Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Chicken Bone Lunch


Duke Lane
 Share

Recommended Posts

My primary curiosity here is to determine what, if any, results came about from the dusting of the Dr Pepper bottle that Bonnie Ray Williams left on the sixth floor. The bottle along with other "remains of the chicken lunch" were removed from the 6th floor on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; I'm not personally aware of the disposition of those items of evidence; can anyone elucidate them?

I'll also invite anyone who wishes to, to visit my xxxxty little website, dukelane.com, and view the articles by Sylvia Meagher and Partricia Lambert on the topics that I'm going to soon address. The fingerprints, if any, are central to the theme that I'm developing, and I appreciate any help anyone can provide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll also invite anyone who wishes to, to visit my xxxxty little website, dukelane.com, and view the articles by Sylvia Meagher and Partricia Lambert on the topics that I'm going to soon address. The fingerprints, if any, are central to the theme that I'm developing, and I appreciate any help anyone can provide.

In that article Duke linked, Sylvia Meagher wrote:

Relying solely on the official documents and papers of the Warren Commission, I have assembled a chronological account of the conflicting statements and testimony in the matter of Charles Givens and suggest why they raise profound misgivings about the commission's findings. I am confident that no spokesman for the Warren Commission will come forward with clarifications that effectively reconcile the contradictions in the evidence or that can justify the embodiment in the Warren Report of a version of the Givens' story that is incompatible with all his earlier statements, without acknowledgment that there had been previous, different versions by the same witness.

Sylvia Meagher was a very courageous woman. She had a way of presenting the truth and exposing falsehoods that was matched by few. Her research resonates today.

Modern researchers like Duke help keep her legacy alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My primary curiosity here is to determine what, if any, results came about from the dusting of the Dr Pepper bottle that Bonnie Ray Williams left on the sixth floor. The bottle along with other "remains of the chicken lunch" were removed from the 6th floor on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; I'm not personally aware of the disposition of those items of evidence; can anyone elucidate them?

From Appendix XII

Speculation.--Laboratory tests showed remains of the chicken lunch found on the sixth floor were 2 days old.

Commission finding.--The chicken lunch remains had been left there shortly after noon on November 22 by Bonnie Ray
Williams.

In other words, they were not tested - no need. They had their chickens all lined up.

From Lambert's piece:

If the chicken bones were inside the sack as Studebaker claims and as his picture indicates, none of the people on the sixth floor that day would have seen them. But six of them did: three from the first group at the scene, and three who arrived later.[34] The only explanation for this contradiction is that the bones were outside initially and were put inside the sack before the picture was taken. Since the bones were obviously moved from outside the sack to inside, it is hardly unreasonable to suggest that the entire lunch was then moved from one location to another, from the sniper's nest to the third set of double windows before being photographed.

The question that remains is why this was done. A police affidavit contained in the 26 volumes of Commission Hearings and Exhibits provides the motive. Sometime on November 22, Wesley Frazier, the man who drove Oswald to work that Friday morning, signed a sworn statement which included the following information:

Lee (Oswald) did not carry his lunch today. He told me this morning he was going to buy his lunch today
.

Frazier didn't give his statement until around 9:00pm so if the lunch remains were moved and photographed as a result of Frazier's statement, it was necessarily done late that night, or sometime the following day.

I'll also invite anyone who wishes to, to visit my xxxxty little website, dukelane.com, and view the articles by Sylvia Meagher and Partricia Lambert on the topics that I'm going to soon address. The fingerprints, if any, are central to the theme that I'm developing, and I appreciate any help anyone can provide.

Again from Lambert:

A witness outside the building, Arnold Rowland, testified that he saw an elderly Negro at the window of the sniper's nest five or six minutes before the shooting. In addition, there is other evidence that another witness, Amos Euins, moments after the shooting, said the man at the sniper's nest was black. (Euins later said he could not say whether the man was black or white.) The Warren Report explains that while Rowland was not regarded as a credible witness, his assertion about the elderly Negro at the sniper's nest was investigated. This investigation consisted of interviews with certain employees of the Depository which determined that the only two men who might fit Rowland's description were on the first floor "before and during the assassination".

