The Remains of Bonnie Ray

[Walt Cakebread]

Yeah Walt, but you are the only one who believes that the Dillard photo was taken during the shooting.

Regardless, “Richard’s” claim that the Dillard photo somehow corroborates Jackson seeing a rifle is ridiculous, even by “Richard” standards.

Look at the sun table that Mr Hackerott posted ..... It shows that the sun moved from east to west 6  degrees between 12:20 and 12:40

The shadow being cast on the face of the TSBD between the 5th and 6th  floor windows  verifies that table ...

The powell and Dillard photos were NOT taken with mere seconds between them...

[Dan O'meara]

So.........

A man is recalled as wearing an open-necked white or off-white tshirt, and you say 'This on its own rules out Oswald'.

A man is recalled as wearing a very bright plaid shirt, and you say 'Yep, it's definitely this guy':



As for your other arguments, Mr. O'Meara, no disrespect but they are just a medley of 'I choose to focus only on those of various BRW's statements that I like' and Organ-like 'No matter what the witness got wrong----all that SUN! all that DISTANCE!!----he still saw the guy I want him to have seen'.

And you have ignored Mr. Rowland's recollection of two black people in the fifth-floor pair of windows directly underneath the SN at or around the same time.

Hi Alan, I'm glad you agree with the arguments I laid out in that rather lengthy post regarding Rowland's over-estimation of BRW's age.
I'm well aware you are trying to peddle your "Multi-racial Assassination Death Squad" [MADS] theory but we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue.
You must reject a copious amount of physical and testimonial evidence in order to pursue your MADS theory, which you seem to have accepted without a shred of evidence supporting it.
Why have you done that?

Anyhoo, back to Rowland's testimony. My last post was quite a long one so I didn't feel I had the time and space to deal with all the issues you raise.
Just to recap - after initially lying to the DPD regarding his movements leading up to the assassination, Bonnie Ray is called in by the FBI the day after the assassination, to check his story. Far from having his lunch on the first floor with Norman and Jarman and going up to the 5th floor with them [as he told the DPD on the day of the assassination], Bonnie Ray admits he went up to the 6th floor alone to have his lunch. But he still lies by saying he was only up there for around 3 minutes.
This young black man has lied to the DPD and then lied to the FBI!
He firstly lied about being on the 6th floor at all, he then lied about how long he was up there. Why is he trying to distance himself from the 6th floor?
His WC testimony reveals that in subsequent interviews Bonnie Ray continued to lie about how long he was up there but a pattern emerges - the more he is questioned, the longer he has been up there - 0, 3, 5, 10, 12 and 15 minutes, until finally he blurts out 20 minutes. But even this isn't quite accurate. We know from the testimonies of Harold Norman and Junior Jarman that BRW didn't join them on the floor until 12:25pm at the earliest, meaning he was up on the 6th floor for around 25 minutes.
Ten minutes before this, Rowland observes the man with the rifle on the 6th floor. He has already seen the man at the SN window (and there is no doubt he is specifically referring to the SN window), and continues to see him as he searches for the man with the rifle to show his wife. A few minutes before the motorcade arrives the man at the SN window disappears, reflecting the movements of BRW from the 6th floor to the 5th, to join Norman and Jarman.
Bonnie Ray continues to lie in his WC testimony about where he had his lunch - the Keystone DPD have pictures of the only lunch sack found on the 6th floor and a bottle of Dr. Pepper close by. In the lunch sack are chicken remains and a piece of Fritos - the lunch BRW said he had. The bottle is dusted for prints but the prints aren't Oswald's, so it is dismissed as a piece of evidence. In his WC testimony Day explains:

Mr. Mccloy: On the crime scene, that is, on the sixth floor, did you notice any chicken bones or chicken remnants of a chicken sandwich or lunch or the whereabouts, if you did see them?
Mr. Day: Yes, sir; there was a sack of some chicken bones and a bottle brought into the identification bureau. I think I still have that sack and
bottle down there. The chicken bones, I finally threw them away that laid around there.
In my talking to the men who were working on that floor, November 25, they stated, one of them stated, he had eaten lunch over there.


Day states that lunch remains belonged to one of the men who had worked on the 6th floor - Bonnie Ray.
However, at least seven officers place the lunch remains by the SN window - two officers specifically state that the lunch remains were found on top of one of the stacks that formed the SN. Others state that they saw a half-eaten piece of chicken and a lunch sack on top of some boxes but by the time the DPD take their photos, the chicken has found it's way into the lunch sack and the lunch sack is no longer on top of any boxes, it's on the floor stuffed down the side of the trolley.

