A Better Sequence (TM DVP)

[Alan Ford]

Rowland started his testimony by telling the WC his eyesight was better than perfect, and after getting caught repeatedly fabricating the details of his testimony, ends the testimony weeping because he knows they caught him. Rowland's description of a person in the SN did not match a single person known to the other employees of the TSBD as evidenced by your posting of Shelley's affidavit.

 

What an utter distortion! Mr Rowland broke down because of the memory of not having alerted police to the presence of the man at the window, whom he took for part of the security detail.

As for Mr Rowland's description of the 'elderly negro' in the SN not matching 'a single person known to the other employees of the TSBD', that is simply not true--it sounds very like Mr Eddie Piper. And if it is not Mr Piper, then it is an individual not known to TSBD employees. How exactly would this undermine Mr Rowland's credibility?

[Martin Weidmann]

BRW was never in the SN. BRW ate his lunch by the third set of windows and left his lunch and pop bottle where it was photographed. No other mention of a pop bottle or lunch sack was noted by the detectives. 


Fritz states the same sentiment that Alyea stated. Media influence.

Also, Fritz states exactly what Montgomery and Shelley stated:

Mr. McCLOY. Did you see any signs of a lunch there, a chicken there?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I will tell you where that story about the chicken comes from. At the other window above there, where people in days past, you know had eaten their lunches, they left chicken bones and pieces of bread, all kinds of things up and down there. That isn't where he was at all. He was in a different window, so I don't think those things have anything to do with it. Someone wrote a story about it in the papers, and we have got all kinds of bad publicity from it and they wrote in telling us how to check those chicken bones and how to get them from the stomach and everything.


Montgomery and Shelley explain multiple locations of chicken pieces,

Mooney no sack: Mr. BALL - You didn't see a paper sack anywhere near a two-wheel truck or a Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; in my running around up there, I didn't observe it. Possibly it was there. I am sure it was But I didn't check it.

McCurley-- no sack
Weatherford the rifle --sack was CE 142
Boyd saw multiple sacks. --"some paper sacks," 30 to 40 feet to the west
Montgomery --sack was somewhere

None of these detectives mention the pop bottle.


Rowland started his testimony by telling the WC his eyesight was better than perfect, and after getting caught repeatedly fabricating the details of his testimony, ends the testimony weeping because he knows they caught him. Rowland's description of a person in the SN did not match a single person known to the other employees of the TSBD as evidenced by your posting of Shelley's affidavit.

BRW was never in the SN.

I've asked you this twice without getting a reply. So, I'll ask again; how can you possibly know this for sure? You wouldn't be making it up, would you?

[Colin Crow]

BRW was never in the SN. BRW ate his lunch by the third set of windows and left his lunch and pop bottle where it was photographed. No other mention of a pop bottle or lunch sack was noted by the detectives. 


Fritz states the same sentiment that Alyea stated. Media influence.

Also, Fritz states exactly what Montgomery and Shelley stated:

Mr. McCLOY. Did you see any signs of a lunch there, a chicken there?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I will tell you where that story about the chicken comes from. At the other window above there, where people in days past, you know had eaten their lunches, they left chicken bones and pieces of bread, all kinds of things up and down there. That isn't where he was at all. He was in a different window, so I don't think those things have anything to do with it. Someone wrote a story about it in the papers, and we have got all kinds of bad publicity from it and they wrote in telling us how to check those chicken bones and how to get them from the stomach and everything.


Montgomery and Shelley explain multiple locations of chicken pieces,

Mooney no sack: Mr. BALL - You didn't see a paper sack anywhere near a two-wheel truck or a Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; in my running around up there, I didn't observe it. Possibly it was there. I am sure it was But I didn't check it.

McCurley-- no sack
Weatherford the rifle --sack was CE 142
Boyd saw multiple sacks. --"some paper sacks," 30 to 40 feet to the west
Montgomery --sack was somewhere

None of these detectives mention the pop bottle.


Rowland started his testimony by telling the WC his eyesight was better than perfect, and after getting caught repeatedly fabricating the details of his testimony, ends the testimony weeping because he knows they caught him. Rowland's description of a person in the SN did not match a single person known to the other employees of the TSBD as evidenced by your posting of Shelley's affidavit.

Jack, can we deal with one at a time?

Here is another comment attributed to Alyea by Dale Meyers/Dave Reizes

"..I ran on upstairs with the Secret Service men. Then other units came in - the Riot Squad. I thought I was going to film a gun fight. They ran to the 4th floor and I went with them. Some of the other units went to the top of the building. They were conducting a systematic search. It boiled down to the sixth floor. After awhile it was obvious that the assassin was not in the building. They looked for the gun. I filmed 400 ft. of film of the Secret Service men looking for the assassin, climbing over boxes, over the rafters, and the actual finding of the gun. At the time it was suspected that the assassin had stayed quite a time there. There was a stack with a stack of chicken bones on it. There was a Dr. Pepper bottle which they dusted for fingerprints."

http://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html

This is the full article that quite honestly appears to be a rambling mess. If true, virtually all the police who testified purged and made made significantly false statements. Just one example is that he claimed Mooney did not arrive on the 6th floor until after the discovery of the rifle. I can find virtually no corroboration of almost any of his "story". Do you really wish to use him as part of your argument? If so I would appreciate the source material you have used to base your opinion on and exactly what conclusions you have derived from his material.

[Walt Cakebread]

Jack, can we deal with one at a time?

