The Curious Case Of Arnold Rowland

[Dan O'meara]

Ah, so you're throwing your key witness Mr Rowland under a bus: his description of the bald or balding 'elderly Negro' in the plaid shirt was wildly off.

All because Mr Dan O'Meara doesn't feel the need to consider a scenario that Mr Dan O'Meara doesn't feel the need to consider.

Got it! 

I'm throwing a key witness under the bus because his description of the man with the rifle is confirmed by three other eye-witnesses??
Alan, you never acknowledge that BRW is having his lunch on the 6th floor at the time of Rowland's observation.
You never acknowledge that seven police officers place BRW's lunch remains at the SN.
Regardless of Rowland's observations this places BRW in or next to the SN at the same moment Rowland observes a black male in the SN. How can you not accept all this evidence?

Rowland's observation of the man in the SN must be viewed in the light of all the evidence placing BRW there at that moment.
Because of your ridiculous theories you cannot do that and must reject all this evidence in favour of any aspects of Rowland's descriptions that are inaccurate.
The evidence placing BRW in the southeast corner at that time, along with Rowland's observation of a black male in the SN lead me to conclude that Bonnie Ray Williams was eating his lunch, inside the SN, at the same time the man with the rifle was at the west end of the building.
This is the most obvious interpretation of all this evidence and it is the evidence that determines my opinion.

[Zeon Mason]

It seems strange the gunman didn’t  check for the  presence of other persons on the 6th floor  before he  takes a rifle and walks right across 100 ft of floor to the SW window.

Seems a very risky thing to do for a professional gunman, especially since he might get photographed with rifle in hand standing at the SW window.

None of  the witnesses said anything about seeing a mask so either the gunman is stupid /careless or the gunman has some reason to expose himself.

1. If the gunman is an Oswald impersonator in a preplan to frame an unsuspecting Oswald, then The question is would  it be necessary to prevent the Patsy Oswald from establishing an alibi for himself at the time of the shooting?

2.  Or was the plan simply to cause maximum confusion, the gunman using a semi auto rifle with large diameter centermounted  scope presented at the SW window, while hiding a rusty  barrel MC rifle with defective/misaligned scope with paper trail and P.O. Box ti implicate Oswald.

If no.2, then an unsuspecting Oswald was left free to roam , stand at the front entrance , be in the Domino room or 2nd floor lunchroom , at time of shots fired and it was purposeful and not an accident.

[Alan Ford]

I'm throwing a key witness under the bus because his description of the man with the rifle is confirmed by three other eye-witnesses??

No, because you're saying he was such a cr@ppy witness that he described Mr Bonnie Ray Williams as a bald or balding "elderly Negro" wearing a bright plaid shirt. Why, you're just one step away from the stock Warren Gullible argument that he musta got the floor wrong too!

Alan, you never acknowledge that BRW is having his lunch on the 6th floor at the time of Rowland's observation.

Because it never happened.

Did Mr Rowland see food and a soda bottle in the "elderly Negro's" hand? Can you prove Mr Williams was there at that time? Can you find consistency across Mr Williams' own accounts?

The FBI and Warren Commission knew it wasn't Mr Williams, and so they let the investigative hounds loose on Mr Rowland. And you've fallen for the scam!

You never acknowledge that seven police officers place BRW's lunch remains at the SN.

Mr Tom Alyea says otherwise. And can you prove the lunch remains belonged to Mr Williams? Thought not!

Regardless of Rowland's observations this places BRW in or next to the SN at the same moment Rowland observes a black male in the SN. How can you not accept all this evidence?

Rowland's observation of the man in the SN must be viewed in the light of all the evidence placing BRW there at that moment.
Because of your ridiculous theories you cannot do that and must reject all this evidence in favour of any aspects of Rowland's descriptions that are inaccurate.
The evidence placing BRW in the southeast corner at that time, along with Rowland's observation of a black male in the SN lead me to conclude that Bonnie Ray Williams was eating his lunch, inside the SN, at the same time the man with the rifle was at the west end of the building.
This is the most obvious interpretation of all this evidence and it is the evidence that determines my opinion.

No, the only thing determining your opinion is your wholly irrational, Warren Gullible-light feeling that it would be better not to consider any scenario that would involve non-employees carrying out the assassination. Hence your irrational, Warren Gullible-light throwing of Mr Rowland under the bus

[Zeon Mason]

Well there might be a slim chance that Mrs Rowland was covering for Mr.Rowland by confirming that he told her about seeing the man with rifle at 12:15..

However, if she’s taking this big a risk of perjury to protect her husband then why would she ever suggest Mr Arnold had a tendency  to exaggerate?