The two employees being referred to here are Eddie Piper and Troy West. This confirms for me something that I'd been trying to establish... they were not just the right age, but both both fit the descriptions. FWIW, my (curtailed) recent peek into Piper and West led to a tentative conclusion that Piper was the "Elderly Negro". This only further strengthens that conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll also invite anyone who wishes to, to visit my xxxxty little website, dukelane.com, and view the articles by Sylvia Meagher and Partricia Lambert on the topics that I'm going to soon address. The fingerprints, if any, are central to the theme that I'm developing, and I appreciate any help anyone can provide.
Again from Lambert:

A witness outside the building, Arnold Rowland, testified that he saw an elderly Negro at the window of the sniper's nest five or six minutes before the shooting. In addition, there is other evidence that another witness, Amos Euins, moments after the shooting, said the man at the sniper's nest was black. (Euins later said he could not say whether the man was black or white.) The Warren Report explains that while Rowland was not regarded as a credible witness, his assertion about the elderly Negro at the sniper's nest was investigated. This investigation consisted of interviews with certain employees of the Depository which determined that the only two men who might fit Rowland's description were on the first floor "before and during the assassination".

The two employees being referred to here are Eddie Piper and Troy West. This confirms for me something that I'd been trying to establish... they were not just the right age, but both both fit the descriptions. FWIW, my (curtailed) recent peek into Piper and West led to a tentative conclusion that Piper was the "Elderly Negro". This only further strengthens that conclusion.

For what it's worth - and quickly approaching those magical ages myself - let me point out that the sobriquet of "elderly Negro" would only half apply to either of these two men: yes, they were black, but I hardly consider men who were 54 and 55 (or was it 55 and 56?) years old to be "elderly" anymore!

Was 55 "old" back then, like 30 was in the 16th century? I've never heard Roy Truly described that way, and he was older than that. What constitutes "elderly?" Anyone over 30? 40? 50? What?

Anyway, neither of them can be placed - either definitively or even speculatively - on the sixth floor (or am I mistaken?), so any such description cannot be referring to them, can it?

And even if it can ... what were they doing up there, and why would they lie about it? Those questions need to be answered before that idea can be carried forward. They can't just be there solely for the sake of putting an "elderly Negro" there, can they? And if so, how did Lee Oswald force them to go up there from where they said they were, and how did he get them to lie about it after he was dead? Covering his ass, were they, you think?

In any case, don't you know that Bonnie Ray Williams was on the sixth floor "five or six minutes" before the shooting (and actually within two or three minutes of it)? And that he was working around plywood being sawed up all morning? Oh: and leaving that aside, he had something white in his hair, at least after the shooting, didn't he? (Greg, do you really believe it was plaster - of which there is no other evidence - knocked loose by the falling shells?)

... But back to the fingerprints and the Dr Pepper bottle, shall we? :unsure: (Where's the "here, smoke this" emoticon, anyway?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll also invite anyone who wishes to, to visit my xxxxty little website, dukelane.com, and view the articles by Sylvia Meagher and Partricia Lambert on the topics that I'm going to soon address. The fingerprints, if any, are central to the theme that I'm developing, and I appreciate any help anyone can provide.
Again from Lambert:

A witness outside the building, Arnold Rowland, testified that he saw an elderly Negro at the window of the sniper's nest five or six minutes before the shooting. In addition, there is other evidence that another witness, Amos Euins, moments after the shooting, said the man at the sniper's nest was black. (Euins later said he could not say whether the man was black or white.) The Warren Report explains that while Rowland was not regarded as a credible witness, his assertion about the elderly Negro at the sniper's nest was investigated. This investigation consisted of interviews with certain employees of the Depository which determined that the only two men who might fit Rowland's description were on the first floor "before and during the assassination".

The two employees being referred to here are Eddie Piper and Troy West. This confirms for me something that I'd been trying to establish... they were not just the right age, but both both fit the descriptions. FWIW, my (curtailed) recent peek into Piper and West led to a tentative conclusion that Piper was the "Elderly Negro". This only further strengthens that conclusion.

