If Oswald Was The Assassin, Did He Plan His Escape From The TSBD Very Well?

[Alan Ford]

Williams WC testimony is evidence the lunch was his. His initial denial of it is evidence of guilt (a disgraceful omission by the WC), He owns up to it because his fingerprints are found on the bottle (another disgraceful omission by the WC, not to mention the destruction of such vital evidence. Follow the evidence? How?) IMO

So fingerprints that are not in evidence are to be adduced as evidence?

If the fingerprints on the bottle had been Mr Williams', that fact would surely have gone into the official record as it posed no threat to the official story. That no such thing happened may point------IMO------to their belonging to (unidentified, non-employee) A. N. Other, Esq.!

Alternatively, those chicken bones & that bottle had nothing to with the assassination... Cf-------------------

Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody eating fried chicken on that floor that morning?
Mr. SHELLEY - At one time I think I said I did but Charles Givens was the guy that was eating and he was further on over toward the west side and he was eating a sandwich so he says.
Mr. BALL - Now you say that you thought that you had seen someone had eaten fried chicken that morning?
Mr. SHELLEY - I thought I had; those colored boys are always eating chicken.
Mr. BALL - Do you think you did or do you know?
Mr. SHELLEY - I asked Charles Givens whether it was him that was eating and he said it was a sandwich.
Mr. BALL - Was that before you went down for lunch?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, sir; it was pretty early in the morning, about 9:30.
Mr. BALL - Where was it?
Mr. SHELLEY - It was two-thirds across the building toward the west because I didn't put plywood over there and he didn't get too far from where we were actually working.

You're hanging on the word 'elderly. but Rowland makes it absolutely clear he is not really focusing on him. When he first mentions this figure he says " It was a colored man, I think."

You are leaving out his clarification elsewhere as to why the hesitation on this score: "not real dark compared to some Negroes, but fairly dark"

When he is asked to go into specific detail all he can muster is "It seemed to me an elderly Negro, that is about all. I didn't pay very much attention to him (doesn't mention his clothes, height, weight etc.)

Huh? When asked to go into specific detail, he goes into specific detail-----------clothes, height, weight, hair, facial characteristics.

The partially eaten piece of fried chicken on the bone found in the SN puts Williams there as does Rowland's black male.

Again, there is good reason to doubt any actual linkage of those bones with Mr Williams and his bizarre Chicken-On-The-Bone-Sandwich!

The lateness of Jarman and Norman's late trip the fifth floor (why not the seventh if they're so bothered about a great view)

a) They were unfamiliar with it
b) Look!---------

is well attested to and there are plenty of reasons to believe Williams doesn't go down to the fifth until the last minute.

Only if Messrs Jarman & Norman are telling the truth about his joining them.

There is an excellent reason to believe he got there before Messrs Norman & Jarman-----------------Mr Rowland's sighting of at least two black men at the southeast fifth-floor window ca. 12.15pm! I believe one of them was Mr Williams. The other? Mr Piper or Mr Lewis or Mr Jones---------take your pick!

What report or indication is there of any non-employee on the 6th floor turning people back or getting them to leave?

The curious fact that everyone stayed away from that 6th floor for the motorcade (which makes that floor unique amongst all the floors in the building on which people worked)!

According to Rowland, "Williams" is on the same floor as the man with the rifle for at least 10 minutes.

Yes, "Williams"...

The scenario outlined above has the least outlandish assumptions I can think of. Not much of a measure of the 'truth'.

Where we agree, Mr O'Meara, is on the probability that the black man on 6 seen by Mr Rowland was in on the conspiracy! 

[Dan O'meara]

Where we agree, Mr O'Meara, is on the probability that the black man on 6 seen by Mr Rowland was in on the conspiracy! 

This is the important point. There is nothing definitive that places Williams there but I do favour this interpretation. The fingerprints on the bottle are a problem for the official narrative whoever they belong to. In Day's WC testimony he is clear the bottle was tested for fingerprints and, although not specifically stated, he seems to be saying fingerprints were found but that they were not Oswald's. This leaves us with the probability they were either Williams or, as you say, a non-employee of the TSBD. Day implies they belonged to a TSBD employee (Williams?) but does not state whether he specifically tested the prints against those of the employee.
If the prints belonged to someone outside the TSBD the implications are staggering. They must surely be the assassin's. That would require someone to step in and take responsibility for the prints (Williams?)
Either way its a big problem for the official narrative.

[Colin Crow]

The bottle was fingerprinted by Studebaker before 3pm on site. It appears that he also fingerprinted the lunch sack before its removal by Det. Johnson. It seems Day was unaware of these pieces of evidence prior to his return to the TSBD. At about this time media reports were talking of the cold blooded assassin eating a chicken lunch while waiting for the President to arrive. This notion persisted for some days. It was remnants of the assassin's lunch. Some Dallas police even held that belief for years after.

Day claimed that the lunch remnants were of no value as Oswald's prints were not on them and eventually discarded. It would seem that Oswald could not have had an assistant or the shooter was anyone but Oswald very early on.

The prints of other TSBD employees were not obtained until many months later most likely well after the “assassin's lunch” hit the dumpster.