[Dan O'meara]

No, because you're saying he was such a cr@ppy witness that he described Mr Bonnie Ray Williams as a bald or balding "elderly Negro" wearing a bright plaid shirt. Why, you're just one step away from the stock Warren Gullible argument that he musta got the floor wrong too!

Because it never happened.

Did Mr Rowland see food and a soda bottle in the "elderly Negro's" hand? Can you prove Mr Williams was there at that time? Can you find consistency across Mr Williams' own accounts?

The FBI and Warren Commission knew it wasn't Mr Williams, and so they let the investigative hounds loose on Mr Rowland. And you've fallen for the scam!

Mr Tom Alyea says otherwise. And can you prove the lunch remains belonged to Mr Williams? Thought not!

No, the only thing determining your opinion is your wholly irrational, Warren Gullible-light feeling that it would be better not to consider any scenario that would involve non-employees carrying out the assassination. Hence your irrational, Warren Gullible-light throwing of Mr Rowland under the bus

"The FBI and Warren Commission knew it wasn't Mr Williams, and so they let the investigative hounds loose on Mr Rowland. And you've fallen for the scam!"

There is no point asking you to justify the twisted logic behind this statement as you will only come up with more deranged nonsense.
The FBI investigation of Rowland had two purposes - the first, and most urgent, was to undermine the claim he saw a black male in the window of the SN. They used the exact method you constantly use on this issue. They ignored all the physical and witness evidence putting William's there at that time and focused on a two aspects of his witness testimony they knew Rowland had gotten wrong - that the man he observed was "elderly" and that he had a brightly colored plaid shirt on. They ignored that he described a very slender, black male who had lighter skin than his co-workers. They ignored that this man had disappeared from the window minutes before the motorcade arrived (mirroring William's movements), they ignored that William's had stated he was on the 6th floor at that time having his lunch and they ignored the actual lunch remains, the only lunch remains, found on the 6th floor, located on/at the SN by eight different officers.
Instead they determined it could only have been Piper or West (after talking to Bill Shelley). Once it was determined it was neither of these men it was concluded Rowland was wrong or lying about the black male in the SN window who was there until just before the motorcade showed up.
The WC and the FBI knew it was Williams, that's why they had to undermine Rowland.
The rest of the FBI investigation was pure character assassination.

Your utterly ludicrous, deluded notion that the WC and the FBI were covering for a Multiracial-Assassination-Death squad is too embarrassing to even consider.
You look such a fool in the eyes of anyone with even a modicum of common sense.

[Alan Ford]

"The FBI and Warren Commission knew it wasn't Mr Williams, and so they let the investigative hounds loose on Mr Rowland. And you've fallen for the scam!"

There is no point asking you to justify the twisted logic behind this statement as you will only come up with more deranged nonsense.

The FBI investigation of Rowland had two purposes - the first, and most urgent, was to undermine the claim he saw a black male in the window of the SN. They used the exact method you constantly use on this issue. They ignored all the physical and witness evidence putting William's there at that time

There is no physical evidence and no witness evidence putting Mr Williams in the SN window at that time

and focused on a two aspects of his witness testimony they knew Rowland had gotten wrong - that the man he observed was "elderly" and that he had a brightly colored plaid shirt on.

And bald or nearly bald. All of which descriptive details rule out Mr Williams 

They ignored that he described a very slender, black male who had lighter skin than his co-workers. They ignored that this man had disappeared from the window minutes before the motorcade arrived (mirroring William's movements), they ignored that William's had stated he was on the 6th floor at that time having his lunch

Mr Williams had stated many different things about when he was on the sixth floor

and they ignored the actual lunch remains, the only lunch remains, found on the 6th floor, located on/at the SN by eight different officers.

And never reliably traced to Mr Williams.
And---once again---you are ignoring Mr Alyea on where the lunch remains were found.

Instead they determined it could only have been Piper or West (after talking to Bill Shelley). Once it was determined it was neither of these men it was concluded Rowland was wrong or lying about the black male in the SN window who was there until just before the motorcade showed up.

Because to conclude otherwise would be to have a non-employee in the SN window minutes before the assassination. Unacceptable to the FBI. And--for curious emotional reasons--unacceptable to Mr Dan O'Meara

The WC and the FBI knew it was Williams, that's why they had to undermine Rowland.
The rest of the FBI investigation was pure character assassination.

Your utterly ludicrous, deluded notion that the WC and the FBI were covering for a Multiracial-Assassination-Death squad is too embarrassing to even consider.
You look such a fool in the eyes of anyone with even a modicum of common sense.

~Grin~

Anger issues, Mr O'Meara?

 

[Mitch Todd]

"It's Rowland's improbable claims and additions in his testimony that prompted them to look into his background..."

