JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Charles Collins on September 14, 2022, 03:11:42 PM
-
There were several people who said that they sighted someone on the sixth floor before the motorcade arrived in Dealey Plaza. Arnold Rowland's sighting of a man with a rifle in the vicinity of the southwest corner of the sixth floor of the TSBD appears to me to be legitimate. However, it poses a question regarding the theory that LHO was hiding in the sniper's nest while BRW ate his lunch on the sixth floor. So, I have been examining the evidence with regards to the timing of these various sightings. I haven't tried to pinpoint each sighting to the minute. I believe that approximate timings are the best we can do for this exercise. Here is a sequence of events that appears correct to me.
The unusual activities started on Thursday 11/21/63 when LHO asked BWF for a ride to Irving on Thursday instead of his usual Friday routine. On Friday 11/22/63 LHO brought with him a long package which he told BWF was “curtain rods.” Charles Givens noticed something else unusual that morning.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see him reading the newspaper?
Mr. GIVENS. No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there every morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the paper, the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that morning. I didn't see him in the domino room that morning.
At approximately 11:45 the crew working on the flooring on the west side of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository breaks for lunch. According to several of the flooring workers, LHO was either on the 5th or 6th floor and stayed behind (instead of riding down on the elevators with them) and asks for the elevator gates to be shut so that he can call the elevator back up.
Soon after he arrives on the first floor, Charles Givens realizes that he left his cigarettes in his jacket on the sixth floor and so he takes the east elevator back up to the sixth floor to retrieve them. As Givens is on the sixth floor and returning to the east elevator, he sees LHO walking from the area of the southeast corner towards him. LHO is carrying a clipboard (apparently trying to make it appear like he is working). LHO again asks for Givens to close the gates to the west elevator when Givens gets to the first floor.
Mr. BELIN. What time was this?
Mr. GIVENS. Well, I would say it was about 5 minutes to 12, …
After washing up and grabbing his lunch sack from the first floor domino room, and getting a Dr. Pepper from the vending machine, Bonnie Ray Williams returns to the sixth floor, on the east elevator, to eat his lunch. He is expecting some others to join him up there to watch the motorcade go by. However, none of the co-workers that he is expecting return to the sixth floor to eat lunch and watch the motorcade.
Mr. BALL. How long did you stay there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I was there from--5, 10, maybe 12 minutes.
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.
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.
While BRW was eating his lunch on the sixth floor, Harold (Hank) Norman and James (Junior) Jarman and Charles Givens were out in front of the building on the sidewalk awaiting the motorcade. Charles Givens finishes eating his sandwich and decides to leave and walk up Elm Street to see a friend at a parking lot one block east. Hank and Junior decide to go up to the fifth floor to get a better view of the motorcade. They walk around the building on Houston Street and in through the loading dock door to the west elevator and take it up to the fifth floor.
Affidavit of Harold Norman 12/4/63:
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.
Warren Commission testimony:
Mr. NORMAN. Well, we stayed there I believe until we got the news* that the motorcade was coming down, let's see, is that Commerce, no Main, because Commerce- we went beck in the building, James Jarman and I.
Mr. BALL. Where did you go when you went in the building?
Mr. NORMAN. We got the east elevator. No; the west.
Mr. BALL. The west elevator?
Mr. NORMAN. The west elevator. And went to the fifth floor.
*Norman is not specific on the source of the news, but If they got the news from DPD radio, the first mention of Main Street is on channel 2 @ ~12:20: “Crowd on Main Street in real good shape. Got them all back on the curb”.
.
.
.
Mr. BALL. And what did you and Junior do after you got off the elevator?
Mr. NORMAN. We walked around to the windows facing Elm Street and I can't recall if any were open or not but I remember we opened some, two or three windows ourselves.
About this same time, BRW decides to leave the sixth floor on the same east elevator that he used to get up there.
Mr. BALL. Why did you stop on the fifth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. To see if there was anyone there.
Mr. BALL. Did you know there was anyone there before you started down?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, I thought I heard somebody walking, the windows moving or something. I said maybe someone is down there, I said to myself. And I just went on down.
Mr. BALL. Did you find anybody there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. As I remember, when I was walking up, I think Harold Norman and James Jarman as I remember, they was down facing the Elm Street on the fifth floor, as I remember.
.
.
.
Mr. BALL. Well, is it fair to say that you do not remember the exact time now?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You do remember, though, that you ate your lunch and drank your pop, your Doctor Pepper, before you came down?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Were you there any length of time before the Presidential parade came by?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, sir, on the fifth floor?
Mr. BALL. On the fifth floor, yes, with your two friends, Norman and Jarman.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I was there a while before it came around.
About this same time, there is an epileptic seizure happening on the south curb of Houston Street between Main Street and Elm Street. An ambulance is called, and requested code 3, due to the expected arrival of the motorcade in a few minutes.
After the 12:18 time check and just before the 12:19 time check:
289 - Give us an ambulance, 100 block North Houston Street. Epileptic seizure.
Disp. - 10/4
289 - …make it a code 3
About this same time, Arnold Rowland says that he sees a man with a rifle on the sixth floor of the TSBD in the set of southern facing windows nearest the southwest corner. However, this man has disappeared by the time he tells his wife about him and she looks for him.
Mr. ROWLAND - …Right directly across from us in this plaza in front of the pond there was a colored boy that had an epileptic fit or something of this type right then, and she pointed this out to me and there were a couple of officers there and a few moments later they called an ambulance, this is what she told me to look at then, and we looked at this for a short period of time, and then I told her to look in the building, the second floor from the top and on that end, the two open windows, is I think what 1 said, and I said, "He is not there now."…
CE - 358: He appeared to be slender in proportion to his height, he was wearing a white or light colored shirt, either collarless or open at the neck. He appeared to have dark hair. He also appeared to be holding a rifle, with scope attached…
About this same time, Howard Brennan arrives at the southwest corner of Elm and Houston streets, directly across from the TSBD. He sees the epileptic seizure activity, then takes a seat on the concrete railing on the north end of the reflecting pool/fountain facing north (towards the TSBD). Soon afterwards, while casually looking around at his surroundings, Brennan notices a man in the southern facing window on the sixth floor nearest the southeast corner of the TSBD building. Brennan looks back several times and sees this man disappear and reappear from that same window. Brennan says that this is the same man that he sees firing the fatal shot with his rifle from that same window approximately 8 minutes later.
Mr. BELIN. You want to put a "B" on that one? Now, after you saw the man--well, just tell what else you saw during that afternoon.
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, as the parade came by, I watched it from a distance of Elm and Main Street, as it came on to Houston and turned the corner at Houston and Elm, going down the incline towards the railroad underpass. And after the President had passed my position, I really couldn't say how many feet or how far, a short distance I would say, I heard this crack that I positively thought was a backfire.
Mr. BELIN. You thought it was backfire?
Mr. BRENNAN. Of a motorcycle.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you observe or hear?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, then something, just right after this explosion, made me think that it was a firecracker being thrown from the Texas Book Store. And
I glanced up. And this man that I saw previous was aiming for his last shot.
Mr. BELIN. This man you saw previous? Which man are you talking about now?
Mr. BRENNAN. The man in the sixth story window.
Mr. BELIN. Would you describe just exactly what you saw when you saw him this last time?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.
.
.
.
Mr. BELIN. Could you describe the man you saw in the window on the sixth floor?
Mr. BRENNAN. To my best description, a man in his early thirties, fair complexion, slender but neat, neat slender, possibly 5-foot 10.
Mr. BELIN. About what weight?
Mr. BRENNAN. Oh, at--I calculated, I think, from 160 to 170 pounds.
Mr. BELIN. A white man?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what kind of clothes he was wearing?
Mr. BRENNAN. Light colored clothes, more of a khaki color.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember the color of his hair?
Mr. BRENNAN. No.
Shortly before the motorcade arrived in Dealey Plaza two other men (Edwards and Fischer) saw a man in the same southeast corner sixth floor window that Brennan described.
Mr. BELIN - Could you describe this individual at all? Was he a white man or a Negro?
Mr. EDWARDS - White man.
Mr. BELIN - Tall or short, if you know?
Mr. EDWARDS - I couldn't say.
Mr. BELIN - Did he have anything in his hand at all that you could see?
Mr. EDWARDS - No.
Mr. BELIN - Could you see his hands?
Mr. EDWARDS - I don't remember.
Mr. BELIN - What kind of clothes did he have on?
Mr. EDWARDS - Light colored shirt, short sleeve and open neck.
Mr. BELIN - How much of him could you see? Shoulder up, waist up, knees up, or what?
Mr. EDWARDS - From the waist on. From the abdomen or stomach up what,
Mr. BELIN - Was the man fat, thin, or average in size?
Mr. EDWARDS - Oh, about average. Possibly thin.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember anything about the man? Could you describe his appearance at all? First of all, how much of him could you see?
Mr. FISCHER - I could see from about the middle of his chest past the top of his head.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Mr. FISCHER - He was in the---as you're looking toward that window, he was in the lower right portion of the window. He seemed to be sitting a little forward.And he had--he had on an open-neck shirt, but it-uh--could have been a sport shirt or a T-shirt. It was light in color; probably white, I couldn't tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color.Uh---he had a slender face and neck---uh---and he had a light complexion----he was a white man. And he looked to be 22 or 24 years old.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember anything about the color of his hair?