For what it's worth - and quickly approaching those magical ages myself - let me point out that the sobriquet of "elderly Negro" would only half apply to either of these two men: yes, they were black, but I hardly consider men who were 54 and 55 (or was it 55 and 56?) years old to be "elderly" anymore!

Was 55 "old" back then, like 30 was in the 16th century? I've never heard Roy Truly described that way, and he was older than that. What constitutes "elderly?" Anyone over 30? 40? 50? What?

Duke, the two witnesses - Rowland and Euins - were both teenagers - so yeah 50+ is "elderly". And even Shelley thought so. He was the original source for Piper and West fitting the description.

Anyway, neither of them can be placed - either definitively or even speculatively - on the sixth floor (or am I mistaken?), so any such description cannot be referring to them, can it?

You are mistaken. Neither had what could be considered a rock solid alibi.

And there is also this from the Victoria (Texas) Advocate of Nov 24:

"A building porter said he took Oswald to the 6th floor in an elevator. When he got out, Oswald asked the porter to send the car back up for him. The porter went to the ground floor to watch the Kennedy motorcade."

And even if it can ... what were they doing up there, and why would they lie about it?

According to Euins, firing on the motorcade.

Those questions need to be answered before that idea can be carried forward. They can't just be there solely for the sake of putting an "elderly Negro" there, can they?

Nope - and not "they". Just one "Negro" anyway...

And if so, how did Lee Oswald force them to go up there from where they said they were, and how did he get them to lie about it after he was dead? Covering his ass, were they, you think?

Sorry, Duke, you've taken a left turn at Albuquerque.

In any case, don't you know that Bonnie Ray Williams was on the sixth floor "five or six minutes" before the shooting (and actually within two or three minutes of it)? And that he was working around plywood being sawed up all morning? Oh: and leaving that aside, he had something white in his hair, at least after the shooting, didn't he? (Greg, do you really believe it was plaster - of which there is no other evidence - knocked loose by the falling shells?)

If you recall... I don't believe Williams went back up there at all.

... But back to the fingerprints and the Dr Pepper bottle, shall we? :unsure: (Where's the "here, smoke this" emoticon, anyway?)

Right next to the exploding cigar emoticon, no doubt...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, neither of them can be placed - either definitively or even speculatively - on the sixth floor (or am I mistaken?), so any such description cannot be referring to them, can it?
You are mistaken. Neither had what could be considered a rock solid alibi.

And there is also this from the Victoria (Texas) Advocate of Nov 24:

"A building porter said he took Oswald to the 6th floor in an elevator. When he got out, Oswald asked the porter to send the car back up for him. The porter went to the ground floor to watch the Kennedy motorcade."

I would think it would take a heck of a lot more speculation than simply not having a "rock solid alibi" to make suppositions like this. By that measure, everyone who couldn't account for every second of their time and have someone to back them up is de facto under suspicion, and nobody is completely innocent anyway? I said that you can't place them there, and you responded by saying that you didn't believe what else they said was necessarily true. That I may not have been in New Hampshire yesterday does not mean that I was in California or Idaho.

As to newspaper articles, they are purveyors of absolute fact? If written, it is proven? What's a "building porter" anyway? Did anyone describe anywhere what a "building porter" did? Did he park cars? Act as the "elevator man" like this article portrays? If so, why didn't anyone ever mention anything about someone doing this task for anyone other than Lee Oswald, ever, at any time, for anyone?

Nobody - especially reporters - got any of their stories mixed up during the weekend, is that it? Nobody told whoppers to get their names in print? I know of one who got a free trip to Washington - and a supposed night out on the town in Earl Warren's limo - for that very same thing. Fifteen minutes of fame is all some of it is, at best.

And even if it can ... what were they doing up there, and why would they lie about it?

According to Euins, firing on the motorcade.

And why were they doing that? Because they could? And none of the Texas white boys wouldn't have loved to see a Negro hang for this? This is a tough sale. What's the motive?
In any case, don't you know that Bonnie Ray Williams was on the sixth floor "five or six minutes" before the shooting (and actually within two or three minutes of it)? And that he was working around plywood being sawed up all morning? Oh: and leaving that aside, he had something white in his hair, at least after the shooting, didn't he? (Greg, do you really believe it was plaster - of which there is no other evidence - knocked loose by the falling shells?)