This is not true.
The reason the FBI take the unprecedented step of investigating Rowland is his claim about the black male in the SN window.
The first part of their report is to discredit this aspect of his testimony, the rest is character assassination.

That memo sent to Hoover by the WC staffer asks the FBI to "investigate all aspects of Mr Rowland's story concerning the person alleged to have been at the southeast corner window" but also requests an investigation Rowland's more dubious claims after listing a number of them. BTW, the 

It is noteworthy that when they visit the TSBD they are only interested in Eddie Piper and Troy West as possible candidates for the man in the SN window when they already know Bonnie Ray Williams was on the 6th floor having his lunch at the time in question and that the remains of his lunch were found on top of the SN!
Go figure.

There's no mystery here. Rowland describes the "elderly negro" as a 50-60 year old man who is bald, balding, or has thinning hair. Williams was 20 years old and had a full head of hair. West and Piper are the only two men who fit Rowland's description, unless you think that black people are somehow inherently interchangeable. The WC had no information as to whether either West or Piper had been on the sixth floor at the time that Rowland claimed, but they already knew what Williams had said about his time on that floor, since he'd already been interviewed and made statements about his activity there. They didn't need to interview him again about it.

BTW, where does Williams say that he was in the SN?

There can be no doubt the young Mr Rowland is a bit of a bullsh%tter and this does no favour for his trustworthiness or credibility as a witness. But there is a simple way to assess the accuracy of his observations regarding the man with the rifle - are they corroborated by other witness testimony or evidence.
That Rowland's description of the man with the rifle is confirmed by three other eye witnesses is solid corroboration.
That a scoped rifle is found on the 6th floor is solid corroboration.
As far as the black male in the SN window is concerned - Bonnie Ray Williams is known to be having his lunch on the 6th floor at that time, the remains of which were found on top of the SN and not 30ft away on a trolley. Rowland's observation that this man disappears about 5 minutes before the motorcade arrives corresponds with BRW's movements around this time.

Obviously this destroys the LNer narrative and must be discredited at all costs but that involves believing in an almost miraculous coincidence.

You are far to kind to Mr Rowland, as least as he existed then. "A bit of a bullsh%tter" is quite an understatement! Rowland repeatedly lies in a deposition. The technical term for that is "perjury," though I doubt he ever would have been prosecuted for it. Revealingly, he volunteers lies about things that are neither necessary to the matter at hand, and for no rational reason. This behavior goes by several names. "Pathological lying" is one of the more common ones, though "compulsive lying" is probably a better description of what was going on. He just couldn't help himself.

Your claim that Fischer, Edwards, and Brennan corroborates Rowland only shows that you have an interesting definition of the word "corroborate." Fischer, Edwards, and Brennan see a light-haired man wearing light-colored trousers laying low in the SE corner window. None of them see a rifle until the shooting starts; it's kept out of sight until used. Rowland said he saw a dark haired man wearing dark trousers standing in the window on the opposite side of the building. The man is proudly displaying a rifle in front of him for all to see. I'm not sure how many people other than you would think that Fischer, Edwards, and Brennan were describing the same man that Rowland said he saw. A further problem involves the older black male. Rowland has him hanging out of the SE corner window about the same time that Fischer, Edwards and Brennan see their guy. Why don't those three men see the black guy? Why doesn't Rowland see the man that Fischer, Edwards, and Brennan see?

Barbara Rowland's testimony is telling, it is almost exclusively about her husband and culminates in a very personal question to which she gives a curt reply:

Mr BELIN: ...just from your general experience, do you feel you can rely on everything that your husband says?
Mrs. ROWLAND: I don't feel that I can rely on everything anybody says.

Belin is almost apologetic:

Mr. BELIN. Well, this is really an unfair question for me to ask any wife about her husband, and I am not asking it very correctly, but---
Mrs Rowland then reveals an important aspect of her husband's character:

Mrs. ROWLAND: At times my husband is prone to exaggerate. Does that answer it?
Mr. BELIN:I think it does.
Is there anything else you want to add to that, or not?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Usually his exaggerations are not concerned with anything other than himself. They are usually to boast his ego. They usually say that he is really smarter than he is, or he is a better salesman than he is, something like that.

So, Belin first asks her about much credibility her husband has with her. Her response is, as you note, quite telling. Instead of a direct answer, her reply directs the question away from what she feels about her huband. In a roundabout way, it speaks volumes about her trust in him, or rather lack thereof. As for the followup question, note the use of the word "usually." What does that word mean? What does it not mean?

Arnold Rowland is prone to bigging himself up, particularly his intelligence. This is exactly what the FBI investigation reveals. Nearly every aspect of what is regarded as false in his testimony relates to this aspect of his character.
But this is a far cry from making up false claims in a murder investigation involving the president of the United States. Claims that could put him in some real trouble if proven false.
Rowland's claims about the men on the 6th floor can be solidly corroborated by other witness testimony and physical evidence. His character has no bearing on the matter.

