From the outside looking in...

[Dan O'meara]

Your opinions are not facts. None of your eight officers gave a specific location. You have just interpreted their words the way you want to interpret them.

The crime scene investigation officers (who were there to document the crime scene) give the specific location. And provide the photographic evidence.

Mr. BALL. Now, did you find a two-wheeled truck up there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And did you take a picture of it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Let me see that one.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. All right - it has the Dr. Pepper bottle and the paper sack that was sitting there in the picture.
Mr. BALL. Let me see that one.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. (Handed instrument to Counsel Ball)
There are two different views of it - there's one and here's one. That was before anything was touched and before it was dusted. This is a shot - I believe that's in the third aisle and let's see what it is marked - it's the sixth floor of 411 Elm Street looking south and the third aisle from Houston Street on the south side of the building. That was taken looking directly into that - this is the sack with those chicken bones and all that mess was in there too.
Mr. BALL. Is the sack shown there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes; it's a little ole brown sack - yes; it's right there.
Mr. BALL. We will mark this as "Exhibit H," which is your No. 6.
(Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit H," for identification.)

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/studeh.jpg

Mr. BALL. That's the sack, is that right?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And it shows - it has some chicken bones in it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Any chicken bones in any other place?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
Mr. BALL. None outside the sack?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; they were all inside the sack, wrapped up and put right back In. It had a little piece of Fritos in the sack, too.
Mr. BALL. Then, we will have the next picture marked Exhibit I, which shows the Dr. Pepper bottle with the two - wheeler, is that right?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
(Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit I," for identification.)

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/studei.jpg

Mr. BALL. And that's your No. 7.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. That's the third row over?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. That's the third aisle from Houston Street.
Mr. BALL. That would be the third set of windows?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. That would be the third set of windows - it would be - one, two, three.
Mr. BALL. The third set of windows from Houston Street - you mark it.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
(Instrument marked by the witness Studebaker as requested by Counsel Ball.)
Mr. BALL. Now, did you see a chicken bone over near the boxes in the south-east corner, over near where you found the cartridges and the paper sack? Mr.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I don't believe there was one there.
Mr. BALL. You didn't see any. One witness, a deputy sheriff named Luke Mooney said he found a piece of chicken partly eaten up on top of one of the boxes; did you see anything like that?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
Mr. BALL. Was anything like that called to your attention?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I can't recall anything like that. It ought to be in one of these pictures, if it is.




Mr. BALL. Where did you eat your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I ate my lunch--I am not sure about this, but the third or the fourth set of windows, I believe.
Mr. BALL. Facing on what street?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Facing Elm Street.
Mr. McCLOY. What floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Sixth floor.
Mr. DULLES. You ate your lunch on the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES. And you were all alone?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you sit on while you ate your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. First of all, I remember there was some boxes behind me. I just kind of leaned back on the boxes first. Then I began to get a little impatient, because there wasn't anyone coming up. So I decided to move to a two-wheeler.
Mr. BALL. A two-wheeler truck, you mean?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. I remember sitting on this two-wheeler. By that time, I was through, and I got up and I just left then.
.
.
.
Mr. BALL. I have an exhibit here marked 484.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 484 for identification.)

Mr. BALL. Do you recognize that?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; I recognize that.
Mr. BALL. What do you see?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I see a two-wheeler, a Dr. Pepper bottle, and some boxes in the windows.
Mr. BALL. And is that anywhere near where you were sitting?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; that is the exact place I was sitting.
Mr. BALL. That is the two-wheeler you were sitting on?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
.
.
.
Mr. BALL. Did you eat the chicken?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, I did.
Mr. BALL. Where did you put the bones?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I don't remember exactly, but I think I put some of them back in the sack. Just as I was ready to go I threw the sack down.
Mr. BALL. What did you do with the sack?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think I just dropped it there.
Mr. BALL. Anywhere near the two-wheeler?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think it was.
Mr. BALL. What did you do with the Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Just set it down on the floor.



You can believe whatever you want to. I really don’t care. But if you are going to try to post your opinions as facts, I will point out that they are not facts.

Your opinions are not facts.

