Are these two photos legit?

[Charles Collins]

Fritz picked up the shell casings before Day and Studebaker arrived.
It is a necessary conclusion that any photos taken by Day or Studebaker of the shell casings do not show them in their original positions.

I have a difficult time taking Alyea’s accounts seriously. Here’s a small part of what Allyea reportedly had to say in the corrections section of this webpage concerning Connie’s book:


Over thirty minutes later, after the rifle was discovered and the crime lab
arrived, Capt. Fritz reached into his pocket and handed the casings to
Det. Studebaker to include in the photographs he would take of the
sniper's nest crime scene. We stayed at the rifle site to watch Lt. Day
dust the rifle. You have seen my footage of this. Studebaker never saw
the original placement of the casings so he tossed them on the floor and
photographed them. Det. Studebaker was alone at this site until after
Lt. Day left the building with the rifle. We in the search team went to
the sniper's site. Studebaker had already photographed the casings on
the floor and was busy dusting the pop bottle when we arrived. The
casings were no longer on the floor. I never saw them again.



The shadows on CE 511 indicate that it was taken near the time of 1:20 pm. Not over thirty minutes later.


Mooney’s account has no credible person to back it up, as far as I am concerned. And it conflicts with the accounts of the other officers. I cannot believe that Fritz could have done that and no one else besides Mooney saw it.

You can believe that nonsense if you want to. But don’t expect me to.

[Dan O'meara]

I have a difficult time taking Alyea’s accounts seriously. Here’s a small part of what Allyea reportedly had to say in the corrections section of this webpage concerning Connie’s book:


Over thirty minutes later, after the rifle was discovered and the crime lab
arrived, Capt. Fritz reached into his pocket and handed the casings to
Det. Studebaker to include in the photographs he would take of the
sniper's nest crime scene. We stayed at the rifle site to watch Lt. Day
dust the rifle. You have seen my footage of this. Studebaker never saw
the original placement of the casings so he tossed them on the floor and
photographed them. Det. Studebaker was alone at this site until after
Lt. Day left the building with the rifle. We in the search team went to
the sniper's site. Studebaker had already photographed the casings on
the floor and was busy dusting the pop bottle when we arrived. The
casings were no longer on the floor. I never saw them again.



The shadows on CE 511 indicate that it was taken near the time of 1:20 pm. Not over thirty minutes later.


Mooney’s account has no credible person to back it up, as far as I am concerned. And it conflicts with the accounts of the other officers. I cannot believe that Fritz could have done that and no one else besides Mooney saw it.

You can believe that nonsense if you want to. But don’t expect me to.

Mooney is a credible person and his first-hand eye-witness testimony is independently corroborated by Alyea. A large part of the credibility of both is that they are not Fritz's men and would feel no obligation to cover for his actions.
As I've said, you have no problem with Fritz doing exactly the same thing with the live round.
You have no problem with the Sniper's Perch being re-staged.
You have no problem that other key evidence such as the rifle "bag" and BRW's lunch remains were not photographed in their original positions.
And who are these other officers with conflicting accounts? Remember, only Fritz, Sims, Boyd, Mooney and Alyea are present when it happens, so who are these credible officers you put so much faith in?

Out of interest, what shadows in CE 511 are you using to gauge the time?

[Charles Collins]

Mooney is a credible person and his first-hand eye-witness testimony is independently corroborated by Alyea. A large part of the credibility of both is that they are not Fritz's men and would feel no obligation to cover for his actions.
As I've said, you have no problem with Fritz doing exactly the same thing with the live round.
You have no problem with the Sniper's Perch being re-staged.
You have no problem that other key evidence such as the rifle "bag" and BRW's lunch remains were not photographed in their original positions.
And who are these other officers with conflicting accounts? Remember, only Fritz, Sims, Boyd, Mooney and Alyea are present when it happens, so who are these credible officers you put so much faith in?

Out of interest, what shadows in CE 511 are you using to gauge the time?