Mr. FISCHER - His hair seemed to be---uh---neither light nor dark; possibly a light---well, possibly a---well, it was a brown was what it was; but as to whether it was light or dark, I can't say.
Mr. BELIN - Did he have a thick head of hair or did he have a receding hair-line---or couldn't you tell?
Mr. FISCHER - I couldn't tell. He couldn't have had very long hair, because his hair didn't seem to take up much space---of what I could see of his head. His hair must have been short and not long.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you see a full view of his face or more of a profile of it, or what was it?
Mr. FISCHER - I saw it at an angle but, at the same time, I could see I believe I could see the tip of his right cheek as he looked to my left.
Mr. BELIN - Now, could you be anything more definite as to what direction he was looking at?
Mr. FISCHER - He looked to me like he was looking straight at the triple underpass.
Mr. BELIN - Down what street?
Mr. FISCHER - Elm Street.
Mr. BELIN - Down Elm?
Mr. FISCHER - Toward the end of Elm Street.
Mr. BELIN - As it angles there and goes under the triple underpass there?
Mr. FISCHER - Yes, sir.
It appears to me that the descriptions given by Rowland, Brennan, Edwards, and Fischer are all similar enough to be describing the same man. My opinion that LHO was hiding in the sniper's nest while BRW ate his lunch has evolved. I now believe that LHO was hiding on the sixth floor, but that he was on the west end of that floor. I believe that LHO had hidden his rifle early that morning on the west end of the sixth floor. Probably in the same location where it was later hidden after the shooting. It appears to me that LHO likely heard the ambulance approaching Dealey Plaza, with siren on, and had to see whether or not it was the motorcade approaching with a siren sounding. This seems to me to be reason enough to stand up where he could be seen, because I believe that he didn't want JFK to pass by without at least taking a shot at him. When BRW did leave the sixth floor, LHO then was able to go across the sixth floor to the sniper's nest where he was then seen by Brennan, then Edwards and Fischer. I believe that LHO was wearing his t-shirt. During his escape and subsequent activities, LHO was apparently trying to change his appearance after each sighting. After all, changing appearances always seemed to work for his fugitive TV heroes when they were on the run....
-
The problem is that BRW would have been able to see somebody standing behind the southwest window if he was where he said he was.
And who was the black man that Rowland saw at the southeast window?
-
The problem is that BRW would have been able to see somebody standing behind the southwest window if he was where he said he was.
And who was the black man that Rowland saw at the southeast window?
The problem is that BRW would have been able to see somebody standing behind the southwest window if he was where he said he was.
BRW said that he was sitting on the cart in the third aisle from the east wall (this is also where his lunch remains were found and photographed). According to my 3-D computer model, Arnold Rowland's description of the man with the rifle fits well with a man standing back from the window at a position at least 5.5' north and 4.5' east of the inside of the southwest corner of the building. There are boxes stacked between the BRW position and the rifle man position that would block BRW's view.
(https://i.vgy.me/N6PTjI.png)
And who was the black man that Rowland saw at the southeast window?
Rowland said nothing about anyone else on the sixth floor in his affidavit on 11/22/63. His wife testified that he said nothing about anyone else on the sixth floor to her or anyone else (in her presence) up until the date they testified to the WC. There were three black men visible to them, but they were on the fifth floor. Rowland could have remembered incorrectly regarding which floor.
-
Rowland said nothing about anyone else on the sixth floor in his affidavit on 11/22/63.
Ok, but BRW said nothing about where he ate his lunch in his initial affidavit. And Givens didn’t tell his “going back for cigarettes” story until 5 months later.
-
Ok, but BRW said nothing about where he ate his lunch in his initial affidavit. And Givens didn’t tell his “going back for cigarettes” story until 5 months later.
Rowland said that the epileptic activity was going on at about the same time of his sighting of the rifle man. Rowland also said he saw the black man hanging out of a window in the east corner before he saw the rifle man in the west corner. Therefore it appears that if he actually did see a black man, it would have been ten minutes or more before the motorcade arrived.
Once Brennan arrived (about the time of the epileptic episode) and saw a white man in the sniper’s nest window, he testified that he didn’t see any other people on the sixth floor:
Mr. BELIN. Here is a marking pencil. Will you just mark the window that you believe you saw the man.
All right.
And do you want to put a letter "A", if you would, by that.
All right, now you have marked on Commission Exhibit 477 a circle with the letter "A" to show the window that you saw a man in, I believe you said, at least two times come back and forth.
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes
Mr. BELIN. Did you see any other people in any other windows that you can recollect?
Mr. BRENNAN. Not on that floor.
There was no other person on that floor that ever came to the window that I noticed.
There were people on the next floor down, which is the fifth floor, colored guys. In particular, I only remember two that I identified.
Rowland’s same day description, and his wife’s confirmation that he tried to point him out to her at that time, appears to me to be genuine and possible. The additional stuff that Rowland came up with during his WC testimony appears to be full of errors (at best). And some of it possibly just figments of his imagination (if his wife’s opinion is correct).
-
Imo if Rowland saw BRW “hanging out the window” at the SAME TIME Rowland saw the SW window gunman (12:15 by the TSBD roof clock that Rowland saw) then there Is SOME probability that BRW could have missed seeing the gunman even though the gunman might have seen BRW.
One of the reasons I doubt that the gunman was Oswald at 12:15 is because of Carolyn Arnold’s sighting of Oswahd in the 2nd floor lunchroom at approx that same time 12:15.
Even if it was a couple of minutes later at 12:17-12:18, it is illogical for Oswald (or other gunman) to have left the 6th floor and travel down the 2nd floor lunchroom , there to wait for the motorcade to arrive. Even if the gunman was listening to a radio he might have with him while he waits in the lunchroom, he would still not know if BRW have left the 6th floor.
Therefore Ii seems more probable that the gunman would have remained in some proximity to the 6th floor since he was the one who placed the box on the window ledge at approx just a mere 15-30 secs before 12:25 (the time supposedly that the. Bronson film began that shows the box in the window.)
Since BRW did not leave that SE window that Rowland saw h hanging out of) until about 12:24 ,then the gunman must have be close enough to get to the SE 6th floor window and place the box on the ledge in about 1 minute.
So my best guess is that the gunman KEPT his rifle in hand after backing away from the SW window at 12:15 ( after he saw BRW) and that the gunman hid somewhere near the NE corner of the 6th floor where he would only have about 100 ft or so distance to traverse to get to the SE window in about 15 secs and in another 30 secs able to stack 3 boxes , one of which was placed on the window ledge.
Why Rowland or anyone else did not see this activity must be a matter of probability of the small % of time (only 30 secs) to place the boxes just before 12:25. Thus when Rowland checked the window again at12:25, the gunman had finished his box on the ledge placement and was hiding himself probably sitting on a box with his torso and head to the left of the window enough to be out of LOS in the Hughes film.
-
If I remember correctly, none of the four black men (Givens, BRW, Jarman, Norman) said anything about the ambulance that picked up the epileptic. I sure wish that the investigators had thought to ask them about that because I think that would have been something that would be memorable to them. And it could have helped to better estimate the timing of their movements to the fifth floor. Since none of them (iirc) mentioned this event, I think that it could be possible (even probable) that the ambulance came and went during the period of time in which they were traveling to the fifth floor.
-
Brennan also added new details to his story over time. There’s no good reason to prefer his account over Rowland’s. Either one of them could have seen things that the other one missed.
-
Brennan also added new details to his story over time. There’s no good reason to prefer his account over Rowland’s. Either one of them could have seen things that the other one missed.
There’s no good reason to prefer his account over Rowland’s.
LOL. :D. You are just being ridiculous now…
How about Rowland’s wife’s testimony. Here’s just one snip from it. There are others that tend to shed doubt on Arnold’s additions.
Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything else about the man?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Not that I remember, except that he was wearing a light colored shirt or jacket.
Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything about any other people in any other windows?
Mrs. ROWLAND. No; I don't think so.
Mr. BELIN. Now, did you notice any other people standing in any other windows or leaning out?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I am not sure if I did at that moment.
Mr. BELIN. Later on?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I saw some people either earlier or later looking out the windows.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember anything about any of the people you saw?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Some of them were colored men. I don't think I saw any women.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see any white men?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I am not positive.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember where you saw any of these Negro men?
Mrs. ROWLAND. On a lower floor, about the fourth floor, I think, and nearer the center window. The windows nearer the center.
Mrs. BELIN. On some floor lower than the sixth floor, which you think was the fourth floor?
Mrs. ROWLAND. About the fourth floor.
Mr. BELIN. Did you and your husband comment about these other men?
Mrs. ROWLAND. We may have said something about there being other people watching, I am not sure.
-
Belin had a really obvious agenda to discredit Rowland. Funny how they didn’t ask about Brennan’s school records or ask his family about whether he was prone to exaggerate.
-
Belin had a really obvious agenda to discredit Rowland. Funny how they didn’t ask about Brennan’s school records or ask his family about whether he was prone to exaggerate.