The childishness of this response tells me exactly where any kind of reasoned debate on the issue of where BRW's lunch remains were found is going to end up.
I know this because I've already engaged with Charles on this specific issue in a thread entitled "Are these two photos legit?" [which I will bump so anyone interested can look through]. Our discussion regarding this issue starts around Reply#87 with the question:

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

To which I reply:

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.

I'll leave the reader to make up their minds about how discussion pans out.

None of your eight officers gave a specific location.

Charles knows full well that this is not true but, because of his spoon-fed beliefs, he cannot accept it because the ramifications for the LNer narrative are so immense.
Three law enforcement officials specifically describe the lunch remains being on top of the boxes that form the Sniper's Nest. Not 30ft away where they were eventually photographed by the crime lab boys.
Let's start with Deputy Sheriff, Luke Mooney. In his WC testimony there is a part where he describes discovering the location from which the assassination took place:

I went straight across to the southeast corner of the building, and I saw all these high boxes. Of course they were stacked all the way around over there. And I squeezed between two. And the minute I squeezed between these two stacks of boxes, I had to turn myself sideways to get in there that is when I saw the expended shells and the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon. And, also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don't know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the rifle could have lain--at the same angle that the shots were fired from.

The high boxes he squeezed through are the boxes that form the Sniper's Nest.
The next part of his testimony is spent describing what he saw and did while he was in the SN. At one point Ball asks him - "Now, was there anything you saw over in the corner?", to which Mooney replies:

Mr. Mooney: No, sir; I didn't see anything over in the corner. I did see this one partially eaten piece of fried chicken laying over to the right. It looked like he was facing--
Mr. Ball: Tell us where you found it?
Mr. Mooney: It would be laying over on the top of these other boxes.

Ball cuts him off at this point - "We will get to that in a moment." The testimony moves on to the empty shells that were in the SN, Mooney's revelation that he watched Fritz pickup the shells and his confusion over the crime lab pictures of the shells and how they seemed to be in a different position than he remembered. It then moves on to the Sniper's Perch, the three boxes stacked up that appeared to be used as a rifle rest with the top box having a crease on the top of it.
Eventually, Ball asks about the lunch remains:


Mr. Ball: Does that show any place where you saw the chicken bone?
Mr. Mooney: If I recall correctly, the chicken bone could have been laying on this box or it might have been laying on this box right here.
Mr. Ball: Make a couple of marks there to indicate where possibly the chicken bone was lying.
Mr. Mooney: Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball: Make two "X's". You think there was a chicken bone on the top of either one of those two?
Mr. Mooney: There was one of them partially eaten. And there was a little small paper poke.
Mr. Ball: By poke, you mean a paper sack?
Mr. Mooney: Right.
Mr. Ball: Where was that?
Mr. Mooney: Saw the chicken bone was laying here. The poke was laying about a foot away from it.
Mr. Ball: On the same carton?
Mr. Mooney: Yes, sir. In close relation to each other. But as to what was in the sack--it was kind of together, and I didn't open it. I didn't put my hands on it to open it. I only saw one piece of chicken.
Senator Cooper: How far was the chicken, the piece of chicken you saw, and the paper bag from the boxes near the window, and particularly the box that had the crease in it?
Mr. Mooney: I would say they might have been 5 feet or something like that. He 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.
Senator Cooper: You mean if someone had been standing near the box with the crease in it?
Mr. Mooney: Yes, sir.

Mooney could hardly be any more specific - the lunch remains were about 5ft from the box with the crease on top of it.
He is describing the lunch remains on top of the boxes forming the SN and that it would have taken a single step to place them there from the Sniper's Perch.
But Mooney is not the only officer to specifically describe the lunch remains being found on top of the boxes that formed the SN.
From the testimony of DPD Sergeant, Gerald Lynn Hill:

There was the boxes. 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. In front of this window and to the left or east corner of the window, there were two boxes, cardboard boxes that had the words "Roller books," on them.
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. I wouldn't know what the sizes were. It was a sack, I would say extended, it would probably be 12 inches high, 10 inches long, and about 4 inches thick.
Then, on the floor near the baseboard or against the baseboard of the south wall of the building, in front of the second window, in front of the, well, we would have to say second window from the east corner, were three spent shells.

