When the SN was built

[Charles Collins]

Mrs. Rowland talks about police officers coming with a pre-written statement and going over it with her husband. Key witnesses were visited multiple times by law enforcement; not every visit was formally written up.

With a little help from Mr. Belin, she's mixing this visit up with an F.B.I. visit.

 

I think you are just making stuff up again. They are specifically discussing the 11/24/63 FBI interview documented by CE 358. Not some other “mysterious visit” that is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.

[Alan Ford]

I think you are just making stuff up again. They are specifically discussing the 11/24/63 FBI interview documented by CE 358. Not some other “mysterious visit” that is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.

Nope! You're just confused. And the reason you're confused is you haven't done your homework.

Mr. Rowland: ... [T]he next day on Saturday there were a pair of FBI officers, agents out at my home, and they took another handwritten statement from me which I signed again, and this was basically the same. At that time I told them I did see the Negro man there and they told me it didn't have any bearing or such on the case right then. In fact, they just the same as told me to forget it now.

He is talking about a Saturday visit by two FBI men who did not come merely to go over an already written statement. (He may be talking here of Agents Rice & Almon.) The visit by police officers which Mrs. Rowland recalls was a different visit. As was the Sunday FBI visit.

Mr. Rowland was visited multiple times by law enforcement. Mrs. Rowland was not present for all of these interviews.

 

[John Iacoletti]

BRW had a “high forehead” which could be, or appear to be, a receding hairline. This appears in the Powell and Dillard photos. This tends to make him appear older than he was.

Why then are you so reluctant to consider that Rowland saw Williams when he was still on the sixth floor?

[Charles Collins]

Why then are you so reluctant to consider that Rowland saw Williams when he was still on the sixth floor?

I have considered that. Is that what you believe he saw?

[Alan Ford]

Nope! You're just confused. And the reason you're confused is you haven't done your homework.

Mr. Rowland: ... [T]he next day on Saturday there were a pair of FBI officers, agents out at my home, and they took another handwritten statement from me which I signed again, and this was basically the same. At that time I told them I did see the Negro man there and they told me it didn't have any bearing or such on the case right then. In fact, they just the same as told me to forget it now.

He is talking about a Saturday visit by two FBI men who did not come merely to go over an already written statement. (He may be talking here of Agents Rice & Almon.) The visit by police officers which Mrs. Rowland recalls was a different visit. As was the Sunday FBI visit.

Mr. Rowland was visited multiple times by law enforcement. Mrs. Rowland was not present for all of these interviews.

 

Paging Mr. Collins, paging Mr. Collins............

From the HSCA report:



Is it still your view that a Saturday FBI interview is a figment of the imagination (mine and/or Mr. Rowland's)?

 

[Charles Collins]

Paging Mr. Collins, paging Mr. Collins............

From the HSCA report:



Is it still your view that a Saturday FBI interview is a figment of the imagination (mine and/or Mr. Rowland's)?

 

If we were to go by the dates listed in your image, we might assume that Arnold Rowland was interviewed twice by the FBI on Saturday 11/23/63. But a look at the documents shows two dates on the Heitman report (11/22/63 and 11/23/63). Arnold Rowland testifies to the WC that FBI agents were present for his 11/22/63 statement to the Dallas County Sheriff's Office. So, I think that it is reasonable to believe that Heitman's report dated 11/23/63 is just another account of what Arnold Rowland said in the Sheriff's Office on 11/22/63 which wasn't dictated for typing until 11/23/63. Another reason to believe this is the other Heitman FBI report, with the same dates, that is an interview of Barbara Rowland (see CE 2782 linked below).



Arnold Rowland testified that he was interviewed by the FBI on seven different dates. However, we only have records of three of these. There was apparently a lot of confusion regarding which interview took place on which date. Later on in his WC testimony, Arnold Rowland again states in no uncertain terms that:

Mr. SPECTER - Well, are you able to identify that statement which we have marked Exhibit 358, as the statement taken on Saturday, the 23d, as distinguished from the statement taken on Sunday, the 24th of November?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - How can you be certain of that, Mr. Rowland?
Mr. ROWLAND - The one on Sunday, this particular one, I do remember the agent used a legal pad. He did have three pages of it handwritten. made corrections on this in different parts of it The one on Sunday was not a legal pad. It was a steno pad and it, in fact, covered a page and a half, I think, and it was concerned with mainly could I identify the man that I saw, his description.