Mooney is a credible person and his first-hand eye-witness testimony is independently corroborated by Alyea. A large part of the credibility of both is that they are not Fritz's men and would feel no obligation to cover for his actions.

Mooney’s account is at odds with others in several aspects. One of the more glaring is that he claims to have stuck his head out of the sniper’s window and hollered and saw Fritz on the ground below. The problem is that by all other accounts Fritz was on the seventh floor at this time. Alyea’s statement in December of 1963 contains none of the numerous fantasies that he has come up with in more recent years. If his 1963 account contained Fritz picking up the shells and showing them for a camera close-up, or there was any evidence that such a close-up was actually filmed, then you might have some corroboration for Mooney’s claim.


As I've said, you have no problem with Fritz doing exactly the same thing with the live round.

Day testified that he was the one who picked the live round up, dusted it for fingerprints, initialed it, and then turned it over to Fritz. Where do you get the idea that Fritz picked it up?


You have no problem with the Sniper's Perch being re-staged

I don’t know all the reasons why they might have wanted to reconstruct the positions of some of the boxes. But I could guess at a few reasons. And they didn’t try to hide the fact that they did. I see nothing sinister about it.


You have no problem that other key evidence such as the rifle "bag" and BRW's lunch remains were not photographed in their original positions.

Studebaker had less than two-months experience in that department. And given all the other circumstances, it is understandable how he could have missed taking enough photos. Just exactly where do you believe the original position of BRW’s lunch remains were?


And who are these other officers with conflicting accounts? Remember, only Fritz, Sims, Boyd, Mooney and Alyea are present when it happens, so who are these credible officers you put so much faith in?

There were many officers on the sixth floor when the evidence was found.  Clyde A. Haywood, E.D. Brewer, Marvin Johnson, to name a few. Do you believe Fritz erected a Star Wars type of cloaking shield to prevent anyone else on that floor from seeing them? Gerald Hill was there when the shells were found. He was actually photographed with his head out a window hollering for the crime scene investigators. (No one apparently photographed or reported Mooney’s claim to doing this.   ) Hill left the sixth floor before Fritz got there. But Hill’s account (to that point in time) differs from Mooney’s in several aspects. Mooney’s account of where the chicken bones were found differs from every other account that I have seen. You can put your faith in Mooney, but I cannot do the same.


Out of interest, what shadows in CE 511 are you using to gauge the time?

The shadows are more readily apparent in a copy of the photo on page 525 of “Pictures of the Pain” by Richard B. Trask. By the way, this photo is also full frame, and shows the third shell near the bottom. The shadows are cast by the post that divides the two windows and the window sill of the sniper’s nest window onto the brick ledge just inside the window. The angle between these two shadows changes with the time much like a sundial.

[John Iacoletti]

[Charles Collins]

[Dan O'meara]

Mooney is a credible person and his first-hand eye-witness testimony is independently corroborated by Alyea. A large part of the credibility of both is that they are not Fritz's men and would feel no obligation to cover for his actions.

Mooney’s account is at odds with others in several aspects. One of the more glaring is that he claims to have stuck his head out of the sniper’s window and hollered and saw Fritz on the ground below. The problem is that by all other accounts Fritz was on the seventh floor at this time. Alyea’s statement in December of 1963 contains none of the numerous fantasies that he has come up with in more recent years. If his 1963 account contained Fritz picking up the shells and showing them for a camera close-up, or there was any evidence that such a close-up was actually filmed, then you might have some corroboration for Mooney’s claim.


As I've said, you have no problem with Fritz doing exactly the same thing with the live round.

Day testified that he was the one who picked the live round up, dusted it for fingerprints, initialed it, and then turned it over to Fritz. Where do you get the idea that Fritz picked it up?


You have no problem with the Sniper's Perch being re-staged

I don’t know all the reasons why they might have wanted to reconstruct the positions of some of the boxes. But I could guess at a few reasons. And they didn’t try to hide the fact that they did. I see nothing sinister about it.


