Let's go back to what Rowland said:
Mr. SPECTER - And from that point how far up his body were you able to see without any obstruction of a window between you and him?
Mr. ROWLAND - To the top of his head. There was some space on top of that where I could see the wall behind him.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the space between the top of his head and the open window at the perspective you were observing?
Mr. ROWLAND - Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part.
Specter asks how far up Rowland can see the man in the TSBD. Rowland says not only that he can see the top of the man's head, but also that there was empty space above the man's head through which he could see the wall behind the man. That space would necessarily be bordered by the top of the man's head and the raised window sash. Specter immediately follows up, asking Rowland how much space there was between the "top of his head" (the exact phrase Rowland used) and the "open window." Given that Rowland had just brought the subject up, and repeats Rowland's phrasing, there's no reason to claim Rowland was confused about the nature of the question.
Yeah Mitch, it's a really simple misunderstanding. It doesn't make Rowland stupid or confused. And it's easy to see how he could make such a simple mistake - what's the space between the top of his head and the window? It's really not that big of a deal. Unless, of course, you have an interest in undermining Rowland's testimony. His estimation of how far the rifleman is stood in the building is the only aspect of his description he has a problem with and it's no surprise, at a distance it would be an incredibly difficult thing to do.
Obviously, because it is a misunderstanding, you can simply insist that it's not a misunderstanding at all and that he was looking through a 30" gap describing a 36" space to the top of the rifleman's head. That's fair enough.
I view Rowland's description of the rifleman as reliable and consistent - the description he gives his wife before the assassination is consistent with the description he gives in his affidavit is consistent with the description he gives in his WC testimony. The notion that he just made this description up for his wife, then tracked down a police officer and made it up for him then went to the DPD and made it up for his affidavit etc. is, in my opinion, nonsense.
Going back to the pic I posted, although it is a very rough presentation of a basic principle, once it is understood Rowland was not referring to a 3ft space above the rifleman's head, it becomes clear that he was accurately describing what we would expect someone to see looking through the window.
Even if we assume, arguendo, that Rowland was confused and simply told Specter the distance between the top of the man's head and the wall in front of him, it's still highly problematic. He's already put the distance at 3 to 5 feet; you'd have us believe that he then decided it was really 2.5 to 3 feet. Assuming your contention makes an Arnold Rowland an easily confused boy too dumb to properly answer what should be a straightforward question and unable to keep his own story straight through the deposition. If that's the best you can do, you need to stop trying before he gets the chair under your defense.
"He's already put the distance at 3 to 5 feet; you'd have us believe that he then decided it was really 2.5 to 3 feet."
This is not exactly a mind-bending difference is it. Note that 3ft is in both distances. Not really something I would describe as being "highly problematic". Certainly not a deal-breaker.
"Assuming your contention makes an Arnold Rowland an easily confused boy too dumb to properly answer what should be a straightforward question and unable to keep his own story straight through the deposition. If that's the best you can do, you need to stop trying before he gets the chair under your defense."So, you've assumed, for argument's sake, Rowland has made a simple misunderstanding and is talking about the distance the rifleman is stood away from the window. You've described this situation as still being "highly problematic". The single example you give to highlight how problematic it is actually demonstrates a consistency with what Rowland has already stated.
Rowland is grilled endlessly on the tiniest detail of what he witnessed and is impressively accurate throughout but because of this single, perfectly understandable misunderstanding he is a "confused boy too dumb to properly answer what should be a straightforward question and unable to keep his own story straight through the deposition".
Let's really assume Rowland has misunderstood the question and answered as honestly as he could - we then find him describing being able to see the rifleman from just below the waist to just above his head. When we look at the pic I posted it is clear this description is perfectly plausible.
