Why didn't the Conspirators plant Eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza?

[Jerry Organ]

The WC concluded that Arnold Rowland had seen Lee Harvey Oswald with a fully assembled CE 139 at 12.15 pm.

They did?

How did they come to that conclusion?

Arnold saw what Arnold saw, l haven't been to Dealey Plaza to model what could be seen from his vantage point. However there are images of other people standing in front of open windows and you can see the proportion of the torso visible.

Arnold exaggerated the amount that could be seen through the open window. It's not even close to being 2/3 of an adult's height plus several feet above the head.

So if you believe that Arnold saw either Dougherty or Oswald with or without a weapon, why do you doubt he saw an unarmed African-American male in the SE corner at 12.15 pm?

I thought I said on the Forum I was open to the idea that Williams could have been the man Rowlands placed in the Oswald window. That was awhile ago, though.

[Bill Chapman]

How did Amos' non-descriptive observation specifically ID anyone?

It didn't... it only established that any other shooter named by you lot needs to be sporting a reasonably similar white*spot.

*Euins called it a 'white spot' about 4 times

[Jerry Organ]

You mean, apart from Lee Harvey Oswald, there was another gunman on the 6th floor? 

You don't get that from me. Nor from the Belin quotes that follow.

This is what Mr Belin said about Rowland in his book:

Although Marina Oswald rebuffed the pleas of her husband, there was one
other person who could have almost single-handedly prevented the assassination.
His name was Arnold Rowland, an 18-year-old resident of Dallas,
who was in the vicinity of the TSBD Building at least 15 minutes before the
motorcade arrived. Rowland's testimony is an example of one of the most
difficult problems in analyzing the testimony of a witness, when part of his
testimony seems to check with other independent facts while other aspects
are blatantly false.

What were those independent facts?

"The assassination of President Kennedy was a major event in American
history. Future historians may even say that it changed the course of history.
What would have happened had Arnold and Barbara Rowland called to that
policeman 12 feet away and said, "What's that man doing with a rifle in that
building?"
Senator Cooper asked Rowland that question in Washington, but rephrased
it along the lines of "Why didn't you" tell anyone about this. This
was not the first time that morning the question had been asked. Before
Senator Cooper entered the hearing room, Rowland had answered this
question once. When Senator Cooper asked it again, Rowland burst into
tears, and the Chief Justice called for a recess.
Then Earl Warren walked to Rowland, put his arm over the young man's
shoulder and sought to comfort him. It was an unforgettable experience to
see the Chief Justice of the United States seeking to console an 18-year-old
youth who had obviously confronted himself with the possibility that he
might have prevented the assassination.

THEN

"However, in other aspects of his testimony before the Commission Rowland was wholly inaccurate.

So the WC believed him that he did see a white armed male in the SW corner at 12.15 pm ...

That's Belin's take. Not a Warren Commission conclusion.

Thanks for showing that side of Belin: open-minded, objective and compassionate. I would say same generally applies to all the WC staff.

[Mitch Todd]

Fair enough.  As opposed to:

Howard "failed to identify" Brennan
Charles "willing to change his story for money" Givens
Amos "he had a bald spot" Euins
Helen "I had never seen none of them" Markham
Jack Tatum who pops out of the woodwork a decade and a half later?

Howie B: I agree that he his testimony should not be used to positively identify Oswald to the exclusion of all others.
Chuckie G: Haven't really relied on what he's said. What I do use is what can be supported by others.
Amos Euins: Was on the ground looking up at someone who was 60+ feet above him. He couldn't see a bald spot that was on top of the gunman's head, so the other choice is that he was talking about a receding hairline. Oswald had one.
Markham: Total drama queen, but that doesn't mean everything she said was wrong, a lie, etc, and she wasn't the only witness. Callaway positively ID'd Oswald as the armed man he encountered leaving the scene, for instance. Frank Cimino came out after the gunman left the scene and saw that Tippit "moved slightly and groaned but never said anything that he could understand," so Markham's oft-derided claim that Tippit was trying to say something to her isn't that far off.
Jackie T: I've never put any credit into what he claimed.

As for Ruby Henderson describing Norman and Jarman, Norman and Jarman weren't even in the same window.  Also which one of them was wearing a white shirt?

Normal and Jarman never could have been in the same window? OK, what about Norman and Williams then? Or Williams and Jarman? And, did anyone else notice two guys in the same window on 6, one in a white shirt?

[Bill Chapman]

Why the need to name a shooter with a bold spot?

Where did I say 'bold spot'
Pretty sure Euins said 'bald spot' and 'white spot'

Aside from your laziness in proofreading your own posts, according to y'all any other shooter but Oswald is eligible to take over the mantle of prime suspect.

[Bill Chapman]

If you can prove that Lee was even on the 6th floor at 12.15 pm onwards - be my guest.

Be you so bold to try? 

Where did I say I could prove Oswald was the killer?

Can I take as a 'yes' your avoidance in replying to my suggestion that the shooter needs to have a white spot as described by Euins? After all, you didn't disagree...

[Colin Crow]

Junior Jarman
From Jarman's Affidavit 11/23/63

At about 11:45 a.m. all of the employees who were working on the 6th floor came downstairs and we were all out on the street at about 12:00 o'clock noon. These employees were: Bill Shelley, Charles Givens, Billy Lovelady, Bonnie Ray (last name not known) and a Spanish boy (his name I cannot remember).

FBI interview 11/24/63

No mention of the ascent to the 5th floor just that Williams and Norman were with him at the time of the motorcade.

SS interview 12/2/63

"After eating lunch Jarman went with Williams and Norman to the fifth floor to watch the President pass by."

FBI interview 1/14/64
"He said that he and the other two boys (Norman and Williams) ate lunch on the first floor around 12 noon on November 22, 1963, and shortly afterwards went to the fifth floor about 12.25pm, on the west elevator in the building in order to watch the Presidential parade.

Harold Norman
FBI interview 11/26/63

As with Jarman's initial statement there was no mention of Williams joining he and Jarman just before the shooting, just that the three were watching the motorcade "about noon" from the fifth floor.

SS interview and Affidavit 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. Bonnie Ray Williams and James Jarman, who also worked at this building went with me."

FBI interview 3/18/64

He simply states he was with Jarman and Williams on the 5th floor at 12.10 or 12.20 and it appear that he felt the shots occurred at this time.

[Jerry Organ]

Have a look at this:





As posted previiously



You still want to argue that what Arnold saw in the SW window was inaccurate in terms of proportions?

(Trying to save scrolling time. People can go back
to your original post link to see the images full-size,
or click on each picture here to make them larger.)

I believe those are human forms in your images but I can't distinguish what's a waist or head. Maybe a head is in shade and being counted as empty space.

One simply cannot see in the open SW window what Rowland claimed: from the mid-thigh to the head, plus several feet of space above the head.