I feel it's important to have a thread highlighting how deceitful and untrustworthy the Warren Commission was in it's approach “to evaluate all the facts and circumstances surrounding the assassination”. Feel free to add your own examples. As the examples mount up a pattern of omission, manipulation and outright lying will emerge as the evidence is shaped to reflect a predetermined conclusion - that Oswald was the lone assassin.
So, let’s get this straight, you believe that although the WC published all the testimonies and supporting evidence (including the inconsistencies) that they are guilty of omission, manipulation and outright lying?
The only time he brought it up was weeks later, when questioning Studebaker.
Yet, it appears that the WC requested the FBI to interview BRW and Shelly in May of 1964 to specify where the lunch remains were left and later found. Why would the WC choose to do this if they were in fact ignoring the inconsistencies as you claim?
https://tangodown63.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/brw-fbi-052664.pdf
It is ridiculous to claim the WC was any of the things you suggest. You can believe whatever you wish to believe regarding what the various witnesses said. I really don’t care. But trying to place some sort of dishonesty on the WC for supposedly ignoring the inconsistencies that are normal and expected when relying on witness accounts is simply not what the records (that, by the way, the WC chose to publish) show.
The collective testimonies/statements I posted of six of the first officers on the scene describe a partially eaten piece of chicken and a small lunch sack on top of one of the stacks of boxes that formed the 'back wall' of the SN - that is a fact.
Brewer and Haygood also mention bottle of Dr. Pepper - that is a fact.
Four of the officers testified before the WC about the lunch remains - that is a fact.
The testimonies/statements of all six men regarding this issue were completely ignored by the WC - that is a fact.
I don't accept your suggestion that the discovery of the lunch remains on the SN and that this fact was completely ignored by the WC are "inconsistencies that are normal".
The fact that the lunch remains were found on top of the SN has a domino effect of ramifications that destroys the WC's narrative. The testimonies/statements of these six officers is proof that Bonnie Ray was less than truthful about where he had his lunch (just as he was less than truthful in his DPD affidavit about even being on the 6th floor).
The only lunch remains discovered on the 6th floor were those attributed to Bonnie Ray and they were initially discovered on the SN.
You may think this is trivial but it's not.
That's why the WC completely omitted any mention of the testimonies of these men.
This omission is a fact you cannot deny.