:'( ::)
-
Well done Charles, it is important that an LNer has finally broke ranks to deal with Rowland's evidence.
The usual strategy is either to ignore it or imply Rowland made the whole thing up. This leaves us with what I've referred to elsewhere as The Miracle On Elm Street - that Rowland made up a story about a white male holding a scoped rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building and, by some unbelievably astronomical coincidence, there was indeed a white male holding a scoped rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building!!
I find it bizarre that LNers are willing to put themselves in this position rather than take Rowland's testimony seriously.
As you have pointed out, " the descriptions given by Rowland, Brennan, Edwards, and Fischer are all similar enough to be describing the same man."
There is a incorrect detail in one of your posts that I have to rectify. It seems innocuous at first glance but it has far-reaching consequences:
BRW said that he was sitting on the cart in the third aisle from the east wall (this is also where his lunch remains were found and photographed)
It is a fact that the lunch remains were found at the Sniper's Nest and not over 30 feet away at the thrid aisle.
We have had this conversation before.
EIGHT law enforcement officers place the remains at the SN - more importantly, three of them place the remains specifically on top of thye boxes that form the Sniper's Nest!
-
Charles poo-pooed all of their accounts because they didn’t have what he considered to be “crime scene investigation experience”.
-
Well done Charles, it is important that an LNer has finally broke ranks to deal with Rowland's evidence.
The usual strategy is either to ignore it or imply Rowland made the whole thing up. This leaves us with what I've referred to elsewhere as The Miracle On Elm Street - that Rowland made up a story about a white male holding a scoped rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building and, by some unbelievably astronomical coincidence, there was indeed a white male holding a scoped rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building!!
I find it bizarre that LNers are willing to put themselves in this position rather than take Rowland's testimony seriously.
As you have pointed out, " the descriptions given by Rowland, Brennan, Edwards, and Fischer are all similar enough to be describing the same man."
There is a incorrect detail in one of your posts that I have to rectify. It seems innocuous at first glance but it has far-reaching consequences:
BRW said that he was sitting on the cart in the third aisle from the east wall (this is also where his lunch remains were found and photographed)
It is a fact that the lunch remains were found at the Sniper's Nest and not over 30 feet away at the thrid aisle.
We have had this conversation before.
EIGHT law enforcement officers place the remains at the SN - more importantly, three of them place the remains specifically on top of thye boxes that form the Sniper's Nest!
Your opinions are not facts. None of your eight officers gave a specific location. You have just interpreted their words the way you want to interpret them.
The crime scene investigation officers (who were there to document the crime scene) give the specific location. And provide the photographic evidence.
Mr. BALL. Now, did you find a two-wheeled truck up there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And did you take a picture of it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Let me see that one.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. All right - it has the Dr. Pepper bottle and the paper sack that was sitting there in the picture.
Mr. BALL. Let me see that one.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. (Handed instrument to Counsel Ball)
There are two different views of it - there's one and here's one. That was before anything was touched and before it was dusted. This is a shot - I believe that's in the third aisle and let's see what it is marked - it's the sixth floor of 411 Elm Street looking south and the third aisle from Houston Street on the south side of the building. That was taken looking directly into that - this is the sack with those chicken bones and all that mess was in there too.
Mr. BALL. Is the sack shown there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes; it's a little ole brown sack - yes; it's right there.
Mr. BALL. We will mark this as "Exhibit H," which is your No. 6.
(Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit H," for identification.)
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/studeh.jpg (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/studeh.jpg)
Mr. BALL. That's the sack, is that right?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And it shows - it has some chicken bones in it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Any chicken bones in any other place?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
Mr. BALL. None outside the sack?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; they were all inside the sack, wrapped up and put right back In. It had a little piece of Fritos in the sack, too.
Mr. BALL. Then, we will have the next picture marked Exhibit I, which shows the Dr. Pepper bottle with the two - wheeler, is that right?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
(Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit I," for identification.)
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/studei.jpg (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/studei.jpg)
Mr. BALL. And that's your No. 7.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. That's the third row over?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. That's the third aisle from Houston Street.
Mr. BALL. That would be the third set of windows?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. That would be the third set of windows - it would be - one, two, three.
Mr. BALL. The third set of windows from Houston Street - you mark it.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
(Instrument marked by the witness Studebaker as requested by Counsel Ball.)
Mr. BALL. Now, did you see a chicken bone over near the boxes in the south-east corner, over near where you found the cartridges and the paper sack? Mr.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I don't believe there was one there.
Mr. BALL. You didn't see any. One witness, a deputy sheriff named Luke Mooney said he found a piece of chicken partly eaten up on top of one of the boxes; did you see anything like that?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
Mr. BALL. Was anything like that called to your attention?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I can't recall anything like that. It ought to be in one of these pictures, if it is.
Mr. BALL. Where did you eat your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I ate my lunch--I am not sure about this, but the third or the fourth set of windows, I believe.
Mr. BALL. Facing on what street?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Facing Elm Street.
Mr. McCLOY. What floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Sixth floor.
Mr. DULLES. You ate your lunch on the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES. And you were all alone?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you sit on while you ate your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. First of all, I remember there was some boxes behind me. I just kind of leaned back on the boxes first. Then I began to get a little impatient, because there wasn't anyone coming up. So I decided to move to a two-wheeler.
Mr. BALL. A two-wheeler truck, you mean?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. I remember sitting on this two-wheeler. By that time, I was through, and I got up and I just left then.
.
.
.
Mr. BALL. I have an exhibit here marked 484.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 484 for identification.)
Mr. BALL. Do you recognize that?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; I recognize that.
Mr. BALL. What do you see?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I see a two-wheeler, a Dr. Pepper bottle, and some boxes in the windows.
Mr. BALL. And is that anywhere near where you were sitting?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; that is the exact place I was sitting.
Mr. BALL. That is the two-wheeler you were sitting on?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
.
.
.
Mr. BALL. Did you eat the chicken?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, I did.
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.
You can believe whatever you want to. I really don’t care. But if you are going to try to post your opinions as facts, I will point out that they are not facts.
-
Charles poo-pooed all of their accounts because they didn’t have what he considered to be “crime scene investigation experience”.
That is not the reason, just a point of interest. See the above post to Dan if you are still confused…
-
Your opinions are not facts.
You can believe whatever you want to. I really don’t care. But if you are going to try to post your opinions as facts, I will point out that they are not facts.
Says the guy who is desperately trying to pass off his highly selective opinions as if they were facts.
Here is a fact that can not be denied; nowhere in Charles Collins' word salad is there even a slightest shred of evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor between 12 and 12:30 and/or that he was the man the witnesses saw, believed they saw or imagined they saw.
This entire self-serving thread isn't going anywhere fast.
-
Your opinions are not facts. None of your eight officers gave a specific location. You have just interpreted their words the way you want to interpret them.
The crime scene investigation officers (who were there to document the crime scene) give the specific location. And provide the photographic evidence.
Mr. BALL. Now, did you find a two-wheeled truck up there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And did you take a picture of it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Let me see that one.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. All right - it has the Dr. Pepper bottle and the paper sack that was sitting there in the picture.
Mr. BALL. Let me see that one.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. (Handed instrument to Counsel Ball)
There are two different views of it - there's one and here's one. That was before anything was touched and before it was dusted. This is a shot - I believe that's in the third aisle and let's see what it is marked - it's the sixth floor of 411 Elm Street looking south and the third aisle from Houston Street on the south side of the building. That was taken looking directly into that - this is the sack with those chicken bones and all that mess was in there too.
Mr. BALL. Is the sack shown there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes; it's a little ole brown sack - yes; it's right there.
Mr. BALL. We will mark this as "Exhibit H," which is your No. 6.
(Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit H," for identification.)
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/studeh.jpg (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/studeh.jpg)
Mr. BALL. That's the sack, is that right?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And it shows - it has some chicken bones in it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Any chicken bones in any other place?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
Mr. BALL. None outside the sack?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; they were all inside the sack, wrapped up and put right back In. It had a little piece of Fritos in the sack, too.
Mr. BALL. Then, we will have the next picture marked Exhibit I, which shows the Dr. Pepper bottle with the two - wheeler, is that right?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
(Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit I," for identification.)
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/studei.jpg (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/studei.jpg)
Mr. BALL. And that's your No. 7.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. That's the third row over?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. That's the third aisle from Houston Street.
Mr. BALL. That would be the third set of windows?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. That would be the third set of windows - it would be - one, two, three.
Mr. BALL. The third set of windows from Houston Street - you mark it.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
(Instrument marked by the witness Studebaker as requested by Counsel Ball.)
Mr. BALL. Now, did you see a chicken bone over near the boxes in the south-east corner, over near where you found the cartridges and the paper sack? Mr.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I don't believe there was one there.
Mr. BALL. You didn't see any. One witness, a deputy sheriff named Luke Mooney said he found a piece of chicken partly eaten up on top of one of the boxes; did you see anything like that?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
Mr. BALL. Was anything like that called to your attention?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I can't recall anything like that. It ought to be in one of these pictures, if it is.
Mr. BALL. Where did you eat your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I ate my lunch--I am not sure about this, but the third or the fourth set of windows, I believe.
