired bullet casings from his rifle were found by the SN window. He fled the scene and murdered a police officer. It's a stone cold case against Oswald. To suggest that a latch on a door to the roof precludes Baker and Truly from going there after the assassination is somehow evidence of a conspiracy is laughable.
Oswald was dead within three days of the crime. As I said Ball and Belin spent time in Dallas in March 64 trying to sort out the reconstruction of Oswald's movements with the underlying presumption that he was the assassin. They did reconstructions of the staircase and lunchroom encounter, shell casings dropping etc. but not all witnesses and events were used. Inconvenient events were omitted, particularly those of Dougherty, Adams, Lovelady and Shelley.
-
Nothing "evolved" if by that you mean there was a frame up of Oswald. A few details may have been left out or omitted from the initial statements as expected. Over time there was a more in depth investigation. When all was said and done Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor. Fired bullet casings from his rifle were found by the SN window. He fled the scene and murdered a police officer. It's a stone cold case against Oswald. To suggest that a latch on a door to the roof precludes Baker and Truly from going there after the assassination is somehow evidence of a conspiracy is laughable.
He didn't flee the scene, he just left as did (at least) 18 or 19 others.
Oswald's rifle lol. Explain why his fingerprints weren't on the shell casings, nor on the clip, nor on the bolt or trigger. Explain how Oswald or anyone else could have fired an accurate shot using the telescopic sight which was broken, needed shims to stabilize (not found or present when the rifle was discovered) and after the rifle was re-assembled using a dime.
Explain why the rifle supposedly ordered by Oswald is a different one than the rifle found on the sixth floor and now located at the NARA.
The bullets recovered from officer Tippit's body couldn't be matched to the barrel of "Oswald's revolver."
There is no "stone cold case" against Oswald. Not a single prosecutorial fact is undisputed, and with good reason. You probably think a man can not be framed for murder or any other crime. Think again bubba, it happens.
-
It's a stone cold case against Oswald.
Exactly how cold is that stone anyway?
A few details may have been left out or omitted from the initial statements as expected.
Like how in hell could it have happened that way?Over time there was a more in depth investigation.
Yeah...a couple of microns deep at least. When all was said and done Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor.
If all was said and done...why are we here?
Oswald's rifle
:D
-
Oswald left at 12:33 p.m. according to the Report, unobserved by anyone. He became a suspect because he was supposedly the only one who left the TSBD without checking with law enforcement first. In reality, about 18 individuals did the same without becoming suspects.
Deputy Roger Craig saw Oswald get into a car with a Black or Latin at the wheel and drive off. What's the third version Martin?
Buell Frazier claimed, some years ago, that he was still standing on the stairs of the TSBD when, about 15 minutes after the shooting, he saw Oswald coming down North Houston street and going down Elm. He figured Oswald had left the building at the back and was going to get lunch.
-
Exactly how cold is that stone anyway? Like how in hell could it have happened that way?Yeah...a couple of microns deep at least. If all was said and done...why are we here? :D
So you are running away from the claim that a latch on the roof door somehow precluded Baker and Truly from going up there. Got it. What it would have precluded is any assassin on the roof from coming down. You have actually bolstered the WC Report. Congrats.
-
He didn't flee the scene, he just left as did (at least) 18 or 19 others.
Oswald's rifle lol. Explain why his fingerprints weren't on the shell casings, nor on the clip, nor on the bolt or trigger. Explain how Oswald or anyone else could have fired an accurate shot using the telescopic sight which was broken, needed shims to stabilize (not found or present when the rifle was discovered) and after the rifle was re-assembled using a dime.
Explain why the rifle supposedly ordered by Oswald is a different one than the rifle found on the sixth floor and now located at the NARA.
The bullets recovered from officer Tippit's body couldn't be matched to the barrel of "Oswald's revolver."
There is no "stone cold case" against Oswald. Not a single prosecutorial fact is undisputed, and with good reason. You probably think a man can not be framed for murder or any other crime. Think again bubba, it happens.
At least 18 or 19 TSBD employees immediately fled the scene after the assassination and were unaccounted for? Do tell. Oswald's prints were on the rifle and SN boxes. And those are dismissed as the product of fakery by CTers. So if more prints had been found it would have no impact on you. But if you believe all the evidence was planted as part of a frame up of Oswald, why wouldn't the DPD and FBI just say they found more prints? It was Oswald's rifle beyond any doubt. The fired bullet casings came from that rifle. Witnesses confirm that they saw a rifle in that window at the moment of the assassination. Oswald lied about owning the rifle and did not explain how it came to be there. Multiple eyewitnesses confirm he was at the Tippit murder scene with a pistol in his hand. He was arrested with a pistol and had the same two brands of ammo that were used to murder Tippit. It is hard to imagine how there could even be anymore evidence to link Oswald to these murders.
-
You have actually bolstered the WC Report. Congrats.
Did not. Oswald's prints were on the rifle.
Were not.
-
Did not. Were not.
Fantastic rebuttal and use of evidence. Are you still claiming that a latch kept Baker and Truly from going to the roof and they lied about that for some inexplicable reason?
-
So you are running away from the claim that a latch on the roof door somehow precluded Baker and Truly from going up there.
Who claimed such a thing, Mr Smith?
-
Yes, Oswald was totally innocent. The reason he left work shortly after the assassination and went to him rooming house was because he wanted to retrieve his revolver and hunt down the dirty bastards who killed JFK.
Like there's any evidence that he "retrieved his revolver" at the rooming house. WC apologists just love to state assumptions as facts.
He even carried extra bullets in case there were more than a couple of assassins.
You mean those "extra bullets" that were "found" in his pocket hours after he was arrested?
-
Nothing "evolved" if by that you mean there was a frame up of Oswald. A few details may have been left out or omitted from the initial statements as expected. Over time there was a more in depth investigation. When all was said and done Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor. Fired bullet casings from his rifle were found by the SN window. He fled the scene and murdered a police officer. It's a stone cold case against Oswald. To suggest that a latch on a door to the roof precludes Baker and Truly from going there after the assassination is somehow evidence of a conspiracy is laughable.
Speaking of laughable...
"Oswald's rifle". LOL
"fled the scene". LOL
"murdered a police officer". LOL
-
Fantastic rebuttal and use of evidence.
Hitchens' razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence".
-
Who claimed such a thing, Mr Smith?
So you underline the fact that someone claimed the door to the roof was locked and claimed Baker and Truly were liars but you were not suggesting they lied about going to the roof? This gets better and better. Maybe explain your point then. Why so cryptic?
-
Fantastic rebuttal and use of evidence. Are you still claiming that a latch kept Baker and Truly from going to the roof and they lied about that for some inexplicable reason?
Why are you constantly bringing up up arguments that I didn't even make? Read the posts once in a while. I said nothing at all about the roof. Baker said they went up to the roof. So that proves that Oswald did it?
-
So you underline the fact that someone claimed the door to the roof was locked and claimed Baker and Truly were liars but you were not suggesting they lied about going to the roof? This gets better and better. Maybe explain your point then. Why so cryptic?
::)
It wasn't my point, and I underlined nothing.
Now, how about you re-read the opening post on this thread a little more attentively-----------the poster is NOT claiming that Officer Baker and Mr Truly couldn't have opened the latch, they are simply asking how it could be that Officer Wiseman saw the latch on when he went upstairs.
It all comes down to a timing question: how soon after the shooting did Officer Wiseman go up there?
-
He didn't flee the scene, he just left as did (at least) 18 or 19 others.
Oswald's rifle lol. Explain why his fingerprints weren't on the shell casings, nor on the clip, nor on the bolt or trigger. Explain how Oswald or anyone else could have fired an accurate shot using the telescopic sight which was broken, needed shims to stabilize (not found or present when the rifle was discovered) and after the rifle was re-assembled using a dime.
Explain why the rifle supposedly ordered by Oswald is a different one than the rifle found on the sixth floor and now located at the NARA.
The bullets recovered from officer Tippit's body couldn't be matched to the barrel of "Oswald's revolver."
There is no "stone cold case" against Oswald. Not a single prosecutorial fact is undisputed, and with good reason. You probably think a man can not be framed for murder or any other crime. Think again bubba, it happens.
Who were these "18 or 19 others" who left the building right after the shooting?
I've never heard about a single person who was in the building who left shortly after the shooting. And certainly not "18 or 19".
The only person that I am aware of who was in the building at the time of the shooting and left afterwards - without permission from the police hours later - was Oswald.
-
Who were these "18 or 19 others" who left the building right after the shooting? I've never heard about a single person who was in the building who left shortly after the shooting. And certainly not "18 or 19". The only person that I am aware of who was in the building at the time of the shooting and left afterwards - without permission from the police hours later - was Oswald.
The TSBD was not totally sealed off until maybe 5 or 10 minutes before 1....even though they lied and said it was 10 minutes after the shots [ridiculous]
Wesley Frazier left TSBD between 1:00 and 2:00 pm, about the same time Truly claims he made his roll call [which was another lie]
Charles Givens returned to TSBD after the shooting but was refused entry by a Dallas policeman. An APB was put out for him [a big question was why?] and he was later interviewed at City Hall by Captain Will Fritz. Truly was aware of Given’s absence, having seen him prior to the assassination. Truly also said he saw Oswald in his encounter with him in the second-floor lunchroom. Using that logic, Oswald should have been exonerated.
There were various others that either left before the shots or were outside..and couldn't get back in and then went home.
-
Who were these "18 or 19 others" who left the building right after the shooting?
I've never heard about a single person who was in the building who left shortly after the shooting. And certainly not "18 or 19".
The only person that I am aware of who was in the building at the time of the shooting and left afterwards - without permission from the police hours later - was Oswald.
Oswald's prompt departure may have simply been the result of a 'been there, done that' attitude.
;)
-
It apparently is hard for you to figure out. Alan stupidly suggested Truly and Baker lied about going to the roof. And his evidence for this is that they couldn't flip the latch. Obviously, they could unlock the latch and go to the roof. And then latch it back after they came down. To suggest Truly and Baker lied about this for some unknown reason is laughable.
Why would Truly and Baker lie? Revisionists, that's why !!! This is so ghoulish
-
You are now suggesting that Truly and Baker lied about going to the roof? Wow. Was everyone in Dallas in on this conspiracy? And why would a "gate type hook latch" preclude anyone from going to the roof? Flip the hook latch and go up. It would only seem to preclude someone from entering the 7th floor from the roof.
On the contrary, Mr. Smith, I'm not making a mere suggestion at all. They outright lied about being atop an otherwise locked roof. Period. The question here now becomes Why?
Was it to account for why no one else travelling along on their "official" path (the backstairs) saw them there together; and/or Did Roy Truly need an excuse to draw suspicion away from why he was in the "sniper's nest" before the incriminating "evidence" was found? ---->
Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer. I don't remember when I went over there. It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell cases.
*Sidebar: Though I don't have my notes handy...am using a public computer at the moment...my research notes bear evidence of someone else other than Deputy-Sheriff John Wiseman who also legitimately attempts to gain access to that otherwise locked roof from the inside, and per that instance he all but reveals what he experienced, which is something both the lying rooftop tandem failed to exhibit in their respective testimonies. Will try to get this info on here sometime next week G-d willing.
-
It's not hard to figure out, Dick. There are numerous incidents where witnesses were coerced behind closed doors to change their statements so it dovetailed nicely with the running narrative. It doesn't mean that these people here were "conspirators." You should know better than this, but then I guess this is your way of offering a rebuttal to what Alan is saying here.
What an astute, sensible response there, Mr. Walton, well said sir so indicative of the wisdom of a genuine sage.
-
The eventual "story" that evolved with many key witnesses (but not all) was developed by Belin and Ball in their March 64 visit to Dallas. This included the troubling conflicting statements of Williams, Jarman and Norman. They
developed the sequence of events that would play out for the various testimonies. Some problematic witnesses like Dougherty could never be resolved (ref Eisenberg memo). These guys all testified just days after the "re-enactments" were decided upon, four months after the real events. Many original statements vary considerably from the final versions.
A fair assessment there, Mr. Crow, no great surprise considering the exemplary researcher making the statement.
-
The reason he left work shortly after the assassination
There are at least three different accounts of him leaving....
So, how do you know when he actually left the TSBD?
A response so indicative of more exemplary evidence being shared here to hold the "official" account accountable to much closer examination. Well, said there, Mr. Weidmann, bravo!
-
Oswald was dead within three days of the crime. As I said Ball and Belin spent time in Dallas in March 64 trying to sort out the reconstruction of Oswald's movements with the underlying presumption that he was the assassin. They did reconstructions of the staircase and lunchroom encounter, shell casings dropping etc. but not all witnesses and events were used. Inconvenient events were omitted, particularly those of Dougherty, Adams, Lovelady and Shelley.
So worthy of a rousing round of applaud. Hear! hear!
-
He didn't flee the scene, he just left as did (at least) 18 or 19 others.
Oswald's rifle lol. Explain why his fingerprints weren't on the shell casings, nor on the clip, nor on the bolt or trigger. Explain how Oswald or anyone else could have fired an accurate shot using the telescopic sight which was broken, needed shims to stabilize (not found or present when the rifle was discovered) and after the rifle was re-assembled using a dime.
Explain why the rifle supposedly ordered by Oswald is a different one than the rifle found on the sixth floor and now located at the NARA.
The bullets recovered from officer Tippit's body couldn't be matched to the barrel of "Oswald's revolver."
There is no "stone cold case" against Oswald. Not a single prosecutorial fact is undisputed, and with good reason. You probably think a man can not be framed for murder or any other crime. Think again bubba, it happens.
Cheers!, Mr. van de Wiel, just like a sharp lawyer to possess keen, critical-thinking skills.
-
Buell Frazier claimed, some years ago, that he was still standing on the stairs of the TSBD when, about 15 minutes after the shooting, he saw Oswald coming down North Houston street and going down Elm. He figured Oswald had left the building at the back and was going to get lunch.
Interesting @ 15 minutes post-assassination time. Thanks for sharing this gem. So much for the phantom encounter at 10th & Patton across town. The wrongly accused did not shoot anybody. Anybody.
-
Who claimed such a thing, Mr Smith?
A very interesting question there, Mr. Ford, no great surprise considering the source....All ears here Mr. Smith as we await your source. Please spare us that it was one of the two lying rooftop tandem. A legitimate source void of more horse manure from the lying rooftop tandem should suffice.
-
Did not. Were not.
Way to set the record straight there, Mr. Freeman, the wrongly accused was framed. It's that simple really. The absolute truth requires no revision(s), stop-watches, do-overs, etc. Only a hastily contrived script needs revision, do-overs, etc.
-
Like there's any evidence that he "retrieved his revolver" at the rooming house. WC apologists just love to state assumptions as facts.
You mean those "extra bullets" that were "found" in his pocket hours after he was arrested?
Hear! hear! soooo worthy of a rousing round of applause there, Mr. Iacoletti, what an astute assessment of the planted "evidence".
-
::)
It wasn't my point, and I underlined nothing.
Now, how about you re-read the opening post on this thread a little more attentively-----------the poster is NOT claiming that Officer Baker and Mr Truly couldn't have opened the latch, they are simply asking how it could be that Officer Wiseman saw the latch on when he went upstairs.
It all comes down to a timing question: how soon after the shooting did Officer Wiseman go up there?
An excellent point at "timing" sequence, Yes!!!!!
-
Who were these "18 or 19 others" who left the building right after the shooting?
I've never heard about a single person who was in the building who left shortly after the shooting. And certainly not "18 or 19".
The only person that I am aware of who was in the building at the time of the shooting and left afterwards - without permission from the police hours later - was Oswald.
On the contrary there, the wrongly accused left with full permission ---->
"Well, there was a billy love lady standing out there, he was on the
steps, see... And, Oswald was coming out the door and he (Lovelady,
S.M.) said the police had stopped Oswald and sent him back in the
building, billy love lady said that Mr. Trudy (sic) told the policeman
that Oswald was alright, that he worked there, so Oswald walked on
down the stairs."
*Source: Mr. Murphy (Sean) in 2010 sharing Mr. Jarman (James') House Select Committee on Assassinations testimony.
-
On the contrary there, the wrongly accused left with full permission ---->
"Well, there was a billy love lady standing out there, he was on the
steps, see... And, Oswald was coming out the door and he (Lovelady,
S.M.) said the police had stopped Oswald and sent him back in the
building, billy love lady said that Mr. Trudy (sic) told the policeman
that Oswald was alright, that he worked there, so Oswald walked on
down the stairs."
*Source: Mr. Murphy (Sean) in 2010 sharing Mr. Jarman (James') House Select Committee on Assassinations testimony.
Nowhere in that account was Oswald given permission to leave the building and go home. Truly told Baker that he didn't need to hold Oswald there, as a suspect; but that is simply not telling Oswald he had permission to go home.
-
Nowhere in that account was Oswald given permission to leave the building and go home. Truly told Baker that he didn't need to hold Oswald there, as a suspect; but that is simply not telling Oswald he had permission to go home.
Question for you;
According to his report, Oswald told Fritz that he left after Shelley had given permission to leave. Although it is true that Shelley denied having told Oswald personally that he could leave, we do know from other TSBD workers that Shelley did indeed gave them all permission to leave.
So, how did Oswald know that Shelley had indeed given permission for the workers to leave?
-
Question for you;
According to his report, Oswald told Fritz that he left after Shelley had given permission to leave. Although it is true that Shelley denied having told Oswald personally that he could leave, we do know from other TSBD workers that Shelley did indeed gave them all permission to leave.
So, how did Oswald know that Shelley had indeed given permission for the workers to leave?
"Mr. BALL. Did you at anytime after the President was shot tell Oswald to go home?
Mr. SHELLEY. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you tell anybody to go home?
Mr. SHELLEY. No.
Mr. BALL. You didn't tell anybody to leave the building at all?
Mr. SHELLEY. No, sir."
JohnM
-
"Mr. BALL. Did you at anytime after the President was shot tell Oswald to go home?
Mr. SHELLEY. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you tell anybody to go home?
Mr. SHELLEY. No.
Mr. BALL. You didn't tell anybody to leave the building at all?
Mr. SHELLEY. No, sir."
JohnM
And yet, the TSBD workers went home .... Go figure
-
On the contrary, Mr. Smith, I'm not making a mere suggestion at all. They outright lied about being atop an otherwise locked roof. Period. The question here now becomes Why?
Was it to account for why no one else travelling along on their "official" path (the backstairs) saw them there together; and/or Did Roy Truly need an excuse to draw suspicion away from why he was in the "sniper's nest" before the incriminating "evidence" was found? ---->
Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer. I don't remember when I went over there. It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell cases.
*Sidebar: Though I don't have my notes handy...am using a public computer at the moment...my research notes bear evidence of someone else other than Deputy-Sheriff John Wiseman who also legitimately attempts to gain access to that otherwise locked roof from the inside, and per that instance he all but reveals what he experienced, which is something both the lying rooftop tandem failed to exhibit in their respective testimonies. Will try to get this info on here sometime next week G-d willing.
This is truly weird. Even from you. Just a few posts ago you indicated that you were not suggesting that the latch door kept Truly and Baker from getting to the roof. And questioned where I came to that conclusion. Now you have come full circle back to your original post contending that is exactly what you were suggesting. LOL. What does a latch tell us? It tells us the door was locked from the inside. It precluded only a fantasy conspirator from being on the roof and regaining entry to the building. HA HA HA. What it certainly doesn't do is preclude Truly and Baker from accessing the roof as you stupidly suggested. All they have to do is flip the latch. Wow. This is the dumbest thread since Caprio left.
-
And yet, the TSBD workers went home .... Go figure
Are you serious? Comparing Oswald's immediate flight to the fact that the other TSBD employees eventually went home that day instead of staying there for all eternity. Wow.
-
Are you serious? Comparing Oswald's immediate flight to the fact that the other TSBD employees eventually went home that day instead of staying there for all eternity. Wow.
Well, as per usual you are making stuff up again, but never mind, I'll reply anyway.
I wasn't making any kind of comparison. The facts are very simple; Shelley was the man in charge of the TSBD workforce. He claimed in his testimony that he never told them to leave, yet they all left. Not "eventually" as you claim, but within less than an hour after the shooting.
So, the question is; was Shelley lying or did the TSBD workers just simply decide to leave by themselves?
As for Oswald, please show me the evidence that he actually left the TSBD "immediately" and "in flight"....
-
Well, as per usual you are making stuff up again, but never mind, I'll reply anyway.
I wasn't making any kind of comparison. The facts are very simple; Shelley was the man in charge of the TSBD workforce. He claimed in his testimony that he never told them to leave, yet they all left. Not "eventually" as you claim, but within less than an hour after the shooting.
So, the question is; was Shelley lying or did the TSBD workers just simply decide to leave by themselves?
As for Oswald, please show me the evidence that he actually left the TSBD "immediately" and "in flight"....
The evidence? He was gone and on a bus. And then murdered a police officer a couple miles away less than an hour later after a stop at his boarding house. LOL. Even you can't be serious that Oswald's situation was like that of any other TSBD employee. He was in the building when the shots were fired and not in the presence of his fellow employees on the street. How do we know this? Because Truly and Baker encounter him in the lunch room just moments after the assassination. No other employee claimed they saw him on the street and there are no pictures or films of Oswald on the street. A policeman pulled a gun on him but Oswald is not even curious enough to ask what is happening? He beats it from the building immediately. No other TSBD employee was in that same situation. Oswald's situation is singular. He flees the building within minutes. It is entirely different from employees who checked in, hung around, and gave their info to the police and eventually at some point left for the day. It's laughable that anyone would make that comparison. You should be ashamed.
-
The evidence? He was gone and on a bus. And then murdered a police officer a couple miles away less than an hour later after a stop at his boarding house. LOL. Even you can't be serious that Oswald's situation was like that of any other TSBD employee. He was in the building when the shots were fired and not in the presence of his fellow employees on the street. How do we know this? Because Truly and Baker encounter him in the lunch room just moments after the assassination. No other employee claimed they saw him on the street and there are no pictures or films of Oswald on the street. A policeman pulled a gun on him but Oswald is not even curious enough to ask what is happening? He beats it from the building immediately. No other TSBD employee was in that same situation. Oswald's situation is singular. He flees the building within minutes. It is entirely different from employees who checked in, hung around, and gave their info to the police and eventually at some point left for the day. It's laughable that anyone would make that comparison. You should be ashamed.
The evidence? He was gone and on a bus. And then murdered a police officer a couple miles away less than an hour later after a stop at his boarding house.
No, that's what the official narrative told us. It's not evidence of his "immediate" departure from the TSBD.
Even you can't be serious that Oswald's situation was like that of any other TSBD employee.
Did I say that? Oh wait... I'm talking to the guy who constantly makes up strawmen....
A policeman pulled a gun on him but Oswald is not even curious enough to ask what is happening?
Just how long did his encounter with Baker last and how do you even know what he would have asked if he wasn't taken completely by surprise?
He beats it from the building immediately.
He flees the building within minutes.
Big claim, but as per usual for you; not a shred of evidence in sight
-
"Mr. BALL. Did you at anytime after the President was shot tell Oswald to go home?
Mr. SHELLEY. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you tell anybody to go home?
Mr. SHELLEY. No.
Mr. BALL. You didn't tell anybody to leave the building at all?
Mr. SHELLEY. No, sir."
JohnM
1964
Mr. BALL - At any time before you went home, did you hear anybody ask for Lee?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe they did, because they, you know, like one man showed us, we had to give proper identification and after we passed him he told us to walk on then to the next man, and we, you know, put down proper information where he could be found if they wanted to see you and talk to you any more, and then we went on up to a little bit more to the front entrance more toward Mr. Shelley's office there with another man and stood there for a little while and told us all that was there could go ahead and go home.
HSCA tape
Frazier 25:20 Shelley said he could go home between 1 and 1.30
-
The evidence? He was gone and on a bus. And then murdered a police officer a couple miles away less than an hour later after a stop at his boarding house.
No, that's what the official narrative told us. It's not evidence of his "immediate" departure from the TSBD.
Even you can't be serious that Oswald's situation was like that of any other TSBD employee.
Did I say that? Oh wait... I'm talking to the guy who constantly makes up strawmen....
A policeman pulled a gun on him but Oswald is not even curious enough to ask what is happening?
Just how long did his encounter with Baker last and how do you even know what he would have asked if he wasn't taken completely by surprise?
He beats it from the building immediately.
He flees the building within minutes.
Big claim, but as per usual for you; not a shred of evidence in sight
So you are just reverting to that tired contrarian position after making the absurd comparison between Oswald and other employees who eventually left the building that day? Very lazy. A witness confirmed Oswald was on the bus only a short time after the Baker encounter. Another witness puts him in a cab and then another witness places him at his boarding house before 1PM. But you claim there is no evidence that he left immediately after the assassination? You dismiss all this evidence as the product of the "official story" whatever that means suggesting Oswald is basically the same as other employees who hung around the building chatting and giving their info to the police before leaving. LOL In order for Oswald to make these rounds around town as confirmed by multiple different witnesses within the known timeframes, his departure has to be immediate from his encounter with Baker. Within minutes after the assassination. He doesn't have a car or even a bicycle. He is on foot or using public transportation to get to these places.
Also, where in the building is he supposed to be after the Baker encounter? Let me guess. You have no clue and are just suggesting it is possible and asking others to disprove it to your subjective satisfaction while dismissing any actual evidence as the product of the "official story." But then also denying you are suggesting any conspiracy. Just multiple random citizens of Dallas all lying for some inexplicable reason to implicate Oswald. Round and round it goes down the rabbit hole of lunacy.
-
A much closer examination of Roy Truly (nothing truly about him) and Marrion Baker's reported actions as shared by their hastily contrived script fall way short of anything resembling the truth. Yes, we have been told for going on close to just shy of six decades now how they charged up the backstairs in tandem, encountered the wrongly accused and made their way all the way *atop an otherwise locked roof, etc...
*COUNTY OF DALLAS
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
SUPPLEMENTARY INVESTIGATION REPORT
Name of Compainant
Assassination Of President Kennedy
Offense
John Wiseman, Deputy Sheriff, Dallas County Sheriff's Department.
Date Nov 23, 1963
I was standing in front of the Sheriff's Office at 505 Main Street, Dallas when the President passed and the car went around the corner and a few more cars had passed when I heard a shot and I knew something had happened. I ran at once to the corner of Houston and Main Street and out into the street when the second and third shots ran out. I ran on across Houston Street, then across the park to where a policeman was having trouble with his motorcycle and I saw a man laying on the grass. This man laying on the grass said the shots came from the building and he was pointing to the old Sexton Building. I talked to Marilyn Sitzman, 202 S. Lancaster who said her boss, Abraham Zaprutes, RI 8 6071, had movies of the shooting. She said the shots came from that way and she pointed at the old Sexton Building. I ran at once to the Sexton Building and went in. I askes some woman how many doors lead out of the building and she said 4. I left the building and found some DPD patrolmen and we came back to the building. I ran up the stairs and the patrolman started trying to get more help to search the building. I went up the stairs to the 7th floor and started up into the attic and noticed that the door to the roof was locked on the inside with a gate type hook latch. I stopped and started back down the stairs taking a quick look on each floor.
Two men who would testify to being somewhere they weren't would certainly frame an innocent party amid a phantom encounter. If we thought this lying tandem wasn't enough horse manure to avoid, here comes yet another example of a first-day-statement which later morphs into nothing to see here folks just follow the hastily contrived script...
Here's Bonnie Ray Williams' same day affidavit ---->
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338434/m1/1/
Then for whatever reason(s) it wished to serve, the hastily contrived script amid Mr. Williams' Warren Commission testimony four months later (March, 1964) places him up on the 6th floor to join his fellow coworkers down on the 5th floor much later after devouring a chicken lunch w/Dr. Pepper and Doritos. Why the sudden reversal from his same day affidavit? In this case, one thing that continually emanates throughout when considering all of the "evidence" is the federal-authorities--for whatever reason(s) it wished to serve--changed statements, timelines, etc. even if it meant w/strong arm tactics. The one thing we all can be sure of is the absolute truth requires no revision(s), do overs, etc.
Wondering aloud just how many other of the 69 Texas School Book Depository employees on scene that fateful afternoon shared the following sentiments, but were smart enough to keep quiet...
Tue, Jun 19, 2018 8:58 am
To Alan Ford a1anford@aol.com
Good morning Alan...I can only assume that yes she was suspicious only because it was my understanding through family chit chat during my visits to Texas...they (my father and his side of the family) would say she avoided and didn’t want anything to do with the FBI or CIA whatever it was at the time.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 18, 2018, at 12:16 PM, Alan Ford <a1anford@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Okay, thanks for prompt response, Xxxxxxx, just wanted to be respectful of you is all.
>
> Before signing off here, a quick question, and, always remember, Xxxxxxx, you are at liberty not to answer. Did your paternal-grandmother ever give the impression she was ever suspicious of the official account/version of President Kennedy's death?
>
> Alan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: X Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx <Xxxxxxxx@xxx.com>
> To: Alan Ford <a1anford@aol.com>
> Sent: Mon, Jun 18, 2018 11:39 am
> Subject: Re: Good Morning!
>
> Good morning Alan, family still call me Xxxxxxx...I add the X to avoid confusion
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>>
As you read along, Did you note that Mr. Williams in his same day affidavit noted a plurality of police officers come up the back stairs? Yet this same eyewitness never sees Roy nothing truly about him and Marrion Baker cross his path. There's a reason for that... a hastily contrived script has nothing to do with the absolute truth, which requires no revision (s).
The wrongly accused was framed. The wrongly accused did not shot anybody. Anybody.
I am assuming the purpose of your "hastily contrived script" (which I strongly suspect is a figment of your imagination) is to support the Oswald-did-it school of thought. You show that William's affidavit has him nowhere near the 6th floor on the day of the assassination. Four months later Williams is having his lunch until around 12:25 next to the SN. How does this support the Oswald-did-it narrative?
Oswald is supposed to be constructing the SN and assembling his rifle before taking up his position but Williams testifies that there is no-one up there with him all that time (not even Dougherty).
This change in the so-called HCS supports the view that Oswald wasn't up there doing all these things. Why not just leave Williams on the 5th floor where he originally said he was? What's the point of the HCS if it doesn't support the Oswald-did-it view?
And has anyone figured out the significance of the latch on the roof door?
-
So you are just reverting to that tired contrarian position after making the absurd comparison between Oswald and other employees who eventually left the building that day? Very lazy. A witness confirmed Oswald was on the bus only a short time after the Baker encounter. Another witness puts him in a cab and then another witness places him at his boarding house before 1PM. But you claim there is no evidence that he left immediately after the assassination? You dismiss all this evidence as the product of the "official story" whatever that means suggesting Oswald is basically the same as other employees who hung around the building chatting and giving their info to the police before leaving. LOL In order for Oswald to make these rounds around town as confirmed by multiple different witnesses within the known timeframes, his departure has to be immediate from his encounter with Baker. Within minutes after the assassination. He doesn't have a car or even a bicycle. He is on foot or using public transportation to get to these places.
Also, where in the building is he supposed to be after the Baker encounter? Let me guess. You have no clue and are just suggesting it is possible and asking others to disprove it to your subjective satisfaction while dismissing any actual evidence as the product of the "official story." But then also denying you are suggesting any conspiracy. Just multiple random citizens of Dallas all lying for some inexplicable reason to implicate Oswald. Round and round it goes down the rabbit hole of lunacy.
So you are just reverting to that tired contrarian position after making the absurd comparison between Oswald and other employees who eventually left the building that day? Very lazy.
Stop making stuff up. I never made any kind of comparison.
A witness confirmed Oswald was on the bus only a short time after the Baker encounter. Another witness puts him in a cab and then another witness places him at his boarding house before 1PM. But you claim there is no evidence that he left immediately after the assassination?
Indeed. The fact that Bledsoe, Whaley and Roberts all said they saw Oswald, tells us nothing about when exactly he left the building. You claim he left immediately, so where is the evidence for that?
You dismiss all this evidence as the product of the "official story" whatever that means suggesting Oswald is basically the same as other employees who hung around the building chatting and giving their info to the police before leaving. LOL
Stop whining and making up strawmen
In order for Oswald to make these rounds around town as confirmed by multiple different witnesses within the known timeframes, his departure has to be immediate from his encounter with Baker. Within minutes after the assassination.
Says who? The only witness who provided a kind of time stamp is Roberts, who said Oswald entered the roominghouse when she was about to watch the one o'clock news. Bledsoe's story has got holes in it bigger than Swiss cheese and Whaley only worked with 15 minutes on his time sheet.
Also, where in the building is he supposed to be after the Baker encounter?
Who cares? Buell Frazier has gone on record that he saw Oswald walk down Houston street and turning onto Elm street about 15 minutes after the shooting. He figured Oswald had left the building at the loadingdock at the back and was going to buy his lunch.
Several witnesses have stated that they saw a man, that looked like Oswald, get in a Rambler.
So, why are these witnesses wrong and are those blindly accepted in the official narrative correct?
-
The TSBD was sealed off within minutes of the assassination:
Mr. BELIN. Then that would put it around no sooner than 12:37, if you heard the call at 12:34?
Mr. SAWYER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Then you got down and what did you do?
Mr. SAWYER. I asked the Sergeant to doublecheck the security around the building, and then I took two patrolmen and stationed them at the front door and told them, with instructions not to let anybody in or out.
Frazier was probably having his lunch in the basement at this time. He was not outside seeing Oswald 15 minutes after the assassination.
-
The TSBD was sealed off within minutes of the assassination:
Mr. BELIN. Then that would put it around no sooner than 12:37, if you heard the call at 12:34?
Mr. SAWYER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Then you got down and what did you do?
Mr. SAWYER. I asked the Sergeant to doublecheck the security around the building, and then I took two patrolmen and stationed them at the front door and told them, with instructions not to let anybody in or out.
Frazier was probably having his lunch in the basement at this time. He was not outside seeing Oswald 15 minutes after the assassination.
He said "about 15 minutes".
12:37 is the time Sawyer and two officers were taken to the top of the building by a TSBD employee.
Only after he arrived back down did he give the order to seal the building. That was around 12:40.
Vickie Adams who heard a radio message from a set on a police bike at 12:37 was still allowed to enter the building after that call.
-
He said "about 15 minutes".
12:37 is the time Sawyer and two officers was taken to the top of the building by a TSBD employee.
Only after he arrived back down did he give the order to seal the building. That was around 12:40.
Vickie Adams who heard a radio message from a set on a police bike at 12:37 was still allowed to enter the building after that call.
Mr. SAWYER. To look around on the floor. How long it took to go up, it couldn't have been over 3 minutes at the most from the time we left, got up and back down.
Mr. BELIN. Then that would put it around no sooner than 12:37, if you heard the call at 12:34?
Sawyer is down after searching around 12:37, building sealed off at that time.
Mr. BELIN - Now at this time when you went back into the building, were there any policemen standing in front of the building keeping people out?
Miss ADAMS - There was an officer on the stairs itself, and he was prohibiting people from entering the building, that is correct. But I told him I worked there.
Mr. BELIN - Did he let you come back in?
Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir.
Adams barely made it back in around 12:37.
Frazier is already back in the building by this time.
Oswald has already left.
-
Mr. SAWYER. To look around on the floor. How long it took to go up, it couldn't have been over 3 minutes at the most from the time we left, got up and back down.
Mr. BELIN. Then that would put it around no sooner than 12:37, if you heard the call at 12:34?
Sawyer is down after searching around 12:37, building sealed off at that time.
Mr. BELIN - Now at this time when you went back into the building, were there any policemen standing in front of the building keeping people out?
Miss ADAMS - There was an officer on the stairs itself, and he was prohibiting people from entering the building, that is correct. But I told him I worked there.
Mr. BELIN - Did he let you come back in?
Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir.
Adams barely made it back in around 12:37.
Frazier is already back in the building by this time.
Oswald has already left.
Fair enough, but how does any of this prove that Oswald left the building immediately after the shots?
-
Fair enough, but how does any of this prove that Oswald left the building immediately after the shots?
He had a movie to catch
-
He had a movie to catch
Sure, that's why he allegedly went to a go-nowhere suburb where there is no movie theater anywhere in sight.
Only to a warped mind can something like this make any sense
-
Sure, that's why he allegedly went to a go-nowhere suburb where there is no movie theater anywhere in sight.
Only to a warped mind can something like this make any sense
LOL
---------------
'warped mind'
---------------
A ten minute walk to 'War is Hell' not including hiding in back lanes and such
-
LOL
---------------
'warped mind'
---------------
A ten minute walk to 'War is Hell' not including hiding in back lanes and such
The distance would have been a lot less if he had not (allegedly) gone to a suburb in the completely different direction.
-
Fair enough, but how does any of this prove that Oswald left the building immediately after the shots?
It indicates Oswald left the building a few minutes after the assassination.
He was certainly gone before the TSBD was locked down (around 12:37)
And he certainly didn't leave "about 15 minutes" after the assassination.
I don't think anyone is saying he left the very second the shots ended.
-
It indicates Oswald left the building a few minutes after the assassination.
He was certainly gone before the TSBD was locked down (around 12:37)
And he certainly didn't leave "about 15 minutes" after the assassination.
I don't think anyone is saying he left the very second the shots ended.
And how do you explain Buell Frazier saying he saw Oswald walking down Houston towards Elm, when the official narrative has Oswald leaving by the front door?
-
And how do you explain Buell Frazier saying he saw Oswald walking down Houston towards Elm, when the official narrative has Oswald leaving by the front door?
Who saw Oswald leaving by the front door?
-
Who saw Oswald leaving by the front door?
I have no idea, but that is the official narrative, isn't it?
-
I have no idea, but that is the official narrative, isn't it?
Yes
-
So you are just reverting to that tired contrarian position after making the absurd comparison between Oswald and other employees who eventually left the building that day? Very lazy.
Stop making stuff up. I never made any kind of comparison.
A witness confirmed Oswald was on the bus only a short time after the Baker encounter. Another witness puts him in a cab and then another witness places him at his boarding house before 1PM. But you claim there is no evidence that he left immediately after the assassination?
Indeed. The fact that Bledsoe, Whaley and Roberts all said they saw Oswald, tells us nothing about when exactly he left the building. You claim he left immediately, so where is the evidence for that?
You dismiss all this evidence as the product of the "official story" whatever that means suggesting Oswald is basically the same as other employees who hung around the building chatting and giving their info to the police before leaving. LOL
Stop whining and making up strawmen
In order for Oswald to make these rounds around town as confirmed by multiple different witnesses within the known timeframes, his departure has to be immediate from his encounter with Baker. Within minutes after the assassination.
Says who? The only witness who provided a kind of time stamp is Roberts, who said Oswald entered the roominghouse when she was about to watch the one o'clock news. Bledsoe's story has got holes in it bigger than Swiss cheese and Whaley only worked with 15 minutes on his time sheet.
Also, where in the building is he supposed to be after the Baker encounter?
Who cares? Buell Frazier has gone on record that he saw Oswald walk down Houston street and turning onto Elm street about 15 minutes after the shooting. He figured Oswald had left the building at the loadingdock at the back and was going to buy his lunch.
Several witnesses have stated that they saw a man, that looked like Oswald, get in a Rambler.
So, why are these witnesses wrong and are those blindly accepted in the official narrative correct?
Let's try one last time. The assassination occurs at 12:30. Oswald is seen in the lunch room on the second floor a couple minutes later. So let's say around 12:33 or so. He is seen at his boardinghouse in Oak Cliff before 1PM. So that's about a 20 minute window. In that window Oswald manages to walk down the street to a bus, get on, go nowhere, get off, walk to a cab, get a cab ride to his boardinghouse. In order to do all this in the known timeframe he has to be out of the TSBD right after his encounter with Baker. The precise minute isn't know but he is certainly out of the building within minutes of the assassination. Even if he had hung around for a few more minutes his actions are still singular from any other TSBD employee that day. Trying to make some type of false comparison with other employees is simply absurd and the height of the dishonest contrarian approach to this case.
-
Let's try one last time. The assassination occurs at 12:30. Oswald is seen in the lunch room on the second floor a couple minutes later. So let's say around 12:33 or so. He is seen at his boardinghouse in Oak Cliff before 1PM. So that's about a 20 minute window. In that window Oswald manages to walk down the street to a bus, get on, go nowhere, get off, walk to a cab, get a cab ride to his boardinghouse. In order to do all this in the known timeframe he has to be out of the TSBD right after his encounter with Baker. The precise minute isn't know but he is certainly out of the building within minutes of the assassination. Even if he had hung around for a few more minutes his actions are still singular from any other TSBD employee that day. Trying to make some type of false comparison with other employees is simply absurd and the height of the dishonest contrarian approach to this case.
The assassination occurs at 12:30. Oswald is seen in the lunch room on the second floor a couple minutes later. So let's say around 12:33 or so. He is seen at his boardinghouse in Oak Cliff before 1PM. So that's about a 20 minute window.
You need a better clock...
In that window Oswald manages to walk down the street to a bus, get on, go nowhere, get off, walk to a cab, get a cab ride to his boardinghouse.
Did he?
In order to do all this in the known timeframe he has to be out of the TSBD right after his encounter with Baker.
Really?
The precise minute isn't know but he is certainly out of the building within minutes of the assassination.
Within minutes is not the same as "immediately"
Even if he had hung around for a few more minutes his actions are still singular from any other TSBD employee that day. Trying to make some type of false comparison with other employees is simply absurd and the height of the dishonest contrarian approach to this case.
The only one making that false comparison is you.
-
1964
Mr. BALL - At any time before you went home, did you hear anybody ask for Lee?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe they did, because they, you know, like one man showed us, we had to give proper identification and after we passed him he told us to walk on then to the next man, and we, you know, put down proper information where he could be found if they wanted to see you and talk to you any more, and then we went on up to a little bit more to the front entrance more toward Mr. Shelley's office there with another man and stood there for a little while and told us all that was there could go ahead and go home.
HSCA tape
Frazier 25:20 Shelley said he could go home between 1 and 1.30
An excellent job clearing this up, Mr. Crow, thanks for sharing this crystal clear clarification for even the naysayers.
-
Fair enough, but how does any of this prove that Oswald left the building immediately after the shots?
Admire the critical-thinking here, Mr. Weidmann, well said sir.
A mere false narrative mired in the stench of horse manure parroted back again & again doesn't provide absolute truth. Only the absolute truth is able to stand all alone...contrary to the absolute truth a hastily contrived script is mired in revision(s), do-overs, etc.
-
On the contrary, Mr. Smith, I'm not making a mere suggestion at all. They outright lied about being atop an otherwise locked roof. Period. The question here now becomes Why?
Was it to account for why no one else travelling along on their "official" path (the backstairs) saw them there together; and/or Did Roy Truly need an excuse to draw suspicion away from why he was in the "sniper's nest" before the incriminating "evidence" was found? ---->
Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer. I don't remember when I went over there. It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell cases.
*Sidebar: Though I don't have my notes handy...am using a public computer at the moment...my research notes bear evidence of someone else other than Deputy-Sheriff John Wiseman who also legitimately attempts to gain access to that otherwise locked roof from the inside, and per that instance he all but reveals what he experienced, which is something both the lying rooftop tandem failed to exhibit in their respective testimonies. Will try to get this info on here sometime next week G-d willing.
Mr. Smith, as promised earlier within this thread, had an opportunity to secure my research notes, thus earlier response before next week.
Following Deputy-Sheriff John Wiseman's discovery that access to the roof was locked from the inside, he was wise (pun intended) enough to comprehend that as long as access to the roof was locked he had no other alternative but to retrace his steps and work his way back downward on the backstairs, stopping here and there to do what any what any dutiful man of the law would do, stopping long enough along each floor to examine any evidence of unusual movement, etc.
Now, following the wisdom of Deputy-Sheriff Wiseman, some 23-25 minutes later a Dallas Fire Department truck was summoned to the corner of 501 Elm & Houston. A request had been put in for a ladder, flashlights, etc. Once there, two firemen--Leslie Warnock, Jr. & Harry Coombs--went up the stairs to assist with whatever five agents awaiting them up there needed for them to do to make access to that otherwise locked roof possible. According to Mr. Warnock's version of the events what happened next was after they reached the area upstairs, the agents--upon hearing a noise atop the area where the roof was locked (turns out another agent travelling ahead of them had found a ladder laying nearby and had climbed up to get a much closer look at that roof door latch locked from the inside). According to Mr. Warnock, once the other agents--thinking they had an assassin corned--ready their sub-machine guns & pointed the flashlights into the opening to head upwards to pursue him--he and Mr. Coombs did the sensible thing, they immediately ran away and took cover.
Turns out--good thing--the agent hearing his fellow agents readying their submachine guns yelled out to them as they closed in, quote, "DON'T SHOOT!, DON'T SHOOT", unquote, my apologies for big caps but wanted to capture the essence of how emphatic the agent shared his experience.
Brb...to be continued...
Continuing onward now, Whew! what a close call. The foregoing was to set the stage for the most important elements about that otherwise locked roof from the inside that the lying rooftop tandem said they magically overcame...
(1) The agent--his words, his experience--not mine said he encountered dirty grime & dust so much to the point he inhaled so much of it it rendered him to offset choking by repeatedly coughing to clear his throat/airway (we have to ask ourselves, given this agent's experience--Why didn't the lying rooftop tandem need flashlights and/or further assistance from the local Fire Department IF they had indeed actually made an attempt to go atop the roof?)...
(2) Now, here comes the most revealing info: that same agent--his words/his experience--not mine encountered the following ---->
On the following link scan down to the entry "Notify 9" that we have information...
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11126#relPageId=109&search=search_ladder%20and%20roof
(3) Now ask yourself--be honest--How did the lying rooftop tandem manage to crawl through sheet metal in that small concealed space?
Again, as I asked earlier, The question here now becomes Why?
did the lying rooftop tandem lie about exploits atop an otherwise locked roof from the inside...
Was it to account for why no one else travelling along on their "official" path (the backstairs) saw them there together; and/or Did Roy Truly need an excuse to draw suspicion away from why he was in the "sniper's nest" before the incriminating "evidence" was found? ---->
Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer. I don't remember when I went over there. It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell cases.
The wrongly accused was Framed. The wrongly accused did not shoot anybody. Anybody.
-
Anyone have a picture of WFAA TV Reporter Tom Alyes' rather revealing photo of Roy Truly & Marrion Baker? That image alone voids the horse manure stench about them crawling upwards and through dirty grime, dust, sheet-metal etc... Not even a speck of dirt, grime, dust, etc on either of their pristine, unruffled dark clothing, let alone the pristine condition of Roy Truly's dark hat & glasses.
Moreover, given their own testimony--their words, not mine--they put themselves atop that otherwise locked roof from the inside for "5-10" minutes (Baker) and even longer in his flustered testimony (Roy Truly). So, in fairness, Are there any pictures--just one will do--that places them together atop that reinforced fortified roof in need of special equipment from the Fire Department to gain access? One single image will suffice...
All for now, best wishes to all who may pass this way to remain well, safe & healthy amid the ongoing pandemic challenges we are facing.
-
The assassination occurs at 12:30. Oswald is seen in the lunch room on the second floor a couple minutes later. So let's say around 12:33 or so. He is seen at his boardinghouse in Oak Cliff before 1PM. So that's about a 20 minute window.
You need a better clock...
In that window Oswald manages to walk down the street to a bus, get on, go nowhere, get off, walk to a cab, get a cab ride to his boardinghouse.
Did he?
In order to do all this in the known timeframe he has to be out of the TSBD right after his encounter with Baker.
Really?
The precise minute isn't know but he is certainly out of the building within minutes of the assassination.
Within minutes is not the same as "immediately"
Even if he had hung around for a few more minutes his actions are still singular from any other TSBD employee that day. Trying to make some type of false comparison with other employees is simply absurd and the height of the dishonest contrarian approach to this case.
The only one making that false comparison is you.
A contrarian classic post.
-
Mr. Smith, as promised earlier within this thread, had an opportunity to secure my research notes, thus earlier response before next week.
Following Deputy-Sheriff John Wiseman's discovery that access to the roof was locked from the inside, he was wise (pun intended) enough to comprehend that as long as access to the roof was locked he had no other alternative but to retrace his steps
There seems to be some confusion here. Officer Wiseman said "the door to the roof was locked on the inside with a gate type hook latch". This does NOT mean he----or anyone else----could not open the door if they wished to. Rather he concluded that no one could have gone up to the roof and locked the door behind them------as it was closed on the inside. Hence his decision to make his way back downstairs.
The question is: WHEN did Officer Wiseman see the locked door? It cannot have been while Mr Truly and Officer Baker were on the roof (unless some third party had locked them up there from the inside).
and work his way back downward on the backstairs, stopping here and there to do what any what any dutiful man of the law would do, stopping long enough along each floor to examine any evidence of unusual movement, etc.
Now, following the wisdom of Deputy-Sheriff Wiseman, some 23-25 minutes later a Dallas Fire Department truck was summoned to the corner of 501 Elm & Houston. A request had been put in for a ladder, flashlights, etc. Once there, two firemen--Leslie Warnock, Jr. & Harry Coombs--went up the stairs to assist with whatever five agents awaiting them up there needed for them to do to make access to that otherwise locked roof possible.
No (see above!)
According to Mr. Warnock's version of the events what happened next was after they reached the area upstairs, the agents--upon hearing a noise atop the area where the roof was locked (turns out another agent travelling ahead of them had found a ladder laying nearby and had climbed up to get a much closer look at that roof door latch locked from the inside). According to Mr. Warnock, once the other agents--thinking they had an assassin corned--ready their sub-machine guns & pointed the flashlights into the opening to head upwards to pursue him--he and Mr. Coombs did the sensible thing, they immediately ran away and took cover.
Turns out--good thing--the agent hearing his fellow agents readying their submachine guns yelled out to them as they closed in, quote, "DON'T SHOOT!, DON'T SHOOT", unquote, my apologies for big caps but wanted to capture the essence of how emphatic the agent shared his experience.
Brb...to be continued...
Continuing onward now, Whew! what a close call. The foregoing was to set the stage for the most important elements about that otherwise locked roof from the inside that the lying rooftop tandem said they magically overcame...
(1) The agent--his words, his experience--not mine said he encountered dirty grime & dust so much to the point he inhaled so much of it it rendered him to offset choking by repeatedly coughing to clear his throat/airway (we have to ask ourselves, given this agent's experience--Why didn't the lying rooftop tandem need flashlights and/or further assistance from the local Fire Department IF they had indeed actually made an attempt to go atop the roof?)...
(2) Now, here comes the most revealing info: that same agent--his words/his experience--not mine encountered the following ---->
On the following link scan down to the entry "Notify 9" that we have information...
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11126#relPageId=109&search=search_ladder%20and%20roof
(3) Now ask yourself--be honest--How did the lying rooftop tandem manage to crawl through sheet metal in that small concealed space?
The linked document doesn't suggest that such would have been necessary. There was some sheet metal, under which someone could have been concealing themselves.
In the image on the right we see the man looking into the opening---------
(https://i.imgur.com/RuLbsOK.jpg)
Again, as I asked earlier, The question here now becomes Why?
did the lying rooftop tandem lie about exploits atop an otherwise locked roof from the inside...
Again, the question IMO is one of timing not physical logistics
Thumb1:
-
A witness confirmed Oswald was on the bus only a short time after the Baker encounter.
Nobody "confirmed" Oswald was on a bus. A landlady who could not prove she ever rented to Oswald or that she was even on a bus at that time claimed she saw Oswald on a bus.
-
So, why are these witnesses wrong and are those blindly accepted in the official narrative correct?
Because that's how "Richard" rolls.
-
Frazier was probably having his lunch in the basement at this time. He was not outside seeing Oswald 15 minutes after the assassination.
Why "probably"? How long does it take to eat a sandwich?
-
Why "probably"? How long does it take to eat a sandwich?
How long does it take you to eat a sandwich?
-
A contrarian classic post.
Pointing out "Richard's" ever-present misinformation and logical fallacies is "contrarian".
-
How long does it take you to eat a sandwich?
Not 15 minutes.
-
Not 15 minutes.
Not sure what you're saying
-
Mr. Smith, as promised earlier within this thread, had an opportunity to secure my research notes, thus earlier response before next week.
Following Deputy-Sheriff John Wiseman's discovery that access to the roof was locked from the inside, he was wise (pun intended) enough to comprehend that as long as access to the roof was locked he had no other alternative but to retrace his steps and work his way back downward on the backstairs, stopping here and there to do what any what any dutiful man of the law would do, stopping long enough along each floor to examine any evidence of unusual movement, etc.
Now, following the wisdom of Deputy-Sheriff Wiseman, some 23-25 minutes later a Dallas Fire Department truck was summoned to the corner of 501 Elm & Houston. A request had been put in for a ladder, flashlights, etc. Once there, two firemen--Leslie Warnock, Jr. & Harry Coombs--went up the stairs to assist with whatever five agents awaiting them up there needed for them to do to make access to that otherwise locked roof possible. According to Mr. Warnock's version of the events what happened next was after they reached the area upstairs, the agents--upon hearing a noise atop the area where the roof was locked (turns out another agent travelling ahead of them had found a ladder laying nearby and had climbed up to get a much closer look at that roof door latch locked from the inside). According to Mr. Warnock, once the other agents--thinking they had an assassin corned--ready their sub-machine guns & pointed the flashlights into the opening to head upwards to pursue him--he and Mr. Coombs did the sensible thing, they immediately ran away and took cover.
Turns out--good thing--the agent hearing his fellow agents readying their submachine guns yelled out to them as they closed in, quote, "DON'T SHOOT!, DON'T SHOOT", unquote, my apologies for big caps but wanted to capture the essence of how emphatic the agent shared his experience.
Brb...to be continued...
Continuing onward now, Whew! what a close call. The foregoing was to set the stage for the most important elements about that otherwise locked roof from the inside that the lying rooftop tandem said they magically overcame...
(1) The agent--his words, his experience--not mine said he encountered dirty grime & dust so much to the point he inhaled so much of it it rendered him to offset choking by repeatedly coughing to clear his throat/airway (we have to ask ourselves, given this agent's experience--Why didn't the lying rooftop tandem need flashlights and/or further assistance from the local Fire Department IF they had indeed actually made an attempt to go atop the roof?)...
(2) Now, here comes the most revealing info: that same agent--his words/his experience--not mine encountered the following ---->
On the following link scan down to the entry "Notify 9" that we have information...
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11126#relPageId=109&search=search_ladder%20and%20roof
(3) Now ask yourself--be honest--How did the lying rooftop tandem manage to crawl through sheet metal in that small concealed space?
Again, as I asked earlier, The question here now becomes Why?
did the lying rooftop tandem lie about exploits atop an otherwise locked roof from the inside...
Was it to account for why no one else travelling along on their "official" path (the backstairs) saw them there together; and/or Did Roy Truly need an excuse to draw suspicion away from why he was in the "sniper's nest" before the incriminating "evidence" was found? ---->
Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer. I don't remember when I went over there. It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell cases.
The wrongly accused was Framed. The wrongly accused did not shoot anybody. Anybody.
Talk about a hastily contrived script!
-
Anyone have a picture of WFAA TV Reporter Tom Alyes' rather revealing photo of Roy Truly & Marrion Baker? That image alone voids the horse manure stench about them crawling upwards and through dirty grime, dust, sheet-metal etc... Not even a speck of dirt, grime, dust, etc on either of their pristine, unruffled dark clothing, let alone the pristine condition of Roy Truly's dark hat & glasses.
Moreover, given their own testimony--their words, not mine--they put themselves atop that otherwise locked roof from the inside for "5-10" minutes (Baker) and even longer in his flustered testimony (Roy Truly). So, in fairness, Are there any pictures--just one will do--that places them together atop that reinforced fortified roof in need of special equipment from the Fire Department to gain access? One single image will suffice...
All for now, best wishes to all who may pass this way to remain well, safe & healthy amid the ongoing pandemic challenges we are facing.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1thgfDT6J0DCMaiKRdG9aJq9cDElhMJQW/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1thgfDT6J0DCMaiKRdG9aJq9cDElhMJQW/view?usp=sharing)
-
A contrarian classic post.
To you anybody who doesn't agree with you 100% is a contrarian.
Given the BS you try to sell as fact, I'd say being a contrarian is a badge of honor.
-
Why "probably"? How long does it take to eat a sandwich?
You wouldn't be trying to say Frazier had his lunch then went outside to see Oswald "about 15 minutes" later?
You can obviously see the problem with that scenario.
-
We have digressed down the contrarian rabbit hole again.
Mr. BALL - When was the last time you can remember you saw Lee?
Mr. FRAZIER - You mean on the 22d?
Mr. BALL - On the 22d, that day.
Mr. FRAZIER - Somewhere between it was after 10 and somewhere before noon, because I remember I was walking down to the first floor that day, that was the only time I went up on the elevator was, like I say, for a few minutes and, I put that box of books up and put it down, and I was on the first floor putting up books all day and I seen him back and forth and he would be walking and getting books and put on the order.
Mr. BALL - That was the last time you saw him all day?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right
-
We have digressed down the contrarian rabbit hole again.
Mr. BALL - When was the last time you can remember you saw Lee?
Mr. FRAZIER - You mean on the 22d?
Mr. BALL - On the 22d, that day.
Mr. FRAZIER - Somewhere between it was after 10 and somewhere before noon, because I remember I was walking down to the first floor that day, that was the only time I went up on the elevator was, like I say, for a few minutes and, I put that box of books up and put it down, and I was on the first floor putting up books all day and I seen him back and forth and he would be walking and getting books and put on the order.
Mr. BALL - That was the last time you saw him all day?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right
According to "Richard", whatever was said during testimony is not only the absolute truth but also written in stone.
Too bad that, for example, Michael Paine testified that he did not know Oswald had a rifle, yet many years later admitted that he had been shown a BY photo (with Oswald holding a rifle) days after it had been taken.
There are many more witnesses who said one thing in their testimony and something else later on, so - as per usual - Richard's point has very little validity.
-
According to "Richard", whatever was said during testimony is not only the absolute truth but also written in stone.
Too bad that, for example, Michael Paine testified that he did not know Oswald had a rifle, yet many years later admitted that he had been shown a BY photo (with Oswald holding a rifle) days after it had been taken.
There are many more witnesses who said one thing in their testimony and something else later on, so - as per usual - Richard's point has very little validity.
Poor Roger. Dancing like a circus monkey. His prize witness who he believes can estimate the length of a bag with scientific precision confirms that he didn't see Oswald after 12PM. So Martin/Roger deflects with some other rambling nonsense. Isn't it getting late in "Europe"?
-
We have digressed down the contrarian rabbit hole again.
Mr. BALL - When was the last time you can remember you saw Lee?
Mr. FRAZIER - You mean on the 22d?
Mr. BALL - On the 22d, that day.
Mr. FRAZIER - Somewhere between it was after 10 and somewhere before noon, because I remember I was walking down to the first floor that day, that was the only time I went up on the elevator was, like I say, for a few minutes and, I put that box of books up and put it down, and I was on the first floor putting up books all day and I seen him back and forth and he would be walking and getting books and put on the order.
Mr. BALL - That was the last time you saw him all day?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right
Mr. BALL - Did you see anything or hear anything of Oswald on the way down?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes; he was on the opposite side of the elevator I was on. I heard him holier to one of the boys to stop, he wanted the elevator. They said, "No; we're going down to lunch," and closed the gate I was on and come down and got ready to watch the President come by or got ready to go to lunch, and that's the last I heard of him.
Mr. BALL - You were on the west elevator?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Oswald was standing in front of the east elevator?
Mr. LOVELADY - East, on back, the elevator back.
Mr. BALL - Did you see him?
Mr. LOVELADY - No; I didn't; I just heard his voice because---where those slats are in back of the elevator.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see him again that day?
Mr. LOVELADY - No.
And yet we know that Mr Lovelady did in fact see Mr Oswald again that day------------down at City Hall. We even have footage of it!
But wait, there's more! Mr Lovelady told Mr James Jarman that day that he had seen Mr Oswald encountering a cop & Mr Truly at the Depository front door shortly after the shooting.
Only a dyed-in-the-wool Warren Gullible like you, Mr Smith, could possibly believe that WC testimony transcripts contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Thumb1:
-
Mr. BALL - Did you see anything or hear anything of Oswald on the way down?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes; he was on the opposite side of the elevator I was on. I heard him holier to one of the boys to stop, he wanted the elevator. They said, "No; we're going down to lunch," and closed the gate I was on and come down and got ready to watch the President come by or got ready to go to lunch, and that's the last I heard of him.
Mr. BALL - You were on the west elevator?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Oswald was standing in front of the east elevator?
Mr. LOVELADY - East, on back, the elevator back.
Mr. BALL - Did you see him?
Mr. LOVELADY - No; I didn't; I just heard his voice because---where those slats are in back of the elevator.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see him again that day?
Mr. LOVELADY - No.
And yet we know that Mr Lovelady did in fact see Mr Oswald again that day------------down at City Hall. We even have footage of it!
But wait, there's more! Mr Lovelady told Mr James Jarman that day that he had seen Mr Oswald encountering a cop & Mr Truly at the Depository front door shortly after the shooting.