You have no problem that other key evidence such as the rifle "bag" and BRW's lunch remains were not photographed in their original positions.

Studebaker had less than two-months experience in that department. And given all the other circumstances, it is understandable how he could have missed taking enough photos. Just exactly where do you believe the original position of BRW’s lunch remains were?


And who are these other officers with conflicting accounts? Remember, only Fritz, Sims, Boyd, Mooney and Alyea are present when it happens, so who are these credible officers you put so much faith in?

There were many officers on the sixth floor when the evidence was found.  Clyde A. Haywood, E.D. Brewer, Marvin Johnson, to name a few. Do you believe Fritz erected a Star Wars type of cloaking shield to prevent anyone else on that floor from seeing them? Gerald Hill was there when the shells were found. He was actually photographed with his head out a window hollering for the crime scene investigators. (No one apparently photographed or reported Mooney’s claim to doing this.   ) Hill left the sixth floor before Fritz got there. But Hill’s account (to that point in time) differs from Mooney’s in several aspects. Mooney’s account of where the chicken bones were found differs from every other account that I have seen. You can put your faith in Mooney, but I cannot do the same.


Out of interest, what shadows in CE 511 are you using to gauge the time?

The shadows are more readily apparent in a copy of the photo on page 525 of “Pictures of the Pain” by Richard B. Trask. By the way, this photo is also full frame, and shows the third shell near the bottom. The shadows are cast by the post that divides the two windows and the window sill of the sniper’s nest window onto the brick ledge just inside the window. The angle between these two shadows changes with the time much like a sundial.

"Mooney’s account is at odds with others in several aspects. One of the more glaring is that he claims to have stuck his head out of the sniper’s window and hollered and saw Fritz on the ground below. The problem is that by all other accounts Fritz was on the seventh floor at this time."

So Mooney looks down from the sixth floor on a sea of heads and hats milling about and mistakes one of them for Fritz?
That's a "glaring" inconsistency in his testimony as far as you're concerned?
If that's the best you can come up with then it's a super-harsh threshold of accuracy you are holding witnesses to.
And we have very different ideas about what constitutes a "glaring inconsistency".
For example - In Day's testimony he states:

Mr. Day: ...I processed these three hulls for fingerprints, using a powder. Mr. Sims picked them up by the ends and handed them to me. I processed each of the three; did not find fingerprints. As I had finished that, Captain Fritz sent word for me to come to the northwest part of the building, the rifle had been found, and he wanted photographs.
Mr. Belin: All right. You have mentioned these three hulls. Did you put any initials on those at all, any means of identification?
Mr. Day: At that time they were placed in an envelope and the envelope marked. The three hulls were not marked at that time. Mr. Sims took possession of them.

For some strange reason Day has Sims pick up the shells, puts them in an envelope (that is never sealed) and Sims takes possession of the shells. Neither man marks the shells at that time destroying the chain of evidence. But Sims has a very different recollection of who took possession of the shells:

Mr. Ball: Who picked up the hulls?
Mr. Sims: Well, I assisted Lieutenant Day in picking the hulls up.
Mr. Ball: There were three hulls?
Mr. Sims:Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball: Now, what kind of a receptacle did you put them in?
Mr. Sims: He had an envelope.
Mr. Ball: Did he take charge of the hulls there?
Mr. Sims: I don't know.

Sims remembers picking the shells up and putting them in the envelope but he doesn't know who takes charge of the shells. Ball tries to clarify the situation:

Mr. Ball: Did he take them in his possession, I mean?
Mr. Sims: I don't remember if he took them in his possession then or not.

There can be no doubt, Sims doesn't have a clue who took possession of the shells. Even though Day testifies that it is Sims who takes the shells into his possession. Ball gives it one last try:

Mr. Ball: But you helped him pick them up?
Mr. Sims: I picked them up from the floor and he had an envelope there and he held the envelope open.
Mr. Ball: You didn't take them in your possession, did you?
Mr. Sims: No, sir; I don't believe I did.