Again, the claim of corroboration disintegrates under scrutiny. And the SS/FBI investigation reveals more than just self-inflating fibs. Rowland had been fingered for passing checks drawn on a fictitious account in Topeka Kansas (also, Rowland had used the aliases "Alex Johnston," "Jack Nickols," and "Jack Nickolson"[?!]). He was suspected of stealing different items from the schools he attended. Interviews with Faculty and staff at both Crozier Tech and Adamson high schools revealed that teachers and administrators completely distrusted anything that Rowland said:

"You could not believe what he told you"

"She said that she would personally not put much faith in in what Arnold said he observed at the assassination scene..."

"[Rowland] would not hesitate to fabricate a story if it were of any benefit for ROWLAND to do so."

"...she determined he could not be trusted and would not tell the truth regarding any matter. She stated he was a conniver and prevaricated whenever it was to his advantage to do so."

"...he [Rowland] requested almost on a daily basis special privileges and seemed to have the attitude that he was superior to most of the teachers and all other students"

In addition, when DPD detective Gus Rose attempted to locate Rowland, he found that Rowland had given the Dallas Independent School District a non-existent address as his place of residence. That was the second time Rowland had given the DISD an incorrect address.  Rose also found that Rowland had opened a post office box using as a permanent address an apartment that Rowland had already vacated weeks before. He wasn't doing that just to "puff himself up."

Rowland's character matters, if it is in his character to repeatedly and compulsively lie. And the lying...oh, is it thick and deep with this one.
 

One final note - LNers like to make the point that Rowland's man in the SN is some kind of late addition but the fact is that Roger Craig reports Rowland talking about two men on the 6th floor. I'm not sure if Rowland makes the same point to Harkness, Turner and Sorrels but the main interest of the investigating authorities would be the man with the rifle.
It is only later that evening Rowland understands the importance of the man in the SN which is why he raises the issue with the FBI agents who visit him Saturday morning. Interestingly, these agents have no interest in the man in the SN window and basically tell him to forget about it. It's almost as if it's been decided there was only one person involved in the assassination by Saturday morning.
Go figure.

Roger Craig's WC testimony only creates more problems for the Rowland two-men-on-the-sixth-floor story. 

In the Craig version, there are two men but only one window. In Rowland's WC testimony, there are two men in two windows.
In the Craig version, he sees the men "walking back and forth". In Rowland's WC testimony, the rifle guy is just standing in the window while the other man is hanging out of his window.
In the Craig version, the gunman holds the rifle "down to his side." In Rowland's WC testimony, the man holds the rifle up right in front of him.
In the Craig version, he first sees the two men, then looks back later but only the man with the rifle is still there. In Rowland's WC testimony, it's the other way  around.

Now, I know you're likely to say, 'well, maybe Craig didn't say that there was only one window.'

OK. Then there is still the issue with the men "walking back and forth" rather than standing and hanging. And the issue with the rifleman holding the rifle down at his side instead of up in front of him. And the issue with the rifleman disappearing in on version with the unarmed man disappearing in the other.

But then, I hear you say, 'well, maybe Craig just inadvertently swapped the rifleman with the black guy when he remembered what Rowland told him.'

OK. Then there is still the issue with the men "walking back and forth" rather than standing and hanging And the issue with the rifleman holding the rifle down at his side instead of up in front of him.

Neither of those remainders are trivial issues in regards to the consistency of Rowland's story. And those are what's left after I've already spotted you the other two just for argument's sake. It's just one thing after another with Rowland. I guess you could continue with, 'well, maybe Craig didn't remember these other two points, either.' But these last two are much harder to portray as simple misremembrances on Craig's part. And maybe Craig really did correctly repeat what he'd heard that day. Or are you going to go off into the territory of, 'well, Craig got it all wrong except for that one little bit that I like?' But if Craig was really that wrong, can you really put much faith in any part of what he'd said?

Finally,
It is only later that evening Rowland understands the importance of the man in the SN which is why he raises the issue with the FBI agents who visit him Saturday morning

This bit is just a molehill of supposition on your part. And it doesn't make sense, given your own  if Rowland didn't understand the importance of the second man until that evening why does the information not appear in any recorded interview, statement, or report until his WC testimony? The second man doesn't appear in the 11/22 DCSD affidavit, the 11/22 FBI interview (SA Heitman),  11/23 interview (SAs Rice and Almon) , the 11/24 statement that Rowland dictated to Wulff and Swinford, or the 12/10 interview (SA Kelley). You'd think that he'd have told them at some point, if he thought it were significant.