Only a dyed-in-the-wool Warren Gullible like you, Mr Smith, could possibly believe that WC testimony transcripts contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Thumb1:
Lovelady is being asked a series of specific questions about when he saw Oswald at the TSBD prior to the assassination. He answers in that context. It is all the more amazing that CTer kooks are taking issue with Frazier's WC testimony that he did not see Oswald after 12PM while touting his testimony regarding his estimate of the length of Oswald's bag as gospel. But again, this is typical pedantic rabbit hole nonsense. We know that Oswald was at his boardinghouse in Oak Cliff prior to 1PM. As a result, he could not be hanging around the TSBD at 12:45 or so after the assassination.
-
Lovelady is being asked a series of specific questions about when he saw Oswald at the TSBD prior to the assassination. He answers in that context. It is all the more amazing that CTer kooks are taking issue with Frazier's WC testimony that he did not see Oswald after 12PM while touting his testimony regarding his estimate of the length of Oswald's bag as gospel. But again, this is typical pedantic rabbit hole nonsense. We know that Oswald was at his boardinghouse in Oak Cliff prior to 1PM. As a result, he could not be hanging around the TSBD at 12:45 or so after the assassination.
It is all the more amazing that CTer kooks are taking issue with Frazier's WC testimony that he did not see Oswald after 12PM while touting his testimony regarding his estimate of the length of Oswald's bag as gospel. But again, this is typical pedantic rabbit hole nonsense.
Yes, it is nonsense, but it is a strawman that is your nonsense
But isn't it amazing that LNs take BWF's testimony, that he did not see Oswald after 12PM, as gospel, yet completely reject his testimony about the bag he saw Oswald carry not being as large as the TSBD bag.
And isn't it amazing that "Richard" keeps raving on about Frazier's estimate of the length of the bag but completely ignores Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the bag in the cup of his hand and under his armpit.
We know that Oswald was at his boardinghouse in Oak Cliff prior to 1PM. As a result, he could not be hanging around the TSBD at 12:45 or so after the assassination.
Unless of course he was taken to the roominghouse by a Rambler.
Btw, how do we know that Oswald was at his boardinghouse in Oak Cliff prior to 1PM?
-
Poor Roger. Dancing like a circus monkey. His prize witness who he believes can estimate the length of a bag with scientific precision confirms that he didn't see Oswald after 12PM. So Martin/Roger deflects with some other rambling nonsense. Isn't it getting late in "Europe"?
Says the guy who cherry-picks the statements he likes and disregards the rest.
-
Lovelady is being asked a series of specific questions about when he saw Oswald at the TSBD prior to the assassination. He answers in that context. It is all the more amazing that CTer kooks are taking issue with Frazier's WC testimony that he did not see Oswald after 12PM while touting his testimony regarding his estimate of the length of Oswald's bag as gospel.
Given that there is ZERO evidence of a rifle being inside any bag, that is irrelevant anyway. What's really kooky is "Richard" thinking he knows how long a bag was better than the people who actually saw it.
But again, this is typical pedantic rabbit hole nonsense. We know that Oswald was at his boardinghouse in Oak Cliff prior to 1PM. As a result, he could not be hanging around the TSBD at 12:45 or so after the assassination.
BS: It doesn't take more than 15 minutes to get from Dealey Plaza to 1026 N Beckley. Besides we don't actually "know" that Oswald was at his boardinghouse in Oak Cliff prior to 1PM.
-
It is all the more amazing that CTer kooks are taking issue with Frazier's WC testimony that he did not see Oswald after 12PM while touting his testimony regarding his estimate of the length of Oswald's bag as gospel. But again, this is typical pedantic rabbit hole nonsense.
Yes, it is nonsense, but it is a strawman that is your nonsense
But isn't it amazing that LNs take BWF's testimony, that he did not see Oswald after 12PM, as gospel, yet completely reject his testimony about the bag he saw Oswald carry not being as large as the TSBD bag.
And isn't it amazing that "Richard" keeps raving on about Frazier's estimate of the length of the bag but completely ignores Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the bag in the cup of his hand and under his armpit.
We know that Oswald was at his boardinghouse in Oak Cliff prior to 1PM. As a result, he could not be hanging around the TSBD at 12:45 or so after the assassination.
Unless of course he was taken to the roominghouse by a Rambler.
Btw, how do we know that Oswald was at his boardinghouse in Oak Cliff prior to 1PM?
I'm not sure what you are babbling about. Talk about straw man. I accept Frazier's testimony that Oswald carried a long bag that morning. I think he is being truthful about his estimate of its length. He is just wrong which is entirely understandable because it is an estimate of the length of an object that he had little cause to notice at the time. In contrast, there is no such subjective qualifier to his answer as to when he last saw Oswald. He either saw him after the assassination or he did not. He doesn't have to make an estimate to answer that question. He says in his WC testimony that he did not. That is about as clear as it gets. And yet contrarian loons such as yourself are suggesting that Oswald hung around the building until 12:45. By implication that means anyone who puts him on the bus, cab, or boardinghouse (various random citizens) all lied for some inexplicable reason. And on and on that fantasy goes. That is just rabbit hole nonsense. Even humorous.
-
I'm not sure what you are babbling about. Talk about straw man. I accept Frazier's testimony that Oswald carried a long bag that morning. I think he is being truthful about his estimate of its length. He is just wrong which is entirely understandable because it is an estimate of the length of an object that he had little cause to notice at the time.
a) who the hell are you to just declare that he was "wrong"?
b) he didn't just "estimate" the bag. He saw how much of the back seat it took up, and he saw how it was carried. He also saw what kind of paper it was made of and he definitively stated that CE142 was not the same bag. Deal with it.
In contrast, there is no such subjective qualifier to his answer as to when he last saw Oswald. He either saw him after the assassination or he did not. He doesn't have to make an estimate to answer that question. He says in his WC testimony that he did not. That is about as clear as it gets.
And he says in interviews with both Gary Mack and Stephen Fagin that he saw Oswald coming down Houston street. That's also as clear as it gets.
And yet contrarian loons such as yourself are suggesting that Oswald hung around the building until 12:45. By implication that means anyone who puts him on the bus, cab, or boardinghouse (various random citizens) all lied for some inexplicable reason.
No, Strawman "Smith". Whaley put him in the cab at 12:30. That can't be right. Roberts put him at the boardinghouse near 1:00 PM which has no conflict whatsoever with being outside the TSBD at 12:45. Besides, Buell told Gary Mack it was 5-10 minutes after the assassination.
And on and on that fantasy goes. That is just rabbit hole nonsense. Even humorous.
The humorous nonsense is what you arbitrarily try to pass off as fact.
-
You wouldn't be trying to say Frazier had his lunch then went outside to see Oswald "about 15 minutes" later?
You can obviously see the problem with that scenario.
I'm in the middle of reading Frazier's book right now, and he's actually quite clear that he saw Lee on Houston street before he went back in to eat his sandwich in the basement.
-
I'm in the middle of reading Frazier's book right now, and he's actually quite clear that he saw Lee on Houston street before he went back in to eat his sandwich in the basement.
Was this before or after he saw Mr Brown walking down the street with his rifle clearly on display?
-
Lovelady is being asked a series of specific questions about when he saw Oswald at the TSBD prior to the assassination. He answers in that context.
:D
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see him again that day?
Mr. LOVELADY - No.
-
Was this before or after he saw Mr Brown walking down the street with his rifle clearly on display?
Man with rifle, then Lee, then sandwich.
-
Man with rifle, then Lee, then sandwich.
;D
Given the choice i think I'll go with his earliest statements where he stays put at the top of the steps for a few minutes then goes back inside to have lunch with Jimmy Hoffa.
-
I'm not sure what you are babbling about. Talk about straw man. I accept Frazier's testimony that Oswald carried a long bag that morning. I think he is being truthful about his estimate of its length. He is just wrong which is entirely understandable because it is an estimate of the length of an object that he had little cause to notice at the time. In contrast, there is no such subjective qualifier to his answer as to when he last saw Oswald. He either saw him after the assassination or he did not. He doesn't have to make an estimate to answer that question. He says in his WC testimony that he did not. That is about as clear as it gets. And yet contrarian loons such as yourself are suggesting that Oswald hung around the building until 12:45. By implication that means anyone who puts him on the bus, cab, or boardinghouse (various random citizens) all lied for some inexplicable reason. And on and on that fantasy goes. That is just rabbit hole nonsense. Even humorous.
And yet contrarian loons such as yourself are suggesting that Oswald hung around the building until 12:45.
You just can't help yourself, can you? You always need to misrepresent what was actually said. I never suggested anything of the kind. I merely stated what Frazier said about seeing Oswald walking down Houston. And btw "around 12:45" is actually an estimate.
By implication that means anyone who puts him on the bus, cab, or boardinghouse (various random citizens) all lied for some inexplicable reason.
"Various random citizens" LOL.... There are only two. There's Bledsoe, who was an even bigger screwball than Markham, and whose "identification" of Oswald was completely pathetic. And there's Whaley, who had such a good look at his passenger, that he "saw" the man wearing two jackets, when Oswald left the TSBD without a jacket.
But isn't it amazing that witnesses you don't like are all liars and those you do like are only mistaken on details.
As for the roominghouse, Roberts is another fine example of the "high quality" :D witnesses this entire case is build on. Having said that, my question still stands; how do we know that Oswald was at his boardinghouse in Oak Cliff prior to 1PM?
-
;D
Given the choice i think I'll go with his earliest statements where he stays put at the top of the steps for a few minutes then goes back inside to have lunch with Jimmy Hoffa.
His original affidavit doesn't say how much time passed before he ate his lunch. In his WC testimony he indicated that he stood around for several minutes (he didn't say at the top of the steps) before going down to the basement.
-
As for the roominghouse, Roberts is another fine example of the "high quality" :D witnesses this entire case is build on. Having said that, my question still stands; how do we know that Oswald was at his boardinghouse in Oak Cliff prior to 1PM?
Not only will "Richard" never answer the question, but he will trot out the same claim again the next time the subject comes up.
-
His original affidavit doesn't say how much time passed before he ate his lunch. In his WC testimony he indicated that he stood around for several minutes (he didn't say at the top of the steps) before going down to the basement.
Obviously I was being slightly frivolous in my post, hence the inclusion of Jimmy Hoffa.
I didn't realise it was going to be subject to rigorous analysis (I should've known better)
So allow me to clarify -
As I understand it from your post and what Alan has posted about Frazier's new book, Frazier is saying that after the shots he left the front entrance steps, walked towards the railroad yard, encountered Mr Brown and his rifle, walked back to the corner of Houston and Elm, saw Oswald, made his way back to the front entrance steps, went back in the TSBD and had his sandwiches.
In his affidavit he states that he "was standing on the front steps of the building when the Parade came by", after the shots he "stood there, then people started running by, and I turned, and went back in the building and got my lunch and eat it".
In his WC testimony he states he is stood on the front steps, "one step down from the top"" by the rail." After the shots he " just stood still". As he clearly states - "I just stood where I was. I hadn't moved at all." He stood there for a few minutes before going back in the building. He is very clear about staying exactly where he was after the shots - "I have always been taught when something like that happened or anywhere as far as that it is always best to stand still because if you run that makes you look guilty sure enough."
The point I was making was this - In his affidavit and WC testimony Frazier:
Does not leave the steps
Does not walk towards the railroad yard.
Does not see Mr Brown and his rifle.
Does not walk to the corner of Houston and Elm.
Does not see Oswald.
Does not return to the steps.
Frazier stays on the front steps then goes back inside the building.
He is back inside within a few minutes.
And he has two sandwiches.
-
I think you're reading stuff into it that isn't there. He stood still after the shots. That doesn't mean he stood still right up to the time he went back into the building. He never said that he stayed on the top step the entire time.
-
Obviously I was being slightly frivolous in my post, hence the inclusion of Jimmy Hoffa.
I didn't realise it was going to be subject to rigorous analysis (I should've known better)
So allow me to clarify -
As I understand it from your post and what Alan has posted about Frazier's new book, Frazier is saying that after the shots he left the front entrance steps, walked towards the railroad yard, encountered Mr Brown and his rifle, walked back to the corner of Houston and Elm, saw Oswald, made his way back to the front entrance steps, went back in the TSBD and had his sandwiches.
In his affidavit he states that he "was standing on the front steps of the building when the Parade came by", after the shots he "stood there, then people started running by, and I turned, and went back in the building and got my lunch and eat it".
In his WC testimony he states he is stood on the front steps, "one step down from the top"" by the rail." After the shots he " just stood still". As he clearly states - "I just stood where I was. I hadn't moved at all." He stood there for a few minutes before going back in the building. He is very clear about staying exactly where he was after the shots - "I have always been taught when something like that happened or anywhere as far as that it is always best to stand still because if you run that makes you look guilty sure enough."
The point I was making was this - In his affidavit and WC testimony Frazier:
Does not leave the steps
Does not walk towards the railroad yard.
Does not see Mr Brown and his rifle.
Does not walk to the corner of Houston and Elm.
Does not see Oswald.
Does not return to the steps.
Frazier stays on the front steps then goes back inside the building.
He is back inside within a few minutes.
And he has two sandwiches.
The point I was making was this - In his affidavit and WC testimony Frazier:
Does not leave the steps
Does not walk towards the railroad yard.
Does not see Mr Brown and his rifle.
Does not walk to the corner of Houston and Elm.
Does not see Oswald.
Does not return to the steps.
That's the wrong point to make. In his testimony did not say that he didn't see/do these things. He just doesn't mention them, partly because he wasn't asked. That doesn't mean it did not happen. It only means he did not mention it.
-
I think you're reading stuff into it that isn't there. He stood still after the shots. That doesn't mean he stood still right up to the time he went back into the building. He never said that he stayed on the top step the entire time.
Really?
What am I reading that isn't there?
In his affidavit and WC testimony where does he even hint he moves from the steps?
He goes out of his way to repeatedly state that he hardly moves from the spot he is stood before going back inside the TSBD.
What are you reading into it?
-
The point I was making was this - In his affidavit and WC testimony Frazier:
Does not leave the steps
Does not walk towards the railroad yard.
Does not see Mr Brown and his rifle.
Does not walk to the corner of Houston and Elm.
Does not see Oswald.
Does not return to the steps.
That's the wrong point to make. In his testimony did not say that he didn't see/do these things. He just doesn't mention them, partly because he wasn't asked. That doesn't mean it did not happen. It only means he did not mention it.
He wasn't asked??
Mr. BALL - The three of you didn't go any place?
You will literally say anything to try and win a point. Unbelievable.
-
Really?
What am I reading that isn't there?
In his affidavit and WC testimony where does he even hint he moves from the steps?
Where does he say he stayed on the steps?
He goes out of his way to repeatedly state that he hardly moves from the spot he is stood before going back inside the TSBD.
No, this is what he says:
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I stood there a few minutes, you know, and some people who worked there; you know normally started to go back into the Building because a lot of us didn't eat our lunch, and so we stared back into the Building and it wasn't but just a few minutes that there were a lot of police officers and so forth all over the Building there.
Mr. BALL - Then you went back into the Building, did you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - And before you went back into the Building no police officer came up the steps and into the building?
Mr. FRAZIER - Not that I know. They could walk by the way and I was standing there talking to somebody else and didn't see it.
Mr. BALL - Did anybody say anything about what had happened, did you hear anybody say anything about the President had been shot?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; right before I went back, some girl who had walked down a little bit further where I was standing on the steps, and somebody come back and said somebody had shot President Kennedy.
Mr. BALL - Do you know who it was who told you that?
Mr. FRAZIER - Sir?
Mr. BALL - Do you know who the girl was who told you that?
Mr. FRAZIER - She didn't tell me right directly but she just came back and more or less in a low kind of hollering she just told several people.
Mr. BALL - Then you went back into the Building, did you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - And police officers came in there?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I would say by the time, you know some of us went back in, and it wasn't just a few minutes, I say there were several.
Mr. BALL - Did you stay on the first floor?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, stayed on the first floor there for a few minutes and I hadn't eaten my lunch so I had my lunch down there in the basement and I went down there to get my lunch and eat it and I walked back up on the first floor there.
Mr. BALL - When you came back into the Building, you came in the front door, didn't you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right
Mr. BALL - Did you go down to the basement immediately or did you stand around on the first floor?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I stood around for several minutes there, you know, and then, you know, eventually the ones who hadn't eaten their lunch, some of them had taken their lunch outside.
-
He wasn't asked??
Mr. BALL - The three of you didn't go any place?
He's referring to the time of the shots and immediately afterwards.
Mr. BALL - You didn't see the President's car at the time you heard the sound?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. BALL - But you stood right there, did you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Stood right where I was.
Mr. BALL - And Mr. Shelley was still standing there?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - And also Billy Lovelady?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - The three of you didn't go any place?
Mr. FRAZIER - I believe Billy and them walked down toward that direction but I didn't. I just stood where I was. I hadn't moved at all.
He didn't move anywhere before Lovelady and Shelley left.
-
He wasn't asked??
Mr. BALL - The three of you didn't go any place?
You will literally say anything to try and win a point. Unbelievable.
It seems you will use only those quotes that you like and ignore the rest.
I don't need to win a point. In fact I'll gladly be convinced by a solid argument, so why don't you try to make one instead of whining.
-
The contrarian race down the rabbit hole is in hyperdrive. He wasn't asked etc. Good grief.
Mr. BALL - When was the last time you can remember you saw Lee?
Mr. FRAZIER - You mean on the 22d?
Mr. BALL - On the 22d, that day.
Mr. FRAZIER - Somewhere between it was after 10 and somewhere before noon, because I remember I was walking down to the first floor that day, that was the only time I went up on the elevator was, like I say, for a few minutes and, I put that box of books up and put it down, and I was on the first floor putting up books all day and I seen him back and forth and he would be walking and getting books and put on the order.
Mr. BALL - That was the last time you saw him all day?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right
Next rabbit hole.
-
As already pointed out (and ignored by "Richard"), Billy Lovelady also testified that he didn't see Oswald again that day. But we have photo evidence to the contrary.
Cherry-picked (and cherry-interpreted) testimony isn't some sort of immutable truth.
-
Not only will "Richard" never answer the question, but he will trot out the same claim again the next time the subject comes up.
As shown in his latest post Thumb1:
-
As shown in his latest post Thumb1:
So your star witness who you allege over and over again had almost a superhuman ability to estimate the size of a long bag with scientific precision down to the inch is wrong on a basic simple fact according to you? That is pedantic rabbit hole nonsense since Oswald cannot be at the TSBD at 12:45 and at his boardinghouse in Oak Cliff before 1PM. Your dishonest contrarian cult brother keeps erroneously claiming he had 15 minutes to do so. But that is wrong. He is at the boardinghouse several minutes before 1PM because he leaves before 1PM. At most he would have had 7-10 minutes to get the boarding house if he was still at the TSBD as late as 12:45.
Mr. BALL - That was the last time you saw him all day?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right
-
So your star witness who you allege over and over again had almost a superhuman ability to estimate the size of a long bag with scientific precision down to the inch is wrong on a basic simple fact according to you? That is pedantic rabbit hole nonsense since Oswald cannot be at the TSBD at 12:45 and at his boardinghouse in Oak Cliff before 1PM. Your dishonest contrarian cult brother keeps erroneously claiming he had 15 minutes to do so. But that is wrong. He is at the boardinghouse several minutes before 1PM because he leaves before 1PM. At most he would have had 7-10 minutes to get the boarding house if he was still at the TSBD as late as 12:45.
Mr. BALL - That was the last time you saw him all day?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right
So your star witness who you allege over and over again had almost a superhuman ability to estimate the size of a long bag with scientific precision down to the inch is wrong on a basic simple fact according to you?
Fool. I have never alleged anything of the kind. It is just a pathetic strawman that you keep using. One doesn't need to estimate a size of a bag, when one sees the bag being carried in the cup of a hand and under an armpit. All you need to do is measure the length of the arm!
That is pedantic rabbit hole nonsense since Oswald cannot be at the TSBD at 12:45 and at his boardinghouse in Oak Cliff before 1PM.
Before 1PM? I agree... at 1PM, sure he can.
He is at the boardinghouse several minutes before 1PM because he leaves before 1PM.
Who says he left before 1PM?
-
I think you're reading stuff into it that isn't there. He stood still after the shots. That doesn't mean he stood still right up to the time he went back into the building. He never said that he stayed on the top step the entire time.
In his affidavit or WC testimony, it is clear Frazier doesn't leave the front steps.
What is it in these statements that makes you believe he does?
-
It seems you will use only those quotes that you like and ignore the rest.
I don't need to win a point. In fact I'll gladly be convinced by a solid argument, so why don't you try to make one instead of whining.
I did make a solid argument that Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony demonstrate clearly that he never left the front steps. Allow me to reproduce the argument:
As I understand it from your post and what Alan has posted about Frazier's new book, Frazier is saying that after the shots he left the front entrance steps, walked towards the railroad yard, encountered Mr Brown and his rifle, walked back to the corner of Houston and Elm, saw Oswald, made his way back to the front entrance steps, went back in the TSBD and had his sandwiches.
In his affidavit he states that he "was standing on the front steps of the building when the Parade came by", after the shots he "stood there, then people started running by, and I turned, and went back in the building and got my lunch and eat it".
In his WC testimony he states he is stood on the front steps, "one step down from the top"" by the rail." After the shots he " just stood still". As he clearly states - "I just stood where I was. I hadn't moved at all." He stood there for a few minutes before going back in the building. He is very clear about staying exactly where he was after the shots - "I have always been taught when something like that happened or anywhere as far as that it is always best to stand still because if you run that makes you look guilty sure enough."
The point I was making was this - In his affidavit and WC testimony Frazier:
Does not leave the steps
Does not walk towards the railroad yard.
Does not see Mr Brown and his rifle.
Does not walk to the corner of Houston and Elm.
Does not see Oswald.
Does not return to the steps.
Frazier stays on the front steps then goes back inside the building.
He is back inside within a few minutes.
This was your response to this partial analysis of Frazier's early statements:
"That doesn't mean it did not happen. It only means he did not mention it."
You sound like a 10 year old trying to make a counter-argument.
That's really the best you can do?
-
I did make a solid argument that Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony demonstrate clearly that he never left the front steps. Allow me to reproduce the argument:
As I understand it from your post and what Alan has posted about Frazier's new book, Frazier is saying that after the shots he left the front entrance steps, walked towards the railroad yard, encountered Mr Brown and his rifle, walked back to the corner of Houston and Elm, saw Oswald, made his way back to the front entrance steps, went back in the TSBD and had his sandwiches.
In his affidavit he states that he "was standing on the front steps of the building when the Parade came by", after the shots he "stood there, then people started running by, and I turned, and went back in the building and got my lunch and eat it".
In his WC testimony he states he is stood on the front steps, "one step down from the top"" by the rail." After the shots he " just stood still". As he clearly states - "I just stood where I was. I hadn't moved at all." He stood there for a few minutes before going back in the building. He is very clear about staying exactly where he was after the shots - "I have always been taught when something like that happened or anywhere as far as that it is always best to stand still because if you run that makes you look guilty sure enough."
The point I was making was this - In his affidavit and WC testimony Frazier:
Does not leave the steps
Does not walk towards the railroad yard.
Does not see Mr Brown and his rifle.
Does not walk to the corner of Houston and Elm.
Does not see Oswald.
Does not return to the steps.
Frazier stays on the front steps then goes back inside the building.
He is back inside within a few minutes.
This was your response to this partial analysis of Frazier's early statements:
"That doesn't mean it did not happen. It only means he did not mention it."
You sound like a 10 year old trying to make a counter-argument.
That's really the best you can do?
I did make a solid argument that Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony demonstrate clearly that he never left the front steps.
People making an argument always believe that it is solid, but it often isn't nevertheless. Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony do not demonstrate anything clearly. Statements made are rarely 100% correct, complete and/or precise. It's human nature to be imprecise. There is no such thing as total recall. I've experienced many times when somebody has "absolutely told me to the whole story" only to hear additions and corrections to that story months later.
It may well be so that Frazier did indeed not leave the front steps. I do not know. What I do know is that affidavits are not verbatim. They are merely a third party summary of the most important things an individual tells the notary. And for the WC testimony goes what goes for every Q & A; the answer can only be as good and precise as the question asked.
Again, you may well be right about Frazier not leaving the steps, but your opinion is merely based on your interpretation of what is in Frazier's affidavit and what he said during his testimony.
This was your response to this partial analysis of Frazier's early statements:
"That doesn't mean it did not happen. It only means he did not mention it."
You sound like a 10 year old trying to make a counter-argument.
That's really the best you can do?
And that's still my response now which, btw, isn't a counter-argument. It is actually a statement of fact, as Frazier did indeed not mention it. You've actually made my case for me by describing your interpretation as a "partial analysis". Now, unless you can tell me how a partial analysis can lead to a definitive conclusion or a solid argument, you've really have destroyed your own argument.
Not bad for a 10 year old, hey? Thumb1:
-
From the first day affidavit.
"It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."
Anyone want to present any photo of CE142 that would be consistent with this description?
-
I did make a solid argument that Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony demonstrate clearly that he never left the front steps.
People making an argument always believe that it is solid, but it often isn't nevertheless. Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony do not demonstrate anything clearly. Statements made are rarely 100% correct, complete and/or precise. It's human nature to be imprecise. There is no such thing as total recall. I've experienced many times when somebody has "absolutely told me to the whole story" only to hear additions and corrections to that story months later.
It may well be so that Frazier did indeed not leave the front steps. I do not know. What I do know is that affidavits are not verbatim. They are merely a third party summary of the most important things an individual tells the notary. And for the WC testimony goes what goes for every Q & A; the answer can only be as good and precise as the question asked.
Again, you may well be right about Frazier not leaving the steps, but your opinion is merely based on your interpretation of what is in Frazier's affidavit and what he said during his testimony.
And that's still my response now which, btw, isn't a counter-argument. It is actually a statement of fact, as Frazier did indeed not mention it. You've actually made my case for me by describing your interpretation as a "partial analysis". Now, unless you can tell me how a partial analysis can lead to a definitive conclusion or a solid argument, you've really have destroyed your own argument.
Not bad for a 10 year old, hey? Thumb1:
"People making an argument always believe that it is solid, but it often isn't nevertheless."
So, I've presented my argument for the second time and, once again, you make no critique or present no counter-argument. Instead you provide this bland, sweeping, irrelevant statement.
" Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony do not demonstrate anything clearly."
Again, another meaningless statement but this time you could hardly be more wrong. Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony make it clear he was in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination, that he heard shots, that he witnessed some of the aftermath of the assassination and many, many more things.
The point is this - I am arguing that one of the things that Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony make clear is that he did not leave the front steps before going inside the TSBD after the assassination. The reason I am arguing this is to highlight how different Frazier's later accounts are in comparison to his early statements. If you agree with my point, all well and good. If you don't why not present a case to demonstrate why you don't.
"Statements made are rarely 100% correct, complete and/or precise. It's human nature to be imprecise. There is no such thing as total recall."
Again, what you are saying seems factually correct but it is irrelevant as far as the discussion is concerned.
"It may well be so that Frazier did indeed not leave the front steps. I do not know. What I do know is that affidavits are not verbatim. They are merely a third party summary of the most important things an individual tells the notary. And for the WC testimony goes what goes for every Q & A; the answer can only be as good and precise as the question asked."
Again, bland, sweeping, irrelevant statements.
"Again, you may well be right about Frazier not leaving the steps, but your opinion is merely based on your interpretation of what is in Frazier's affidavit and what he said during his testimony."
Of course my interpretation is based on what's in Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony!
I mean, what is the point of this statement? What else should I be basing my interpretation of Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony on?
"And that's still my response now which, btw, isn't a counter-argument. It is actually a statement of fact, as Frazier did indeed not mention it."
Again, what you're saying seems factually correct but it's totally irrelevant.
"You've actually made my case for me by describing your interpretation as a "partial analysis". Now, unless you can tell me how a partial analysis can lead to a definitive conclusion or a solid argument, you've really have destroyed your own argument."
I've made your case??
What case? You've presented no case. Just a series of meaningless statements.
Please present a case.
Just to clarify - only a part of Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony deals with his movement on the steps.
I have analysed this part of his statements.
I have ignored parts of his statements that are not concerned with his movements on the steps.
Hence, "a partial analysis of Frazier's early statements".
You've misunderstood this, haven't you?
Frazier's early statements are clear - he does not move from the front steps before going back inside the TSBD.
This is the point being argued.
"Not bad for a 10 year old, hey? Thumb1:"
I agree.
-
"People making an argument always believe that it is solid, but it often isn't nevertheless."
So, I've presented my argument for the second time and, once again, you make no critique or present no counter-argument. Instead you provide this bland, sweeping, irrelevant statement.
" Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony do not demonstrate anything clearly."
Again, another meaningless statement but this time you could hardly be more wrong. Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony make it clear he was in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination, that he heard shots, that he witnessed some of the aftermath of the assassination and many, many more things.
The point is this - I am arguing that one of the things that Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony make clear is that he did not leave the front steps before going inside the TSBD after the assassination. The reason I am arguing this is to highlight how different Frazier's later accounts are in comparison to his early statements. If you agree with my point, all well and good. If you don't why not present a case to demonstrate why you don't.
"Statements made are rarely 100% correct, complete and/or precise. It's human nature to be imprecise. There is no such thing as total recall."
Again, what you are saying seems factually correct but it is irrelevant as far as the discussion is concerned.
"It may well be so that Frazier did indeed not leave the front steps. I do not know. What I do know is that affidavits are not verbatim. They are merely a third party summary of the most important things an individual tells the notary. And for the WC testimony goes what goes for every Q & A; the answer can only be as good and precise as the question asked."
Again, bland, sweeping, irrelevant statements.
"Again, you may well be right about Frazier not leaving the steps, but your opinion is merely based on your interpretation of what is in Frazier's affidavit and what he said during his testimony."
Of course my interpretation is based on what's in Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony!
I mean, what is the point of this statement? What else should I be basing my interpretation of Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony on?
"And that's still my response now which, btw, isn't a counter-argument. It is actually a statement of fact, as Frazier did indeed not mention it."
Again, what you're saying seems factually correct but it's totally irrelevant.
"You've actually made my case for me by describing your interpretation as a "partial analysis". Now, unless you can tell me how a partial analysis can lead to a definitive conclusion or a solid argument, you've really have destroyed your own argument."
I've made your case??
What case? You've presented no case. Just a series of meaningless statements.
Please present a case.
Just to clarify - only a part of Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony deals with his movement on the steps.
I have analysed this part of his statements.
I have ignored parts of his statements that are not concerned with his movements on the steps.
Hence, "a partial analysis of Frazier's early statements".
You've misunderstood this, haven't you?
Frazier's early statements are clear - he does not move from the front steps before going back inside the TSBD.
This is the point being argued.
"Not bad for a 10 year old, hey? Thumb1:"
I agree.
Why so defensive? Do you foolishly believe that throwing around insults are somehow going to help you win the argument?
It's not my problem when you can't (or don't want to) understand the reasoning of "a 10 year old."
I would give more credence to the affidavits and the WC testimony (of all witnesses) if there had been cross-examination. Your interpretation of only the relevant parts of that testimony is not only a one sided matter and but also certainly not the same as an interpretation of all the available evidence. The more selective an interpretation is, the more irrelevant it becomes.
-
So your star witness who you allege over and over again had almost a superhuman ability to estimate the size of a long bag with scientific precision down to the inch is wrong on a basic simple fact according to you?
Fool. I have never alleged anything of the kind. It is just a pathetic strawman that you keep using. One doesn't need to estimate a size of a bag, when one sees the bag being carried in the cup of a hand and under an armpit. All you need to do is measure the length of the arm!
That is pedantic rabbit hole nonsense since Oswald cannot be at the TSBD at 12:45 and at his boardinghouse in Oak Cliff before 1PM.
Before 1PM? I agree... at 1PM, sure he can.
He is at the boardinghouse several minutes before 1PM because he leaves before 1PM.
Who says he left before 1PM?
The contrarian who dismisses any actual evidence of Oswald's guilt suggests here that his subjective interpretation of Frazier's description of how Oswald carried his bag leads to a conclusive determination with scientific precision of the bag's length! And that it is therefore not an estimate. HA HA HA. That is comedy gold.
-
The contrarian who dismisses any actual evidence of Oswald's guilt suggests here that his subjective interpretation of Frazier's description of how Oswald carried his bag leads to a conclusive determination with scientific precision of the bag's length! And that it is therefore not an estimate. HA HA HA. That is comedy gold.
The contrarian who dismisses any actual evidence of Oswald's guilt
What "actual evidence of Oswald's guilt" do I dismiss exactly? Be precise....
that his subjective interpretation of Frazier's description of how Oswald carried his bag leads to a conclusive determination with scientific precision of the bag's length!
subjective interpretation? :D
There is nothing to interpret subjectively in his actual words;
Mr. BALL - When you saw him get out of the car, when you first saw him when he was out of the car before he started to walk, you noticed he had the package under the arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - One end of it was under the armpit and the other he had to hold it in his right hand. Did the package extend beyond the right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. Like I say if you put it under your armpits and put it down normal to the side.
Mr. BALL - But the right hand on, was it on the end or the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - No; he had it cupped in his hand.
Mr. BALL - Cupped in his hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
And that it is therefore not an estimate. HA HA HA.
So, measuring the length of Oswald's arm from his armpit to his cupped hand is an "estimate"? :D
You are really getting desperate.... Thumb1:
Btw, who said Oswald arrived at the boardinghouse several minutes before 1PM and left before 1PM?
-
I did make a solid argument that Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony demonstrate clearly that he never left the front steps. Allow me to reproduce the argument:
As I understand it from your post and what Alan has posted about Frazier's new book, Frazier is saying that after the shots he left the front entrance steps, walked towards the railroad yard, encountered Mr Brown and his rifle, walked back to the corner of Houston and Elm, saw Oswald, made his way back to the front entrance steps, went back in the TSBD and had his sandwiches.
In his affidavit he states that he "was standing on the front steps of the building when the Parade came by", after the shots he "stood there, then people started running by, and I turned, and went back in the building and got my lunch and eat it".
In his WC testimony he states he is stood on the front steps, "one step down from the top"" by the rail." After the shots he " just stood still". As he clearly states - "I just stood where I was. I hadn't moved at all." He stood there for a few minutes before going back in the building. He is very clear about staying exactly where he was after the shots - "I have always been taught when something like that happened or anywhere as far as that it is always best to stand still because if you run that makes you look guilty sure enough."
The point I was making was this - In his affidavit and WC testimony Frazier:
Does not leave the steps
Does not walk towards the railroad yard.
Does not see Mr Brown and his rifle.
Does not walk to the corner of Houston and Elm.
Does not see Oswald.
Does not return to the steps.
Frazier stays on the front steps then goes back inside the building.
He is back inside within a few minutes.
This was your response to this partial analysis of Frazier's early statements:
"That doesn't mean it did not happen. It only means he did not mention it."
You sound like a 10 year old trying to make a counter-argument.
That's really the best you can do?
Oswald Arse-Kissers: Still grasping at straws after all these years.
-
From the first day affidavit.
"It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."
Anyone want to present any photo of CE142 that would be consistent with this description?
Does anyone want to point out that the driver of the car containing the eventual killer to the scene of the crime can potentially get the same sentence as said killer?
-
Does anyone want to point out that the driver of the car containing the eventual killer to the scene of the crime can potentially get the same sentence as said killer?
Didn’t expect you to provide anything that related to the question. Anyone else? Show evidence that the bag taken into evidence was folded in the way Frazier described.
-
Oswald Arse-Kissers: Still grasping at straws after all these years.
Explain this post
-
Why so defensive? Do you foolishly believe that throwing around insults are somehow going to help you win the argument?
It's not my problem when you can't (or don't want to) understand the reasoning of "a 10 year old."
I would give more credence to the affidavits and the WC testimony (of all witnesses) if there had been cross-examination. Your interpretation of only the relevant parts of that testimony is not only a one sided matter and but also certainly not the same as an interpretation of all the available evidence. The more selective an interpretation is, the more irrelevant it becomes.
Once again, no counter-argument, no analysis or critique of the argument I've put forward, just another series of meaningless statements pretending to be an answer (this isn't an insult, by the way, it's an observation)
"Why so defensive? Do you foolishly believe that throwing around insults are somehow going to help you win the argument?"
Defensive? I think you need to read back through my last few posts. If you're seeing "defensive" I think it says more about your powers of interpretation than anything.
"It's not my problem when you can't (or don't want to) understand the reasoning of "a 10 year old."
What reasoning?
"I would give more credence to the affidavits and the WC testimony (of all witnesses) if there had been cross-examination."
That's great to know.
Unfortunately, it is what it is and we have to work with what we've got.
"Your interpretation of only the relevant parts of that testimony is not only a one sided matter and but also certainly not the same as an interpretation of all the available evidence.
Just think about this sentence for a minute. You're criticising me for focussing on "the relevant parts of that testimony". Think about what you're saying there.
I have interpreted part of Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony focussed specifically on what he has to say about his movement on the front steps immediately after the assassination with a view to comparing how different it is with later statements. I am focussed specifically on his affidavit and WC testimony. What other "evidence" do I need to consider?
If you've got a counter-argument to make then why don't you make it?
If you've got a critique of the argument I've put forward why don't you present it?
And if you're upset about you're earlier response being compared to a 10 year old, why don't you go back and read it because you will discover I wasn't being insulting, I was being kind.
-
Once again, no counter-argument, no analysis or critique of the argument I've put forward, just another series of meaningless statements pretending to be an answer (this isn't an insult, by the way, it's an observation)
"Why so defensive? Do you foolishly believe that throwing around insults are somehow going to help you win the argument?"
Defensive? I think you need to read back through my last few posts. If you're seeing "defensive" I think it says more about your powers of interpretation than anything.
"It's not my problem when you can't (or don't want to) understand the reasoning of "a 10 year old."
What reasoning?
"I would give more credence to the affidavits and the WC testimony (of all witnesses) if there had been cross-examination."
That's great to know.
Unfortunately, it is what it is and we have to work with what we've got.
"Your interpretation of only the relevant parts of that testimony is not only a one sided matter and but also certainly not the same as an interpretation of all the available evidence.
Just think about this sentence for a minute. You're criticising me for focussing on "the relevant parts of that testimony". Think about what you're saying there.
I have interpreted part of Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony focussed specifically on what he has to say about his movement on the front steps immediately after the assassination with a view to comparing how different it is with later statements. I am focussed specifically on his affidavit and WC testimony. What other "evidence" do I need to consider?
If you've got a counter-argument to make then why don't you make it?
If you've got a critique of the argument I've put forward why don't you present it?
And if you're upset about you're earlier response being compared to a 10 year old, why don't you go back and read it because you will discover I wasn't being insulting, I was being kind.
Once again, no counter-argument, no analysis or critique of the argument I've put forward
Why should I take the trouble to argue with you about your interpretation of merely a part of the evidence?
I have interpreted part of Frazier's affidavit and WC testimony focussed specifically on what he has to say about his movement on the front steps immediately after the assassination with a view to comparing how different it is with later statements. I am focussed specifically on his affidavit and WC testimony. What other "evidence" do I need to consider?
Frazier's WC testimony was months after the fact. Inbetween the assassination and his testimony he was questioned by all sorts of investigators. You take none of that into account.
If you've got a counter-argument to make then why don't you make it?
If you've got a critique of the argument I've put forward why don't you present it?
There is no credible argument to counter and as far as critique goes, I have already presented it. You are way too selective in what you want to use to support your argument.
And if you're upset about you're earlier response being compared to a 10 year old, why don't you go back and read it because you will discover I wasn't being insulting, I was being kind.
Upset? Why would I be upset when somebody exposes the weakness of his case by throwing a pathetic insult around and now does it again? :D
-
Didn’t expect you to provide anything that related to the question. Anyone else? Show evidence that the bag taken into evidence was folded in the way Frazier described.
Any witness can describe evidence in a manner that puts himself in the clear.
-
Any witness can describe evidence in a manner that puts himself in the clear.
And any fool who wasn't there himself can claim, without a shred of evidence, that the witness was wrong and that the bag was actually bigger.
-
Explain this post
Ask nicely.
-
Any witness can describe evidence in a manner that puts himself in the clear.
Frazier's day one description of the bag on the back seat is quite specific to the appearance of the bag. Folded at both ends. One over and one under. How does that detail relate to your offering?
-
And any fool who wasn't there himself can claim, without a shred of evidence, that the witness was wrong and that the bag was actually bigger.
Any witness with a possible cya motive can manipulate the evidence.
-
Any witness with a possible cya motive can manipulate the evidence.
Just like any investigator who wants to arrive at a predetermined conclusion
-
Frazier's day one description of the bag on the back seat is quite specific to the appearance of the bag. Folded at both ends. One over and one under. How does that detail relate to your offering?
There remains some confusion as to whether by 'bottom', Buell meant lengthwise or end
-
There remains some confusion as to whether by 'bottom', Buell meant lengthwise or end
From the first day affidavit.
"It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."
Whatever your interpretation of his description, can you provide any image of the bag known as CE 142 that could match it?
-
Just like any investigator who wants to arrive at a predetermined conclusion
I said a possible cya motive.
-
From the first day affidavit.
"It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."
Whatever your interpretation of his description, can you provide any image of the bag known as CE 142 that could match it?
Can you provide a non-relative to confirm Buell's description of the bag?
-
Can you provide a non-relative to confirm Buell's description of the bag?
Can you provide a non-relative of Bledsoe to confirm she was on the bus?
Can you provide a non-relative of Roberts to confirm that she saw Oswald put on a jacket?
Can you provide a non-relative of Brennan to confirm he really saw a man looking like Oswald in the TSBD window?
And so on.....
-
Can you provide a non-relative to confirm Buell's description of the bag?
I take it you are suggesting Buell and Linnie May concocted a description of a bag designed to take the heat off him.
-
The contrarian who dismisses any actual evidence of Oswald's guilt
What "actual evidence of Oswald's guilt" do I dismiss exactly? Be precise....
that his subjective interpretation of Frazier's description of how Oswald carried his bag leads to a conclusive determination with scientific precision of the bag's length!
subjective interpretation? :D
There is nothing to interpret subjectively in his actual words;
Mr. BALL - When you saw him get out of the car, when you first saw him when he was out of the car before he started to walk, you noticed he had the package under the arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - One end of it was under the armpit and the other he had to hold it in his right hand. Did the package extend beyond the right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. Like I say if you put it under your armpits and put it down normal to the side.
Mr. BALL - But the right hand on, was it on the end or the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - No; he had it cupped in his hand.
Mr. BALL - Cupped in his hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
And that it is therefore not an estimate. HA HA HA.
So, measuring the length of Oswald's arm from his armpit to his cupped hand is an "estimate"? :D
You are really getting desperate.... Thumb1:
Btw, who said Oswald arrived at the boardinghouse several minutes before 1PM and left before 1PM?
A great example of what the contrarian believes is "evidence." Keep in mind that the bag was found. It had Oswald's prints on it and can be measured to determine its actual length. But instead he relies on the description of a witness who had little cause to notice the length of the bag much less how Oswald carried it as viewed from a distance behind him. And uses scientific methods such as "measuring the length of Oswald's arm from his armpit to the his cupped hand" to determine its length. HA HA HA HA. No one could make that sort of rabbit hole reasoning up. Classic.
-
From the first day affidavit.
"It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."
Whatever your interpretation of his description, can you provide any image of the bag known as CE 142 that could match it?
"Kind of" and "sort of". Those are fairly imprecise descriptions. But why would it preclude CE 142 as the bag? It seems like asking for an image of the bag prior to it being found is an impossible standard of proof since there is no such image. But that doesn't preclude it from being the bag. The DPD searched the bag for evidence before any image of it was taken. The first photo shows it in a fully extended state after that search. Not as Oswald carried it that day. That bag clearly has fold marks on it.
-
A great example of what the contrarian believes is "evidence." Keep in mind that the bag was found. It had Oswald's prints on it and can be measured to determine its actual length. But instead he relies on the description of a witness who had little cause to notice the length of the bag much less how Oswald carried it as viewed from a distance behind him. And uses scientific methods such as "measuring the length of Oswald's arm from his armpit to the his cupped hand" to determine its length. HA HA HA HA. No one could make that sort of rabbit hole reasoning up. Classic.
You're a one trick pony who keeps going round and round making the same statements and foolish claims, hoping that some day they might convince somebody.
Keep in mind that the bag was found.
Misrepresentation of the actual facts. A bag was found and is, contrary to the evidence, assumed by you to be the bag that Oswald carried. The witnesses who actually saw Oswald's bag denied it was the bag. I take their word over yours every day.
It had Oswald's prints on it and can be measured to determine its actual length.
You can measure any bag you like, but as long as you can not prove it is the correct bag (which you can't) you've got nothing.
But instead he relies on the description of a witness who had little cause to notice the length of the bag much less how Oswald carried it as viewed from a distance behind him. And uses scientific methods such as "measuring the length of Oswald's arm from his armpit to the his cupped hand" to determine its length.
Relying on what a witness says is a foreign concept for you, but in the real world we have a witness who actually saw the bag and the way Oswald carried it (in the cup of his hand and under his armpit). The mere fact that you don't like to be confronted with such evidence makes no difference.
And before you forget;
What "actual evidence of Oswald's guilt" do I dismiss exactly? Be precise....
Try to answer a question for once, instead of making all sorts of bogus claims
-
But instead he relies on the description of a witness who had little cause to notice the length of the bag much less how Oswald carried it as viewed from a distance behind him. And uses scientific methods such as "measuring the length of Oswald's arm from his armpit to the his cupped hand" to determine its length.
Relying on what a witness says is a foreign concept for you, but in the real world we have a witness who actually saw the bag and the way Oswald carried it (in the cup of his hand and under his armpit). The mere fact that you don't like to be confronted with such evidence makes no difference.
And before you forget;
What "actual evidence of Oswald's guilt" do I dismiss exactly? Be precise....
Try to answer a question for once, instead of making all sorts of bogus claims
I'm waiting for the lightning to strike. This from the guy who suggests over and over again that every witness in this case was wrong or lied when came to evidence of Oswald's guilt. But here we are lectured on the importance of witnesses where a witness describes his recollection of how someone carried a package that he had little cause to notice while walking some distance BEHIND him and it is deemed gospel. And the actual bag is discounted for some unknown reason despite having Oswald's prints on it and being found next to the SN boxes also with Oswald's prints on them along with fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle. With no work-related purpose or explanation for that bag to be there. No one else who worked in that building ever explained the presence of the bag in that location or claimed ownership of it. It just magically appears there without explanation in the contrarian fantasy world. And instead what is important is how Oswald is described as carrying his bag from a distance. The Dan Rather/CBS video on You Tube shows how the bag might have appeared as carried by Oswald and how Frazier might easily have been mistaken.
-
"Kind of" and "sort of". Those are fairly imprecise descriptions. But why would it preclude CE 142 as the bag? It seems like asking for an image of the bag prior to it being found is an impossible standard of proof since there is no such image. But that doesn't preclude it from being the bag. The DPD searched the bag for evidence before any image of it was taken. The first photo shows it in a fully extended state after that search. Not as Oswald carried it that day. That bag clearly has fold marks on it.
It has fold marks and is folded and sealed at one end. The other end had no such fold. The longest part of unassembled rifle was just under 35" in length, how long was the bag?
-
It has fold marks and is folded and sealed at one end. The other end had no such fold. The longest part of unassembled rifle was just under 35" in length, how long was the bag?
The Dan Rather video shows how the bag could have been carried. I'm not sure why you believe the condition of the other end somehow precludes it from being the bag Oswald carried. The witness description is vague "kind of" and "sort of." The level of detail on the photos doesn't make the condition of the bag obvious and that end of the bag does appear to have been crumpled as though wrapped or folded around the end of the rifle as shown in the Rather video. Nothing about the condition of CE 142 precludes it from having been used to carry the rifle. To the contrary, it has Oswald's prints on it. No one else who ever worked in the TSBD claimed the bag or accounted for it being there. It appears to be a singular type bag for that building as no other such bag is shown in any photos or was apparently discovered. There is no doubt this is bag Oswald carried that morning.
-
I'm waiting for the lightning to strike. This from the guy who suggests over and over again that every witness in this case was wrong or lied when came to evidence of Oswald's guilt. But here we are lectured on the importance of witnesses where a witness describes his recollection of how someone carried a package that he had little cause to notice while walking some distance BEHIND him and it is deemed gospel. And the actual bag is discounted for some unknown reason despite having Oswald's prints on it and being found next to the SN boxes also with Oswald's prints on them along with fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle. With no work-related purpose or explanation for that bag to be there. No one else who worked in that building ever explained the presence of the bag in that location or claimed ownership of it. It just magically appears there without explanation in the contrarian fantasy world. And instead what is important is how Oswald is described as carrying his bag from a distance. The Dan Rather/CBS video on You Tube shows how the bag might have appeared as carried by Oswald and how Frazier might easily have been mistaken.
This from the guy who suggests over and over again that every witness in this case was wrong or lied when came to evidence of Oswald's guilt.
Stop making up lies. I have never suggested anything of the kind
But here we are lectured on the importance of witnesses where a witness describes his recollection of how someone carried a package that he had little cause to notice while walking some distance BEHIND him and it is deemed gospel.
Frazier's observation is a lot more solid than you want it to be, but it's no more gospel than Brennan's identification of the man in the window, or than Roberts' claim that Oswald left the roominghouse wearing a jacket.
And the actual bag is discounted for some unknown reason despite having Oswald's prints on it and being found next to the SN boxes also with Oswald's prints on them along with fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle.
You assume it's the "actual bag" but you can not prove it. Your opinion is of no value.
"Oswald's rifle" LOL
And instead what is important is how Oswald is described as carrying his bag from a distance.
Frazier saw Oswald put the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. He could only have seen that if he was facing Oswald. And that wasn't from a distance!
The Dan Rather/CBS video on You Tube shows how the bag might have appeared as carried by Oswald and how Frazier might easily have been mistaken.
Might have appeared? It's one of the most deceitful videos of the entire case. The package that Rather was holding was tightly wrapped and in no way similar to the bag the witnesses saw. The only purpose was to make the part allegedly sticking out over his shoulder as small as it could be. Another pathetic attempt to explain away the problems with the bag is to claim that Frazier only saw Oswald from behind which is simply not true.
So many lies and half-truths in one post and still "Richard" is surprised that nobody believes a word he says.
-
The Dan Rather video shows how the bag could have been carried. I'm not sure why you believe the condition of the other end somehow precludes it from being the bag Oswald carried. The witness description is vague "kind of" and "sort of." The level of detail on the photos doesn't make the condition of the bag obvious and that end of the bag does appear to have been crumpled as though wrapped or folded around the end of the rifle as shown in the Rather video. Nothing about the condition of CE 142 precludes it from having been used to carry the rifle. To the contrary, it has Oswald's prints on it. No one else who ever worked in the TSBD claimed the bag or accounted for it being there. It appears to be a singular type bag for that building as no other such bag is shown in any photos or was apparently discovered. There is no doubt this is bag Oswald carried that morning.
The witness description is vague "kind of" and "sort of."
Right who needs witnesses when you can go with "the bag could have been carried" :D
Nothing about the condition of CE 142 precludes it from having been used to carry the rifle.
Except for the fact that the witnesses who saw that bag Oswald carried and denied CE 142 is it..... A minor detail, right?
There is no doubt this is bag Oswald carried that morning.
Only in the mind of a fanatical LN fool who ignores the evidence.
-
From the first day affidavit.
"It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."
Whatever your interpretation of his description, can you provide any image of the bag known as CE 142 that could match it?
(https://i.postimg.cc/fyqMG0Lt/CE142-a.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/gLR9Rj3m)
I assume the lighter paper is the top flap that closes over the open end of the makeshift bag.
If the bag is folded as Frazier reports - top flap closed and part of the bag folded under - it is clearly not long enough to hold a rifle, assembled or not.
If the bottom part of the bag is folded at the closest crease to the bottom, the bag appears, from some very rough measurements I've just done, to be the perfect length to carry a set of the curtain rods found in the Paine garage.
-
The Dan Rather video shows how the bag could have been carried. I'm not sure why you believe the condition of the other end somehow precludes it from being the bag Oswald carried. The witness description is vague "kind of" and "sort of." The level of detail on the photos doesn't make the condition of the bag obvious and that end of the bag does appear to have been crumpled as though wrapped or folded around the end of the rifle as shown in the Rather video. Nothing about the condition of CE 142 precludes it from having been used to carry the rifle. To the contrary, it has Oswald's prints on it. No one else who ever worked in the TSBD claimed the bag or accounted for it being there. It appears to be a singular type bag for that building as no other such bag is shown in any photos or was apparently discovered. There is no doubt this is bag Oswald carried that morning.
How long was the bag?
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/fyqMG0Lt/CE142-a.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/gLR9Rj3m)
I assume the lighter paper is the top flap that closes over the open end of the makeshift bag.
If the bag is folded as Frazier reports - top flap closed and part of the bag folded under - it is clearly not long enough to hold a rifle, assembled or not.
If the bottom part of the bag is folded at the closest crease to the bottom, the bag appears, from some very rough measurements I've just done, to be the perfect length to carry a set of the curtain rods found in the Paine garage.
Dan I believe there is not a fold at the very left end, merely one side of the open end of the bag curled away from the rest. Can anyone see any evidence that the open end was ever sealed?
-
How long was the bag?
I make it about 37" with the top flap closed
-
Dan I believe there is not a fold at the very left end, merely one side of the open end of the bag curled away from the rest. Can anyone see any evidence that the open end was ever sealed?
I was thinking the open end of the bag was to the right and that the lighter coloured paper was a flap that went over the open end.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/ySBzrcQ/894-A6-EEA-4-A84-4318-BD77-8-F443-C6-B0-A8-F.jpg)
Note the stain. There is one end sealed, the open end is crinkled.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/ySBzrcQ/894-A6-EEA-4-A84-4318-BD77-8-F443-C6-B0-A8-F.jpg)
Note the stain. There is one end sealed, the open end is crinkled.
I see what you're saying.
Totally baffled by the appearance of the bottom of CE 142.
-
I take it you are suggesting Buell and Linnie May concocted a description of a bag designed to take the heat off him.
RingRing
Linnie: Buell, shorten the bag.
Buell: What bag?
Llnnie: The bag that could get you fried.
Buell: I wasn't really paying attention to the bag. But now that I think about it, he did seem to be trying to hide it...
-
RingRing
Linnie: Buell, shorten the bag.
Buell: What bag?
Llnnie: The bag that could get you fried.
Buell: I wasn't really paying attention to the bag. But now that I think about it, he did seem to be trying to hide it...
Let me guess, she called him on his mobile phone, right?
-
(https://i.ibb.co/ySBzrcQ/894-A6-EEA-4-A84-4318-BD77-8-F443-C6-B0-A8-F.jpg)
Note the stain. There is one end sealed, the open end is crinkled.
(https://i.postimg.cc/52dv1fwK/Bag-Animation-2.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Just trying to understand what was happening with the "closed" end of the bag.
Noticed a triangular(ish) shape (black line) familiar from wrapping presents. The end of the bag is folded into a triangle then folded back on the bag (at the yellow line), then taped down. Most of the bag is dark brown but just outside the triangular area it is lighter where, I assume, the tape held the triangular piece against the bag.
All of this appears to have been undone for whatever reason.
I still make it 37" from the fold (yellow line) and the open end of the bag.
The weird thing is, the way I imagine the bag is constructed at the closed end is not what I'm seeing in the photo of the bag outside the TSBD steps.
-
The Dan Rather/CBS video on You Tube shows how the bag might have appeared as carried by Oswald and how Frazier might easily have been mistaken.
Might have appeared? It's one of the most deceitful videos of the entire case. The package that Rather was holding was tightly wrapped and in no way similar to the bag the witnesses saw. The only purpose was to make the part allegedly sticking out over his shoulder as small as it could be. Another pathetic attempt to explain away the problems with the bag is to claim that Frazier only saw Oswald from behind which is simply not true.
So many lies and half-truths in one post and still "Richard" is surprised that nobody believes a word he says.
LOL. Let's see. Rather carried a MC rifle like the one found on the 6th floor wrapped in the same type of paper. That's apparently deceitful only because it highlights the absurdity of your claim.
-
It has fold marks and is folded and sealed at one end. The other end had no such fold. The longest part of unassembled rifle was just under 35" in length, how long was the bag?
(https://i.postimg.cc/pX2XzLKF/CE142-b.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/3WcTH7S8)
There is a piece of tape running most of the length of the bag.
I'm assuming this is where the overlap/seam of the folded paper was stuck down lengthwise.
The long piece of tape is overlapped by two pieces of tape on one of the folds.
The length of all this tape from the closed end is about 30".
From the end of the tape to the open end of the bag there is no tape. I'm assuming the seam is left open.
This strongly indicates to me that whoever constructed the bag did it to carry an object less than 30" long.
I have to conclude this bag was never made to carry a rifle, assembled or disassembled.
-
The witness description is vague "kind of" and "sort of."
Right who needs witnesses when you can go with "the bag could have been carried" :D
Nothing about the condition of CE 142 precludes it from having been used to carry the rifle.
Except for the fact that the witnesses who saw that bag Oswald carried and denied CE 142 is it..... A minor detail, right?
There is no doubt this is bag Oswald carried that morning.
Only in the mind of a fanatical LN fool who ignores the evidence.
A witness who knew Oswald saw him on the bus, another witness ID'd him as the person he drove in a cab, another witness saw him leaving the boarding house, several witnesses ID'd Oswald as the person who murdered Tippit but you don't believe them. Right? Just Frazier's subjective estimate of the length of a bag that he had himself confirmed that he had little cause to notice and his description of how it was carried from some distance behind Oswald. Wow.
-
RingRing
Linnie: Buell, shorten the bag.
Buell: What bag?
Llnnie: The bag that could get you fried.
Buell: I wasn't really paying attention to the bag. But now that I think about it, he did seem to be trying to hide it...
Frazier indicated in his 6th floor museum interview that he spoke with his sister on the phone while at the hospital prior to being taken in for questioning by the police.
-
The bag is low hanging fruit.
1) Frazier indicates that Oswald carried a long bag that morning that Oswald confirmed to him did not contain his lunch but according to Oswald contained curtain rods.
2) Oswald denied to the DPD that he carried anything other than his lunch. Completely contradicting the story he told to Frazier. No curtain rods, two foot long bag as described by Frazier or longer bag as found in the TSBD. Why would he lie if the bag didn't contain the rifle?
3) Oswald's prints are found on the bag next to the SN. That bag can't be accounted for in any way except as the one Oswald carried. It had no work-related purpose to be there, no TSBD ever explained its presence, and no one else ever claimed ownership of the bag. It appears to be a singular type of bag in that building as no other such bag was found or photographed.
4) The bag is discovered next to the SN which had Oswald's prints on the boxes and fired bullet casings from his rifle.
5) If the bag was constructed at the TSBD, then it would have to remain open on one end for Oswald to insert the rifle when he arrived at Irving. Folding or wrapping the open end of the bag allows him to open the package without having to rip the tape off. A nice piece of planning if you don't know if anyone else would be on the floor in the moments before assassinating the President.
-
Frazier indicated in his 6th floor museum interview that he spoke with his sister on the phone while at the hospital prior to being taken in for questioning by the police.
Frazier’s HSCA interview......once again for you. Times on the tape indicated.
14.50. He went to his sisters house first and his Mother was there – he then went to the hospital – Irving Professional Center – helped to give giving step father oxygen. (Later versions become counting drops from glucose drip) “Sister said, she was there” she had to go somewhere. I can give him oxygen.
Phone call – after oxygen – two detectives tried to grab him - he ran to exit – they said stop or shoot – there was a frisk and shake down – Rose and Stovall – they thought it was strange he ran - took to Irving PS – took to Dallas
27:20 got home and coverage was on TV – his sister knew what had happened (TSBD) – we both said it was bad thing ------then an 8 sec pause ----- “she said”……..changes to I went to house and mother was there. Asked where sister was and she was at hospital. She had been there a while, he went to relieve her.
31:10 Only thought of curtain rods when questioned – its been reported he had a package with him – what did it look like?
32:30 cops went to my sisters house first – asked my mother - told them up at hospital with sister
Let’s say home about 2pm......at least 3 hours before arrest.
-
Frazier's CE 1381
"I left the School Book Depository Building
sometime between 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM on November 22, 1963,
and went directly home"
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y02rryK2/rather-bag-left-hand.png)
Using his left hand, one can easily angle the bag over to the right to position the top out of sight of the trailing Buell Frazier.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y02rryK2/rather-bag-left-hand.png)
Using his left hand, one can easily angle the bag over to the right
to position the top out of sight of the trailing Buell Frazier.
And the top six inches sure looks like curtain rods. Why do you think the rifle was disassembled? For 3 inches?
-
And the top six inches sure looks like curtain rods. Why do you think the rifle was disassembled? For 3 inches?
Size matters.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/pX2XzLKF/CE142-b.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/3WcTH7S8)
There is a piece of tape running most of the length of the bag.
I'm assuming this is where the overlap/seam of the folded paper was stuck down lengthwise.
The long piece of tape is overlapped by two pieces of tape on one of the folds.
The length of all this tape from the closed end is about 30".
From the end of the tape to the open end of the bag there is no tape. I'm assuming the seam is left open.
This strongly indicates to me that whoever constructed the bag did it to carry an object less than 30" long.
I have to conclude this bag was never made to carry a rifle, assembled or disassembled.
Your 37” looks pretty accurate.
