The facts are that Rowland sighted a man with a gun in the SW window at 12.15pm. He told his wife of this and he reported it to authorities immediately after the shots. Do you really believe that he was after 15 minutes of fame? Was he clairvoyant? What the WC did to him was shameless. He correctly reported under oath that he saw a black man in the SN until about 12.25. This is the precise time that Williams left the SN. He said he paid little attention to the man. How would he know the 6th floor was an open area and not a series of rooms from his position? We know Williams was there because his chicken lunch was found there and reported as such by 9 officers first on the scene.
The WC knew Williams was on the floor after lunch and yet only obtained photos of West and Piper, both of them were on the first floor at the relevant time......no photo of Williams.
Such hypocrisy for those who target Rowland yet believe Givens, who did not report the cigarette trip sighting of Oswald until he testified. Jarman and Norman told authorities that Williams went with them in the elevator to the 5th floor consistently until their WC changed the story. Williams changed his story repeatedly in every recounting of it.
The irony of all this is it does not preclude Oswald as the assassin per se.....yet WC supporters are unable to comprehend a scenario that has him occupy the SN just 5 minutes before the shots...why is that?
The irony of all this is it does not preclude Oswald as the assassin per se.....yet WC supporters are unable to comprehend a scenario that has him occupy the SN just 5 minutes before the shots...why is that?
Because BRW wasn't ever in the SN. The irony of it all, to even believe this theory you must believe LHO was the assassin because under this scenario BRW would have obviously have known and been friendly with the person who was in the SN----- Oswald. The problem with it is BRW had no clue as to who was firing above him.
--------------------------------------
Such hypocrisy for those who target Rowland yet believe Givens,
Hypocrisy is glossing over a great deal of fabricated testimony by Rowland and then comparing it to Given's stating he saw LHO on the 6th floor with his clipboard. Oswald is a real person. Rowland is describing a fictional character completely conjured up in his imagination. Rowland never told a soul about a second person in the SN until he shows up in front of the WC, yet Givens is villified for doing the same. Given's statement was also made under oath but it is stated he was not telling the truth.
--------------------------------------------
He correctly reported under oath that he saw a black man in the SN until about 12.25.
Arnold Rowland never told anyone there was a second person in the Sniper's Nest. Not one person. Despite endless opportunities he never told the DPD, he never told the Sheriff's Dept, he never told the FBI, he never told the Secret Service, he never told Roger Craig, and he never said a single word to his wife Barbara Rowland about a second gunman being in the Snipers Nest. What he did was make up a story developed from countless trips to Dealey Plaza where he stared at the TSBD and reconstructed the assassination in his mind. He finally convinced himself of something that wasn't true and then stated it to the Warren Commission. Fortunately Barbara Rowland had a sense of History and refused to support Arnold's assertion of an additional person in the Sniper's Nest.
----------------------------------------------------------
The WC knew Williams was on the floor after lunch and yet only obtained photos of West and Piper, both of them were on the first floor at the relevant time......no photo of Williams.Why would they? At no point in time could the description Rowland gave of this second person be misconstrued to have been BRW. Typical of Rowland's testimony the story grows as he is telling and embellishing it. Rowland's description of an old Negro with a wrinkled face is not a description of a twenty something BRW.
FIRST DESCRIPTIONMr. ROWLAND - At the time I saw the man in the other window, I saw this man hanging out the window first. It was a
colored man, I think.
----------------------------
SECOND DESCRIPTIONMr. SPECTER - Will you describe with as much particularity as you can what that man looked like?
Mr. ROWLAND - It seemed to me
an elderly Negro, that is about all. I didn't pay very much attention to him.
-----------------------------
THE GRAND FINALE DESCRIPTIONMr. SPECTER - Mr. Rowland, a couple of other questions.
Are you able to give us any other type of a description of the Negro gentleman whom you observed in the window we marked "A" with respect to height, weight, age?
Mr. ROWLAND - He was very thin, an elderly gentleman, bald or practically bald, very thin hair if he wasn't bald. Had on a plaid shirt. I think it was red and green, very bright color, that is why I remember it.
Mr. SPECTER - Can you give us an estimate as to age?
Mr. ROWLAND - Fifty; possibly 55 or 60.
Mr. SPECTER - Can you give us an estimate as to height?
Mr. ROWLAND - 5'8", 5'10", in that neighborhood. He was very slender, very thin.
Mr. SPECTER - Can you give us a more definite description as to complexion?
Mr. ROWLAND - Very dark or fairly dark, not real dark compared to some Negroes, but fairly dark. Seemed like his face was either--I can't recall detail but it was either very wrinkled or marked in some way.
Wow, he does it again. He went from Zero to Mach 1 and completely describes this person including wrinkles on his face. Great witness why wouldn't you believe him. Even his height, on a man "hanging" out of a window.
--------------------------------------------------------
What the WC did to him was shameless.What Rowland did was shameless.
The WC did not need to speak to Rowland's wife. Rowland's own testimony proved you can not believe a word he said. Which one of his listed fabrications is wrong? They knew he was full of it from the moment he told then he was at the eye doctor and his eyesight was better then 20/20. Why was he even at the eye doctor?
Where is Rowland's descriptions of the other person described by Brennan ? All the descriptions of the person in the SN. Not one of them is a description of BRW. Where is his description of the shooter? He said he was supposedly looking back every few seconds. Brennan gave a description of the shooter so obviously he was visible. He mentioned seeing the wrinkles on the second persons face. Stated he was older. Somehow he knows he is tall and slender. How could he possibly know that? Like his description of the man with a rifle Rowland does not know the window is only 14 inches off the floor, but he describes the person with the belief they are normal configured windows.
--------------------------------------
He told his wife of this and he reported it to authorities immediately after the shots.He supposedly told Roger Craig. Why not post Roger Craig's testimony about this very subject? Is it because it in no manner resembles Rowland's and yet he is trying to support Rowland's fabricated account. Craig, another witness also under oath, describes to the WC two white men but both in the SW corner of the 6th floor not the SE corner.