Sims distinctly remembers picking up the shells, an absolutely key piece of evidence, but doesn't have a clue who took possession of them.
Now that is a glaring contradiction!
But the best is yet to come.
After his testimony, Fritz tells Sims to get his arse back in front of the commission to tell them he now remembers taking possession of the shells. I wish there were time and space here to get into Sims' "resumed testimony" as it is the funniest testimony there is and reveals a man desperately trying not to f%ck up the agreed story and failing miserably.
Sims remembers that during his testimony he wasn't sure who brought the shells down to City Hall, but he was never asked who brought the shells down to City Hall. The key point of the testimony is this:

Mr. Belin: Now, Detective Sims, just so that I can have a complete understanding of the process by which you refreshed your recollection, you talked to Captain Fritz about this after you testified here on Monday?
Mr. Sims: Yes, sir.
Mr. Belin: What did he say and what did you say, if you remember?
Mr. Sims: I told him I couldn't remember for sure about who brought the hulls up there to his office or what happened to the hulls, and then I talked to him.
Mr. Belin: What did he say?
Mr. Sims: He said, "Well, remember I told you to get the hulls and bring them to the office."
And I talked to Boyd, my partner, and he said that Captain Fritz had said that, too, so I remembered exactly about where I was when he told me this.
Mr. Belin: In other words, Captain Fritz told you on Monday, that back on November 22, he had told you to get the hulls?

So Sims didn't have a clue who took possession of the shells until Fritz told him he did. Classic stuff.
Mooney not recognising the top of Fritz's hat from the 6th floor is solid proof he is lying but this baloney is perfectly acceptable.

"Day testified that he was the one who picked the live round up, dusted it for fingerprints, initialed it, and then turned it over to Fritz. Where do you get the idea that Fritz picked it up?"


The point I was making wasn't about who picked it up, it was about Fritz pocketing the live round, a truly extraordinary thing to do. This seasoned detective then neglects to mark the live round, thus destroying the chain of evidence (this is becoming a regular theme).

"Just exactly where do you believe the original position of BRW’s lunch remains were?"

I put BRW's lunch remains where Mooney, Hill, Haygood, Brewer, McCurley, Weatherford and Montgomery place them - in the southeast corner of the 6th floor.
And not where they were photographed, about 30ft away on a little trolley.
I find it very interesting that Bonnie Ray Williams describes having his lunch as it is in the crime scene photos when every officer who saw the scene before Fritz got there describes the lunch remains being in the southeast corner.
More glaring contradictions.

[Charles Collins]

"Mooney’s account is at odds with others in several aspects. One of the more glaring is that he claims to have stuck his head out of the sniper’s window and hollered and saw Fritz on the ground below. The problem is that by all other accounts Fritz was on the seventh floor at this time."

So Mooney looks down from the sixth floor on a sea of heads and hats milling about and mistakes one of them for Fritz?
That's a "glaring" inconsistency in his testimony as far as you're concerned?
If that's the best you can come up with then it's a super-harsh threshold of accuracy you are holding witnesses to.
And we have very different ideas about what constitutes a "glaring inconsistency".
For example - In Day's testimony he states:

Mr. Day: ...I processed these three hulls for fingerprints, using a powder. Mr. Sims picked them up by the ends and handed them to me. I processed each of the three; did not find fingerprints. As I had finished that, Captain Fritz sent word for me to come to the northwest part of the building, the rifle had been found, and he wanted photographs.
Mr. Belin: All right. You have mentioned these three hulls. Did you put any initials on those at all, any means of identification?
Mr. Day: At that time they were placed in an envelope and the envelope marked. The three hulls were not marked at that time. Mr. Sims took possession of them.

