How about just a little meaningful analysis. A random assortment of detectives each placing a piece of chicken in a different place is hardly analysis. Mooney himself places it in two different places in two different statements.Claiming a description of an elderly negro is really a twenty something BRW, or a detective leaning out of a window and holding his hat is supposedly waving a piece of chicken is meaningful analysisAs far as Rowland, the WC did not have to do anything, Rowland personally and repeatedly cast doubt on his own character.
As far as Rowland, the WC did not have to do anything, Rowland personally and repeatedly cast doubt on his own character.
No, the WC assassinated his character because of his inconvenient testimony.
As far as Rowland, the WC did not have to do anything, Rowland personally and repeatedly cast doubt on his own character.LBJ's "Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee of Venerated and honorable men" would never have cast doubt on a witnesses testimony....They would never have led the witnesses or put words in their mouths..... Oh, I know that there are hundreds of examples in the hearings where they certainly appear to be twisting the testimony....but You must remember that they were hand picked by the President himself (LBJ) so they were infallible, and as pure as the new fallen snow.
The placement of the lunch is not random. Those present around the time of the discovery of the SN place it in the SN. Over time it was moved westward and the bones finished up inside the bag which was folded over. Studebaker described it as such. It was widely reported that the assassin waited and had a chicken lunch within an hour or so on TV and radio. How did they know there was chicken present when the bones were in the bag? Studebaker only "processed" the bag after Day went to HQ with the rifle at 2pm.
Please let us have some evidence of this, Jack.