(https://i.ibb.co/hCkSpft/8-D17-D5-A0-615-C-47-C1-A449-768-B1-B94561-D.jpg)
These pictures were taken after the bag was opened lengthwise for analysis along one side and refolded. The width of the bag appears to be 8.5” given the tape is 3” wide. Given the width of the paper roll used to manufacture it was 24” it seems the final fold over would be 7”.
Here is a comparison side by side of intact rifle and bag.
(https://i.ibb.co/MctPbVL/3-E9-B95-E2-F41-D-4504-BE26-7-F31-F20-C30-DF.jpg)
-
A witness who knew Oswald saw him on the bus, another witness ID'd him as the person he drove in a cab, another witness saw him leaving the boarding house, several witnesses ID'd Oswald as the person who murdered Tippit but you don't believe them. Right? Just Frazier's subjective estimate of the length of a bag that he had himself confirmed that he had little cause to notice and his description of how it was carried from some distance behind Oswald. Wow.
Another "Richard Smith" strawman based on misrepresentation of the facts. What else is new?
-
The bag is low hanging fruit.
1) Frazier indicates that Oswald carried a long bag that morning that Oswald confirmed to him did not contain his lunch but according to Oswald contained curtain rods.
2) Oswald denied to the DPD that he carried anything other than his lunch. Completely contradicting the story he told to Frazier. No curtain rods, two foot long bag as described by Frazier or longer bag as found in the TSBD. Why would he lie if the bag didn't contain the rifle?
3) Oswald's prints are found on the bag next to the SN. That bag can't be accounted for in any way except as the one Oswald carried. It had no work-related purpose to be there, no TSBD ever explained its presence, and no one else ever claimed ownership of the bag. It appears to be a singular type of bag in that building as no other such bag was found or photographed.
4) The bag is discovered next to the SN which had Oswald's prints on the boxes and fired bullet casings from his rifle.
5) If the bag was constructed at the TSBD, then it would have to remain open on one end for Oswald to insert the rifle when he arrived at Irving. Folding or wrapping the open end of the bag allows him to open the package without having to rip the tape off. A nice piece of planning if you don't know if anyone else would be on the floor in the moments before assassinating the President.
The best demonstration of a fanatical closed biased mind.
Unwilling to accept or agree with any counter argument, unable or unwilling to answer any question, just regurgitating the same old distorted and misrepresented version of the facts over and over again and jumping to conclusions not supported by the evidence.
-
Your 37” looks pretty accurate.
(https://i.ibb.co/hCkSpft/8-D17-D5-A0-615-C-47-C1-A449-768-B1-B94561-D.jpg)
These pictures were taken after the bag was opened lengthwise for analysis along one side and refolded. The width of the bag appears to be 8.5” given the tape is 3” wide. Given the width of the paper roll used to manufacture it was 24” it seems the final fold over would be 7”.
Here is a comparison side by side of intact rifle and bag.
(https://i.ibb.co/MctPbVL/3-E9-B95-E2-F41-D-4504-BE26-7-F31-F20-C30-DF.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/pX2XzLKF/CE142-b.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/3WcTH7S8)
Is it the case, in the above pic, the long length of tape is running along the "seam" and that the part of the seam between the end of the tape and the open end of the bag is untaped/loose.
The "stain" on the other side of the bag is the end of the two short lengths of tape that we can see at the end of the long piece of tape.
There is something very specific about these two short pieces of tape, there is a reason the whole seam isn't taped and is reinforced with the two pieces of tape.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/pX2XzLKF/CE142-b.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/3WcTH7S8)
Is it the case, in the above pic, the long length of tape is running along the "seam" and that the part of the seam between the end of the tape and the open end of the bag is untaped/loose.
The "stain" on the other side of the bag is the end of the two short lengths of tape that we can see at the end of the long piece of tape.
There is something very specific about these two short pieces of tape, there is a reason the whole seam isn't taped and is reinforced with the two pieces of tape.
The two pieces seem to be located at a strong fold aboit 27” from the sealed end.
-
The two pieces seem to be located at a strong fold about 27” from the sealed end.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tJP8z3sG/CE142-c.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/dZsWsTR5)
I get the impression the two pieces are meant to reinforce the bag at that point.
It isn't coincidental that they are placed where the long length of tape ends. The long length of tape (and the two pieces) reinforce 30.5" of seam.
The end of the long length near the "closed" end of the bag is reinforced by the triangular(ish) fold of paper and the strips of tape that hold it in place.
What is odd is that the seam to the left of the two pieces is not taped. About 6.5 inches of the seam is not taped. The only way the bag would be useful would be if it was folded at the strong fold where the two pieces are when carrying whatever object it was designed to carry.
The distance from this strong fold to the closed-end fold is 27".
The bag appears to be specifically constructed to carry an object (or objects) less than 27" in length.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/tJP8z3sG/CE142-c.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/dZsWsTR5)
I get the impression the two pieces are meant to reinforce the bag at that point.
It isn't coincidental that they are placed where the long length of tape ends. The long length of tape (and the two pieces) reinforce 30.5" of seam.
The end of the long length near the "closed" end of the bag is reinforced by the triangular(ish) fold of paper and the strips of tape that hold it in place.
What is odd is that the seam to the left of the two pieces is not taped. About 6.5 inches of the seam is not taped. The only way the bag would be useful would be if it was folded at the strong fold where the two pieces are when carrying whatever object it was designed to carry.
The distance from this strong fold to the closed-end fold (yellow line in the graphic I posted) is 27".
The bag appears to be specifically constructed to carry an object (or objects) less than 27" in length.
From the first day affidavit.
"It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind offolded under."
-
From the first day affidavit.
"It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."
I think when Frazier says "the top of the sack was sort of folded up" he was referring to what we would say was the 'bottom' of the bag where the triangular fold was taped down.
When he says "the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under" he means the open end of the sack is folded at the strong fold and 'folded under' the rest of the sack.
This would make the package (CE 142) about 27" long.
Frazier consistently describes the package being about this long.
In this scenario there is no rifle in the bag,
-
I think when Frazier says "the top of the sack was sort of folded up" he was referring to what we would say was the 'bottom' of the bag where the triangular fold was taped down.
When he says "the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under" he means the open end of the sack is folded at the strong fold and 'folded under' the rest of the sack.
This would make the package (CE 142) about 27" long.
Frazier consistently describes the package being about this long.
In this scenario there is no rifle in the bag,
Agreed
-
Agreed
I don't think it was curtain rods either.
So what was Oswald carrying?
Maybe it was the bag that was important?
-
I don't think it was curtain rods either.
So what was Oswald carrying?
Maybe it was the bag that was important?
I don't think it was curtain rods either.
We will never know, I fear. I've always considered it possible that Oswald simply used the curtain rods story so he wouldn't have to tell a 19 year co-worker that he was really going to make up with his wife.
Once you conclude that the rifle wasn't in the bag, the entire narrative of Oswald storing a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage becomes even more questionable than it already was.
-
I don't think it was curtain rods either.
We will never know, I fear. I've always considered it possible that Oswald simply used the curtain rods story so he wouldn't have to tell a 19 year co-worker that he was really going to make up with his wife.
Once you conclude that the rifle wasn't in the bag, the entire narrative of Oswald storing a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage becomes even more questionable than it already was.
HA HA HA. Wow. Always nice to get a good laugh. And in this bizarre fantasy Oswald lies to the police when it would be in his own self-interest to tell the truth to avoid being implicated in the assassination of the President? Wow. I'm starting to miss Caprio. One of the dumbest explanations in the history of this forum. Which is a high bar.
-
I don't think it was curtain rods either.
We will never know, I fear. I've always considered it possible that Oswald simply used the curtain rods story so he wouldn't have to tell a 19 year co-worker that he was really going to make up with his wife.
Once you conclude that the rifle wasn't in the bag, the entire narrative of Oswald storing a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage becomes even more questionable than it already was.
I agree that Oswald wouldn't tell Frazier he was trying to make up with his wife and, certainly judging from Marina's testimony, this appears to be the reason for him to be there.
However, why does he need to do it on the Thursday, why not wait until Friday and spend the weekend with her. Maybe he wanted to leave money with her as he did before the Walker incident.
The same is true about curtain rods - there is no clear reason for him to break his usual routine to collect curtain rods. But it appears Oswald does collect something as he shows up with a long package Friday morning.
If the above analysis of the bag is correct then he cannot be carrying a rifle. To be honest, I think it's too small to carry curtain rods (and I don't see the point of going to the trouble of constructing the bag in order to transport a couple of curtain rods).
As you say, we can never really know what is actually in the bag but I can't even come up with a reasonable guess as to what it might be.
From Marina's testimony and the 'blanket gun-case' in the garage, I feel fairly confident Oswald had a rifle, that he was storing it in the garage and that it was no longer in the garage after the assassination.
I am a lot less confident Oswald carried the rifle (or curtain rods) to work that morning.
-
I think when Frazier says "the top of the sack was sort of folded up" he was referring to what we would say was the 'bottom' of the bag where the triangular fold was taped down.
When he says "the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under" he means the open end of the sack is folded at the strong fold and 'folded under' the rest of the sack.
This would make the package (CE 142) about 27" long.
Frazier consistently describes the package being about this long.
In this scenario there is no rifle in the bag,
'Frazier consistently describes the package being about this long'
Frazier consistently repeats that he wasn't paying attention to the bag.
That fact does not require speculation.
-
Agreed
You appear to be acknowledging that this was the bag Oswald carried that morning otherwise it is difficult to understand why you are trying to square it with the appearance of the bag Frazier described. Correct? I thought you believed the bag was created by the DPD in some bizarre misunderstanding that was never corrected for some inexplicable reason (all the stuff about no situ photos etc). Has that story changed? Or was CE 142 the bag Oswald carried that morning?
-
HA HA HA. Wow. Always nice to get a good laugh. And in this bizarre fantasy Oswald lies to the police when it would be in his own self-interest to tell the truth to avoid being implicated in the assassination of the President? Wow. I'm starting to miss Caprio. One of the dumbest explanations in the history of this forum. Which is a high bar.
Your pathetic attempts at ridicule are in sharp contrast with your total inability to have a normal conversation or to answer even the most simple questions. Thumb1:
-
Your pathetic attempts at ridicule are in sharp contrast with your total inability to have a normal conversation or to answer even the most simple questions. Thumb1:
Says the contrarian who made up a totally implausible and baseless fantasy story in which Oswald lies to Frazier and then later to the DPD against his own self interest in the assassination of the President as a cover for his domestic woes. I thought you contrarians didn't even believe CE 142 was the bag Oswald carried that morning. It just magically appeared there in your contrarian world (how are we to know where it came from?) and can't be linked to Oswald even though his prints are on the bag.
-
You appear to be acknowledging that this was the bag Oswald carried that morning otherwise it is difficult to understand why you are trying to square it with the appearance of the bag Frazier described. Correct? I thought you believed the bag was created by the DPD in some bizarre misunderstanding that was never corrected for some inexplicable reason (all the stuff about no situ photos etc). Has that story changed? Or was CE 142 the bag Oswald carried that morning?
I simply agreed with the various statements Dan proposed. Interesting what can arise with an open mind and simply looking at evidence. Another interesting hypothesis. Maybe he brought the metal components of the rifle without the stock.
The official bag "story" has serious flaws. Without it the LN case is considerably weakened.
-
Says the contrarian who made up a totally implausible and baseless fantasy story in which Oswald lies to Frazier and then later to the DPD against his own self interest in the assassination of the President as a cover for his domestic woes. I thought you contrarians didn't even believe CE 142 was the bag Oswald carried that morning. It just magically appeared there in your contrarian world (how are we to know where it came from?) and can't be linked to Oswald even though his prints are on the bag.
I thought you contrarians didn't even believe CE 142 was the bag Oswald carried that morning.
The discussion between Dan and Colin supported the conclusion that CE 142 wasn't the bag Oswald carried that morning, but it seems you need a functional brain to understand that.....
-
I thought you contrarians didn't even believe CE 142 was the bag Oswald carried that morning.
The discussion between Dan and Colin supported the conclusion that CE 142 wasn't the bag Oswald carried that morning, but it seems you need a functional brain to understand that.....
No it doesn't. It allegedly supports the narrative that Oswald carried CE142 but that it did not contain the rifle. Otherwise why compare Frazier's description of the bag Oswald carried that morning with CE 142? That would be pointless if Oswald carried an entirely different bag.
-
I simply agreed with the various statements Dan proposed. Interesting what can arise with an open mind and simply looking at evidence. Another interesting hypothesis. Maybe he brought the metal components of the rifle without the stock.
The official bag "story" has serious flaws. Without it the LN case is considerably weakened.
Just saying the story has flaws over and over doesn't make it so. And obviously, you can't argue both that CE 142 matches Frazier's description of the bag Oswald carried that morning and that CE 142 was not the bag Oswald carried but was planted on the 6th floor. Those are mutually exclusive claims. Either Oswald carried CE 142 that morning or he did not. And even if Oswald for some inexplicable reason lied to both Frazier and the DPD about the long bag and its contents, it does not preclude Oswald from having smuggled the gun into the TSBD by some other means at some other time. He didn't because it was in the bag he carried that morning but going down the CTer rabbit hole, Oswald could have brought the rifle to his boardinghouse on some occasion prior to Nov. 22 and taken that rifle to work at any time that week. Again, he didn't because his rifle was in the bag but if CTers simply want to play the game of possibilities, then that can't be excluded. The important thing is that Oswald's rifle is found at the crime scene (however he brought it there) and he provides no explanation for its presence. In fact, he lies about his ownership of the rifle. A slam dunk of guilt.
-
Just saying the story has flaws over and over doesn't make it so. And obviously, you can't argue both that CE 142 matches Frazier's description of the bag Oswald carried that morning and that CE 142 was not the bag Oswald carried but was planted on the 6th floor. Those are mutually exclusive claims. Either Oswald carried CE 142 that morning or he did not. And even if Oswald for some inexplicable reason lied to both Frazier and the DPD about the long bag and its contents, it does not preclude Oswald from having smuggled the gun into the TSBD by some other means at some other time. He didn't because it was in the bag he carried that morning but going down the CTer rabbit hole, Oswald could have brought the rifle to his boardinghouse on some occasion prior to Nov. 22 and taken that rifle to work at any time that week. Again, he didn't because his rifle was in the bag but if CTers simply want to play the game of possibilities, then that can't be excluded. The important thing is that Oswald's rifle is found at the crime scene (however he brought it there) and he provides no explanation for its presence. In fact, he lies about his ownership of the rifle. A slam dunk of guilt.
The important thing is that Oswald's rifle is found at the crime scene
Oswald's rifle LOL
(however he brought it there)
however he or anybody else brought it there!
and he provides no explanation for its presence.
Who asked Oswald for an explanation of the MC rifle being found at the TSBD?
In fact, he lies about his ownership of the rifle.
Oswald was never shown the MC rifle. He was merely asked if he owned a rifle, which he denied.
Why do you always insist on misrepresenting the facts?
A slam dunk of guilt.
A premature jump to a flawed conclusion
-
The important thing is that Oswald's rifle is found at the crime scene
Oswald's rifle LOL
(however he brought it there)
however he or anybody else brought it there!
and he provides no explanation for its presence.
Who asked Oswald for an explanation of the MC rifle being found at the TSBD?
In fact, he lies about his ownership of the rifle.
Oswald was never shown the MC rifle. He was merely asked if he owned a rifle, which he denied.
Why do you always insist on misrepresenting the facts?
A slam dunk of guilt.
A premature jump to a flawed conclusion
The contrarian logic at work. Oswald denied owning ANY rifle but the contrarian takes issue with the suggestion Oswald denied ownership of the MC rifle found on the 6th floor! Even after being shown a picture of himself holding the rifle. Wow.
-
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1thgfDT6J0DCMaiKRdG9aJq9cDElhMJQW/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1thgfDT6J0DCMaiKRdG9aJq9cDElhMJQW/view?usp=sharing)
Thank You!, Mr. Davidson, appreciate your time sir.
-
The contrarian logic at work. Oswald denied owning ANY rifle but the contrarian takes issue with the suggestion Oswald denied ownership of the MC rifle found on the 6th floor! Even after being shown a picture of himself holding the rifle. Wow.
The misrepresentation continues....
Yes, Oswald denied owing a rifle (if the reports are to be believed), which obviously includes the MC rifle found at the TSBD, but you claimed that Oswald lied about his ownership of the rifle (by which you clearly mean the MC rifle), to which I replied that he was never shown the MC rifle or asked about the ownership. Your little wordgame didn't work!
You also falsely claimed that Oswald provided no explanation for the presence of the MC rifle at the TSBD.
So I asked you who asked Oswald for an explanation of the MC rifle being found at the TSBD?
Since you claim was obviously false, you can't answer and thus pathetically try to pivot away to another false claim.
-
Nobody "confirmed" Oswald was on a bus. A landlady who could not prove she ever rented to Oswald or that she was even on a bus at that time claimed she saw Oswald on a bus.
An excellent point, Mr. Iacoletti, once again here's yet another instance highlighting the prevailing fallacious of a hastily contrived script to frame the wrongly accused.
-
Soooo encouraging to read the astute assessments shared within this thread by Mr. Weidmann & Mr. Ford as it relates to more than a few "witnesses" changing their statements. This is encouraging because the absolute truth has been concealed from public consumption far too loooong now, but light, truth & justice shall prevail.
Critical-thinking researchers like these two and a great many others are quite capable of discerning the difference between a hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure and reality. The wrongly accused was Framed. The wrongly accused did not shoot anybody. Anybody.
-
The misrepresentation continues....
Yes, Oswald denied owing a rifle (if the reports are to be believed), which includes the MC rifle found at the TSBD, but that wasn't the point I replied to.
You falsely claimed that Oswald provided no explanation for the presence of the MC rifle at the TSBD.
So I asked you who asked Oswald for an explanation of the MC rifle being found at the TSBD?
Since you claim was obviously false, you can't answer and thus pathetically try to pivot away to another false claim.
Good grief. Oswald denied he owned ANY rifle or carried any long bag that morning - including by implication the MC rifle found on the 6th floor and shown in the BY photo which he claimed was faked. That is his answer regarding the rifle. He was also asked if he had ever seen any rifle in the building and he comes up with the rifles that were brought to the building a couple days beforehand. He says nothing about seeing the MC rifle or knowing how it came to be there when asked about a seeing a rifle in the building. If he had indicated that he had seen the MC rifle, I'm sure the DPD would have asked him further questions. But Oswald's position is that he did not own any rifle and had no information about any other rifle in the building except those brought by Castor earlier that week. As a result, he provided no explanation for his rifle's presence in the building despite many obvious opportunities to explain it. Instead he lies and denies any knowledge of it.
-
An excellent point, Mr. Iacoletti, once again here's yet another instance highlighting the prevailing fallacious of a hastily contrived script to frame the wrongly accused.
Let's see. A witness who indicated that she knew Oswald beforehand confirmed his presence on the bus. And Oswald had a bus transfer that can be traced to the driver of that bus. But there is no evidence of his presence on the bus in contrarian land? LOL. Instead what is cited as evidence is an estimate of the length of a bag that a witness admits he had little cause to notice and his description of how the bag was carried while walking at a distance behind Oswald. This estimate is deemed to be scientifically precise down to the inch.
-
Good grief. Oswald denied he owned ANY rifle or carried any long bag that morning - including by implication the MC rifle found on the 6th floor and shown in the BY photo which he claimed was faked. That is his answer regarding the rifle. He was also asked if he had ever seen any rifle in the building and he comes up with the rifles that were brought to the building a couple days beforehand. He says nothing about seeing the MC rifle or knowing how it came to be there when asked about a seeing a rifle in the building. If he had indicated that he had seen the MC rifle, I'm sure the DPD would have asked him further questions. But Oswald's position is that he did not own any rifle and had no information about any other rifle in the building except those brought by Castor earlier that week. As a result, he provided no explanation for his rifle's presence in the building despite many obvious opportunities to explain it. Instead he lies and denies any knowledge of it.
He was also asked if he had ever seen any rifle in the building and he comes up with the rifles that were brought to the building a couple days beforehand. He says nothing about seeing the MC rifle or knowing how it came to be there when asked about a seeing a rifle in the building.
Which leads to the logical conclusion that he did not see the MC rifle or knew how it got into the TSBD.
As a result, he provided no explanation for his rifle's presence in the building despite many obvious opportunities to explain it.
Who, other than you, says that it is "his rifle"?
Instead he lies and denies any knowledge of it.
Only if you start with the flawed conclusion that he owned the MC rifle found at the TSBD, for which there is no evidence!
-
Mr. Smith,
Lest you forget you have been on the clock now since April 7th to produce an actual photo image of the lying rooftop tandem standing atop that otherwise locked roof from the inside. We all understand if you cannot produce that kind of irrefutable evidence...there's a reason for that (they outright lied amid a hastily contrived script to frame the wrongly accused).
Now, as we continue to await your irrefutable proof that clearly shows the lying rooftop tandem atop that otherwise locked roof from the inside, let's take into consideration the manufactured/planted bus transfer. Just a simple question: Why is it in such pristine condition?
Before you answer, lest you forget there's plenty of evidence of an intense struggle with the wrongly accused inside the Texas Theatre that afternoon, so don't offer up the excuse of magic was evident to avoid the planted bus-transfer from natural, normal tearing, wrinkling, etc. There's been way too much magic in this case already (a magic bullet, the magical exploits of the lying rooftop tandem magically gaining access to an otherwise locked roof from the inside, while at the same time magically locking themselves out of the building from the otherside)...you cannot make this stuff up but considering it's all a hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure, well anything magical is possible. The issue here is they had to frame an innocent party in a short period of time... not exactly enough time though to thoroughly vett their lies.
Lest you forget, you are still on the clock to produce irrefutable proof of the lying rooftop tandem standing atop that otherwise locked roof from the inside. We all understand if you continue to avoid the challenge. There's a reason for that. Only the absolute truth can stand the test of time--no phony hastily contrived revision(s), do-overs, etc.
-
He was also asked if he had ever seen any rifle in the building and he comes up with the rifles that were brought to the building a couple days beforehand. He says nothing about seeing the MC rifle or knowing how it came to be there when asked about a seeing a rifle in the building.
Which leads to the logical conclusion that he did not see the MC rifle or knew how it got into the TSBD.
Uh no. Obviously, another explanation is that he lied. If the rifle was owned by Oswald, he could have admitted ownership and conjured up some explanation for his rifle being there like he planned to go hunting that weekend or that the rifle had been stolen etc. He has ample opportunity to provide an explanation for his rifle's presence in the building which is the point you took issue with (i.e. he was not directly asked). Instead he decides to deny ownership or any knowledge of how the rifle came to be there despite a mountain of evidence from a variety of different sources that link him to that rifle including his palm print on it.
-
Mr. Smith,
Lest you forget you have been on the clock now since April 7th to produce an actual photo image of the lying rooftop tandem standing atop that otherwise locked roof from the inside. We all understand if you cannot produce that kind of irrefutable evidence...there's a reason for that (they outright lied amid a hastily contrived script to frame the wrongly accused).
Now, as we continue to await your irrefutable proof that clearly shows the lying rooftop tandem atop that otherwise locked roof from the inside, let's take into consideration the manufactured/planted bus transfer. Just a simple question: Why is it in such pristine condition?
Before you answer, lest you forget there's plenty of evidence of an intense struggle with the wrongly accused inside the Texas Theatre that afternoon, so don't offer up the excuse of magic was evident to avoid the planted bus-transfer from natural, normal tearing, wrinkling, etc. There's been way too much magic in this case already (a magic bullet, the magical exploits of the lying rooftop tandem magically gaining access to an otherwise locked roof from the inside, while at the same time magically locking themselves out of the building from the otherside)...you cannot make this stuff up but considering it's all a hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure, well anything magical is possible. The issue here is they had to frame an innocent party in a short period of time... not exactly enough time though to thoroughly vett their lies.
Lest you forget, you are still on the clock to produce irrefutable proof of the lying rooftop tandem standing atop that otherwise locked roof from the inside. We all understand if you continue to avoid the challenge. There's a reason for that. Only the absolute truth can stand the test of time--no phony hastily contrived revision(s), do-overs, etc.
What are you babbling about here? A different topic. Are you really suggesting there is doubt of Truly's and Baker's trip to the roof because there is no picture of them on the roof? Who would take such a picture since no one else was up there? And your bizarre basis for this entire claim is that the door to the roof was latched on the inside. HA HA HA. As though Truly who was the building superintendent and had worked for the TSBD for 30 years - much less anyone else - couldn't just flip the latch to access the roof. What you apparently are too dense to understand is that if the door was latched on the inside, the only thing that proves is that none of your fantasy conspirators could have gotten back down into the building from the roof. Your subjective opinion as to the condition of a bus transfer in Oswald's pocket following his arrest does not rebut the fact that the bus transfer was in his pocket. It proves he was on the bus. There is no explanation to plant such a bus transfer since the bus took him nowhere. It did not advance any possible objective in your fantasy conspiracy. Why bother faking his presence on a bus that goes nowhere and having to convince a whole bus load of people to confirm or at least not deny he was on the bus? How would they even know which bus was in the vicinity at that moment to plant an bus transfer on him just a short time later.
-
What are you babbling about here? A different topic. Are you really suggesting there is doubt of Truly's and Baker's trip to the roof because there is no picture of them on the roof? Who would take such a picture since no one else was up there? And your bizarre basis for this entire claim is that the door to the roof was latched on the inside. HA HA HA. As though Truly who was the building superintendent and had worked for the TSBD for 30 years - much less anyone else - couldn't just flip the latch to access the roof. What you apparently are too dense to understand is that if the door was latched on the inside, the only thing that proves is that none of your fantasy conspirators could have gotten back down into the building from the roof. Your subjective opinion as to the condition of a bus transfer in Oswald's pocket following his arrest does not rebut the fact that the bus transfer was in his pocket. It proves he was on the bus. There is no explanation to plant such a bus transfer since the bus took him nowhere. It did not advance any possible objective in your fantasy conspiracy. Why bother faking a his presence on a bus that goes nowhere?
Still cannot provide any irrefutable proof eh...there's a reason for that.
Now, in response to just who would take such a picture, lest you forget Mr. Smith Dealey Plaza was flooded with newsmen, a high percentage of them with cameras in tow. They didn't have to be atop the roof to snap an image of the lying rooftop tandem IF they were really up there, because according to their own testimonies--their words, not mine--they put themselves in a specific position atop that roof that would have garnered more than a few stares from the general public and cameramen alike.
There's one particular photo, taking in the same time sequence as the position they placed themselves in in testimony--their words, not mine, where their presence would have been noted for all to see IF they were telling the truth instead of steering attention away from where Roy Truly's genuine whereabouts and actions were...
Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer. I don't remember when I went over there. It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell cases.
Lest you forget Mr. Smith no one--you read that right--no one saw the lying rooftop tandem together on those backstairs, no one. I'll save you the trouble for even attempting to rely upon Mr. Piper's testimony, because lest you forget he does put someone with Roy Truly at the backstairs on the first floor a few minutes after the last shot--his words, not mine--but it wasn't with a highly recognizable white helmeted motorcycle officer in loooong black boots.
Again, no one puts the lying rooftop tandem together on those backstairs, no one.
-
Uh no. Obviously, another explanation is that he lied. If the rifle was owned by Oswald, he could have admitted ownership and conjured up some explanation for his rifle being there like he planned to go hunting that weekend or that the rifle had been stolen etc. He has ample opportunity to provide an explanation for his rifle's presence in the building which is the point you took issue with (i.e. he was not directly asked). Instead he decides to deny ownership or any knowledge of how the rifle came to be there despite a mountain of evidence from a variety of different sources that link him to that rifle including his palm print on it.
Obviously, another explanation is that he lied.
Indeed. That's another explanation. Now all you need to do is to prove that he lied. Not assume he did, but prove it.
If the rifle was owned by Oswald, he could have admitted ownership and conjured up some explanation for his rifle being there like he planned to go hunting that weekend or that the rifle had been stolen etc.
And if he didn't own the rifle, he would have no need to conjure up any story, which is exactly what happened.
Instead he decides to deny ownership or any knowledge of how the rifle came to be there despite a mountain of evidence from a variety of different sources that link him to that rifle including his palm print on it.
A mountain of evidence? HAHAHAHAHA
A photocopy of an order form, taken from a now missing microfilm, and the opinion of a FBI questioned documents specialist and three photos showing him holding a rifle in late March 1963. That's it. The FBI found no prints on the rifle and the palm print didn't myseriously turn up on an evidence card until a week after the events.
That's a mountain of evidence to you? :D
-
Obviously, another explanation is that he lied.
Indeed. That's another explanation. Now all you need to do is to prove that he lied. Not assume he did, but prove it.
If the rifle was owned by Oswald, he could have admitted ownership and conjured up some explanation for his rifle being there like he planned to go hunting that weekend or that the rifle had been stolen etc.
And if he didn't own the rifle, he would have no need to conjure up any story, which is exactly what happened.
Instead he decides to deny ownership or any knowledge of how the rifle came to be there despite a mountain of evidence from a variety of different sources that link him to that rifle including his palm print on it.
A mountain of evidence? HAHAHAHAHA
A photocopy of an order form, taken from a now missing microfilm, and the opinion of a FBI questioned documents specialist and three photos showing him holding a rifle in late March 1963. That's it. The FBI found no prints on the rifle and the palm print didn't myseriously turn up on an evidence card until a week after the events.
That's a mountain of evidence to you? :D
Well said, Mr. Weidmann
Irrefutable proof seems to be something not at Mr. Smith's disposal at the moment.
-
Brief follow-up on demonstrating once again that no one put the lying rooftop tandem together on those backstairs, No one ---->
The following men--in the same space & time as the lying rooftop-tandem exposes the hastily contrived script for what it is...
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time I was up there I saw a motorcycle policeman. He came up. And the only thing I saw of him was his white helmet.
Mr. BALL. Did you see anybody with him?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I did not
and now his entourage...
Mr. BALL. Or did you see Mr. Truly come up?
Mr. NORMAN. No, sir; I didn't.
and for further confirmation that the lying rooftop-tandem were nowhere near those backstairs in the hastily contrived scripted time-interval they wish to make fact...
Mr. BALL - Do you remember seeing Mr. Truly?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - Or did you see a motorcycle officer come up?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir.
None of the trio above were deaf, blind and/or dumb. So, IF they would have actually seen the lying rooftop-tandem together on those backstairs they would have confirmed their presence there.
-
Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer. I don't remember when I went over there. It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell cases.
Cat got your tongue, Roy Truly?! Cannot answer or Won't answer?! Pleading the 5th?
-
'Frazier consistently describes the package being about this long'
Frazier consistently repeats that he wasn't paying attention to the bag.
That fact does not require speculation.
I agree, Frazier emphasises that he doesn't pay that much attention to the bag and there's no reason why he should, Oswald has already explained what it is and Frazier has no reason to doubt him.
However, he does see the bag and provides the following description from what he can remember:
"It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."
I did an analysis of the construction of CE 142 and concluded that it was specifically designed and constructed to carry something 27" or less. What I found interesting was that Frazier's description of what he saw is a perfect description of what CE 142 would look like when being used.
The point is - CE 142, being used the way Frazier describes, could not carry a rifle even if it was disassembled (I don't buy that the assassin would bring a disassembled rifle for one second).
This doesn't mean Oswald didn't bring a rifle with him that morning. Elsewhere I've argued that Frazier deliberately underestimated the length of the bag because people wouldn't believe he didn't recognise it as a rifle in a bag. If that's the case CE 142 was not the bag Oswald used that day.
-
I agree, Frazier emphasises that he doesn't pay that much attention to the bag and there's no reason why he should, Oswald has already explained what it is and Frazier has no reason to doubt him.
However, he does see the bag and provides the following description from what he can remember:
"It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."
I did an analysis of the construction of CE 142 and concluded that it was specifically designed and constructed to carry something 27" or less. What I found interesting was that Frazier's description of what he saw is a perfect description of what CE 142 would look like when being used.
The point is - CE 142, being used the way Frazier describes, could not carry a rifle even if it was disassembled (I don't buy that the assassin would bring a disassembled rifle for one second).
This doesn't mean Oswald didn't bring a rifle with him that morning. Elsewhere I've argued that Frazier deliberately underestimated the length of the bag because people wouldn't believe he didn't recognise it as a rifle in a bag. If that's the case CE 142 was not the bag Oswald used that day.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wjq3MBMN/CE1304-GUN-BAG-2.png)
CE 1304 This measures 38"* as seen by way of the ruler
See larger size at https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1304.pdf
*A broken-down Carcano (34.8") would go into a 38" bag real good.. real damn good
;D
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/wjq3MBMN/CE1304-GUN-BAG-2.png)
CE 1304 This measures 38"* as seen by way of the ruler
See larger size at https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1304.pdf
*A broken-down Carcano (34.8") would go into a 38" bag real good.. real damn good
;D
Your kind of skirting over the analysis I did of the construction of the bag.
If there's a weakness in it I'd like to know.
-
Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer. I don't remember when I went over there. It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell cases.
Cat got your tongue, Roy Truly?! Cannot answer or Won't answer?! Pleading the 5th?
He truly didn't remember
-
He truly didn't remember
8)
-
Your kind of skirting over the analysis I did of the construction of the bag.
If there's a weakness in it I'd like to know.
Tell us how you can analyze the construction of the bag without getting your hands on it.
Not that you're trying to rip the bag right out of Oswald's hands.
The little fckr killed Tippit ffs. That's the rosetta stone right there.
-
8)
8) that you find it 8)
-
Tell us how you can analyze the construction of the bag without getting your hands on it.
Not that you're trying to rip the bag right out of Oswald's hands.
It's paper and tape.
It's making a bag out of paper and tape.
It's clear, just from looking at photos, how the bag was constructed, how it was folded, where the tape was applied etc.
It's easy to grasp that whoever constructed the bag did it with a specific goal in mind.
A fundamental part of the construction of the bag are the "dimensions" of it.
I've made specific observations in my analysis about how the bag is constructed, particularly how the tape is applied. If my interpretation of these observations is a bit dodgy I'd like to have a conversation about it because, although it's a small detail it might have a larger importance.
The little fckr killed Tippit ffs. That's the rosetta stone right there.
At no point have I ever said he didn't.
There seems to be enough evidence to suggest he was some kind of desperate character on the loose with a gun in his pocket.
And it seems generally agreed he could have been in that area at the time...
He's still in the frame for Tippit's murder as far as I'm concerned.
-
Tony Fratini's images on the bag construction.
(https://i.ibb.co/SsR0ZxH/F82-B9-BAE-890-D-4192-8-F2-C-81581-D7-A689-F.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/17ZQRy2/1885-DD0-F-20-B5-4578-A34-B-66465-C2-B1-A07.gif)
-
It's paper and tape.
It's making a bag out of paper and tape.
It's clear, just from looking at photos, how the bag was constructed, how it was folded, where the tape was applied etc.
It's easy to grasp that whoever constructed the bag did it with a specific goal in mind.
A fundamental part of the construction of the bag are the "dimensions" of it.
I've made specific observations in my analysis about how the bag is constructed, particularly how the tape is applied. If my interpretation of these observations is a bit dodgy I'd like to have a conversation about it because, although it's a small detail it might have a larger importance.
At no point have I ever said he didn't.
There seems to be enough evidence to suggest he was some kind of desperate character on the loose with a gun in his pocket.
And it seems generally agreed he could have been in that area at the time...
He's still in the frame for Tippit's murder as far as I'm concerned.
Well, at least the Cuckoo's Nest window itself 'framed' Oswald in a sense
In the meantime, lets see you get your hands-off technique past a jury
-
Well, at least the Cuckoo's Nest window itself 'framed' Oswald in a sense
There's too much to suggest he didn't act alone (IMO)
In the meantime, lets see you get your hands-off technique past a jury
I was asking you to be the jury.
-
There's too much to suggest he didn't act alone (IMO)
I was asking you to be the jury.
Most attempts made on any POTUS were committed by lone nut jobs
I would not be put on a jury since IMHO this case was a slam-dunk
-
Well, at least the Cuckoo's Nest window itself 'framed' Oswald in a sense
In the meantime, lets see you get your hands-off technique past a jury
In the meantime, lets see you get your hands-off technique past a jury
Says the guy who constantly keeps telling us this isn't a court of law. Hilarious :D
-
Most attempts made on any POTUS were committed by lone nut jobs
I would not be put on a jury since IMHO this case was a slam-dunk
1) Rose Cherami. Respectable professionals, policemen and doctors, telling a story of foreknowledge of the assassination, how Oswald and Ruby were tied together and how, through Arcacha Smith, everything is connected to New Orleans, where...
2)...we find footage of Bill Shelley outside the New Orleans Trade Mart as Oswald hands out his flyers. Oswald's soon-to-be supervisor who...
3)...along with Lovelady, Williams, Norman and Dougherty, all lied on either their early statements to the police or their WC testimony. If Oswald did it alone it should be a simple story - just tell the authorities what you were doing at the time of the assassination. Instead, all these men chose to lie and the connection...all had been on the 6th floor that morning.
This is no slam dunk Bill.
And neither is it any of the usual BS: - alterations of the Z-film and autopsy pics, wholesale manipulation of witnesses, two Oswalds, Prayer Man, teams of assassins etc. etc. etc.
The strength of your position is that you have a coherent, testable narrative concerning the assassination into which many pieces fit together. CTers think it's enough to take each tiny element and try to create as much doubt about it as possible, but it's not enough.
We have to come up with our own narratives that accounts for all the evidence, narratives that can be tested just like the "official" narrative is.
-
In the meantime, lets see you get your hands-off technique past a jury
Says the guy who constantly keeps telling us this isn't a court of law. Hilarious :D
It isn't, but you characters keep demanding proof nevertheless. Led by you and your attack-dog buddy Mr Neil McKneeley.
-
Jerry Organ would be the one to depict the bag build properly. His presentations are unassailable.
I remember Tony Fratini showing the bag being carried sticking way out front, using the photo of the bag laying flat on the table. WTF is wrong with you people? Make your own damn bag and film the entire build in progress instead of babbling endlessly about it.
-
1) Rose Cherami. Respectable professionals, policemen and doctors, telling a story of foreknowledge of the assassination, how Oswald and Ruby were tied together and how, through Arcacha Smith, everything is connected to New Orleans, where...
2)...we find footage of Bill Shelley outside the New Orleans Trade Mart as Oswald hands out his flyers. Oswald's soon-to-be supervisor who...
3)...along with Lovelady, Williams, Norman and Dougherty, all lied on either their early statements to the police or their WC testimony. If Oswald did it alone it should be a simple story - just tell the authorities what you were doing at the time of the assassination. Instead, all these men chose to lie and the connection...all had been on the 6th floor that morning.
This is no slam dunk Bill.
And neither is it any of the BS: you hear around here - alterations of the Z-film and autopsy pics, wholesale manipulation of witnesses, two Oswalds, Prayer Man, teams of assassins etc. etc. etc.
The strength of your position is that you have a coherent, testable narrative concerning the assassination into which many pieces fit together. CTers think it's enough to take each tiny element and try to create as much doubt about it as possible, but it's not enough.
We have to come up with our own narratives that account for all the evidence, narratives that can be tested just like the "official" narrative is.
there
you
go...
ever
further
down
the
rabbit
hole
-
It isn't, but you characters keep demanding proof nevertheless. Led by you and your attack-dog buddy Mr Neil McKneeley.
you characters keep demanding proof
And you and your ilk keep on failing to provide any. Thumb1:
-
Jerry Organ would be the one to depict the bag build properly. His presentations are unassailable.
I remember Tony Fratini showing the bag being carried sticking way out front, using the photo of the bag laying flat on the table. WTF is wrong with you people? Make your own damn bag and film the entire build in progress instead of blabbing endlessly about it.
Make your own damn bag and film the entire build in progress instead of blabbing endlessly about it.
Says the guy who only babbles endlessly and never provides any proof for his ramblings. :D
-
Jerry Organ would be the one to depict the bag build properly. His presentations are unassailable.
I remember Tony Fratini showing the bag being carried sticking way out front, using the photo of the bag laying flat on the table. WTF is wrong with you people? Make your own damn bag and film the entire build in progress instead of blabbing endlessly about it.
It's a piece of paper and some tape Bill.
What is it you're having a problem with?
The bag is clearly designed and constructed to carry an object 27" or less.
It's not a big deal.
-
1) Rose Cherami. Respectable professionals, policemen and doctors, telling a story of foreknowledge of the assassination, how Oswald and Ruby were tied together and how, through Arcacha Smith, everything is connected to New Orleans, where...
2)...we find footage of Bill Shelley outside the New Orleans Trade Mart as Oswald hands out his flyers. Oswald's soon-to-be supervisor who...
3)...along with Lovelady, Williams, Norman and Dougherty, all lied on either their early statements to the police or their WC testimony. If Oswald did it alone it should be a simple story - just tell the authorities what you were doing at the time of the assassination. Instead, all these men chose to lie and the connection...all had been on the 6th floor that morning.
This is no slam dunk Bill.
And neither is it any of the usual BS: - alterations of the Z-film and autopsy pics, wholesale manipulation of witnesses, two Oswalds, Prayer Man, teams of assassins etc. etc. etc.
The strength of your position is that you have a coherent, testable narrative concerning the assassination into which many pieces fit together. CTers think it's enough to take each tiny element and try to create as much doubt about it as possible, but it's not enough.
We have to come up with our own narratives that accounts for all the evidence, narratives that can be tested just like the "official" narrative is.
Dan..Dan...Dan... Gary Shaw, et al have polluted your POV.
Example, Rose Cheramie:
https://jfkfacts.org/comment-of-the-week-10/
Tom S.
"J Gary Shaw has never furnished any evidence supporting his 1993 description of the contents of hospital records describing a head wound similar to a bullet wound. All I could present was an image of Marcades's death certificate.."
The reason you "know" what Bill Shelley looked like is because I found and shared a photo of William Hoyt Shelley from his H.S. yearbook and his distinctive features hadn't changed much in nearly 20 years.
More radical than Ralph Stinky (forum "auto-edit" of Ralph's last name) is not who you are, Dan.... I hope!
https://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/08/dr-cinque-i-am-avid-reader-re.html
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51113601706_bbbe838eba_b.jpg)
Dan, I found and presented proof Dougherty's occupation before the TSBD was repairing items donated to
Goodwill Industries. Who does Goodwill hire and train?
Upper right, in this image :
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51113649481_517c340073_c.jpg)
7 April H 373-82) In his testimony, Truly gave Dougherty a ...
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/D%20Disk/Dougherty%20Jack%20Edwin/Item%2002.pdf
FBI, Dougherty was accompanied by his father "who advised his son re- ceived a medical discharge from the U.S. Army andindicatedhis son had considerable difficulty coordinating his mental facilities with his speech." (19 H 622).
-
Dan..Dan...Dan... Gary Shaw, et al have polluted your POV.
https://jfkfacts.org/comment-of-the-week-10/
Tom S.
"J Gary Shaw has never furnished any evidence supporting his 1993 description of the contents of hospital records describing a head wound similar to a bullet wound. All I could present was an image of Marcades's death certificate.."
Not sure what you mean Tom.
How is my POV polluted? (I'm not saying I haven't been swayed by certain pieces of research, I'm just interested where you're coming from)
LATER EDIT: From the links you posted:
Rose Cherami's death isn't relevant. It's the reports of Fruge, Weiss and others that she had foreknowledge of the assassination. I assume these still hold water
I don't think it looks like Beckham at all.
As far as I'm concerned it's Shelley - same build, same dress sense, same distinctive features, same hairstyle.
In the footage and stills from outside the New Orleans Trade Mart, Shelley looks more like Shelley than Oswald looks like Oswald!
As for Dougherty...
His alibi, that he is on the 5th floor at the time of the shooting is blown out of the water by Williams, Norman and Jarman.
Minutes before the motorcade arrives Jarman and Norman take the elevator up to the 5th, they make their way from the north-west corner of the building (where the elevators are) to the south-east corner. At no point do they see Dougherty.
Williams comes down from the 6th floor and he too makes his way from the north-west corner to the south-east corner. Again, no Dougherty.
Shortly after the assassination all three men run the length of the building. Again, no Dougherty.
I find it hard to get away from the possibility that Dougherty is on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination.
The less said about his story - going down to see Piper then going back to the 6th floor - the better.
His "emotional problems" make him an ideal candidate for manipulation.
Williams and Givens are grilled endlessly about their time on the 6th floor.
Dougherty, who testified to being on the 6th just before and just after the assassination, is asked one question -
Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody on the sixth floor when you were there, before you went to the fifth floor?
That's it.
-
Not sure what you mean Tom.
How is my POV polluted? (I'm not saying I haven't been swayed by certain pieces of research, I'm just interested where you're coming from)
Three months ago, the U.S. Capitol was packed with people outraged in reaction to what they thought they "knew". If I'm going to be outraged, it has to be in reaction to what actually happened and not what people intent on pursuing power or profit benefit from my "knowing" regardless of reality.
-
Three months ago, the U.S. Capitol was packed with people outraged in reaction to what they thought they "knew". If I'm going to be outraged, it has to be in reaction to what actually happened and not what people intent on pursuing power or profit benefit from my "knowing" regardless of reality.
That is a very cryptic and mysterious response.
As far as the JFK assassination is concerned, I'm trying to genuinely understand what's going on.
JFK died years before I was born and I'm not American. I'm not emotionally invested in this, I don't have an axe to grind or an agenda to promote.
In the short time I've been at this I have noticed one thing - everyone believes they have the answer, that they are right and everyone else is wrong. This, as far as I'm concerned, is the greatest obstacle to resolving this case.
And I do believe it can be resolved.
-
That is a very cryptic and mysterious response.
As far as the JFK assassination is concerned, I'm trying to genuinely understand what's going on.
JFK died years before I was born and I'm not American. I'm not emotionally invested in this, I don't have an axe to grind or an agenda to promote.
In the short time I've been at this I have noticed one thing - everyone believes they have the answer, that they are right and everyone else is wrong. This, as far as I'm concerned, is the greatest obstacle to resolving this case.
And I do believe it can be resolved.
I don't believe there are any answers to be found anywhere near Dealey Plaza. I've avoided reading almost all JFK Assassination "research" supported books and I think if any evidence proving a cover up exists in the Zapruder film, it would have resolved some issues by now, but what has it resolved? My point is it is counterproductive compared to the many things easily proven.
Dan, I was old enough on the day after JFK was assassinated, to cut an image of Oswald out of the front page of the local newspaper and take it to a friend's house where it was mounted on a dart board, the face in the image covering the bulls eye of the dart board.
Then, I lived my life, I had a neighorhood newspaper delivery route a few years after 1963 until just after Garrison brought the JFK Assassination back into the news. I usually read the first section of the newspaper I delivered, every day.
After that, there was plenty to distract me from focus on JFK until 2008, when I read this.:
This is a reprint of an article with identical details published before the Nov., 2008 election.
https://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Features/Mr-Obamas-neighborhood
"...According to lore, when Minow called a partner in his firm to recommend he meet with Obama during a visit to Harvard, the partner told him he had already been hired for a summer internship.Obama's experience at the Sidley Austin firm, where he soon got to know Minow, a former Federal Communications Commission chairman (as well as his future wife, Michelle Robinson), was crucial in introducing Obama to leading local Jewish figures like the billionaire Crown. Crown first became acquainted with the young associate after Minow suggested he meet this "special" guy who "is going places." And indeed, Crown describes him as "brilliant" and "a quick study," though he does not pretend to have pictured Obama sitting in the Oval Office during their early encounters.These kinds of introductions proved key for Obama's construction of a network which would eventually support his political aspirations. The Crown family, for instance, have been major financial backers, with Lester's son James serving as Obama's Illinois finance chairman.".."
I did some research and then wrote these two blog posts.
https://postbushera.blogspot.com/2008/
".... https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/ON-ECONOMICS-How-Kennedy-Assassination-2958771.php
ON ECONOMICS: -- How Kennedy Assassination Affected Some Stock Prices
JONATHAN MARSHALL
Monday, November 18, 1996
....But the facts speak tellingly about how accidents of history can affect great fortunes.
A postscript for assassination buffs: No individual stood to lose more from the TFX scandal than Chicago investor Henry Crown, who owned 20 percent of General Dynamics. His personal attorney, Albert Jenner, became a senior staff attorney on the Warren Commission, in charge of investigating the possibility of a conspiracy.In later years, Jenner also represented Chicago labor racketeer Allen Dorfman. Dorfman's stepfather Paul, a leading figure in the Chicago mob, ran the Waste Handlers Union in Chicago in 1939 with Jack Ruby, Lee Harvey Oswald's future killer.
Both Dorfmans hated the Kennedy family. Robert Kennedy had hauled them before a Senate crime panel in the late 1950s, where they took the Fifth Amendment.
Allen Dorfman was murdered, gangland-style, in 1983 in the company of another friend of Ruby, Irwin Weiner. Attorney Jenner obtained Weiner's acquittal in a 1975 federal labor racketeering case after the government's leading witness was shotgunned to death.
Weiner was called to testify in 1978 before the House Select Committee on Assassinations about his relationship with Ruby, including a phone conversation with Ruby shortly before the assassination. He said the call was innocent.
The committee was investigating the theory -- which it never proved -- that organized crime had Ruby silence Oswald to disguise its own role in the Kennedy assassination....."
Intrigued by what I read in the above article, I searched for confirmation: ..."
My second blog post.:
https://postbushera.blogspot.com/2010/01/14-months-later-revisiting-this-blog.html
"....Consider that behind the following “mother of all cover ups”, is the family of Obama’s earliest and wealthiest backer. The crux of the following are the indications that Tom Clark heard in 1946, details of the background of the man whose son he hired as his SCOTUS clerk in 1956, and that Clark is named as vouching for that man’s lawyer to serve as senior investigative counsel to determine if there was a conspiracy to assassinate the president.
Not only did the FBI keep from the Warren Commission, every detail described by Sy Hersh about former FBI SA, IB Hale and his twin sons in the 1962, FBI observed burglary of Judith Exner's Los Angeles apartment, ..."
A month after writing the first blog post, I joined the Education Forum, JFK Debate in 2009, later became a moderator there, and in 2015, the comments editor of jfkfacts.org .
One thing I am sure of is "people in high places" did not want the public to know what actually happened, Marina Porter was "gagged" until 1978.... 14 years... Priscilla steered Marina to this guy.:
'4'''-*t4*tttkiO Marina Oswald - Hood College
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/M%20Disk/McMillan%20Priscilla%20Marina%20&%20Lee/Item%2013.pdf
Marina's New York agent, Perry Knowlton, and Harper and Row editors have forbidden her to discuss the up- coming book without their permission for at least a year after its publication.
Facts are that a cousin of Allen Dulles was the last person to see Priscilla's father alive and reported him "missing" and Priscilla used here father's death to the HSCA as an excuse for taking 14 years to finish and publish her book, Marina & Lee!
https://archive.is/esTuB
....
https://archive.is/o/esTuB/www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=95330&relPageId=42
(https://archive.is/esTuB/341f69f3897bf5d6d30cea5923ff3b0c4430a59b.jpg)
-
Jerry Organ would be the one to depict the bag build properly. His presentations are unassailable.
Hey buddy, got a link? 8)
-
Not sure what you mean Tom.
How is my POV polluted? (I'm not saying I haven't been swayed by certain pieces of research, I'm just interested where you're coming from)
LATER EDIT: From the links you posted:
Rose Cherami's death isn't relevant. It's the reports of Fruge, Weiss and others that she had foreknowledge of the assassination. I assume these still hold water
I don't think it looks like Beckham at all.
As far as I'm concerned it's Shelley - same build, same dress sense, same distinctive features, same hairstyle.
In the footage and stills from outside the New Orleans Trade Mart, Shelley looks more like Shelley than Oswald looks like Oswald!
As for Dougherty...
His alibi, that he is on the 5th floor at the time of the shooting is blown out of the water by Williams, Norman and Jarman.
Minutes before the motorcade arrives Jarman and Norman take the elevator up to the 5th, they make their way from the north-west corner of the building (where the elevators are) to the south-east corner. At no point do they see Dougherty.
Williams comes down from the 6th floor and he too makes his way from the north-west corner to the south-east corner. Again, no Dougherty.
Shortly after the assassination all three men run the length of the building. Again, no Dougherty.
I find it hard to get away from the possibility that Dougherty is on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination.
The less said about his story - going down to see Piper then going back to the 6th floor - the better.
His "emotional problems" make him an ideal candidate for manipulation.
Williams and Givens are grilled endlessly about their time on the 6th floor.
Dougherty, who testified to being on the 6th just before and just after the assassination, is asked one question -
Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody on the sixth floor when you were there, before you went to the fifth floor?
That's it.
I have felt for some time a better understanding of the movements of the freight elevators in the Texas Schoolbook Depository may provide insight into the events that took place in the hour or so before and immediately after the shots were fired in Dealey Plaza. This article is an attempt to reconstruct their known (and inferred) movements as much as possible from Warren Commission testimonies, Commission Document 5 (the FBI Gemberling report), Commission Document 87 (Secret Service Report) and the HSCA interviews of employees Harold Norman and Junior Jarman.
Texas Schoolbook Depository Essentials
The TSBD had three operational elevators on November 22 1963. An enclosed passenger elevator operated between floors one and four and was located in the SE corner. This lift was most commonly used by office staff from the publishing company offices that were housed on floors two, three and four. In addition a pair of freight elevators were located “back to back” in the NW corner of the building, along the north wall, just east of the enclosed staircase. Unlike the passenger elevator, these operated on each floor up to the 7th. They were primarily used by employees to transport books up to and down from storage on the upper floors.
Both elevators were “open” in that they had a door consisting of wooden slats known as “the gates”. The gates faced in their respective directions and as a safety precaution, a lift could not move between floors unless the gates were closed. It also appears that the gates for each were different as the west lift had “double gates”. The lift gate and the gate for each floor had to be closed in order to use. (Givens WC) The elevators were operated differently; the east lift could only be "driven manually" by a lever from within and could not be “called” to a different floor by press of a button from that floor. The west lift could be called to a different floor by a press button if the gates were closed.
Working on the 6th Floor
In November 1963 a number of TSBD employees were assigned to lay plywood sheeting over the existing upper floors. Work had completed on the 5th Floor and had commenced on the 6th Floor requiring some movement of boxes of books from the SW area of the floor. Those who were present on Friday the 22nd were Bill Shelley (foreman) and a number of order fillers, Danny Arce, Billy Ray Williams, Charles Givens and Billy Lovelady. Harold Norman, another order filler, was present for periods that morning. He was not assigned to the floor laying activity but visited the crew to “shoot the breeze” as work was not busy with book filling duties. It is uncertain how much time he spent with them but it appears he was with them until they broke for lunch.
Occasionally the floor would be visited by order fillers to obtain books that were not available in enough numbers on the 1st floor storage area. It appears that order fillers Jack Dougherty and Lee Oswald visited the 6th Floor that morning for this purpose.
In his HSCA interview Junior Jarman, an order checker who worked on the 1st Floor stated that he twice sent Oswald to the 6th Floor to correct orders. The first was at about 8.15 to correct order (Gemberling). He remembered the last occasion was around 11.30 when Oswald walked to Jarman standing near the front window. It was this meeting where Oswald asked Jarman why all the people were gathering out the front. This time clashes with the WC testimony (and Gemberling) that places it much earlier in the morning. Given the reference to people gathering for the motorcade outside, still about 45 minutes or so away, it would seem logical that this time is more accurate. Jarman also claimed to observe Oswald taking the elevator going up (SS491), presumably to the 6th Floor and that Oswald returned sometime later with the correct book (HSCA). Williams testified to the Warren Commission but was not certain he saw Oswald east of the east elevator between 11.30 and the time they broke for lunch. Jack Dougherty in his WC testimony also claimed to have seen Oswald on the 6th Floor around 11 and he appeared to be getting stock as far as he could tell. In a Secret Service interview conducted in early December Givens claimed to have seen Oswald filling orders on the 6th Floor around 11.45. In the same document Lovelady said he saw Oswald around 10am, the location is not stated but as Lovelady was working on the 6th Floor it appears likely it was there (confirmed Gemberling). Norman and Roy Lewis also claimed to see Oswald working on the 1st Floor at 10 and 10.30am respectively. Givens saw him at 8.30 on the 1st Floor by the bins filling orders (WC). He also saw Oswald reading a newspaper in the domino room about 11.50 (FBI Gemberling Report) Frazier saw Oswald about 8.30 and 2 or 3 more occasions on the1st Floor during the morning, the last being around 11 (Gemberling). Williams also saw him working on the 1st Floor a little after 8 (WC).
Anyone for lunch?
It appears that the normal time for lunchbreak for these book shipping employees was 12-12.45. Most of those who testified said that it was normal to break about 5 minutes before 12 to “wash up“ in the facilities adjacent to the domino room on the 1st Floor. On the day of the assassination it seems reasonable the break commenced a little earlier than normal as the Presidential motorcade was likely to pass in front of the TSBD around 12.15 to 12.20.
Foreman Bill Shelley claimed he departed the 6th Floor around 11.50 after working with the floor laying crew all morning. He observed Oswald shortly after arriving on the 1st Floor. Soon after Shelley departed the 6th Floor, it is likely the remainder of the floor-laying crew decided to depart also. The workers participated in an elevator race taking both to the 1st Floor. The minimum time difference between their departure and that of Shelley therefore must be about one minute as the time required for the elevator to travel six floors was about 30 seconds (Lovelady, Gemberling). It would seem reasonable to claim therefore that the workers arrived at the 1st Floor about 1-3 minutes after Shelley.
The Gate Race
Unfortunately from the various statements and testimonies of the race participants we are unable to determine exactly who was in which lift and who accompanied them. My analysis of the WC testimonies alone shows the following; when asked, Givens claimed to be in the east elevator accompanied by Williams, Lovelady and Arce. This would leave Norman to be the sole inhabitant of the west lift. Arce claimed he was in the east lift with Williams and Lovelady. This would mean Givens and Norman were in the west lift. Lovelady said he was in the west lift with Williams, leaving Givens, Arce and Norman in the east. Williams said he was in the west with 2 or 3 others, Givens in the east. Norman was not questioned about the elevator race. Adding even more confusion to who was where is a reference in the SS491 summary that indicates Dougherty said he was part of the race that day also. As I can find no other support for this assertion I have to conclude this is an error.
The significance of the race is that a number of participants recalled that as the lifts descended Oswald was heard asking that the west elevator be left so that he could call it up from the 1st Floor. Most heard Oswald and from their testimonies it appears that he was near the elevators on the 5th Floor when they were descending. Givens claimed that the east elevator won the race in his WC testimony "the east elevator beat the other one down, because it stopped quicker, but it had to adjust itself".
It seems that Oswald must have ascended to the 5th Floor prior to the race. The floor-laying crew calling the west elevator to the 6th Floor after his arriving there. As the east elevator could not be summoned it must have already been on the 6th Floor prior to the race. This implies that Shelley took the west lift down around 11.50. Oswald then can use it almost immediately to get to the 5th Floor. It is possible that Shelley sees Oswald their paths crossing as the latter is on his way to the west elevator. Obviously at the end of the race both elevators are now on the 1st Floor after the race sometime between 11.50 and 11.55. For Oswald to now access an elevator the gates on the west elevator would have to be closed as he could not call the east elevator.
Who’s on First?
TSBD janitor Eddie Piper testified he had a brief conversation with Oswald around 12 on the 1st Floor in which Oswald stated he was going either out or up for lunch. This implies that Oswald did call the west elevator and descend from the 5th Floor immediately following the race. Givens may provide some corroboration for this possibility as he early statement to the FBI indicate he saw Oswald in the domino room reading a paper around 11.50. Obviously as Givens was a participant in the race this means Oswald had descended from the 5th Floor after calling for the gates to be closed. His time estimate for the race was 11.45 so this places the sighting of Oswald in the domino room 5 minutes after the race, sufficient for Oswald to call the west lift to the 5th Floor and get to the 1st floor lunchroom. If true, the time must have been closer to 12 allowing the conversation with Piper.
Givens' Gift
The next sighting of Oswald is probably the most contentious. Givens testified to the Warren Commision on April 8 1964 in Dallas. He was questioned by assistant councel Belin and none of the commisioners were present. Givens revealed for the first time that he revisited the 6th Floor to retrieve his cigarettes. He took the east elevator, still on the 1st Floor to the 6th and while turning to renter the elevator saw Oswald walking towards him from the east end of the building, clipboard in hand. This convenient late breaking placement of the accused assassin in proximity to the sniper's nest about 30 minutes before the shooting was analysed thoroughly Sylvia Meagher long ago and the full article can be found here.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/Givens63.txt
Stretching credibility, Givens claims during this session that almost the same conversation took place with Oswald that occurred minutes before during the elevator race. Givens claims that he took the east elevator back down. He does not hear or see the west elevator moving and when he gets to the 1st Floor to ensure the west elevator gates are closed, the west elevator is not there. The question is who moved the west elevator to a higher floor before Givens descended? The inference has been that it must be Bonnie Ray Williams; however he took the east elevator to the 6th Floor to eat his lunch. Therefore, if we believe the cigarette recovery story, he must have ascended after Givens exited the lift. No other TSBD employee claimed to use the west lift to travel up from the 1st Floor around this time and it could not have been Oswald according to Givens.