For some strange reason Day has Sims pick up the shells, puts them in an envelope (that is never sealed) and Sims takes possession of the shells. Neither man marks the shells at that time destroying the chain of evidence. But Sims has a very different recollection of who took possession of the shells:

Mr. Ball: Who picked up the hulls?
Mr. Sims: Well, I assisted Lieutenant Day in picking the hulls up.
Mr. Ball: There were three hulls?
Mr. Sims:Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball: Now, what kind of a receptacle did you put them in?
Mr. Sims: He had an envelope.
Mr. Ball: Did he take charge of the hulls there?
Mr. Sims: I don't know.

Sims remembers picking the shells up and putting them in the envelope but he doesn't know who takes charge of the shells. Ball tries to clarify the situation:

Mr. Ball: Did he take them in his possession, I mean?
Mr. Sims: I don't remember if he took them in his possession then or not.

There can be no doubt, Sims doesn't have a clue who took possession of the shells. Even though Day testifies that it is Sims who takes the shells into his possession. Ball gives it one last try:

Mr. Ball: But you helped him pick them up?
Mr. Sims: I picked them up from the floor and he had an envelope there and he held the envelope open.
Mr. Ball: You didn't take them in your possession, did you?
Mr. Sims: No, sir; I don't believe I did.

Sims distinctly remembers picking up the shells, an absolutely key piece of evidence, but doesn't have a clue who took possession of them.
Now that is a glaring contradiction!
But the best is yet to come.
After his testimony, Fritz tells Sims to get his arse back in front of the commission to tell them he now remembers taking possession of the shells. I wish there were time and space here to get into Sims' "resumed testimony" as it is the funniest testimony there is and reveals a man desperately trying not to f%ck up the agreed story and failing miserably.
Sims remembers that during his testimony he wasn't sure who brought the shells down to City Hall, but he was never asked who brought the shells down to City Hall. The key point of the testimony is this:

Mr. Belin: Now, Detective Sims, just so that I can have a complete understanding of the process by which you refreshed your recollection, you talked to Captain Fritz about this after you testified here on Monday?
Mr. Sims: Yes, sir.
Mr. Belin: What did he say and what did you say, if you remember?
Mr. Sims: I told him I couldn't remember for sure about who brought the hulls up there to his office or what happened to the hulls, and then I talked to him.
Mr. Belin: What did he say?
Mr. Sims: He said, "Well, remember I told you to get the hulls and bring them to the office."
And I talked to Boyd, my partner, and he said that Captain Fritz had said that, too, so I remembered exactly about where I was when he told me this.
Mr. Belin: In other words, Captain Fritz told you on Monday, that back on November 22, he had told you to get the hulls?

So Sims didn't have a clue who took possession of the shells until Fritz told him he did. Classic stuff.
Mooney not recognising the top of Fritz's hat from the 6th floor is solid proof he is lying but this baloney is perfectly acceptable.

"Day testified that he was the one who picked the live round up, dusted it for fingerprints, initialed it, and then turned it over to Fritz. Where do you get the idea that Fritz picked it up?"


The point I was making wasn't about who picked it up, it was about Fritz pocketing the live round, a truly extraordinary thing to do. This seasoned detective then neglects to mark the live round, thus destroying the chain of evidence (this is becoming a regular theme).

"Just exactly where do you believe the original position of BRW’s lunch remains were?"

I put BRW's lunch remains where Mooney, Hill, Haygood, Brewer, McCurley, Weatherford and Montgomery place them - in the southeast corner of the 6th floor.
And not where they were photographed, about 30ft away on a little trolley.
I find it very interesting that Bonnie Ray Williams describes having his lunch as it is in the crime scene photos when every officer who saw the scene before Fritz got there describes the lunch remains being in the southeast corner.
More glaring contradictions.

None of the others you listed get very specific as to an exact location. Like many of the vague accounts of many of the aspects, people tend to interpret them whichever way they want to. Montgomery got more specific and it became apparent that he confused the two paper sacks in his memory. No one on the sixth floor has stated that the remains of BRW's lunch were moved before they were photographed. I prefer to believe in the physical evidence, like photographs, rather than vague accounts which can often be wrong due to fallible memories. Based on what was said by these officers, there is a reason to believe that perhaps one chicken bone was seen on some of the boxes near the sniper's nest. But it appears to me that the sack with bones in it and the Dr. Pepper bottle were further west where they were photographed.