Mr. BALL. Facing on what street?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Facing Elm Street.
Mr. McCLOY. What floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Sixth floor.
Mr. DULLES. You ate your lunch on the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES. And you were all alone?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you sit on while you ate your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. First of all, I remember there was some boxes behind me. I just kind of leaned back on the boxes first. Then I began to get a little impatient, because there wasn't anyone coming up. So I decided to move to a two-wheeler.
Mr. BALL. A two-wheeler truck, you mean?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. I remember sitting on this two-wheeler. By that time, I was through, and I got up and I just left then.
.
.
.
Mr. BALL. I have an exhibit here marked 484.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 484 for identification.)
Mr. BALL. Do you recognize that?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; I recognize that.
Mr. BALL. What do you see?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I see a two-wheeler, a Dr. Pepper bottle, and some boxes in the windows.
Mr. BALL. And is that anywhere near where you were sitting?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; that is the exact place I was sitting.
Mr. BALL. That is the two-wheeler you were sitting on?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
.
.
.
Mr. BALL. Did you eat the chicken?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, I did.
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.
You can believe whatever you want to. I really don’t care. But if you are going to try to post your opinions as facts, I will point out that they are not facts.
Your opinions are not facts.
The childishness of this response tells me exactly where any kind of reasoned debate on the issue of where BRW's lunch remains were found is going to end up.
I know this because I've already engaged with Charles on this specific issue in a thread entitled "Are these two photos legit?" [which I will bump so anyone interested can look through]. Our discussion regarding this issue starts around Reply#87 with the question:
"Just exactly where do you believe the original position of BRW’s lunch remains were?"
To which I reply:
I put BRW's lunch remains where Mooney, Hill, Haygood, Brewer, McCurley, Weatherford and Montgomery place them - in the southeast corner of the 6th floor.
And not where they were photographed, about 30ft away on a little trolley.
I find it very interesting that Bonnie Ray Williams describes having his lunch as it is in the crime scene photos when every officer who saw the scene before Fritz got there describes the lunch remains being in the southeast corner.
More glaring contradictions.
I'll leave the reader to make up their minds about how discussion pans out.
None of your eight officers gave a specific location.
Charles knows full well that this is not true but, because of his spoon-fed beliefs, he cannot accept it because the ramifications for the LNer narrative are so immense.
Three law enforcement officials specifically describe the lunch remains being on top of the boxes that form the Sniper's Nest. Not 30ft away where they were eventually photographed by the crime lab boys.
Let's start with Deputy Sheriff, Luke Mooney. In his WC testimony there is a part where he describes discovering the location from which the assassination took place:
I went straight across to the southeast corner of the building, and I saw all these high boxes. Of course they were stacked all the way around over there. And I squeezed between two. And the minute I squeezed between these two stacks of boxes, I had to turn myself sideways to get in there that is when I saw the expended shells and the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon. And, also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don't know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the rifle could have lain--at the same angle that the shots were fired from.
The high boxes he squeezed through are the boxes that form the Sniper's Nest.
The next part of his testimony is spent describing what he saw and did while he was in the SN. At one point Ball asks him - "Now, was there anything you saw over in the corner?", to which Mooney replies:
Mr. Mooney: No, sir; I didn't see anything over in the corner. I did see this one partially eaten piece of fried chicken laying over to the right. It looked like he was facing--
Mr. Ball: Tell us where you found it?
Mr. Mooney: It would be laying over on the top of these other boxes.
Ball cuts him off at this point - "We will get to that in a moment." The testimony moves on to the empty shells that were in the SN, Mooney's revelation that he watched Fritz pickup the shells and his confusion over the crime lab pictures of the shells and how they seemed to be in a different position than he remembered. It then moves on to the Sniper's Perch, the three boxes stacked up that appeared to be used as a rifle rest with the top box having a crease on the top of it.
Eventually, Ball asks about the lunch remains:
Mr. Ball: Does that show any place where you saw the chicken bone?
Mr. Mooney: If I recall correctly, the chicken bone could have been laying on this box or it might have been laying on this box right here.
Mr. Ball: Make a couple of marks there to indicate where possibly the chicken bone was lying.
Mr. Mooney: Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball: Make two "X's". You think there was a chicken bone on the top of either one of those two?
Mr. Mooney: There was one of them partially eaten. And there was a little small paper poke.
Mr. Ball: By poke, you mean a paper sack?
Mr. Mooney: Right.
Mr. Ball: Where was that?
Mr. Mooney: Saw the chicken bone was laying here. The poke was laying about a foot away from it.
Mr. Ball: On the same carton?
Mr. Mooney: Yes, sir. In close relation to each other. But as to what was in the sack--it was kind of together, and I didn't open it. I didn't put my hands on it to open it. I only saw one piece of chicken.
Senator Cooper: How far was the chicken, the piece of chicken you saw, and the paper bag from the boxes near the window, and particularly the box that had the crease in it?
Mr. Mooney: I would say they might have been 5 feet or something like that. He wouldn't have had to leave the location. He could just maybe take one step and lay it over there, if he was the one that put it there.
Senator Cooper: You mean if someone had been standing near the box with the crease in it?
Mr. Mooney: Yes, sir.
Mooney could hardly be any more specific - the lunch remains were about 5ft from the box with the crease on top of it.
He is describing the lunch remains on top of the boxes forming the SN and that it would have taken a single step to place them there from the Sniper's Perch.
But Mooney is not the only officer to specifically describe the lunch remains being found on top of the boxes that formed the SN.
From the testimony of DPD Sergeant, Gerald Lynn 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.
Then, on the floor near the baseboard or against the baseboard of the south wall of the building, in front of the second window, in front of the, well, we would have to say second window from the east corner, were three spent shells.
Hill is describing the SN, the boxes "stacked in sort of a three-sided shield" that would have concealed anyone from general view. "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."
When Hill arrived at the SN the lunch remains were on top of the boxes that formed the SN.
There is also this from the report of Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford
"I came down to the 6th floor and while searching this floor, Deputy Luke Mooney said, "Here are some shells". I went over to where he was and saw three expended rifle shells, a sack on the floor and a partially eaten piece of chicken on top of one of the cartons which was used as a sort of barricade..."
Once again we have an officer specifically stating the lunch remains were found on top of the boxes forming the SN.
The importance of these three testimonies is that they reveal the location of the lunch remains before the crime lab arrived.
There can be zero doubt that the lunch remains, as they were discovered by the first officers at the scene, were removed from the SN and placed where they were eventually photographed by the crime lab.
To dismiss the testimonial evidence of these three officers reveals a shoddy approach to the facts of this case.
Opinions are not facts, but they should certainly be formed by them.
-
Your opinions are not facts.
The childishness of this response tells me exactly where any kind of reasoned debate on the issue of where BRW's lunch remains were found is going to end up.
I know this because I've already engaged with Charles on this specific issue in a thread entitled "Are these two photos legit?" [which I will bump so anyone interested can look through]. Our discussion regarding this issue starts around Reply#87 with the question:
"Just exactly where do you believe the original position of BRW’s lunch remains were?"
To which I reply:
I put BRW's lunch remains where Mooney, Hill, Haygood, Brewer, McCurley, Weatherford and Montgomery place them - in the southeast corner of the 6th floor.
And not where they were photographed, about 30ft away on a little trolley.
I find it very interesting that Bonnie Ray Williams describes having his lunch as it is in the crime scene photos when every officer who saw the scene before Fritz got there describes the lunch remains being in the southeast corner.
More glaring contradictions.
I'll leave the reader to make up their minds about how discussion pans out.
None of your eight officers gave a specific location.
Charles knows full well that this is not true but, because of his spoon-fed beliefs, he cannot accept it because the ramifications for the LNer narrative are so immense.
Three law enforcement officials specifically describe the lunch remains being on top of the boxes that form the Sniper's Nest. Not 30ft away where they were eventually photographed by the crime lab boys.
Let's start with Deputy Sheriff, Luke Mooney. In his WC testimony there is a part where he describes discovering the location from which the assassination took place:
I went straight across to the southeast corner of the building, and I saw all these high boxes. Of course they were stacked all the way around over there. And I squeezed between two. And the minute I squeezed between these two stacks of boxes, I had to turn myself sideways to get in there that is when I saw the expended shells and the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon. And, also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don't know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the rifle could have lain--at the same angle that the shots were fired from.
The high boxes he squeezed through are the boxes that form the Sniper's Nest.
The next part of his testimony is spent describing what he saw and did while he was in the SN. At one point Ball asks him - "Now, was there anything you saw over in the corner?", to which Mooney replies:
Mr. Mooney: No, sir; I didn't see anything over in the corner. I did see this one partially eaten piece of fried chicken laying over to the right. It looked like he was facing--
Mr. Ball: Tell us where you found it?
Mr. Mooney: It would be laying over on the top of these other boxes.
Ball cuts him off at this point - "We will get to that in a moment." The testimony moves on to the empty shells that were in the SN, Mooney's revelation that he watched Fritz pickup the shells and his confusion over the crime lab pictures of the shells and how they seemed to be in a different position than he remembered. It then moves on to the Sniper's Perch, the three boxes stacked up that appeared to be used as a rifle rest with the top box having a crease on the top of it.