So, at around 12:15pm, when it has been firmly established that Bonnie Ray is having his lunch on the 6th floor, Rowland sees a slender, black male at the SN window, the same window by which Bonnie Ray's lunch remains were found. Rowland also notes that just a few minutes before the motorcade arrives in Dealey Plaza, the man in the SN window disappears, perfectly reflecting BRW's movements from the 5th floor to the 6th.
I am not willing to ignore all this evidence. The man in the SN window can only be Bonnie Ray Williams waiting for the motorcade to arrive. He lies about ever being on the 6th floor, he lies about how long he was up there and he lies about where he ate his lunch. Bonnie Ray is doing everything in his power to distance himself from the SN window, the same window Rowland saw a black man at the same time BRW was having his lunch.
As I've explained in my last post there are a number of factors that led to Rowland over-estimating BRW's age. Which leaves us with his observation of Bonnie Ray's very brightly coloured, red and green shirt.
This is the single, tiny detail you are pinning all your hopes on. The pile of evidence pointing towards the man in the SN window has been ignored. All you have is this detail.
It could easily be brushed off by pointing out that Rowland made it perfectly clear he wasn't paying much attention to what this man looked like. He is asked to remember an astonishing amount of things and he got this one small detail wrong.
But Rowland makes the point that the colour was "really bright" and that's why he remembered it. Leaving aside the strange notion of a would-be assassin wearing such a conspicuous garment, there is something suggestive about this "really bright" colour. BRW was wearing a green shirt that day, so where would this really bright red colour be coming from. I believe it was Colin Crow who suggested a perfectly reasonable explanation:

BRW's lunch consisted of a chicken-on-the-bone sandwich and a bag of Fritos. As he waited for the motorcade to arrive Bonnie Ray sat at the SN window munching on his Fritos, while holding the bag up in front of him (I'm sure we've all done something similar at the movies, munching away on a snack while holding the bag up in front of us). In the 1960's, this is what a bag of Fritos looked like:



This is where the bright red colour was coming from. BRW was eating from a large bag of Fritos held up in front of him. Rowland mistook the colour as being part of his shirt but did remember the colour as being "really bright".

And you have ignored Mr. Rowland's recollection of two black people in the fifth-floor pair of windows directly underneath the SN at or around the same time.

Your desperation is beginning to show.
Rowland never makes such a recollection and you know it.
Grasping onto tiny details and twisting testimonial evidence to suit your purposes are signs of desperation you should recognise from your "PM=Oswald" days.
I suspect your time would be better spent considering the very large amount of evidence that supports the scenario outlined above.

[Walt Cakebread]

Hi Alan, I'm glad you agree with the arguments I laid out in that rather lengthy post regarding Rowland's over-estimation of BRW's age.
I'm well aware you are trying to peddle your "Multi-racial Assassination Death Squad" [MADS] theory but we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue.
You must reject a copious amount of physical and testimonial evidence in order to pursue your MADS theory, which you seem to have accepted without a shred of evidence supporting it.
Why have you done that?

Anyhoo, back to Rowland's testimony. My last post was quite a long one so I didn't feel I had the time and space to deal with all the issues you raise.
Just to recap - after initially lying to the DPD regarding his movements leading up to the assassination, Bonnie Ray is called in by the FBI the day after the assassination, to check his story. Far from having his lunch on the first floor with Norman and Jarman and going up to the 5th floor with them [as he told the DPD on the day of the assassination], Bonnie Ray admits he went up to the 6th floor alone to have his lunch. But he still lies by saying he was only up there for around 3 minutes.
This young black man has lied to the DPD and then lied to the FBI!
He firstly lied about being on the 6th floor at all, he then lied about how long he was up there. Why is he trying to distance himself from the 6th floor?
His WC testimony reveals that in subsequent interviews Bonnie Ray continued to lie about how long he was up there but a pattern emerges - the more he is questioned, the longer he has been up there - 0, 3, 5, 10, 12 and 15 minutes, until finally he blurts out 20 minutes. But even this isn't quite accurate. We know from the testimonies of Harold Norman and Junior Jarman that BRW didn't join them on the floor until 12:25pm at the earliest, meaning he was up on the 6th floor for around 25 minutes.
Ten minutes before this, Rowland observes the man with the rifle on the 6th floor. He has already seen the man at the SN window (and there is no doubt he is specifically referring to the SN window), and continues to see him as he searches for the man with the rifle to show his wife. A few minutes before the motorcade arrives the man at the SN window disappears, reflecting the movements of BRW from the 6th floor to the 5th, to join Norman and Jarman.
Bonnie Ray continues to lie in his WC testimony about where he had his lunch - the Keystone DPD have pictures of the only lunch sack found on the 6th floor and a bottle of Dr. Pepper close by. In the lunch sack are chicken remains and a piece of Fritos - the lunch BRW said he had. The bottle is dusted for prints but the prints aren't Oswald's, so it is dismissed as a piece of evidence. In his WC testimony Day explains:

Mr. Mccloy: On the crime scene, that is, on the sixth floor, did you notice any chicken bones or chicken remnants of a chicken sandwich or lunch or the whereabouts, if you did see them?
Mr. Day: Yes, sir; there was a sack of some chicken bones and a bottle brought into the identification bureau. I think I still have that sack and
bottle down there. The chicken bones, I finally threw them away that laid around there.
In my talking to the men who were working on that floor, November 25, they stated, one of them stated, he had eaten lunch over there.


Day states that lunch remains belonged to one of the men who had worked on the 6th floor - Bonnie Ray.
However, at least seven officers place the lunch remains by the SN window - two officers specifically state that the lunch remains were found on top of one of the stacks that formed the SN. Others state that they saw a half-eaten piece of chicken and a lunch sack on top of some boxes but by the time the DPD take their photos, the chicken has found it's way into the lunch sack and the lunch sack is no longer on top of any boxes, it's on the floor stuffed down the side of the trolley.

So, at around 12:15pm, when it has been firmly established that Bonnie Ray is having his lunch on the 6th floor, Rowland sees a slender, black male at the SN window, the same window by which Bonnie Ray's lunch remains were found. Rowland also notes that just a few minutes before the motorcade arrives in Dealey Plaza, the man in the SN window disappears, perfectly reflecting BRW's movements from the 5th floor to the 6th.
I am not willing to ignore all this evidence. The man in the SN window can only be Bonnie Ray Williams waiting for the motorcade to arrive. He lies about ever being on the 6th floor, he lies about how long he was up there and he lies about where he ate his lunch. Bonnie Ray is doing everything in his power to distance himself from the SN window, the same window Rowland saw a black man at the same time BRW was having his lunch.
As I've explained in my last post there are a number of factors that led to Rowland over-estimating BRW's age. Which leaves us with his observation of Bonnie Ray's very brightly coloured, red and green shirt.
This is the single, tiny detail you are pinning all your hopes on. The pile of evidence pointing towards the man in the SN window has been ignored. All you have is this detail.
It could easily be brushed off by pointing out that Rowland made it perfectly clear he wasn't paying much attention to what this man looked like. He is asked to remember an astonishing amount of things and he got this one small detail wrong.
But Rowland makes the point that the colour was "really bright" and that's why he remembered it. Leaving aside the strange notion of a would-be assassin wearing such a conspicuous garment, there is something suggestive about this "really bright" colour. BRW was wearing a green shirt that day, so where would this really bright red colour be coming from. I believe it was Colin Crow who suggested a perfectly reasonable explanation:

BRW's lunch consisted of a chicken-on-the-bone sandwich and a bag of Fritos. As he waited for the motorcade to arrive Bonnie Ray sat at the SN window munching on his Fritos, while holding the bag up in front of him (I'm sure we've all done something similar at the movies, munching away on a snack while holding the bag up in front of us). In the 1960's, this is what a bag of Fritos looked like:



This is where the bright red colour was coming from. BRW was eating from a large bag of Fritos held up in front of him. Rowland mistook the colour as being part of his shirt but did remember the colour as being "really bright".

And you have ignored Mr. Rowland's recollection of two black people in the fifth-floor pair of windows directly underneath the SN at or around the same time.

Your desperation is beginning to show.
Rowland never makes such a recollection and you know it.
Grasping onto tiny details and twisting testimonial evidence to suit your purposes are signs of desperation you should recognise from your "PM=Oswald" days.
I suspect your time would be better spent considering the very large amount of evidence that supports the scenario outlined above.

Rowland observes the man with the rifle on the 6th floor. He has already seen the man at the SN window (and there is no doubt he is specifically referring to the SN window), and continues to see him as he searches for the man with the rifle to show his wife.