Mr. BALL. Now, where was the Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It was over a little more to the west of that window.
Mr. BALL. There was a sack of chicken bones with that--near that Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. No; the Dr. Pepper bottle, the best I can recall, was sitting over there by itself.
Mr. BALL. Where was the sack with the chicken in it?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It was right around where the boxes were--where the hulls there were.
Mr. BALL. The picture was taken of the sack by Mr. Studebaker, and he said it was the third set of windows near the little two-wheel truck?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Over there by the Dr. Pepper bottle.
Mr. BALL. Correct.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I was thinking it was right there--it was probably that sack I'm thinking about---the one we found on the floor there that was used.
Mr. BALL. Here are two pictures, which are Exhibits H and I in the Studebaker depositions, which show the paper sack and the Dr. Pepper bottle and a two-wheel truck, and that is in Exhibit H, and Exhibit I shows the Dr. Pepper bottle and a two-wheel truck.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Is this the sack right here, now?
Mr. BALL. That's right--do you remember that?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I don't remember the sack being right there--I remember it was there somewhere, but exactly--I don't.
Mr. BALL. Evidently you don't know?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. No, sir.

[Dan O'meara]

None of the others you listed get very specific as to an exact location. Like many of the vague accounts of many of the aspects, people tend to interpret them whichever way they want to. Montgomery got more specific and it became apparent that he confused the two paper sacks in his memory. No one on the sixth floor has stated that the remains of BRW's lunch were moved before they were photographed. I prefer to believe in the physical evidence, like photographs, rather than vague accounts which can often be wrong due to fallible memories. Based on what was said by these officers, there is a reason to believe that perhaps one chicken bone was seen on some of the boxes near the sniper's nest. But it appears to me that the sack with bones in it and the Dr. Pepper bottle were further west where they were photographed.


Mr. BALL. Now, where was the Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It was over a little more to the west of that window.
Mr. BALL. There was a sack of chicken bones with that--near that Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. No; the Dr. Pepper bottle, the best I can recall, was sitting over there by itself.
Mr. BALL. Where was the sack with the chicken in it?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It was right around where the boxes were--where the hulls there were.
Mr. BALL. The picture was taken of the sack by Mr. Studebaker, and he said it was the third set of windows near the little two-wheel truck?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Over there by the Dr. Pepper bottle.
Mr. BALL. Correct.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I was thinking it was right there--it was probably that sack I'm thinking about---the one we found on the floor there that was used.
Mr. BALL. Here are two pictures, which are Exhibits H and I in the Studebaker depositions, which show the paper sack and the Dr. Pepper bottle and a two-wheel truck, and that is in Exhibit H, and Exhibit I shows the Dr. Pepper bottle and a two-wheel truck.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Is this the sack right here, now?
Mr. BALL. That's right--do you remember that?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I don't remember the sack being right there--I remember it was there somewhere, but exactly--I don't.
Mr. BALL. Evidently you don't know?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. No, sir.

"...people tend to interpret them whichever way they want to."

You never spoke a truer word.
And then go on to give us a classic example of someone interpreting witness evidence "whichever way they want to".
In the section of testimony you posted Montgomery makes it absolutely clear that the sack with chicken it in was in the southeast corner, "where the hulls were there", and the Dr Pepper bottle was to the west of that position:

Mr. BALL. Now, where was the Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It was over a little more to the west of that window.
Mr. BALL. There was a sack of chicken bones with that--near that Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. No; the Dr. Pepper bottle, the best I can recall, was sitting over there by itself.
Mr. BALL. Where was the sack with the chicken in it?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It was right around where the boxes were--where the hulls there were.

