Et tu, Bonnie?

[Colin Crow]

If the WC testimonies represent the "truth", I find it interesting that the majority of those who were on the 6th floor that day are lying on their very first statements to the authorities.

Even the WC Report and Bugliosi failed to follow the Ball Belin script. Reverting to the BRW May '64 statement. Bizarre.

[Martin Weidmann]

If the WC testimonies represent the "truth", I find it interesting that the majority of those who were on the 6th floor that day are lying on their very first statements to the authorities.

That's hardly the only problem with the WC testimonies.

They took Tomlinson's testimont before entering bullet CE399 into evidence to avoid having to show it to Tomlinson and thus eliminate the risk that he would fail to identify it under oath.

Arlen Specter interviewed FBI agents Sibert & O'Neil, who attended the autopsy and wrote a report about it, and then decided not to call them to testify.

Rankin ignored the Stroud letter about Dorothy Garner seeing Truly and Baker come up after Vicky Adams had gone done. Garner was apparently interviewed by the FBI (no document exists) before they decided to call her.

The FBI showed Oswald's arrest shirts to various people in order to determine if it was the same shirt he had worn on Friday morning. Nobody identified it except for Bledsoe and her story about the hole in the sleeve. Bledsoe was the only one who was asked about it during her testimony

Lovelady was clearly "coached" about seeing Vicky Adams prior to his testimony

The list goes on and on..... In now way the WC testimonies represent the "truth"

[Alan J. Ford]

That some interesting "logic."  Why would Oswald's prints not being on a Dr. Pepper bottle that belonged to someone else preclude his presence in the SN? Oswald's fingerprints were all over the SN boxes.

First things first, Mr. Smith, Have you finally moved on from trying to find irrefutable proof that the lying rooftop tandem were on that otherwise locked roof from the inside?

Have you also moved on from trying to find irrefutable proof that the lying rooftop tandem were ever together on those backstairs? No one has ever put them together near and/or on those backstairs save for Mr. Piper, who you know actually only places Roy Truly near the backstairs a few minutes later than the hastily contrived script timing sequence. Also, lest we forget Mr. Piper puts someone accompanying Roy Truly other than an obvious white helmeted motorcycle officer in long black boots.

We know Dallas Deputy Sheriff John Wiseman didn't see them together on those backstairs either, and he was right on their tail taking the same path to that otherwise locked roof from the inside.

Now, to your question, fair is fair, (A) the wrongly accused was employed to handle boxes on occasion; and (B) we may never know which one of the lying, fork-tongued floor crewmembers was ordered/assigned to collect those particular boxes handled by him and subsequently place them in incriminating fashion over in the SN. 

Of course, perhaps all of these work crewmembers are only guilty of changing their statements for whatever reason amid a hastily contrived script challenge and the real culprit here is ----->

Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer. I don't remember when I went over there. It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell cases.

The problem w/framing the wrongly accused is too many people failed to thoroughly vett their lies before offering up the horse manure stench they did amid a hastily contrived script. The wrongly accused did Not shoot anybody. Anybody.

[Alan J. Ford]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ak3JymYrSpzVtF0i-jbAxuRICk9lcZ5q/view?usp=sharing

This insightful link shared by top-shelf researcher Mr. Davidson (Chris) is proving to be rather informative & interesting as well. The more I view it the more further examination is required before I weigh in definitively. Will continue to study it to determine if in fact the short gentlemen at the 39 sec mark is Roy Truly (will have to glean some resources to garner a photo of Chief Lumpkin to match to a gentlemen who may also be in this time sequence at the 39 sec mark). If so that would offer up a definitive time sequence as Chief Lumpkin enters the timeline scene after Roy Truly notices one of his men "missing" (please excuse the eye-roll).

Some accounts say Roy Truly asked Bill Shelley the whereabouts of the wrongly accused; and, yet another account suggests Bill Shelley actually asked Roy Truly...

*Note: self-reminder to double-back and review video again to determine if the eye-glasses on one of the gentlemen among the trio at the window at the 12 sec. mark matches Roy Truly's.

Meanwhile, encouraging to read the insightful posts being generated here by some astute research by an ensemble of exemplary researchers. Carry on gentlemen.

