The Warren Commission Sham

[Lance Payette]

Is there a deli nearby, I can get one of them "chicken-bone" sandwiches?

You do realize, of course, that Bonnie Ray Williams specifically described a chicken-bone sandwich?

Mr. BALL. What did you have in your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I had a chicken sandwich.
Mr. BALL. Describe the sandwich. What did it have in it besides chicken?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, it just had chicken in it. Chicken on the bone.
Mr. BALL. Chicken on the bone?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. The chicken was not boned?
Mr. WILLIAMS. It was just chicken on the bone. Just plain old chicken.
Mr. BALL. Did it have bread around it?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, it did.

Wow, the WC didn't pursue the critical chicken-bone issue to the full satisfaction of CTers. Yep, it was a sham.

[Charles Collins]

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.

You are confusing your interpretation and opinion with fact. The WC didn’t omit the testimonies of those men. They actually included them in their published documents for all of the world to see.

[Dan O'meara]

You do realize, of course, that Bonnie Ray Williams specifically described a chicken-bone sandwich?

Mr. BALL. What did you have in your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I had a chicken sandwich.
Mr. BALL. Describe the sandwich. What did it have in it besides chicken?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, it just had chicken in it. Chicken on the bone.
Mr. BALL. Chicken on the bone?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. The chicken was not boned?
Mr. WILLIAMS. It was just chicken on the bone. Just plain old chicken.
Mr. BALL. Did it have bread around it?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, it did.

Wow, the WC didn't pursue the critical chicken-bone issue to the full satisfaction of CTers. Yep, it was a sham.

Wow, the WC didn't pursue the critical chicken-bone issue to the full satisfaction of CTers. Yep, it was a sham.

Why do you think the testimonies/statements of these six officers regarding the discovery of the lunch remains was omitted?
The lunch remains were found on top of the SN. How did they get there?
Why weren't they considered evidence of an accomplice?
What was Bonnie Ray doing having his lunch in the SN?
Where was Oswald during this time?

Nothing to see here folks 

[Dan O'meara]

You are confusing your interpretation and opinion with fact. The WC didn’t omit the testimonies of those men. They actually included them in their published documents for all of the world to see.

 
Very clever Charles.
Very slippery.
The testimonies/statements of these men are omitted from the Warren Commission Report.
The fact that the lunch remains were discovered on the SN was omitted from the conclusions of the Warren Commission.
The fact that the lunch remains were discovered on the SN  was never even dealt with, as though it had never happened.
That is the omission I am clearly talking about and you should have a long hard think about your need to be so tricky.
Do you really think it was a trivial thing to omit this fact?

[Michael Capasse]

You do realize, of course, that Bonnie Ray Williams specifically described a chicken-bone sandwich?

Wow, the WC didn't pursue the critical chicken-bone issue to the full satisfaction of CTers. Yep, it was a sham.

What is the critical chicken-bone issue?

[Charles Collins]

Very clever Charles.
Very slippery.
The testimonies/statements of these men are omitted from the Warren Commission Report.
The fact that the lunch remains were discovered on the SN was omitted from the conclusions of the Warren Commission.
The fact that the lunch remains were discovered on the SN  was never even dealt with, as though it had never happened.
That is the omission I am clearly talking about and you should have a long hard think about your need to be so tricky.
Do you really think it was a trivial thing to omit this fact?

The WC decided to publish the volumes of supporting evidence along with the report. The 26 volumes were published as soon as they could physically publish them (which was very shortly after the report was published). Think long and hard about your claim that they omitted those things, because they most certainly did not.


You may believe that the lunch remains were discovered on the sniper’s nest. That is your opinion, not fact. The evidence shows that they were discovered where they were photographed, where the crime scene investigators testified that they were discovered, where Shelley testified that they were discovered, and where BRW testified he left them. The WC apparently wanted further clarification (for their decisions regarding their conclusions) as late as May 1964 when they asked for BRW and Shelley to be re-interviewed by the FBI. This is not, I repeat not, omitting anything whatsoever.

[Lance Payette]

What is the critical chicken-bone issue?

It appears to me that this question should be addressed to Dan, the Chicken-Bone Issue Guy.

[Dan O'meara]

The WC decided to publish the volumes of supporting evidence along with the report. The 26 volumes were published as soon as they could physically publish them (which was very shortly after the report was published). Think long and hard about your claim that they omitted those things, because they most certainly did not.

They are omitted from the Warren Commission Report.
They are completely ignored. There is no mention made of them as if they never made these statements.
The fact that these officers are collectively telling us that the lunch remains were found on the Sniper's Nest is completely ignored by the Warren Commission.
It is a disgraceful treatment of this testimonial evidence and an unforgivable omission.
It is a clear example of the deceit the Warren Commission narrative was built on.

You may believe that the lunch remains were discovered on the sniper’s nest. That is your opinion, not fact. The evidence shows that they were discovered where they were photographed, where the crime scene investigators testified that they were discovered, where Shelley testified that they were discovered, and where BRW testified he left them. The WC apparently wanted further clarification (for their decisions regarding their conclusions) as late as May 1964 when they asked for BRW and Shelley to be re-interviewed by the FBI. This is not, I repeat not, omitting anything whatsoever.

The evidence shows the lunch remains were originally discovered on the Sniper's Nest - that is a fact.
The testimonies and statements of six of the first responding officers is that evidence.
Your willingness to overlook this evidence comes as no surprise at all.