You're right....Rowland did see a man with a rifle on the sixth floor..... And I've long believed that James Powell snapped a photo of that man sticking the rifle out of the SE corner window.    LOOK at the Powell photo....  If Dillard hadn't screwed up the plot by taking a photo of he TSBD during the shooting , the conspirators would have presented Powell's photo of the rifle sticking out of the window as proof that Lee Harvey Oswald had been firing that rifle and killed president Kennedy.

[Dan O'meara]

Rowland observes the man with the rifle on the 6th floor. He has already seen the man at the SN window (and there is no doubt he is specifically referring to the SN window), and continues to see him as he searches for the man with the rifle to show his wife.


You're right....Rowland did see a man with a rifle on the sixth floor..... And I've long believed that James Powell snapped a photo of that man sticking the rifle out of the SE corner window.    LOOK at the Powell photo....  If Dillard hadn't screwed up the plot by taking a photo of he TSBD during the shooting , the conspirators would have presented Powell's photo of the rifle sticking out of the window as proof that Lee Harvey Oswald had been firing that rifle and killed president Kennedy.

Can you keep this to the "Are these two photos legit" thread please.
This is a different topic.

[Alan Ford]

Hi Alan, [snippety-snip.......]

Jeez, Mr O'Meara, talk about weak sauce..........................

1. Your cherry-picking assumption that the timeframe Mr Williams testified to before the WC is, out of all the timeframes he gave, the true one is just that----------a cherry-picking assumption

2. Your rather desperate attempt to explain away the plaid shirt recalled by Mr Rowland as a bag of chips (!) is just that----------rather desperate

3. Your comically unconvincing attempt to turn Mr Williams into an 'elderly Negro' is just that--------comically unconvincing

4. Your sorry lack of understanding as to what Mr Rowland testified about window 'B' is just that---------sorry

5. Your strange zeal in opposing the very idea that the two men seen on the sixth floor by Mr Rowland might not have been employees is just that--------strange

But hey, if you want to keep believing that Mr Rowland was a moron, and that Mr Williams blithely ate corn chips at the SN window while an armed fellow-employee blithely made himself visible at the far side of the floor, knock yourself out!

 

[Dan O'meara]

Jeez, Mr O'Meara, talk about weak sauce..........................

1. Your cherry-picking assumption that the timeframe Mr Williams testified to before the WC is, out of all the timeframes he gave, the true one is just that----------a cherry-picking assumption

2. Your rather desperate attempt to explain away the plaid shirt recalled by Mr Rowland as a bag of chips (!) is just that----------rather desperate

3. Your comically unconvincing attempt to turn Mr Williams into an 'elderly Negro' is just that--------comically unconvincing

4. Your sorry lack of understanding as to what Mr Rowland testified about window 'B' is just that---------sorry

5. Your strange zeal in opposing the very idea that the two men seen on the sixth floor by Mr Rowland might not have been employees is just that--------strange

But hey, if you want to keep believing that Mr Rowland was a moron, and that Mr Williams blithely ate corn chips at the SN window while an armed fellow-employee blithely made himself visible at the far side of the floor, knock yourself out!

 

This is a bit of a nothing post, Alan.
As you put it, "weak sauce" indeed.

1. Your cherry-picking assumption that the timeframe Mr Williams testified to before the WC is, out of all the timeframes he gave, the true one is just that----------a cherry-picking assumption

If you were a bit more familiar with the evidence you would know that this isn't cherry-picking at all.
BRW's movements are confirmed by the testimonies of Harold Norman and Junior Jarman. They put themselves on the 5th floor no earlier than 12:25pm. They both testify that BRW joins them when they are on the 5th floor. BRW testifies that he leaves the 6th floor and joins Norman and Jarman on the 6th floor. The timeline is corroborated by multiple testimonies.
Whatis strange about all this is, as I've pointed out, BRW lies about not being on the 6th floor, then lies about how long he was up there, constantly changing the amount of time he was on the 6th floor. But we don't have to "cherry-pick" which timeline BRW is providing as the timeline is dictated by Norman and Jarman. In fact, BRW never actually gives the correct amount of time he is up there so your whole criticism is utterly meaningless.
It should also be noted that Rowland's observation that the man in the SN window disappears a few minutes before the motorcade arrives in Dealey Plaza, perfectly matches the movements of BRW - leaving the 6th floor to go down to the 5thfloor minutes before the motorcade arrives.