Bonnie Ray and the Chicken Sandwich
In his Warren Commission testimony Williams tells of his travel to the 6th Floor using the east elevator in search of Lovelady and Arce who had made plans sometime in the morning to view the motorcade from the floor they were working on. He claimed to have arrived about 12 and stayed between 5-12 minutes. In the Gemberling Report it claimed he came down at 11.30 and returned at 12, staying for only 3 minutes before taking the stairs to join Jarman and Norman on the 5th Floor, no mention of eating any lunch. In the Secret Service Report (CD87) he is reported to have spent "just a few minutes" there eating lunch and meeting up with Norman and Jarman before 12.15.
How do we interpret Williams’ statements? It seems we cannot rely on specific times but merely rough estimates of elapsed time. Williams thought between 10 and 30 minutes elapsed between leaving and getting back to the 6th Floor. He also thought he ate for between 3 and 12 minutes. It would seem that he must have arrived later than 12 and spent about 5-7 minutes at most. If we take the mid-point of his time estimates he would return to the 6th Floor about 20 minutes after the race, arriving closer to 12.15 than noon and probably leaves about 12.20 or so. His Warren Commission testimony also solved a problem with the location of east elevator shortly after the shooting. A minute after the shots were fired, Roy Truly claimed both elevators were stuck on the 5th floor. If Williams took the stairs it would have left the east elevator on the 6th Floor and so his later recollection to the WC now explains the east elevator in its resting place on the 5th Floor.
Williams claimed to the WC he brought his chicken on the bone sandwich from home and bought a bottle of Dr Pepper from the 1st Floor vending machine after going down in the race. No mention of where he got his bag of Fritos! However, Harold Norman in his HSCA interview stated that Williams bought his lunch that day from the truck that parked outside the TSBD each morning. He also claimed in this same interview that all 3 ate their lunch on the 5th Floor. To confuse things further, to the WC Norman said he ate his lunch in the domino room before ascending. Jarman said he ate his lunch on the 1st Floor before going outside to the WC but to the HSCA he claimed he didn't eat his lunch at all before the motorcade passed.
Taking the 5th
Harold Norman and Junior Jarman meet up on the 1st Floor and decide to go outside to watch the parade sometime after noon. They are standing to the east of the main entrance of the TSBD. They decide to travel to the upper floors as the crowd at ground level is preventing them from getting a good view and start to walk around the east side of the building about 12.21. The time of this event can be determined as Norman testified to the WC that they started walking after they heard that the motorcade had reached Main St. The police channel 2 radio log shows the motorcade reached Main at this time. Jarman’s WC testimony indicated this to have occurred around 12.20-12.25.
They walk along the east wall and turn left, passing the domino room window and in the back door. They approach the elevators intending to go to the 5th Floor as Norman has suggested it would be a good viewing position. As they approach the elevators in the SW region of the 1st Floor the east elevator was not there, it was on 6 brought up by Williams. They move around to the west elevator and notice it too is on the 6th Floor. The gates must be closed as they are able to call it down and ascend to the 5th Floor. When they arrive they close the gates on the west elevator which will allow it to be used by others. It is interesting that the west elevator was on the 6th Floor before they ascended and its gates were closed allowing them to call it. Remember, according to Givens WC testimony, when he reached the 1st Floor some 15-20 minutes earlier it was on an upper floor (but not the 6th Floor). One might speculate that Oswald called it up after Givens left but if he did why would he not leave the gates open, locking it on the 6th Floor making it unavailable for others?
If they started walking at 12.21 they would travel about 180 feet to the elevators and a further 100 feet or so to get to the SE corner of the 5th Floor. Travelling 280 feet at a walking pace of 5 feet per second and allowing a minute for the elevator to descend from the 6th and back to the 5th Floor would mean they arrive in position about 12.23. Both Jarman and Norman recalled they opened the windows when they reached their viewing position in the SE corner.
Meanwhile on the 6th Floor, realizing that it is unlikely that anyone will join him to watch the motorcade, Williams decides to leave the 6th Floor. It is possible that he heard Norman and Jarman below and takes the east elevator down to the 5th Floor to investigate. To do this he needs to walk about 100 feet to the east elevator and a similar distance to join his co-workers. Time for the travel between floors is minimal maybe 10 seconds. This means he could have reached his position in the windows around 12.24 if he left at the time Norman and Jarman arrived. Williams did not notice any movement of the west lift, still at the 5th Floor in his short journey and he sees and hears no one on either the 6th or 5th Floors apart from Norman and Jarman for the entire time he is there.
Enter the Sandman
Jack Dougherty, like Lee Oswald, was a TSBD order filler whose duties occasionally took him to the upper floors of the TSBD to retrieve books out of stock on the 1st Floor. In Dougherty's WC testimony he claimed although he normally took his full lunch break and expressed some desire to see the President decided to return to work early. Some time after eating lunch in the domino room with Danny Arce he used the west elevator to go to the 6th Floor to get some stock. If the events described in the testmonies of the TSBD workers are true it means that Dougherty calls the west elevator down from the 5th Floor and goes to the same Floor as the assassin just before the shots were fired. The earliest time for Dougherty to arrive on the 6th Floor is 12.25 if he calls the elevator immediately Williams is in position at the windows on the 5th Floor. This means that the assassin was alone on the 6th Floor from around 12.15 until 12.30 for just a few minutes.
He testified getting stock from the 6th Floor and then took the lift to the 5th Floor to to likewise and must have left the gates open. While getting stock on the 5th Floor Dougherty heard what he thought was a backfire. He claimed he was about 10 feet west of the west elevator when this occurred. He does not indicate he moved from this position, or that he hears or sees anyone until taking the west elevator down to the 1st Floor no less than 60 seconds later. We know that Truly and Baker paused at the elevators around one minute after the shots and observed them stuck on the 5th Floor. Dougherty does not hear Truly shout up twice to close the gates or the bell ring. He does not hear Norman, Jarman and Williams talking or running across to the southern side windows. He does not hear or see anyone running down the stairs. None of the other three workers see or hear Dougherty however Norman stated in his HSCA interview he heard the elevator moving. He could not tell whether it went up or down.
Baker and Truly up the stairs following the brief encounter with Oswald around 90 seconds after the shots. They continue up three more flights of stairs and Truly heads for the elevators. Most likely he remembered them stuck at this location about a minute or so before. Truly notices the west elevator is missing and not bothering to mention this to Baker heads for the east elevator. At about 12.33 they take the east lift to the 7th Floor on their way to the roof. In his WC testimony Williams stated that from the western side of the building he saw Baker' helmet over the boxes blocking their view of the stairway. The earlier reports stated that he saw a policeman on the stairs (SS) or arrive on an elevator(FBI). The FBI report also stated that Williams claimed he and the others could see anyone coming down the stairs from their position.
It would seem therefore that the earliest the west elevator could reach the 1st Floor was about 90 seconds after the shots.
Gemberling Report
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/getToc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=362&source=controls_D.jsp (http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/getToc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=362&source=controls_D.jsp)
SS491
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10490&relPageId=3 (http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10490&relPageId=3)
-
It's a piece of paper and some tape Bill.
What is it you're having a problem with?
The bag is clearly designed and constructed to carry an object 27" or less.
It's not a big deal.
The catch is that Oswald denied bringing curtain rods to work that day and told Buell that he was going to buy his lunch and meantime the 34.8" broken-down Carcano will fit nicely into the 38" bag that was so obviously constructed specifically for said rifle thank you very much.
-
Make your own damn bag and film the entire build in progress instead of blabbing endlessly about it.
Says the guy who only blabbles endlessly and never provides any proof for his ramblings. :D
--------------------------------------
'blabbles'
LOL: That's not a word, big fella.
A little extra-tipsy tonight, Martini?
--------------------------------------
'never provides any proof'
I don't have to prove anything, Slick: Oswald revealed his own guilt by way of his actions @Tippit, for one (Markham) and all (the rest who ID'd him) to see.
-
--------------------------------------
'blabbles'
LOL: That's not a word, big fella.
A little extra-tipsy tonight, Martini?
--------------------------------------
'never provides any proof'
I don't have to prove anything, Slick: Oswald revealed his own guilt by way of his actions @Tippit, for one (Markham) and all (the rest who ID'd him) to see.
'blabbles'
LOL: That's not a word, big fella.
Indeed. It's a typo, as if you didn't understand that...
'never provides any proof'
I don't have to prove anything, Slick: Oswald revealed his own guilt by way of his actions @Tippit, for one (Markham) and all (the rest who ID'd him) to see.
Ah, the lazy LN exposed!
Too bad that this is only your opinion which you can not explain nor back up with any evidence.
-
Hey buddy, got a link? 8)
It's ok I found this myself. You obviously had more important posts to reply to. Is it what you were referring to?
(https://i.ibb.co/bPNBFCh/E31-AB221-38-AC-41-E1-BB3-F-5-D76-FB7-D6-EA7.png)
Not much detail about how the 2 inches of open end secure the stock from poking through. Nice cartoon though, always good for a laugh.
(https://i.ibb.co/VgWMFmM/D5-E8-C280-D055-48-E7-BCCC-88041252-FB44.jpg)
-
The catch is that Oswald denied bringing curtain rods to work that day and told Buell that he was going to buy his lunch and meantime the 34.8" broken-down Carcano will fit nicely into the 38" bag that was so obviously constructed specifically for said rifle thank you very much.
"...that was so obviously constructed specifically for said rifle.."
My analysis of the construction of the bag strongly indicates it is specifically constructed to carry an object 27" or less.
If it was designed for a longer object the seam of the bag would have been reinforced with tape all the way to the open end of the bag.
Obviously, you have no intention of tackling that analysis which would be beneath you as I am still a novice.
Have a little think about why Oswald would have the rifle disassembled - it doesn't really make the package that much more inconspicuous, it will take time to reassemble and, I'm assuming, the accuracy of the rifle is affected by disassembling and reassembling.
There is no upside to having it disassembled in the bag.
If Oswald took the rifle to work with him that morning he didn't take it in CE 142
If he took CE 142 with him that morning, he didn't take the rifle.
Forget a disassembled rifle in a bag designed for something much shorter.
By the same token, it's not impossible.
-
It's ok I found this myself. You obviously had more important posts to reply to. Is it what you were referring to?
(https://i.ibb.co/bPNBFCh/E31-AB221-38-AC-41-E1-BB3-F-5-D76-FB7-D6-EA7.png)
Not much detail about how the 2 inches of open end secure the stock from poking through. Nice cartoon though, always good for a laugh.
(https://i.ibb.co/VgWMFmM/D5-E8-C280-D055-48-E7-BCCC-88041252-FB44.jpg)
Why didn't Frazier hear all the metal pieces jangling around in the bag?
-
I have felt for some time a better understanding of the movements of the freight elevators in the Texas Schoolbook Depository may provide insight into the events that took place in the hour or so before and immediately after the shots were fired in Dealey Plaza. This article is an attempt to reconstruct their known (and inferred) movements as much as possible from Warren Commission testimonies, Commission Document 5 (the FBI Gemberling report), Commission Document 87 (Secret Service Report) and the HSCA interviews of employees Harold Norman and Junior Jarman.
Texas Schoolbook Depository Essentials
The TSBD had three operational elevators on November 22 1963. An enclosed passenger elevator operated between floors one and four and was located in the SE corner. This lift was most commonly used by office staff from the publishing company offices that were housed on floors two, three and four. In addition a pair of freight elevators were located “back to back” in the NW corner of the building, along the north wall, just east of the enclosed staircase. Unlike the passenger elevator, these operated on each floor up to the 7th. They were primarily used by employees to transport books up to and down from storage on the upper floors.
Both elevators were “open” in that they had a door consisting of wooden slats known as “the gates”. The gates faced in their respective directions and as a safety precaution, a lift could not move between floors unless the gates were closed. It also appears that the gates for each were different as the west lift had “double gates”. The lift gate and the gate for each floor had to be closed in order to use. (Givens WC) The elevators were operated differently; the east lift could only be "driven manually" by a lever from within and could not be “called” to a different floor by press of a button from that floor. The west lift could be called to a different floor by a press button if the gates were closed.
Working on the 6th Floor
In November 1963 a number of TSBD employees were assigned to lay plywood sheeting over the existing upper floors. Work had completed on the 5th Floor and had commenced on the 6th Floor requiring some movement of boxes of books from the SW area of the floor. Those who were present on Friday the 22nd were Bill Shelley (foreman) and a number of order fillers, Danny Arce, Billy Ray Williams, Charles Givens and Billy Lovelady. Harold Norman, another order filler, was present for periods that morning. He was not assigned to the floor laying activity but visited the crew to “shoot the breeze” as work was not busy with book filling duties. It is uncertain how much time he spent with them but it appears he was with them until they broke for lunch.
Occasionally the floor would be visited by order fillers to obtain books that were not available in enough numbers on the 1st floor storage area. It appears that order fillers Jack Dougherty and Lee Oswald visited the 6th Floor that morning for this purpose.
In his HSCA interview Junior Jarman, an order checker who worked on the 1st Floor stated that he twice sent Oswald to the 6th Floor to correct orders. The first was at about 8.15 to correct order (Gemberling). He remembered the last occasion was around 11.30 when Oswald walked to Jarman standing near the front window. It was this meeting where Oswald asked Jarman why all the people were gathering out the front. This time clashes with the WC testimony (and Gemberling) that places it much earlier in the morning. Given the reference to people gathering for the motorcade outside, still about 45 minutes or so away, it would seem logical that this time is more accurate. Jarman also claimed to observe Oswald taking the elevator going up (SS491), presumably to the 6th Floor and that Oswald returned sometime later with the correct book (HSCA). Williams testified to the Warren Commission but was not certain he saw Oswald east of the east elevator between 11.30 and the time they broke for lunch. Jack Dougherty in his WC testimony also claimed to have seen Oswald on the 6th Floor around 11 and he appeared to be getting stock as far as he could tell. In a Secret Service interview conducted in early December Givens claimed to have seen Oswald filling orders on the 6th Floor around 11.45. In the same document Lovelady said he saw Oswald around 10am, the location is not stated but as Lovelady was working on the 6th Floor it appears likely it was there (confirmed Gemberling). Norman and Roy Lewis also claimed to see Oswald working on the 1st Floor at 10 and 10.30am respectively. Givens saw him at 8.30 on the 1st Floor by the bins filling orders (WC). He also saw Oswald reading a newspaper in the domino room about 11.50 (FBI Gemberling Report) Frazier saw Oswald about 8.30 and 2 or 3 more occasions on the1st Floor during the morning, the last being around 11 (Gemberling). Williams also saw him working on the 1st Floor a little after 8 (WC).
Anyone for lunch?
It appears that the normal time for lunchbreak for these book shipping employees was 12-12.45. Most of those who testified said that it was normal to break about 5 minutes before 12 to “wash up“ in the facilities adjacent to the domino room on the 1st Floor. On the day of the assassination it seems reasonable the break commenced a little earlier than normal as the Presidential motorcade was likely to pass in front of the TSBD around 12.15 to 12.20.
Foreman Bill Shelley claimed he departed the 6th Floor around 11.50 after working with the floor laying crew all morning. He observed Oswald shortly after arriving on the 1st Floor. Soon after Shelley departed the 6th Floor, it is likely the remainder of the floor-laying crew decided to depart also. The workers participated in an elevator race taking both to the 1st Floor. The minimum time difference between their departure and that of Shelley therefore must be about one minute as the time required for the elevator to travel six floors was about 30 seconds (Lovelady, Gemberling). It would seem reasonable to claim therefore that the workers arrived at the 1st Floor about 1-3 minutes after Shelley.
The Gate Race
Unfortunately from the various statements and testimonies of the race participants we are unable to determine exactly who was in which lift and who accompanied them. My analysis of the WC testimonies alone shows the following; when asked, Givens claimed to be in the east elevator accompanied by Williams, Lovelady and Arce. This would leave Norman to be the sole inhabitant of the west lift. Arce claimed he was in the east lift with Williams and Lovelady. This would mean Givens and Norman were in the west lift. Lovelady said he was in the west lift with Williams, leaving Givens, Arce and Norman in the east. Williams said he was in the west with 2 or 3 others, Givens in the east. Norman was not questioned about the elevator race. Adding even more confusion to who was where is a reference in the SS491 summary that indicates Dougherty said he was part of the race that day also. As I can find no other support for this assertion I have to conclude this is an error.
The significance of the race is that a number of participants recalled that as the lifts descended Oswald was heard asking that the west elevator be left so that he could call it up from the 1st Floor. Most heard Oswald and from their testimonies it appears that he was near the elevators on the 5th Floor when they were descending. Givens claimed that the east elevator won the race in his WC testimony "the east elevator beat the other one down, because it stopped quicker, but it had to adjust itself".
It seems that Oswald must have ascended to the 5th Floor prior to the race. The floor-laying crew calling the west elevator to the 6th Floor after his arriving there. As the east elevator could not be summoned it must have already been on the 6th Floor prior to the race. This implies that Shelley took the west lift down around 11.50. Oswald then can use it almost immediately to get to the 5th Floor. It is possible that Shelley sees Oswald their paths crossing as the latter is on his way to the west elevator. Obviously at the end of the race both elevators are now on the 1st Floor after the race sometime between 11.50 and 11.55. For Oswald to now access an elevator the gates on the west elevator would have to be closed as he could not call the east elevator.
Who’s on First?
TSBD janitor Eddie Piper testified he had a brief conversation with Oswald around 12 on the 1st Floor in which Oswald stated he was going either out or up for lunch. This implies that Oswald did call the west elevator and descend from the 5th Floor immediately following the race. Givens may provide some corroboration for this possibility as he early statement to the FBI indicate he saw Oswald in the domino room reading a paper around 11.50. Obviously as Givens was a participant in the race this means Oswald had descended from the 5th Floor after calling for the gates to be closed. His time estimate for the race was 11.45 so this places the sighting of Oswald in the domino room 5 minutes after the race, sufficient for Oswald to call the west lift to the 5th Floor and get to the 1st floor lunchroom. If true, the time must have been closer to 12 allowing the conversation with Piper.
Givens' Gift
The next sighting of Oswald is probably the most contentious. Givens testified to the Warren Commision on April 8 1964 in Dallas. He was questioned by assistant councel Belin and none of the commisioners were present. Givens revealed for the first time that he revisited the 6th Floor to retrieve his cigarettes. He took the east elevator, still on the 1st Floor to the 6th and while turning to renter the elevator saw Oswald walking towards him from the east end of the building, clipboard in hand. This convenient late breaking placement of the accused assassin in proximity to the sniper's nest about 30 minutes before the shooting was analysed thoroughly Sylvia Meagher long ago and the full article can be found here.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/Givens63.txt
Stretching credibility, Givens claims during this session that almost the same conversation took place with Oswald that occurred minutes before during the elevator race. Givens claims that he took the east elevator back down. He does not hear or see the west elevator moving and when he gets to the 1st Floor to ensure the west elevator gates are closed, the west elevator is not there. The question is who moved the west elevator to a higher floor before Givens descended? The inference has been that it must be Bonnie Ray Williams; however he took the east elevator to the 6th Floor to eat his lunch. Therefore, if we believe the cigarette recovery story, he must have ascended after Givens exited the lift. No other TSBD employee claimed to use the west lift to travel up from the 1st Floor around this time and it could not have been Oswald according to Givens.
Bonnie Ray and the Chicken Sandwich
In his Warren Commission testimony Williams tells of his travel to the 6th Floor using the east elevator in search of Lovelady and Arce who had made plans sometime in the morning to view the motorcade from the floor they were working on. He claimed to have arrived about 12 and stayed between 5-12 minutes. In the Gemberling Report it claimed he came down at 11.30 and returned at 12, staying for only 3 minutes before taking the stairs to join Jarman and Norman on the 5th Floor, no mention of eating any lunch. In the Secret Service Report (CD87) he is reported to have spent "just a few minutes" there eating lunch and meeting up with Norman and Jarman before 12.15.
How do we interpret Williams’ statements? It seems we cannot rely on specific times but merely rough estimates of elapsed time. Williams thought between 10 and 30 minutes elapsed between leaving and getting back to the 6th Floor. He also thought he ate for between 3 and 12 minutes. It would seem that he must have arrived later than 12 and spent about 5-7 minutes at most. If we take the mid-point of his time estimates he would return to the 6th Floor about 20 minutes after the race, arriving closer to 12.15 than noon and probably leaves about 12.20 or so. His Warren Commission testimony also solved a problem with the location of east elevator shortly after the shooting. A minute after the shots were fired, Roy Truly claimed both elevators were stuck on the 5th floor. If Williams took the stairs it would have left the east elevator on the 6th Floor and so his later recollection to the WC now explains the east elevator in its resting place on the 5th Floor.
Williams claimed to the WC he brought his chicken on the bone sandwich from home and bought a bottle of Dr Pepper from the 1st Floor vending machine after going down in the race. No mention of where he got his bag of Fritos! However, Harold Norman in his HSCA interview stated that Williams bought his lunch that day from the truck that parked outside the TSBD each morning. He also claimed in this same interview that all 3 ate their lunch on the 5th Floor. To confuse things further, to the WC Norman said he ate his lunch in the domino room before ascending. Jarman said he ate his lunch on the 1st Floor before going outside to the WC but to the HSCA he claimed he didn't eat his lunch at all before the motorcade passed.
Taking the 5th
Harold Norman and Junior Jarman meet up on the 1st Floor and decide to go outside to watch the parade sometime after noon. They are standing to the east of the main entrance of the TSBD. They decide to travel to the upper floors as the crowd at ground level is preventing them from getting a good view and start to walk around the east side of the building about 12.21. The time of this event can be determined as Norman testified to the WC that they started walking after they heard that the motorcade had reached Main St. The police channel 2 radio log shows the motorcade reached Main at this time. Jarman’s WC testimony indicated this to have occurred around 12.20-12.25.
They walk along the east wall and turn left, passing the domino room window and in the back door. They approach the elevators intending to go to the 5th Floor as Norman has suggested it would be a good viewing position. As they approach the elevators in the SW region of the 1st Floor the east elevator was not there, it was on 6 brought up by Williams. They move around to the west elevator and notice it too is on the 6th Floor. The gates must be closed as they are able to call it down and ascend to the 5th Floor. When they arrive they close the gates on the west elevator which will allow it to be used by others. It is interesting that the west elevator was on the 6th Floor before they ascended and its gates were closed allowing them to call it. Remember, according to Givens WC testimony, when he reached the 1st Floor some 15-20 minutes earlier it was on an upper floor (but not the 6th Floor). One might speculate that Oswald called it up after Givens left but if he did why would he not leave the gates open, locking it on the 6th Floor making it unavailable for others?
If they started walking at 12.21 they would travel about 180 feet to the elevators and a further 100 feet or so to get to the SE corner of the 5th Floor. Travelling 280 feet at a walking pace of 5 feet per second and allowing a minute for the elevator to descend from the 6th and back to the 5th Floor would mean they arrive in position about 12.23. Both Jarman and Norman recalled they opened the windows when they reached their viewing position in the SE corner.
Meanwhile on the 6th Floor, realizing that it is unlikely that anyone will join him to watch the motorcade, Williams decides to leave the 6th Floor. It is possible that he heard Norman and Jarman below and takes the east elevator down to the 5th Floor to investigate. To do this he needs to walk about 100 feet to the east elevator and a similar distance to join his co-workers. Time for the travel between floors is minimal maybe 10 seconds. This means he could have reached his position in the windows around 12.24 if he left at the time Norman and Jarman arrived. Williams did not notice any movement of the west lift, still at the 5th Floor in his short journey and he sees and hears no one on either the 6th or 5th Floors apart from Norman and Jarman for the entire time he is there.
Enter the Sandman
Jack Dougherty, like Lee Oswald, was a TSBD order filler whose duties occasionally took him to the upper floors of the TSBD to retrieve books out of stock on the 1st Floor. In Dougherty's WC testimony he claimed although he normally took his full lunch break and expressed some desire to see the President decided to return to work early. Some time after eating lunch in the domino room with Danny Arce he used the west elevator to go to the 6th Floor to get some stock. If the events described in the testmonies of the TSBD workers are true it means that Dougherty calls the west elevator down from the 5th Floor and goes to the same Floor as the assassin just before the shots were fired. The earliest time for Dougherty to arrive on the 6th Floor is 12.25 if he calls the elevator immediately Williams is in position at the windows on the 5th Floor. This means that the assassin was alone on the 6th Floor from around 12.15 until 12.30 for just a few minutes.
He testified getting stock from the 6th Floor and then took the lift to the 5th Floor to to likewise and must have left the gates open. While getting stock on the 5th Floor Dougherty heard what he thought was a backfire. He claimed he was about 10 feet west of the west elevator when this occurred. He does not indicate he moved from this position, or that he hears or sees anyone until taking the west elevator down to the 1st Floor no less than 60 seconds later. We know that Truly and Baker paused at the elevators around one minute after the shots and observed them stuck on the 5th Floor. Dougherty does not hear Truly shout up twice to close the gates or the bell ring. He does not hear Norman, Jarman and Williams talking or running across to the southern side windows. He does not hear or see anyone running down the stairs. None of the other three workers see or hear Dougherty however Norman stated in his HSCA interview he heard the elevator moving. He could not tell whether it went up or down.
Baker and Truly up the stairs following the brief encounter with Oswald around 90 seconds after the shots. They continue up three more flights of stairs and Truly heads for the elevators. Most likely he remembered them stuck at this location about a minute or so before. Truly notices the west elevator is missing and not bothering to mention this to Baker heads for the east elevator. At about 12.33 they take the east lift to the 7th Floor on their way to the roof. In his WC testimony Williams stated that from the western side of the building he saw Baker' helmet over the boxes blocking their view of the stairway. The earlier reports stated that he saw a policeman on the stairs (SS) or arrive on an elevator(FBI). The FBI report also stated that Williams claimed he and the others could see anyone coming down the stairs from their position.
It would seem therefore that the earliest the west elevator could reach the 1st Floor was about 90 seconds after the shots.
Gemberling Report
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/getToc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=362&source=controls_D.jsp (http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/getToc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=362&source=controls_D.jsp)
SS491
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10490&relPageId=3 (http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10490&relPageId=3)
Excellent analysis Colin.
When Truly and Baker reach the 5th, the west elevator is gone. The only real option is that Dougherty has taken it.
Either Dougherty was on the fifth when he took the west elevator down to the first floor before Truly and Baker arrived.
Dougherty called the west elevator to the 6th floor then took it down to the 1st floor before Truly and Baker arrived.
Dougherty called the west elevator to the 6th which is where it was when Truly and Baker arrived. After they reached the roof Dougherty took the west elevator down to the first floor.
-
Why didn't Frazier hear all the metal pieces jangling around in the bag?
Did the rifle have to be completely disassembled as shown in that photo to fit the bag? What could be the fewest pieces that the rifle could have been in to fit the bag?
-
I don't believe there are any answers to be found anywhere near Dealey Plaza. I've avoided reading almost all JFK Assassination "research" supported books and I think if any evidence proving a cover up exists in the Zapruder film, it would have resolved some issues by now, but what has it resolved? My point is it is counterproductive compared to the many things easily proven.
Dan, I was old enough on the day after JFK was assassinated, to cut an image of Oswald out of the front page of the local newspaper and take it to a friend's house where it was mounted on a dart board, the face in the image covering the bulls eye of the dart board.
Then, I lived my life, I had a neighorhood newspaper delivery route a few years after 1963 until just after Garrison brought the JFK Assassination back into the news. I usually read the first section of the newspaper I delivered, every day.
After that, there was plenty to distract me from focus on JFK until 2008, when I read this.:
This is a reprint of an article with identical details published before the Nov., 2008 election.
https://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Features/Mr-Obamas-neighborhood
"...According to lore, when Minow called a partner in his firm to recommend he meet with Obama during a visit to Harvard, the partner told him he had already been hired for a summer internship.Obama's experience at the Sidley Austin firm, where he soon got to know Minow, a former Federal Communications Commission chairman (as well as his future wife, Michelle Robinson), was crucial in introducing Obama to leading local Jewish figures like the billionaire Crown. Crown first became acquainted with the young associate after Minow suggested he meet this "special" guy who "is going places." And indeed, Crown describes him as "brilliant" and "a quick study," though he does not pretend to have pictured Obama sitting in the Oval Office during their early encounters.These kinds of introductions proved key for Obama's construction of a network which would eventually support his political aspirations. The Crown family, for instance, have been major financial backers, with Lester's son James serving as Obama's Illinois finance chairman.".."
I did some research and then wrote these two blog posts.
https://postbushera.blogspot.com/2008/
".... https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/ON-ECONOMICS-How-Kennedy-Assassination-2958771.php
ON ECONOMICS: -- How Kennedy Assassination Affected Some Stock Prices
JONATHAN MARSHALL
Monday, November 18, 1996
....But the facts speak tellingly about how accidents of history can affect great fortunes.
A postscript for assassination buffs: No individual stood to lose more from the TFX scandal than Chicago investor Henry Crown, who owned 20 percent of General Dynamics. His personal attorney, Albert Jenner, became a senior staff attorney on the Warren Commission, in charge of investigating the possibility of a conspiracy.In later years, Jenner also represented Chicago labor racketeer Allen Dorfman. Dorfman's stepfather Paul, a leading figure in the Chicago mob, ran the Waste Handlers Union in Chicago in 1939 with Jack Ruby, Lee Harvey Oswald's future killer.
Both Dorfmans hated the Kennedy family. Robert Kennedy had hauled them before a Senate crime panel in the late 1950s, where they took the Fifth Amendment.
Allen Dorfman was murdered, gangland-style, in 1983 in the company of another friend of Ruby, Irwin Weiner. Attorney Jenner obtained Weiner's acquittal in a 1975 federal labor racketeering case after the government's leading witness was shotgunned to death.
Weiner was called to testify in 1978 before the House Select Committee on Assassinations about his relationship with Ruby, including a phone conversation with Ruby shortly before the assassination. He said the call was innocent.
The committee was investigating the theory -- which it never proved -- that organized crime had Ruby silence Oswald to disguise its own role in the Kennedy assassination....."
Intrigued by what I read in the above article, I searched for confirmation: ..."
My second blog post.:
https://postbushera.blogspot.com/2010/01/14-months-later-revisiting-this-blog.html
"....Consider that behind the following “mother of all cover ups”, is the family of Obama’s earliest and wealthiest backer. The crux of the following are the indications that Tom Clark heard in 1946, details of the background of the man whose son he hired as his SCOTUS clerk in 1956, and that Clark is named as vouching for that man’s lawyer to serve as senior investigative counsel to determine if there was a conspiracy to assassinate the president.
Not only did the FBI keep from the Warren Commission, every detail described by Sy Hersh about former FBI SA, IB Hale and his twin sons in the 1962, FBI observed burglary of Judith Exner's Los Angeles apartment, ..."
A month after writing the first blog post, I joined the Education Forum, JFK Debate in 2009, later became a moderator there, and in 2015, the comments editor of jfkfacts.org .
One thing I am sure of is "people in high places" did not want the public to know what actually happened, Marina Porter was "gagged" until 1978.... 14 years... Priscilla steered Marina to this guy.:
'4'''-*t4*tttkiO Marina Oswald - Hood College
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/M%20Disk/McMillan%20Priscilla%20Marina%20&%20Lee/Item%2013.pdf
Marina's New York agent, Perry Knowlton, and Harper and Row editors have forbidden her to discuss the up- coming book without their permission for at least a year after its publication.
Facts are that a cousin of Allen Dulles was the last person to see Priscilla's father alive and reported him "missing" and Priscilla used here father's death to the HSCA as an excuse for taking 14 years to finish and publish her book, Marina & Lee!
https://archive.is/esTuB
....
https://archive.is/o/esTuB/www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=95330&relPageId=42
(https://archive.is/esTuB/341f69f3897bf5d6d30cea5923ff3b0c4430a59b.jpg)
Hi Tom,
With all respect. your post is wasted on someone like me.
You're so far down the line on this case it's not even funny and I'm still stuck in Dealey Plaza.
I'm sure more senior researchers understand your post but I'm struggling.
What I will say is this - as far as I'm concerned the majority of those who were on the 6th floor that morning are clearly lying between their original statements and their WC testimonies. I find this significant.
The main man is Bill Shelley and it is clear, to me at least, that Billy Lovelady is parroting what Shelley is telling him to say. They both neglect to mention their trip down towards the railroad yard in their original statements. They both neglect to mention they re-enter the TSBD by the west door, instead they both seem to say they re-enter the TSBD by the front door. In their WC testimonies they both introduce the 3 minute timestamp for when Baker arrives.
Dougherty, Norman, Williams and Givens are also lying.
Why?
As for the Z-film. It cannot be used to demonstrate a cover-up but it is highly significant. I doubt there is a single CTer (myself included) who was not influenced by the "back and to the left" motion of JFK after the headshot. It was quite a slow and difficult path for me to come to the realisation that this motion was actually caused by a shot from behind (see my "Unseeing the Headshot" thread). Once this is realised the only aspect of the Z-film that seems to demonstrate 'conspiracy' disappears. The Z-film is consistent with at least two shots coming from the general direction of the TSBD.
-
Did the rifle have to be completely disassembled as shown in that photo into multiple parts or just shortened by removing the barrel? What could be the fewest pieces that the rifle could have been in to fit the bag?
Good call.
This sounds like a job for Walt Cakebread.
-
Did the rifle have to be completely disassembled as shown in that photo to fit the bag? What could be the fewest pieces that the rifle could have been in to fit the bag?
I’m sure you will find the answer in the WCR......it was an exhaustive investigation after all wasn’t it.
-
Why didn't Frazier hear all the metal pieces jangling around in the bag?
How was the open end secured on the back seat? Just a 2” fold over securing the stock......really? Maybe it was closest to the door.
-
Excellent analysis Colin.
When Truly and Baker reach the 5th, the west elevator is gone. The only real option is that Dougherty has taken it.
Either Dougherty was on the fifth when he took the west elevator down to the first floor before Truly and Baker arrived.
Dougherty called the west elevator to the 6th floor then took it down to the 1st floor before Truly and Baker arrived.
Dougherty called the west elevator to the 6th which is where it was when Truly and Baker arrived. After they reached the roof Dougherty took the west elevator down to the first floor.
My guess is the latter. He went up to the sixth to investigate. Then came down to the first.
-
I’m sure you will find the answer in the WCR......it was an exhaustive investigation after all wasn’t it.
Yes, if they had only fixated more on chicken sandwiches and measuring Oswald's arm pits we would know the truth. What does "disassembled" mean in this context? It appears to relate only to the rifle's length to fit the bag. Could that be done just by removing the barrel etc?
-
How was the open end secured on the back seat? Just a 2” fold over securing the stock......really? Maybe it was closest to the door.
From the analysis of the bag's construction it seems clear that the open end was secured by folding the bag over at the strong fold nearest the open end and tucking this flap under the package as it lay on the seat. Otherwise it would be carried in such a fashion that the flap is secured by the carrying hand.
-
My guess is the latter. He went up to the sixth to investigate. Then came down to the first.
My personal view is that Dougherty was not on the 5th floor just before the shooting.
Norman and Jarman walk from the north-west corner of the 5th to the south-east corner and do not see Dougherty.
Wiliams walks from the north-west corner to the south-east corner and does not see Dougherty.
All three men run from the east side of the building to the west and do not see Dougherty.
Dougherty must be on the 6th before Norman and Jarman arrive.
Dougherty must be on the 6th while Williams is still up there.
For me, Dougherty is the number one candidate for Rowalnd's man with a rifle on the 6th floor around 12:15
-
Yes, if they had only fixated more on chicken sandwiches and measuring Oswald's arm pits we would know the truth. What does "disassembled" mean in this context? It appears to relate only to the rifle's length to fit the bag. Could that be done just by removing the barrel etc?
Why disassemble the rifle?
-
My personal view is that Dougherty was not on the 5th floor just before the shooting.
Norman and Jarman walk from the north-west corner of the 5th to the south-east corner and do not see Dougherty.
Wiliams walks from the north-west corner to the south-east corner and does not see Dougherty.
All three men run from the east side of the building to the west and do not see Dougherty.
Dougherty must be on the 6th before Norman and Jarman arrive.
Dougherty must be on the 6th while Williams is still up there.
For me, Dougherty is the number one candidate for Rowalnd's man with a rifle on the 6th floor around 12:15
Dougherty takes the west elevator to the sixth after Jarman and Norman take it to the fifth. They closed the gates allowing it to be called by Dougherty. He did not close the gates as he presumably was collecting books on the sixth then the fifth. Truly was unable to call the west elevator because Dougherty left the gates open.
-
Yes, if they had only fixated more on chicken sandwiches and measuring Oswald's arm pits we would know the truth. What does "disassembled" mean in this context? It appears to relate only to the rifle's length to fit the bag. Could that be done just by removing the barrel etc?
Whose sandwich was it Richard? Where was it originally found? Let’s see you answer those to start.
-
Yes, if they had only fixated more on chicken sandwiches and measuring Oswald's arm pits we would know the truth. What does "disassembled" mean in this context? It appears to relate only to the rifle's length to fit the bag. Could that be done just by removing the barrel etc?
Why not try and do some research yourself. Much more satisfying for all of us than mere regurgitation of material of others.
-
Dougherty takes the west elevator to the sixth after Jarman and Norman take it to the fifth. They closed the gates allowing it to be called by Dougherty. He did not close the gates as he presumably was collecting books on the sixth then the fifth. Truly was unable to call the west elevator because Dougherty left the gates open.
A possible scenario:
Jarman and Norman take the west elevator to the 5th. They don't see Dougherty because he's still down in the Domino room having his lunch.
Williams hears Norman and Jarman down on the 5th and goes down to join them. He doesn't see Dougherty who is still on the first floor
Dougherty finishes his lunch and calls the west elevator down and takes it to the 6th while Norman, Jarman and Williams are at the south-east corner.
Dougherty finishes what he's doing on the 6th and goes down to the fifth to carry on working.
Shortly after arriving on the fifth he hears a shot coming from the floor above. He is stood near the north-west corner of the 5th floor, Williams and co. are in the south-west corner.
After Truly has seen the elevators on the 5th and before Williams and co. run across the floor Dougherty gets in the west elevator and takes it down to the first.
Problems with this scenario:
Oswald states he is in the Domino room when Norman and Jarman enter the building. He doesn't see Dougherty there and Dougherty doesn't see him.
While Williams is on the 6th, then Dougherty, the assassin has to construct the SN (and assemble the rifle?)
Rowland sees the man with the rifle on the 6th way before Norman and Jarman go up to the 5th meaning he is there at the same time as Williams (and while Oswald is still in the Domino room).
Williams is insistent no-one was up there for the 20+ minutes he was up there.
-
Indeed. It's a typo, as if you didn't understand that...
Ah, the lazy LN exposed!
Too bad that this is only your opinion which you can not explain nor back up with any evidence.
Not my bad that your reading comprehension is no better than pedestrian at best; as shown by your stubborn insistence on treating this discussion platform as a court-of-law. And then claiming you want a serious discussion. And then immediately hurling insults at anyone and everyone who would dare to disagree with you.
-
Not my bad that your reading comprehension is no better than pedestrian at best; as shown by your stubborn insistence on treating this discussion platform as a court-of-law. And then claiming you want a serious discussion. And then immediately hurling insults at anyone and everyone who would dare to disagree with you.
And then claiming you want a serious discussion. And then immediately hurling insults at anyone and everyone who would dare to disagree with you.
It's impossible to have a serious discussion with you, so I gave up on that a long time ago.
And then immediately hurling insults at anyone and everyone who would dare to disagree with you.
Project much?
-
Whose sandwich was it Richard? Where was it originally found? Let’s see you answer those to start.
Did Colonel Sanders have an alibi? Maybe it was fowl play. They were afraid Oswald was going to sing like a canary.
-
Why not try and do some research yourself. Much more satisfying for all of us than mere regurgitation of material of others.
If you don't know because you have only focused on pedantic nonsense like the remains of a chicken sandwich, just say so. It seems like an interesting question that I don't recall anyone here ever discussing while going on and on endlessly about measuring Oswald's arm pits and how the bag was folded (kind of and sort of).
-
And then claiming you want a serious discussion. And then immediately hurling insults at anyone and everyone who would dare to disagree with you.
It's impossible to have a serious discussion with you, so I gave up on that a long time ago.
And then immediately hurling insults at anyone and everyone who would dare to disagree with you.
Project much?
No projecting necessary on my part. You lot have the market cornered in that department.
-
Did Colonel Sanders have an alibi? Maybe it was fowl play. They were afraid Oswald was going to sing like a canary.
Good stuff.
Btw, are you suggesting the canary would wind up in black-face... in a kind of coal mine thing-cum-'he blowed up real good' deal?
Re Carcano dis/reassembly, a hint: Life can turn on a dime.. and a few screws.
-
No projecting necessary on my part. You lot have the market cornered in that department.
What it like to be unable to have a normal discussion for fear of a total lack of arguments and/or evidence to back it up?
Doesn't it get tiresome to constantly play the forum's clown?
-
If you don't know because you have only focused on pedantic nonsense like the remains of a chicken sandwich, just say so. It seems like an interesting question that I don't recall anyone here ever discussing while going on and on endlessly about measuring Oswald's arm pits and how the bag was folded (kind of and sort of).
Someone other than Oswald having their lunch in the Sniper's Nest just before the assassination is pedantic nonsense?
I'm not sure about that.
-
In his affidavit or WC testimony, it is clear Frazier doesn't leave the front steps.
What is it in these statements that makes you believe he does?
That's what I mean about reading things in that aren't there. Frazier said he remained still, but he didn't say for how long.
-
That's what I mean about reading things in that aren't there. Frazier said he remained still, but he didn't say for how long.
I don't know what you're getting at John. Frazier says he goes back into the TSBD after a few minutes.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I would say by the time, you know some of us went back in, and it wasn't just a few minutes,
But that's not the point. The post you responded to was this:
"In his affidavit or WC testimony, it is clear Frazier doesn't leave the front steps.
What is it in these statements that makes you believe he does?"
There is nothing in his affidavit or WC testimony that suggests he left the front steps at any point. You can have Frazier standing there all day if you want but he doesn't leave the steps.
If there's something to suggest he did leave the steps please point it out.
-
I don't know what you're getting at John. Frazier says he goes back into the TSBD after a few minutes.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I would say by the time, you know some of us went back in, and it wasn't just a few minutes,
But that's not the point. The post you responded to was this:
"In his affidavit or WC testimony, it is clear Frazier doesn't leave the front steps.
What is it in these statements that makes you believe he does?"
There is nothing in his affidavit or WC testimony that suggests he left the front steps at any point. You can have Frazier standing there all day if you want but he doesn't leave the steps.
If there's something to suggest he did leave the steps please point it out.
In a perfect world, with people having instant total recall and the ability to communicate all the details in such a perfect way that one can rely on a single statement as being 100% accurate, the WC testimony might be considered as conclusive.
Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. How often have you attended an interview or meeting, for which you prepared but, after leaving, nevertheless remembering that you forgot to mention a particular detail?
-
In a perfect world, with people having instant total recall and the ability to communicate all the details in such a perfect way that one can rely on a single statement as being 100% accurate, the WC testimony might be considered as conclusive.
Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. How often have you attended an interview or meeting, for which you prepared but, after leaving, nevertheless remembering that you forgot to mention a particular detail?
A particular detail?
Such as leaving the steps, seeing a man with a rifle approach who puts the rifle in the trunk of a car in which is already a shotgun whilst you promise you didn't see anything then walking past the front steps to the corner where you see Oswald walking up the street before you return to the steps.
That particular detail?
In a perfect world the some things really are obvious.
If you or John can find anything in Frazier's affidavit or WC testimony where he suggests leaving the steps please point it out.
-
What it like to be unable to have a normal discussion for fear of a total lack of arguments and/or evidence to back it up?
Doesn't it get tiresome to constantly play the forum's clown?
Isn't it tiresome being just another Oswald-Loving Clone?
What's it like to have to constantly pretend this is a court-of-law.
And that anyone should fear your overarching-reliance on witness guesses
and estimations?
'total lack of arguments'
Why argue about that which is so obvious.
[Oswald killed Tippit/rosetta-stoned Kennedy)
total lack of evidence
Plenty of people @Tippit and environs that day, Sluggo.
-
If you don't know because you have only focused on pedantic nonsense like the remains of a chicken sandwich, just say so. It seems like an interesting question that I don't recall anyone here ever discussing while going on and on endlessly about measuring Oswald's arm pits and how the bag was folded (kind of and sort of).
Predictable that you won’t venture into discussing aspects of the crime scene evidence. What is your area of research into the assassination? So far all I’ve ever seen from your posting is regurgitation of the work of others.
The lunch was originally discovered in the snipers nest. Prove me wrong. Bill can join your effort if need help.
-
.
Problems with this scenario:
Oswald states he is in the Domino room when Norman and Jarman enter the building. He doesn't see Dougherty there and Dougherty doesn't see him.
While Williams is on the 6th, then Dougherty, the assassin has to construct the SN (and assemble the rifle?)
Rowland sees the man with the rifle on the 6th way before Norman and Jarman go up to the 5th meaning he is there at the same time as Williams (and while Oswald is still in the Domino room).
Williams is insistent no-one was up there for the 20+ minutes he was up there.
Danny Arce claimed he ate lunch with Dougherty then went outside with the others. Who knows where Dougherty went after Arce left.
As for the problems......
Maybe Dougherty left the domino room after eating with Arce. We know that Norman and Jarman left the front of the TSBD about 12.20. Arce had seen Jarman out there before he left.
There was minimal construction of the SN required. The stacks of books had been moved there to allow for the floor laying. Similarly a rifle could be assembled at any time that morning as long as the assembler could be assured of privacy for the required time.
Rowland saw the man with the rifle at 12.15. Williams only vacates the sixth floor after Jarman and Norman arrive below him. Has to be around 12.25.
Rowland testified he saw an African American in the SN window also. Just so happens Williams lunch remnants were original found in the SN. A piece of unfinished chicken and a bag found separately.
I wonder who that African American Rowland saw could be. What really made him decide to venture downstairs?
-
Danny Arce claimed he ate lunch with Dougherty then went outside with the others. Who knows where Dougherty went after Arce left.
As for the problems......
Maybe Dougherty left the domino room after eating with Arce. We know that Norman and Jarman left the front of the TSBD about 12.20. Arce had seen Jarman out there before he left.
There was minimal construction of the SN required. The stacks of books had been moved there to allow for the floor laying. Similarly a rifle could be assembled at any time that morning as long as the assembler could be assured of privacy for the required time.
Rowland saw the man with the rifle at 12.15. Williams only vacates the sixth floor after Jarman and Norman arrive below him. Has to be around 12.25.
Rowland testified he saw an African American in the SN window also. Just so happens Williams lunch remnants were original found in the SN. A piece of unfinished chicken and a bag found separately.
I wonder who that African American Rowland saw could be. What really made him decide to venture downstairs?
In this transcript of Dallas Police tapes at 12:22 the motorcade is "approaching Main".
Somewhere between 12:22 and 12:25 the motorcade is on Main.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fWVDGkXP/Screenshot-145.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Assume a minute or two for news to get through to those at the TSBD that the motorcade is on Main.
This scenario has Norman and Jarman deciding to go up to the 5th around 12:23 at the earliest.
Jarman seems to think they get to the elevators between 12:25 and 12:28 which seems to accord with the transcript.
This has Williams eating his lunch in the Sniper's Nest until 12:25 if not later.
Unless another black employee joined him it's hard to get away from Williams being the man Rowland saw in the SN window.
It's hard to imagine the assassin just hanging around hoping Williams would disappear.
I imagine Williams was told to get out of there and keep his mouth shut or he knew the assassin was there all along and it wasn't a problem.
-
In this transcript of Dallas Police tapes at 12:22 the motorcade is "approaching Main".
Somewhere between 12:22 and 12:25 the motorcade is on Main.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fWVDGkXP/Screenshot-145.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Assume a minute or two for news to get through to those at the TSBD that the motorcade is on Main.
This scenario has Norman and Jarman deciding to go up to the 5th around 12:23 at the earliest.
Jarman seems to think they get to the elevators between 12:25 and 12:28 which seems to accord with the transcript.
This has Williams eating his lunch in the Sniper's Nest until 12:25 if not later.
Unless another black employee joined him it's hard to get away from Williams being the man Rowland saw in the SN window.
It's hard to imagine the assassin just hanging around hoping Williams would disappear.
I imagine Williams was told to get out of there and keep his mouth shut or he knew the assassin was there all along and it wasn't a problem.
12:22 pm 1 (Curry/Decker) Escort drop back, go real slow speed now
approaching Main.
I was going from memory Dan, but yeah the motorcade reached Main about 12.24. Interesting how this differs from the "official" story. The assassin likely taking position just minutes before the shooting.
-
Isn't it tiresome being just another Oswald-Loving Clone?
What's it like to have to constantly pretend this is a court-of-law.
And that anyone should fear your overarching-reliance on witness guesses
and estimations?
'total lack of arguments'
Why argue about that which is so obvious.
[Oswald killed Tippit/rosetta-stoned Kennedy)
total lack of evidence
Plenty of people @Tippit and environs that day, Sluggo.
'total lack of arguments'
Why argue about that which is so obvious.
[Oswald killed Tippit/rosetta-stoned Kennedy)
If it is really so obvious that you've got nothing to argue about, what exactly are you doing here?
[Oswald killed Tippit/rosetta-stoned Kennedy)
That's your flawed opinion and thus something to argue about. Unless of course you can only claim it but not prove it. Thumb1:
-
12:22 pm 1 (Curry/Decker) Escort drop back, go real slow speed now
approaching Main.
I was going from memory Dan, but yeah the motorcade reached Main about 12.24. Interesting how this differs from the "official" story. The assassin likely taking position just minutes before the shooting.
Don Thomas has an interesting article on the Mary Ferrell site-
[https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Rewriting_History_-_Bugliosi_Parses_the_Testimony.html]
In it he makes the following point:
"Thus, Williams was not certain about just where he left the remains of his lunch. But it is certain that he left the scraps of his lunch in the sniper’s nest window, exactly where Arnold Rowland saw him, in spite of the fact that the scraps wound up two aisles over. One clue as to what had happened is that when the crime scene detectives found them, the chicken bones were inside the lunch sack, suggesting that someone had tidied up the crime scene. By inference this person most likely would have been the hapless Captain Fritz, who arrived shortly before the crime scene detectives. The witnesses who arrived after Fritz saw the chicken lunch and pop bottle on the third aisle. All those witnesses who arrived ahead of Fritz saw the chicken bones scattered on the boxes in the sniper's nest."
Fritz was still convinced at the time of his WC testimony that the lunch remains were of no significance.
It appears that Bonnie Ray Williams was in the sniper's nest eating his lunch until 12:25 if not later.
I think we differ slightly in our opinion of what he was doing there. I get the impression you look at him in a more innocent light than I do. I find his actions after leaving the SN are more in accord with someone up to no good but it's a subjective opinion (that may say more about me than anything)
-
Don Thomas has an interesting article on the Mary Ferrell site-
[https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Rewriting_History_-_Bugliosi_Parses_the_Testimony.html]
In it he makes the following point:
"Thus, Williams was not certain about just where he left the remains of his lunch. But it is certain that he left the scraps of his lunch in the sniper’s nest window, exactly where Arnold Rowland saw him, in spite of the fact that the scraps wound up two aisles over. One clue as to what had happened is that when the crime scene detectives found them, the chicken bones were inside the lunch sack, suggesting that someone had tidied up the crime scene. By inference this person most likely would have been the hapless Captain Fritz, who arrived shortly before the crime scene detectives. The witnesses who arrived after Fritz saw the chicken lunch and pop bottle on the third aisle. All those witnesses who arrived ahead of Fritz saw the chicken bones scattered on the boxes in the sniper's nest."
Fritz was still convinced at the time of his WC testimony that the lunch remains were of no significance.
It appears that Bonnie Ray Williams was in the sniper's nest eating his lunch until 12:25 if not later.
I think we differ slightly in our opinion of what he was doing there. I get the impression you look at him in a more innocent light than I do. I find his actions after leaving the SN are more in accord with someone up to no good but it's a subjective opinion (that may say more about me than anything)
Dan, some time back I researched the chicken lunch issue. This was independent of Don Thomas. You would have noticed the snide remarks about my research from Richard the regurgitator and Bill the comic relief in this thread. The following officers described remnants on the lunch in the SN prior to the arrival of Fritz, Mooney, McCurley, Boone, Faulkner, Craig, Hill, Brewer, Haywood and Weatherford.
Jim Ewell, a news reporter who had travelled to the TSBD with Jerry Hill, later related in No More Silence that Hill held up the chicken bone and hollered to those below that the fried chicken was what the assassin had been eating.
Richard and Bill won’t engage in discussion of the evidence because they know where it leads.
-
If it is really so obvious that you've got nothing to argue about, what exactly are you doing here?
[Oswald killed Tippit/rosetta-stoned Kennedy)
That's your flawed opinion and thus something to argue about. Unless of course you can only claim it but not prove it. Thumb1:
Take it up with the Tippit-scene (and environs) witnesses, Mr Pretend-Lawyer.
-
In a perfect world, with people having instant total recall and the ability to communicate all the details in such a perfect way that one can rely on a single statement as being 100% accurate, the WC testimony might be considered as conclusive.
Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. How often have you attended an interview or meeting, for which you prepared but, after leaving, nevertheless remembering that you forgot to mention a particular detail?
You mean like, for example, someone estimating the size of a package that they had little cause to notice or describing how it was carried as they walked from a distance behind the person?
-
You mean like, for example, someone estimating the size of a package that they had little cause to notice or describing how it was carried as they walked from a distance behind the person?
Who might that be? It couldn't be Frazier because he clearly saw Oswald put the package in the cup of his hand and under the armpit and that didn't happen when he was walking behind him.
I actually mean a woman who claims to identify Oswald because of a hole in his arrest shirt, that wasn't there when he was arrested and another woman who was paying attention to the television and claimed to have seen Oswald leaving wearing a jacket which the actual evidence shows actually was in Irving.
-
Who might that be? It couldn't be Frazier because he clearly saw Oswald put the package in the cup of his hand and under the armpit and that didn't happen when he was walking behind him.
I actually mean a woman who claims to identify Oswald because of a hole in his arrest shirt, that wasn't there when he was arrested and another woman who was paying attention to the television and claimed to have seen Oswald leaving wearing a jacket which the actual evidence shows actually was in Irving.
In this thread I've learned that a 34.8 inch long object will not fit into a 38 inch long bag, that estimates of an objects length are more reliable than confirming that someone was seen at a certain location by a person who knew them, that the presence of a chicken sandwich holds the key to the JFK assassination, that measuring Oswald's arm pits is somehow relevant to how he carried the package. So much knowledge to be gained here!
-
In this thread I've learned that a 34.8 inch long object will not fit into a 38 inch long bag, that estimates of an objects length are more reliable than confirming that someone was seen at a certain location by a person who knew them, that the presence of a chicken sandwich holds the key to the JFK assassination, that measuring Oswald's arm pits is somehow relevant to how he carried the package. So much knowledge to be gained here!
Good for you. I, on the other hand, still haven't learned anything from you since my first day on the forum.
-
I don't know what you're getting at John. Frazier says he goes back into the TSBD after a few minutes.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I would say by the time, you know some of us went back in, and it wasn't just a few minutes,
But that's not the point. The post you responded to was this:
"In his affidavit or WC testimony, it is clear Frazier doesn't leave the front steps.
What is it in these statements that makes you believe he does?"
There is nothing in his affidavit or WC testimony that suggests he left the front steps at any point. You can have Frazier standing there all day if you want but he doesn't leave the steps.
If there's something to suggest he did leave the steps please point it out.
No, you're asking me to prove a negative. There is nothing is his statements that say that he remained on the steps the entire time. That's just an assumption you're making because he didn't specifically mention leaving the steps. But he did in later interviews. What I'm saying is that his initial statements do not directly contradict his later statements.
-
Oswald's seemingly random observation of Jarman and Norman entering the TSBD places him in the Domino room almost 10 minutes after Rowland witnesses the man with the rifle on the 6th floor and a black male in the SN window (it is independently corroborated that Williams is eating his lunch in the SN at the same time)
This is supported by multiple interlocking witness testimonies and physical evidence.
Has there ever been a more important chicken sandwich? ;)
-
In this thread I've learned that a 34.8 inch long object will not fit into a 38 inch long bag, that estimates of an objects length are more reliable than confirming that someone was seen at a certain location by a person who knew them,
Really, "Richard"? Please provide evidence that Bledsoe knew Oswald (beyond her say-so, that is).
-
No, you're asking me to prove a negative. There is nothing is his statements that say that he remained on the steps the entire time. That's just an assumption you're making because he didn't specifically mention leaving the steps. But he did in later interviews. What I'm saying is that his initial statements do not directly contradict his later statements.
"No, you're asking me to prove a negative."
What negative am I asking you to prove?
"There is nothing is his statements that say that he remained on the steps the entire time."
When asked if he moved from where he was standing he specifically answers that he did not:
Mr. BALL - You didn't see the President's car at the time you heard the sound?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. BALL - But you stood right there, did you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Stood right where I was.
Mr. BALL - And Mr. Shelley was still standing there?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - And also Billy Lovelady?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - The three of you didn't go any place?
Mr. FRAZIER - I believe Billy and them walked down toward that direction but I didn't. I just stood where I was. I hadn't moved at all.
Frazier makes numerous statements that he stayed where he was standing. He even goes so far as to explain that he'd been taught to stand still if anything serious happened.
To read anything else into his testimony is on you.
It must be noted that you have failed to provide anything from his early statements that supports your position.
Frazier not only constnatly refers to staying where he was, when asked if he moved he testifies that he didn't.
-
Dan, some time back I researched the chicken lunch issue. This was independent of Don Thomas. You would have noticed the snide remarks about my research from Richard the regurgitator and Bill the comic relief in this thread. The following officers described remnants on the lunch in the SN prior to the arrival of Fritz, Mooney, McCurley, Boone, Faulkner, Craig, Hill, Brewer, Haywood and Weatherford.
Jim Ewell, a news reporter who had travelled to the TSBD with Jerry Hill, later related in No More Silence that Hill held up the chicken bone and hollered to those below that the fried chicken was what the assassin had been eating.
Richard and Bill won’t engage in discussion of the evidence because they know where it leads.
The Jim Ewell story highlights something in the early investigation that I find difficult to discern from more 'sinister' motives - genuine incompetence.
I think the investigation is rife with it (particularly if we try to compare it with more modern standards).
And, as Tom Scully has pointed out elsewhere, the Oswald-Did-It narrative was in place amazingly quickly.
Something like Fritz's handling and pocketing (according to Tom Alyea) of the shells before they are tested for prints smacks of something beyond incompetence (IMO)
Ignoring the fingerprint results of the soda bottle found in the SN because they weren't Oswald's is also dodgy but might reflect nothing more than the word coming from on high that Oswald alone was in the frame. A nice blend of incompetence and corruption.
-
"No, you're asking me to prove a negative."
What negative am I asking you to prove?
That Frazier did not remain on the steps the entire time.
"There is nothing is his statements that say that he remained on the steps the entire time."
When asked if he moved from where he was standing he specifically answers that he did not:
Mr. BALL - You didn't see the President's car at the time you heard the sound?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. BALL - But you stood right there, did you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Stood right where I was.
Mr. BALL - And Mr. Shelley was still standing there?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - And also Billy Lovelady?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - The three of you didn't go any place?
Mr. FRAZIER - I believe Billy and them walked down toward that direction but I didn't. I just stood where I was. I hadn't moved at all.
What he doesn't say (and what you're reading into it) is that he stood where he was until he re-entered the building. All he is saying here is that he didn't go anywhere when Shelley and Lovelady did.
It must be noted that you have failed to provide anything from his early statements that supports your position.
Frazier's later interviews support the idea that he walked around before re-entering the building. Your position that he remained on the steps until he re-entered the building is merely an assumption.
-
That Frazier did not remain on the steps the entire time.
What he doesn't say (and what you're reading into it) is that he stood where he was until he re-entered the building. All he is saying here is that he didn't go anywhere when Shelley and Lovelady did.
Frazier's later interviews support the idea that he walked around before re-entering the building. Your position that he remained on the steps until he re-entered the building is merely an assumption.
"That Frazier did not remain on the steps the entire time."
Incorrect.
Firstly, I've not asked you to 'prove' anything, negative or otherwise.
But let's imagine I did.
I certainly didn't ask you to prove that Frazier did not remain on the steps. What I actually asked was this:
"If there's something to suggest he did leave the steps please point it out."
It's a subtle difference but I asked you about something Frazier did do, not something he didn't do.
As I say, I wasn't asking you to 'prove' anything. Simply to point out anything he said in his early statements that suggested he left the steps. You were not able to provide anything so, rather than admit this, you've tried to turn it into a semantic argument.
"What he doesn't say (and what you're reading into it) is that he stood where he was until he re-entered the building."
Once again, you are incorrect. This is from Frazier's WC testimony:
"I stood there a few minutes, you know, and some people who worked there; you know normally started to go back into the Building because a lot of us didn't eat our lunch, and so we started back into the Building..."
"I stood there a few minutes" and "started back into the Building". It could hardly be more clear.
Are you engaging in this argument without actually having read his testimony?
"All he is saying here is that he didn't go anywhere when Shelley and Lovelady did."
And yet again you are incorrect.
Frazier is asked if "three of you didn't go any place?"
He answers that others did but he did not. He wasn't asked if he went anywhere when the others did. You've made that up.
He was simply asked if he went anywhere and he replied that he didn't.
