Et tu, Bonnie?

[Dan O'meara]

Oswald's seemingly random observation of Jarman and Norman entering the TSBD places him in the Domino room almost 10 minutes after Rowland witnesses the man with the rifle on the 6th floor and a black male in the SN window (it is independently corroborated that Williams is eating his lunch in the SN at the same time)

This is supported by multiple interlocking witness testimonies and physical evidence.

Has there ever been a more important chicken sandwich? 

[John Iacoletti]

In this thread I've learned that a 34.8 inch long object will not fit into a 38 inch long bag, that estimates of an objects length are more reliable than confirming that someone was seen at a certain location by a person who knew them,

Really, "Richard"?  Please provide evidence that Bledsoe knew Oswald (beyond her say-so, that is).

[Dan O'meara]

No, you're asking me to prove a negative.  There is nothing is his statements that say that he remained on the steps the entire time.  That's just an assumption you're making because he didn't specifically mention leaving the steps.  But he did in later interviews.  What I'm saying is that his initial statements do not directly contradict his later statements.

"No, you're asking me to prove a negative."

What negative am I asking you to prove?

"There is nothing is his statements that say that he remained on the steps the entire time."

When asked if he moved from where he was standing he specifically answers that he did not:

Mr. BALL - You didn't see the President's car at the time you heard the sound?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. BALL - But you stood right there, did you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Stood right where I was.
Mr. BALL - And Mr. Shelley was still standing there?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - And also Billy Lovelady?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - The three of you didn't go any place?
Mr. FRAZIER - I believe Billy and them walked down toward that direction but I didn't. I just stood where I was. I hadn't moved at all.
Frazier makes numerous statements that he stayed where he was standing. He even goes so far as to explain that he'd been taught to stand still if anything serious happened.
To read anything else into his testimony is on you.
It must be noted that you have failed to provide anything from his early statements that supports your position.

Frazier not only constnatly refers to staying where he was, when asked if he moved he testifies that he didn't.

[Dan O'meara]

Dan, some time back I researched the chicken lunch issue. This was independent of Don Thomas. You would have noticed the snide remarks about my research from Richard the regurgitator and Bill the comic relief in this thread. The following officers described remnants on the lunch in the SN prior to the arrival of Fritz, Mooney, McCurley, Boone, Faulkner, Craig, Hill, Brewer, Haywood and Weatherford.

Jim Ewell, a news reporter who had travelled to the TSBD with Jerry Hill, later related in No More Silence that Hill held up the chicken bone and hollered to those below that the fried chicken was what the assassin had been eating.

Richard and Bill won’t engage in discussion of the evidence because they know where it leads.

The Jim Ewell story highlights something in the early investigation that I find difficult to discern from more 'sinister' motives - genuine incompetence.
I think the investigation is rife with it (particularly if we try to compare it with more modern standards).
And, as Tom Scully has pointed out elsewhere, the Oswald-Did-It narrative was in place amazingly quickly.
Something like Fritz's handling and pocketing (according to Tom Alyea) of the shells before they are tested for prints smacks of something beyond incompetence (IMO)
Ignoring the fingerprint results of the soda bottle found in the SN because they weren't Oswald's is also dodgy but might reflect nothing more than the word coming from on high that Oswald alone was in the frame. A nice blend of incompetence and corruption.

[John Iacoletti]

"No, you're asking me to prove a negative."

What negative am I asking you to prove?

That Frazier did not remain on the steps the entire time.

"There is nothing is his statements that say that he remained on the steps the entire time."

When asked if he moved from where he was standing he specifically answers that he did not:

Mr. BALL - You didn't see the President's car at the time you heard the sound?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. BALL - But you stood right there, did you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Stood right where I was.
Mr. BALL - And Mr. Shelley was still standing there?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - And also Billy Lovelady?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - The three of you didn't go any place?
Mr. FRAZIER - I believe Billy and them walked down toward that direction but I didn't. I just stood where I was. I hadn't moved at all.

What he doesn't say (and what you're reading into it) is that he stood where he was until he re-entered the building.  All he is saying here is that he didn't go anywhere when Shelley and Lovelady did.

It must be noted that you have failed to provide anything from his early statements that supports your position.

Frazier's later interviews support the idea that he walked around before re-entering the building.  Your position that he remained on the steps until he re-entered the building is merely an assumption.

[Dan O'meara]

That Frazier did not remain on the steps the entire time.

What he doesn't say (and what you're reading into it) is that he stood where he was until he re-entered the building.  All he is saying here is that he didn't go anywhere when Shelley and Lovelady did.

Frazier's later interviews support the idea that he walked around before re-entering the building.  Your position that he remained on the steps until he re-entered the building is merely an assumption.

"That Frazier did not remain on the steps the entire time."