2. Your rather desperate attempt to explain away the plaid shirt recalled by Mr Rowland as a bag of chips (!) is just that----------rather desperate

From BRW's WC testimony:

Mr. Ball: Did you have anything else in your lunch besides chicken?
Mr. Williams: I had a bag of Fritos, I believe it was.

From the WC testimony of Robert Studebaker, discussing the lunch remains found on the 6th floor:

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.

So BRW testifies that part ofhis lunch was a bag of Fritos.
Studebaker testifies that a piece of Fritos is found in the lunch sack.
BRW ate a bag of Fritos as he waited for the motorcade to arrive.
The bag of Fritos is bright red in colour.
Rowland descibes the colour of BRW's shirt as being "really bright".
BRW is at the SN window eating his Fritos from a bright red bag held up in front of him, and Rowland mistakes this colour for part of his shirt. Perfectly plausible - we know BRW ate a bag of Fritos, we know the bag was bright red, we know Rowland describes the colour as being really bright, we know it's not uncommon to hold a bag of snacks in front of you while eating them.
We also know why you can't accept such a rational explanation. And that's fair enough.

3. Your comically unconvincing attempt to turn Mr Williams into an 'elderly Negro' is just that--------comically unconvincing

I've dealt with this issue in depth previously. You haven't argued against a single point I've made. You just come up with silly comments that have no substance. I refer any reader interested to Reply#14.

4. Your sorry lack of understanding as to what Mr Rowland testified about window 'B' is just that---------sorry

You are being very disingenuous here Alan.
You know you misrepresented Rowland's testimony in a truly desperate attempt to score a little point.
But it's back-fired and I would advise you to drop it before your dodgy tactics are exposed.

5. Your strange zeal in opposing the very idea that the two men seen on the sixth floor by Mr Rowland might not have been employees is just that--------strange

 
I think you'll find it's not that strange to imagine TSBD employees in the TSBD building.
What is strange is to imagine a Multi-racial Assassination Death Squad roaming round the TSBD. Particularly when this isn't supported by a scrap of evidence.

Good luck with that

[Alan Ford]

This is a bit of a nothing post, Alan. [Snippety-snip!..........]

~Grin~

If Mr. Rowland had seen an 'elderly white man' with practically no hair wearing a green shirt at the SN window at 12:15, the Warren Gullibles would be using your embarrassingly strained logic to argue that this 'can only have been Oswald'. They'd be posting a grainy black-and-white photo of Mr Oswald like you've done with Mr. Williams, and talking up the amazing effects of sunlight and distance on normal human perception. And pointing up the amazing coincidence between the man's race and Mr Oswald's. They'd be saying the apple he was eating must have caused Mr Rowland to think the man's shirt was green. They would, in short, be throwing pure bunkum at the problem posed by Mr. Rowland's recollection, just as you're doing now, all in an effort to make Mr. Rowland out to be a moron. And you'd be the first to laugh at their hapless efforts.

Some other points:

1.  Yes, it is established that Messrs. Jarman & Norman did not go up to five until ~5 minutes before the motorcade's arrival
2. No, it is not established that Mr. Williams joined them shortly after they got there----Mr. Williams may have already been on the fifth floor (which would explain why they didn't go up to six in the first place------they saw him up on five from down on the street and decided to join him there)
3. Mr. Tom Alyea was adamant that the lunch remains were found on the fifth floor and brought up to the sixth. So it's perfectly possible that Mr. Williams started eating over at the third window on six but was told to leave the floor way earlier than he later testified; and that he brought his lunch down to five with him and left the remnants there after the shooting
4. Your lack of understanding as to what Mr Rowland testified about what he saw in window 'B' remains sorry
5. Your position is amusingly incoherent: A) we cannot contemplate a multi-racial assassination team; B) BRW blithely munched corn chips while an armed white man was blithely making himself visible over on the west side. Let me guess: Mr Jack Dougherty was the white man, and he told Mr Williams he was up there to do some recreational pigeon shooting before the motorcade. Anything but (gasp! horror! pass the smelling salts!) an outside team, right?