Eventually, Ball asks about the lunch remains:
Mr. Ball: Does that show any place where you saw the chicken bone?
Mr. Mooney: If I recall correctly, the chicken bone could have been laying on this box or it might have been laying on this box right here.
Mr. Ball: Make a couple of marks there to indicate where possibly the chicken bone was lying.
Mr. Mooney: Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball: Make two "X's". You think there was a chicken bone on the top of either one of those two?
Mr. Mooney: There was one of them partially eaten. And there was a little small paper poke.
Mr. Ball: By poke, you mean a paper sack?
Mr. Mooney: Right.
Mr. Ball: Where was that?
Mr. Mooney: Saw the chicken bone was laying here. The poke was laying about a foot away from it.
Mr. Ball: On the same carton?
Mr. Mooney: Yes, sir. In close relation to each other. But as to what was in the sack--it was kind of together, and I didn't open it. I didn't put my hands on it to open it. I only saw one piece of chicken.
Senator Cooper: How far was the chicken, the piece of chicken you saw, and the paper bag from the boxes near the window, and particularly the box that had the crease in it?
Mr. Mooney: I would say they might have been 5 feet or something like that. He wouldn't have had to leave the location. He could just maybe take one step and lay it over there, if he was the one that put it there.
Senator Cooper: You mean if someone had been standing near the box with the crease in it?
Mr. Mooney: Yes, sir.
Mooney could hardly be any more specific - the lunch remains were about 5ft from the box with the crease on top of it.
He is describing the lunch remains on top of the boxes forming the SN and that it would have taken a single step to place them there from the Sniper's Perch.
But Mooney is not the only officer to specifically describe the lunch remains being found on top of the boxes that formed the SN.
From the testimony of DPD Sergeant, Gerald Lynn 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.
Then, on the floor near the baseboard or against the baseboard of the south wall of the building, in front of the second window, in front of the, well, we would have to say second window from the east corner, were three spent shells.
Hill is describing the SN, the boxes "stacked in sort of a three-sided shield" that would have concealed anyone from general view. "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."
When Hill arrived at the SN the lunch remains were on top of the boxes that formed the SN.
There is also this from the report of Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford
"I came down to the 6th floor and while searching this floor, Deputy Luke Mooney said, "Here are some shells". I went over to where he was and saw three expended rifle shells, a sack on the floor and a partially eaten piece of chicken on top of one of the cartons which was used as a sort of barricade..."
Once again we have an officer specifically stating the lunch remains were found on top of the boxes forming the SN.
The importance of these three testimonies is that they reveal the location of the lunch remains before the crime lab arrived.
There can be zero doubt that the lunch remains, as they were discovered by the first officers at the scene, were removed from the SN and placed where they were eventually photographed by the crime lab.
To dismiss the testimonial evidence of these three officers reveals a shoddy approach to the facts of this case.
Opinions are not facts, but they should certainly be formed by them.
Quite frankly, if you think this is indicative of a specific location, then "Houston, we have a problem." :D
Mr. Mooney: If I recall correctly, the chicken bone could have been laying on this box or it might have been laying on this box right here.
This is a photo that I scanned from "JFK First Day Evidence" by Gary Savage, it is labeled DP-4. I am sure there is a clearer version online, if anyone cares to look for it. This photo depicts the second aisle from the east wall. It appears that there is a row boxes extending east/west across the aisle near the windows on the south wall.
(https://i.vgy.me/r0k1uB.jpg)
This is another scan from Gary Savage's book. It is labeled DP-5 and shows the third aisle from the east wall. It appears that the east/west row of boxes ends in the middle of the third aisle near the cart where the lunch remains were found.
(https://i.vgy.me/vj40h5.jpg)
No specific location was given by any of your officers. Therefore no one (including you) can say for certain specifically what they meant by their descriptions. But the above photos do indicate to me that a casual look might lead one to assume this extended row of boxes was a part of the sniper's nest shield boxes.
Well done Charles, it is important that an LNer has finally broke ranks to deal with Rowland's evidence.
The usual strategy is either to ignore it or imply Rowland made the whole thing up. This leaves us with what I've referred to elsewhere as The Miracle On Elm Street - that Rowland made up a story about a white male holding a scoped rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building and, by some unbelievably astronomical coincidence, there was indeed a white male holding a scoped rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building!!
I find it bizarre that LNers are willing to put themselves in this position rather than take Rowland's testimony seriously.
As you have pointed out, " the descriptions given by Rowland, Brennan, Edwards, and Fischer are all similar enough to be describing the same man."
There is a incorrect detail in one of your posts that I have to rectify. It seems innocuous at first glance but it has far-reaching consequences:
BRW said that he was sitting on the cart in the third aisle from the east wall (this is also where his lunch remains were found and photographed)
It is a fact that the lunch remains were found at the Sniper's Nest and not over 30 feet away at the thrid aisle.
We have had this conversation before.
EIGHT law enforcement officers place the remains at the SN - more importantly, three of them place the remains specifically on top of thye boxes that form the Sniper's Nest!
It is a fact that the lunch remains were found at the Sniper's Nest and not over 30 feet away at the thrid aisle.
No it is not a fact. This is your fantasy. And it is apparently based on absolutely nothing specific from any of these officers that you are apparently trying to rely upon.
If you want to believe that your fantasy is true, be my guest. However, your attempt to declare that BRW's and Studebaker's sworn testimonies are incorrect (based on your criteria) is a joke. And your attempt to derail this thread to further your silly argument is not appreciated. If you want to argue your position over and over and over and over again, please do it on a different thread. But don't expect me to go around in circles arguing the same old stuff over and over and over and over again with you.
-
Quite frankly, if you think this is indicative of a specific location, then "Houston, we have a problem." :D
Mr. Mooney: If I recall correctly, the chicken bone could have been laying on this box or it might have been laying on this box right here.
This is a photo that I scanned from "JFK First Day Evidence" by Gary Savage, it is labeled DP-4. I am sure there is a clearer version online, if anyone cares to look for it. This photo depicts the second aisle from the east wall. It appears that there is a row boxes extending east/west across the aisle near the windows on the south wall.
(https://i.vgy.me/r0k1uB.jpg)
This is another scan from Gary Savage's book. It is labeled DP-5 and shows the third aisle from the east wall. It appears that the east/west row of boxes ends in the middle of the third aisle near the cart where the lunch remains were found.
(https://i.vgy.me/vj40h5.jpg)
No specific location was given by any of your officers. Therefore no one (including you) can say for certain specifically what they meant by their descriptions. But the above photos do indicate to me that a casual look might lead one to assume this extended row of boxes was a part of the sniper's nest shield boxes.
It is a fact that the lunch remains were found at the Sniper's Nest and not over 30 feet away at the thrid aisle.
No it is not a fact. This is your fantasy. And it is apparently based on absolutely nothing specific from any of these officers that you are apparently trying to rely upon.
If you want to believe that your fantasy is true, be my guest. However, your attempt to declare that BRW's and Studebaker's sworn testimonies are incorrect (based on your criteria) is a joke. And your attempt to derail this thread to further your silly argument is not appreciated. If you want to argue your position over and over and over and over again, please do it on a different thread. But don't expect me to go around in circles arguing the same old stuff over and over and over and over again with you.
Obviously your powers of observation are sub par..... LOOK at the sunlit on the floor.....This photo was taken in the AM....So it cannot be Studebaker #5.... It was probably taken during the same STAGED CRIME SCENE photo session that the rifle in situ photo was taken.
-
It's hilarious that CTer contrarians who dismiss the evidence against Oswald, no matter how well documented, make baseless statements like BRW would have seen Oswald. This they suggest is an absolute fact despite the vagaries of the timeline. We know that someone was in the 6th floor window at 12:30 since witnesses saw a rifle pointed out the window at that moment and those in window below heard the gunshots over their heads. So we know without any doubt that a person was there and therefore could be unobserved by BRW while he was on the 6th floor since that is exactly what happened. That person certainly could have been Oswald. Why only he is precluded from being there by contrarian logic is a source of amusement.
-
Obviously your powers of observation are sub par..... LOOK at the sunlit on the floor.....This photo was taken in the AM....So it cannot be Studebaker #5.... It was probably taken during the same STAGED CRIME SCENE photo session that the rifle in situ photo was taken.
Perhaps DP-6 will help clear this problem up for you Walt. It is a closer view that shows sunlight and shadows which clearly indicate that the time of day is not in the morning. I think that the stacks of boxes, and the gaps between the boxes, (and their relative angles) are creating the shadows and light patches on the more distant photo (DP-5). I believe that the angles of the light patches on the floor in DP-5 are indicative of the angles of the gaps, not the angle of the sun.
(https://i.vgy.me/hR1V17.jpg)
-
Perhaps DP-6 will help clear this problem up for you Walt. It is a closer view that shows sunlight and shadows which clearly indicate that the time of day is not in the morning. I think that the stacks of boxes, and the gaps between the boxes, (and their relative angles) are creating the shadows and light patches on the more distant photo (DP-5). I believe that the angles of the light patches on the floor in DP-5 are indicative of the angles of the gaps, not the angle of the sun.