"Frazier's later interviews support the idea that he walked around before re-entering the building."
That's what this whole discussion is about.
Frazier is quite specific he wandered around and saw some quite eye-popping things in his later interviews.
My position is that, in stark contrast to his later interviews, Frazier testified that he went nowhere and that he stayed on the steps until he went back inside. He actually says these things.
Your position, that his early statements in no way contradict his later statements, has been thoroughly refuted but I don't expect you to throw up your hands and accept that. Not a chance.
"Your position that he remained on the steps until he re-entered the building is merely an assumption."
My position is a common sense interpretation of what Frazier actually said.
Your position isn't even an assumption. It's far closer to complete fabrication.
-
Dan, some time back I researched the chicken lunch issue. This was independent of Don Thomas. You would have noticed the snide remarks about my research from Richard the regurgitator and Bill the comic relief in this thread. The following officers described remnants on the lunch in the SN prior to the arrival of Fritz, Mooney, McCurley, Boone, Faulkner, Craig, Hill, Brewer, Haywood and Weatherford.
Jim Ewell, a news reporter who had travelled to the TSBD with Jerry Hill, later related in No More Silence that Hill held up the chicken bone and hollered to those below that the fried chicken was what the assassin had been eating.
Richard and Bill won’t engage in discussion of the evidence because they know where it leads.
I
know
where
it
leads:
Down,
down,
down,
and
down
again,
through
your
very
own
personal
rabbit
hole
and,
finally,
to
your
oh
so
precious
pet
theory.
-
Some curious aspects of Bonnie Ray Williams' various statements.
In his affidavit (22nd November) he "radically misremembers" by saying that after breaking for lunch and coming down from the 6th floor, he collects his lunch then returns to the 5th floor with Norman and Jarman. The point of the "misrememberance" is to disguise the fact he had his lunch on the 6th floor.
In his 23rd November FBI statement (the very next day), he concedes he went up to the 6th floor for lunch but only stayed about 3 minutes (he doesn't recall saying this)
In an interview (01/14/64) he states he went down to the 5th around 12:05. Again, he disputes this:
"...they asked me first, they said, "How long did it take you to finish the sandwich?" I said, "Maybe 5 to 10 minutes, maybe 15 minutes."
A pattern is emerging. The more he is questioned the longer he spent on the 6th. This pattern continues during his WC testimony:
Mr. BALL. How long did you stay there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I was there from--5, 10, maybe 12 minutes.
Then later in the same testimony:
Mr. WILLIAMS. It was after I had left the sixth floor, after I had eaten the chicken sandwich. I finished the chicken sandwich maybe 10 or 15 minutes after 12.
And finally:
Mr. BALL. Approximately what time was it?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Approximately 12:20, maybe.
According to Williams he came down to the 5th floor after 0, 3, 5, 10, 12, 15, 20 minutes.
We know, from the testimonies of Jarman and Norman that it was closer to 25 minutes before BRW came down.
To a sceptic it might appear that, after being caught out in his lie, BRW was trying to minimise the amount of time he spent on the 6th floor.
In contrast, he appears to want to maximise his distance away from the SN when he was having his lunch. He states he had his lunch on a "two-wheeler truck" that was "between the third and the fourth window". However, his lunch remains were found at the SN, some 30 feet away. It's also curious to note that he is quite clear that after finishing his lunch he puts the bones in the paper sack and dumps it on the floor. However, this is not where they are first discovered. More "misremembering"?
Mr. BALL. Did you eat the chicken?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, I did.
Oh no you didn't!
What's going on with Bonnie Ray?
-
I
know
where
it
leads:
Down,
down,
down,
and
down
again,
through
your
very
own
personal
rabbit
hole
and,
finally,
to
your
oh
so
precious
pet
theory.
You have nothing to dispute it. Your post says it all.....a waste of space.
-
I
know
where
it
leads:
Down,
down,
down,
and
down
again,
through
your
very
own
personal
rabbit
hole
and,
finally,
to
your
oh
so
precious
pet
theory.
My pet was adopted by JohnM.....seem to remember him to be a LN proponent.
Quote from: John Mytton on 15 September 2018, 12:46:41
C'mon Colin we have debated this before, correct me if I'm wrong but where this is going is that you believe that Williams actually saw the killer and that's why they all lied, and as I remember I agreed with you and said that Williams must have seen Oswald and then you disagreed that it was Oswald, am I right?
I was not convinced Williams saw Oswald......the only difference.
-
You have nothing to dispute it. Your post says it all.....a waste of space.
This is too easy: I give precise directions to where I know all this leads (look down, look way down), and your response arrives in the form of yet another CT 'waste of space' nothingburger.
-
My pet was adopted by JohnM.....seem to remember him to be a LN proponent.
Quote from: John Mytton on 15 September 2018, 12:46:41
C'mon Colin we have debated this before, correct me if I'm wrong but where this is going is that you believe that Williams actually saw the killer and that's why they all lied, and as I remember I agreed with you and said that Williams must have seen Oswald and then you disagreed that it was Oswald, am I right?
I was not convinced Williams saw Oswald......the only difference.
Williams must have seen the assassin.
They are in the same space at the same time.
Williams' actions after the assassination are bizarre, to say the least. He knows there is a assassin on the floor above but he is quite prepared to allow Baker to go up there without warning him (in his affidavit he says "officers").
He clearly lies in his affidavit about his actions.
And continues to be evasive about key issues, even in his WC testimony.
It's interesting to note that at the end of his same-day affidavit he states:
"I recognized him [Oswald] just a few minutes ago when the officers brought him in the office."
Before he gives his first statement he knows Oswald is caught so why lie?
As the weeks and months go by he knows that Oswald acted alone and was now dead, so why all the evasion?
-
Williams must have seen the assassin.
They are in the same space at the same time.
Williams' actions after the assassination are bizarre, to say the least. He knows there is a assassin on the floor above but he is quite prepared to allow Baker to go up there without warning him (in his affidavit he says "officers").
He clearly lies in his affidavit about his actions.
And continues to be evasive about key issues, even in his WC testimony.
It's interesting to note that at the end of his same-day affidavit he states:
"I recognized him [Oswald] just a few minutes ago when the officers brought him in the office."
Before he gives his first statement he knows Oswald is caught so why lie?
As the weeks and months go by he knows that Oswald acted alone and was now dead, so why all the evasion?
Also Oswald was dead inside two days. No threat to Williams by Sunday. No trial either.
Dan, there is much more to this. Both Jarman and Norman lied about Williams movements that day. Only at their appearance before the WC did they change.
-
This is too easy: I give precise directions to where I know all this leads (look down, look way down), and your response arrives in the form of yet another CT 'waste of space' nothingburger.
You claimed Jerry Organ had an amazing graphic showing reconstruction of the bag. I found something. Was that it? I did ask you for a link.
The documents available to the WC show seven officers reporting the chicken lunch in the SN prior to the arrival of Fritz. Yet the Report claimed it was found at least two isles westward? Why?
The LN script is unmovable to the regurgitators. Nothing can shift or it falls apart for you. At least John Mytton was smart enough to get Oswald back into the SN and maintain Oswald as LN.
Comic relief is supposed to be humerous at least. Keep trying.
-
Dan, some time back I researched the chicken lunch issue. This was independent of Don Thomas. You would have noticed the snide remarks about my research from Richard the regurgitator and Bill the comic relief in this thread. The following officers described remnants on the lunch in the SN prior to the arrival of Fritz, Mooney, McCurley, Boone, Faulkner, Craig, Hill, Brewer, Haywood and Weatherford.
Jim Ewell, a news reporter who had travelled to the TSBD with Jerry Hill, later related in No More Silence that Hill held up the chicken bone and hollered to those below that the fried chicken was what the assassin had been eating.
Richard and Bill won’t engage in discussion of the evidence because they know where it leads.
Colin- I give you lots of credit for actually researching and trying to support your conclusions. That places you well beyond the average contrarian or CTer who posts here without ever doing so or suggesting that they don't have to prove anything as though they are Oswald's lawyer in a criminal trial. But it makes the conclusions that you reach no less outlandish. There is no mystery about the chicken sandwich or BRW. He explained his lunch and movements. His language and recollections are perhaps not scientifically precise about every event that took place that day (many of which would have been mundane at the time they occurred) but that is no basis to reach any outlandish conclusions about what was motivating BRW's actions. To suggest this individual saw the assassin (Oswald or otherwise), was allowed to leave the floor by this gunman, decided to say or do nothing about this notable event, and instead move down to the windows directly below where he had reason to believe someone was getting ready to shoot the President, and then forever remain silent just doesn't add up as a plausible narrative without even getting into the complete absence of any evidence of such. It does lead to one of my favorite question and answer sessions in the WC, though:
Mr. BALL. What did you have in your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I had a chicken sandwich.
Mr. BALL. Describe the sandwich. What did it have in it besides chicken?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, it just had chicken in it. Chicken on the bone.
Mr. BALL. Chicken on the bone?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. The chicken was not boned?
Mr. WILLIAMS. It was just chicken on the bone. Just plain old chicken.
Mr. BALL. Did it have bread around it?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, it did.
-
You claimed Jerry Organ had an amazing graphic showing reconstruction of the bag. I found something. Was that it? I did ask you for a link.
The documents available to the WC show seven officers reporting the chicken lunch in the SN prior to the arrival of Fritz. Yet the Report claimed it was found at least two isles westward? Why?
The LN script is unmovable to the regurgitators. Nothing can shift or it falls apart for you. At least John Mytton was smart enough to get Oswald back into the SN and maintain Oswald as LN.
Comic relief is supposed to be numerous at least. Keep trying.
LOL.
So you have to recruit an LN in an attempt to justify your pet theory. Well, that speaks volumes.
And where did I say Jerry Organ had 'an amazing construction of the bag'? I said he was the guy to demonstrate the construction of the bag. And why exactly does 'comic relief' have to be 'numerous'haha.
Back to Jerry Organ: While you brainiacs detract and waste time fussing about the ends of a 38" bag (into which a 34.8" curtain rod/sandwich/or any other 34.8" object fits nicely), Mr Organ has shown exactly how the bag can be carried to minimize said bag's profile.
-
Colin- I give you lots of credit for actually researching and trying to support your conclusions. That places you well beyond the average contrarian or CTer who posts here without ever doing so or suggesting that they don't have to prove anything as though they are Oswald's lawyer in a criminal trial. But it makes the conclusions that you reach no less outlandish. There is no mystery about the chicken sandwich or BRW. He explained his lunch and movements. His language and recollections are perhaps not scientifically precise about every event that took place that day (many of which would have been mundane at the time they occurred) but that is no basis to reach any outlandish conclusions about what was motivating BRW's actions. To suggest this individual saw the assassin (Oswald or otherwise), was allowed to leave the floor by this gunman, decided to say or do nothing about this notable event, and instead move down to the windows directly below where he had reason to believe someone was getting ready to shoot the President, and then forever remain silent just doesn't add up as a plausible narrative without even getting into the complete absence of any evidence of such. It does lead to one of my favorite question and answer sessions in the WC, though:
Mr. BALL. What did you have in your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I had a chicken sandwich.
Mr. BALL. Describe the sandwich. What did it have in it besides chicken?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, it just had chicken in it. Chicken on the bone.
Mr. BALL. Chicken on the bone?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. The chicken was not boned?
Mr. WILLIAMS. It was just chicken on the bone. Just plain old chicken.
Mr. BALL. Did it have bread around it?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, it did.
Something to ponder. We are supposed to believe BRW sat in anticipation of seeing the Presidential motorcade for 15 minutes or so on the sixth floor. Not knowing exactly when it would pass. All that time behind a dirty closed window. When he does go down to the 5th, he opens one.
I don’t know what made him leave the SN so late. I can’t explain exactly why several officers would describe chicken outside the bag when Studebaker claimed it was all inside. Seems to me someone "tidied" the bones into the bag early on and dropped it a couple of windows over (Hill). No conspiracy just incompetence in handling a crime scene. Then CYA.....no CIA.
What I do know is Williams, Jarman, Norman and Givens all provided contradictory statements. Jarman and Norman in particular attempted to mislead by claiming Williams ascended with them. These earlier statements were never challenged or raised by the WC lawyers during testimony.
-
It's ok I found this myself. You obviously had more important posts to reply to. Is it what you were referring to?
(https://i.ibb.co/bPNBFCh/E31-AB221-38-AC-41-E1-BB3-F-5-D76-FB7-D6-EA7.png)
Not much detail about how the 2 inches of open end secure the stock from poking through. Nice cartoon though, always good for a laugh.
(https://i.ibb.co/VgWMFmM/D5-E8-C280-D055-48-E7-BCCC-88041252-FB44.jpg)
Was this the Organ construction you referred to Bill. I never got a reply to my request for a link. You reference it again but provide nothing. At least you're consistent.
PS numerous was supposed to be humorous, apple generated typo. You got in before I edited.
PPS As I said, JohnM was at least open to the evidence presented. He was able to maintain his LN belief. We both agreed Williams likely saw the assassin.
-
He truly didn't remember
We know it wasn't when Roy Truly accompanied Chief Lumpkin upstairs to tell Captain Fritz the wrongly-accused was missing, because by then the entire 6th floor was covered by law-enforcement...leaving even the superintendent himself limited access.
So, that time-interval is out, leaving us wondering just when was Roy Truly privy to the sniper's nest--his words, not mine ---->
Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer. I don't remember when I went over there. It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell cases.
While he was privy to the sniper's nest before the incriminating evidence was found means he had ample opportunity to plant "evidence".
Save for his Freudian Slip--perhaps due to age and/or fatigue--we wouldn't have known Roy Truly was even in the sniper's nest before the incriminating evidence was found. The prevailing questions now is when was Roy Truly in the sniper's nest...and what was he doing there? and why?
-
Was this the Organ construction you referred to Bill. I never got a reply to my request for a link. You reference it again but provide nothing. At least you're consistent.
PS numerous was supposed to be humorous, apple generated typo. You got in before I edited.
PPS As I said, JohnM was at least open to the evidence presented. He was able to maintain his LN belief. We both agreed Williams likely saw the assassin.
Not given his testifying that from his vantage point he could only see the top of the windows of the sn.
And I did not refer to any specific Organ graphic. I should have said 'go-to guy' I suppose... based on the high quality of his work. The Organ graphic here is obviously about the actual carrying position, not a deconstruction of the bag itself. More importantly a 34.8" sized object still fits into a 38" bag where I come from, no matter how much one wants to fantasize about the bag being built for a 27" mystery object.
-
Gentlemen,
It is encouraging to read one of their more interesting pursuits lately within this thread...folks are beginning to gauge/weigh the statements, actions and movements of this thread's namesake, Mr. Williams (Bonnie Ray). A glaring red-flag arises when we take into account his first day affidavit (a link to it is in the initial post (page 1) for those who may not have already read it; and, his sudden departure from it four months later amid his Warren Commission testimony. Like his counterparts--the lying rooftop tandem--the evolving statements of Mr. Williams' bears the stench of a hastily contrived script.
A few questions that arise here are: (A) What were his true whereabouts given his two different versions of his "truth"; (B) Why did he initially lie in his same day affidavit? or (C) Is his WC testimony four months later a lie? Either way he is mired in quicksand of his own doing, or perhaps at the handling of someone he holds an allegiance to for whatever reason...that said, a much closer examination and spotlight on his actual movements & purpose is further research time well spent.
Last thought today, now taking into consideration WFAA journalist Tom Alyea's photo of Roy Truly, Marrion Baker, etc shared below by topshelf researcher Mr. Davidson ---->
Quote from: Chris Davidson on April 08, 2021, 01:19:24 AM
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1thgfDT6J0DCMaiKRdG9aJq9cDElhMJQW/view?usp=sharing
By pinpointing the arrival time of Captain Fritz to the Texas School Book Depository (1:58PM CST) his words per his testimony; and the following remarks by Marrion Baker...
Mr. BELIN - Did you leave Mr. Truly or did you stay with him?
Mr. BAKER - I left Mr. Truly there.
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do?
Mr. BAKER - I immediately went on out. I was with this motorcade and I went right on straight through the front door and got on my motorcycle and tried to find out what happened to the motorcade.
The importance here of comparing both timelines (Captain Fritz's arrival time to the crime scene and Baker's departure prior to that arrival) is to highlight that Tom Alyea couldn't have captured Roy Truly & Marrion Baker together unless his photo was taken upon his initial rush into the building w/police.
After Baker's departure no one, let alone Mr. Alyea could have produced the photo we see in the link placing him and Roy Truly together in that huddle. The more telling revelation here is that once again further evidence emerges that the lying rooftop tandem weren't otherwise busy charging up the backstairs amid a hastily contrived script.
Lest anyone thinks Tom Alyea took that "huddle" photo after the exploits of the lying rooftop tandem just read the following to know precisely where Mr. Alyea was looong after Marrion Baker's departure...
Fritz had joined the search party on the 5th floor and directed us to
> the elevator to go to the 6th floor. After about five minutes, an
> officer shouted to Capt. Fritz to come to the front window. I presume
> it was Mooney, I have never seen him before. This man did not go
> behind the barricade. Capt. Fritz and I arrived seconds later to look
> over the first barricade and see the open window with three book
> cartons stacked at and in the window. We looked over the first
> barricade and saw three shell casings. -- Tom Alyea
Why did the lying rooftop tandem lie about their exploits upon that otherwise locked roof from the inside? Why was Roy Truly in the SN before incriminating evidence was found? ---->
Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer. I don't remember when I went over there. It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell cases.
-
Not given his testifying that from his vantage point he could only see the top of the windows of the sn.
And I did not refer to any specific Organ graphic. I should have said 'go-to guy' I suppose... based on the high quality of his work. The Organ graphic here is obviously about the actual carrying position, not a deconstruction of the bag itself. More importantly a 34.8" sized object still fits into a 38" bag where I come from, no matter how much one wants to fantasize about the bag being built for a 27" mystery object.
"...no matter how much one wants to fantasize about the bag being built for a 27" mystery object."
I assume your referring to the analysis of the construction of the bag I put forward a while back.
If you disagree with the analysis have the decency to say why you disagree with it rather than infer I'm a fantasist.
Just to clarify - I'm not saying the bag did carry an object 27" or less in length. I'm saying the bag was specifically constructed to do that. There's a difference.
-
Gentlemen,
It is encouraging to read one of their more interesting pursuits lately within this thread...folks are beginning to gauge/weigh the statements, actions and movements of this thread's namesake, Mr. Williams (Bonnie Ray). A glaring red-flag arises when we take into account his first day affidavit (a link to it is in the initial post (page 1) for those who may not have already read it; and, his sudden departure from it four months later amid his Warren Commission testimony. Like his counterparts--the lying rooftop tandem--the evolving statements of Mr. Williams' bears the stench of a hastily contrived script.
A few questions that arise here are: (A) What were his true whereabouts given his two different versions of his "truth"; (B) Why did he initially lie in his same day affidavit? or (C) Is his WC testimony four months later a lie? Either way he is mired in quicksand of his own doing, or perhaps at the handling of someone he holds an allegiance to for whatever reason...that said, a much closer examination and spotlight on his actual movements & purpose is further research time well spent.
Last thought today, now taking into consideration WFAA journalist Tom Alyea's photo of Roy Truly, Marrion Baker, etc shared below by topshelf researcher Mr. Davidson ---->
Quote from: Chris Davidson on April 08, 2021, 01:19:24 AM
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1thgfDT6J0DCMaiKRdG9aJq9cDElhMJQW/view?usp=sharing
By pinpointing the arrival time of Captain Fritz to the Texas School Book Depository (1:58PM CST) his words per his testimony; and the following remarks by Marrion Baker...
Mr. BELIN - Did you leave Mr. Truly or did you stay with him?
Mr. BAKER - I left Mr. Truly there.
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do?
Mr. BAKER - I immediately went on out. I was with this motorcade and I went right on straight through the front door and got on my motorcycle and tried to find out what happened to the motorcade.
The importance here of comparing both timelines (Captain Fritz's arrival time to the crime scene and Baker's departure prior to that arrival) is to highlight that Tom Alyea couldn't have captured Roy Truly & Marrion Baker together unless his photo was taken upon his initial rush into the building w/police.
After Baker's departure no one, let alone Mr. Alyea could have produced the photo we see in the link placing him and Roy Truly together in that huddle. The more telling revelation here is that once again further evidence emerges that the lying rooftop tandem weren't otherwise busy charging up the backstairs amid a hastily contrived script.
Lest anyone thinks Tom Alyea took that "huddle" photo after the exploits of the lying rooftop tandem just read the following to know precisely where Mr. Alyea was looong after Marrion Baker's departure...
Fritz had joined the search party on the 5th floor and directed us to
> the elevator to go to the 6th floor. After about five minutes, an
> officer shouted to Capt. Fritz to come to the front window. I presume
> it was Mooney, I have never seen him before. This man did not go
> behind the barricade. Capt. Fritz and I arrived seconds later to look
> over the first barricade and see the open window with three book
> cartons stacked at and in the window. We looked over the first
> barricade and saw three shell casings. -- Tom Alyea
Why did the lying rooftop tandem lie about their exploits upon that otherwise locked roof from the inside? Why was Roy Truly in the SN before incriminating evidence was found? ---->
Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer. I don't remember when I went over there. It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell cases.
"...his sudden departure from it four months later amid his Warren Commission testimony."
There was no sudden departure four months later.
Williams changed his tune the next day after his affidavit on the 22nd.
In a FBI interview on the 23rd he admits he went up to the 6th floor to have lunch.
"By pinpointing the arrival time of Captain Fritz to the Texas School Book Depository (1:58PM CST)"
Fritz arrives at the TSBD at 12:58 PM according to his testimony, not 1:58 PM
"Lest anyone thinks Tom Alyea took that "huddle" photo after the exploits of the lying rooftop tandem just read the following to know precisely where Mr. Alyea was looong after Marrion Baker's departure..."
Alyea was in the TSBD looong before Fritz arrived. He took the footage of Baker and Truly after they had arrived back on the first floor.
Talk about a hastily contrived script.
-
I reckon that Williams did in fact see Oswald in the sniper's nest because why would he go up to the 6th floor to sit with his mates and just plonk himself down in the middle of the floor without checking all the windows?
When Williams went down to the 5th floor he obviously went to the windows directly below the sniper's nest, so what stopped him doing the same on the floor above?
(https://i0.wp.com/altereddimensions.net/main/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/TSBD_Seconds_After_Shooting.jpg)
When confronted with the following wall of boxes, would Williams simply shout out to his friends and after not hearing an answer just move on or would he have a peek to see if his friends were there and perhaps just horsing around?
(https://s15.postimg.cc/h1ayrikgr/snipers_nest.jpg)
And from the following exchange from Williams testimony, after Ford heard Williams explain what happened on the 6th floor Ford immediately attempt to associate Williams with breaking the law, which could indicate that they thought that Williams was lying?
Mr. DULLES. How much of the room could you see as you finished your lunch there? Was your view obstructed by boxes of books, or could you see a good bit of the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time I couldn't see too much of the sixth floor, because the books at the time were stacked so high. I could see only in the path that I was standing--as I remember, I could not possibly see anything to the east side of the building. But just one aisle, the aisle I was standing in I could see just about to the west side of the building. So far as seeing to the east and behind me, I could only see down the aisle behind me and the aisle to the west of me.
Representative FORD.Have you ever had any trouble with the law at all?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir.
Representative FORD.No difficulty as far as the law is concerned?
JohnM
-
"...no matter how much one wants to fantasize about the bag being built for a 27" mystery object."
I assume your referring to the analysis of the construction of the bag I put forward a while back.
If you disagree with the analysis have the decency to say why you disagree with it rather than infer I'm a fantasist.
Just to clarify - I'm not saying the bag did carry an object 27" or less in length. I'm saying the bag was specifically constructed to do that. There's a difference.
There's a difference to guessing at a photograph and laying hands on the actual bag. And it ain't no fantasy to realize that a Carcano busted-down to 34.8" will fit into a 38" bag with 3" to spare
-
There's a difference to guessing at a photograph and laying hands on the actual bag. And it ain't no fantasy to realize that a Carcano busted-down to 34.8" will fit into a 38" bag with 3" to spare
and laying hands on the actual bag
What actual bag? The one you can't put in Owald's hand and only assume it was the one he carried?
-
"...his sudden departure from it four months later amid his Warren Commission testimony."
There was no sudden departure four months later.
Williams changed his tune the next day after his affidavit on the 22nd.
In a FBI interview on the 23rd he admits he went up to the 6th floor to have lunch.
Using 'admits' to describe what BWR said on his affidavit is overkill since affidavits are not Q&A and really just shorthand compared to full testimony.
'Added to' is fair to BWR. 'Admits' is what dishonest CTers use for 'stated' to continue their reason for being here which is to make everything appear sinister (ie to create doubt)
(https://i.postimg.cc/j53NYhxV/BWR-affidavit.png)
BWR had fck all to hide
-
and laying hands on the actual bag
What actual bag? The one you can't put in Owald's hand and only assume it was the one he carried?
Um... the actual bag in the photograph Dan was using for his analysis.
-
Using 'admits' to describe what BWR said on his affidavit is overkill since affidavits are not Q&A and really just shorthand compared to full testimony.
'Added to' is fair to BWR. 'Admits' is what dishonest CTers use for 'stated' to continue their reason for being here which is to make everything appear sinister (ie to create doubt)
(https://i.postimg.cc/j53NYhxV/BWR-affidavit.png)
BWR had fck all to hide
In the affidavit you posted Williams states:
"We rode the elevator to the 1st floor and got our lunches. I went back to the fifth floor with a fellow called Hank and Junior..."
This is an explicit lie.
He did not go back to the fifth floor with Norman and Jarman. And he knows he didn't.
It is a lie.
The next day he admits that he got his lunch and went up to the 6th floor.
The reason he "admits" it is because he lied about what he did in his affidavit.
He has changed his lie. He has admitted the truth.
"Admits" is not overkill. It's the correct word to use.
I get the impression you have a specific view of CTers and, to a very large extent, I believe we share a similar view.
I find the the people who are talking the most sense on this forum are usually LNers.
But there are lots of little things that bug me and Williams lying on his affidavit is one of them. Not to mention other people I believe are lying who all seemed to be have been on the 6th floor that morning.
Their lies are recorded in their statements, interviews and testimonies.
Williams was on the 6th floor for a long time. His lying has something to do with what happened while he was up there (IMO)
-
In the affidavit you posted Williams states:
"We rode the elevator to the 1st floor and got our lunches. I went back to the fifth floor with a fellow called Hank and Junior..."
This is an explicit lie.
He did not go back to the fifth floor with Norman and Jarman. And he knows he didn't.
It is a lie.
The next day he admits that he got his lunch and went up to the 6th floor.
The reason he "admits" it is because he lied about what he did in his affidavit.
He has changed his lie. He has admitted the truth.
"Admits" is not overkill. It's the correct word to use.
I get the impression you have a specific view of CTers and, to a very large extent, I believe we share a similar view.
I find the the people who are talking the most sense on this forum are usually LNers.
But there are lots of little things that bug me and Williams lying on his affidavit is one of them. Not to mention other people I believe are lying who all seemed to be have been on the 6th floor that morning.
Their lies are recorded in their statements, interviews and testimonies.
Williams was on the 6th floor for a long time. His lying has something to do with what happened while he was up there (IMO)
Williams knew the following when his affidavit was taken.
1. The shots were fired from above.
2. Oswald was in custody and a suspect in the assassination. Not necessarily a shooter at that point.
He was taken from the TSBD between 1.30 and 2pm. It is doubtful at that time he was aware his his chicken lunch was found or from which window the shots were fired. By 3pm the lunch was associated with the assassin, this was widely reported in the media in the following days.
By Saturday he would realise the bag and bottle would be fingerprinted so events in his original affidavit were changed to include a brief visit to the sixth floor about noon. Just a few minutes before visiting his workmates on the fifth floor. His "story" would continue to evolve until his appearance before the WC. Just days after Ball and Belin conducted various timelines and re-enactments a few days before in Dallas. Importantly Jarman and Norman would alter their previous statements and now remember, four months after the event, that he was not on the elevator with them on the way to the fifth floor.
-
In the affidavit you posted Williams states:
"We rode the elevator to the 1st floor and got our lunches. I went back to the fifth floor with a fellow called Hank and Junior..."
This is an explicit lie.
He did not go back to the fifth floor with Norman and Jarman. And he knows he didn't.
It is a lie.
The next day he admits that he got his lunch and went up to the 6th floor.
The reason he "admits" it is because he lied about what he did in his affidavit.
He has changed his lie. He has admitted the truth.
"Admits" is not overkill. It's the correct word to use.
I get the impression you have a specific view of CTers and, to a very large extent, I believe we share a similar view.
I find the the people who are talking the most sense on this forum are usually LNers.
But there are lots of little things that bug me and Williams lying on his affidavit is one of them. Not to mention other people I believe are lying who all seemed to be have been on the 6th floor that morning.
Their lies are recorded in their statements, interviews and testimonies.
Williams was on the 6th floor for a long time. His lying has something to do with what happened while he was up there (IMO)
Did BRW volunteer the changes unprovoked? Makes a difference.
-
Williams knew the following when his affidavit was taken.
1. The shots were fired from above.
2. Oswald was in custody and a suspect in the assassination. Not necessarily a shooter at that point.
He was taken from the TSBD between 1.30 and 2pm. It is doubtful at that time he was aware his his chicken lunch was found or from which window the shots were fired. By 3pm the lunch was associated with the assassin, this was widely reported in the media in the following days.
By Saturday he would realise the bag and bottle would be fingerprinted so events in his original affidavit were changed to include a brief visit to the sixth floor about noon. Just a few minutes before visiting his workmates on the fifth floor. His "story" would continue to evolve until his appearance before the WC. Just days after Ball and Belin conducted various timelines and re-enactments a few days before in Dallas. Importantly Jarman and Norman would alter their previous statements and now remember, four months after the event, that he was not on the elevator with them on the way to the fifth floor.
Also Williams' Saturday FBI statement would preclude the later claim by Givens that he took the east elevator after 12 to get cigarettes and saw Oswald.
-
I reckon that Williams did in fact see Oswald in the sniper's nest because why would he go up to the 6th floor to sit with his mates and just plonk himself down in the middle of the floor without checking all the windows?
When Williams went down to the 5th floor he obviously went to the windows directly below the sniper's nest, so what stopped him doing the same on the floor above?
When confronted with the following wall of boxes, would Williams simply shout out to his friends and after not hearing an answer just move on or would he have a peek to see if his friends were there and perhaps just horsing around?
Blue box quote from JohnM
Firstly, to say 'why would' is assuming the fellow would do what you would or wouldn't do.
And silence has a funny way of sounding deafening: If he heard no sound as he entered the sixth floor, he might have had a pretty good idea that his buddies hadn't arrived yet. And he might have decided that the stack of boxes in the se corner blocked off that corner and maybe the windows as well; not worth checking out.
Colin, can you tell us just how long is the 'long time' you claim he was on the 6th floor during lunch. For one thing he wouldn't have to worry about missing the parade until he heard a big surge in crowd noise as would certainly occur when the motorcade finally turned the corner at Main (and even louder as the limo itself appeared). He had a wall of windows to choose from, dirty or not. And I doubt that they were nailed shut.
-
Gentlemen,
It is encouraging to read one of their more interesting pursuits lately within this thread...folks are beginning to gauge/weigh the statements, actions and movements of this thread's namesake, Mr. Williams (Bonnie Ray). A glaring red-flag arises when we take into account his first day affidavit (a link to it is in the initial post (page 1) for those who may not have already read it; and, his sudden departure from it four months later amid his Warren Commission testimony. Like his counterparts--the lying rooftop tandem--the evolving statements of Mr. Williams' bears the stench of a hastily contrived script.
A few questions that arise here are: (A) What were his true whereabouts given his two different versions of his "truth"; (B) Why did he initially lie in his same day affidavit? or (C) Is his WC testimony four months later a lie? Either way he is mired in quicksand of his own doing, or perhaps at the handling of someone he holds an allegiance to for whatever reason...that said, a much closer examination and spotlight on his actual movements & purpose is further research time well spent.
Last thought today, now taking into consideration WFAA journalist Tom Alyea's photo of Roy Truly, Marrion Baker, etc shared below by topshelf researcher Mr. Davidson ---->
Quote from: Chris Davidson on April 08, 2021, 01:19:24 AM
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1thgfDT6J0DCMaiKRdG9aJq9cDElhMJQW/view?usp=sharing
By pinpointing the arrival time of Captain Fritz to the Texas School Book Depository (1:58PM CST) his words per his testimony; and the following remarks by Marrion Baker...
Mr. BELIN - Did you leave Mr. Truly or did you stay with him?
Mr. BAKER - I left Mr. Truly there.
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do?
Mr. BAKER - I immediately went on out. I was with this motorcade and I went right on straight through the front door and got on my motorcycle and tried to find out what happened to the motorcade.
The importance here of comparing both timelines (Captain Fritz's arrival time to the crime scene and Baker's departure prior to that arrival) is to highlight that Tom Alyea couldn't have captured Roy Truly & Marrion Baker together unless his photo was taken upon his initial rush into the building w/police.
After Baker's departure no one, let alone Mr. Alyea could have produced the photo we see in the link placing him and Roy Truly together in that huddle. The more telling revelation here is that once again further evidence emerges that the lying rooftop tandem weren't otherwise busy charging up the backstairs amid a hastily contrived script.
Lest anyone thinks Tom Alyea took that "huddle" photo after the exploits of the lying rooftop tandem just read the following to know precisely where Mr. Alyea was looong after Marrion Baker's departure...
Fritz had joined the search party on the 5th floor and directed us to
> the elevator to go to the 6th floor. After about five minutes, an
> officer shouted to Capt. Fritz to come to the front window. I presume
> it was Mooney, I have never seen him before. This man did not go
> behind the barricade. Capt. Fritz and I arrived seconds later to look
> over the first barricade and see the open window with three book
> cartons stacked at and in the window. We looked over the first
> barricade and saw three shell casings. -- Tom Alyea
Why did the lying rooftop tandem lie about their exploits upon that otherwise locked roof from the inside? Why was Roy Truly in the SN before incriminating evidence was found? ---->
Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer. I don't remember when I went over there. It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell cases.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ak3JymYrSpzVtF0i-jbAxuRICk9lcZ5q/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ak3JymYrSpzVtF0i-jbAxuRICk9lcZ5q/view?usp=sharing)
-
Did BRW volunteer the changes unprovoked? Makes a difference.
As usual, I've tried to understand what's going on and ended up more baffled.
On the 22nd BRW signs his affidavit saying he went upstairs with Norman and Jarman.
On the 23rd, in a FBI interview he states he went up to 6 by himself with his lunch.
On the same day Jarman signs his affidavit. It mentions nothing about going upstairs.
On the 24th Jarman has an FBI interview. Once again, it mentions nothing about going upstairs.
Norman is not asked to give an affidavit at this time (?)
On the 26th Norman has an FBI interview. It mentions nothing about going upstairs.
Neither Norman nor Jarman mention going upstairs and Williams has straightened his story out by the 23rd.
In the weeks that follow the men must surely have talked about things at work, compared notes, as it were.
However, this doesn't appear to be the case.
On the 4th December Norman signs his affidavit:
"About 12:15 PM...after I had eaten my lunch, I went to the fifth floor of the building...Bonnie Ray Williams and James Jarman, who also work with me at this building went with me."
Norman appears to be supporting the lie Bonnie Ray distanced himself from the day after the assassination. In a sworn and signed affidavit. The next day Jarman also has a FBI interview but it seems to be about Oswald's clothes and not much more.
On the 14th January, 64, Jarman has another FBI interview. If Norman's statement can be written off as some kind of mis-statement, Jarman's cannot:
"He [Jarman] said that he and the other two boys [Norman and Williams] ate lunch on the first floor around 12:00 noon on November 22, 1963, and shortly afterwards went to the fifth floor, about 12:25 PM...He said RAY and NORMAN were with him all the time he was on the first floor..."
WTF!
Jarman and Norman don't need to cover for Williams. He has already straightened out his story. By the 26th everything is under control. Then both Norman and Jarman feel it necessary to carry on the lie.
Or do they?
-
Blue box quote from JohnM
Firstly, to say 'why would' is assuming the fellow would do what you would or wouldn't do.
And silence has a funny way of sounding deafening: If he heard no sound as he entered the sixth floor, he might have had a pretty good idea that his buddies hadn't arrived yet. And he might have decided that the stack of boxes in the se corner blocked off that corner and maybe the windows as well; not worth checking out.
Colin, can you tell us just how long is the 'long time' you claim he was on the 6th floor during lunch. For one thing he wouldn't have to worry about missing the parade until he heard a big surge in crowd noise as would certainly occur when the motorcade finally turned the corner at Main (and even louder as the limo itself appeared). He had a wall of windows to choose from, dirty or not. And I doubt that they were nailed shut.
Those were John's thoughts but seem reasonable given they had been stacking books there he would be aware of the arrangement in th SN.
As for the timing of his exit in believe it to be around 12.25 or so. I think this was about the time Brennan took position on the wall. The motorcade would have started on Main. Then a minute or two to find the guys below gets him there just a few minutes before the shooting. It seems he must leave almost as Jarman and Norman arrive on the fifth.
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.
As he took up position about 12.25, could the first sighting be of Williams exiting the SN? Saw the man leave the window "a couple of times?" This was not reported previously.
-
As usual, I've tried to understand what's going on and ended up more baffled.
On the 22nd BRW signs his affidavit saying he went upstairs with Norman and Jarman.
On the 23rd, in a FBI interview he states he went up to 6 by himself with his lunch.
On the same day Jarman signs his affidavit. It mentions nothing about going upstairs.
On the 24th Jarman has an FBI interview. Once again, it mentions nothing about going upstairs.
Norman is not asked to give an affidavit at this time (?)
On the 26th Norman has an FBI interview. It mentions nothing about going upstairs.
Neither Norman nor Jarman mention going upstairs and Williams has straightened his story out by the 23rd.
In the weeks that follow the men must surely have talked about things at work, compared notes, as it were.
However, this doesn't appear to be the case.
On the 4th December Norman signs his affidavit:
"About 12:15 PM...after I had eaten my lunch, I went to the fifth floor of the building...Bonnie Ray Williams and James Jarman, who also work with me at this building went with me."
Norman appears to be supporting the lie Bonnie Ray distanced himself from the day after the assassination. In a sworn and signed affidavit. The next day Jarman also has a FBI interview but it seems to be about Oswald's clothes and not much more.
On the 14th January, 64, Jarman has another FBI interview. If Norman's statement can be written off as some kind of mis-statement, Jarman's cannot:
"He [Jarman] said that he and the other two boys [Norman and Williams] ate lunch on the first floor around 12:00 noon on November 22, 1963, and shortly afterwards went to the fifth floor, about 12:25 PM...He said RAY and NORMAN were with him all the time he was on the first floor..."
WTF!
Jarman and Norman don't need to cover for Williams. He has already straightened out his story. By the 26th everything is under control. Then both Norman and Jarman feel it necessary to carry on the lie.
Or do they?
Check Williams 23rd statement. He moves the elevator race to 11.30. Now mentions briefly going to the sixth for a few minutes then goes down to the fifth. It’s a simple time shift to avoid 12.15, the time Rowland has a gunman on the sixth floor. His story is evolving by Saturday but has no way to contact Jarman and Norman until Monday.
-
As usual, I've tried to understand what's going on and ended up more baffled.
On the 22nd BRW signs his affidavit saying he went upstairs with Norman and Jarman.
On the 23rd, in a FBI interview he states he went up to 6 by himself with his lunch.
On the same day Jarman signs his affidavit. It mentions nothing about going upstairs.
On the 24th Jarman has an FBI interview. Once again, it mentions nothing about going upstairs.
Norman is not asked to give an affidavit at this time (?)
On the 26th Norman has an FBI interview. It mentions nothing about going upstairs.
Neither Norman nor Jarman mention going upstairs and Williams has straightened his story out by the 23rd.
In the weeks that follow the men must surely have talked about things at work, compared notes, as it were.
However, this doesn't appear to be the case.
On the 4th December Norman signs his affidavit:
"About 12:15 PM...after I had eaten my lunch, I went to the fifth floor of the building...Bonnie Ray Williams and James Jarman, who also work with me at this building went with me."
Norman appears to be supporting the lie Bonnie Ray distanced himself from the day after the assassination. In a sworn and signed affidavit. The next day Jarman also has a FBI interview but it seems to be about Oswald's clothes and not much more.
On the 14th January, 64, Jarman has another FBI interview. If Norman's statement can be written off as some kind of mis-statement, Jarman's cannot:
"He [Jarman] said that he and the other two boys [Norman and Williams] ate lunch on the first floor around 12:00 noon on November 22, 1963, and shortly afterwards went to the fifth floor, about 12:25 PM...He said RAY and NORMAN were with him all the time he was on the first floor..."
WTF!
Jarman and Norman don't need to cover for Williams. He has already straightened out his story. By the 26th everything is under control. Then both Norman and Jarman feel it necessary to carry on the lie.
Or do they?
Maybe too much emphasis is being placed on a couple of guys seemingly more interested in horsing around, racing elevators and whatnot, than them being interested in recording the exact timing & sequence of who was where and when.
Re seemingly conflicting affidavits involving the 3 amigos, don't forget that affidavits are not Q&A and each person will spout off about whatever comes to mind in those moments when giving said affidavit.
-
Maybe too much emphasis is being placed on a couple of guys seemingly more interested in horsing around, racing elevators and whatnot, than them being interested in recording the exact timing & sequence of who was where and when.
Re seemingly conflicting affidavits involving the 3 amigos, don't forget that affidavits are not Q&A and each person will spout off about whatever comes to mind in those moments when giving said affidavit.
Well it seems no emphasis was placed on the differences by the various agencies. Ball and Belin eventually sought answers in a memo to Willens. They went to Dallas in mid March to sort out a narrative that "worked". They ignored the early sighting of the lunch in the SN and went with the Studebaker arrangement. They had to have Williams on the floor after 12.15 though and in a position he would have seen someone in the SW window. Somehow they had Oswald crouching in the SN at that time.
-
Maybe too much emphasis is being placed on a couple of guys seemingly more interested in horsing around, racing elevators and whatnot, than them being interested in recording the exact timing & sequence of who was where and when.
Yeah, maybe that's what it is Bill.
Re seemingly conflicting affidavits involving the 3 amigos, don't forget that affidavits are not Q&A and each person will spout off about whatever comes to mind in those moments when giving said affidavit.
I was naively assuming that an innocent person being asked to give a statement regarding such a massive event would be doing their best to remember what they did, as opposed to just spouting off the first thing that came into their heads as if it was all some kind of joke.
-
Check Williams 23rd statement. He moves the elevator race to 11.30. Now mentions briefly going to the sixth for a few minutes then goes down to the fifth. It’s a simple time shift to avoid 12.15, the time Rowland has a gunman on the sixth floor. His story is evolving by Saturday but has no way to contact Jarman and Norman until Monday.
Not sure why BRW's would try to mould his statement around Rowland's.
How is BRW aware of the content of Rowland's witness testimony.
In his affidavit on the 22nd Rowland doesn't mention the specific time of 12:15 PM. He gives a general "about 15 minutes".
Why, in his statement to the FBI, given on the 23rd, does Williams alter his statement to take Rowland's into account?
During Wlilliams' WC testimony Ball brings up an FBI interview:
"Mr. BALL. And then on this 14th of January 1964, when you talked to Carter and Griffin, they reported that you told them you went down to the fifth floor around 12:05 p.m., and that around 12:30 p.m. you were watching the Presidential parade."
On 01/14/64 Carter and Griffin interview Williams (I can't find a copy of this interview anywhere). Williams is clear he went up to the 6th floor for lunch and was there until around 12:05 PM.
Also on 01/14/64 Carter and Griffin interview Jarman. Jarman is equally clear that Williams stayed on the 1st floor with himself and Norman.
On the same day Carter and Griffin have two completely contradictory accounts of the movements of BRW.
It is also during this interview with Carter and Griffin that it is first revealed that Williams saw a police officer on the 6th floor (Jarman and Norman see nothing of the sort)
"Mr. BALL. Now, when you were questioned by the FBI agents, talking to Mr. Odum and Mr. Griffin, they reported in writing here that while you were standing at the west end of the building on the fifth floor, a police officer came up on the elevator and looked all around the fifth floor and left the floor. Did you see anything like that?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time I was up there I saw a motorcycle policeman. He came up. And the only thing I saw of him was his white helmet."
Can anyone point me to a copy of Williams' 01/14/64 interview?
-
Not sure why BRW's would try to mould his statement around Rowland's.
How is BRW aware of the content of Rowland's witness testimony.
In his affidavit on the 22nd Rowland doesn't mention the specific time of 12:15 PM. He gives a general "about 15 minutes".
Why, in his statement to the FBI, given on the 23rd, does Williams alter his statement to take Rowland's into account?
During Wlilliams' WC testimony Ball brings up an FBI interview:
"Mr. BALL. And then on this 14th of January 1964, when you talked to Carter and Griffin, they reported that you told them you went down to the fifth floor around 12:05 p.m., and that around 12:30 p.m. you were watching the Presidential parade."
On 01/14/64 Carter and Griffin interview Williams (I can't find a copy of this interview anywhere). Williams is clear he went up to the 6th floor for lunch and was there until around 12:05 PM.
Also on 01/14/64 Carter and Griffin interview Jarman. Jarman is equally clear that Williams stayed on the 1st floor with himself and Norman.
On the same day Carter and Griffin have two completely contradictory accounts of the movements of BRW.
It is also during this interview with Carter and Griffin that it is first revealed that Williams saw a police officer on the 6th floor (Jarman and Norman see nothing of the sort)
"Mr. BALL. Now, when you were questioned by the FBI agents, talking to Mr. Odum and Mr. Griffin, they reported in writing here that while you were standing at the west end of the building on the fifth floor, a police officer came up on the elevator and looked all around the fifth floor and left the floor. Did you see anything like that?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time I was up there I saw a motorcycle policeman. He came up. And the only thing I saw of him was his white helmet."
Can anyone point me to a copy of Williams' 01/14/64 interview?
I was going from memory with the early call on Rowland. I believe Williams simply tried to do two things on the 23rd. First was to try and move his trip to the sixth floor at least 20 minutes earlier than the event of the shooting. Second was to minimise his time there to just a few minutes.
I couldn’t find the report you requested. I will search my files.
I don’t believe these guys would be horsing around...in any event it was the responsibility of the agencies and investigators to resolve the contradictions. These were not difficult events to recall. For some reason Jarman and Norman stood by Williams being with them until the visit to Dallas by Ball and Belin to sort things out.
Interestingly about two months later Bonnie Ray had reverted to his previous timeline. This was the one I was thinking of relating to Rowland. He even mentions he has gone by 12.15 specifically. Did he forget the WC story?
(https://i.ibb.co/VjWMsLF/FCFC9-BD1-2277-41-F9-8-C3-C-C22-B5612-E7-F5.jpg)
-
Can anyone point me to a copy of Williams' 01/14/64 interview?
(https://i.ibb.co/Ldh9bkY/C27-E2-EC1-B15-A-4-C92-948-D-F21-BEADAA6-F6.jpg)
-
In his initial statement Bonnie Ray tells us nothing about visiting the 6th floor to eat lunch that day. He stated that the shots came from above. The floor laying crew were all brought in for questioning that day because they worked on that floor. We can conclude he is aware the 6th floor is a "spot of keen interest" to the police yet does not mention that he had been there. His statement implies that after leaving the 6th floor to break for lunch he went to the 5th floor with Jarman and Norman and that they were there only a short time before the shooting. He heard 2 shots from above and then went to the west side of the fifth floor. He saw no one until officers came up. Then took an elevator to 4th floor, stayed a while and then went out. Highlighting the emphasis on the prime suspect following his arrest, Williams states he had not seen Oswald since 8am.
About the time Williams was released the chicken lunch and Dr Pepper bottle have arrived via Officer Marvin Johnson at the Police Department as part of the evidence recovered from the 6th floor crime scene (see below). It was around this time that the WFAA-TV news report linked the lunch and pop bottle to the assassin.
The importance of the lunch sack and bottle evaporated by late evening as they are not listed on the items of evidence handed over to SA Drain for further testing by the FBI. The only reason I can think of at this time is that they did not contain Oswald's fingerprints. The investigation even at this early stage appears to be locked on Oswald as the lone shooter. Interestingly the long paper wrapper, eventually known as CE142, also fell into this category but was sent to the FBI that night via SA Vince Drain.
Carl Day eventually admitted in his WC testimony that he did not find out about the ownership of the lunch until more than 2 days later
Mr. McCLOY. On the crime scene, that is, on the sixth floor, did you notice any chicken bones or chicken remnants of a chicken sandwich or lunch or the whereabouts, if you did see them?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; there was a sack of some chicken bones and a bottle brought into the identification bureau. I think I still have that sack and bottle down there. The chicken bones, I finally threw them away that laid around there. In my talking to the men who were working on that floor, November 25, they stated, one of them stated, he had eaten lunch over there. Mr. McCLOY. Someone other than Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; so I discarded it, or disconnected it with being with Oswald. Incidentally, Oswald's fingerprints were not on the bottle. I checked that.
Note that the other TSBD employees were not fingerprinted until June 1964 two months after Day testified.
November 23 FBI Interview
Saturday, the day after the assassination Williams was visited by FBI Agents Odum and Griffin and the following statement prepared following his interview with them. We must bear in mind that just 24 hours after the assassination the only people who would be aware of a gunman on the 6th floor of the TSBD as early as 12.15pm the day before would be the assassin (s), Arnold Rowland and his wife, Roger Craig and the few police and officials who were involved with Rowland's statement (or were subsequently informed) and Rosemary Allen (the notary who signed his statement). Another person who might have known was the man who Rowland claimed to have observed in the SN prior to 12.15 until about 12.25pm
Some changes from the day before are apparent. Williams now contradicted his statement given just the day before to the DPD. Note the time shift to 11.30am for the descent in the elevator, effectively distancing himself by 20 minutes from the events that took place less than an hour later. In time it would be clear from the evidence of the other members of the floor laying crew and foreman Bill Shelley that the men did indeed break for lunch about 11.50am. In addition he now remembered he saw Oswald on the 5th floor, as the elevator went down. Just the day before he doesn’t remember this sighting at all. Givens was operating the other freight elevator (east) and so BRW was on west elevator. Could Williams, in the west elevator really see Oswald standing east of the east elevator?
Significantly, he now told of the lunch trip to the 6th floor. There are no details provided as to the contents of the lunch. He claimed he went back upstairs about 12 (if we apply a 20 minute time shift correction this actually occurred at 12.10pm). His stay on the 6th floor only lasts three minutes, obviously not enough time to finish lunch! If we add the time shift it becomes arrives on the 6th floor at 12.10, walks to a position to watch the motorcade and is gone by 12.13pm. Is he trying to avoid being anywhere on the 6th Floor from 12.15 onwards?
Williams claimed to have seen no one and goes down the stairs to the 5th floor and now meets up with Jarman and Norman. They took up a position at the southern windows at " approximately the middle of the building" to watch the motorcade. He heard 2 shots coming from above. He did not hang his head out the window but "glanced up and saw no one". (Was he expecting to see someone shooting in the sky? Was it reflex or did he not want to admit hanging out the window).
He ran to west side windows with the others and, while there, sees an officer (Baker?) come up on the elevator. Did he hear the elevator operating and assume it was Baker (and Truly) who used it? Was someone using the elevator at that time (Dougherty?). Remember Sandra Styles claimed Adams saw the elevator cables moving when the girls descended the stairs. He stated they were standing in a position to see the stairs but saw no one other than the policeman. (Not Oswald or even Dougherty). He also stated that someone might have been coming down on the elevator and he might not notice. If at this time both elevators were supposedly locked on the 5th floor….how was that possible?
He went to 4th floor (by elevator or stairs?) and met with women there. Williams said that no one was in the SN that morning prior to break for lunch. On the sixth floor, he went to the windows on the south side "middle of the building" and saw no one "standing". He saw Frazier on 6th floor talking to Shelley between 10 and 11am. Was this Frazier asking Shelley if the men would be allowed to stop work to get to see the President if the parade was before 12?
December 2 Secret Service
In early December Williams was interviewed by the Secret Service and the following appeared as part the Secret Service Report 491 (WCD87).
In this interview less than 2 weeks after the assassination Williams recalls the elevator race as they broke for lunch and Oswald calling for the lift. On the 6th floor he sat at windows "in the centre of the building". A Dr Pepper bottle and chicken bones (no mention of a lunch bag) were left together on the floor. He didn't see or hear anyone and only ate his lunch for a few minutes. The lunch was "finished", not partially eaten, and he left immediately for the 5th floor before 12.15pm. (Note 12.15 is mentioned specifically!). Heard only 2 shots coming from 6th floor but did not hear shells and bolt action. They went to west side windows and discussed what they should do.
A policeman was seen near the stairway but Williams did not know if he was going up or down (note no mention of arrival by the elevator now). After 5 minutes they took the stairs down.
This interview essentially provided a similar story he told the FBI the day after the assassination except for some minor variance and added details. He described the lunch consisting of a chicken bone sandwich and a Dr Pepper. Significantly he is sure he left before 12.15pm. No doubt there has been much talk between the TSBD workers of the events of November 22 and Oswald in the days since it occurred. Apparently he abandoned the idea of moving the lunchbreak earlier by 20 minutes. By this time the others members of the floor laying crew have been interviewed and they generally agreed the elevator race occurred at about 11.50am. Remember that Carl Day tells us he spoke with the worker who ate the chicken lunch on November 25th, after Williams initial FBI interview . Day may have (inadvertently) provided a description of the final position of the chicken and bottle as found around 2pm on November 22 during that discussion.
Jan 8 Interviewed by the FBI
Williams interviewed again by the FBI about five weeks after the SS interviewed him.
Williams again moves the time they broke for lunch earlier by claiming the elevator race occurred at 11.40am and stated he ate lunch on the 6th floor at noon. Note the consistency in a 20 minute interval between departing and arriving back on the 6th floor. Once again he recalled staying only a few minutes, leaving at 12.05pm, before joining Jarman and Norman on the 5th floor. In this interview he told for the first time that the motivation for going down was that he heard them below. According to this revised timeline he spends about 25 minutes with them before the motorcade arrives. Compare this with his first day statement, taken about 3 hours after the shots, where he stated that "just after we got on the 5th floor the motorcade arrived". In this report he further distanced himself from 12.15pm by effectively moving the departure time from the 6th floor from 12.13 to 12.05!
March 18th Internal Memorandum: Belin and Ball to Willens
In this extensive memorandum in the lead up to key witnesses testifying before the Commission, Ball and Belin ask the following questions on page 4.
Ball and Belin asked for clarification regarding the contents of the lunch, where it was eaten and whether it was in a sack. They wanted to know if Williams saw anyone while eating the lunch and what time he arrived on the 5th floor. They also wanted to know if there were fingerprints on the sack.
Understandably, these are some of the same questions anyone would have after reading his statements when compared to those of the DPD officers and his workmates.
Note they were also keen to determine the speed of the elevators. The last question is actually referring to Williams, not Lovelady. There was considerable confusion regarding which elevators the men descended in during the "elevator race".
March 19 FBI Interview
Williams was interviewed by the FBI for a third time on March 19, the day after the Ball/Belin memo, four months after assassination.
In this interview there is no mention of the lunch or eating on the 6th floor. Interestingly he places the three men at the "windows at the centre of the building" on the 5th floor (possibly an FBI error). He had previously used the same phrase for the lunch position on the 6th floor. Their position on the 5th floor was under SN in the SE corner not at centre of the building! Now he reported hearing 3 shots not 2 for the first time. Once again he recalled looking up but saw no one. Now after running to the west side he saw the Officer come up on the elevator. He did not see anyone come down the stairs. He now remembered Oswald on the 6th floor at 11.40am on the east side. Was this during the elevator race or a new separate sighting? Remember about 10 minutes later Oswald is on the 5th floor near the east elevator as the men broke for lunch. I tend to believe this was a reference to the elevator race again attempting to place it earlier than it actually occurred. In this statement we discover that he was at City Hall from about 1 until 3.30pm on the day of the assassination. Clearly this interview did not cover the questions asked by Ball and Belin in the memo the day before. Therefore it would seem that this interview was not triggered by that request. I cannot find any interview with Williams that clarified the memo questions prior to his appearance before the WC. In his testimony it is apparent that Ball spent much time with Williams (and Jarman and Norman) four days before they testified in an attempt to make sense of events leading up to the shots.
Summary of Williams' Interviews and Statements before appearing before the WC.
There seems no doubt about the occurrence of some key events arising from the five statements taken from Williams over a five month period.
There was an elevator race as the flooring crew broke for lunch.
Oswald was noticed on the 5th floor as the elevators descended.
Although initially stating to the DPD that all three men went to the 5th floor together, Williams eventually told the FBI of his return to the 6th floor.
In early statements he went up for lunch about 20 minutes after the elevator race.
He ate his lunch on the 6th floor, eventually revealing it to consist of a chicken on the bone sandwich and a Dr Pepper in the SS interview on December 2nd.
While eating his lunch he neither saw or heard no one on the 6th floor.
He finished his lunch and placed the bones in the bag at a position close to the southern windows near the "centre of the building" near the Dr Pepper bottle. (Consistent with the configuration and the rough location known to Day and Studebaker).
He remained on the 6th floor only a few minutes before joining Jarman and Norman.
His means of descent to the 5th floor was unclear, stairs or elevator?
The arrival time on the 6th floor was sometime around noon and left to join his workmates sometime between 12.05 and 12.13pm. He was definitely gone before 12.15, the time the gunman was seen on the 6th floor by Arnold Rowland.
Williams joined his workmates at least 15 minutes before the shooting because he heard them below while eating his lunch. (Obviously, for this to be true, Norman and Jarman had to be in position in the windows on the 5th floor before 12.15).
He heard 2 shots that came from above and glanced up(4 months later it changed to 3).
After the shots the men ran to the south west corner windows. They were understandably scared and discussed what to do.
He saw a white helmeted police officer arrive on the 5th floor although he was confused as to whether the officer arrived via the stairs or elevator and the direction of his arrival.
The men descended the stairs, after about 5 minutes, stopping briefly and noticing women on the 4th floor, eventually arriving on the first floor.
-
Maybe too much emphasis is being placed on a couple of guys seemingly more interested in horsing around, racing elevators and whatnot, than them being interested in recording the exact timing & sequence of who was where and when.
Re seemingly conflicting affidavits involving the 3 amigos, don't forget that affidavits are not Q&A and each person will spout off about whatever comes to mind in those moments when giving said affidavit.
That pretty much nails it. BRW had little cause to notice exact times of what seemed to be mundane events at the time. In some statements he omits information that he includes in others. Big deal.
-
Junior Jarman
November 23 DPD Statement
Jarman provided the following statement about the events on the day after the assassination.
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
before ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared James Earl Jarman, Jr., c/m 33, 3942 Atlanta Street, Dallas, Texas HA8-1837 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
I work for the Texas School Book Depository, 411 Elm Street, as a Checker on the first floor for Mr. Roy S. Truly. On Friday, November 22, 1963, I got to work at 8:05 a.m. The first time I saw Lee Oswald on Friday, November 22, 1963 was about 8:15 a.m. He was filling orders on the first floor. A little after 9:00 a.m. Lee Oswald asked me what all the people were doing standing on the street. I told him that the President was supposed to come this way sometime this morning. He asked me, "Which way do you think he is coming?". I told him that the President would probably come down Main Street and turn on Houston and then go down Elm Street. He said, "Yes, I see". I only talked with him for about three or four minutes. The last time I saw Lee Oswald on Friday, November 22, 1963 was between 11:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon when he was taking the elevator upstairs to go get some boxes. At about 11:45 a.m. all of the employees who were working on the 6th floor came downstairs and we were all out on the street at about 12:00 o'clock noon. These employees were: Bill Shelley, Charles Givens, Billy Lovelady, Bonnie Ray (last name not known) and a Spanish boy (his name I cannot remember). To my knowledge Lee Oswald was not with us while we were watching the parade.
/s/ James Earl Jarman, Jr.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before ME THIS 23rd DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Patsy Collins
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
As Jarman was an order checker and not part of the floor laying crew his normal work location was the first floor. He provides a time for the workers departure of approximately 11.45 and an observation that Oswald ascended sometime after 11.30am. This is consistent with Oswald being observed near the east elevator the 5th floor during the "elevator race" descent. There are no details about anything after the shots, the sole focus of this statement is on the prime suspect Oswald and Oswald alone. Jarman offered no details about how many shots or his proximity to them.
FBI Interview Nov 24
Jarman was interviewed the following day by the FBI.
This statement is consistent with his DPD statement the previous day. The additional information largely centres on his presence on the fifth floor, who he was with at the time of the shots and his recollection of what happened immediately after. In particular his recall of the positioning of himself and co-workers at the window is precise and accurate compared to the imprecise nature of Williams statements.
Secret Service Interview December 2nd
Jarman was interviewed by the SS in the first week of December. His statement formed part of WC document 87.