[Alan Ford]

Mr. BALL. Where were you standing when you heard the shots?
Mr. ARCE. I was standing in front of the Texas School Book Depository. I was on that grassy area part in front.
Mr. BALL. You were not on the sidewalk?
Mr. ARCE. No, I was on the sidewalk, then I walked up to the grass to get a higher view. and still couldn't see.

I believe he has been identified standing east of the main entrance on the sidewalk as the motorcade passed. Hopefully someone has that image.

Exactly---and then after the shots he made his way west to the railroad tracks

[Alan Ford]

This insightful link shared by top-shelf researcher Mr. Davidson (Chris) is proving to be rather informative & interesting as well. The more I view it the more further examination is required before I weigh in definitively. Will continue to study it to determine if in fact the short gentlemen at the 39 sec mark is Roy Truly (will have to glean some resources to garner a photo of Chief Lumpkin to match to a gentlemen who may also be in this time sequence at the 39 sec mark). If so that would offer up a definitive time sequence as Chief Lumpkin enters the timeline scene after Roy Truly notices one of his men "missing" (please excuse the eye-roll).

Some accounts say Roy Truly asked Bill Shelley the whereabouts of the wrongly accused; and, yet another account suggests Bill Shelley actually asked Roy Truly...

*Note: self-reminder to double-back and review video again to determine if the eye-glasses on one of the gentlemen among the trio at the window at the 12 sec. mark matches Roy Truly's.

Meanwhile, encouraging to read the insightful posts being generated here by some astute research by an ensemble of exemplary researchers. Carry on gentlemen.

Yes, that's Mr Truly, and he's on the fifth floor

[Dan O'meara]

The "story" was straightened by Belin and Ball on March 20. Those of Jarman and Norman too. A story that sort of allowed Oswald to be silent in th SN for many minutes unnoticed. Still wondering how Rowland's 12.15 gunman managed to stay out of William's gaze though.

By May seems 12.15pm wasn’t a problem any more for him. More memory loss?



Does anyone think he got the times he left for work wrong that day?

What is the point of the May interview?

BRW has already given statements to the DPD, the FBI, the SS and the WC.
He knows they normally break for lunch about 11:55 AM and broke maybe 5 or 10 minutes earlier because of the motorcade. So why mention 11:30 AM? He might as well say between 8:00 AM and 12 noon.
He knows Jarman and Norman were up on the 5th about 12:25 PM, so why is he still sticking to the 12:15 PM time when he estimated 12:20 PM in his WC testimony?
And even more bizarrely, he's still sticking to eating his lunch in front of the third set of windows.

What's even more bizarre is Hank Norman sticking to the story that BRW was with him and Jarman in his HSCA interview.
Other than his WC testimony, Norman has constantly maintained that BRW was with him and Norman when they went up to the 5th floor. I don't get it, unless BRW really was with them but then somehow got pressured into saying it was his lunch on the 6th floor when it wasn't. This line of thought brings a whole new set of problems with it.

[Colin Crow]

What is the point of the May interview?

BRW has already given statements to the DPD, the FBI, the SS and the WC.
He knows they normally break for lunch about 11:55 AM and broke maybe 5 or 10 minutes earlier because of the motorcade. So why mention 11:30 AM? He might as well say between 8:00 AM and 12 noon.
He knows Jarman and Norman were up on the 5th about 12:25 PM, so why is he still sticking to the 12:15 PM time when he estimated 12:20 PM in his WC testimony?
And even more bizarrely, he's still sticking to eating his lunch in front of the third set of windows.

What's even more bizarre is Hank Norman sticking to the story that BRW was with him and Jarman in his HSCA interview.
Other than his WC testimony, Norman has constantly maintained that BRW was with him and Norman when they went up to the 5th floor. I don't get it, unless BRW really was with them but then somehow got pressured into saying it was his lunch on the 6th floor when it wasn't. This line of thought brings a whole new set of problems with it.

I can only guess that the Report needed to be constructed and the "Belin Ball solution", having Oswald silently crouched in the SN until Williams left the sixth floor was threatened by Rowland's 12.15 gunman. Easier to shift Williams visit backwards in time and have no way of interacting. Then just forget the testimonies of others that made the scenario impossible. This is what the report and LN Guru Bugliosi eventually rested on. Make the facts fit the conclusion......no one will read the documents anyway will they.....paraphrasing Allen Dulles.