(https://i.vgy.me/hR1V17.jpg)
Why do you insist on displaying your dishonesty, Mr Collins? You specifically stated that the photo was Studebaker # 5 and the sunlit on the floor speaks the truth..... It was taken in the MORNING....
(https://i.vgy.me/vj40h5.jpg)
-
Why do you insist on displaying your dishonesty, Mr Collins? You specifically stated that the photo was Studebaker # 5 and the sunlit on the floor speaks the truth..... It was taken in the MORNING....
(https://i.vgy.me/vj40h5.jpg)
No one has said that it was “Studebaker #5”. I said that it is designated DP-5 in “JFK First Day Evidence” by Gary Savage. Take a look at page 168 and see for yourself.
-
No one has said that it was “Studebaker #5”. I said that it is designated DP-5 in “JFK First Day Evidence” by Gary Savage. Take a look at page 168 and see for yourself.
Answer the question..... Was DP # 5 taken on the afternoon of the murder?
-
No specific location was given by any of your officers. Therefore no one (including you) can say for certain specifically what they meant by their descriptions. But the above photos do indicate to me that a casual look might lead one to assume this extended row of boxes was a part of the sniper's nest shield boxes.
Wow, talk about inventing a fantasy to justify what you want to believe!
Studebaker wasn't there when the "sniper's nest" was initially found, and we've heard from various sources that things were moved around and/or tampered with before his photos were taken.
It's not surprising that BRW would want to distance himself from the window that they said the shots came from, so when he heard that his lunch remains were seen by a different window, why would he dispute that? He didn't even initially admit to being up there at all.
-
So we know without any doubt that a person was there and therefore could be unobserved by BRW while he was on the 6th floor since that is exactly what happened.
What's hilarious is that "Richard" doesn't understand that circular arguments are a fallacy.
-
Wow, talk about inventing a fantasy to justify what you want to believe!
Studebaker wasn't there when the "sniper's nest" was initially found, and we've heard from various sources that things were moved around and/or tampered with before his photos were taken.
It's not surprising that BRW would want to distance himself from the window that they said the shots came from, so when he heard that his lunch remains were seen by a different window, why would he dispute that? He didn't even initially admit to being up there at all.
Here's a diagram showing how the boxes were stacked near the southeast corner.
(https://i.vgy.me/9KyLvu.jpg)
The row that I have shown in the photos and in this diagram are an extension of the boxes surrounding the sniper's nest. No one is making any of this up.
Now, do you have any evidence that any of the officers have specifically disputed the photographs of the lunch remains? Or are you also just opining that the non-specific descriptions are something that they most definitely are not?
-
Here's a diagram showing how the boxes were stacked near the southeast corner.
(https://i.vgy.me/9KyLvu.jpg)
The row that I have shown in the photos and in this diagram are an extension of the boxes surrounding the sniper's nest. No one is making any of this up.
Now, do you have any evidence that any of the officers have specifically disputed the photographs of the lunch remains? Or are you also just opining that the non-specific descriptions are something that they most definitely are not?
Thank you for posting this map
(https://i.vgy.me/9KyLvu.jpg)
Notice where the gun is located relative to the ceiling support pillar .... In the official DPD in situ photo (CE 514) that shows the rifle sandwiched between boxes of books, that pillar is close to the muzzle of the rifle, but in Studebaker's map the muzzle of the rifle is about seven feet from that pillar....
-
But, but don't you understand? BRW "would have been able" to see somebody standing behind the southwest window. A contrarian said so. HA HA HA. How that is relevant is unclear because someone clearly was in the SN window pointing a rifle at 12:30. How this logic rules Oswald out is left unsaid.
-
Answer the question..... Was DP # 5 taken on the afternoon of the murder?
Here's a diagram prepared by Studebaker on 11/22/63:
(https://i.vgy.me/3xEIWK.jpg)
Here's some additional verbage, found on page 147, regarding this map:
"The numbers represented on the map at first glance appear to represent the order of the photographs taken by Lieutenant Day and Detective Studebaker. This is not the case. Rusty and I asked both men to look at the map again in a recent interview and were told that the photographs were not taken in the numerical order shown on the map. The numbers simply represent a system of organization of the photographs assigned by Detective Studebaker. In fact it appears that the numbers assigned to the photographs by Detective Studebaker fall into three basic groups which include the sniper's nest area, the area where the rifle was found, and the remaining entire area of the sixth floor."
Looking closer at the photographs, it appears to me (based on the sunlight patches and shadows) that DP-6 and DP-7 were taken on the afternoon of 11/22/63. However it does appear that DP-4, DP-5, DP-8, DP-9, and DP-10 were probably taken the next morning (if I remember their stated activities of Saturday correctly). I stand corrected, thank you Walt.
However, your jumping to conclusions that there was a staged set up for some imagined sinister purpose doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.
Edit: Also, the location of the rifle in this diagram appears to agree better with the photos.
-
Here's a diagram prepared by Studebaker on 11/22/63:
(https://i.vgy.me/3xEIWK.jpg)
Here's some additional verbage, found on page 147, regarding this map:
"The numbers represented on the map at first glance appear to represent the order of the photographs taken by Lieutenant Day and Detective Studebaker. This is not the case. Rusty and I asked both men to look at the map again in a recent interview and were told that the photographs were not taken in the numerical order shown on the map. The numbers simply represent a system of organization of the photographs assigned by Detective Studebaker. In fact it appears that the numbers assigned to the photographs by Detective Studebaker fall into three basic groups which include the sniper's nest area, the area where the rifle was found, and the remaining entire area of the sixth floor."
Looking closer at the photographs, it appears to me (based on the sunlight patches and shadows) that DP-6 and DP-7 were taken on the afternoon of 11/22/63. However it does appear that DP-4, DP-5, DP-8, DP-9, and DP-10 were probably taken the next morning (if I remember their stated activities of Saturday correctly). I stand corrected, thank you Walt.
However, your jumping to conclusions that there was a staged set up for some imagined sinister purpose doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.
Edit: Also, the location of the rifle in this diagram appears to agree better with the photos.
"The numbers represented on the map at first glance appear to represent the order of the photographs taken by Lieutenant Day and Detective Studebaker. This is not the case. Rusty and I asked both men to look at the map again in a recent interview and were told that the photographs were not taken in the numerical order shown on the map.
:D Ha ha ha ha LOL!..... WHO??? Would be gullible enough to believe this BS!
-
"The numbers represented on the map at first glance appear to represent the order of the photographs taken by Lieutenant Day and Detective Studebaker. This is not the case. Rusty and I asked both men to look at the map again in a recent interview and were told that the photographs were not taken in the numerical order shown on the map.
:D Ha ha ha ha LOL!..... WHO??? Would be gullible enough to believe this BS!
It must not fit very well with your imagined sinister ideas…
-
It must not fit very well with your imagined sinister ideas…
Question.... HOW would the photographer know where the photo was taken if he didn't keep a record??
-
Says the guy who is desperately trying to pass off his highly selective opinions as if they were facts.
Here is a fact that can not be denied; nowhere in Charles Collins' word salad is there even a slightest shred of evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor between 12 and 12:30 and/or that he was the man the witnesses saw, believed they saw or imagined they saw.
This entire self-serving thread isn't going anywhere fast.
Soon after he arrives on the first floor, Charles Givens realizes that he left his cigarettes in his jacket on the sixth floor and so he takes the east elevator back up to the sixth floor to retrieve them. As Givens is on the sixth floor and returning to the east elevator, he sees LHO walking from the area of the southeast corner towards him. LHO is carrying a clipboard (apparently trying to make it appear like he is working). LHO again asks for Givens to close the gates to the west elevator when Givens gets to the first floor.
Mr. BELIN. What time was this?
Mr. GIVENS. Well, I would say it was about 5 minutes to 12, …
In spite of the fact that this story didn't come along until months after the assassination and that it was not heard by the Warren Commissioners but was entered into the report anyway and that the FBI and the Dallas Police were not aware of it and that it did not appear in any of Givens' affidavits and that these contradictions have been pointed out several times on this forum and ***Lt Jack Revill a Dallas police detective revealed that Givens had a previous drug charge and that "Givens would change his story for money"--- that it is ignored by the Oswald did it crowd here including the completely purposeless opening post.... Collins is a Warren tale believer..everybody knows it so again what is the objective? So try going inside and looking out for a change :-\
SEE=====
*** https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1960.msg53015.html#msg53015
-
Question.... HOW would the photographer know where the photo was taken if he didn't keep a record??
No one said they didn't keep a record. What the quote says is simply that the numbering system used by Studebaker on his map is not organized chronologically relative to the ascension of the numbers.
-
It must not fit very well with your imagined sinister ideas…
My sinister ideas??.... Is lynching a man without a trial ok ??
-
How that is relevant is unclear because someone clearly was in the SN window pointing a rifle at 12:30.
“Clearly”. LOL.
How this logic rules Oswald out is left unsaid.
Nobody said it “rules Oswald out”, Strawman “Smith”.
But there must have been some reason BRW was less than honest about his time and whereabouts on the sixth floor that day.