Now, Arnold Rowland explains that he told about the elderly black man after the interview was over "as an afterthought". And he says the also told the Agents that interviewed him on Sunday 11/24/63.


Mr. SPECTER - Now, at the time you made the Saturday statement, which you say was transcribed and appears as Exhibit 358, did you at that time tell the interviewing FBI agents about the colored gentleman who you testified was in the window which you marked with an "A"?

Mr. ROWLAND - Yes; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you ask them at that time to include the information in the statement which they took from you?
Mr. ROWLAND - No. I think I told them about it after the statement, as an afterthought, an afterthought came up, it came into my mind. I also told the agents that took a statement from me on Sunday. They didn't seem very interested, so I just forgot about it for a while.




That Arnold Rowland could have told two sets of FBI agents (four total agents) about a supposed elderly black man on the sixth floor, and that none of the four agents saw fit to include one word of it in their reports is just not believable, in my opinion.

Here is a link to CE 2782 which is a copy of the FBI reports in question:

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_2782.pdf


In my opinion, there was a Saturday 11/22/63 interview by FBI agents Rice and Almon, and there was a Sunday 11/24/63 interview by FBI agents Wulf and Swinford. The other four "interviews" that Arnold Rowland testified took place apparently have no recorded reports. I would question whether or not Arnold Rowland mistook police investigators or news reporters for FBI agents because I believe there would be a record of it if they were FBI agents.

[Alan Ford]

That Arnold Rowland could have told two sets of FBI agents (four total agents) about a supposed elderly black man on the sixth floor, and that none of the four agents saw fit to include one word of it in their reports is just not believable, in my opinion.

LOL. Of course that's your opinion, Mr. Collins, because your opinion is always going to be favorable to the official story. But I'm afraid that your own extreme gullibility about the nature of the official 'investigation' does absolutely nothing to undermine the integrity and memory of Mr. Rowland.

You thought you had something with the Mrs. Rowland thing, but you didn't. So you don't get to trash the man's reputation by claiming she claimed to have been present at the Saturday FBI interview. That idea was about as grounded in reality as your fantasy 12:15pm ambulance sirens.

It is no doubt utopian of me, but maybe one day the cognitive dissonance will intensify to a point of such discomfort that you will say to yourself, 'Jeez, maybe there's more to researching this case than playing robotic defense for the official story......................'

 

[Charles Collins]

I did find something interesting regarding Barbara Rowland's testimony. Here is an image of CE 2783 and a link to it at history-matters.com:





https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_2783.pdf


Arnold Rowland testified to the WC in Washington DC on 3/10/63. During this testimony he spoke of (for the first time in the record) of seeing an elderly black man on the sixth floor.

Barbara Rowland testified to the WC via Belin in Dallas, TX on 4/7/63. She was asked extensively about the sighting of the elderly black man on the sixth floor. This was apparently news to her because, as she testified, Arnold never said a word to her about it. Babs indicated that she wanted to return to read and sign her testimony after it was typed up. The amendments shown on CE 2783 would have been her amendments that she made when she returned to sign the testimony. I don't know how long it took for them to type the testimony and call Babs back to sign it. But lets say that it was enough time for Babs to confront Arnie with a big: "WTF is this about an elderly black man on the sixth floor?" After Arnie clued Babs in, and Babs (and perhaps Arnie was with her) returned to read the testimony, she/they decided to add her amendment. Now, folks, do you really think that the court reporter really and truly missed that long sentence that Babs added to her testimony? There is not a chance in hell that it happened that way. I think that the more likely scenario is that the two Arnolds decided that the amendment needed to be added to give Arnie's testimony regarding the elderly black man on the sixth floor any chance of appearing to be being legit. If one wants to believe that the WC omitted this for some sort of sinister purpose, then why in the heck would they even include WC exhibit 2783 in the volumes?