In this report it states he was working with the floor laying crew. Again he saw Oswald take the elevator up sometime after 11.30am. The floor laying crew came down just before noon. After eating his lunch he went with Williams and Jarman to fifth floor. He heard three shots but did not hear shells and bolt. They ran to the to the windows on the west side of the fifth floor after the shots. They discussed what they should do as they knew shots came from above and decided it was too dangerous to go to 6th floor. They waited 5 minutes before taking the stairs the down. He did not see the policeman (Baker) but remembered a woman on the fourth floor looking out the window.
January 8 FBI
In this statement he claimed he ate his lunch with Williams and Norman on the first floor after noon. This is reinforced by saying that the other two were in his company the whole time they were on the first floor. He recalls they took the west elevator up to the fifth floor about 12.25. Clearly serious issues are appearing regarding difference in the statements between Williams and Jarman in their movements before the shooting. Williams in his November 23 interview told (perhaps reluctantly) of his trip to eat lunch to the 6th floor before meeting up with Norman and Jarman. Now, two weeks after the shooting, Jarman's version would have the three men together from the break for lunch until the time of the shots.
-
Harold Norman
Norman was not interviewed by the DPD immediately after the assassination. He was interviewed by the FBI on the 26th of November, the Tuesday following the assassination.
As we saw with Jarman's initial statements there was no mention of Williams joining he and Jarman just before the shooting, just that the three were watching the motorcade "about noon" from the fifth floor. Interestingly, he stated that after the first shot he stuck his head out the window and looked upward and pulled back inside after particles fell on him. There were two subsequent shots. They ran to the west end but he returned to the original position at some later time. He did not recall seeing Oswald at any time that day.
The Secret Service interviewed Norman in the first week of December. The documents below appear to relate to that interview.
AFFIDAVIT
State of Texas
County of Dallas
City of Dallas
I Harold Norman, wish to make the following statement to Special Agents William Carter and Arthur W. Blake, United States Secret Service.
I am 25 years of age, and I live at 4858 Beulah Street, Dallas, Texas. I do not have a telephone at my residence. I have been employed as an order filler at the Texas School Book Depository, 411 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas for about three years.
I was acquainted with Lee Oswald during the time that he was employed at this company, but I never did get to know him well. I have spoken to him briefly to say "Hello" or in connection with my work, but I never carried on any conversations with him. He did not mix with the employees and did not appear to want to make friends with me or any of the others. I never saw him at any time other than in the building at work.
On the 22nd of November, 1963, to the best of my memory, the last time I saw him was about 10:00 A.M. when we were both working on the first floor of the building. I did not speak to him at that time.
About 12:15 P.M. on this same date, after I had eaten my lunch, I went to the fifth floor of the building to watch the parade of the President pass the building. Bonnie Ray Williams and James Jarman, who also worked at this building went with me. We took a position in the south-east corner of the building on the fifth floor and I was looking out the window which is closest to the east end of the building overlooking Elm Street.
Just after the President passed by, I heard a shot and several seconds later I heard two more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I also could hear the bolt action of the rifle. I saw some dust fall from the ceiling of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the shots was directly above me. I saw all of the people down on the street rut towards the west side of the building, so I went to that side with Williams and Jarman, and looked out the west side window. We discussed the shots, and where they had come from and decided we better go down stairs. We walked down the stairs to the first floor and did not see anyone else on the stairway as we went down. From the time of the shots until we started down-stairs was about five minutes.
I have read over the above statement and it is the truth to the best of my knowledge.
/s/Harold Norman
Harold Norman
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4th day of December, 1963.
/s/William N. Carter
William N. Carter, Special Agent U.S. Secret Service
Secret Service Report extracted from CD87
Norman now recalled sighting Oswald about 10am on the first floor. After eating his lunch he went with Jarman and Williams to the fifth floor about 12.15pm. Note that Jarman eventually provided a time for the ascent to the fifth floor in his January FBI statement as 12.25pm. They went to the SE corner to watch the motorcade. After the first shot he stuck his head out the window as it appeared to be from directly above his position. He heard three shots and they ran to the west side of the building. They discussed what to do and eventually left the building about 5 minutes later via the stairs.
By the middle of January the problem of Rowland's time of 12.15pm for the sighting of a gunman on the sixth floor must have been an issue for the investigators. Williams had told of eating lunch on the sixth floor the day after the assassination, but we have statements provided from both Norman and Jarman that Williams accompanied them on the trip to the fifth floor.
FBI interview January 8th.
Now Williams joined them after this FBI interview on January 1.
March 18 FBI Interview
Just before he testified before the Warren Commission Norman provided the following brief statement.
It adds little to his story. He simply states he was with Jarman and Williams on the 5th floor at 12.10 or 12.20 and it appear that he felt the shots occurred at this time. One might argue it might be a curious attempt to allow Williams to be clear of the 6th floor by 12.15pm. At this time there was no indication that Williams joined them at the windows just before the motorcade.
-
That pretty much nails it. BRW had little cause to notice exact times of what seemed to be mundane events at the time. In some statements he omits information that he includes in others. Big deal.
At the time he was being questioned in the DPD he knew the following. The shots that had been fired were from above. Those who were on the sixth floor were brought for questioning. Fair chance he knew that was significant. His lunch remnants were up there. By 3pm his lunch was being described as the assassin's. He also saw Oswald in custody. No threat to him but maybe there were conspirators on the loose.
Wonder why he decided to leave his lunch trip out of the statement given its obvious significance?
(https://i.ibb.co/h7FP41r/2-C98-C178-87-D6-4-E61-9-D27-7-AD350-E240-AA.jpg)
-
In his initial statement Bonnie Ray tells us nothing about visiting the 6th floor to eat lunch that day. He stated that the shots came from above. The floor laying crew were all brought in for questioning that day because they worked on that floor. We can conclude he is aware the 6th floor is a "spot of keen interest" to the police yet does not mention that he had been there. His statement implies that after leaving the 6th floor to break for lunch he went to the 5th floor with Jarman and Norman and that they were there only a short time before the shooting. He heard 2 shots from above and then went to the west side of the fifth floor. He saw no one until officers came up. Then took an elevator to 4th floor, stayed a while and then went out. Highlighting the emphasis on the prime suspect following his arrest, Williams states he had not seen Oswald since 8am.
About the time Williams was released the chicken lunch and Dr Pepper bottle have arrived via Officer Marvin Johnson at the Police Department as part of the evidence recovered from the 6th floor crime scene (see below). It was around this time that the WFAA-TV news report linked the lunch and pop bottle to the assassin.
The importance of the lunch sack and bottle evaporated by late evening as they are not listed on the items of evidence handed over to SA Drain for further testing by the FBI. The only reason I can think of at this time is that they did not contain Oswald's fingerprints. The investigation even at this early stage appears to be locked on Oswald as the lone shooter. Interestingly the long paper wrapper, eventually known as CE142, also fell into this category but was sent to the FBI that night via SA Vince Drain.
Carl Day eventually admitted in his WC testimony that he did not find out about the ownership of the lunch until more than 2 days later
Mr. McCLOY. On the crime scene, that is, on the sixth floor, did you notice any chicken bones or chicken remnants of a chicken sandwich or lunch or the whereabouts, if you did see them?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; there was a sack of some chicken bones and a bottle brought into the identification bureau. I think I still have that sack and bottle down there. The chicken bones, I finally threw them away that laid around there. In my talking to the men who were working on that floor, November 25, they stated, one of them stated, he had eaten lunch over there. Mr. McCLOY. Someone other than Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; so I discarded it, or disconnected it with being with Oswald. Incidentally, Oswald's fingerprints were not on the bottle. I checked that.
Note that the other TSBD employees were not fingerprinted until June 1964 two months after Day testified.
November 23 FBI Interview
Saturday, the day after the assassination Williams was visited by FBI Agents Odum and Griffin and the following statement prepared following his interview with them. We must bear in mind that just 24 hours after the assassination the only people who would be aware of a gunman on the 6th floor of the TSBD as early as 12.15pm the day before would be the assassin (s), Arnold Rowland and his wife, Roger Craig and the few police and officials who were involved with Rowland's statement (or were subsequently informed) and Rosemary Allen (the notary who signed his statement). Another person who might have known was the man who Rowland claimed to have observed in the SN prior to 12.15 until about 12.25pm
Some changes from the day before are apparent. Williams now contradicted his statement given just the day before to the DPD. Note the time shift to 11.30am for the descent in the elevator, effectively distancing himself by 20 minutes from the events that took place less than an hour later. In time it would be clear from the evidence of the other members of the floor laying crew and foreman Bill Shelley that the men did indeed break for lunch about 11.50am. In addition he now remembered he saw Oswald on the 5th floor, as the elevator went down. Just the day before he doesn’t remember this sighting at all. Givens was operating the other freight elevator (east) and so BRW was on west elevator. Could Williams, in the west elevator really see Oswald standing east of the east elevator?
Significantly, he now told of the lunch trip to the 6th floor. There are no details provided as to the contents of the lunch. He claimed he went back upstairs about 12 (if we apply a 20 minute time shift correction this actually occurred at 12.10pm). His stay on the 6th floor only lasts three minutes, obviously not enough time to finish lunch! If we add the time shift it becomes arrives on the 6th floor at 12.10, walks to a position to watch the motorcade and is gone by 12.13pm. Is he trying to avoid being anywhere on the 6th Floor from 12.15 onwards?
Williams claimed to have seen no one and goes down the stairs to the 5th floor and now meets up with Jarman and Norman. They took up a position at the southern windows at " approximately the middle of the building" to watch the motorcade. He heard 2 shots coming from above. He did not hang his head out the window but "glanced up and saw no one". (Was he expecting to see someone shooting in the sky? Was it reflex or did he not want to admit hanging out the window).
He ran to west side windows with the others and, while there, sees an officer (Baker?) come up on the elevator. Did he hear the elevator operating and assume it was Baker (and Truly) who used it? Was someone using the elevator at that time (Dougherty?). Remember Sandra Styles claimed Adams saw the elevator cables moving when the girls descended the stairs. He stated they were standing in a position to see the stairs but saw no one other than the policeman. (Not Oswald or even Dougherty). He also stated that someone might have been coming down on the elevator and he might not notice. If at this time both elevators were supposedly locked on the 5th floor….how was that possible?
He went to 4th floor (by elevator or stairs?) and met with women there. Williams said that no one was in the SN that morning prior to break for lunch. On the sixth floor, he went to the windows on the south side "middle of the building" and saw no one "standing". He saw Frazier on 6th floor talking to Shelley between 10 and 11am. Was this Frazier asking Shelley if the men would be allowed to stop work to get to see the President if the parade was before 12?
December 2 Secret Service
In early December Williams was interviewed by the Secret Service and the following appeared as part the Secret Service Report 491 (WCD87).
In this interview less than 2 weeks after the assassination Williams recalls the elevator race as they broke for lunch and Oswald calling for the lift. On the 6th floor he sat at windows "in the centre of the building". A Dr Pepper bottle and chicken bones (no mention of a lunch bag) were left together on the floor. He didn't see or hear anyone and only ate his lunch for a few minutes. The lunch was "finished", not partially eaten, and he left immediately for the 5th floor before 12.15pm. (Note 12.15 is mentioned specifically!). Heard only 2 shots coming from 6th floor but did not hear shells and bolt action. They went to west side windows and discussed what they should do.
A policeman was seen near the stairway but Williams did not know if he was going up or down (note no mention of arrival by the elevator now). After 5 minutes they took the stairs down.
This interview essentially provided a similar story he told the FBI the day after the assassination except for some minor variance and added details. He described the lunch consisting of a chicken bone sandwich and a Dr Pepper. Significantly he is sure he left before 12.15pm. No doubt there has been much talk between the TSBD workers of the events of November 22 and Oswald in the days since it occurred. Apparently he abandoned the idea of moving the lunchbreak earlier by 20 minutes. By this time the others members of the floor laying crew have been interviewed and they generally agreed the elevator race occurred at about 11.50am. Remember that Carl Day tells us he spoke with the worker who ate the chicken lunch on November 25th, after Williams initial FBI interview . Day may have (inadvertently) provided a description of the final position of the chicken and bottle as found around 2pm on November 22 during that discussion.
Jan 8 Interviewed by the FBI
Williams interviewed again by the FBI about five weeks after the SS interviewed him.
Williams again moves the time they broke for lunch earlier by claiming the elevator race occurred at 11.40am and stated he ate lunch on the 6th floor at noon. Note the consistency in a 20 minute interval between departing and arriving back on the 6th floor. Once again he recalled staying only a few minutes, leaving at 12.05pm, before joining Jarman and Norman on the 5th floor. In this interview he told for the first time that the motivation for going down was that he heard them below. According to this revised timeline he spends about 25 minutes with them before the motorcade arrives. Compare this with his first day statement, taken about 3 hours after the shots, where he stated that "just after we got on the 5th floor the motorcade arrived". In this report he further distanced himself from 12.15pm by effectively moving the departure time from the 6th floor from 12.13 to 12.05!
March 18th Internal Memorandum: Belin and Ball to Willens
In this extensive memorandum in the lead up to key witnesses testifying before the Commission, Ball and Belin ask the following questions on page 4.
Ball and Belin asked for clarification regarding the contents of the lunch, where it was eaten and whether it was in a sack. They wanted to know if Williams saw anyone while eating the lunch and what time he arrived on the 5th floor. They also wanted to know if there were fingerprints on the sack.
Understandably, these are some of the same questions anyone would have after reading his statements when compared to those of the DPD officers and his workmates.
Note they were also keen to determine the speed of the elevators. The last question is actually referring to Williams, not Lovelady. There was considerable confusion regarding which elevators the men descended in during the "elevator race".
March 19 FBI Interview
Williams was interviewed by the FBI for a third time on March 19, the day after the Ball/Belin memo, four months after assassination.
In this interview there is no mention of the lunch or eating on the 6th floor. Interestingly he places the three men at the "windows at the centre of the building" on the 5th floor (possibly an FBI error). He had previously used the same phrase for the lunch position on the 6th floor. Their position on the 5th floor was under SN in the SE corner not at centre of the building! Now he reported hearing 3 shots not 2 for the first time. Once again he recalled looking up but saw no one. Now after running to the west side he saw the Officer come up on the elevator. He did not see anyone come down the stairs. He now remembered Oswald on the 6th floor at 11.40am on the east side. Was this during the elevator race or a new separate sighting? Remember about 10 minutes later Oswald is on the 5th floor near the east elevator as the men broke for lunch. I tend to believe this was a reference to the elevator race again attempting to place it earlier than it actually occurred. In this statement we discover that he was at City Hall from about 1 until 3.30pm on the day of the assassination. Clearly this interview did not cover the questions asked by Ball and Belin in the memo the day before. Therefore it would seem that this interview was not triggered by that request. I cannot find any interview with Williams that clarified the memo questions prior to his appearance before the WC. In his testimony it is apparent that Ball spent much time with Williams (and Jarman and Norman) four days before they testified in an attempt to make sense of events leading up to the shots.
Summary of Williams' Interviews and Statements before appearing before the WC.
There seems no doubt about the occurrence of some key events arising from the five statements taken from Williams over a five month period.
There was an elevator race as the flooring crew broke for lunch.
Oswald was noticed on the 5th floor as the elevators descended.
Although initially stating to the DPD that all three men went to the 5th floor together, Williams eventually told the FBI of his return to the 6th floor.
In early statements he went up for lunch about 20 minutes after the elevator race.
He ate his lunch on the 6th floor, eventually revealing it to consist of a chicken on the bone sandwich and a Dr Pepper in the SS interview on December 2nd.
While eating his lunch he neither saw or heard no one on the 6th floor.
He finished his lunch and placed the bones in the bag at a position close to the southern windows near the "centre of the building" near the Dr Pepper bottle. (Consistent with the configuration and the rough location known to Day and Studebaker).
He remained on the 6th floor only a few minutes before joining Jarman and Norman.
His means of descent to the 5th floor was unclear, stairs or elevator?
The arrival time on the 6th floor was sometime around noon and left to join his workmates sometime between 12.05 and 12.13pm. He was definitely gone before 12.15, the time the gunman was seen on the 6th floor by Arnold Rowland.
Williams joined his workmates at least 15 minutes before the shooting because he heard them below while eating his lunch. (Obviously, for this to be true, Norman and Jarman had to be in position in the windows on the 5th floor before 12.15).
He heard 2 shots that came from above and glanced up(4 months later it changed to 3).
After the shots the men ran to the south west corner windows. They were understandably scared and discussed what to do.
He saw a white helmeted police officer arrive on the 5th floor although he was confused as to whether the officer arrived via the stairs or elevator and the direction of his arrival.
The men descended the stairs, after about 5 minutes, stopping briefly and noticing women on the 4th floor, eventually arriving on the first floor.
Treasure trove!
Thanks for sharing this insightful post, Mr. Crow, encouraging to read--among other things-- that Lt. Day made it crystal clear that the fingerprints upon that Dr. Pepper bottle did Not belong to the wrongly accused. There's a reason for that...he was nowhere near the scene of the SN.
-
At the time he was being questioned in the DPD he knew the following. The shots that had been fired were from above. Those who were on the sixth floor were brought for questioning. Fair chance he knew that was significant. His lunch remnants were up there. By 3pm his lunch was being described as the assassin's. He also saw Oswald in custody. No threat to him but maybe there were conspirators on the loose.
Wonder why he decided to leave his lunch trip out of the statement given its obvious significance?
(https://i.ibb.co/h7FP41r/2-C98-C178-87-D6-4-E61-9-D27-7-AD350-E240-AA.jpg)
This just keeps getting better...
Given the photo image shared by Mr. Crow, it's crystal clear that Mr. Williams' stress-level meter is in the red zone as he is obviously contemplating his future amid that unmistakable horrifying look upon his face. What was this man an accomplice to that afternoon?
-
Encouraging to read the tandem of Mr. Crow & Mr. O'meara's keen assessment of this thread's namesake Mr. Williams' obvious waffling, fork-tongued "truth". Carry on gentlemen.
*Will reread topshelf researcher Mr. Davidson's post (#321) again on Friday and make a response then.
Upon viewing the video he shared wanted to reserve comment until waiting to clarify a couple of contrived timeline points in my notes shared by the lying rooftop tandem...particularly if the rather short man on the extreme right at the 39 sec. mark in the video is Roy Truly...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ak3JymYrSpzVtF0i-jbAxuRICk9lcZ5q/view
Man what I'd give to find a photo image of a working clock on the wall in the above sequence.
-
Treasure trove!
Thanks for sharing this insightful post, Mr. Crow, encouraging to read--among other things-- that Lt. Day made it crystal clear that the fingerprints upon that Dr. Pepper bottle did Not belong to the wrongly accused. There's a reason for that...he was nowhere near the scene of the SN.
That some interesting "logic." Why would Oswald's prints not being on a Dr. Pepper bottle that belonged to someone else preclude his presence in the SN? Oswald's fingerprints were all over the SN boxes.
-
That some interesting "logic." Why would Oswald's prints not being on a Dr. Pepper bottle that belonged to someone else have preclude his presence in the SN? Oswald's fingerprints were all over the SN boxes.
Oswald's fingerprints were all over the SN boxes.
Massive exaggeration, as per usual. But so what?
Oswald worked on that floor and handled boxes every day. Besides there were other prints, likely of co-workers and police officers, on those boxes, which were being moved around because of the work that was being done to the floor. Oswald's prints being anywhere on the 6th floor are meaningless and of no real evidentiary value.
-
That some interesting "logic." Why would Oswald's prints not being on a Dr. Pepper bottle that belonged to someone else preclude his presence in the SN? Oswald's fingerprints were all over the SN boxes.
Only one box is needed to nail the little prick:
(https://i.postimg.cc/W30BZNb5/oswald-fingerprints-on-box-poinred-down-elm.png)
-
Oswald's fingerprints were all over the SN boxes.
Massive exaggeration, as per usual. But so what?
Oswald worked on that floor and handled boxes every day. Besides there were other prints, likely of co-workers and police officers, on those boxes, which were being moved around because of the work that was being done to the floor. Oswald's prints being anywhere on the 6th floor are meaningless and of no real evidentiary value.
Poor Oswald. What bad luck he had. Of all the TSBD employees, his are the only ones found on the SN boxes. And bag. And rifle. What are the odds? Just a good old boy going about his business. His prints on the very boxes used by the assassin to assassinate JFK are "meaningless" and of "no real evidentiary value." You should be embarrassed and apologize to intelligent people for this type of nonsense. I'm actually embarrassed for you.
-
Yeah, maybe that's what it is Bill.
I was naively assuming that an innocent person being asked to give a statement regarding such a massive event would be doing their best to remember what they did, as opposed to just spouting off the first thing that came into their heads as if it was all some kind of joke.
spout off
to speak out publicly about someone or something; to reveal information publicly about someone or something
-
Yeah, maybe that's what it is Bill.
I was naively assuming that an innocent person being asked to give a statement regarding such a massive event would be doing their best to remember what they did, as opposed to just spouting off the first thing that came into their heads as if it was all some kind of joke.
Perhaps he did not immediately realize that his lunch would become the subject of historical interest to later generations. Do you think he was "in" on the plot with the role to plant the remains of a chicken sandwich? Colonel Sanders was an alleged racist in his plantation suit. Perhaps he was behind this sinister plot and offered free sandwiches as an enticement.
-
Perhaps he did not immediately realize that his lunch would become the subject of historical interest to later generations. Do you think he was "in" on the plot with the role to plant the remains of a chicken sandwich? Colonel Sanders was an alleged racist in his plantation suit. Perhaps he was behind this sinister plot and offered free sandwiches as an enticement.
It was his presence on the floor just minutes before the shots that was critical information. The problem about his lunch would only become important to him when it was reported widely to have been the assassin's. For all he knew someone might have seen him on the sixth floor and reported (Rowland).
If the lunch sack and bottle were thought to be related to the assassin why did they not travel with Drain along with the other evidence that night?
Pathetic jokes about fowl play and KFC, forgetful minds and horsing around aren’t serious rebuttal to the points raised. Neither is distraction to the fingerprints in the SN. Just a convenient way to move the topic at hand......look over here.
-
Poor Oswald. What bad luck he had. Of all the TSBD employees, his are the only ones found on the SN boxes. And bag. And rifle. What are the odds? Just a good old boy going about his business. His prints on the very boxes used by the assassin to assassinate JFK are "meaningless" and of "no real evidentiary value." You should be embarrassed and apologize to intelligent people for this type of nonsense. I'm actually embarrassed for you.
his are the only ones found on the SN boxes
Really? Why don't you stop making things up for once?
-
Perhaps he did not immediately realize that his lunch would become the subject of historical interest to later generations. Do you think he was "in" on the plot with the role to plant the remains of a chicken sandwich? Colonel Sanders was an alleged racist in his plantation suit. Perhaps he was behind this sinister plot and offered free sandwiches as an enticement.
;D
You might be onto something Richard.
Perhaps the whole thing was a publicity stunt for the new KFC Chicken-On-The-Bone Special ["It's teeth-crunchin' good"]
Out of interest, when do you think Williams went down to the 5th floor to join Jarman and Norman?
-
;D
You might be onto something Richard.
Perhaps the whole thing was a publicity stunt for the new KFC Chicken-On-The-Bone Special ["It's teeth-crunchin' good"]
Out of interest, when do you think Williams went down to the 5th floor to join Jarman and Norman?
I don't believe there is any way to know for certain since BRW was not tracking his movements with scientific precision. He is mostly making an estimate of the time as you see in many instances in this case. A pedantic analysis of his various statements are somewhat insightful but can never answer the question when he himself didn't really know. Most people don't go around noting the exact time of every mundane event in their life down to the minute. What's important is that BRW never suggested that he heard or saw anything unusual. Any narrative that has him encountering a hit team on the 6th floor and being allowed to go about his business perhaps raising the alarm is absurd. Instead he goes to the window just below where he knows this is going to happen and puts himself at further risk? Not plausible.
-
his are the only ones found on the SN boxes
Really? Why don't you stop making things up for once?
So other TSBD employees left their fingerprints on these boxes? Do tell.
-
So other TSBD employees left their fingerprints on these boxes? Do tell.
Who said anything about other TSBD employees? What about, for example, all the police officers that were in or near the S/N?
Are you really trying to tell us that in a warehouse filled with boxes and lots of staff handling them, Oswald's fingerprints were somehow the only prints on those boxes? Really?
Here's a reality check; on 4 boxes there were 25 prints found that were clear enough to make identification matches. In addition there were more prints that were too fragmented for identification. Out if all these prints only 1 right index fingerprint and 1 left palmprint were identified as Oswald's. Or did Latona, Mandella and Wittmus Lie?
-
I don't believe there is any way to know for certain since BRW was not tracking his movements with scientific precision. He is mostly making an estimate of the time as you see in many instances in this case. A pedantic analysis of his various statements are somewhat insightful but can never answer the question when he himself didn't really know. Most people don't go around noting the exact time of every mundane event in their life down to the minute.
I agree,
BRW's estimation of how long he spent on the 6th floor varies wildly.
He starts off by lying about not being on the 6th floor (or is he telling the truth?)
Once he admits he was on the 6th he gives the following estimations, in various statements, for how long he was up there - 3, 5, 10, 12, 15, 20 minutes. There is a pattern to these estimations - the more he is questioned, the longer he was up there.
Obviously, it isn't just a case of looking at what BRW has to say, there are other witnesses whose testimonies shed light on how long BRW was on the 6th floor.
But you know that already.
What's important is that BRW never suggested that he heard or saw anything unusual.
What's important is that he lied about going up to the 5th floor with Jarman and Norman (or did he lie about having his lunch alone on the 6th floor?)
What's more important is that after he has corrected his first statement, Jarman and Norman continue supporting the initial lie (if it was a lie) that BRW goes up to the 5th floor with Norman and Jarman. When it comes time for the WC hearing everyone seems to have got their stories straight. All now agree BRW went up to the 6th on his own then joined Jarman/Norman later.
Any narrative that has him encountering a hit team on the 6th floor and being allowed to go about his business perhaps raising the alarm is absurd. Instead he goes to the window just below where he knows this is going to happen and puts himself at further risk? Not plausible.
Agreed.
How can BRW be allowed to just wander off. The assassin must "neutralise" him in some way - tying him up or even killing him. He can't set him free hoping he won't raise the alarm just because he "promised".
My interpretation of various statements has BRW on the 6th floor less than five minutes before the arrival of the motorcade and there is some evidence he was actually in the SN having his lunch.
In this scenario 3 possibilities exists:
The assassin(s) have yet to arrive on the 6th floor so BRW is alone until he goes down to the 5th.
The assassin(s) are on the 6th floor but BRW is unaware of it.
BRW is aware someone is on the 6th when he goes down to the 5th.
All three scenarios are problematic in different ways.
This is where the historic piece of chicken comes into it. For his lunch BRW has a piece of chicken, two slices of bread, a bag of Fritos and a bottle of soda pop. He strips some off the chicken and makes a chicken sandwich, has his Fritos and pop, saving the big lump of chicken remaining on the bone to finish off. Remember, he's been working hard all morning and will be doing the same in the afternoon and his piece of chicken is his main nourishment for the day. So, what are the chances of him just wandering off, leaving the main part of his lunch behind? Surely, the partially eaten piece of chicken indicates BRW was interrupted before he got to his chicken and left in a hurry.
If he was confronted by a stranger/stranger with a rifle/familiar face with a rifle Williams would surely have raised the alarm - he certainly wouldn't have gone down a floor to carry on watching the motorcade.
However, if he was confronted by a familiar face, without a rifle, who just told him to f%&k off immediately, there would be no reason to flee or panic. But when the shots started ringing out from directly above them BRW puts two and two together. He has just seen the assassin, what should he do?
-
How can BRW be allowed to just wander off. The assassin must "neutralise" him in some way - tying him up or even killing him. He can't set him free hoping he won't raise the alarm just because he "promised".
(...)
If he was confronted by a stranger/stranger with a rifle/familiar face with a rifle Williams would surely have raised the alarm - he certainly wouldn't have gone down a floor to carry on watching the motorcade.
There's a simple solution here, Mr O'Meara: Mr Williams encounters credentials-flashing men who tell him they are part of Presidential security and he must leave the floor.
-
There's a simple solution here, Mr O'Meara: Mr Williams encounters credentials-flashing men who tell him they are part of Presidential security and he must leave the floor.
It's not a solution Alan, just another possibility.
How long have these "credential flashing men" been on the 6th floor?
They have either arrived with less than 5 minutes to go before the arrival of the motorcade (not very professional) or they've been hiding behind some boxes hoping BRW would leave then finally decided they'd had enough.
-
There's a simple solution here, Mr O'Meara: Mr Williams encounters credentials-flashing men who tell him they are part of Presidential security and he must leave the floor.
And they count on him to remain forever quiet and even lie about this encounter? Even after he becomes aware that they were involved in the assassination. Not plausible. Imagine the plan. They go to all this time and trouble to frame Oswald, they are seen moments before the assassination on the 6th floor and/or SN, and they allow BRW to walk away hoping he doesn't raise an alarm or blow the Oswald frame up by doing the logical thing - just telling the truth. Let me guess. You have another story to explain why BRW never reveals this encounter.
-
Who said anything about other TSBD employees? What about, for example, all the police officers that were in or near the S/N?
Are you really trying to tell us that in a warehouse filled with boxes and lots of staff handling them, Oswald's fingerprints were somehow the only prints on those boxes? Really?
Here's a reality check; on 4 boxes there were 25 prints found that were clear enough to make identification matches. In addition there were more prints that were too fragmented for identification. Out if all these prints only 1 right index fingerprint and 1 left palmprint were identified as Oswald's. Or did Latona, Mandella and Wittmus Lie?
You are all over the place. Again, Oswald was the only TSBD employee whose prints were identified as being on the SN boxes. That's plural as in multiple different SN boxes with Oswald's prints. If, as you suggest, these boxes had lots of TSBD "staff" handling them then we would expect to find the prints of other TSBD employees. That would marginally support your claim that there was nothing incriminatory about Oswald's prints being on the SN boxes because he worked there. But no other TSBD left identifiable prints on those boxes. Just Oswald. What bad luck for him! I'm not sure what you are babbling about with the police lying or implying that if someone leaves only one fingerprint or palmprint that somehow makes the identification questionable. If Oswald left an identifiable print - even a single fingerprint on a box - that means he touched it. Many of the prints found on these boxes were linked to the DPD or FBI investigators and eliminated from any connection to the assassination.
-
It's not a solution Alan, just another possibility.
How long have these "credential flashing men" been on the 6th floor?
They have either arrived with less than 5 minutes to go before the arrival of the motorcade (not very professional) or they've been hiding behind some boxes hoping BRW would leave then finally decided they'd had enough.
One of the most interesting details in Mr Williams' testimony is this------------
MR. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time everybody was talking like they was going to watch from the sixth floor. I think Billy Lovelady said he wanted to watch from up there. And also my friend; this Spanish boy, by the name of Danny Arce, we had agreed at first to come back up to the sixth floor. So I thought everybody was going to be on the sixth floor.
Why did nobody go up to six to watch the motorcade from that excellent vantage point? Most curious!
I would NOT assume that Mr Williams was the only employee to innocently go back up on six and encounter men posing as SS. The floor would have been commandeered well before the motorcade arrived, and a method for keeping employees off the floor put in place. These people would not have trusted to luck.
Ms Mary Hall saw a key moment in all this: "she saw a white male, wearing a hat, apparently looking for something among boxes... a few minutes later they all went to have lunch and watch the President's motorcade".
Maybe the men on the sixth floor were let into the building before working hours that morning and hid up on seven; maybe they arrived in the building around noon and went up. We'll likely never know, and it doesn't greatly matter.
-
And they count on him to remain forever quiet and even lie about this encounter? Even after he becomes aware that they were involved in the assassination. Not plausible. Imagine the plan. They go to all this time and trouble to frame Oswald,
Who says that framing Mr Oswald as the gunman was their aim?
they are seen moments before the assassination on the 6th floor and/or SN, and they allow BRW to walk away hoping he doesn't raise an alarm or blow the Oswald frame up by doing the logical thing - just telling the truth. Let me guess. You have another story to explain why BRW never reveals this encounter.
Yes-----------he liked being alive.
-
You are all over the place. Again, Oswald was the only TSBD employee whose prints were identified as being on the SN boxes. That's plural as in multiple different SN boxes with Oswald's prints. If, as you suggest, these boxes had lots of TSBD "staff" handling them then we would expect to find the prints of other TSBD employees. That would marginally support your claim that there was nothing incriminatory about Oswald's prints being on the SN boxes because he worked there. But no other TSBD left identifiable prints on those boxes. Just Oswald. What bad luck for him! I'm not sure what you are babbling about with the police lying or implying that if someone leaves only one fingerprint or palmprint that somehow makes the identification questionable. If Oswald left an identifiable print - even a single fingerprint on a box - that means he touched it. Many of the prints found on these boxes were linked to the DPD or FBI investigators and eliminated from any connection to the assassination.
Many of the prints found on these boxes were linked to the DPD or FBI investigators and eliminated from any connection to the assassination. Really?
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like that box admitted as 653.
Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG. How many identifiable prints did you find on this carton?
Mr. LATONA. There were seven fingerprints and two palmprints developed on Commission Exhibit 653.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, identifiable prints?
Mr. LATONA. Identifiable prints.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you identify any of those prints as belonging to a specific person?
Mr. LATONA. I did not.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have 654 marked, Box C, Mr. Chairman? Did you also examine Box C?
Mr. LATONA. Box C, yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have that admitted as 654?
Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted as Commission Exhibit 654.
(Commission Exhibit No. 654 was marked and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any latent identifiable prints on 654?
Mr. LATONA. I found two fingerprints and one palmprint.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you identify them as belonging to a specific individual?
Mr. LATONA. I did not identify them.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you attempt to identify them with Lee Harvey Oswald's known prints?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; and they are not Lee Harvey Oswald's print.
Again, Oswald was the only TSBD employee whose prints were identified as being on the SN boxes. That's plural as in multiple different SN boxes with Oswald's prints.
Stop lying, "Richard"!
Mr. EISENBERG. So you found 13 identifiable prints, Mr. Latona. Were you able to identify any of these prints as belonging to a specific individual?
Mr. LATONA. We were able to identify one fingerprint and one palmprint.
Mr. EISENBERG. And whose prints were they?
Mr. LATONA. The fingerprint was identified as Harvey Lee Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the palm?
Mr. LATONA. The palmprint was identified also as Harvey Lee Oswald.
On all the boxes they found one fingerprint and one palmprint belonging to Oswald. That's the only print they were looking for. None of the other prints belonged to Oswald and they simply did not bother to identify them
-
Who says that framing Mr Oswald as the gunman was their aim?
You, for example. Since you think Oswald was innocent and framed. What else would this sinister squad be doing on the 6th floor forcing people to leave? And they don't care that BRW has seen them for whatever purpose you believe that they were there for? Is it fair to say that in this fantasy, that these folks would not want their presence on the 6th floor reported by BRW because they were in the commission of some criminal act in connection with the assassination? And by allowing him to leave they risked his reporting their presence either before or after the event. Which seems like the most likely thing for him to have done had this really happened.
-
One of the most interesting details in Mr Williams' testimony is this------------
MR. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time everybody was talking like they was going to watch from the sixth floor. I think Billy Lovelady said he wanted to watch from up there. And also my friend; this Spanish boy, by the name of Danny Arce, we had agreed at first to come back up to the sixth floor. So I thought everybody was going to be on the sixth floor.
Why did nobody go up to six to watch the motorcade from that excellent vantage point? Most curious!
I would NOT assume that Mr Williams was the only employee to innocently go back up on six and encounter men posing as SS. The floor would have been commandeered well before the motorcade arrived, and a method for keeping employees off the floor put in place. These people would not have trusted to luck.
Ms Mary Hall saw a key moment in all this: "she saw a white male, wearing a hat, apparently looking for something among boxes... a few minutes later they all went to have lunch and watch the President's motorcade".
Maybe the men on the sixth floor were let into the building before working hours that morning and hid up on seven; maybe they arrived in the building around noon and went up. We'll likely never know, and it doesn't greatly matter.
Dougherty was up on 6 and he never saw anything.
The same with Givens.
Williams was up there long enough to eat his sandwich, his bag of Fritos and drink his pop. It seems clear from various WC testimonies he was up on 6 for quite some time before coming down to join Jarman and Norman.
Nobody saw this team arrive or leave.
It's almost as if there's no support for such a suggestion.
-
Many of the prints found on these boxes were linked to the DPD or FBI investigators and eliminated from any connection to the assassination. Really?
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like that box admitted as 653.
Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG. How many identifiable prints did you find on this carton?
Mr. LATONA. There were seven fingerprints and two palmprints developed on Commission Exhibit 653.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, identifiable prints?
Mr. LATONA. Identifiable prints.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you identify any of those prints as belonging to a specific person?
Mr. LATONA. I did not.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have 654 marked, Box C, Mr. Chairman? Did you also examine Box C?
Mr. LATONA. Box C, yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have that admitted as 654?
Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted as Commission Exhibit 654.
(Commission Exhibit No. 654 was marked and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any latent identifiable prints on 654?
Mr. LATONA. I found two fingerprints and one palmprint.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you identify them as belonging to a specific individual?
Mr. LATONA. I did not identify them.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you attempt to identify them with Lee Harvey Oswald's known prints?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; and they are not Lee Harvey Oswald's print.
Again, Oswald was the only TSBD employee whose prints were identified as being on the SN boxes. That's plural as in multiple different SN boxes with Oswald's prints.
Stop lying, "Richard"!
Mr. EISENBERG. So you found 13 identifiable prints, Mr. Latona. Were you able to identify any of these prints as belonging to a specific individual?
Mr. LATONA. We were able to identify one fingerprint and one palmprint.
Mr. EISENBERG. And whose prints were they?
Mr. LATONA. The fingerprint was identified as Harvey Lee Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the palm?
Mr. LATONA. The palmprint was identified also as Harvey Lee Oswald.
On all the boxes they found one fingerprint and one palmprint belonging to Oswald. That's the only print they were looking for. None of the other prints belonged to Oswald and they simply did not bother to identify them
This is real simple. Focus. Oswald was the only TSBD who left identifiable prints on the TSBD boxes. According to Commission Exhibit 3131 there were 25 identifiable prints found on the four boxes exclusive of Oswald's prints. 24 of these prints were matched to Studebaker or Forest Lucy. None matched the TSBD employees who were printed including all those who Truly indicated would come into contact with book cartons as part of their duties.
Per McAdams:
On the 4 boxes a total of 25 prints were found that was clear enough to make identification matches. Other possible prints were also found but were too fragmentary to be of value for identification purposes. On Box A there were 9 identifiable fingerprints and 4 identifiable palmprints. Of these, 1 right index fingerprint and 1 left palmprint were identified as Oswald's. These identifications were made by Sebastian F. Latona of the FBI and agreed to by Arthur Mandella, fingerprint expert with the New York City Police Department and Ronald G. Wittmus, another FBI fingerprint expert. All of the remaining fingerprints and palmprints belonged to either Studebaker or Forest Lucy an FBI Clerk.
-
This is real simple. Focus. Oswald was the only TSBD who left identifiable prints on the TSBD boxes. According to Commission Exhibit 3131 there were 25 identifiable prints found on the four boxes exclusive of Oswald's prints. 24 of these prints were matched to Studebaker or Forest Lucy. None matched the TSBD employees who were printed including all those who Truly indicated would come into contact with book cartons as part of their duties.
Per McAdams:
On the 4 boxes a total of 25 prints were found that was clear enough to make identification matches. Other possible prints were also found but were too fragmentary to be of value for identification purposes. On Box A there were 9 identifiable fingerprints and 4 identifiable palmprints. Of these, 1 right index fingerprint and 1 left palmprint were identified as Oswald's. These identifications were made by Sebastian F. Latona of the FBI and agreed to by Arthur Mandella, fingerprint expert with the New York City Police Department and Ronald G. Wittmus, another FBI fingerprint expert. All of the remaining fingerprints and palmprints belonged to either Studebaker or Forest Lucy an FBI Clerk.
Oswald was the only TSBD who left identifiable prints on the TSBD boxes.
BS.. You really should read the testimony of Latona better. Here is part of it again;
Mr. LATONA. There were seven fingerprints and two palmprints developed on Commission Exhibit 653.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, identifiable prints?
Mr. LATONA. Identifiable prints.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you identify any of those prints as belonging to a specific person?
Mr. LATONA. I did not.
There were in fact plenty of identifiable prints that were not linked to any person, simply because the only prints they were interested in were those of Oswald's.
Regardless of what McAdams says, Latona did not say anything about the other prints being linked to Studebaker.
Btw CE 3131 is correspondence in September 1964, when the WC report was already in print for it's release to Johnson on the 24th. At that point in time they could write whatever they want. I attach no value whatsoever to this correspondence.
-
Oswald was the only TSBD who left identifiable prints on the TSBD boxes.
BS.. You really should read the testimony of Latona better. Here is part of it again;
Mr. LATONA. There were seven fingerprints and two palmprints developed on Commission Exhibit 653.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, identifiable prints?
Mr. LATONA. Identifiable prints.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you identify any of those prints as belonging to a specific person?
Mr. LATONA. I did not.
There were in fact plenty of identifiable prints that were not linked to any person, simply because the only prints they were interested in were those of Oswald's.
Regardless of what McAdams says, Latona did not say anything about the other prints being linked to Studebaker.
I'm not sure what you are taking issue with. It is simply a fact that Oswald was the only TSBD employee who left identifiable prints on the boxes. Do you have the name of another TSBD employee who left their prints on the cartons? According to the FBI report listed as Commission Exhibit 3131 there were 25 identifiable prints on the four boxes. 24 of those were linked to the two investigators. The FBI took the prints of the TSBD employees who came into contact with the book cartons. None of those matched any of the identifiable prints on the SN boxes. Only Oswald.
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_3131.pdf
-
I'm not sure what you are taking issue with. It is simply a fact that Oswald was the only TSBD employee who left identifiable prints on the boxes. Do you have the name of another TSBD employee who left their prints on the cartons? According to the FBI report listed as Commission Exhibit 3131 there were 25 identifiable prints on the four boxes. 24 of those were linked to the two investigators. The FBI took the prints of the TSBD employees who came into contact with the book cartons. None of those matched any of the identifiable prints on the SN boxes. Only Oswald.
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_3131.pdf
You really are not getting this, are you. They only found 2 prints linked to Oswald because they didn't bother to identify the others after finding they did not belong to Oswald. That's basically what Latona, Mandella and Wittmus told the WC in their testimony and affidavit!
If CE 3131 is supposed to have any value, then why did it take them 10 months to come up with these "findings" - that contradicts what Latona said in his testimony - only days before the WC report was released?
Btw, to build the snipers nest a large number of boxes needed to be moved. If Oswald did that all by himself, why did they find no prints belonging to him on any of the other boxes? Did all those boxes magically move themselves?
It's the same as with the paper bag that Oswald is supposed to have constructed. In either case, you would expect his prints to be all over the place, but they are not. Go figure.
-
Who said anything about other TSBD employees? What about, for example, all the police officers that were in or near the S/N?
Are you really trying to tell us that in a warehouse filled with boxes and lots of staff handling them, Oswald's fingerprints were somehow the only prints on those boxes? Really?
Here's a reality check; on 4 boxes there were 25 prints found that were clear enough to make identification matches. In addition there were more prints that were too fragmented for identification. Out if all these prints only 1 right index fingerprint and 1 left palmprint were identified as Oswald's. Or did Latona, Mandella and Wittmus Lie?
'only 1 right index fingerprint and 1 left palmprint were identified as Oswald's'
ONLY two, huh? How many do you need, Slick, considering not only the box's position, but the position of the prints on said box.
(https://i.postimg.cc/W30BZNb5/oswald-fingerprints-on-box-poinred-down-elm.png)
-
'only 1 right index fingerprint and 1 left palmprint were identified as Oswald's'
ONLY two, huh? How many do you need, Slick, considering not only the box's position, but the position of the prints on said box.
(https://i.postimg.cc/W30BZNb5/oswald-fingerprints-on-box-poinred-down-elm.png)
ONLY two, huh? How many do you need, Slick,
How shallow and narrowminded can you get?
Two prints from a guy who worked on that floor and - guess what - was supposed to move boxes.
So many boxes to build the snipers nest (all done by Oswald, right?) and only two prints? Really?
-
You, for example. Since you think Oswald was innocent and framed.
Quote me ever saying Mr Oswald was framed as the gunman. Can you, Mr Smith? Thought not.
-
Dougherty was up on 6 and he never saw anything.
Correction: he said he never saw anything. The question is: do you believe him? I ask because you think he's part of the conspiracy, so it's odd that you would now be citing him as a reliable witness
The same with Givens.
Lol
Williams was up there long enough to eat his sandwich, his bag of Fritos and drink his pop. It seems clear from various WC testimonies he was up on 6 for quite some time before coming down to join Jarman and Norman.
Actually it's far from clear. Let's start with Mr Rowland's testimony. Was Mr Williams middle-aged? Was he wearing a bright plaid shirt? Was he bald or as good as?
Nobody saw this team arrive or leave.
Correction: nobody said they saw this team arrive (though Ms Hall did see one of them there looking for something amongst boxes).
And of course Officer Baker encountered one of them walking away from the stairway several floors up the building just after the shooting.
It's almost as if there's no support for such a suggestion.
Lol, you just don't like my solution because you're gunning for Mr Williams (along with-------------when it suits your argument--------------Mr Dougherty)
-
Go figure.
Okay.
Firearm Factoids
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid4.htm
EXCERPT:
1) Individuals don't always have a sufficient quantity of perspiration and/or contaminates on their hands to be deposited
2) When someone touches something, they may handle it in a manner which causes the prints to smear
3) The surface may not be suitable for retaining the minute traces of moisture in a form representative of the ridge detail
4) The environment may cause the latent print to deteriorate.
The most important fact dealing with the lack of fingerprints is that it neither suggests, implies, or establishes that any person did or did not touch the item of evidence. Items which have been witnessed to have been handled and laboratory experimentation repeatedly reiterate this premise.
Alan McRoberts
Los Angeles Sheriff's Department
Scientific Services Bureau
Identification Section
-
Okay.
Firearm Factoids
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid4.htm
EXCERPT:
1) Individuals don't always have a sufficient quantity of perspiration and/or contaminates on their hands to be deposited
2) When someone touches something, they may handle it in a manner which causes the prints to smear
3) The surface may not be suitable for retaining the minute traces of moisture in a form representative of the ridge detail
4) The environment may cause the latent print to deteriorate.
The most important fact dealing with the lack of fingerprints is that it neither suggests, implies, or establishes that any person did or did not touch the item of evidence. Items which have been witnessed to have been handled and laboratory experimentation repeatedly reiterate this premise.
Alan McRoberts
Los Angeles Sheriff's Department
Scientific Services Bureau
Identification Section
Wow, and what is this supposed to tell us?
-
Okay.
Firearm Factoids
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid4.htm
EXCERPT:
1) Individuals don't always have a sufficient quantity of perspiration and/or contaminates on their hands to be deposited
2) When someone touches something, they may handle it in a manner which causes the prints to smear
3) The surface may not be suitable for retaining the minute traces of moisture in a form representative of the ridge detail
4) The environment may cause the latent print to deteriorate.
The most important fact dealing with the lack of fingerprints is that it neither suggests, implies, or establishes that any person did or did not touch the item of evidence. Items which have been witnessed to have been handled and laboratory experimentation repeatedly reiterate this premise.
Alan McRoberts
Los Angeles Sheriff's Department
Scientific Services Bureau
Identification Section
Great! Let's apply this to the two curtain rods tested for Mr Oswald's prints eight days before two curtain rods were extracted on-the-record from Ms Paine's garage Thumb1:
-
Pulp Fiction
Willis wipes out Travolta and fingerprints. Easy-peasy.
-
Great! Let's apply this to the two curtain rods tested for Mr Oswald's prints eight days before two curtain rods were extracted on-the-record from Ms Paine's garage Thumb1:
Let's not.
-
Pulp Fiction
Willis wipes out Travolta and fingerprints
What? Things like that can happen?
Now, who would have wiped out Oswald's prints on all those boxes? Any idea?
-
You really are not getting this, are you. They only found 2 prints linked to Oswald because they didn't bother to identify the others after finding they did not belong to Oswald. That's basically what Latona, Mandella and Wittmus told the WC in their testimony and affidavit!
If CE 3131 is supposed to have any value, then why did it take them 10 months to come up with these "findings" - that contradicts what Latona said in his testimony - only days before the WC report was released?
Btw, to build the snipers nest a large number of boxes needed to be moved. If Oswald did that all by himself, why did they find no prints belonging to him on any of the other boxes? Did all those boxes magically move themselves?
It's the same as with the paper bag that Oswald is supposed to have constructed. In either case, you would expect his prints to be all over the place, but they are not. Go figure.
It doesn't matter how long it took to match the prints. The fact remains that 24 of the 25 identifiable prints (exclusive of Oswald's prints) found on the boxes were matched to the two investigators. None of these identifiable prints matched anyone from the TSBD other than Oswald. That is confirmed in the FBI report (Commission Exhibit 3131). These are simply facts reported by the FBI. Because you don't like them doesn't change that. It is simply a fact that Oswald's prints on the SN boxes are the only ones linked to any TSBD employee. Thus, dismissing the evidentiary value of his prints being found on these boxes because "he worked there" is entirely baseless. No one else who worked at the TSBD left prints on these boxes. Only Oswald. So much bad luck.
-
What? Things like that can happen?
Now, who would have wiped out Oswald's prints on all those boxes? Any idea?
You tell us:
1) Individuals don't always have a sufficient quantity of perspiration and/or contaminates on their hands to be deposited
2) When someone touches something, they may handle it in a manner which causes the prints to smear
3) The surface may not be suitable for retaining the minute traces of moisture in a form representative of the ridge detail
4) The environment may cause the latent print to deteriorate.
Next time take notes.
-
Correction: he said he never saw anything. The question is: do you believe him? I ask because you think he's part of the conspiracy, so it's odd that you would now be citing him as a reliable witness
You're quite correct, I do have Dougherty in the frame for being Rowland's "man with the rifle", but you don't.
So it's you who has to explain this discrepancy, not me.
Actually it's far from clear. Let's start with Mr Rowland's testimony. Was Mr Williams middle-aged? Was he wearing a bright plaid shirt? Was he bald or as good as?
Rowland's testimony has got nothing to do with it.
The testimonies of the officers who saw the SN before Fritz got there recall that the lunch remains were in/on the SN (something Williams lies about in his WC testimony).
Wiliiams' WC testimony confirms the lunch remains were his and that he went down to the 5th about 12:20 PM
The WC testimonies of Jarman and Norman place themselves on the fifth around 12:25 PM after which time Williams joined them.
All these testimonies, taken together, place Williams in the SN having his lunch until 12:25 PM at least.
Rowland's observation of an African American male in the SN around 12:15/16 PM can only refer to Williams who is placed there, at that time, by all the above testimonies. That Rowland doesn't really pay any attention to this person explains much about the discrepancies in his identification but the point is that his testimony doesn't place Williams there. It is simply confirmation of all the other testimonies.
Correction: nobody said they saw this team arrive (though Ms Hall did see one of them there looking for something amongst boxes).
Correction: Ms Hall doesn't say she sees a member of the "team" (Lol)
And of course Officer Baker encountered one of them walking away from the stairway several floors up the building just after the shooting.
Correction: see above
Lol, you just don't like my solution because you're gunning for Mr Williams (along with-------------when it suits your argument--------------Mr Dougherty)
"Solution" :D
-
It doesn't matter how long it took to match the prints. The fact remains that 24 of the 25 identifiable prints (exclusive of Oswald's prints) found on the boxes were matched to the two investigators. None of these identifiable prints matched anyone from the TSBD other than Oswald. That is confirmed in the FBI report (Commission Exhibit 3131). These are simply facts reported by the FBI. Because you don't like them doesn't change that. It is simply a fact that Oswald's prints on the SN boxes are the only ones linked to any TSBD employee. Thus, dismissing the evidentiary value of his prints being found on these boxes because "he worked there" is entirely baseless. No one else who worked at the TSBD left prints on these boxes. Only Oswald. So much bad luck.
The fact remains that 24 of the 25 identifiable prints (exclusive of Oswald's prints) found on the boxes were matched to the two investigators.
Yeah sure... a warehouse full of boxes and people moving them and the only employee they found only two prints for is Oswald, but two investigators left all the others.... Are you for real?
These are simply facts reported by the FBI.
LOL
Thus, dismissing the evidentiary value of his prints being found on these boxes because "he worked there" is entirely baseless.
Nope, it's actually enforced. A warehouse full of boxes and out of all employees only one touched one. And you actually believe that?
No one else who worked at the TSBD left prints on these boxes. Only Oswald.
How many boxes were needed to build the sniper's nest?
And the guy who is supposed to have build it all by himself only left 2 prints where a crime lab officer managed to leave a multitude of prints..... and you believe that?
-
You tell us:
1) Individuals don't always have a sufficient quantity of perspiration and/or contaminates on their hands to be deposited
2) When someone touches something, they may handle it in a manner which causes the prints to smear
3) The surface may not be suitable for retaining the minute traces of moisture in a form representative of the ridge detail
4) The environment may cause the latent print to deteriorate.
Next time take notes.
In other words; just about everybody else could have touched those boxes but as we found, within a multitude of prints, only two prints belonging to Oswald he must be the one that's guilty. That is what you are saying, isn't it?
Salem would be a nice place for you.
-
In other words; just about everybody else could have touched those boxes but as we found, within a multitude of prints, only two prints belonging to Oswald he must be the one that's guilty. That is what you are saying, isn't it?
Salem would be a nice place for you.
Keep your 'other words' to yourself and stop ignoring the fact that the position of the two prints on the top window box clearly indicate that Oswald was pointing the box right down Elm.
-
The fact remains that 24 of the 25 identifiable prints (exclusive of Oswald's prints) found on the boxes were matched to the two investigators.
Yeah sure... a warehouse full of boxes and people moving them and the only employee they found only two prints for is Oswald, but two investigators left all the others.... Are you for real?
These are simply facts reported by the FBI.
LOL
Thus, dismissing the evidentiary value of his prints being found on these boxes because "he worked there" is entirely baseless.
Nope, it's actually enforced. A warehouse full of boxes and out of all employees only one touched one. And you actually believe that?
No one else who worked at the TSBD left prints on these boxes. Only Oswald.
How many boxes were needed to build the sniper's nest?
And the guy who is supposed to have build it all by himself only left 2 prints where a crime lab officer managed to leave a multitude of prints..... and you believe that?
What do you believe happened? That the FBI faked all this print evidence and having total control over it decided to limit the number of Oswald's prints that they found for some inexplicable reason? And then fail to find any prints on the rifle that they were attempting to use in this frame of Oswald? Makes no sense. Your issue is with the evidence. The evidence confirms that Oswald touched the SN boxes. No other TSBD employee left any identifiable prints on those boxes. Only Oswald. Using 1963 technology that is not surprising. Oswald, as the assassin, would have handled those boxes just prior to the assassination. If some other TSBD employee handled them on some prior occasion, then it less likely that they would be found with the passage of time. So once again the evidence points to Oswald and only Oswald. It is weak contrarian sauce to dismiss the presence of Oswald's prints on the SN boxes as a produce of his "working there" when no other TSBD employee left any such prints.
-
You're quite correct, I do have Dougherty in the frame for being Rowland's "man with the rifle", but you don't.
So neither of us believes that Mr Dougherty is telling the truth about what he saw up there. Got it.
So it's you who has to explain this discrepancy, not me.
What discrepancy? Mr Dougherty saw more than he told. Simple self-preservation, just like with Mr Williams.
Rowland's testimony has got nothing to do with it.
The testimonies of the officers who saw the SN before Fritz got there recall that the lunch remains were in/on the SN (something Williams lies about in his WC testimony).
Prove those lunch remains were Mr Williams'. Heck, prove they were even left there that day.
Wiliiams' WC testimony confirms the lunch remains were his
Sure------coached testimony from a man who changed his story as often as his clothes
and that he went down to the 5th about 12:20 PM
The WC testimonies of Jarman and Norman place themselves on the fifth around 12:25 PM
Yes-------an important piece of Mr Oswald's alibi for the shooting
after which time Williams joined them.
Not necessarily
All these testimonies, taken together, place Williams in the SN having his lunch until 12:25 PM at least.
Rowland's observation of an African American male in the SN around 12:15/16 PM can only refer to Williams who is placed there, at that time, by all the above testimonies.
Nonsense. Mr Rowland describes a man who simply does not fit Mr Williams. As in, his description is miles off. You can ignore if you wish, but it doesn't make the discrepancies go away. The man was either Mr Eddie Piper or a non-employee.
That Rowland doesn't really pay any attention to this person explains much about the discrepancies in his identification but the point is that his testimony doesn't place Williams there. It is simply confirmation of all the other testimonies.
Correction: Ms Hall doesn't say she sees a member of the "team" (Lol)
So who, if not a member of the team, do you think this hat-wearing man could be?
Correction: see above
I have seen above and lo, you still can't explain away Officer Baker's first-day affidavit!
"Solution" :D
Yep---------you claimed that Mr Williams must have been involved because he was allowed to leave the sixth floor. I showed how silly that assumption is Thumb1:
-
What do you believe happened? That the FBI faked all this print evidence and having total control over it decided to limit the number of Oswald's prints that they found for some inexplicable reason? And then fail to find any prints on the rifle that they were attempting to use in this frame of Oswald? Makes no sense. Your issue is with the evidence. The evidence confirms that Oswald touched the SN boxes. No other TSBD employee left any identifiable prints on those boxes. Only Oswald. Using 1963 technology that is not surprising. Oswald, as the assassin, would have handled those boxes just prior to the assassination. If some other TSBD employee handled them on some prior occasion, then it less likely that they would be found with the passage of time. So once again the evidence points to Oswald and only Oswald. It is weak contrarian sauce to dismiss the presence of Oswald's prints on the SN boxes as a produce of his "working there" when no other TSBD employee left any such prints.
What do you believe happened?
I don't know what happened. You are the one making a big deal out of 2 prints, so perhaps you tell me.
The evidence confirms that Oswald touched the SN boxes.
So what? He worked there....
No other TSBD employee left any identifiable prints on those boxes. Only Oswald.
Yeah right, with a new floor being laid on the 6th floor and boxes being moved around all the time by all the TSBD employees who were there only Oswald somehow managed to leave two prints behind. And you believe this is even remotely plausible?
Oswald, as the assassin, would have handled those boxes just prior to the assassination.
There is the circular "logic" again
If some other TSBD employee handled them on some prior occasion, then it less likely that they would be found with the passage of time.
The passage of time? Just how many days in advance do you believe the snipers nest was build?
So once again the evidence points to Oswald and only Oswald.
Said the prosecutor, desperately looking for something to get a conviction.
It is weak contrarian sauce to dismiss the presence of Oswald's prints on the SN boxes as a produce of his "working there" when no other TSBD employee left any such prints.
And it's utterly pathetic LN crap to assume that out of all the people working at the TSBD, moving boxes around, only two prints would be identified as belonging to one man..... All the other boxes moved magically by themselves, right?
-
So neither of us believes that Mr Dougherty is telling the truth about what he saw up there. Got it.
Got it? ;D Is that you trying to be masterful?
Prove those lunch remains were Mr Williams'. Heck, prove they were even left there that day.
The officers who saw the SN before Fritz arrived (five or six of them) reported seeing the lunch remains in/on the SN.
The officers who saw the SN after Fritz had been there saw the lunch remains by the two-wheeler truck.
Got it.
Sure------coached testimony from a man who changed his story as often as his clothes
Williams was saying it was his lunch months before his WC testimony.
Got it.
Not necessarily
??
Williams is photographed on the 5th floor with Norman and Jarman.
Got it
Nonsense. Mr Rowland describes a man who simply does not fit Mr Williams. As in, his description is miles off. You can ignore if you wish, but it doesn't make the discrepancies go away. The man was either Mr Eddie Piper or a non-employee.
All the testimony I mentioned in my post put Williams in the SN eating his lunch at the time Rowland sees the man in the SN window.
Got it.
(I like the way your "team" moves everyone away apart from Eddie Piper. Brilliant.)
So who, if not a member of the team, do you think this hat-wearing man could be?
I have seen above and lo, you still can't explain away Officer Baker's first-day affidavit!
Neither of them mentions anyone from your "team".
You stand corrected.
Yep---------you claimed that Mr Williams must have been involved because he was allowed to leave the sixth floor. I showed how silly that assumption is Thumb1:
Where did I claim that?
-
How’s this for a thought. Jarman and Norman take west elevator to fifth. They close gates. Dougherty calls it and goes to sixth. Williams hears elevator coming up and investigates. Dougherty tells him the others were on fifth and Williams goes down on east elevator.
-
What do you believe happened?
I don't know what happened. You are the one making a big deal out of 2 prints, so perhaps you tell me.
The evidence confirms that Oswald touched the SN boxes.
So what? He worked there....
No other TSBD employee left any identifiable prints on those boxes. Only Oswald.
Yeah right, with a new floor being laid on the 6th floor and boxes being moved around all the time by all the TSBD employees who were there only Oswald somehow managed to leave two prints behind. And you believe this is even remotely plausible?
Oswald, as the assassin, would have handled those boxes just prior to the assassination.
There is the circular "logic" again
If some other TSBD employee handled them on some prior occasion, then it less likely that they would be found with the passage of time.
The passage of time? Just how many days in advance do you believe the snipers nest was build?
So once again the evidence points to Oswald and only Oswald.