-
Quite frankly, if you think this is indicative of a specific location, then "Houston, we have a problem." :D
Mr. Mooney: If I recall correctly, the chicken bone could have been laying on this box or it might have been laying on this box right here.
This is from the passage of Mooney's WC testimony you are responding to:
Senator Cooper: How far was the chicken, the piece of chicken you saw, and the paper bag from the boxes near the window, and particularly the box that had the crease in it?
Mr. Mooney: I would say they might have been 5 feet or something like that. He wouldn't have had to leave the location. He could just maybe take one step and lay it over there, if he was the one that put it there.
Senator Cooper: You mean if someone had been standing near the box with the crease in it?
Mr. Mooney: Yes, sir.
Mooney could hardly be any more specific - the lunch remains were about 5ft away from the Sniper's Perch. They were so close to the Sniper's Perch that anyone at that location would have barely have to have moved from that spot to place the remains on top of the boxes forming the Sniper's Nest.
Your insistence that no officer was specific about the location of the lunch remains is delusional.
When Hill describes the lunch remains as being on top of the boxes that formed the Sniper's Nest [the stacks of boxes that concealed the shooter's position], he is being specific - on top of the boxes that formed the Sniper's Nest is a specific location.
When Weatherford describes the lunch remains being on top of the "barricade" he is clearly referring to the Sniper's Nest. This is a specific location.
Your dismissal of this testimonial evidence, which places the lunch remains on top of the boxes that formed the Sniper's Nest, is delusional.
Your insistence that this evidence is somehow consistent with the remains being over 30ft away, by the small trolley, is beyond delusional.
Not once have you attempted to deal with this evidence, you just stamp your foot and insist that, although all three men are absolutely specific about the remains initially being discovered on top of the Sniper's Nest, they aren't really saying that!!
This is not to mention the other 5 officers who also mention the remains being discovered in the location of the SN.
Trying to ignore the evidence is not the same as dealing with it!
This is a photo that I scanned from "JFK First Day Evidence" by Gary Savage, it is labeled DP-4. I am sure there is a clearer version online, if anyone cares to look for it. This photo depicts the second aisle from the east wall. It appears that there is a row boxes extending east/west across the aisle near the windows on the south wall.
(https://i.vgy.me/r0k1uB.jpg)
This is another scan from Gary Savage's book. It is labeled DP-5 and shows the third aisle from the east wall. It appears that the east/west row of boxes ends in the middle of the third aisle near the cart where the lunch remains were found.
(https://i.vgy.me/vj40h5.jpg)
No specific location was given by any of your officers. Therefore no one (including you) can say for certain specifically what they meant by their descriptions. But the above photos do indicate to me that a casual look might lead one to assume this extended row of boxes was a part of the sniper's nest shield boxes.
This attempt to suggest the officers in question might have been referring to the boxes at the end of the third aisle as part of the SN/barricade is so weak I wouldn't embarrass myself refuting it. You should feel embarrassed for suggesting it.
It is a fact that the lunch remains were found at the Sniper's Nest and not over 30 feet away at the thrid aisle.
No it is not a fact. This is your fantasy. And it is apparently based on absolutely nothing specific from any of these officers that you are apparently trying to rely upon.
If you want to believe that your fantasy is true, be my guest. However, your attempt to declare that BRW's and Studebaker's sworn testimonies are incorrect (based on your criteria) is a joke. And your attempt to derail this thread to further your silly argument is not appreciated. If you want to argue your position over and over and over and over again, please do it on a different thread. But don't expect me to go around in circles arguing the same old stuff over and over and over and over again with you.
The testimonial evidence of EIGHT officers who place the remains at the SN is only a fantasy in your mind. Your approach to the evidence displays Magical Thinking.
And your attempt to derail this thread to further your silly argument is not appreciated.
What do you think this forum is?
You think you can post any nonsense on this forum you want and it won't go unchallenged??
If you really think that you're dreaming.
When you posted that BRW's lunch remains were found where they were photographed by the crime lab it was always going to be challenged because it's BS:
Just because you can't deal with evidence clearly demonstrating that it is BS: is your problem, not mine.
And while we're at it, here's another error in your post revealing a complete lack of familiarity with the evidence:
Rowland said that the epileptic activity was going on at about the same time of his sighting of the rifle man. Rowland also said he saw the black man hanging out of a window in the east corner before he saw the rifle man in the west corner. Therefore it appears that if he actually did see a black man, it would have been ten minutes or more before the motorcade arrived.
This is what was actually said:
Mr. Specter: How long after you heard the motorcade was at Main and Ervay did the motorcade pass by where you were?
Mr. Rowland: Another 5 minutes.
Mr. Specter: So that you observed this colored man on the window you have marked "A" within 5 minutes prior to the time the motorcade passed in front of you?
Mr. Rowland: Approximately 5 minutes prior to the time the motorcade came, he wasn't there. About 30 seconds or a minute prior to that time he was there.
Rowland initially saw the black man in the SN window before he saw the white man with the rifle. As he kept looking for the man with the rifle, to point out to his wife, he was aware of the man in the SN window, until approximately 5 minutes before the motorcade arrived. This disappearance of the black man from the 6th floor window roughly coincides with BRW's movements from the 6th floor to the 5th.
It is not a case, as you believe, that Rowland saw the black man before the white man with the rifle and that was it. He continued to see the man at the SN windows as he searched for the man with the rifle
And then there's this gem referring to the man in the SN window:
Rowland could have remembered incorrectly regarding which floor.
Again, familiarity with the evidence would've have avoided this needless speculation. Rowland specifically states the man at the SN window was on the same floor as the man with the rifle:
Representative Ford: And the man you saw hanging out from the window was at what corner?
Mr. Rowland: The east, southeast corner.
Representative Ford: Southeast corner. On the same floor?
Mr. Rowland: On the same floor.
He even marks the double set of windows in the south-east corner of the 6th floor with an "A":
(https://i.postimg.cc/WpYJQtSn/Screenshot-263.png) (https://postimages.org/)
More importantly, Rowland describes the 'configuration' of the double set of windows he marked with an "A":
Mr. Specter: As to the window which you have marked "A", that double pair of windows, which, if either or both, was open?
Mr. Rowland: The one on the eastern side was open and not all of the way it would open.
Mr. Specter: Is that the one you have marked with an arrow?
Mr. Rowland: Yes.
Mr. Specter: How much of that window was open?
Mr. Rowland: It was open about that far.
Mr. Specter: Indicating 2 1/2 feet?
Mr. Rowland: Two feet.
Mr. Specter: Two feet.
Mr. Rowland: Indicating 2 feet. It looked like the windows might open 3--two-thirds or three-fourths of the distance.
Mr. Specter: How about the other of the windows in the double-set marked "A," was that completely closed?
Mr. Rowland: Yes.
Even though the windows he marked on CE546 are both closed, Rowland remembered that on the day the eastern window was partially open and the western one was closed. The only set of windows on the day of the assassination that were in this configuration, were at the south-east corner of the 6th floor - the SN windows.
In short, taken at face value, the evidence proves BRW's lunch remains were initially discovered on top of the boxes that formed the Sniper's Nest. They were witnessed by EIGHT law enforcement officers, three of whom specifically place the remains on top of the SN boxes. At some point, before the crime lab takes it pictures, these remains are removed to the third aisle set of windows, about 30ft away from the original discovery location.
Mooney makes it clear that someone sat in the SN window could have placed the remains on the SN without hardly moving.
At 12:15pm BRW is having his lunch on the 6th floor. At this same time Arnold Rowland sees a black male in the SN windows. Rowland is specific about which set of windows he is talking about, going so far as to describe the configuration of the windows, a configuration only present in the SN windows.
So, if we accept the evidence, we have one of two scenarios around 12:15pm:
1) On the far west side of the 6th floor is a white man with a rifle - in the third aisle is BRW having his lunch [the remains of which he decides to leave on top of the SN] - sat in the SN is an unknown black man who is not an employee of the TSBD.
2) On the far west side of the 6th floor is a white man with a rifle - BRW is sat in the SN having his lunch, the half-finished remains of which he leaves on top of the SN.
Deal with the evidence rather than just stamping your foot and trying to wish it all away.
-
This is from the passage of Mooney's WC testimony you are responding to:
Senator Cooper: How far was the chicken, the piece of chicken you saw, and the paper bag from the boxes near the window, and particularly the box that had the crease in it?
Mr. Mooney: I would say they might have been 5 feet or something like that. He wouldn't have had to leave the location. He could just maybe take one step and lay it over there, if he was the one that put it there.
Senator Cooper: You mean if someone had been standing near the box with the crease in it?
Mr. Mooney: Yes, sir.
Mooney could hardly be any more specific - the lunch remains were about 5ft away from the Sniper's Perch. They were so close to the Sniper's Perch that anyone at that location would have barely have to have moved from that spot to place the remains on top of the boxes forming the Sniper's Nest.
Your insistence that no officer was specific about the location of the lunch remains is delusional.
When Hill describes the lunch remains as being on top of the boxes that formed the Sniper's Nest he is being specific - on top of the boxes that formed the Sniper's Nest is a specific location.
When Weatherford describes the lunch remains being on top of the "barricade" he is clearly referring to the Sniper's Nest. This is a specific location.