As for the testimony of Shelley that suggested Given's might have deposited the remnants, I believe this arose when Shelley was assisting police at City Hall when the lunch remnants were considered evidence. As Shelley had no idea of Williams returning to the sixth floor for lunch he merely provided Givens as the only employee he had seen eating that morning. It really counts for little other than providing insight that early on the police were keen to establish the owner of the chicken lunch.

[Alan Ford]

Thanks for these thoughts, gents! 

I don't believe the rats who killed Pres. Kennedy had any interest in setting up Mr Oswald as the (lone) shooter (the LN narrative was the creation of the 'investigating' authorities after the event). It's quite possible the original DPD line----------that the pop bottle and chicken bones belonged to the ice-cold shooter-----------was correct, and that individual was perfectly unconcerned about leaving behind such evidence.

Again I come back to the question of minimal pre-assassination planning. You plan to shoot (or stage a shooting?) from the sixth floor. Are you seriously going to leave it to chance that no legit employees will wander on to 'your' floor and come to the south-facing windows? Isn't it far more likely that you will contrive a scheme for keeping the floor clear?

A theory that has a non-participant employee being given free reign of the sixth floor up to just a couple of minutes pre-motorcade is v. problematical IMO. If Mr Rowland's description of the black man at the SN window were a good match for Mr Williams, I would be forced to conclude that he was in fact a participant. As things stand, however, it seems to me that Mr Rowland caught simultaneous sight of two members of the assassination team, both non-employees of the Depository.

[Colin Crow]

Thanks for these thoughts, gents! 

I don't believe the rats who killed Pres. Kennedy had any interest in setting up Mr Oswald as the (lone) shooter (the LN narrative was the creation of the 'investigating' authorities after the event). It's quite possible the original DPD line----------that the pop bottle and chicken bones belonged to the ice-cold shooter-----------was correct, and that individual was perfectly unconcerned about leaving behind such evidence.

Again I come back to the question of minimal pre-assassination planning. You plan to shoot (or stage a shooting?) from the sixth floor. Are you seriously going to leave it to chance that no legit employees will wander on to 'your' floor and come to the south-facing windows? Isn't it far more likely that you will contrive a scheme for keeping the floor clear?

A theory that has a non-participant employee being given free reign of the sixth floor up to just a couple of minutes pre-motorcade is v. problematical IMO. If Mr Rowland's description of the black man at the SN window were a good match for Mr Williams, I would be forced to conclude that he was in fact a participant. As things stand, however, it seems to me that Mr Rowland caught simultaneous sight of two members of the assassination team, both non-employees of the Depository.

Alan, I think we are much closer in thoughts than it might appear. When I first started looking at the Chicken lunch story many years ago I had no idea where it would lead. The assembled evidence clearly failEd to support the official narrative. We have employees changing significant events over time, there can be no debate that they did, it’s in the record. The closest I can come to the lone nut version is that Williams was encouraged by Oswald to vacate the sixth floor a few minutes before the shots. If this were the case one must ask, why didn’t Williams convey to this fact to the police on the afternoon of the assassination. He knew Oswald was in custody and was questioned about him. At that point he becomes the star prosecution witness. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Alan, I think we are much closer in thoughts than it might appear. When I first started looking at the Chicken lunch story many years ago I had no idea where it would lead. The assembled evidence clearly failEd to support the official narrative. We have employees changing significant events over time, there can be no debate that they did, it’s in the record. The closest I can come to the lone nut version is that Williams was encouraged by Oswald to vacate the sixth floor a few minutes before the shots. If this were the case one must ask, why didn’t Williams convey to this fact to the police on the afternoon of the assassination. He knew Oswald was in custody and was questioned about him. At that point he becomes the star prosecution witness.

Unless it was somebody else who encouraged Williams to leave, in which case he becomes a prime target.

[Alan Ford]

Alan, I think we are much closer in thoughts than it might appear. When I first started looking at the Chicken lunch story many years ago I had no idea where it would lead. The assembled evidence clearly failEd to support the official narrative. We have employees changing significant events over time, there can be no debate that they did, it’s in the record. The closest I can come to the lone nut version is that Williams was encouraged by Oswald to vacate the sixth floor a few minutes before the shots. If this were the case one must ask, why didn’t Williams convey to this fact to the police on the afternoon of the assassination. He knew Oswald was in custody and was questioned about him. At that point he becomes the star prosecution witness.

Well argued, Mr Crow---------and this makes it seem highly unlikely IMO that Mr Williams was part of the conspiracy. He could have fed Mr Oswald to the lions with a contrived story, such as.... 'Oswald was real unfriendly as usual, so when I heard Junior & Harold arrive down below I decided to join them.' But no, he gives the WC nothing in that line.

Bottom line! Anyone apart from Mr Oswald up on the sixth floor up to very shortly before the motorcade is a disaster for the official story. And that this anyone is seen simultaneously with a man holding a rifle only adds compound interest to said disaster!

[Alan Ford]

Unless it was somebody else who encouraged Williams to leave, in which case he becomes a prime target.

Exactly!  The only real point of disagreement we all have here is the when of Mr Williams' being asked to leave the sixth floor---------I put it upon his arrival there (most likely the person 'encouraging' him to go back down is positioned near the stairway/elevators); others put it later.