Hill is describing the SN, the boxes "stacked in sort of a three-sided shield" that would have concealed anyone from general view. "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."
When Hill arrived at the SN the lunch remains were on top of the boxes that formed the SN.

There is also this from the report of 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..."

Once again we have an officer specifically stating the lunch remains were found on top of the boxes forming the SN.
The importance of these three testimonies is that they reveal the location of the lunch remains before the crime lab arrived.
There can be zero doubt that the lunch remains, as they were discovered by the first officers at the scene, were removed from the SN and placed where they were eventually photographed by the crime lab.

To dismiss the testimonial evidence of these three officers reveals a shoddy approach to the facts of this case.
Opinions are not facts, but they should certainly be formed by them.

[Charles Collins]

Your opinions are not facts.

The childishness of this response tells me exactly where any kind of reasoned debate on the issue of where BRW's lunch remains were found is going to end up.
I know this because I've already engaged with Charles on this specific issue in a thread entitled "Are these two photos legit?" [which I will bump so anyone interested can look through]. Our discussion regarding this issue starts around Reply#87 with the question:

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

To which I reply:

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.

I'll leave the reader to make up their minds about how discussion pans out.

None of your eight officers gave a specific location.

Charles knows full well that this is not true but, because of his spoon-fed beliefs, he cannot accept it because the ramifications for the LNer narrative are so immense.
Three law enforcement officials specifically describe the lunch remains being on top of the boxes that form the Sniper's Nest. Not 30ft away where they were eventually photographed by the crime lab boys.
Let's start with Deputy Sheriff, Luke Mooney. In his WC testimony there is a part where he describes discovering the location from which the assassination took place:

I went straight across to the southeast corner of the building, and I saw all these high boxes. Of course they were stacked all the way around over there. And I squeezed between two. And the minute I squeezed between these two stacks of boxes, I had to turn myself sideways to get in there that is when I saw the expended shells and the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon. And, also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don't know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the rifle could have lain--at the same angle that the shots were fired from.

The high boxes he squeezed through are the boxes that form the Sniper's Nest.
The next part of his testimony is spent describing what he saw and did while he was in the SN. At one point Ball asks him - "Now, was there anything you saw over in the corner?", to which Mooney replies:

Mr. Mooney: No, sir; I didn't see anything over in the corner. I did see this one partially eaten piece of fried chicken laying over to the right. It looked like he was facing--
Mr. Ball: Tell us where you found it?
Mr. Mooney: It would be laying over on the top of these other boxes.

Ball cuts him off at this point - "We will get to that in a moment." The testimony moves on to the empty shells that were in the SN, Mooney's revelation that he watched Fritz pickup the shells and his confusion over the crime lab pictures of the shells and how they seemed to be in a different position than he remembered. It then moves on to the Sniper's Perch, the three boxes stacked up that appeared to be used as a rifle rest with the top box having a crease on the top of it.
Eventually, Ball asks about the lunch remains:


Mr. Ball: Does that show any place where you saw the chicken bone?
Mr. Mooney: If I recall correctly, the chicken bone could have been laying on this box or it might have been laying on this box right here.
Mr. Ball: Make a couple of marks there to indicate where possibly the chicken bone was lying.
Mr. Mooney: Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball: Make two "X's". You think there was a chicken bone on the top of either one of those two?
Mr. Mooney: There was one of them partially eaten. And there was a little small paper poke.
Mr. Ball: By poke, you mean a paper sack?
Mr. Mooney: Right.
Mr. Ball: Where was that?
Mr. Mooney: Saw the chicken bone was laying here. The poke was laying about a foot away from it.
Mr. Ball: On the same carton?
Mr. Mooney: Yes, sir. In close relation to each other. But as to what was in the sack--it was kind of together, and I didn't open it. I didn't put my hands on it to open it. I only saw one piece of chicken.
Senator Cooper: How far was the chicken, the piece of chicken you saw, and the paper bag from the boxes near the window, and particularly the box that had the crease in it?
Mr. Mooney: I would say they might have been 5 feet or something like that. He 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.
Senator Cooper: You mean if someone had been standing near the box with the crease in it?
Mr. Mooney: Yes, sir.