Rather than just accept the testimony of this witness, Ball decides it needs changing. He points out that Studebaker photographed the sack over by the third set of windows. Montgomery is confused - "Over there by the Dr pepper bottle?...I was thinking it was right there...".
Ball shows him the photographs and Montgomery is still confused - "Is this the sack right here, now?"

Mr. BALL. The picture was taken of the sack by Mr. Studebaker, and he said it was the third set of windows near the little two-wheel truck?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Over there by the Dr. Pepper bottle.
Mr. BALL. Correct.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I was thinking it was right there--it was probably that sack I'm thinking about---the one we found on the floor there that was used.
Mr. BALL. Here are two pictures, which are Exhibits H and I in the Studebaker depositions, which show the paper sack and the Dr. Pepper bottle and a two-wheel truck, and that is in Exhibit H, and Exhibit I shows the Dr. Pepper bottle and a two-wheel truck.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Is this the sack right here, now?

Ball, satisfied he has now got his message across, asks Montgomery if he remembers things the way Ball wants him to, but the confused officer still isn't convinced - " I don't remember the sack being right there".

Mr. BALL. That's right--do you remember that?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I don't remember the sack being right there--I remember it was there somewhere, but exactly--I don't.

Ball then does something quite extraordinary. Rather than accept the witnesses testimony about the location of the sack with the chicken bones in it, Ball decides what the witness should be answering - "Evidently you don't know?"
Finally, Montgomery takes the hint - "No, sir."

The passage you have chosen to highlight Montgomery's uncertainty actually reveals a witness who has answered clearly and who is then harassed into uncertainty. It shows what a farce the questioning was.
Getting back to you interpreting things whichever way you want, let's take a look a the bit of Montgomery's testimony you chose to ignore as it didn't serve your purpose. This is the section of testimony leading up to the part you chose to post:

Mr. Ball: Did you see anything else over in the southeast corner of that sixth floor?
Mr. Montgomery: Well, sir, as I say, there was a lot of boxes and there was a sack and there was this pieces of chicken.
Mr. Ball: Was there a piece of chicken over there?
Mr. Montgomery: Yes, sir--there was chicken bones and what not--it looked like somebody had been eating chicken there.
Mr. Ball: Where was that?
Mr. Montgomery: It was right there with the boxes---right there on the floor.
Mr. Ball: On the floor?
Mr. Montgomery: Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball: All right.
Mr. Montgomery: Well, let me see, there was one piece of chicken on a box and there was a piece on the floor--just kind of scattered around right there.
Mr. Ball: Where was the paper sack?
Mr. Montgomery: Let's see--the paper sack--I don't recall for sure if it was on the floor or on the box, but I know it was just there----one of those pictures might show exactly where it was.
Mr. Ball: I don't have a picture of the paper sack.
Mr. Montgomery: You don't? Well, it was there--I can't recall for sure if it was on one of the boxes or on the floor there.
Mr. Ball: It was over in what corner?
Mr. Montgomery: It would be the southeast corner of the building there where the shooting was.
Mr. Ball: Did you turn the sack over to anybody or did you pick it up?
Mr. Montgomery: Yes---let's see Lieutenant Day and Detective Studebaker came up and took pictures and everything, and then we took a Dr. Pepper bottle and that sack that we found that looked like the rifle was wrapped up in.

In this section of testimony Montgomery sees pieces of chicken "kind of scattered around" in the southeast corner of the 6th floor
Montgomery also makes a clear distinction between the "chicken" sack and "that sack that we found that looked like the rifle was wrapped up in."

As for the other officers who reported on BRW's lunch remains, let's see how "vague" they were about the location of these remains:

Deputy Sheriff A D McCurley

"We were searching the 6th floor when Deputy Sheriff Mooney...hollered that he had found the place where the assassin had fired from. I went over and saw three expended shells laying by the window that faced onto Elm Street, along with a half-eaten piece of chicken that was laying on a cardboard carton. It appeared as if the assassin had piled up a bunch of boxes to hid him from anyone who happened to come up on that floor..."

Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford

"I came down to the 6th floor and while searching this floor, Deputy Luke Mooney said, "Here are some shells". I went over to where he was and saw three expended rifle shells, a sack on the floor and a partially eaten piece of chicken on top of one of the cartons which was used as a sort of barricade..."

Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney [describing what he saw while he was stood in the SN]

"I did see this one partially eaten piece of fried chicken laying over to the right...It would be laying over on the top of these other boxes...There was one of them partially eaten. And there was a little small paper poke...Saw the chicken bone was laying here. The poke was laying about a foot away from it...He [the assassin] wouldn't have had to leave the location. He could just maybe take one step and lay it over there, if he was the one that put it there."

Officer E. D.Brewer DPD

Mr. Belin: How many cartridge cases did you see?
Mr. Brewer: Three.
Mr. Belin: Where were they?
Mr. Brewer: They were there under, by the window.
Mr. Belin: What window?
Mr. Brewer: In the southeast corner of the building, facing south.
Mr. Belin: See anything else there at the time by the window?
Mr. Brewer:Paper lunch sack and some chicken bones or partially eaten piece of chicken, or a piece of chicken.
Mr. Belin: Anything else?
Mr. Brewer: A drink bottle.
Mr. Belin: What bottle?
Mr. Brewer: A cold drink bottle, soda pop bottle.

Sergeant Gerald Hill DPD

"The boxes were stacked in sort of a three-sided shield. That would have concealed from general view, unless somebody specifically walked up and looked over them, anyone who was in a sitting or crouched position between them and the window...On top of the larger stack of boxes that would have been used for concealment. there was a chicken leg bone and a paper sack which appeared to have been about the size normally used for a lunch sack."

Motorcycle Officer Clyde Haygood DPD

Mr. Belin: You saw some shells there?
Mr. Haygood: Yes.
Mr. Belin: Where did you see them?
Mr. Haygood: They were there under the window.
Mr. Belin: Which window?
Mr. Haygood: On the southeast corner.
Mr. Belin: South side or east side?
Mr. Haygood: On the southeast corner facing south.
Mr. Belin: See any paper bags or anything around there?
Mr. Haygood: Yes; there was a lunch bag there. You could call it a lunch bag.
Mr. Ball: Where was that?
Mr. Haygood: There at the same location where the shells were.
Mr. Belin: Was there a coke bottle or anything with it?
Mr. Haygood: Dr. Pepper bottle.

Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig

Mr. Craig: I went over there and--uh--didn't get too close because the shells were laying on the ground and there was--uh--oh, a sack and a bunch of things laying over there. So, you know, not to bother the area, I just went back across.
Mr. Belin: Now, you say there was a sack laying there?
Mr. Craig: Yes; I believe it was laying on top of a box, if I'm not mistaken.
Mr. Belin: How big a sack was that?
Mr. Craig: It was a paper bag (indicating with hands)--a small paper bag.
Mr. Belin: Well, the kind-of paper bag that you carry your lunch in?
Mr. Craig: Yeah,--uh-huh.
Mr. Belin: Was it more than a foot long?
Mr. Craig: I don't know. I think it was rolled up kind of.
Mr. Belin: You think it was rolled up?
Mr. Craig: Yeah; you know, kind of crushed up.

Where is this vagueness you describe regarding the location of the lunch remains?
Eight officers specifically describe the remains as being in the southeast corner of the 6th floor. All eight!!
It is an inescapable conclusion that BRW's lunch remains were originally found in the southeast corner of the 6th floor. Seven officers describe them as being on top of boxes with three officers specifically stating they were on boxes that formed part of the SN, Mooney going so far as to state that anyone sat by the Sniper's Perch could have taken just one step to place the remains on top of the boxes.
It is also the inescapable conclusion that these remains were then removed and re-staged about 30ft away.
This is completely consistent with the staggering incompetence already highlighted in this initial investigation.