Your dismissal of this testimonial evidence, which places the lunch remains on top of the boxes that formed the Sniper's Nest, is delusional.
Your insistence that this evidence is somehow consistent with the remains being over 30ft away, by the small trolley, is beyond delusional.
Not once have you attempted to deal with this evidence, you just stamp your foot and insist that, although all three men are absolutely specific about the remains initially being discovered on top of the Sniper's Nest, they aren't really saying that!!
This is not to mention the other 5 officers who also mention the remains being discovered in the location of the SN.
Trying to ignore the evidence is not the same as dealing with it!
This attempt to suggest the officers in question might have been referring to the boxes at the end of the third aisle as part of the SN/barricade is so weak I wouldn't embarrass myself refuting it. You should feel embarrassed for suggesting it.
The testimonial evidence of EIGHT officers who place the remains at the SN is only a fantasy in your mind. Your approach to the evidence displays Magical Thinking.
And your attempt to derail this thread to further your silly argument is not appreciated.
What do you think this forum is?
You think you can post any nonsense on this forum you want and it won't go unchallenged??
If you really think that you're dreaming.
When you posted that BRW's lunch remains were found where they were photographed by the crime lab it was always going to be challenged because it's BS:
Just because you can't deal with evidence clearly demonstrating that it is BS: is your problem, not mine.
And while we're at it, here's another error in your post revealing a complete lack of familiarity with the evidence:
Rowland said that the epileptic activity was going on at about the same time of his sighting of the rifle man. Rowland also said he saw the black man hanging out of a window in the east corner before he saw the rifle man in the west corner. Therefore it appears that if he actually did see a black man, it would have been ten minutes or more before the motorcade arrived.
This is what was actually said:
Mr. Specter: How long after you heard the motorcade was at Main and Ervay did the motorcade pass by where you were?
Mr. Rowland: Another 5 minutes.
Mr. Specter: So that you observed this colored man on the window you have marked "A" within 5 minutes prior to the time the motorcade passed in front of you?
Mr. Rowland: Approximately 5 minutes prior to the time the motorcade came, he wasn't there. About 30 seconds or a minute prior to that time he was there.
Rowland initially saw the black man in the SN window before he saw the white man with the rifle. As he kept looking for the man with the rifle, to point out to his wife, he was aware of the man in the SN window, until approximately 5 minutes before the motorcade arrived. This disappearance of the black man from the 6th floor window roughly coincides with BRW's movements from the 6th floor to the 5th.
It is not a case, as you believe, that Rowland saw the black man before the white man with the rifle and that was it. He continued to see the man at the SN windows as he searched for the man with the rifle
And then there's this gem referring to the man in the SN window:
Rowland could have remembered incorrectly regarding which floor.
Again, familiarity with the evidence would've have avoided this needless speculation. Rowland specifically states the man at the SN window was on the same floor as the man with the rifle:
Representative Ford: And the man you saw hanging out from the window was at what corner?
Mr. Rowland: The east, southeast corner.
Representative Ford: Southeast corner. On the same floor?
Mr. Rowland: On the same floor.
He even marks the double set of windows in the south-east corner of the 6th floor with an "A":
(https://i.postimg.cc/WpYJQtSn/Screenshot-263.png) (https://postimages.org/)
More importantly, Rowland describes the 'configuration' of the double set of windows he marked with an "A":
Mr. Specter: As to the window which you have marked "A", that double pair of windows, which, if either or both, was open?
Mr. Rowland: The one on the eastern side was open and not all of the way it would open.
Mr. Specter: Is that the one you have marked with an arrow?
Mr. Rowland: Yes.
Mr. Specter: How much of that window was open?
Mr. Rowland: It was open about that far.
Mr. Specter: Indicating 2 1/2 feet?
Mr. Rowland: Two feet.
Mr. Specter: Two feet.
Mr. Rowland: Indicating 2 feet. It looked like the windows might open 3--two-thirds or three-fourths of the distance.
Mr. Specter: How about the other of the windows in the double-set marked "A," was that completely closed?
Mr. Rowland: Yes.
Even though the windows he marked on CE546 are both closed, Rowland remembered that on the day the eastern window was partially open and the western one was closed. The only set of windows on the day of the assassination that were in this configuration, were at the south-east corner of the 6th floor - the SN windows.
In short, taken at face value, the evidence proves BRW's lunch remains were initially discovered on top of the boxes that formed the Sniper's Nest. They were witnessed by EIGHT law enforcement officers, three of whom specifically place the remains on top of the SN boxes. At some point, before the crime lab takes it pictures, these remains are removed to the third aisle set of windows, about 30ft away from the original discovery location.
Mooney makes it clear that someone sat in the SN window could have placed the remains on the SN without hardly moving.
At 12:15pm BRW is having his lunch on the 6th floor. At this same time Arnold Rowland sees a black male in the SN windows. Rowland is specific about which set of windows he is talking about, going so far as to describe the configuration of the windows, a configuration only present in the SN windows.
So, if we accept the evidence, we have one of two scenarios around 12:15pm:
1) On the far west side of the 6th floor is a white man with a rifle - in the third aisle is BRW having his lunch [the remains of which he decides to leave on top of the SN - sat in the SN is an unknown black man who is not an employee of the TSBD.
2) On the far west side of the 6th floor is a white man with a rifle - BRW is sat in the SN having his lunch, the half-finished remains of which he leaves on top of the SN.
Deal with the evidence rather than just stamping your foot and trying to wish it all away.
”This attempt to suggest the officers in question might have been referring to the boxes at the end of the third aisle as part of the SN/barricade is so weak I wouldn't embarrass myself refuting it. You should feel embarrassed for suggesting it.”
The “barricade” of stacks of boxes that form the sniper’s nest extends to the third set of windows. This can be seen in the photos. This is also shown in two DPD diagrams.
Deal with the evidence rather than just stamping your foot. You cannot wish this evidence away by childishly refusing to address it.
As far as I know, not one of the officers that you are citing have disputed the DPD photographs which show the location in the third aisle where the lunch remains are found. I have read (again) Luke Mooney’s oral history in “No More Silence” by Larry Snead. Mooney doesn’t even mention the lunch remains. Do you think Luke Mooney would remain silent about the location of the lunch remains if he were as certain as you appear to be that the real location of the lunch remains was different? Same question applies to the rest of your officers.
There isn’t even a hint of a greasy spot that can be seen on the tops of the boxes that Luke Mooney designated in the photos. If there had been a chicken bone left there, a greasy spot should be evident. As I said earlier, it is clear to me, based on his testimony, that Luke Mooney simply didn’t remember a specific location.
Your attempt to claim that your opinion is a fact is what I object to. You can have your opinion, I really, really, really, don’t care. And you can respond to the fact that the DPD crime scene investigators found and photographed the lunch remains in the third aisle with your opinion that you think “someone” {somehow, without anyone noticing) moved the lunch remains from the sniper’s nest before the crime scene investigators arrived on scene. But if you try to claim that your opinion is a fact, you are only making yourself look ridiculous.
Edit: The same goes for Arnold Rowland’s testimony. You can believe every single word of it if you want to. I really, really, really don’t care. I have stated my opinion that his same day statement appears to me to be legitimate. But I choose to discount his later additions for reasons already stated earlier in this thread. You can believe that your opinion is correct. I really, really, really, don’t care. If we all thought alike we wouldn’t have anything to discuss.
-
As far as I know, not one of the officers that you are citing have disputed the DPD photographs which show the location in the third aisle where the lunch remains are found.
That’s really disingenuous. I could just as easily say that not one of them confirmed the photographs. There’s no reason to think they were ever shown the photos or asked about them.
-
That’s really disingenuous. I could just as easily say that not one of them confirmed the photographs. There’s no reason to think they were ever shown the photos or asked about them.
There is absolutely nothing disingenuous about it whatsoever.
-
My sinister ideas??.... Is lynching a man without a trial ok ??
Law enforcement and federal/state official were patient and fully-compliant with due process and long-established methods of investigation and inquiry. It was the anti-authority paranoid "citizen appraiser" (the Kook) who shot Oswald.
-
Law enforcement and federal/state official were patient and fully-compliant with due process and long-established methods of investigation and inquiry.
Did you really say that with a straight face? You’re delusional.
-
Did you really say that with a straight face? You’re delusional.
Delusional?..... I don't think so....I think he knows the truth but he's simply a liar....
-
The shooting of LHO by Ruby was extremely shocking. And watching it live on television is something that I will never forget. The only person who could be held legally responsible had a trial and was found guilty. If anyone else could have been held legally responsible, I believe that the lawyers would have been lining up wanting to represent the family in a lawsuit against whoever they thought was responsible.
-
Law enforcement and federal/state official were patient and fully-compliant with due process and long-established methods of investigation and inquiry. It was the anti-authority paranoid "citizen appraiser" (the Kook) who shot Oswald.
Great point. And the irony is that because the DPD bent over backward to accommodate the press and make the investigation as transparent as possible to avoid claims of a coverup or mistreatment of Oswald, they created a security risk and made several misstatements to the press which CTers cling to as evidence of a conspiracy. Which is why investigations are not conducted like this today.
-
They also did nothing to properly collect, document, and secure evidence.