Said the prosecutor, desperately looking for something to get a conviction.
It is weak contrarian sauce to dismiss the presence of Oswald's prints on the SN boxes as a produce of his "working there" when no other TSBD employee left any such prints.
And it's utterly pathetic LN crap to assume that out of all the people working at the TSBD, moving boxes around, only two prints would be identified as belonging to one man..... All the other boxes moved magically by themselves, right?
Oswald had more reason to position that top box with exact precision; thus gripping those back corners a little longer and more firmly... enough to establish a couple of usable prints and catch the little prick with his hand in the cookie jar, so-to-speak.
Can't you CT almost-geniuses figure out anything?
-
How’s this for a thought. Jarman and Norman take west elevator to fifth. They close gates. Dougherty calls it and goes to sixth. Williams hears elevator coming up and investigates. Dougherty tells him the others were on fifth and Williams goes down on east elevator.
I put a lot of weight on Rowland's testimony.
Not to do so means accepting two truly massive coincidences.
1) He sees a black male in the SN window.
If he's making that up then it is coincidental that the various testimonies I've mentioned in previous posts can be reasonably interpreted as putting BRW having his lunch in the SN at the time Rowland states.
2) He sees a man with a scoped rifle.
Minutes after the shooting Rowland is telling Roger Craig he saw a man with a rifle on the 6th floor. He goes on to tell other officers the same thing before giving his affidavit . If he's just making it up then it is coincidental that there did happen to be a man with a scoped rifle on the 6th floor.
The way I'm looking at it right now is that the man with the rifle (Dougherty in my scenario) is on the 6th floor at the same time as the black male in the SN window (Williams). I don't think Williams is aware of him at that time as he is in the SN. At some point, the man with the rifle tells BRW to move it (he may not have had the rifle on him at that moment). So BRW might be annoyed but not thinking there's any real danger, so he joins Jarman and Norman on the 5th.
-
I put a lot of weight on Rowland's testimony.
Not to do so means accepting two truly massive coincidences.
1) He sees a black male in the SN window.
If he's making that up then it is coincidental that the various testimonies I've mentioned in previous posts can be reasonably interpreted as putting BRW having his lunch in the SN at the time Rowland states.
2) He sees a man with a scoped rifle.
Minutes after the shooting Rowland is telling Roger Craig he saw a man with a rifle on the 6th floor. He goes on to tell other officers the same thing before giving his affidavit . If he's just making it up then it is coincidental that there did happen to be a man with a scoped rifle on the 6th floor.
The way I'm looking at it right now is that the man with the rifle (Dougherty in my scenario) is on the 6th floor at the same time as the black male in the SN window (Williams). I don't think Williams is aware of him at that time as he is in the SN. At some point, the man with the rifle tells BRW to move it (he may not have had the rifle on him at that moment). So BRW might be annoyed but not thinking there's any real danger, so he joins Jarman and Norman on the 5th.
Agree that Rowland saw Williams and gunman. Was my original conclusion in 2014. Also Williams left SN unexpectedly.....chicken left behind. The puzzle is the movement of the west elevator after Jarman and Norman leave the gates shut on fifth. I suppose Dougherty already on sixth can call it from the sixth if he is already there. Take from sixth to fifth, then down to first while Baker and Truly ascend....or he just takes to sixth, then down.
-
How’s this for a thought. Jarman and Norman take west elevator to fifth. They close gates. Dougherty calls it and goes to sixth. Williams hears elevator coming up and investigates. Dougherty tells him the others were on fifth and Williams goes down on east elevator.
A question I think needs asking here is why didn't Messrs Jarman and Norman go up to six? In fact, why did none of the others go up to six? It would have been the obvious vantage point----and, according to Williams, the place several employees originally intended to go to. Instead we end up with folks watching the motorcade from floors two, three, four and five-----but not six, which just happens to be the floor a shooter is seen on. No accident IMO. Someone put six off bounds for employees in the minutes leading up to the motorcade, and it can't have been an instruction from a lowly employee like Mr Oswald (or Mr Dougherty, in Mr O'Meara's fanciful scenario).
Mr Williams saw something up there that spooked him big time, and Mr Truly was well aware of it------------
Mr. McCLOY. From what you know of these young men who testified before you today, are they trustworthy?
Mr. TRULY. Yes, sir; I think they are. They are good men. They have been with me, most of them, for some time. I have no reason to doubt their word. I do know that they have been rather, as the expression goes, shook up about this thing, especially this tall one, Bonnie Williams. He is pretty superstitious, I would say.
-
The officers who saw the SN before Fritz arrived (five or six of them) reported seeing the lunch remains in/on the SN.
The officers who saw the SN after Fritz had been there saw the lunch remains by the two-wheeler truck.
Prove the lunch remains belonged to Mr Williams. Disprove Mr Tom Alyea's emphatic claim that no chicken bones were found on the sixth floor.
Williams is photographed on the 5th floor with Norman and Jarman.
This does not prove that he joined them on the 5th floor----------could have been the other way around.
Have you read Mr Norman's HSCA testimony?
(I like the way your "team" moves everyone away apart from Eddie Piper. Brilliant.)
Mr Rowland's description of the man in the SN window fits Mr Piper. It does not fit Mr Williams. Saying 'Oh well, it's a black man so that'll do' is a weak cope.
The authorities knew the description fit Mr Piper--------it's the reason he was photographed by the FBI.
If the man was not Mr Piper then he was a non-employee. Your LN-lite attempts to keep the conspiracy in-house at all costs are rather desperate!
-
Agree that Rowland saw Williams and gunman. Was my original conclusion in 2014. Also Williams left SN unexpectedly.....chicken left behind. The puzzle is the movement of the west elevator after Jarman and Norman leave the gates shut on fifth. I suppose Dougherty already on sixth can call it from the sixth if he is already there. Take from sixth to fifth, then down to first while Baker and Truly ascend....or he just takes to sixth, then down.
Jarman and Norman take the west elevator up to 5th
Williams takes east elevator down to fifth.
At this point both elevators are on 5th as are Jarman, Norman and Williams.
Dougherty is on 6th
The problem is that this is the situation when Truly and Baker are stood looking up at the elevators.
Truly is supposed to have tried to call the west elevator but it didn't come so he and Baker hit the stairs.
The only way it works is if Truly is somehow involved.
It's actually part of his "role" to slow the first law enforcement in.
He hollers up the elevator shaft announcing his arrival, pretends to call the elevator but it doesn't come, then hits the stairs.
Either Dougherty calls the west elevator to the 6th floor and takes it down as Baker and Truly are ascending or...
When Baker and Truly get to the 5th the west elevator is on 6th floor. After they go to roof Dougherty takes the elevator down to first, then back up to 5th floor in time to be seen on 5th by Truly as he and Baker descend to the 1st floor from the 7th
Why does Dougherty need to make this quick trip from 6th to 1st to 5th?
I think it's because he has to drop off the "real" rifle in the west shipping section of the TSBD where it is picked up by Shelley/Lovelady and put in Shelley's car parked just outside the west door. While they are doing that Dougherty returns to the 5th floor to carry on as normal.
All of this speculation is predicated on Truly being in on it and not really calling the west elevator when he and Baker are at the bottom of the elevators.
-
Oswald had more reason to position that top box with exact precision; thus gripping those back corners a little longer and more firmly... enough to establish a couple of usable prints and catch the little prick with his hand in the cookie jar, so-to-speak.
Can't you CT almost-geniuses figure out anything?
Non LNs are far better at figuring out things than you are at jumping to flawed conclusions.
-
In a recent interview on Quorum Radio, Mr Buell Wesley Frazier mentioned something I wasn't aware of. On the day Mr Oswald started working at the Depository, Mr Frazier was called by Mr Shelley over the speaker system. "They had speakers on each of the floors."
Given how unexpected Officer Baker's immediate dash into the building was, the question occurs: did somebody (I'm thinking Mr Shelley here) go back into the building just after Officer Baker and Mr Truly and broadcast a warning to those on six that a cop was on the way up?
Meanwhile, of course, the stupendously helpful Mr Truly did the one thing needful (the one thing, that is, after vouching for a non-employee caught walking away from the stairway several floors up!):
He contrived a way of keeping Officer Baker away from the sixth floor.
Thumb1:
-
Prove the lunch remains belonged to Mr Williams.
Asked and answered
Disprove Mr Tom Alyea's emphatic claim that no chicken bones were found on the sixth floor.
Link please.
You know how this works
This does not prove that he joined them on the 5th floor----------could have been the other way around.
Have you read Mr Norman's HSCA testimony?
All three men - Jarma, Norman and Williams - testify that Williams joined Jarman and Norman on the 5th floor.
Have you not read their WC testimonies?
Mr Rowland's description of the man in the SN window fits Mr Piper. It does not fit Mr Williams. Saying 'Oh well, it's a black man so that'll do' is a weak cope.
There's no point in repeating this for the third time but here goes -
the testimonies of the officers that first see the SN place the lunch remains in/on the SN.
Williams testifies that they are his lunch remains.
The testimonies of Williams, Jarman and Norman have BRW on the 6th floor after 12:16, the time Rowland sees his man.
There is plenty of witness testimony that puts BRW in the SN eating his lunch at the time Rowland sees him there.
How is that weak?
You're just completely making up this "team" out of thin air. There is zero evidence for your "team" (but that's the usual amount of evidence you like to go off)
The authorities knew the description fit Mr Piper--------it's the reason he was photographed by the FBI.
Unsupported waffle
If the man was not Mr Piper then he was a non-employee. Your LN-lite attempts to keep the conspiracy in-house at all costs are rather desperate!
And your attempts to introduce a "team" are a joke and based on nothing.
What is the big evidence or witness testimony for your "team"?
-
In a recent interview on Quorum Radio, Mr Buell Wesley Frazier mentioned something I wasn't aware of. On the day Mr Oswald started working at the Depository, Mr Frazier was called by Mr Shelley over the speaker system. "They had speakers on each of the floors."
Given how unexpected Officer Baker's immediate dash into the building was, the question occurs: did somebody (I'm thinking Mr Shelley here) go back into the building just after Officer Baker and Mr Truly and broadcast a warning to those on six that a cop was on the way up?
Meanwhile, of course, the stupendously helpful Mr Truly did the one thing needful (the one thing, that is, after vouching for a non-employee caught walking away from the stairway several floors up!):
He contrived a way of keeping Officer Baker away from the sixth floor.
Thumb1:
Shelley didn't enter the building until approx 5 minutes after the shooting. He and Lovelady can be seen on video walking to the railway yard, where they were seen by Victoria Adams.
-
For those that want to believe Alyea over seven officers that saw lunch remnants in the SN, prove he was there before Jerry Hill left. That is the critical information. Things are temporal in nature.
Also Williams was in the SN, he knew his fingerprints would be on the bag/bottle and he might be implicated. However Jack Ruby fixed things by Sunday lunchtime.
It is interesting to consider the relative positions of Williams and Dougherty just within minutes of the shooting.
-
The 6th floor was full of boxes and junk. Terms like "SN" were not exactly precise or used the same way by every witness. Recollections are not perfect. The language used to describe the location of an object is sometimes imprecise. It's entirely possible the lunch remains were moved around by the investigators and noticed on different boxes at different times. Witnesses confused questions about the lunch sack with the longer bag). And when all is said and done, the person who ate the lunch says he heard and saw nothing. There is no credible reason for him to lie. It's hard to believe that he would have forever remained silent had he seen someone on the 6th floor.
-
Non LNs are far better at figuring out things than you are at jumping to flawed conclusions.
Keep denying the fact that Oswald's prints clearly indicate that the box is being aimed straight down Elm, and tell us how your 'non-LNs' (aka Oswald Arse-Kissers) are better than yours truly (or, more importantly any other LN) at 'figuring out things'
-
Unsupported waffle
Oh really? In that case you'll be able to tell us why Mr Piper was photographed by the FBI. Over to you:..............................
-
Shelley didn't enter the building until approx 5 minutes after the shooting. He and Lovelady can be seen on video walking to the railway yard, where they were seen by Victoria Adams.
That's not Mr Shelley, it's Mr Danny Arce.
Mr Lovelady is still on the steps (yellow arrow)
(https://images2.imgbox.com/ea/e8/GaagDfG1_o.jpg)
Mr Shelley completely changed his story from
------------------I ran into Gloria Calvery on the corner of the park and she told me what had happened
to
------------------I stayed on the steps and Gloria Calvery came up and told us what had happened then Billy & I left the steps
Mr Shelley, not inconsequentially, had been best man at Gloria Calvery's wedding a few months earlier!
-
Keep denying the fact that Oswald's prints clearly indicate that the box is being aimed straight down Elm, and tell us how your 'non-LNs' (aka Oswald Arse-Kissers) are better than yours truly (or, more importantly any other LN) at 'figuring out things'
Keep denying the fact that Oswald's prints clearly indicate that the box is being aimed straight down Elm
Hilarious! So, Kennedy was shot with a box?
tell us how your 'non-LNs' (aka Oswald Arse-Kissers) are better than yours truly (or, more importantly any other LN) at 'figuring out things'
If you are really as superior as you think, you should be able to figure that out by yourself and not have to ask me.
-
Keep denying the fact that Oswald's prints clearly indicate that the box is being aimed straight down Elm
Hilarious! So, Kennedy was shot with a box?
tell us how your 'non-LNs' (aka Oswald Arse-Kissers) are better than yours truly (or, more importantly any other LN) at 'figuring out things'
If you are really as superior as you think, you should be able to figure that out by yourself and not have to ask me.
Hilarious! So, Kennedy was shot with a box?
So that's an example of how non-LNs (aka Oswald Arse-Kissers) 'figure out things'. Got it.
(fyi: aimed = angled = pointed)
If you are really as superior as you think, you should be able to figure that out by yourself and not have to ask me
::) Wow: Yet another non-answer cop-out from yet another non-LN. You want some fries with your nothingburger, big fella?
While you lot continue to circle the wagons around your pet theories some 58 years after Oswald shot Tippit in front of witnesses and Rosetta-stoned Kennedy in the process, nonLNs bask in the knowledge of Oswald shooting Tippit in front of witnesses and Rosetta-stoning Kennedy in the process.
EDIT: Corrected box reference from
support box to top box regarding gun-rest
2:54pm EST
-
Hilarious! So, Kennedy was shot with a box?
So that's an example of how non-LNs (aka Oswald Arse-Kissers) 'figure out things'. Got it.
No, fool. That's sarcasm. You couldn't even figure that one out? :D
If you are really as superior as you think, you should be able to figure that out by yourself and not have to ask me
::) Wow: Yet another non-answer cop-out from yet another non-LN. You want some fries with your nothingburger, big fella?
While you lot continue to circle the wagons around your pet theories some 58 years after Oswald shot Tippit in front of witnesses and Rosetta-stoned Kennedy in the process, nonLNs bask in the knowledge of Oswald shooting Tippit in front of witnesses and Rosetta-stoning Kennedy in the process.
EDIT: Corrected box reference from
top to support box regarding gun rest
2:54pm EST
Translation; as it is way over his head, "superior" Billy can't figure it out, malfunctions and reverts to the same old shallow crap.... Hilarious! Thumb1:
-
No, fool. That's sarcasm. You couldn't even figure that one out? :D
Translation; as it is way over his head, "superior" Billy can't figure it out, malfunctions and reverts to the same old shallow crap.... Hilarious! Thumb1:
No, fool. That's sarcasm. You couldn't even figure that one out?
To which I responded to with sarcasm, Sparky. You couldn't figure that out?
"superior"
Show us where I ever called myself 'superior'.
'shallow crap'
Of course the fact that Oswald was witnessed killing Tippit (and Rosetta-stoning Kennedy in the process) would be 'crap' to those residing on the far shores of the lunatic fringe. Not-to-mention (which you non-LNs sure wish we wouldn't) the fact that the Oswald prints on the support box clearly reveal that the little prick carefully aimed.steered, guided, maneuvered said support box to align with the gun-rest box pointed straight down Broadway.
-
No, fool. That's sarcasm. You couldn't even figure that one out?
To which I responded to with sarcasm, Sparky. You couldn't figure that out?
You might try to get a better understanding of what sarcasm is.
"superior"
Show us where I ever called myself 'superior'.
Did I ever say you called yourself "superior"?
'shallow crap'
Of course the fact that Oswald was witnessed killing Tippit (and Rosetta-stoning Kennedy in the process) would be 'crap' to those residing on the far shores of the lunatic fringe. Not-to-mention (which you non-LNs sure wish we wouldn't) the fact that the Oswald prints on the support box clearly reveal that the little prick aimed/steered/guided/maneuvered said support box to align with the gun-rest box pointed straight down Broadway.
I bet you play cd's on continuous replay as well....
-
You might try to get a better understanding of what sarcasm is.
Did I ever say you called yourself "superior"?
I bet you play cd's on continuous replay as well....
1) I just showed that
2) "superior" Billy you quoted
3) Here. I'll shorten it: Oswald killed Tippit and ate Kennedy's lunch.
-
1) I just showed that
No, you showed that you don't know what sarcasm is
2) "superior" Billy you quoted
So, you think that quotation marks are only used for actual quotations?
In English writing, quotation marks are placed in pairs around a word or phrase to indicate:
Quotation or direct speech: Carol said "Go ahead" when I asked her if the launcher was ready.
Scare quotes, used to mean "so-called" or to express irony: The "fresh" bread was all dried up.
3) Here. I'll shorten it: Oswald killed Tippit and ate Kennedy's lunch.
-
The 6th floor was full of boxes and junk. Terms like "SN" were not exactly precise or used the same way by every witness. Recollections are not perfect. The language used to describe the location of an object is sometimes imprecise. It's entirely possible the lunch remains were moved around by the investigators and noticed on different boxes at different times. Witnesses confused questions about the lunch sack with the longer bag). And when all is said and done, the person who ate the lunch says he heard and saw nothing. There is no credible reason for him to lie. It's hard to believe that he would have forever remained silent had he seen someone on the 6th floor.
"There is no credible reason for him to lie."
From his affidavit on the day of the assassination:
"I went back on the 5th floor with a man called Hank and Junior..."
This is a lie. There must be a credible reason for it.
Even when he admits he was up on the 6th floor he constantly tries to underplay how long he was there - 3, 5, 10, 12, 15, 20 minutes. The more he is questioned the longer he is up there.
He also tries to distance himself from the SN when he has his lunch, saying he had it between the third and fourth windows. About 30ft away from where he actually had his lunch.
He also states that when he finished his lunch he put the bones in the bag and left it by the two-wheeler truck, as shown in the Studebaker photos. But the officers who saw the SN before Studebaker got there testify to seeing Williams half eaten lunch in/on the SN - not on the floor by the truck.
This is an interesting excerpt from BRW's WC testimony:
Mr. BALL. Now, also, on January 14th, did you remember talking to a couple of agents named Carter and Griffin?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I can't remember their names, but I am sure I did.
Mr. BALL. You talked to a good many of them?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Well, they reported here that you went down to the fifth floor, and you did so by going down on the west elevator.
Mr. WILLIAMS. The east elevator. The reason I was able to determine whether it was the east elevator is because I think when you questioned us the other day, the other fellows--I told you I didn't remember which elevator first. But the other fellows said they had the west elevator. There are only two elevators. If they are sure they had the west elevator up, that only leaves the east elevator.
Mr. BALL. When you got to the fifth floor and left the elevator, at that time were beth elevators on the fifth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Both west and east?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir, as I remember.
Mr. BALL. The other day, when I talked to you in Dallas, on Friday 20 March--
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And at that time were you able did you remember which elevator it was?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Which elevator I had?
Mr. BALL. What you had come down from six to five on.
Mr. WILLIAMS. As I remember, I first said I wasn't sure. After the fellows said they brought the west elevator up, I said I must have the east elevator.
In it he reveals that himself, Norman and Jarman all sat around with Ball getting their story straight.
He had no credible reason to lie.
But he did lie.
So what's the credible reason for that?
-
No, you showed that you don't know what sarcasm is
So, you think that quotation marks are only used for actual quotations?
In English writing, quotation marks are placed in pairs around a word or phrase to indicate:
Quotation or direct speech: Carol said "Go ahead" when I asked her if the launcher was ready.
Scare quotes, used to mean "so-called" or to express irony: The "fresh" bread was all dried up.
"superior" Billy
Deflect, squirm and clutch at straws as much as you want: You used the word 'superior' in direct relation to me. Now tell us why you used the word in the first place.
-
"superior" Billy
Deflect, squirm and clutch at straws as much as you want: You used the word 'superior' in direct relation to me. Now tell us why you used the word in the first place.
Stop asking me questions. Figure it out.
-
Stop asking me questions. Figure it out.
Run, Marty. Run. You lot are the JAQers around here. If you can't stand the heat..
I've already 'figured it out', buster: Oswald killed Tippit in front of witnesses and Rosetta-stoned Kennedy in the process.
Combine that reality with the fact that Oswald pretty much pointed to himself when he left the two directional fingerprints on the box supporting the gun-rest box.
Oswald would have fried.
Edits begun: APR 22 12:30PM EST
-
"There is no credible reason for him to lie."
From his affidavit on the day of the assassination:
"I went back on the 5th floor with a man called Hank and Junior..."
This is a lie. There must be a credible reason for it.
Even when he admits he was up on the 6th floor he constantly tries to underplay how long he was there - 3, 5, 10, 12, 15, 20 minutes. The more he is questioned the longer he is up there.
He also tries to distance himself from the SN when he has his lunch, saying he had it between the third and fourth windows. About 30ft away from where he actually had his lunch.
He also states that when he finished his lunch he put the bones in the bag and left it by the two-wheeler truck, as shown in the Studebaker photos. But the officers who saw the SN before Studebaker got there testify to seeing Williams half eaten lunch in/on the SN - not on the floor by the truck.
This is an interesting excerpt from BRW's WC testimony:
Mr. BALL. Now, also, on January 14th, did you remember talking to a couple of agents named Carter and Griffin?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I can't remember their names, but I am sure I did.
Mr. BALL. You talked to a good many of them?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Well, they reported here that you went down to the fifth floor, and you did so by going down on the west elevator.
Mr. WILLIAMS. The east elevator. The reason I was able to determine whether it was the east elevator is because I think when you questioned us the other day, the other fellows--I told you I didn't remember which elevator first. But the other fellows said they had the west elevator. There are only two elevators. If they are sure they had the west elevator up, that only leaves the east elevator.
Mr. BALL. When you got to the fifth floor and left the elevator, at that time were beth elevators on the fifth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Both west and east?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir, as I remember.
Mr. BALL. The other day, when I talked to you in Dallas, on Friday 20 March--
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And at that time were you able did you remember which elevator it was?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Which elevator I had?
Mr. BALL. What you had come down from six to five on.
Mr. WILLIAMS. As I remember, I first said I wasn't sure. After the fellows said they brought the west elevator up, I said I must have the east elevator.
In it he reveals that himself, Norman and Jarman all sat around with Ball getting their story straight.
He had no credible reason to lie.
But he did lie.
So what's the credible reason for that?
That is mostly just your subjective interpretation of his motives. He doesn't remember every mundane detail with scientific precision or answer every such question consistently. That doesn't mean he is lying or getting his story straight. It just means he is not particularly precise or consistent when recounting what were mundane events down to the minute at later dates. These types of details take on greater significance to us with 50+ years of knowledge of the events than to someone who just had lunch that day not realizing his every movement would be subject to scrutiny. There are numerous instances in this case of folks being wildly off in their estimate of the time that certain events occurred. Someone once went through a entire list here on the forum of witnesses miscalculating the time that certain events occurred that day including obvious ones such as the time that JFK was assassinated and getting it wrong.
-
Run, Marty. Run. You lot are the JAQers around here. If you can't stand the heat..
I've already 'figured it out', buster: Oswald killed Tippit in front of witnesses and Rosetta-stoned Kennedy in the process.
Combine that reality with the fact that Oswald pretty much pointed to himself when he left the two directional fingerprints on the box supporting the gun-rest box.
Oswald would have fried.
Edits begun: APR 22 12:30PM EST
I've already 'figured it out', buster: Oswald killed Tippit in front of witnesses and Rosetta-stoned Kennedy in the process.
Of course the fact that Oswald was witnessed killing Tippit (and Rosetta-stoning Kennedy in the process) would be 'crap' to those residing on the far shores of the lunatic fringe.
While you lot continue to circle the wagons around your pet theories some 58 years after Oswald shot Tippit in front of witnesses and Rosetta-stoned Kennedy in the process, nonLNs bask in the knowledge of Oswald shooting Tippit in front of witnesses and Rosetta-stoning Kennedy in the process.
> No point arguing about who killed who (so-to-speak), when said who killed who was witnessed doing just that @Tippit, while Rosetta-stoning Kennedy in the process, Mr Pretend-Lawyer.
You really like the term "Rosetta stone" a lot, don't you?
-
That is mostly just your subjective interpretation of his motives. He doesn't remember every mundane detail with scientific precision or answer every such question consistently. That doesn't mean he is lying or getting his story straight. It just means he is not particularly precise or consistent when recounting what were mundane events down to the minute at later dates. These types of details take on greater significance to us with 50+ years of knowledge of the events than to someone who just had lunch that day not realizing his every movement would be subject to scrutiny. There are numerous instances in this case of folks being wildly off in their estimate of the time that certain events occurred. Someone once went through a entire list here on the forum of witnesses miscalculating the time that certain events occurred that day including obvious ones such as the time that JFK was assassinated and getting it wrong.
"He doesn't remember every mundane detail with scientific precision or answer every such question consistently."
I couldn't agree more. We're all human and fallible to say the least.
My memory isn't that great at the best of times and if I was asked to recall my movements from a few hours ago I have little doubt there would be lost details, incorrect times etc.
But one thing I feel confident about is that I wouldn't remember something that didn't happen. Which is what BRW appears to have done. The mundane detail that seemed to slip from his mind was that he went up to the 6th floor alone, spent the better part of half an hour up there and then went down to meet up with Norman and Jarman on the 5th floor minutes before the motorcade arrived.
Instead, he remembers meeting up with Norman and Jarman on the first floor and going up to the 5th floor with them!
He's not being asked to remember something from 50 years ago. It was earlier that day and his recorded statements don't change with time.
Maybe it is my "subjective interpretation" of events.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that.
-
You really like the term "Rosetta stone" a lot, don't you?
'Rosetta-stoned':
Cuts to the quick; fits like a glove.
-
"He doesn't remember every mundane detail with scientific precision or answer every such question consistently."
I couldn't agree more. We're all human and fallible to say the least.
My memory isn't that great at the best of times and if I was asked to recall my movements from a few hours ago I have little doubt there would be lost details, incorrect times etc.
But one thing I feel confident about is that I wouldn't remember something that didn't happen. Which is what BRW appears to have done. The mundane detail that seemed to slip from his mind was that he went up to the 6th floor alone, spent the better part of half an hour up there and then went down to meet up with Norman and Jarman on the 5th floor minutes before the motorcade arrived.
Instead, he remembers meeting up with Norman and Jarman on the first floor and going up to the 5th floor with them!
He's not being asked to remember something from 50 years ago. It was earlier that day and his recorded statements don't change with time.
Maybe it is my "subjective interpretation" of events.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Tell me anyone who doesn’t know what time their lunch time is.
-
That is mostly just your subjective interpretation of his motives. He doesn't remember every mundane detail with scientific precision or answer every such question consistently. That doesn't mean he is lying or getting his story straight. It just means he is not particularly precise or consistent when recounting what were mundane events down to the minute at later dates. These types of details take on greater significance to us with 50+ years of knowledge of the events than to someone who just had lunch that day not realizing his every movement would be subject to scrutiny. There are numerous instances in this case of folks being wildly off in their estimate of the time that certain events occurred. Someone once went through a entire list here on the forum of witnesses miscalculating the time that certain events occurred that day including obvious ones such as the time that JFK was assassinated and getting it wrong.
The "story" was straightened by Belin and Ball on March 20. Those of Jarman and Norman too. A story that sort of allowed Oswald to be silent in th SN for many minutes unnoticed. Still wondering how Rowland's 12.15 gunman managed to stay out of William's gaze though.
By May seems 12.15pm wasn’t a problem any more for him. More memory loss?
(https://i.ibb.co/1mnvKmt/61-EDB382-619-F-4484-BAC5-0-BDA23-C2657-A.jpg)
Does anyone think he got the times he left for work wrong that day?
-
That is mostly just your subjective interpretation of his motives. He doesn't remember every mundane detail with scientific precision or answer every such question consistently. That doesn't mean he is lying or getting his story straight. It just means he is not particularly precise or consistent when recounting what were mundane events down to the minute at later dates. These types of details take on greater significance to us with 50+ years of knowledge of the events than to someone who just had lunch that day not realizing his every movement would be subject to scrutiny. There are numerous instances in this case of folks being wildly off in their estimate of the time that certain events occurred. Someone once went through a entire list here on the forum of witnesses miscalculating the time that certain events occurred that day including obvious ones such as the time that JFK was assassinated and getting it wrong.
Strawman....it is the sequence of events that can be corroborated that is important. Not the exact time. Also if important events are omitted that were known to have occurred. Would you have William's in the elevator with Jarman and Norman on their way to the fifth? Maybe Bonnie Ray joins them on the fifth before they arrive. Perhaps you could offer your analysis of the evidence presented rather than a simple....they were just confused and had memory loss verdict. I hope you can appreciate that for some of us that just doesn’t cut it. All those taking of statements would just be a total waste of time.
-
That's not Mr Shelley, it's Mr Danny Arce.
Mr Lovelady is still on the steps (yellow arrow)
(https://images2.imgbox.com/ea/e8/GaagDfG1_o.jpg)
Mr Shelley completely changed his story from
------------------I ran into Gloria Calvery on the corner of the park and she told me what had happened
to
------------------I stayed on the steps and Gloria Calvery came up and told us what had happened then Billy & I left the steps
Mr Shelley, not inconsequentially, had been best man at Gloria Calvery's wedding a few months earlier!
Mr. BALL. Where were you standing when you heard the shots?
Mr. ARCE. I was standing in front of the Texas School Book Depository. I was on that grassy area part in front.
Mr. BALL. You were not on the sidewalk?
Mr. ARCE. No, I was on the sidewalk, then I walked up to the grass to get a higher view. and still couldn't see.
I believe he has been identified standing east of the main entrance on the sidewalk as the motorcade passed. Hopefully someone has that image.
-
Tell me anyone who doesn’t know what time their lunch time is.
It isn't just Williams whose memory seems to have deserted him concerning events that day.
Although BRW changes his lie the next day and more or less sticks to it (ignoring his problems with time-keeping), Norman and Jarman, in various interviews with the FBI and the Secret Service insist he was with them on the first floor and went up to the 5th floor with them. That is, until the WC hearings when everyone is suddenly singing from the same hymn sheet. For months Jarman and Norman insist BRW was with them whilst BRW is telling everyone he went up to the 6th floor alone.
At first Bill Shelley says he went back to the steps and back into the TSBD to phone his wife - this is a lie. After the shooting he went down to the railroad yard for a few minutes and entered the TSBD through the west door.
Lovelady says he was out on the front steps then went back inside the building. This is exactly the same lie as Shelley's as he also went down to the railroad yard for a few minutes before entering the west door.
It is interesting to note both Shelley and Lovelady tell exactly the same lie in their WC testimonies when they both try to put a timestamp of three minutes on the arrival of Baker.
Dougherty lied about working on the 5th floor at the time of the shooting and his story about taking the elevator down to the first, having a word with Piper then returning to work on the 6th is also a massive lie.
Charles Givens sudden remembrance, months after the event, that he went back up to the 6th floor and saw Oswald, stinks to high heaven.
Nearly all the men who were on the 6th floor that morning are lying about something or other.
You can look at each individual case and say "it could be this, it could be that" but when viewed as a collective it is clear there is something amiss.
People will always forget details about events, even if they occurred only a matter of hours earlier.
But too many people are remembering things that didn't happen and they were all on the 6th floor.
Some can brush that under the carpet but I cannot.
-
Things were "sorted out" by Belin and Ball on March 20. The various re-enactments were conducted according to one conclusion. The participants merely needed to stick to the script. Some did better than others. There are many examples of "prepping" that slipped out.
-
Mr. BALL. Where were you standing when you heard the shots?
Mr. ARCE. I was standing in front of the Texas School Book Depository. I was on that grassy area part in front.
Mr. BALL. You were not on the sidewalk?
Mr. ARCE. No, I was on the sidewalk, then I walked up to the grass to get a higher view. and still couldn't see.
I believe he has been identified standing east of the main entrance on the sidewalk as the motorcade passed. Hopefully someone has that image.
This is supposed to be Arce in Altgens 6
(https://i.postimg.cc/wMYyfq37/Danny-Arce-on-Houston.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Things were "sorted out" by Belin and Ball on March 20. The various re-enactments were conducted according to one conclusion. The participants merely needed to stick to the script. Some did better than others. There are many examples of "prepping" that slipped out.
If the WC testimonies represent the "truth", I find it interesting that the majority of those who were on the 6th floor that day are lying on their very first statements to the authorities.
-
If the WC testimonies represent the "truth", I find it interesting that the majority of those who were on the 6th floor that day are lying on their very first statements to the authorities.
Even the WC Report and Bugliosi failed to follow the Ball Belin script. Reverting to the BRW May '64 statement. Bizarre.
-
If the WC testimonies represent the "truth", I find it interesting that the majority of those who were on the 6th floor that day are lying on their very first statements to the authorities.
That's hardly the only problem with the WC testimonies.
They took Tomlinson's testimont before entering bullet CE399 into evidence to avoid having to show it to Tomlinson and thus eliminate the risk that he would fail to identify it under oath.
Arlen Specter interviewed FBI agents Sibert & O'Neil, who attended the autopsy and wrote a report about it, and then decided not to call them to testify.
Rankin ignored the Stroud letter about Dorothy Garner seeing Truly and Baker come up after Vicky Adams had gone done. Garner was apparently interviewed by the FBI (no document exists) before they decided to call her.
The FBI showed Oswald's arrest shirts to various people in order to determine if it was the same shirt he had worn on Friday morning. Nobody identified it except for Bledsoe and her story about the hole in the sleeve. Bledsoe was the only one who was asked about it during her testimony
Lovelady was clearly "coached" about seeing Vicky Adams prior to his testimony
The list goes on and on..... In now way the WC testimonies represent the "truth"
-
That some interesting "logic." Why would Oswald's prints not being on a Dr. Pepper bottle that belonged to someone else preclude his presence in the SN? Oswald's fingerprints were all over the SN boxes.
First things first, Mr. Smith, Have you finally moved on from trying to find irrefutable proof that the lying rooftop tandem were on that otherwise locked roof from the inside?
Have you also moved on from trying to find irrefutable proof that the lying rooftop tandem were ever together on those backstairs? No one has ever put them together near and/or on those backstairs save for Mr. Piper, who you know actually only places Roy Truly near the backstairs a few minutes later than the hastily contrived script timing sequence. Also, lest we forget Mr. Piper puts someone accompanying Roy Truly other than an obvious white helmeted motorcycle officer in long black boots.
We know Dallas Deputy Sheriff John Wiseman didn't see them together on those backstairs either, and he was right on their tail taking the same path to that otherwise locked roof from the inside.
Now, to your question, fair is fair, (A) the wrongly accused was employed to handle boxes on occasion; and (B) we may never know which one of the lying, fork-tongued floor crewmembers was ordered/assigned to collect those particular boxes handled by him and subsequently place them in incriminating fashion over in the SN.
Of course, perhaps all of these work crewmembers are only guilty of changing their statements for whatever reason amid a hastily contrived script challenge and the real culprit here is ----->
Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer. I don't remember when I went over there. It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell cases.
The problem w/framing the wrongly accused is too many people failed to thoroughly vett their lies before offering up the horse manure stench they did amid a hastily contrived script. The wrongly accused did Not shoot anybody. Anybody.
-
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ak3JymYrSpzVtF0i-jbAxuRICk9lcZ5q/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ak3JymYrSpzVtF0i-jbAxuRICk9lcZ5q/view?usp=sharing)
This insightful link shared by top-shelf researcher Mr. Davidson (Chris) is proving to be rather informative & interesting as well. The more I view it the more further examination is required before I weigh in definitively. Will continue to study it to determine if in fact the short gentlemen at the 39 sec mark is Roy Truly (will have to glean some resources to garner a photo of Chief Lumpkin to match to a gentlemen who may also be in this time sequence at the 39 sec mark). If so that would offer up a definitive time sequence as Chief Lumpkin enters the timeline scene after Roy Truly notices one of his men "missing" (please excuse the eye-roll).
Some accounts say Roy Truly asked Bill Shelley the whereabouts of the wrongly accused; and, yet another account suggests Bill Shelley actually asked Roy Truly...
*Note: self-reminder to double-back and review video again to determine if the eye-glasses on one of the gentlemen among the trio at the window at the 12 sec. mark matches Roy Truly's.
Meanwhile, encouraging to read the insightful posts being generated here by some astute research by an ensemble of exemplary researchers. Carry on gentlemen.
-
Mr. BALL. Where were you standing when you heard the shots?
Mr. ARCE. I was standing in front of the Texas School Book Depository. I was on that grassy area part in front.
Mr. BALL. You were not on the sidewalk?
Mr. ARCE. No, I was on the sidewalk, then I walked up to the grass to get a higher view. and still couldn't see.
I believe he has been identified standing east of the main entrance on the sidewalk as the motorcade passed. Hopefully someone has that image.
Exactly---and then after the shots he made his way west to the railroad tracks
-
This insightful link shared by top-shelf researcher Mr. Davidson (Chris) is proving to be rather informative & interesting as well. The more I view it the more further examination is required before I weigh in definitively. Will continue to study it to determine if in fact the short gentlemen at the 39 sec mark is Roy Truly (will have to glean some resources to garner a photo of Chief Lumpkin to match to a gentlemen who may also be in this time sequence at the 39 sec mark). If so that would offer up a definitive time sequence as Chief Lumpkin enters the timeline scene after Roy Truly notices one of his men "missing" (please excuse the eye-roll).
Some accounts say Roy Truly asked Bill Shelley the whereabouts of the wrongly accused; and, yet another account suggests Bill Shelley actually asked Roy Truly...
*Note: self-reminder to double-back and review video again to determine if the eye-glasses on one of the gentlemen among the trio at the window at the 12 sec. mark matches Roy Truly's.
Meanwhile, encouraging to read the insightful posts being generated here by some astute research by an ensemble of exemplary researchers. Carry on gentlemen.
Yes, that's Mr Truly, and he's on the fifth floor
-
The "story" was straightened by Belin and Ball on March 20. Those of Jarman and Norman too. A story that sort of allowed Oswald to be silent in th SN for many minutes unnoticed. Still wondering how Rowland's 12.15 gunman managed to stay out of William's gaze though.
By May seems 12.15pm wasn’t a problem any more for him. More memory loss?
(https://i.ibb.co/1mnvKmt/61-EDB382-619-F-4484-BAC5-0-BDA23-C2657-A.jpg)
Does anyone think he got the times he left for work wrong that day?
What is the point of the May interview?
BRW has already given statements to the DPD, the FBI, the SS and the WC.
He knows they normally break for lunch about 11:55 AM and broke maybe 5 or 10 minutes earlier because of the motorcade. So why mention 11:30 AM? He might as well say between 8:00 AM and 12 noon.
He knows Jarman and Norman were up on the 5th about 12:25 PM, so why is he still sticking to the 12:15 PM time when he estimated 12:20 PM in his WC testimony?
And even more bizarrely, he's still sticking to eating his lunch in front of the third set of windows.
What's even more bizarre is Hank Norman sticking to the story that BRW was with him and Jarman in his HSCA interview.
Other than his WC testimony, Norman has constantly maintained that BRW was with him and Norman when they went up to the 5th floor. I don't get it, unless BRW really was with them but then somehow got pressured into saying it was his lunch on the 6th floor when it wasn't. This line of thought brings a whole new set of problems with it.
-
What is the point of the May interview?
BRW has already given statements to the DPD, the FBI, the SS and the WC.
He knows they normally break for lunch about 11:55 AM and broke maybe 5 or 10 minutes earlier because of the motorcade. So why mention 11:30 AM? He might as well say between 8:00 AM and 12 noon.
He knows Jarman and Norman were up on the 5th about 12:25 PM, so why is he still sticking to the 12:15 PM time when he estimated 12:20 PM in his WC testimony?
And even more bizarrely, he's still sticking to eating his lunch in front of the third set of windows.
What's even more bizarre is Hank Norman sticking to the story that BRW was with him and Jarman in his HSCA interview.
Other than his WC testimony, Norman has constantly maintained that BRW was with him and Norman when they went up to the 5th floor. I don't get it, unless BRW really was with them but then somehow got pressured into saying it was his lunch on the 6th floor when it wasn't. This line of thought brings a whole new set of problems with it.
I can only guess that the Report needed to be constructed and the "Belin Ball solution", having Oswald silently crouched in the SN until Williams left the sixth floor was threatened by Rowland's 12.15 gunman. Easier to shift Williams visit backwards in time and have no way of interacting. Then just forget the testimonies of others that made the scenario impossible. This is what the report and LN Guru Bugliosi eventually rested on. Make the facts fit the conclusion......no one will read the documents anyway will they.....paraphrasing Allen Dulles.
-
From the March 25 memo entitled the Mystery of the West Elevator by Norman Redlich to Ball and Belin.
(https://i.ibb.co/n1VybB3/A8-CCE3-D7-C71-C-4-F58-97-D8-AB581-E27-A11-C.jpg)
Williams, Norman and Jarman appeared before the WC on March 24!
Seems the "story." concocted by Ball and Belin a few days before in Dallas did not even pass the internal sniff test.
Cant see any evidence of follow up persistent questioning.
-
Just another puzzler for the LN proponents. How did the chicken bones get back in the bag for Studebaker to find them there?
-
What is the point of the May interview?
BRW has already given statements to the DPD, the FBI, the SS and the WC.
He knows they normally break for lunch about 11:55 AM and broke maybe 5 or 10 minutes earlier because of the motorcade. So why mention 11:30 AM? He might as well say between 8:00 AM and 12 noon.
He knows Jarman and Norman were up on the 5th about 12:25 PM, so why is he still sticking to the 12:15 PM time when he estimated 12:20 PM in his WC testimony?
And even more bizarrely, he's still sticking to eating his lunch in front of the third set of windows.
What's even more bizarre is Hank Norman sticking to the story that BRW was with him and Jarman in his HSCA interview.
Other than his WC testimony, Norman has constantly maintained that BRW was with him and Norman when they went up to the 5th floor. I don't get it, unless BRW really was with them but then somehow got pressured into saying it was his lunch on the 6th floor when it wasn't. This line of thought brings a whole new set of problems with it.
We return to the question: Why did Messrs Norman and Jarman go up to the fifth rather than the sixth floor? It is, I believe, closely related to the question: Why does Mr Rowland's description of the 'elderly negro' not match Mr Williams?
I believe Mr Williams may have indeed gone up to six in the expectation that other employees would do so also. He was not however allowed on to the sixth floor so went instead to the fifth. Messrs Norman and Jarman, down in the street, saw him up at the window on five and decided to join him.
According to Mr Rowland, the 'elderly negro' at the SN window was there at the same time as a man was standing back from the southwest window with a weapon in his hands. This fact speaks volumes.
-
We return to the question: Why did Messrs Norman and Jarman go up to the fifth rather than the sixth floor? It is, I believe, closely related to the question: Why does Mr Rowland's description of the 'elderly negro' not match Mr Williams?
I believe Mr Williams may have indeed gone up to six in the expectation that other employees would do so also. He was not however allowed on to the sixth floor so went instead to the fifth. Messrs Norman and Jarman, down in the street, saw him up at the window on five and decided to join him.
According to Mr Rowland, the 'elderly negro' at the SN window was there at the same time as a man was standing back from the southwest window with a weapon in his hands. This fact speaks volumes.
If we take the various testimonies and statements of BRW, Norman and Jarman at face value, it appears two possibilities exist:
1) BRW went up to the 6th floor and had his lunch alone, joining Norman and Jarman on the 5th later
2) BRW is with Norman and Jarman on the first floor and goes up to the 5th floor with them, never going up to the 6th floor alone.
The option of BRW being on the 5th floor first then joined by Norman and Jarman later is not supported anywhere, by any testimony or any evidence.
It is, as usual, something you have completely fabricated in your mind, that has absolutely no basis in reality.
-
I can only guess that the Report needed to be constructed and the "Belin Ball solution", having Oswald silently crouched in the SN until Williams left the sixth floor was threatened by Rowland's 12.15 gunman. Easier to shift Williams visit backwards in time and have no way of interacting. Then just forget the testimonies of others that made the scenario impossible. This is what the report and LN Guru Bugliosi eventually rested on. Make the facts fit the conclusion......no one will read the documents anyway will they.....paraphrasing Allen Dulles.
"Then just forget the testimonies of others that made the scenario impossible."
The testimonies they have to forget include those of Jarman and Norman, who put BRW's arrival on the 5th floor after 12:25 PM
Rowland's testimony which places the gunman in the south-west corner of the 6th floor around 12:15 PM.
This is confirmed by Roger Craig's testimony - minutes after the shooting Rowland is telling him there was a gunman with a scoped rifle in the south-west corner of the building. This must also be ignored.
The testimonies of all the officers who put the lunch remains in/on the SN must also be ignored as they put BRW in the SN having his lunch which supports Rowland's testimony and also undermine BRW's claim he had his lunch between the third and fourth windows.
They must even ignore BRW's own testimony as he estimates his arrival on the 5th floor at 12:20 PM
They must also ignore Eddie Piper's testimony as it puts Oswald on the first floor at noon when he is supposed to be hiding in the SN.
This seems like a really large amount of testimonial evidence that has to be ignored to accept the "Belin/Ball solution".
Wouldn't it be easier to have BRW saying he was never on the 6th floor and was with Jarman and Norman when they went up to the 5th floor? This is what Norman and Jarman have been saying in their various statements to the FBI and SS. It's what BRW said on his affidavit.
-
If we take the various testimonies and statements of BRW, Norman and Jarman at face value,
Why on earth would we do that, Mr O'Meara? Given the wild inconsistencies in their stories, that's about the dumbest thing we could do.
it appears two possibilities exist:
1) BRW went up to the 6th floor and had his lunch alone, joining Norman and Jarman on the 5th later
2) BRW is with Norman and Jarman on the first floor and goes up to the 5th floor with them, never going up to the 6th floor alone.
Because of your LN-lite desperation to keep any conspiracy in-house, you leave out a much stronger third possibility, to wit---------------
3) BRW was one of several manual employees who were kept off the sixth floor by 'security' men
The option of BRW being on the 5th floor first then joined by Norman and Jarman later is not supported anywhere, by any testimony or any evidence.
It is, as usual, something you have completely fabricated in your mind, that has absolutely no basis in reality.
Lol.
Mr Williams let out the very significant fact that the original plan of several manual employees was to watch the P. Parade from the sixth floor. What made them all change their plan? Their non-presence on the sixth floor at the time of the P. Parade is the dog that didn't bark. And you evidently have no answer to the question: Why would Messrs Norman and Jarman choose the fifth floor rather than the sixth?
I can't help noticing your manic veering between
-----------a) declaring the statements of Messrs Norman, Jarman, Williams and Dougherty to be riddled with contradictions (i.e. lies)
and
-----------b) attacking any attempt to tease out key facts they might be withholding by saying 'Nothing beyond what the men said is admissible evidence'.
Speaking of evidence: the 'elderly negro' described by Mr Rowland still doesn't fit Mr Williams. Big problem for your little theory!
Thumb1:
-
So! This is what I believe may have happened------------------
1. When the men came down for lunch, Mr Williams went out to buy lunch, leaving Messrs Norman and Jarman together. The agreement was to see each other 'up there' in a few minutes (i.e. on the sixth floor-----prime vantage point for the P. Parade)
2. At some point, Messrs Norman and Jarman went up to six but were met by 'security' and told the floor was off bounds. They went back downstairs and out on to the street
3. At some point, Mr Williams (having bought his lunch) went up to six but was met by 'security' and told the floor was off bounds. He went down to five instead.
4. It is also quite possible that others------Messrs. Lovelady, Arce and Dougherty--------went up at various times to six but were met etc.
5. Messrs Norman and Jarman, down in the street, noticed Mr Williams up at the window on five and decided to join him up there
6. Up until the shooting happened, any employee who had encountered the 'security' men on six had no idea anything sinister was afoot. When the assassination happened, of course, they realized with horror why those men had really been up there. And they knew they would be putting their life in danger if they ever talked about what they had seen. So they didn't talk about what they had seen----------and their all-important need NOT to talk about what they had seen led them to tell one lie and inconsistency after the other.
-
So! This is what I believe may have happened------------------
1. When the men came down for lunch, Mr Williams went out to buy lunch, leaving Messrs Norman and Jarman together. The agreement was to see each other 'up there' in a few minutes (i.e. on the sixth floor-----prime vantage point for the P. Parade)
2. At some point, Messrs Norman and Jarman went up to six but were met by 'security' and told the floor was off bounds. They went back downstairs and out on to the street
3. At some point, Mr Williams (having bought his lunch) went up to six but was met by 'security' and told the floor was off bounds. He went down to five instead.
4. It is also quite possible that others------Messrs. Lovelady, Arce and Dougherty--------went up at various times to six but were met etc.
5. Messrs Norman and Jarman, down in the street, noticed Mr Williams up at the window on five and decided to join him up there
6. Up until the shooting happened, any employee who had encountered the 'security' men on six had no idea anything sinister was afoot. When the assassination happened, of course, they realized with horror why those men had really been up there. And they knew they would be putting their life in danger if they ever talked about what they had seen. So they didn't talk about what they had seen----------and their all-important need NOT to talk about what they had seen led them to tell one lie and inconsistency after the other.
Utter fantasy.
Unsupported, unfounded fantasy.
There is zero evidence for your silly theory.
Just for fun...
Is the "elderly negro" in the SN part of your security team?
Why don't all of these men who were turned away from the 6th floor report what they've seen? What makes you fantasize that this group of men wouldn't have the balls to tell the DPD what they saw?
Why didn't Baker or Truly report your security team?
Why didn't Piper or West report seeing them enter or leave the building?
-
Utter fantasy.
Unsupported, unfounded fantasy.
There is zero evidence for your silly theory.
Just for fun...
~Grin~
You gave as your knock-down argument that the only way Mr Williams would have been let leave the sixth floor is if he were part of the thing. I knocked your knock-down argument down by showing what a silly premise it was founded on. And now you're waving your hands in embarrassment. Funny!
Your belief that whoever planned to participate in this assassination from the sixth floor trusted to luck that no employees would decide to watch the P. Parade from up there is obviously the height of absurdity. 'Gee, guys, fingers crossed none of the workers come up... Whatever we do, let's NOT have a contingency plan in place for that...' :D
Is the "elderly negro" in the SN part of your security team?
It's not a security team, duh. It's the assassination team. And if the 'elderly negro' seen by Mr Rowland is not Mr Eddie Piper, then yes------he is part of the team of non-employees on the sixth floor.
Why don't all of these men who were turned away from the 6th floor report what they've seen? What makes you fantasize that this group of men wouldn't have the balls to tell the DPD what they saw?
~Yawn~
Already answered, Mr O'Meara
Why didn't Baker or Truly report your security team?
It wasn't a security team, duh.
Mr Truly was in on the thing---------and he made sure to keep Officer Baker off the sixth floor.
But------of course-------Officer Baker did report on his encounter with one of the men ("As we reached the third or fourth floor, I saw a man walking away from the stairway..."). Mr Truly facilitated that man's escape by vouching for him as an employee
Why didn't Piper or West report seeing them enter or leave the building?
Either they didn't see them or they did and liked being alive.
What else ya got, Mr O'Meara? Thumb1:
-
~Grin~
You gave as your knock-down argument that the only way Mr Williams would have been let leave the sixth floor is if he were part of the thing. I knocked your knock-down argument down by showing what a silly premise it was founded on. And now you're waving your hands in embarrassment. Funny!
What's funny is that I've never said anything like this anywhere.
Your fantasizing isn't just reserved for your crazy theories. You like to introduce it into the actual debate.
Think about it Alan - if he was part of it why would he be "let leave".
Your belief that whoever planned to participate in this assassination from the sixth floor trusted to luck that no employees would decide to watch the P. Parade from up there is obviously the height of absurdity. 'Gee, guys, fingers crossed none of the workers come up... Whatever we do, let's NOT have a contingency plan in place for that...' :D
Who do the lunch remains belong to?
It's not a security team, duh. It's the assassination team. And if the 'elderly negro' seen by Mr Rowland is not Mr Eddie Piper, then yes------he is part of the team of non-employees on the sixth floor.
"3) BRW was one of several manual employees who were kept off the sixth floor by 'security' men"
:D It's you who labelled them as 'security', not me!
Unbelievable.
And you still think it might be Eddie Piper!! :D :D
Already answered, Mr O'Meara
You've not answered it at all.
Why would all these men fear for their lives?
Why would every single one of them not have the strength of character to say what they saw?
Other witnesses reported seeing a gunman on the 6th floor and they went to the authorities immediately. Did the TSBD only hire cowards?
This is just a convenient BS: excuse for you to hide behind.
It wasn't a security team, duh.
Mr Truly was in on the thing---------and he made sure to keep Officer Baker off the sixth floor.
But------of course-------Officer Baker did report on his encounter with one of the men ("As we reached the third or fourth floor, I saw a man walking away from the stairway..."). Mr Truly facilitated that man's escape by vouching for him as an employee
So your security team didn't leave the 6th floor together?
Why didn't Dorothy Garner see any of them leaving? Let me guess - she feared for her life ;)
Either they didn't see them or they did and liked being alive.
See above
What else ya got, Mr O'Meara? Thumb1:
Theories based on witness testimony and physical evidence.
Give it a try some time, you might enjoy it.
Thumb1:
-
"Then just forget the testimonies of others that made the scenario impossible."
The testimonies they have to forget include those of Jarman and Norman, who put BRW's arrival on the 5th floor after 12:25 PM
Rowland's testimony which places the gunman in the south-west corner of the 6th floor around 12:15 PM.
This is confirmed by Roger Craig's testimony - minutes after the shooting Rowland is telling him there was a gunman with a scoped rifle in the south-west corner of the building. This must also be ignored.
The testimonies of all the officers who put the lunch remains in/on the SN must also be ignored as they put BRW in the SN having his lunch which supports Rowland's testimony and also undermine BRW's claim he had his lunch between the third and fourth windows.
They must even ignore BRW's own testimony as he estimates his arrival on the 5th floor at 12:20 PM
They must also ignore Eddie Piper's testimony as it puts Oswald on the first floor at noon when he is supposed to be hiding in the SN.
This seems like a really large amount of testimonial evidence that has to be ignored to accept the "Belin/Ball solution".
Wouldn't it be easier to have BRW saying he was never on the 6th floor and was with Jarman and Norman when they went up to the 5th floor? This is what Norman and Jarman have been saying in their various statements to the FBI and SS. It's what BRW said on his affidavit.
Then you have to ignore the physical evidence......chicken lunch. Maybe Rowland simply got the description wrong.....essentials correct though. Why would he pay any more attention to the SN than any other window except for the SW window?
-
Theories based on witness testimony
MR O'MEARA: These witnesses are lying their backsides off!
ALSO MR O'MEARA: Don't stray from what these witnesses testified to!
and physical evidence.
MR ROWLAND: "Possibly 50 or 60... bald or practically bald... Had on a plaid shirt. I think it was red and green, very bright color, that is why I remember it... 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."
MR O'MEARA: Definitiely Bonnie Ray Williams!
:D
-
Just another puzzler for the LN proponents. How did the chicken bones get back in the bag for Studebaker to find them there?
Well?
-
Well?
The only mention I can find anywhere of someone claiming to put the chicken bones back in the bag is from BRW's WC testimony:
Mr. BALL. Where did you put the bones?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I don't remember exactly, but I think I put some of them back in the sack. Just as I was ready to go I threw the sack down.
Mr. BALL. What did you do with the sack?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think I just dropped it there.
Mr. BALL. Anywhere near the two-wheeler?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think it was.
Mr. BALL. What did you do with the Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Just set it down on the floor.
According to Williams the bones were put back in the bag and dumped by the two-wheeler truck. He also laid the Dr Pepper bottle on the floor by the truck. This is exactly what we see in the crime scene photos taken by Day and Studebaker. So we have eye-witness testimony by the person who had the lunch confirmed by photos of the crime scene before anything was moved.
All neat and tidy ::)
-
Some questions one might ponder in all this................................
1. Did whoever fired from the sixth floor trust to luck that no manual employees would choose that floor as the place from which to view the P. Parade?
1a. Why did so many employees stay clear of the sixth floor?
2. If Mr Jack Dougherty and/or Mr Bonnie Ray Williams were knowingly involved in the assassination plot, why did neither of these two men say a thing to incriminate Mr Oswald?
3. Who is the bright plaid shirt-wearing 'elderly negro' at the SN window @12:15pm described by Mr Arnold Rowland?
4. Why did Mr Tom Alyea emphatically state that the chicken bones were found on the fifth rather than the sixth floor------and that they looked like they were a few days old?
5. Why did Mr Bonnie Ray Williams hide the fact that he bought his lunch that day from the catering truck?
6. Why did Mr Roy Truly, in his WC testimony, single out Mr Williams as an especially 'superstitious' fellow who was particularly shook up by the assassination?
7. If Mr Williams finally came clean about having gone up to six and eaten his lunch there, then why did Messrs Norman and Jarman fail subsequently to offer clear, coherent and consistent support for this story?
8. How exactly does one go about eating a chicken-on-the-bone sandwich?
9. Was any bread/crust found in the vicinity of the chicken bones?
Thumb1:
-
The only mention I can find anywhere of someone claiming to put the chicken bones back in the bag is from BRW's WC testimony:
Mr. BALL. Where did you put the bones?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I don't remember exactly, but I think I put some of them back in the sack. Just as I was ready to go I threw the sack down.
Mr. BALL. What did you do with the sack?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think I just dropped it there.
Mr. BALL. Anywhere near the two-wheeler?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think it was.
Mr. BALL. What did you do with the Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Just set it down on the floor.
According to Williams the bones were put back in the bag and dumped by the two-wheeler truck. He also laid the Dr Pepper bottle on the floor by the truck. This is exactly what we see in the crime scene photos taken by Day and Studebaker. So we have eye-witness testimony by the person who had the lunch confirmed by photos of the crime scene before anything was moved.
All neat and tidy ::)
Gerry Hill.
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.
Not knowing or not getting any indication from the street that they heard me, I asked the deputies again to guard the scene and I would go down and make sure that the crime lab was en route.
When I got toward the back, at this time I heard the freight elevator moving, and I went back to the back of the building to either catch the freight elevator or the stairs, and Captain Fritz and his men were coming up on the elevator.
I told him what we found and pointed out the general area, pointed out the deputies to them, and told him also that I was going to make sure the crime lab was en route.
About the time I got to the street, Lieutenant Day from the crime lab was arriving and walking up toward the front door. I told him that the area we had found where the shots were fired from was on the sixth floor on the southeast corner, and that they were guarding the scene so nobody would touch anything until he got there. And he said, "All right."
JIM EWELL, NEWS REPORTER from "No More Silence".
I had been a newspaper reporter for about fifteen years, and I thought that I was a seasoned professional. But now that the weight of this was coming down on me, I was beginning to get woozy. I felt light headed. But I do remember standing there with the police not knowing if they still had somebody trapped upstairs, or if there was going to be an outbreak of gunfire if they exposed somebody. And again, we didn't know how badly hurt Kennedy was, at least I didn't. Meanwhile Jerry Hill worked his way up to the sixth floor, leaned out an open window, and he had what was thought to be Oswald's little fried chicken lunch. It in a little pop box. Jerry was holding that box and holding up one of the chicken bones exclaiming to everybody that listened to him down on the street that the fried chicken what he had been eating. About that time there was a commotion around one of the squad cars, and we could hear a radio saying that an officer
had been shot in Oak Cliff.
Carl Day eventually admitted in his WC testimony that he did not find out about the ownership of the lunch until more than 2 days later.
Mr. McCLOY. On the crime scene, that is, on the sixth floor, did you notice any chicken bones or chicken remnants of a chicken sandwich or lunch or the whereabouts, if you did see them?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; there was a sack of some chicken bones and a bottle brought into the identification bureau. I think I still have that sack and bottle down there. The chicken bones, I finally threw them away that laid around there. In my talking to the men who were working on that floor, November 25, they stated, one of them stated, he had eaten lunch over there. Mr. McCLOY. Someone other than Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; so I discarded it, or disconnected it with being with Oswald. Incidentally, Oswald's fingerprints were not on the bottle. I checked that.
Day never saw the lunch remnants in the TSBD on the 22nd. By the time he returned to the TSBD they were removed by Johnson. No doubt by that time the lunch was nothing more than a curiosity.Oswald was dead and Williams occupation in the SN was confused by the placement of the lunch remnants in the bag and set down outside the boxes, likely by Hill and or Johnson.
The management of the crime scene was shambolic.
-
Gerry Hill.
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.
What time approximately was this great discovery of the SN made?
-
Gerry Hill.
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.
Not knowing or not getting any indication from the street that they heard me, I asked the deputies again to guard the scene and I would go down and make sure that the crime lab was en route.
