"It's Rowland's improbable claims and additions in his testimony that prompted them to look into his background..."
This is not true.
The reason the FBI take the unprecedented step of investigating Rowland is his claim about the black male in the SN window.
The first part of their report is to discredit this aspect of his testimony, the rest is character assassination.
That memo sent to Hoover by the WC staffer asks the FBI to "investigate all aspects of Mr Rowland's story concerning the person alleged to have been at the southeast corner window" but also requests an investigation Rowland's more dubious claims after listing a number of them. BTW, the
It is noteworthy that when they visit the TSBD they are only interested in Eddie Piper and Troy West as possible candidates for the man in the SN window when they already know Bonnie Ray Williams was on the 6th floor having his lunch at the time in question and that the remains of his lunch were found on top of the SN!
Go figure.
There's no mystery here. Rowland describes the "elderly negro" as a 50-60 year old man who is bald, balding, or has thinning hair. Williams was 20 years old and had a full head of hair. West and Piper are the only two men who fit Rowland's description, unless you think that black people are somehow inherently interchangeable. The WC had no information as to whether either West or Piper had been on the sixth floor at the time that Rowland claimed, but they already knew what Williams had said about his time on that floor, since he'd already been interviewed and made statements about his activity there. They didn't need to interview him again about it.
BTW, where does Williams say that he was in the SN?
There can be no doubt the young Mr Rowland is a bit of a bullsh%tter and this does no favour for his trustworthiness or credibility as a witness. But there is a simple way to assess the accuracy of his observations regarding the man with the rifle - are they corroborated by other witness testimony or evidence.
That Rowland's description of the man with the rifle is confirmed by three other eye witnesses is solid corroboration.
That a scoped rifle is found on the 6th floor is solid corroboration.
As far as the black male in the SN window is concerned - Bonnie Ray Williams is known to be having his lunch on the 6th floor at that time, the remains of which were found on top of the SN and not 30ft away on a trolley. Rowland's observation that this man disappears about 5 minutes before the motorcade arrives corresponds with BRW's movements around this time.
Obviously this destroys the LNer narrative and must be discredited at all costs but that involves believing in an almost miraculous coincidence.
You are far to kind to Mr Rowland, as least as he existed then. "A bit of a bullsh%tter" is quite an understatement! Rowland repeatedly lies in a deposition. The technical term for that is "perjury," though I doubt he ever would have been prosecuted for it. Revealingly, he volunteers lies about things that are neither necessary to the matter at hand, and for no rational reason. This behavior goes by several names. "Pathological lying" is one of the more common ones, though "compulsive lying" is probably a better description of what was going on. He just couldn't help himself.
Your claim that Fischer, Edwards, and Brennan corroborates Rowland only shows that you have an interesting definition of the word "corroborate." Fischer, Edwards, and Brennan see a light-haired man wearing light-colored trousers laying low in the SE corner window. None of them see a rifle until the shooting starts; it's kept out of sight until used. Rowland said he saw a dark haired man wearing dark trousers standing in the window on the opposite side of the building. The man is proudly displaying a rifle in front of him for all to see. I'm not sure how many people other than you would think that Fischer, Edwards, and Brennan were describing the same man that Rowland said he saw. A further problem involves the older black male. Rowland has him hanging out of the SE corner window about the same time that Fischer, Edwards and Brennan see their guy. Why don't those three men see the black guy? Why doesn't Rowland see the man that Fischer, Edwards, and Brennan see?
Barbara Rowland's testimony is telling, it is almost exclusively about her husband and culminates in a very personal question to which she gives a curt reply:
Mr BELIN: ...just from your general experience, do you feel you can rely on everything that your husband says?
Mrs. ROWLAND: I don't feel that I can rely on everything anybody says.
Belin is almost apologetic:
Mr. BELIN. Well, this is really an unfair question for me to ask any wife about her husband, and I am not asking it very correctly, but---
Mrs Rowland then reveals an important aspect of her husband's character:
Mrs. ROWLAND: At times my husband is prone to exaggerate. Does that answer it?
Mr. BELIN:I think it does.
Is there anything else you want to add to that, or not?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Usually his exaggerations are not concerned with anything other than himself. They are usually to boast his ego. They usually say that he is really smarter than he is, or he is a better salesman than he is, something like that.
So, Belin first asks her about much credibility her husband has with her. Her response is, as you note, quite telling. Instead of a direct answer, her reply directs the question away from what she feels about her huband. In a roundabout way, it speaks volumes about her trust in him, or rather lack thereof. As for the followup question, note the use of the word "usually." What does that word mean? What does it
not mean?
Arnold Rowland is prone to bigging himself up, particularly his intelligence. This is exactly what the FBI investigation reveals. Nearly every aspect of what is regarded as false in his testimony relates to this aspect of his character.