 

[Dan O'meara]

~Grin~

If Mr. Rowland had seen an 'elderly white man' with practically no hair wearing a green shirt at the SN window at 12:15, the Warren Gullibles would be using your embarrassingly strained logic to argue that this 'can only have been Oswald'. They'd be posting a grainy black-and-white photo of Mr Oswald like you've done with Mr. Williams, and talking up the amazing effects of sunlight and distance on normal human perception. And pointing up the amazing coincidence between the man's race and Mr Oswald's. They'd be saying the apple he was eating must have caused Mr Rowland to think the man's shirt was green. They would, in short, be throwing pure bunkum at the problem posed by Mr. Rowland's recollection, just as you're doing now, all in an effort to make Mr. Rowland out to be a moron. And you'd be the first to laugh at their hapless efforts.

Yet another nothing post.
This fantastical rant shows the [lack of] strength of your arguments over this issue.
You have literally nothing to support your position and can only produce nonsense like this.

Some other points:

 
I like your use of the word "other", as if you'd already made a point

1.  Yes, it is established that Messrs. Jarman & Norman did not go up to five until ~5 minutes before the motorcade's arrival
2. No, it is not established that Mr. Williams joined them shortly after they got there----Mr. Williams may have already been on the fifth floor (which would explain why they didn't go up to six in the first place------they saw him up on five from down on the street and decided to join him there)
3. Mr. Tom Alyea was adamant that the lunch remains were found on the fifth floor and brought up to the sixth. So it's perfectly possible that Mr. Williams started eating over at the third window on six but was told to leave the floor way earlier than he later testified; and that he brought his lunch down to five with him and left the remnants there after the shooting
4. Your lack of understanding as to what Mr Rowland testified about what he saw in window 'B' remains sorry
5. Your position is amusingly incoherent: A) we cannot contemplate a multi-racial assassination team; B) BRW blithely munched corn chips while an armed white man was blithely making himself visible over on the west side. Let me guess: Mr Jack Dougherty was the white man, and he told Mr Williams he was up there to do some recreational pigeon shooting before the motorcade. Anything but (gasp! horror! pass the smelling salts!) an outside team, right?

 

No, it is not established that Mr. Williams joined them shortly after they got there----Mr. Williams may have already been on the fifth floor

From the WC testimony of Junior Jarman:

Mr. Ball: Was there any reason why you should go to the fifth floor any more than the fourth or the sixth?
Mr. Jarman: No.
....
Mr. Ball: When you got there was there anybody on the fifth floor?
Mr. Jarman: No, sir.
...
Mr. Ball: Did somebody join you then?
Mr. Jarman: Yes, sir; a few minutes later.
Mr. Ball: Who joined you?
Mr. Jarman: Bonnie Ray Williams.

Familiarise yourself with the evidence. This is really basic stuff. Your desperation to promote your MADS theory is causing you to make fundamental errors.

Mr. Tom Alyea was adamant that the lunch remains were found on the fifth floor and brought up to the sixth. So it's perfectly possible that Mr. Williams started eating over at the third window on six but was told to leave the floor way earlier than he later testified; and that he brought his lunch down to five with him and left the remnants there after the shooting

Cite please.

If this was indeed the case, and if you think this somehow nullifies the witness testimony of the first officers on the scene (before Alyea got there), then you need to question how you approach the evidence (talk about cherry-picking!).
Two of the first officers specifically place the lunch remains on top of one of the stacks that form the Sniper's Nest. Five other others place them in the southeast corner, by the SN window.
And there is also this from Tom Alyea:

At the time it was suspected that the assassin had stayed quite a time there. There was a stack with a stack of chicken bones on it. There was a Dr. Pepper bottle which they dusted for fingerprints. The fingerprints were not Oswald's. You know how he piled the boxes up?
[email to Dale Myers - https://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html]

4. Your lack of understanding as to what Mr Rowland testified about what he saw in window 'B' remains sorry

I genuinely can't believe you're sticking by your twisted version of Rowland's testimony.
You should be ashamed:

Mr. Specter: At or about that time did you observe anyone else hanging out any window or observe any one through any window on the same floor where you have drawn the two circles on Exhibit 356?
Mr. Rowland: No; no one else on that floor.

Rowland does not state that he saw the black men in the window below the SN window "at or about that time".
He clearly answers a question regarding who else was on the 6th floor.
That you've tried to turn this into Rowland observing the men on the 5th floor about 12:15pm is a sorry tactic reserved for the truly desperate. This alone should be setting off alarm bells regarding how you approach this case.

Alan, you have nothing to offer other than nonsensical rants and completely unsupported conjecture. Plus a willingness to fake testimonial evidence.
If you have zero substance, why do you bother posting?