When I got toward the back, at this time I heard the freight elevator moving, and I went back to the back of the building to either catch the freight elevator or the stairs, and Captain Fritz and his men were coming up on the elevator.
I told him what we found and pointed out the general area, pointed out the deputies to them, and told him also that I was going to make sure the crime lab was en route.
About the time I got to the street, Lieutenant Day from the crime lab was arriving and walking up toward the front door. I told him that the area we had found where the shots were fired from was on the sixth floor on the southeast corner, and that they were guarding the scene so nobody would touch anything until he got there. And he said, "All right."
JIM EWELL, NEWS REPORTER from "No More Silence".
I had been a newspaper reporter for about fifteen years, and I thought that I was a seasoned professional. But now that the weight of this was coming down on me, I was beginning to get woozy. I felt light headed. But I do remember standing there with the police not knowing if they still had somebody trapped upstairs, or if there was going to be an outbreak of gunfire if they exposed somebody. And again, we didn't know how badly hurt Kennedy was, at least I didn't. Meanwhile Jerry Hill worked his way up to the sixth floor, leaned out an open window, and he had what was thought to be Oswald's little fried chicken lunch. It in a little pop box. Jerry was holding that box and holding up one of the chicken bones exclaiming to everybody that listened to him down on the street that the fried chicken what he had been eating. About that time there was a commotion around one of the squad cars, and we could hear a radio saying that an officer
had been shot in Oak Cliff.
Carl Day eventually admitted in his WC testimony that he did not find out about the ownership of the lunch until more than 2 days later.
Mr. McCLOY. On the crime scene, that is, on the sixth floor, did you notice any chicken bones or chicken remnants of a chicken sandwich or lunch or the whereabouts, if you did see them?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; there was a sack of some chicken bones and a bottle brought into the identification bureau. I think I still have that sack and bottle down there. The chicken bones, I finally threw them away that laid around there. In my talking to the men who were working on that floor, November 25, they stated, one of them stated, he had eaten lunch over there. Mr. McCLOY. Someone other than Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; so I discarded it, or disconnected it with being with Oswald. Incidentally, Oswald's fingerprints were not on the bottle. I checked that.
Day never saw the lunch remnants in the TSBD on the 22nd. By the time he returned to the TSBD they were removed by Johnson. No doubt by that time the lunch was nothing more than a curiosity.Oswald was dead and Williams occupation in the SN was confused by the placement of the lunch remnants in the bag and set down outside the boxes, likely by Hill and or Johnson.
The management of the crime scene was shambolic.
In his WC testimony Studebaker provides a photo showing the two-wheeler truck with the lunch sack and soda bottle laid nearby [Studebaker Exhibit H]. Below is a close-up of that picture, I've marked on it with an arrow where I believe the lunch sack is located (I could be completely wrong):
(https://i.postimg.cc/2SG2mWbG/Screenshot-156.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Studebaker makes the point that this picture was taken "before anything was touched and before it was dusted".
What are we to make of the fact that, in his WC testimony, BRW is describing the scene we see in Studebaker's photo and not what really happened to the lunch remains. It is clear BRW is lying about what he did with the lunch remains because an examination of his WC testimony reveals he lied about every aspect of his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL. Finish your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. No longer than it took me to finish the chicken sandwich.
Mr. BALL. Did you eat the chicken?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, I did.
But BRW didn't finish his lunch and he didn't eat his chicken. It is notable that multiple witnesses report seeing a partially eaten piece of chicken on the boxes that form the SN. The piece of chicken is the most important part of the lunch. BRW has been working hard all morning cutting wood to lay on the floor and will be doing the same that afternoon. The chicken is his main nourishment for the day yet a large part of it is left behind, strongly indicating the lunch was interrupted. BRW lied about eating the chicken.
Mr. BALL. I will. I am going to introduce them all. Let's go back to the diagram, which is 483. Could you mark on this diagram the window that is shown in this picture 484 that is, the place where you were sitting and eating your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. That would be facing Elm Street. I would say right around in this.
Mr. BALL. In other words, you are marking here something between--some area between the third and the fourth window.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
BRW lied about where he had his lunch. He insists it was "between the third and the fourth window" but the lunch remains were found some 30ft away. In the diagram below the red circle marks where BRW insists he had lunch and the green circle marks where the lunch remains were found:
(https://i.postimg.cc/13d93Jd5/TSBD-Floor-Plan-Sixth-Floor.png) (https://postimg.cc/FYjtPgm2)
As has been noted elsewhere on this thread BRW constantly lies about how long he was up on the 6th floor. Even during his actual WC testimony he gives 5, 10, 12 and finally 20 minutes for the amount of time he spent up there [the testimonies of Jarman and Norman suggest it was even later than this]
BRW lies about every single aspect of his lunch that day. Why?
Is it because he is trying to distance himself from the SN in terms of time and physical distance?
Or is it because he was never there, and doesn't have a clue what actually happened?
It is clear he is dancing to Ball's tune. Is he taking the responsibility for a lunch that wasn't his? That would certainly explain the consistency of Jarman and Norman's various statements that BRW was with them during the lunch break and went up to the 5th floor with them. It would explain why BRW said the same thing in his affidavit.
The lunch was not necessarily BRW's.
If it wasn't, whose was it?
-
What time approximately was this great discovery of the SN made?
The time would have been about 1.10pm. The important point is the sequence of witness arrivals at the scene.
Mooney: So, at that time, I didn't lay my hands on anything, because I wanted to save every evidence we could for fingerprints. So I leaned out the window, the same window from which the shots were fired, looked down, and I saw Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz standing right on the ground.
Well, so I hollered, or signalled I hollered, I more or less hollered. I whistled a time or two before I got anybody to see me. And yet they was all looking that way, too except the sheriff, they wasn't looking up.
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.
And I told him to get the crime lab officers en route, that I had the location spotted.
So I stood guard to see that no one disturbed anything until Captain Will Fritz approached with his group of officers, city officers. At that time, of course, when I hollered, of course Officers Vickery and Webster, they came across and later on several other deputies--I believe Officer McCurley, A. D. McCurley, I believe he came over. Where he came from--they was all en route up there, I assume."
Officer Jack Faulkner
"There were also some
chicken
bones. Evidently he had
chicken for his lunch. There were people that worked with him
that had left maybe at noon. I don't know where they went
because I didn't investigate that part of it. I've also heard of a bag
which carried the rifle, but I never saw that. It could have been
there, but I didn't notice it."
. 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.
. 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.
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.
Mr. BELIN. Anything else?
Mr. BREWER. A drink bottle.
Mr. BELIN. What bottle?
Mr. BREWER. A cold drink bottle, soda pop bottle.
Mr. BELIN. Anything else?
. 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.
Mr. BELIN. Was there a coke bottle or anything with it?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Dr. Pepper bottle
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."
All of these observations place the lunch in the SN upon its discovery. Fritz arrived later and then Day and Studebaker. It is the sequence that is important not the exact time.
What time did Alyea arrive on the sixth floor? Finding old bones on the fifth is meaningless. By the time he got to the SN the sixth floor bones were placed in the bag. Likely by Hill.
-
In his WC testimony Studebaker provides a photo showing the two-wheeler truck with the lunch sack and soda bottle laid nearby [Studebaker Exhibit H]. Below is a close-up of that picture, I've marked on it with an arrow where I believe the lunch sack is located (I could be completely wrong):
(https://i.postimg.cc/2SG2mWbG/Screenshot-156.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Studebaker makes the point that this picture was taken "before anything was touched and before it was dusted".
What are we to make of the fact that, in his WC testimony, BRW is describing the scene we see in Studebaker's photo and not what really happened to the lunch remains. It is clear BRW is lying about what he did with the lunch remains because an examination of his WC testimony reveals he lied about every aspect of his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL. Finish your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. No longer than it took me to finish the chicken sandwich.
Mr. BALL. Did you eat the chicken?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, I did.
But BRW didn't finish his lunch and he didn't eat his chicken. It is notable that multiple witnesses report seeing a partially eaten piece of chicken on the boxes that form the SN. The piece of chicken is the most important part of the lunch. BRW has been working hard all morning cutting wood to lay on the floor and will be doing the same that afternoon. The chicken is his main nourishment for the day yet a large part of it is left behind, strongly indicating the lunch was interrupted. BRW lied about eating the chicken.
Mr. BALL. I will. I am going to introduce them all. Let's go back to the diagram, which is 483. Could you mark on this diagram the window that is shown in this picture 484 that is, the place where you were sitting and eating your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. That would be facing Elm Street. I would say right around in this.
Mr. BALL. In other words, you are marking here something between--some area between the third and the fourth window.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
BRW lied about where he had his lunch. He insists it was "between the third and the fourth window" but the lunch remains were found some 30ft away. In the diagram below the red circle marks where BRW insists he had lunch and the green circle marks where the lunch remains were found:
(https://i.postimg.cc/13d93Jd5/TSBD-Floor-Plan-Sixth-Floor.png) (https://postimg.cc/FYjtPgm2)
As has been noted elsewhere on this thread BRW constantly lies about how long he was up on the 6th floor. Even during his actual WC testimony he gives 5, 10, 12 and finally 20 minutes for the amount of time he spent up there [the testimonies of Jarman and Norman suggest it was even later than this]
BRW lies about every single aspect of his lunch that day. Why?
Is it because he is trying to distance himself from the SN in terms of time and physical distance?
Or is it because he was never there, and doesn't have a clue what actually happened?
It is clear he is dancing to Ball's tune. Is he taking the responsibility for a lunch that wasn't his? That would certainly explain the consistency of Jarman and Norman's various statements that BRW was with them during the lunch break and went up to the 5th floor with them. It would explain why BRW said the same thing in his affidavit.
The lunch was not necessarily BRW's.
If it wasn't, whose was it?
I suspect Day asked the group who had left their lunch on the sixth floor but gave the details of the final position away on the Monday. The case was done. He was just tidying up and likely said "we found a pile of chicken bones in a bag about the middle of the building by a 2wheeler truck". At that point BRW could go with the flow, revealing more details.
The essential message here is the offical story that most accept, a lone assassin waiting in solitude in his lair for 15 minutes is patently false from the Commission's own documents. There were two others on the sixth floor in the last five minutes or so before the shooting.
Clearly Rankine was not satisfied from what he saw and wanted more robust questioning of key witnesses following their WC testimonies. Could find no evidence of it.
-
I suspect Day asked the group who had left their lunch on the sixth floor but gave the details of the final position away on the Monday. The case was done. He was just tidying up and likely said "we found a pile of chicken bones in a bag about the middle of the building by a 2wheeler truck". At that point BRW could go with the flow, revealing more details.
The essential message here is the offical story that most accept, a lone assassin waiting in solitude in his lair for 15 minutes is patently false from the Commission's own documents. There were two others on the sixth floor in the last five minutes or so before the shooting.
Clearly Rankine was not satisfied from what he saw and wanted more robust questioning of key witnesses following their WC testimonies. Could find no evidence of it.
This doesn't explain why Norman and Jarman stuck to the "he was with us" script. In his FBI interview in Jan '64, Jarman is really specific that they were all together on the first floor and all went up together. Obviously this changes for the WC hearing. In their HSCA interviews Jarman sticks to the WC script that Williams joined them later on the 5th whereas Norman still has them all going up to the 5th together.
The only reason I can think of why Norman and Jarman would lie is to cover for BRW who, for whatever reason, didn't want to be associated with the 6th floor. As unlikely as it seems, Norman and Jarman agree to lie for him but, unbeknownst to them, BRW has admitted to going up to the 6th alone. In this scenario it can only be the case that BRW doesn't tell Jarman and Norman he has changed his tune so, as he is giving statement after statement that he went up to the 6th floor alone, Norman and Jarman are giving statement after statement that he was with them.
It seems a bit of a stretch that they didn't get together to "compare notes" as soon as they were back at work.
-
The arguments for Williams meeting up with Norman and Jarman on the 5th.
Oswald sees Junior and Norman enter the TSBD together (describes Norman as short)
Roy Truly:
"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."
Truly also makes this comment about them being short. In the pic below Norman and Jarman are considerably shorter than BRW:
(https://i.postimg.cc/VvwnKYRV/brw-hn-jj.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Danny Arce is asked if BRW was out front he states that BRW "stayed upstairs".
Charles Givens:
"Mr. GIVENS. When I got down to the first floor Harold Norman, James Jarman and myself, we stood over by the window, and then we said we was going outside and watch the parade, so we walked out and we stood there a while, and then I said, "I believe I will walk up to the parking lot."
I had a friend that worked on the parking lot, right on Elm and Record."
I believe Givens was one of the three men Truly saw walking away and only two returned.
Nobody reports seeing BRW outside (apart from Jarman but he is quickly corrected).
There is, of course, Rowland's disputed observation of a black male in the SN at a time BRW was up there.
-
The time would have been about 1.10pm. The important point is the sequence of witness arrivals at the scene.
Thank you very much for your detailed response, Mr Crow---------appreciated! Thumb1:
It seems to me the time is extremely important because it confronts us with a truly absurd scenario: several witnesses (Messrs Brennan, Fischer, Edwards & Euins) have immediately after the shooting pointed police straight to the SN. How on earth did it take officers some 40 minutes to 'find' a SN they should have been able to find within five minutes? Makes absolutely no sense. I simply cannot buy the official line that 'We searched all the floors until we found the shells etc'.
I suspect the following is what really happened:
The above-named witnesses miscounted the floors (an easy thing to do from the outside) and word got around amongst officers that the shooter had fired from the southeast window on the fifth floor. That window became the initial focus of attention and was checked out very quickly indeed. It remained the assumed SN window until shells were discovered at the sixth floor window immediately above it. Chicken bones had been the only item of even remote interest found by the fifth floor window, and now they were taken up to the sixth floor (as per Mr Alyea) because word had gone out prematurely that the assassin's food had been found.
Mr Bonnie Ray Williams was subsequently pressurized into saying he had gone up to the sixth floor----------the police needed to explain away the chicken bones that had been stupidly tied to the assassin. This bequeathed quite a headache to the Warren Commission.
-
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tom_alyea_film.htm (http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tom_alyea_film.htm)
Mr. BALL. Did you go directly to a building?
Mr. FRITZ. Directly to the Texas School Book Depository Building.
Mr. BALL. What time did you arrive there?
Mr. FRITZ. Well, sir; we arrived there---we arrived at the hospital at 12:45, if you want that time, and at the scene of the offense at 12:58.
Mr. BALL. 12:58; the Texas School Book Depository Building.
Mr. FRITZ. Yes.
-
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tom_alyea_film.htm (http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tom_alyea_film.htm)
Mr. BALL. Did you go directly to a building?
Mr. FRITZ. Directly to the Texas School Book Depository Building.
Mr. BALL. What time did you arrive there?
Mr. FRITZ. Well, sir; we arrived there---we arrived at the hospital at 12:45, if you want that time, and at the scene of the offense at 12:58.
Mr. BALL. 12:58; the Texas School Book Depository Building.
Mr. FRITZ. Yes.
Thanks Chris,
What to make of this?
Addendum #2
From: Dale Myers (dmyers@rust.net)
Subject: Re: Tom Alyea on the sixth floor evidence
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Date: 1999/07/04
As we all know, time alters recollections. Case in point: compare Tom Alyea's more recent statements (posted by Dave Reitzes) with his statement from December 19, 1963:
------------------------------[quote on]
"...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. I never saw my film on the air because I had to get the film to someone outside. This was the first film from there. We had Mal Couch's film of the crowd but not of the President being hit. [How did you get the film out?] There's a story for you. I actually handed it out through the door but it had been publicized over the air and established everywhere that I had thrown it out of the building through a window. I hesitate to tell you the real story. I started to throw it out of the building but being so close and knowing that we had the other film, I wanted our station to be the first to show a film of the assassination. A A.J. L'Hoste was under the window. I yelled out to him. In actuality I tossed the film out the front door to Ron Reiland who had gotten back from covering the apprehension of Oswald at the Texas Theater. This was another ABC exclusive. There were 2 policemen at the Depository door. They were not sure that I should get things outside. Ron was outside and I was inside. One of the policemen there called a Lieutenant and while they were calling him, I threw the film out....."
Some other interesting recollections to be found here....
https://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html (https://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html)
-
Thanks Chris,
What to make of this?
Addendum #2
From: Dale Myers (dmyers@rust.net)
Subject: Re: Tom Alyea on the sixth floor evidence
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Date: 1999/07/04
As we all know, time alters recollections. Case in point: compare Tom Alyea's more recent statements (posted by Dave Reitzes) with his statement from December 19, 1963:
------------------------------[quote on]
"...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. I never saw my film on the air because I had to get the film to someone outside. This was the first film from there. We had Mal Couch's film of the crowd but not of the President being hit. [How did you get the film out?] There's a story for you. I actually handed it out through the door but it had been publicized over the air and established everywhere that I had thrown it out of the building through a window. I hesitate to tell you the real story. I started to throw it out of the building but being so close and knowing that we had the other film, I wanted our station to be the first to show a film of the assassination. A A.J. L'Hoste was under the window. I yelled out to him. In actuality I tossed the film out the front door to Ron Reiland who had gotten back from covering the apprehension of Oswald at the Texas Theater. This was another ABC exclusive. There were 2 policemen at the Depository door. They were not sure that I should get things outside. Ron was outside and I was inside. One of the policemen there called a Lieutenant and while they were calling him, I threw the film out....."
I've never been able to find the original document from which this quotation comes, though I have no particular reason to doubt that it exists somewhere.
Yes, it would certainly seem that Mr Alyea played ball with the official story originally. However (see below) he was quite, quite emphatic about the matter in later years-----to the point of sounding really quite exercised about how ridiculous he found it that officers still clung to the official version of events.
Some other interesting recollections to be found here....
https://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html (https://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html)
EXCERPT:
Police officers who claim they were on the 6th floor when the assassin's window was found have reported that they saw chicken bones at or near the site. One officer reported that he saw chicken bones on the floor near the location. Another said he saw chicken bones on the barricade boxes, while another reported that he saw chicken bones on the box which was laying across the window sill. Some of these officers have given testimony as to the location of the shell casings. Their testimony differs and none of it is true. I have no idea why they are clinging to these statements. They must have a reason. Perhaps it is because they put it in a report and they must stick to it.
One officer stated that he found the assassin's location at the 6th floor window. He went on to say that as he and his fellow officers were leaving the building, he passed Captain Fritz coming in. He said he stopped briefly to tell Captain Fritz that he had found the assassin's lair at the 6th floor window. This seems highly unlikely because Captain Fritz joined us on the 5th floor and aided in the search. The chances are great that this, or 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 were no chicken bones found on the 6th floor. We covered every inch of it and I filmed everything that could possibly be suspected as evidence. There definitely were no chicken bones on or near the barricade or boxes at the window.
Given just how emphatic Mr Alyea is here, how confident can we that the 12/19/63 document offers an accurate transcription of his words?
-
Thank you very much for your detailed response, Mr Crow---------appreciated! Thumb1:
It seems to me the time is extremely important because it confronts us with a truly absurd scenario: several witnesses (Messrs Brennan, Fischer, Edwards & Euins) have immediately after the shooting pointed police straight to the SN. How on earth did it take officers some 40 minutes to 'find' a SN they should have been able to find within five minutes? Makes absolutely no sense. I simply cannot buy the official line that 'We searched all the floors until we found the shells etc'.
I suspect the following is what really happened:
The above-named witnesses miscounted the floors (an easy thing to do from the outside) and word got around amongst officers that the shooter had fired from the southeast window on the fifth floor. That window became the initial focus of attention and was checked out very quickly indeed. It remained the assumed SN window until shells were discovered at the sixth floor window immediately above it. Chicken bones had been the only item of even remote interest found by the fifth floor window, and now they were taken up to the sixth floor (as per Mr Alyea) because word had gone out prematurely that the assassin's food had been found.
Mr Bonnie Ray Williams was subsequently pressurized into saying he had gone up to the sixth floor----------the police needed to explain away the chicken bones that had been stupidly tied to the assassin. This bequeathed quite a headache to the Warren Commission.
At 4:55 in this video the presenter tells us Dallas police have found fried chicken remains and paper on FIFTH floor, which is where the shooter is believed to have fired from.........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tsR8PGx2ZE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tsR8PGx2ZE)
I believe this was the precise state of play at the time: police-------based on miscounted 'fifth floor' reports from witnesses (Mr Brennan et al)-------focused all their attention in the initial phase on the fifth floor. All they found was some lousy chicken bones.
Only when------many minutes later-------they found shells a floor above did they realize their error. In true CYA style, some fool elected to move the chicken bones up a floor. They are in and of themselves a complete red herring.
Mr Williams was later shown Mr Studebaker's photo and told to testify to that scene. The poor man hadn't a clue what exactly it was he was supposed to have eaten up there (hence the chicken-on-the-bone-sandwich nonsense)
-
At 4:55 in this video the presenter tells us Dallas police have found fried chicken remains and paper on FIFTH floor, which is where the shooter is believed to have fired from.........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tsR8PGx2ZE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tsR8PGx2ZE)
I believe this was the precise state of play at the time: police-------based on miscounted 'fifth floor' reports from witnesses (Mr Brennan et al)-------focused all their attention in the initial phase on the fifth floor. All they found was some lousy chicken bones.
Only when------many minutes later-------they found shells a floor above did they realize their error. In true CYA style, some fool elected to move the chicken bones up a floor. They are in and of themselves a complete red herring.
Mr Williams was later shown Mr Studebaker's photo and told to testify to that scene. The poor man hadn't a clue what exactly it was he was supposed to have eaten up there (hence the chicken-on-the-bone-sandwich nonsense)
Or the mention of the 5th floor was simply an error in the confusion. I don’t recall a focus on the fifth floor. Sawyer and a few others went to the 4th via the passenger elevator and came back down. Others mentioned a floor by floor search. Have you anything that states "we went immediately to the fifth floor".
Can you identify who you think told Williams? Why not just get Givens to say they were his....a far more pliable witness. How many people do you believe were involved in the consiracy?
-
Or the mention of the 5th floor was simply an error in the confusion. I don’t recall a focus on the fifth floor. Sawyer and a few others went to the 4th via the passenger elevator and came back down. Others mentioned a floor by floor search. Have you anything that states "we went immediately to the fifth floor".
Can you identify who you think told Williams? Why not just get Givens to say they were his....a far more pliable witness. How many people do you believe were involved in the consiracy?
The transcript of the Dallas police tapes reveals that within the first 10 minutes reports came in for a gunman on the 5th floor, the 2nd floor and the "upper right hand corner" (6th floor ?).
Even though it was generally believed the gunman was still in the building, Sawyer and others went up as far as the 4th floor after which it seems to have been decided to conduct a more systematic search. The floor to floor searches weren't looking for signs of a gunman (or gunmen), they were looking for the actual shooter(s).
It was during this more systematic phase that the SN was discovered (my reading of various testimonies places this around 1:00 PM)
And it wasn't just chicken bones that were discovered but a partially eaten piece of chicken on the bone (I don't think this piece of chicken was actually eaten. I think part of the chicken was stripped off to make a sandwich leaving the remaining chicken on the bone to be eaten afterwards)
If the lunch remains were taken up from the 5th and placed on the SN I don't see why it would be then tidied away before Studebaker took his photos.
It would be good to locate the early statement by Alyea about chicken remains on the 6th floor because he seems really emphatic this wasn't the case in later statements and, judging by how scathing he is of the investigation, I don't get the impression he would've gone along with some bogus story.
-
The transcript of the Dallas police tapes reveals that within the first 10 minutes reports came in for a gunman on the 5th floor, the 2nd floor and the "upper right hand corner" (6th floor ?).
Even though it was generally believed the gunman was still in the building, Sawyer and others went up as far as the 4th floor after which it seems to have been decided to conduct a more systematic search. The floor to floor searches weren't looking for signs of a gunman (or gunmen), they were looking for the actual shooter(s).
It was during this more systematic phase that the SN was discovered (my reading of various testimonies places this around 1:00 PM)
And it wasn't just chicken bones that were discovered but a partially eaten piece of chicken on the bone (I don't think this piece of chicken was actually eaten. I think part of the chicken was stripped off to make a sandwich leaving the remaining chicken on the bone to be eaten afterwards)
If the lunch remains were taken up from the 5th and placed on the SN I don't see why it would be then tidied away before Studebaker took his photos.
It would be good to locate the early statement by Alyea about chicken remains on the 6th floor because he seems really emphatic this wasn't the case in later statements and, judging by how scathing he is of the investigation, I don't get the impression he would've gone along with some bogus story.
I am yet to see anything that would suggest Alyea arrived at the SN before Fritz. If so the lunch had already been moved and the bones placed in the bag likely by Hill. Remember the recollection of Jim Ewell.
JIM EWELL, NEWS REPORTER
I had been a newspaper reporter for about fifteen years, and I thought that I was a seasoned professional. But now that the weight of this was coming down on me, I was beginning to get woozy. I felt light headed. But I do remember standing there with the police not knowing if they still had somebody trapped upstairs, or if there was going to be an outbreak of gunfire if they exposed somebody. And again, we didn't know how badly hurt was, at least I didn't. Meanwhile Jerry Hill worked his way up to the sixth floor, leaned out an open window, and he had what was thought to be Oswald's little fried chicken lunch. It in a little pop box. Jerry was holding that box and holding up one of the chicken bones exclaiming to everybody that listened to
him down on the street that the fried chicken what he had been eating. About that time there was a commotion around one of the squad cars, and we could hear a radio saying that an officer had been shot in Oak Cliff.
-
Or the mention of the 5th floor was simply an error in the confusion.
Well, it was an error that started with the witnesses-------and then IMO spread to officers inside the building
I don’t recall a focus on the fifth floor. Sawyer and a few others went to the 4th via the passenger elevator and came back down. Others mentioned a floor by floor search. Have you anything that states "we went immediately to the fifth floor".
If this rather large and rather embarrassing initial error was indeed made by officers searching the building, then it would have been hushed up afterwards. The accounts given by Inspector Sawyer et al are after the event and not to be trusted. That they were all well capable of sticking rigidly to an agreed script was certainly the belief of Mr Alyea
Can you identify who you think told Williams? Why not just get Givens to say they were his....a far more pliable witness.
It was established that Mr Givens did not stay in the building for the motorcade. Mr Williams did----much better to put the chicken in his hands
How many people do you believe were involved in the consiracy?
No idea
-
The transcript of the Dallas police tapes reveals that within the first 10 minutes reports came in for a gunman on the 5th floor, the 2nd floor and the "upper right hand corner" (6th floor ?).
Even though it was generally believed the gunman was still in the building, Sawyer and others went up as far as the 4th floor after which it seems to have been decided to conduct a more systematic search. The floor to floor searches weren't looking for signs of a gunman (or gunmen), they were looking for the actual shooter(s).
It was during this more systematic phase that the SN was discovered (my reading of various testimonies places this around 1:00 PM)
There was no such 'discovery' to be made if the SN's location had already been established by witnesses immediately after the shooting. I believe the wrong southeast window (fifth floor) was checked out, and much, much sooner than 1:10pm. They then spent lots of time looking for a rifle on five.
And it wasn't just chicken bones that were discovered but a partially eaten piece of chicken on the bone (I don't think this piece of chicken was actually eaten. I think part of the chicken was stripped off to make a sandwich leaving the remaining chicken on the bone to be eaten afterwards)
If the lunch remains were taken up from the 5th and placed on the SN I don't see why it would be then tidied away before Studebaker took his photos.
It would be good to locate the early statement by Alyea about chicken remains on the 6th floor because he seems really emphatic this wasn't the case in later statements and, judging by how scathing he is of the investigation, I don't get the impression he would've gone along with some bogus story.
Agreed
-
I am yet to see anything that would suggest Alyea arrived at the SN before Fritz.
Mr Alyea was in the building in time to film Mr Truly and Officer Baker and Mr Campbell and others near the rear of the first floor, ca. 10 mins post-shooting. He would have had plenty of time to see the chicken bones on the fifth floor and hence know subsequently that their 'finding' on the sixth was a crock. We have footage from him taken on the fifth floor
-
There is footage of Messrs Williams, Arce and Shelley being put in a police car to be taken down to police headquarters. The time (at least this is my understanding) is approx. 1pm, perhaps a little earlier.
Mr Williams in the car looks very distressed. Has he heard the bewildering and terrifying information that police have identified the fifth floor southeast window as the source of the shots?
-
Well, it was an error that started with the witnesses-------and then IMO spread to officers inside the building
If this rather large and rather embarrassing initial error was indeed made by officers searching the building, then it would have been hushed up afterwards. The accounts given by Inspector Sawyer et al are after the event and not to be trusted. That they were all well capable of sticking rigidly to an agreed script was certainly the belief of Mr Alyea
It was established that Mr Givens did not stay in the building for the motorcade. Mr Williams did----much better to put the chicken in his hands
No idea
I have no problem with the CYA approach after the event by many involved. That’s why I look for corroboration.
They already had Given's mentioned as the owner of the bones on the 6th floor by Shelley in his initial statement. The time the bones were placed there would not preclude him.
-
Mr Alyea was in the building in time to film Mr Truly and Officer Baker and Mr Campbell and others near the rear of the first floor, ca. 10 mins post-shooting. He would have had plenty of time to see the chicken bones on the fifth floor and hence know subsequently that their 'finding' on the sixth was a crock. We have footage from him taken on the fifth floor
By the time Fritz got there they had been placed in the bag and moved.
-
Mr Alyea was in the building in time to film Mr Truly and Officer Baker and Mr Campbell and others near the rear of the first floor, ca. 10 mins post-shooting. He would have had plenty of time to see the chicken bones on the fifth floor and hence know subsequently that their 'finding' on the sixth was a crock. We have footage from him taken on the fifth floor
I have no doubt he entered early. Can you provide anything to support he saw the SN before Fritz arrived in that location?
-
There is footage of Messrs Williams, Arce and Shelley being put in a police car to be taken down to police headquarters. The time (at least this is my understanding) is approx. 1pm, perhaps a little earlier.
Mr Williams in the car looks very distressed. Has he heard the bewildering and terrifying information that police have identified the fifth floor southeast window as the source of the shots?
I believe the time was closer to 1.30. Fritz had requested Senkel to gather all those who had been on the sixth floor to be taken for statements. This occurred about the time of the rifle discovery and Truly informing Fritz of Oswald's absence.
Williams looks distressed because (at least) he had only just been in the SN.
-
I have no problem with the CYA approach after the event by many involved. That’s why I look for corroboration.
They already had Given's mentioned as the owner of the bones on the 6th floor by Shelley in his initial statement. The time the bones were placed there would not preclude him.
OK, but nothing to preclude Mr Williams either----who may have proved more pliable under pressure than Mr Givens (who seems to have insisted he ate a sandwich of the non-chicken-bones variety......)
-
By the time Fritz got there they had been placed in the bag and moved.
How do we know that?
-
I believe the time was closer to 1.30. Fritz had requested Senkel to gather all those who had been on the sixth floor to be taken for statements. This occurred about the time of the rifle discovery and Truly informing Fritz of Oswald's absence.
Messrs Williams and (especially) Arce suggest it was considerably earlier than that.
Mr Shelley words the following reply rather carefully:
Mr. BALL - Were you there when they found anything up there?
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.
I would be just as slow to trust what Captain Fritz, Detective Senkel or Mr Truly have to say on this!
Perhaps shadow analysis of the footage/photographs showing Messrs Shelley, Williams and Arce would resolve this timing issue?
-
Messrs Williams and (especially) Arce suggest it was considerably earlier than that.
Mr Shelley words the following reply rather carefully:
Mr. BALL - Were you there when they found anything up there?
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.
I would be just as slow to trust what Captain Fritz, Detective Senkel or Mr Truly have to say on this!
Perhaps shadow analysis of the footage/photographs showing Messrs Shelley, Williams and Arce would resolve this timing issue?
(https://i.postimg.cc/KYP5YdJV/post-6343-0-11243900-1446883451.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
It's not conclusive but the lack of activity on the front steps and in front of the TSBD in general gives me the impression that this pic was taken a lot later than 1:00 PM when Sawyer had his command post outside and the search of the TSBD was still in full flow.
Looking at the background it looks as if things have really calmed down. It would be tempted to put this at closer to 2:00 PM but 1:30 pm seems reasonable (ish).
-
OK, but nothing to preclude Mr Williams either----who may have proved more pliable under pressure than Mr Givens (who seems to have insisted he ate a sandwich of the non-chicken-bones variety......)
If the lunch remains were a set up, Givens would be the choice because Williams was supposed to be with Jarman and Norman.
Givens was on his own and already had form with the local authorities, so was easily controlled.
I've come to accept that Jarman and Norman's differing statements are a result of trying to cover for Williams and his lie that he wasn't on the 6th floor. Williams tries everything in his power to distance himself from the SN at lunch-time.
For whatever reason, Williams, Jarman and Norman don't co-ordinate what they are telling the authorities, hence the conflicting accounts.
-
Question for those who believe Messrs Norman & Jarman just happened to decide watch the motorcade from five rather than six..............
If Messrs Norman and Jarman had decided to go to six rather than five, what do you think would have happened?
-
How do we know that?
l
Because no officer who arrived about the time Fritz arrived described them in the way the first to the scene did. Jim Ewell said that Jerry Hill held the chicken up. This was before Fritz arrived. Studebaker's description is the final resting place and the bones and chicken in the bag.
-
If Messrs Norman and Jarman
What does "messrs" mean?
-
What does "messrs" mean?
Plural of Mr
-
Plural of Mr
Really? I thought it was messers, as in they were "messing about".
-
Mr Tom Alyea, from Ms Connie Kritzberg's Secrets from the Sixth Floor Window------------------
"I [followed] the search team that was on its way to the rear elevator, to start the floor by floor search. We searched every floor, all the way to the roof. The gunman could have still been in the building. Finding nothing, they started back down. After approximately 18 minutes, they were joined by Captain Fritz, who had first gone to Parkland Hospital
[...]
Captain Fritz joined us on the 5th floor and aided in the search
[...]
I filmed Captain Fritz talking with associates in this dismantled area (the "sniper's nest"), along with Studebaker, who was dusting the Dr. Pepper bottle which had been brought up to him from the 5th floor."
Leaving aside for the moment the sheer absurdity of several witnesses pointing officers to the correct window and yet not a single officer thinking to check out that window, let us note a key fact here: Mr Alyea was present for the first search of the sixth floor before Captain Fritz's arrival on the scene.
I believe the only thing 'found' on that FIRST sweep was lunch remains on the fifth floor-----by the window ERRONEOUSLY identified at first as the window witnesses had seen the shooter fire from
-
Mr Tom Alyea:
"All right, on the fifth floor - I'm going to get questions on this - I was walking with this officer, plainclothesman, and we see a sack on the floor. And a Dr. Pepper bottle. I said fifth floor. He hit it with his toe. Some chicken bones came out of it."
(Laura Hlavach and Darwin (eds.) Reporting the Kennedy Assassination, p. 39)
Again: FIFTH floor was the initial focus of the search for the sniper's window. All they found there by way of evidence of an assassin was some chicken bones and a Dr. Pepper bottle. Stupidly, they made a song and dance about it. When shells were (much) later found a floor above, they moved these items up in order to save face.
The chicken bones & Dr. Pepper bottle have nothing whatsoever to do with the 'elderly negro' seen in the sixth-floor window @12:15 by Mr Arnold Rowland. And neither does Mr Bonnie Ray Williams!
It is possible that Mr Williams did indeed go up to six around 12 but stayed there for a very few minutes-----------being told to leave when the floor was commandeered by fake security men. He went to five, and was joined there by Messrs Norman & Jarman just before the arrival of the motorcade
The decision of Messrs Norman & Jarman to watch the motorcade from five rather than six was not a fluke for whoever was up on six. To suggest otherwise is to believe that those on six had trusted to blind luck that the floor would be theirs for the P. Parade. No such thing!
-
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I took it (the elevator, A.F.) up to the sixth floor.
Mr. BALL - Then what did you do?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, when I got through getting stock off of the sixth floor, I came back down to the fifth floor.
Mr. BALL - What did you do on the fifth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I got some stock.
Mr. BALL - Then what happened then?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, then immediately I heard a loud noise
Change "when I got through getting stock off the sixth floor" to "when I was told the floor was off limits until after the parade" and you have the likely true picture
Mr. BALL - You told me that just before you heard the shots, you had been on the sixth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - And then you went down to the fifth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That's right.
Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody on the sixth floor when you were there, before you went to the fifth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, yes; I did.
Mr. BALL - Who?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, there was Bill Shelley, Billy Lovelady---
Mr. BALL - That was in the morning, wasn't it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - That wasn't after lunch, was it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No, sir.
Well played, Mr Dougherty! Thumb1:
-
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I took it (the elevator, A.F.) up to the sixth floor.
Mr. BALL - Then what did you do?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, when I got through getting stock off of the sixth floor, I came back down to the fifth floor.
Mr. BALL - What did you do on the fifth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I got some stock.
Mr. BALL - Then what happened then?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, then immediately I heard a loud noise
Change "when I got through getting stock off the sixth floor" to "when I was told the floor was off limits until after the parade" and you have the likely true picture
Mr. BALL - You told me that just before you heard the shots, you had been on the sixth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - And then you went down to the fifth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That's right.
Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody on the sixth floor when you were there, before you went to the fifth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, yes; I did.
Mr. BALL - Who?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, there was Bill Shelley, Billy Lovelady---
Mr. BALL - That was in the morning, wasn't it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - That wasn't after lunch, was it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No, sir.
Well played, Mr Dougherty! Thumb1:
Mr. BALL - Did you see any strangers in the building that day?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No, sir.
Dougherty testifies there was no-one else on the 5th floor with him. Why isn't he aware of Williams and co.?
Williams, Norman and Jarman never see Doughrty on the 5th even after they run across the floor.
Why does Dougherty testify to going back on to the 6th after the shooting?
How can the security/assassination team know that the people they are turning away won't go to the authorities?
Why is it ok with the security/assassination team that these men are directly below them on the 5th?
Why aren't people being asked to leave the building?
Wy aren't the security/assassination team on the 5th, preventing anyone from getting anywhere near the 6th?
-
Why does Dougherty testify to going back on to the 6th after the shooting?
Why shouldn't he?
How can the security/assassination team
Correction: assassination team posing as security by flashing fake credentials
know that the people they are turning away won't go to the authorities?
They can't know for sure--------there is no risk-free way to do what they are proposing to do. But the fake SS credentials gambit is an effective way to minimize the risk.
Besides, if someone were to go to the authorities, just a few minutes before the motorcade, which authorities exactly would they go to?
-------------Mr Truly? He'll tell them it's ok
-------------A police officer? What exactly would a police officer be able to do? Order a bunch of credentials-flashing SS men to stand down?
But it most likely won't come to that. Folks trust credentialed persons.
Question for you: How can your shooter(s) know that a bunch of employees aren't going to wander up to the sixth floor and mess up the plan? Do you believe they just trust to luck that this won't happen? No contingency plan in place?
Why is it ok with the security/assassination team that these men are directly below them on the 5th?
Why wouldn't it be?
Why aren't people being asked to leave the building?
Not necessary-------and a terrible idea on several fronts
Why aren't the security/assassination team on the 5th, preventing anyone from getting anywhere near the 6th?
All they need is the sixth floor to themselves. Again: what provision do you believe your shooter(s) made to ensure they would have a free run of the sixth floor?
-
Friends, I submit that Messrs Williams, Norman and Jarman did not at first understand the significance of the shots they heard from above them.
Let's limit this to Mr Williams' experience of those minutes:
-----------He goes up to six and is told by SS men flashing credentials to stay off the floor
-----------He watches the motorcade from the fifth floor with his two co-workers
-----------Just after the limousine has passed the building he hears shots coming from just above him
-----------He assumes the shots have been fired by the SS men on the sixth floor
-----------He assumes they have been fired in defense of the President
-----------In order to see what or who down in the street caused the SS men to fire shots, he and his co-workers run to the west side of the floor
-----------Only later, when he is downstairs, does he learn to his horror that the President is believed to have been shot from the Depository building itself...
-----------He puts two and two together: those SS men he met were in fact assassins
-
Mr Tom Alyea, from Ms Connie Kritzberg's Secrets from the Sixth Floor Window------------------
"I [followed] the search team that was on its way to the rear elevator, to start the floor by floor search. We searched every floor, all the way to the roof. The gunman could have still been in the building. Finding nothing, they started back down. After approximately 18 minutes, they were joined by Captain Fritz, who had first gone to Parkland Hospital
[...]
Captain Fritz joined us on the 5th floor and aided in the search
[...]
I filmed Captain Fritz talking with associates in this dismantled area (the "sniper's nest"), along with Studebaker, who was dusting the Dr. Pepper bottle which had been brought up to him from the 5th floor."
Leaving aside for the moment the sheer absurdity of several witnesses pointing officers to the correct window and yet not a single officer thinking to check out that window, let us note a key fact here: Mr Alyea was present for the first search of the sixth floor before Captain Fritz's arrival on the scene.
I believe the only thing 'found' on that FIRST sweep was lunch remains on the fifth floor-----by the window ERRONEOUSLY identified at first as the window witnesses had seen the shooter fire from
Fritz had left the building by the time Studebaker dusted the bottle. Alyea is mistaken.
-
Mr Tom Alyea:
"All right, on the fifth floor - I'm going to get questions on this - I was walking with this officer, plainclothesman, and we see a sack on the floor. And a Dr. Pepper bottle. I said fifth floor. He hit it with his toe. Some chicken bones came out of it."
(Laura Hlavach and Darwin (eds.) Reporting the Kennedy Assassination, p. 39)
Again: FIFTH floor was the initial focus of the search for the sniper's window. All they found there by way of evidence of an assassin was some chicken bones and a Dr. Pepper bottle. Stupidly, they made a song and dance about it. When shells were (much) later found a floor above, they moved these items up in order to save face.
The chicken bones & Dr. Pepper bottle have nothing whatsoever to do with the 'elderly negro' seen in the sixth-floor window @12:15 by Mr Arnold Rowland. And neither does Mr Bonnie Ray Williams!
It is possible that Mr Williams did indeed go up to six around 12 but stayed there for a very few minutes-----------being told to leave when the floor was commandeered by fake security men. He went to five, and was joined there by Messrs Norman & Jarman just before the arrival of the motorcade
The decision of Messrs Norman & Jarman to watch the motorcade from five rather than six was not a fluke for whoever was up on six. To suggest otherwise is to believe that those on six had trusted to blind luck that the floor would be theirs for the P. Parade. No such thing!
And yet you have Jim Ewell recalling Jerry Hill holding up the chicken on the sixth floor prior to this.
-
Messrs Williams and (especially) Arce suggest it was considerably earlier than that.
Mr Shelley words the following reply rather carefully:
Mr. BALL - Were you there when they found anything up there?
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.
I would be just as slow to trust what Captain Fritz, Detective Senkel or Mr Truly have to say on this!
Perhaps shadow analysis of the footage/photographs showing Messrs Shelley, Williams and Arce would resolve this timing issue?
Using the TSBD east wall for shadow study is not sensitive with this point of view – the shadow changes very little during the interval of interest. However, the lamppost casting a shadow across the body of Detective Brown is useful. But first to place him it is necessary to simulate the Allen photo and position volunteers for a reasonable match. I estimate the time of the Allen photo between 13:25 and 13:30.
(https://i.imgur.com/sY2yTsd.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/J1DY4km.gif)
-
Using the TSBD east wall for shadow study is not sensitive with this point of view – the shadow changes very little during the interval of interest. However, the lamppost casting a shadow across the body of Detective Brown is useful. But first to place him it is necessary to simulate the Allen photo and position volunteers for a reasonable match. I estimate the time of the Allen photo between 13:25 and 13:30.
(https://i.imgur.com/sY2yTsd.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/J1DY4km.gif)
Thanks James.
-
And yet you have Jim Ewell recalling Jerry Hill holding up the chicken on the sixth floor prior to this.
Why 'prior to this'?
-
Using the TSBD east wall for shadow study is not sensitive with this point of view – the shadow changes very little during the interval of interest. However, the lamppost casting a shadow across the body of Detective Brown is useful. But first to place him it is necessary to simulate the Allen photo and position volunteers for a reasonable match. I estimate the time of the Allen photo between 13:25 and 13:30.
(https://i.imgur.com/sY2yTsd.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/J1DY4km.gif)
Many thanks indeed for this, Mr Hackerott---------I stand corrected as to when Mr Williams & co. were put in the car! Thumb1:
-
Why 'prior to this'?
Because Hill arrived just as Mooney announced the discovery of the shells and left before Fritz arrived.
-
Fritz had left the building guy the time Studebaker dusted the bottle. Alyea is mistaken.
Why? Mr Alyea says he filmed two things: a) Captain Fritz b) Mr Studebaker. He doesn't say a) and b) were in the same shot.
Do you really believe Mr Alyea hallucinated the finding of chicken bones & Dr Pepper bottle on the fifth floor? He is quite, quite emphatic about this event-------and clearly dismayed by the officers' continued support for the fiction that they were found on the sixth floor.
-
Why? Mr Alyea says he filmed two things: a) Captain Fritz b) Mr Studebaker. He doesn't say a) and b) were in the same shot.
Do you really believe Mr Alyea hallucinated the finding of chicken bones & Dr Pepper bottle on the fifth floor? He is quite, quite emphatic about this event-------and clearly dismayed by the officers' continued support for the fiction that they were found on the sixth floor.
Do you really believe all the officers who saw the lunch remains on/in the SN before Alyea arrived there were hallucinating?
-
Because Hill arrived just as Mooney announced the discovery of the shells and left before Fritz arrived.
So what? Mr Alyea was on the fifth floor (for the first time) well before this
-
Do you really believe all the officers who saw the lunch remains on/in the SN before Alyea arrived there were hallucinating?
No.
Mr Alyea was on the fifth floor many minutes before the sixth-floor SN was 'discovered'. Read again what he said.
At some point after he and the officer came across the chicken bones and the Dr Pepper bottle on the fifth floor, somebody moved them up a floor
-
Just to get away from chicken bones. We know there were two freight elevators that went to the upper floors and one that went to the 4 th and was called the passenger elevator. The two freight elevators had different mechanisms. Given those two differences I suspect that there was a clear protocol observed by the workers for use of them. Most working environments have these. I suspect that where possible the west elevator would be used and once the employee exited the gate would be shut. This would allow others to call it via press button. The east elevator could only be driven by use of a handle. It could not be called by others and could only be moved by someone on that floor after shutting the gate.
This would allow the east elevator to be used for moving larger quantities of stock to specific floors.
My question is this, if this protocol existencd in the TSBD and Williams, Jarman and Norman ascended together they would have used the west elevator and then shut the gate. This would have left them on the 5th and the west elevator able to be called. We now need to explain how the east elevator got to the fifth floor and essentially "locked off" from the first floor. We also need to wonder why Williams felt the need to take the east elevator to the fifth.
-
No.
Mr Alyea was on the fifth floor many minutes before the sixth-floor SN was 'discovered'. Read again what he said.
At some point after he and the officer came across the chicken bones and the Dr Pepper bottle on the fifth floor, somebody moved them up a floor
I get it.
Somebody moved them up there before Mooney discovered the SN.
Is that correct?
-
I get it.
Somebody moved them up there before Mooney discovered the SN.
Is that correct?
No, I'm suggesting someone moved them up there as soon as the (real) SN-----where the shells were-----was discovered. Because that was when they realized they'd gone to the wrong window initially (fifth rather than sixth floor)
-
No, I'm suggesting someone moved them up there as soon as the (real) SN-----where the shells were-----was discovered. Because that was when they realized they'd gone to the wrong window initially (fifth rather than sixth floor)
So before the sixth floor SN was discovered the chicken was moved from the fifth.....then Jerry Hill did his chicken waving to those below. All for "evidence" that would be discarded as unimportant. Struggling to find the sign I ancle of the cops moving the bones to the sixth? For fear of what?
-
No, I'm suggesting someone moved them up there as soon as the (real) SN-----where the shells were-----was discovered. Because that was when they realized they'd gone to the wrong window initially (fifth rather than sixth floor)
??
The first officers to discover the SN reported seeing the lunch remains on/in SN.
Why would they report seeing the lunch remains?
Why did the people on the 5th floor, who you think discovered the lunch remains, feel the need to move the lunch remains up to the 6th? To avoid embarrassment? Lower ranking officers decided to rearrange the crime scene evidence of the most important crime in America's history to avoid embarrassment?
Let's imagine the lunch remains were found on the 5th as early as 12:40 PM. Who was reporting the lunch remains proved the assassin was on the 5th floor before the SN was discovered?
-
??
The first officers to discover the SN reported seeing the lunch remains on/in SN.
Why would they report seeing the lunch remains?
Why did the people on the 5th floor, who you think discovered the lunch remains, feel the need to move the lunch remains up to the 6th? To avoid embarrassment? Lower ranking officers decided to rearrange the crime scene evidence of the most important crime in America's history to avoid embarrassment?
Let's imagine the lunch remains were found on the 5th as early as 12:40 PM. Who was reporting the lunch remains proved the assassin was on the 5th floor before the SN was discovered?
Dang, why don't they talk about Henry VIII like this? I'd like like to deconstruct some of his egregious errors. DPD sucked at deconstruction, oui?
-
At 11:20 in this video-----------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-gOVjYwgPg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-gOVjYwgPg)
----------Sgt. Jerry Hill tries to explain away Mr Tom Alyea's pesky recollection by saying there were two sets of chicken bones-----------one on the fifth floor, another on the sixth! :D
-
So before the sixth floor SN was discovered the chicken was moved from the fifth.....
No!
-
At 11:20 in this video-----------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-gOVjYwgPg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-gOVjYwgPg)
----------Sgt. Jerry Hill tries to explain away Mr Tom Alyea's pesky recollection by saying there were two sets of chicken bones-----------one on the fifth floor, another on the sixth! :D
On more than one occasion Alyea refers to dry, old chicken bones.
It was a partially eaten piece of chicken discovered on the SN, not old chicken bones.
Hill (not someone I'm happy defending) doesn't say there were two sets of chicken bones. He says there was one set on the 6th but that there may well have been others on the 5th but he had no idea whether there were or not.
Is there anyone other than Alyea talking about chicken bones on the 5th at the time of the search?
-
No, I'm suggesting someone moved them up there as soon as the (real) SN-----where the shells were-----was discovered. Because that was when they realized they'd gone to the wrong window initially (fifth rather than sixth floor)
One week after the assassination Hoover sends a memo(excerpt from it) discussing his conversation with LBJ:
(https://s3.gifyu.com/images/Hoover-Memo.png)
-
You can see why there is sometimes witness confusion about the floor numbers in the TSBD by looking at pictures of the building from that day. From the Elm St. perspective the "first" floor appears to be just a lobby or entry way due to the lattice fence on the outside that covers the windows. Count up five floors and the "sixth" floor becomes the fifth floor.
-
One week after the assassination Hoover sends a memo(excerpt from it) discussing his conversation with LBJ:
(https://s3.gifyu.com/images/Hoover-Memo.png)
Is Hoover suggesting the DPD moved the whole crime scene up a floor?
Or is it a simple mistake?
Or the type of incompetence/corruption that seems to permeate the investigation
-
Is Hoover suggesting the DPD moved the whole crime scene up a floor?
Or is it a simple mistake?
Or the type of incompetence/corruption that seems to permeate the investigation
Option 2.
-
Can anybody tell me the name of Officer E ?
From Gary Savage's "First Day Evidence"
Officer E
It had been a long escort. We had a lot of people all the way. There were no problems, just a heavy crowd and a lot of yelling and cheering, and the motors were getting hot. When you follow the lead, you do a lot of starting and stopping, trying to hold an interval. I was glad it was almost over.
The crowd was real heavy down on the end of the downtown area, but just past Dealey Plaza it would open up and we would be on the freeway and just a few minutes from the Trade Mart. The front of the motorcade started blocking up in the crowd in those last turns coming off Main and turning onto Elm. Back on Houston, where we were, we were just about stopped and moving real slow when we could move.
A little past half way down Houston (between Main and Elm), I heard the first shot. I could tell it came from somewhere in front of me, and high. As I looked up I noticed all the pigeons flushed off the top of the building on the corner ahead of me. And in the same period I heard the second shot, and then the third one. I couldn't see just where the shots came from but I knew they were from a high-powered rifle. I hunt a lot, and had just got back from hunting. There was no mistaking that; there were three shots, that's for sure. Though I didn't see exactly where the shots came from, I knew in my own mind they probably came from the corner building as the sound was right and because of the pigeons. So I headed there, got off my motor and entered the building (the Texas School Book Depository). It took a while because of the crowd; they had started moving in every direction.
The man who said he was the building superintendent was outside and met me at the door and went in with me. Shortly after I entered the building I confronted Oswald. The man who identified himself as the superintendent said that Oswald was all right, that he was employed there. We left Oswald there, and the supervisor showed me the way upstairs. We couldn't get anyone to send the freight elevator down. In giving the place a quick check, I found nothing that seemed out of the ordinary, so I started back to see what had happened. Not knowing for sure what had happened, I was limited in what I could legally do.
The investigator from Washington contacted me for my recollection of what happened, but I guess they weren't interested in what I said.
-
Marrion Baker.
The officer who testified to seeing Oswald in the second floor lunchroom.
-
Marrion Baker.
The officer who testified to seeing Oswald in the second floor lunchroom.
Yes, Glad you agree, Dan. Changed his story somewhat, after he was told the "official" story.
-
If true, his first day affidavit was already tailored....
Interesting Otto. By whom?
-
If I had to come up with a name it would be Fritz.
It's worth looking at Marvin Johnson who took Baker's affidavit. This is Johnson's undated report:
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337554/m1/1/?q=marvin%20johnson
It's basically Savage's story but the encounter is taken to the 4th floor; more like an early crude attempt to get Oswald closer to the 6th floor. Most interesting is the last paragraph which forces the question: why didn't Baker mention any of this in his affidavit?
On the day of the assassination Truly gives a statement to the FBI. In he he recounts, precisely, what is known as the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter - second floor, Baker enters lunchroom gun drawn, Oswald is alone in there, Baker asks if he's an employee, Truly confirms he is, both men carry hit the stairs.
Who is providing Truly's narrative?
Why is it different from Baker's?
When did Fritz have time to give Baker his "tailored" account?
Why doesn't Baker include Oswald in his affidavit if he is sat right there at the time he is giving the affidavit?
-
::)
Gee, I wonder why witnesses don't include their entire WC testimony in their affidavits.
DUH
-
On more than one occasion Alyea refers to dry, old chicken bones.
It was a partially eaten piece of chicken discovered on the SN, not old chicken bones.
Hill (not someone I'm happy defending) doesn't say there were two sets of chicken bones. He says there was one set on the 6th but that there may well have been others on the 5th but he had no idea whether there were or not.
"We had two sets of chicken bones in the School Book Depository" - Sgt. Hill
He's been caught in a lie and his attempt to bluff his way out elicits justified laughter from the audience!
-
You can see why there is sometimes witness confusion about the floor numbers in the TSBD by looking at pictures of the building from that day. From the Elm St. perspective the "first" floor appears to be just a lobby or entry way due to the lattice fence on the outside that covers the windows. Count up five floors and the "sixth" floor becomes the fifth floor.
Yes------------and I believe that's exactly what happened here
-
On the day of the assassination Truly gives a statement to the FBI. In he he recounts, precisely, what is known as the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter - second floor, Baker enters lunchroom gun drawn, Oswald is alone in there, Baker asks if he's an employee, Truly confirms he is, both men carry hit the stairs.
Who is providing Truly's narrative?
Why is it different from Baker's?
When did Fritz have time to give Baker his "tailored" account?
Why doesn't Baker include Oswald in his affidavit if he is sat right there at the time he is giving the affidavit?
Because his affidavit is not talking about Mr Oswald. Mr Truly vouched for a non-employee caught by the stairway several floors up
-
(https://i.imgur.com/zHEoxdN.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/rBpmDts.jpg)
-
Most interesting........................
(https://i.imgur.com/KYig0wx.jpg)
(BTW! Desham = Denham) Thumb1:
-
::)
Gee, I wonder why witnesses don't include their entire WC testimony in their affidavits.
DUH
It’s quality not quantity.
Just wondering if you use expressions like DUH etc in communications with adults elsewhere.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/zHEoxdN.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/rBpmDts.jpg)
Yep....5th floor.
-
Most interesting........................
(https://i.imgur.com/KYig0wx.jpg)
(BTW! Desham = Denham) Thumb1:
Cf #1!
Mr Jim Braden, statement 11/22/63:
“I moved up to the building across the street from the building which was surrounded and I asked one of the girls if there was a telephone that I could use and she said, ‘Yes, there is one on the third floor of the building where I work.’ I walked through a passage to the elevator where they were getting on (the freight elevator) and I got off on the third floor of the building with all the other people and there was a lady using the pay phone and I asked her if I could use it when she hung up and she said it was out of order and I tried to use it with no success. I ask(ed) her how I can get out of the building and she said that there is an exit right there and then she said wait a minute here is the elevator now. I got on the elevator and returned to the ground floor and the colored man who ran the elevator said you are a stranger in this building and I was not suppose to let you up and he ran outside to an officer and said to this office that he had just taken me up and down in the elevator and the officer said for me to identify myself and I presented him with a credit card and he said well we have to check out everything and took me to his superior and said for me to wait and we will check it out. I was then taken to the Sheriff’s office and interrogated.”
Cf #2!
Mr Jim Braden, HSCA deposition:
Walking further on he came across Dallas Police cars with their doors open, and he could hear the police radio, “They were telling on the radio, everybody get to that building….I walked along the edge of what I later learned was the Texas School Book Depository Building. I recall the railroad tracks ran off this way and up to the edge of the building where all the people were there with the officers completely circling the building I was looking across the street. [The Sheriff’s report, Braden’s 11/22/63 statement is entered into the records as JFK Exhibit No. 112].
Braden continued, “I walked up alongside this building which is now known as the Dal-Tex Building. I was peeking around the corner, I asked somebody what is happening. They said they have somebody up there who shot the President and these officers had their guns up there pointing to this building….As I proceeded along – there were crowds of people on the sidewalk and I asked one of the ladies who was walking along in my direction, I said, ‘Is there a telephone in the area?’ She said, ‘ There is one in my building on the third floor’ and we passed through this walkway to a freight elevator.”
Asked whom he wanted to call, Braden said, “My family in Santa Barbara, my mother and father. I thought this was quite a news events to call and tell them what occurred in Dallas. And I went up to the third floor. There was a women standing there who tried to use the telephone. She hung up. I started using it. She said, ‘It is out of order.’ I turned around. ‘How do I get out of here?’ She says, ‘There is an exit right over there.’ Because I didn’t know where I was in this building I was looking for an exit. I came up in a freight elevator. I was looking for an exit. I was on the third floor….She says, ‘There is a freight elevator there now.’ With this I went over and got back on and started to descend. This was at the time when this old gentleman who was steering the elevator began to look at me a little askance. He had a radio there in the elevator and it was blaring the Kennedy matter out and whatnot. He became more concerned as we were riding this elevator down. I no more than got on the ground floor, he ran back up this runway to an office in uniform and I am following the fellow right along because what can I do? I could not run away. If I ran away they would probably shoot me on the spot.”
“I just took this man up and down in the elevator,” Braden quoted the elevator operator as saying. “With this, the officer says, “Well, we have to check out everything.” With this the officer takes me and we walk out in the center of this area here where there were all these vacant areas where all these policeman were surrounding the building. I definitely recall at the time that I looked over and I could see men coming out. They had a gun on a string or a rope or something. Whatever time that was, I don’t know…about thirty minutes (after he left the Federal Building).”
-
Cf #3!
Report by Det. Jim Leavelle:
(https://i.imgur.com/jTWz1FL.jpg)
But! Cf #4!
Mr William Sharper was an elevator operator in the Dal-Tex Building. I quote Mr Tom Hume:
'According to Sharper’s statement, shortly after the shooting, a white male entered the Dal-Tex building by the freight entrance and asked to use the phone. Sharper took the man to the third floor and brought him back down about seven minutes later. Sharper described the man as “30 to 35, attired in a light colored overcoat and a light colored felt hat.”'
Assuming Mr William Sharp (Leavelle report) = Mr William Sharper, then he is a white man. Yet the elevator operator described by Mr Jim Braden is an "old gentleman" who is "colored".
How many damn elevator operators did the Dal-Tex building have???
And........doesn't the man who brought Mr Braden to a police officer's attention sound a lot like Mr Eddie Piper?
-
It’s quality not quantity.
Just wondering if you use expressions like DUH etc in communications with adults elsewhere.
The adults are elsewhere
-
The adults are elsewhere
I did not expect so much self awareness on your part :D
-
Their affidavits were taken prior to their WC testimonies.
DOH
EXACTLY. Now explain that to the members of your species who keep asking why witnesses sometimes miss in their affidavits what they later bring up in Q&A testimony.
DOH D'OH
There. Fixed your wagon... again.
-----------
EDIT ;D
BONUS
-----------
> ..."miss in their affidavits what they later bring up in Q&A testimony."
-
I did not expect so much self awareness on your part :D
More young-at-heart in my case
At least that's what I'm told
I think of it as my general light-heartedness
Which reminds me; when are you going to tell me what
Tommy Graves was banned for?
(https://i.postimg.cc/G2bdsgGd/WEIDMANN-THREAT-2.png)
----------
EDIT ;D
BONUS
----------
> edited in 'banned'
for 'suspended'