But this is a far cry from making up false claims in a murder investigation involving the president of the United States. Claims that could put him in some real trouble if proven false.
Rowland's claims about the men on the 6th floor can be solidly corroborated by other witness testimony and physical evidence. His character has no bearing on the matter.
Again, the claim of corroboration disintegrates under scrutiny. And the SS/FBI investigation reveals more than just self-inflating fibs. Rowland had been fingered for passing checks drawn on a fictitious account in Topeka Kansas (also, Rowland had used the aliases "Alex Johnston," "Jack Nickols," and "Jack Nickolson"[?!]). He was suspected of stealing different items from the schools he attended. Interviews with Faculty and staff at both Crozier Tech and Adamson high schools revealed that teachers and administrators completely distrusted anything that Rowland said:
"You could not believe what he told you"
"She said that she would personally not put much faith in in what Arnold said he observed at the assassination scene..."
"[Rowland] would not hesitate to fabricate a story if it were of any benefit for ROWLAND to do so."
"...she determined he could not be trusted and would not tell the truth regarding any matter. She stated he was a conniver and prevaricated whenever it was to his advantage to do so."
"...he [Rowland] requested almost on a daily basis special privileges and seemed to have the attitude that he was superior to most of the teachers and all other students"
In addition, when DPD detective Gus Rose attempted to locate Rowland, he found that Rowland had given the Dallas Independent School District a non-existent address as his place of residence. That was the second time Rowland had given the DISD an incorrect address. Rose also found that Rowland had opened a post office box using as a permanent address an apartment that Rowland had already vacated weeks before. He wasn't doing that just to "puff himself up."
Rowland's character matters, if it is in his character to repeatedly and compulsively lie. And the lying...oh, is it thick and deep with this one.
One final note - LNers like to make the point that Rowland's man in the SN is some kind of late addition but the fact is that Roger Craig reports Rowland talking about two men on the 6th floor. I'm not sure if Rowland makes the same point to Harkness, Turner and Sorrels but the main interest of the investigating authorities would be the man with the rifle.
It is only later that evening Rowland understands the importance of the man in the SN which is why he raises the issue with the FBI agents who visit him Saturday morning. Interestingly, these agents have no interest in the man in the SN window and basically tell him to forget about it. It's almost as if it's been decided there was only one person involved in the assassination by Saturday morning.
Go figure.
Roger Craig's WC testimony only creates more problems for the Rowland two-men-on-the-sixth-floor story.
In the Craig version, there are two men but only one window. In Rowland's WC testimony, there are two men in two windows.
In the Craig version, he sees the men "walking back and forth". In Rowland's WC testimony, the rifle guy is just standing in the window while the other man is hanging out of his window.
In the Craig version, the gunman holds the rifle "down to his side." In Rowland's WC testimony, the man holds the rifle up right in front of him.
In the Craig version, he first sees the two men, then looks back later but only the man with the rifle is still there. In Rowland's WC testimony, it's the other way around.
Now, I know you're likely to say, 'well, maybe Craig didn't say that there was only one window.'
OK. Then there is still the issue with the men "walking back and forth" rather than standing and hanging. And the issue with the rifleman holding the rifle down at his side instead of up in front of him. And the issue with the rifleman disappearing in on version with the unarmed man disappearing in the other.
But then, I hear you say, 'well, maybe Craig just inadvertently swapped the rifleman with the black guy when he remembered what Rowland told him.'
OK. Then there is still the issue with the men "walking back and forth" rather than standing and hanging And the issue with the rifleman holding the rifle down at his side instead of up in front of him.
Neither of those remainders are trivial issues in regards to the consistency of Rowland's story. And those are what's left after I've already spotted you the other two just for argument's sake. It's just one thing after another with Rowland. I guess you could continue with, 'well, maybe Craig didn't remember these other two points, either.' But these last two are much harder to portray as simple misremembrances on Craig's part. And maybe Craig really did correctly repeat what he'd heard that day. Or are you going to go off into the territory of, 'well, Craig got it all wrong except for that one little bit that I like?' But if Craig was really that wrong, can you really put much faith in
any part of what he'd said?
Finally,
It is only later that evening Rowland understands the importance of the man in the SN which is why he raises the issue with the FBI agents who visit him Saturday morningThis bit is just a molehill of supposition on your part. And it doesn't make sense, given your own if Rowland didn't understand the importance of the second man until that evening why does the information not appear in any recorded interview, statement, or report until his WC testimony? The second man doesn't appear in the 11/22 DCSD affidavit, the 11/22 FBI interview (SA Heitman), 11/23 interview (SAs Rice and Almon) , the 11/24 statement that Rowland dictated to Wulff and Swinford, or the 12/10 interview (SA Kelley). You'd think that he'd have told them at some point, if he thought it were significant.