Incorrect.
Firstly, I've not asked you to 'prove' anything, negative or otherwise.
But let's imagine I did.
I certainly didn't ask you to prove that Frazier did not remain on the steps. What I actually asked was this:

"If there's something to suggest he did leave the steps please point it out."

It's a subtle difference but I asked you about something Frazier did do, not something he didn't do.
As I say, I wasn't asking you to 'prove' anything. Simply to point out anything he said in his early statements that suggested he left the steps. You were not able to provide anything so, rather than admit this, you've tried to turn it into a semantic argument.


"What he doesn't say (and what you're reading into it) is that he stood where he was until he re-entered the building."

Once again, you are incorrect. This is from Frazier's WC testimony:

"I stood there a few minutes, you know, and some people who worked there; you know normally started to go back into the Building because a lot of us didn't eat our lunch, and so we started back into the Building..."

"I stood there a few minutes" and "started back into the Building". It could hardly be more clear.
Are you engaging in this argument without actually having read his testimony?


"All he is saying here is that he didn't go anywhere when Shelley and Lovelady did."

And yet again you are incorrect.
Frazier is asked if "three of you didn't go any place?"
He answers that others did but he did not. He wasn't asked if he went anywhere when the others did. You've made that up.
He was simply asked if he went anywhere and he replied that he didn't.

"Frazier's later interviews support the idea that he walked around before re-entering the building."

That's what this whole discussion is about.
Frazier is quite specific he wandered around and saw some quite eye-popping things in his later interviews.
My position is that, in stark contrast to his later interviews, Frazier testified that he went nowhere and that he stayed on the steps until he went back inside. He actually says these things.
Your position, that his early statements in no way contradict his later statements, has been thoroughly refuted but I don't expect you to throw up your hands and accept that. Not a chance.


"Your position that he remained on the steps until he re-entered the building is merely an assumption."

My position is a common sense interpretation of what Frazier actually said.
Your position isn't even an assumption. It's far closer to complete fabrication.

[Bill Chapman]

Dan, some time back I researched the chicken lunch issue. This was independent of Don Thomas. You would have noticed the snide remarks about my research from Richard the regurgitator and Bill the comic relief in this thread. The following officers described remnants on the lunch in the SN prior to the arrival of Fritz, Mooney, McCurley, Boone, Faulkner, Craig, Hill, Brewer, Haywood and Weatherford.

Jim Ewell, a news reporter who had travelled to the TSBD with Jerry Hill, later related in No More Silence that Hill held up the chicken bone and hollered to those below that the fried chicken was what the assassin had been eating.

Richard and Bill won’t engage in discussion of the evidence because they know where it leads.

I

know

where

it

leads:

Down,

down,

down,

and

down

again,

through

your

very

own

personal

rabbit

hole

and,

finally,

to

your

oh

so

precious

pet

theory.

[Dan O'meara]

Some curious aspects of Bonnie Ray Williams' various statements.

In his affidavit (22nd November) he "radically misremembers" by saying that after breaking for lunch and coming down from the 6th floor, he collects his lunch then returns to the 5th floor with Norman and Jarman. The point of the "misrememberance" is to disguise the fact he had his lunch on the 6th floor.

In his 23rd November FBI statement (the very next day), he concedes he went up to the 6th floor for lunch but only stayed about 3 minutes (he doesn't recall saying this)

In an interview (01/14/64) he states he went down to the 5th around 12:05. Again, he disputes this:
"...they asked me first, they said, "How long did it take you to finish the sandwich?" I said, "Maybe 5 to 10 minutes, maybe 15 minutes."

A pattern is emerging. The more he is questioned the longer he spent on the 6th. This pattern continues during his WC testimony:

Mr. BALL. How long did you stay there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I was there from--5, 10, maybe 12 minutes.

Then later in the same testimony:

Mr. WILLIAMS. It was after I had left the sixth floor, after I had eaten the chicken sandwich. I finished the chicken sandwich maybe 10 or 15 minutes after 12.

And finally:

Mr. BALL. Approximately what time was it?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Approximately 12:20, maybe.

According to Williams he came down to the 5th floor after 0, 3, 5, 10, 12, 15, 20 minutes.
We know, from the testimonies of Jarman and Norman that it was closer to 25 minutes before BRW came down.
To a sceptic it might appear that, after being caught out in his lie, BRW was trying to minimise the amount of time he spent on the 6th floor.

In contrast, he appears to want to maximise his distance away from the SN when he was having his lunch. He states he had his lunch on a "two-wheeler truck" that was  "between the third and the fourth window". However, his lunch remains were found at the SN, some 30 feet away. It's also curious to note that he is quite clear that after finishing his lunch he puts the bones in the paper sack and dumps it on the floor. However, this is not where they are first discovered. More "misremembering"?

Mr. BALL. Did you eat the chicken?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, I did.

Oh no you didn't!

What's going on with Bonnie Ray?