Mooney could hardly be any more specific - the lunch remains were about 5ft from the box with the crease on top of it.
He is describing the lunch remains on top of the boxes forming the SN and that it would have taken a single step to place them there from the Sniper's Perch.
But Mooney is not the only officer to specifically describe the lunch remains being found on top of the boxes that formed the SN.
From the testimony of DPD Sergeant, Gerald Lynn Hill:

There was the boxes. 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. In front of this window and to the left or east corner of the window, there were two boxes, cardboard boxes that had the words "Roller books," on them.
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. I wouldn't know what the sizes were. It was a sack, I would say extended, it would probably be 12 inches high, 10 inches long, and about 4 inches thick.
Then, on the floor near the baseboard or against the baseboard of the south wall of the building, in front of the second window, in front of the, well, we would have to say second window from the east corner, were three spent shells.

Hill is describing the SN, the boxes "stacked in sort of a three-sided shield" that would have concealed anyone from general view. "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."
When Hill arrived at the SN the lunch remains were on top of the boxes that formed the SN.

There is also this from the report of 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..."

Once again we have an officer specifically stating the lunch remains were found on top of the boxes forming the SN.
The importance of these three testimonies is that they reveal the location of the lunch remains before the crime lab arrived.
There can be zero doubt that the lunch remains, as they were discovered by the first officers at the scene, were removed from the SN and placed where they were eventually photographed by the crime lab.

To dismiss the testimonial evidence of these three officers reveals a shoddy approach to the facts of this case.
Opinions are not facts, but they should certainly be formed by them.

Quite frankly, if you think this is indicative of a specific location, then "Houston, we have a problem."   

Mr. Mooney: If I recall correctly, the chicken bone could have been laying on this box or it might have been laying on this box right here.



This is a photo that I scanned from "JFK First Day Evidence" by Gary Savage, it is labeled DP-4. I am sure there is a clearer version online, if anyone cares to look for it. This photo depicts the second aisle from the east wall. It appears that there is a row boxes extending east/west across the aisle near the windows on the south wall.




This is another scan from Gary Savage's book. It is labeled DP-5 and shows the third aisle from the east wall. It appears that the east/west row of boxes ends in the middle of the third aisle near the cart where the lunch remains were found.




No specific location was given by any of your officers. Therefore no one (including you) can say for certain specifically what they meant by their descriptions. But the above photos do indicate to me that a casual look might lead one to assume this extended row of boxes was a part of the sniper's nest shield boxes.

Well done Charles, it is important that an LNer has finally broke ranks to deal with Rowland's evidence.
The usual strategy is either to ignore it or imply Rowland made the whole thing up. This leaves us with what I've referred to elsewhere as The Miracle On Elm Street - that Rowland made up a story about a white male holding a scoped rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building and, by some unbelievably astronomical coincidence, there was indeed a white male holding a scoped rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building!!
I find it bizarre that LNers are willing to put themselves in this position rather than take Rowland's testimony seriously.
As you have pointed out, " the descriptions given by Rowland, Brennan, Edwards, and Fischer are all similar enough to be describing the same man."

There is a incorrect detail in one of your posts that I have to rectify. It seems innocuous at first glance but it has far-reaching consequences:

BRW said that he was sitting on the cart in the third aisle from the east wall (this is also where his lunch remains were found and photographed)

It is a fact that the lunch remains were found at the Sniper's Nest and not over 30 feet away at the thrid aisle.
We have had this conversation before.
EIGHT law enforcement officers place the remains at the SN - more importantly, three of them place the remains specifically on top of thye boxes that form the Sniper's Nest!

It is a fact that the lunch remains were found at the Sniper's Nest and not over 30 feet away at the thrid aisle.


No it is not a fact. This is your fantasy. And it is apparently based on absolutely nothing specific from any of these officers that you are apparently trying to rely upon.

If you want to believe that your fantasy is true, be my guest. However, your attempt to declare that BRW's and Studebaker's sworn testimonies are incorrect (based on your criteria) is a joke. And your attempt to derail this thread to further your silly argument is not appreciated. If you want to argue your position over and over and over and over again, please do it on a different thread. But don't expect me to go around in circles arguing the same old stuff over and over and over and over again with you.

[Walt Cakebread]

Quite frankly, if you think this is indicative of a specific location, then "Houston, we have a problem."   

