The First Shot

[Dan O'meara]

The post is self-explanatory

Indeed it is, but you're reason for misrepresenting Rowland's words is not clear.
Is this the same thing Jerry was doing, twisting Rowland's testimony in order to discredit him as a witness, which in turn somehow casts doubt on whether Rowland even saw a man with a rifle.
Like Jerry, do you also believe Rowland saw a man holding a pop bottle with a telescopic sight on it?

[John Iacoletti]

And yet months later exaggerations of people like Howard Brennan, Helen Markham, Carl Day, and Nick McDonald can be taken to the bank.

[Bill Chapman]

Indeed it is, but you're reason for misrepresenting Rowland's words is not clear.
Is this the same thing Jerry was doing, twisting Rowland's testimony in order to discredit him as a witness, which in turn somehow casts doubt on whether Rowland even saw a man with a rifle.
Like Jerry, do you also believe Rowland saw a man holding a pop bottle with a telescopic sight on it?

Try to focus
And show us where I 'misrepresent' Rowland's words

Mr. SPECTER - And what is your best recollection as to how close to the window he was standing?
Mr. ROWLAND - He wasn't next to the window, but he wasn't very far back. I would say 3 to 5 feet back from the window.
Mr. SPECTER  Is there any other aspect of the affidavit which you gave, which you have just observed, which is at variance with your current recollection of what you saw and heard on that date?
Mr. ROWLAND - Here it states we were at the west entrance of the sheriff's office, that is just a general approximation, we were 25 feet from there, in fact.
Mr. SPECTER - Are there any other portions of it which vary from your current recollection?
Mr. ROWLAND - I don't remember saying definitely that he was back about 15 feet. In fact, I think I said, as I said now, 3 to 5 feet, because from my point of view if he was back 15 feet I couldn't have even seen him.

He actually did say 15 ft in this TexHist statement
He did not say 3-5 ft in this TexHist statement

[EDIT: Clarified the above 2 lines
6AM EST]

[Dan O'meara]

Try to focus
And show us where I 'misrepresent' Rowland's words

Mr. SPECTER - And what is your best recollection as to how close to the window he was standing?
Mr. ROWLAND - He wasn't next to the window, but he wasn't very far back. I would say 3 to 5 feet back from the window.
Mr. SPECTER  Is there any other aspect of the affidavit which you gave, which you have just observed, which is at variance with your current recollection of what you saw and heard on that date?
Mr. ROWLAND - Here it states we were at the west entrance of the sheriff's office, that is just a general approximation, we were 25 feet from there, in fact.
Mr. SPECTER - Are there any other portions of it which vary from your current recollection?
Mr. ROWLAND - I don't remember saying definitely that he was back about 15 feet. In fact, I think I said, as I said now, 3 to 5 feet, because from my point of view if he was back 15 feet I couldn't have even seen him.

He actually did say 15 ft in this TexHist statement
He did not say 3-5 ft in this TexHist statement

You posted:

"Rowland first said the guy in the SW window was about 12-15 ft back of the window, then changed that to about 3-5 ft because, he said, no one would be able to see the figure so far back from the window."

Here you are saying the reason Rowland changed his guesstimate from 15ft to 3-5ft is because "no one would be able to see the figure so far back from the window."
In his WC testimony Rowland states the reason this guesstimate has changed is because he never even said that in the first place:

"I don't remember saying definitely that he was back about 15 feet. In fact, I think I said, as I said now, 3 to 5 feet,"

I'm not saying you've misrepresented his words intentionally but you have most certainly misrepresented what Rowland said about this trivial detail regarding his description of the man with the high-powered, scoped pop bottle on the 6th floor.

[Bill Chapman]

You posted:

"Rowland first said the guy in the SW window was about 12-15 ft back of the window, then changed that to about 3-5 ft because, he said, no one would be able to see the figure so far back from the window."

Here you are saying the reason Rowland changed his guesstimate from 15ft to 3-5ft is because "no one would be able to see the figure so far back from the window."
In his WC testimony Rowland states the reason this guesstimate has changed is because he never even said that in the first place:

"I don't remember saying definitely that he was back about 15 feet. In fact, I think I said, as I said now, 3 to 5 feet,"

I'm not saying you've misrepresented his words intentionally but you have most certainly misrepresented what Rowland said about this trivial detail regarding his description of the man with the high-powered, scoped pop bottle on the 6th floor.

I see no misrepresentation on my part

Rowland's testimony conflicts with what he stated previously: He actually did say 15 ft in this TexHist statement, and did not say 3-5 ft.

That sort of switcheroo reminds me of the perps on The First 48
The liars keep forgetting what they said.

[Dan O'meara]

I see no misrepresentation on my part

Rowland's testimony conflicts with what he stated previously: He actually did say 15 ft in this TexHist statement, and did not say 3-5 ft.

That sort of switcheroo reminds me of the perps on The First 48
The liars keep forgetting what they said.

Why do you think Rowland is lying.?
Isn't he confirming there was a white, slender male on the 6th floor with a rifle just before the motorcade came by?
Isn't this confirming the LNer narrative?

[Bill Chapman]

Why do you think Rowland is lying.?
Isn't he confirming there was a white, slender male on the 6th floor with a rifle just before the motorcade came by?
Isn't this confirming the LNer narrative?

Wrong window

No LN narrative needed anyway. Oswald showed us how easy it was to snuff cops & presidents and fool arse-kissers.

[Dan O'meara]

Wrong window

Thanks Bill, that'd been bugging me.