Here is another comment attributed to Alyea by Dale Meyers/Dave Reizes

"..I ran on upstairs with the Secret Service men. Then other units came in - the Riot Squad. I thought I was going to film a gun fight. They ran to the 4th floor and I went with them. Some of the other units went to the top of the building. They were conducting a systematic search. It boiled down to the sixth floor. After awhile it was obvious that the assassin was not in the building. They looked for the gun. I filmed 400 ft. of film of the Secret Service men looking for the assassin, climbing over boxes, over the rafters, and the actual finding of the gun. At the time it was suspected that the assassin had stayed quite a time there. There was a stack with a stack of chicken bones on it. There was a Dr. Pepper bottle which they dusted for fingerprints."

http://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html

This is the full article that quite honestly appears to be a rambling mess. If true, virtually all the police who testified purged and made made significantly false statements. Just one example is that he claimed Mooney did not arrive on the 6th floor until after the discovery of the rifle. I can find virtually no corroboration of almost any of his "story". Do you really wish to use him as part of your argument? If so I would appreciate the source material you have used to base your opinion on and exactly what conclusions you have derived from his material.

Alyea wrote his story long after 11/22/63.....   Here's an example from his distorted story....

 I looked over the barricade and saw three shell casings laying on the floor in front of the second window in the two window casement. They were scattered in an area that could be covered by a bushel basket. They were located about half way between the inside of the barricade.

Detective JC Day wrote that there were only TWO spent shells and a "lever action 6.5 rilfle" ...  And there is not a single photo that shows three spent shells lying on the floor as described by Alyea....  The official DPD crime scene photos DO NOT show the shells on the floor in an area that could be "covered by a bushel basket".   In the DPD photos the shells are lying next to the wall.

Tom Alyea is a LNer....He believes that Lee Oswald was guilty of murdering JFK.....Even though he knows without any doubt that the DPD created false evidence to incriminate Lee Oswald.

[Colin Crow]

Alyea wrote his story long after 11/22/63.....   Here's an example from his distorted story....

 I looked over the barricade and saw three shell casings laying on the floor in front of the second window in the two window casement. They were scattered in an area that could be covered by a bushel basket. They were located about half way between the inside of the barricade.

Detective JC Day wrote that there were only TWO spent shells and a "lever action 6.5 rilfle" ...  And there is not a single photo that shows three spent shells lying on the floor as described by Alyea....  The official DPD crime scene photos DO NOT show the shells on the floor in an area that could be "covered by a bushel basket".   In the DPD photos the shells are lying next to the wall.

Tom Alyea is a LNer....He believes that Lee Oswald was guilty of murdering JFK.....Even though he knows without any doubt that the DPD created false evidence to incriminate Lee Oswald.

Walt, I am trying to understand how Jack is using Alyea to support his argument. So far I have seen Jack claim that the chicken lunch was on the 5th floor according to Alyea and that there was no chicken on the 6th. Those that saw chicken were mistaken and only recalling what they heard second hand. So, is that what happened, a chicken free 6th floor (Alyea) or not? Once Jack clarifies what the exact argument is with Alyea we can hopefully make some progress.

[Walt Cakebread]

Walt, I am trying to understand how Jack is using Alyea to support his argument. So far I have seen Jack claim that the chicken lunch was on the 5th floor according to Alyea and that there was no chicken on the 6th. Those that saw chicken were mistaken and only recalling what they heard second hand. So, is that what happened, a chicken free 6th floor (Alyea) or not? Once Jack clarifies what the exact argument is with Alyea we can hopefully make some progress.

Colin.... How do you hope to prove anything in debating chicken bones?    The chicken bones are not evidence of anything....except they seem to prove that someone ate some fried chicken for lunch.....   

[Jack Nessan]

Walt, I am trying to understand how Jack is using Alyea to support his argument. So far I have seen Jack claim that the chicken lunch was on the 5th floor according to Alyea and that there was no chicken on the 6th. Those that saw chicken were mistaken and only recalling what they heard second hand. So, is that what happened, a chicken free 6th floor (Alyea) or not? Once Jack clarifies what the exact argument is with Alyea we can hopefully make some progress.

Don't try to muddy the waters with Alyea. This theory does not revolve around Alyea. It appears to revolve around Rowland.

 Alyea's contribution  was to echo the WC observation that the witnesses were heavily influenced by the media. In Alyea's case it was the detectives statements about having seen pieces of chicken in different locations on the 6th floor. The rest who knows, if anything he is confused by the floor count.  The WC observed this phenomenon as witness after witness embellished their testimonies with additional or new revelations as time passed between the assassination and the telling. Your personal favorite, Givens, surprised Belin with his statement about having seen LHO on the 6th floor. The line of questioning by Belin clearly indicated his surprise.

Mr. BELIN. Just a second, where did you go? Where were you when you saw him on the sixth floor?
Mr. GIVENS. I had went and got my jacket and was on my way back to the elevator.

Walt is right, there is no case to be built about who ate what and when and where. The detective statements place the chicken piece in different places in the SN and even multiple locations by the same detective. Montgomery states there was multiple locations, Shelley states there were employees snacking during the day, and Fritz mentions different pieces of food on the floor. BRW stated where he ate his lunch and that is where it was photographed.

The primary witness to this theory, Rowland, gets caught fabricating his testimony time and time again.

[John Iacoletti]

Alyea's contribution  was to echo the WC observation that the witnesses were heavily influenced by the media.

Does that include Brennan?