A Rock Solid Alibi.....

[Charles Collins]

John , I don't give a damn what Bonnie Boy Williams said.   It doesn't alter the fact that Lee Oswald saw Jarman and Norman walk by the domino room at about 12:27....  Only a damned fool, and an idiot would believe that he could have been on the sixth floor firing that rusty old carcano out of the window at 12:30.   

BRW, Junior Jarman, and Harold Norman were three young Negroes who had been raised in the segregated south and they said whatever they thought would please the white cop with the badge.  They understood that they must cooperate with white authority or suffer the consequences.....

Everyone was lying (except LHO).      

[John Iacoletti]

And who said they saw the lunch remains in the sniper’s nest?

Mooney, McCurley, Faulkner, Craig, Hill, Brewer, Haywood, and Weatherford all said that they saw chicken bones and/or a lunch sack lying on top of boxes at the SE window, or next to the SE window.

[Walt Cakebread]

Mooney, McCurley, Faulkner, Craig, Hill, Brewer, Haywood, and Weatherford all said that they saw chicken bones and/or a lunch sack lying on top of boxes at the SE window, or next to the SE window.

Now you're going to have to present the sworn affidavits of all of those men or Charlie will call you a liar.

[Walt Cakebread]

Everyone was lying (except LHO).   

Well, so you've finally seen the light.....

[Jerry Freeman]

Uh... bump-------------

... there was no plain view. All anyone needs to do is look at the evidence photos of the 1st floor to know that. 
The "plain view" comment is definitely a wiggle it in my way argument [just like the invisible train in the Patrolman White thread]
Of course cops never lie huh?
I would like to see a link to these evidence photographs that were taken on the first floor.

Another issue is a man seen at the 'sniper window' minutes after the shooting.
Report from Ms Lillian Mooneyham CE 2098----
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pdf/WH24_CE_2098.pdf

[Charles Collins]

Mooney, McCurley, Faulkner, Craig, Hill, Brewer, Haywood, and Weatherford all said that they saw chicken bones and/or a lunch sack lying on top of boxes at the SE window, or next to the SE window.

I asked how many of them had actual crime scene investigation experience. Let’s start with your first one:

Mooney. He was in the writ and execution division of the Sheriff’s Dept. He shuffled legal paperwork for a living. No apparent experience in crime scene investigation.

Craig. He testified that he ran away from home when he was 12 and had no subsequent schooling. He worked on some ranches, went into the army and worked in the motor pool, then was a dishwasher, a cook, a construction worker, and a packager, then went to work for the Sheriff’s Dept. in October of 1959. No apparent aptitude for, or experience in, crime scene investigation.

Haygood [not Haywood]. A motor jockey with no apparent experience in crime scene investigation.

Faulkner. I only found a Sheriff’s report dated 11/22/63 with no mention of any lunch remains. So, I question why you included him in your list.

Hill. Assigned to checking the backgrounds of applicants for the DPD. No apparent experience in crime scene investigation.

McCurley. Deputy Sheriff with no apparent experience in crime scene investigation.

Brewer. He was a motor jockey with no apparent experience in crime scene investigation.

Weatherford. Deputy Sheriff with no apparent experience in crime scene investigation.


None of these give any specific locations just general information. The only one who gave anything that could possibly be considered specific was Mooney. And Mooney qualified his information with qualifications which included “if I remember correctly”, and it could have been on this box or maybe on this other box. It is obvious to me that he really didn’t remember for sure where he saw it.

If you really believe that any of their testimony is evidence that they saw lunch remains at the southeast window or next to the southeast window, then apparently you have a completely different standard for what you consider to be evidence that you think tends to show a contrary scenario to the official one. Why he hell is that?   

Time and time again you claim that there is no evidence that tends to incriminate your idol. But when it comes to evidence that you think tends to exonotate your idol, the sketchiest testimony will do just fine.   

None of the officers in your list were there to document the evidence. They were searching for the assassin and the weapon, etc. The actual crime scene investigators who were assigned to this scene provide the real answers. But, as usual, you will claim that there is no evidence (no matter how well it is documented) when it comes to incriminating evidence.

[Martin Weidmann]

I asked how many of them had actual crime scene investigation experience. Let’s start with your first one:

Mooney. He was in the writ and execution division of the Sheriff’s Dept. He shuffled legal paperwork for a living. No apparent experience in crime scene investigation.

Craig. He testified that he ran away from home when he was 12 and had no subsequent schooling. He worked on some ranches, went into the army and worked in the motor pool, then was a dishwasher, a cook, a construction worker, and a packager, then went to work for the Sheriff’s Dept. in October of 1959. No apparent aptitude for, or experience in, crime scene investigation.

Haygood [not Haywood]. A motor jockey with no apparent experience in crime scene investigation.

Faulkner. I only found a Sheriff’s report dated 11/22/63 with no mention of any lunch remains. So, I question why you included him in your list.

Hill. Assigned to checking the backgrounds of applicants for the DPD. No apparent experience in crime scene investigation.

McCurley. Deputy Sheriff with no apparent experience in crime scene investigation.

Brewer. He was a motor jockey with no apparent experience in crime scene investigation.

Weatherford. Deputy Sheriff with no apparent experience in crime scene investigation.


None of these give any specific locations just general information. The only one who gave anything that could possibly be considered specific was Mooney. And Mooney qualified his information with qualifications which included “if I remember correctly”, and it could have been on this box or maybe on this other box. It is obvious to me that he really didn’t remember for sure where he saw it.

If you really believe that any of their testimony is evidence that they saw lunch remains at the southeast window or next to the southeast window, then apparently you have a completely different standard for what you consider to be evidence that you think tends to show a contrary scenario to the official one. Why he hell is that?   

Time and time again you claim that there is no evidence that tends to incriminate your idol. But when it comes to evidence that you think tends to exonotate your idol, the sketchiest testimony will do just fine.   

None of the officers in your list were there to document the evidence. They were searching for the assassin and the weapon, etc. The actual crime scene investigators who were assigned to this scene provide the real answers. But, as usual, you will claim that there is no evidence (no matter how well it is documented) when it comes to incriminating evidence.

I asked how many of them had actual crime scene investigation experience.

So, now you need "actual crime scene investigation experience" to notice where you saw lunch remains?

The desperation is hilarious!   

The actual crime scene investigators who were assigned to this scene provide the real answers.

Are those the guys who "forgot" to take an in situ photograph of a folded up paper bag, which they then unfolded potentially losing important trace evidence?

What kind of a Mickey Mouse case is this, where even the location of a lunchbag can't be conclusively resolved?

[Rick Plant]

Craig. He testified that he ran away from home when he was 12 and had no subsequent schooling. He worked on some ranches, went into the army and worked in the motor pool, then was a dishwasher, a cook, a construction worker, and a packager, then went to work for the Sheriff’s Dept. in October of 1959. No apparent aptitude for, or experience in, crime scene investigation.

So, are you trying to make the claim that a person who didn't have the greatest childhood is incapable of being trained to do a successful job later in life?   

The simple fact is nobody has experience in crime scene investigations until they gain that experience.

Are you saying that Craig was incapable of gaining that experience when he entered law enforcement?