Mr. Mooney: If I recall correctly, the chicken bone could have been laying on this box or it might have been laying on this box right here.



This is a photo that I scanned from "JFK First Day Evidence" by Gary Savage, it is labeled DP-4. I am sure there is a clearer version online, if anyone cares to look for it. This photo depicts the second aisle from the east wall. It appears that there is a row boxes extending east/west across the aisle near the windows on the south wall.




This is another scan from Gary Savage's book. It is labeled DP-5 and shows the third aisle from the east wall. It appears that the east/west row of boxes ends in the middle of the third aisle near the cart where the lunch remains were found.




No specific location was given by any of your officers. Therefore no one (including you) can say for certain specifically what they meant by their descriptions. But the above photos do indicate to me that a casual look might lead one to assume this extended row of boxes was a part of the sniper's nest shield boxes.







It is a fact that the lunch remains were found at the Sniper's Nest and not over 30 feet away at the thrid aisle.


No it is not a fact. This is your fantasy. And it is apparently based on absolutely nothing specific from any of these officers that you are apparently trying to rely upon.

If you want to believe that your fantasy is true, be my guest. However, your attempt to declare that BRW's and Studebaker's sworn testimonies are incorrect (based on your criteria) is a joke. And your attempt to derail this thread to further your silly argument is not appreciated. If you want to argue your position over and over and over and over again, please do it on a different thread. But don't expect me to go around in circles arguing the same old stuff over and over and over and over again with you.

Obviously your powers of observation are sub par.....  LOOK at the sunlit on the floor.....This photo was taken in the AM....So it cannot be Studebaker #5.... It was probably taken during the same STAGED CRIME SCENE photo session that the rifle in situ photo was taken.

[Richard Smith]

It's hilarious that CTer contrarians who dismiss the evidence against Oswald, no matter how well documented, make baseless statements like BRW would have seen Oswald.  This they suggest is an absolute fact despite the vagaries of the timeline.  We know that someone was in the 6th floor window at 12:30 since witnesses saw a rifle pointed out the window at that moment and those in window below heard the gunshots over their heads.  So we know without any doubt that a person was there and therefore could be unobserved by BRW while he was on the 6th floor since that is exactly what happened.  That person certainly could have been Oswald.  Why only he is precluded from being there by contrarian logic is a source of amusement.

[Charles Collins]

Obviously your powers of observation are sub par.....  LOOK at the sunlit on the floor.....This photo was taken in the AM....So it cannot be Studebaker #5.... It was probably taken during the same STAGED CRIME SCENE photo session that the rifle in situ photo was taken.

Perhaps DP-6 will help clear this problem up for you Walt. It is a closer view that shows sunlight and shadows which clearly indicate that the time of day is not in the morning. I think that the stacks of boxes, and the gaps between the boxes, (and their relative angles) are creating the shadows and light patches on the more distant photo (DP-5). I believe that the angles of the light patches on the floor in DP-5 are indicative of the angles of the gaps, not the angle of the sun.

[Walt Cakebread]

Perhaps DP-6 will help clear this problem up for you Walt. It is a closer view that shows sunlight and shadows which clearly indicate that the time of day is not in the morning. I think that the stacks of boxes, and the gaps between the boxes, (and their relative angles) are creating the shadows and light patches on the more distant photo (DP-5). I believe that the angles of the light patches on the floor in DP-5 are indicative of the angles of the gaps, not the angle of the sun.

Why do you insist on displaying your dishonesty, Mr Collins?     You specifically  stated that the photo was Studebaker # 5 and the sunlit on the floor speaks the truth.....  It was taken in the MORNING....




 

[Charles Collins]

Why do you insist on displaying your dishonesty, Mr Collins?     You specifically  stated that the photo was Studebaker # 5 and the sunlit on the floor speaks the truth.....  It was taken in the MORNING....

No one has said that it was “Studebaker #5”. I said that it is designated DP-5 in “JFK First Day Evidence” by Gary Savage. Take a look at page 168 and see for yourself.

[Walt Cakebread]

No one has said that it was “Studebaker #5”. I said that it is designated DP-5 in “JFK First Day Evidence” by Gary Savage. Take a look at page 168 and see for yourself.

Answer the question.....  Was DP # 5 taken on the afternoon of the murder?