If you recall... I don't believe Williams went back up there at all.

The weight of everything suggests otherwise. If he didn't go onto the sixth floor during the lunch break, what idiot - knowing that that's where the authorities said shots came from - would put himself there if he wasn't, casting suspicion on himself? Especially with the "elderly Negro" thing: you know that they were sawing plywood on 6 that day, which creates sawdust, and which can fall in one's hair, right? Appearance of white hair from a hundred feet away? Telling the cops and FBI that he'd been on the floor would've dipped him in it; a dumb story to tell if it wasn't true. What was the impetus? Fifteen minutes of fame? Free trip to Washington? Gets to keep his job?

The point of all this being ...? That it's all well and good to "believe" what you want to - like I simply "believed" that Ed Hoffman was full of it - but there remains the need to state your case. (I think I did, on that point.)

You're advocating on the one hand that a Southern Negro who was born near the turn of the century - intrinsically subservient - lied about what he was doing - either eating his lunch at the wrapping table, or sitting on a box at the front window; one a guy who did nothing but wrap books all day, the other who delivered mail, swept floors, and flushed commodes - when he was actually taking pot shots at POTUS.

On the other hand, another Southern Negro, substantially younger and theoretically more brazen, who said he was "where the action was," albeit not at that time, was NOT where he said he was, on the sixth floor, because ... why?

... But back to the fingerprints and the Dr Pepper bottle, shall we? :unsure: (Where's the "here, smoke this" emoticon, anyway?)

Right next to the exploding cigar emoticon, no doubt...

Really, when you get down to it, I've only asked about fingerprints on the bottle. Is it simply that nobody has an answer? At the very least, if Bonnie Ray wasn't on the sixth floor, someone else's fingerprints on the bottle should go a long way toward proving that, eh? On the other hand ...?

Edited by Duke Lane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's make one thing perfectly clear.

The lunch did not consist of chicken bones.

The bones were left-over after the meat on the bones was consumed!

Are you kidding? You mean - you're saying - you're trying to tell me that Bonnie Ray's nickname of "Insinkerator" - pulverizing chicken bones - is - isn't - you mean - it's not - it's not true?!?

Oh ... My ... Gawd. This sheds a whole new light on things, doesn't it.

To imagine someone put whole chicken legs onto a couple of slices of bread - or peeled the meat off the bones before making a sandwich of it ... and here all this time, I'd thought the man was someone who bit soda bottles open (after all, no evidence of a church key, right?).

I'm devastated. Deflated. Derailed. Deranged. Debunked. But mostly just deranged ....

Where's that emoticon with the balloon flying around at when ya need it most?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's make one thing perfectly clear.

The lunch did not consist of chicken bones.

The bones were left-over after the meat on the bones was consumed!

Are you kidding? You mean - you're saying - you're trying to tell me that Bonnie Ray's nickname of "Insinkerator" - pulverizing chicken bones - is - isn't - you mean - it's not - it's not true?!?

Oh ... My ... Gawd. This sheds a whole new light on things, doesn't it.

To imagine someone put whole chicken legs onto a couple of slices of bread - or peeled the meat off the bones before making a sandwich of it ... and here all this time, I'd thought the man was someone who bit soda bottles open (after all, no evidence of a church key, right?).

I'm devastated. Deflated. Derailed. Deranged. Debunked. But mostly just deranged ....

Where's that emoticon with the balloon flying around at when ya need it most?

This post started out to be something of value, and a subject that had been debated and discussed over the years many times. The chicken bones, bag lunch, the location of certain people in the building at the time prior to the shooting, after the shooting, and many other questions related to the events that day. This subject needed to be addressed concerning that part of the evidence found at the scene. But I have to say, where this post has gone, up to this point, has dropped to a new low. Certain things said in the past two replies here, certainly add nothing to the content of the subject at hand. They tend to do nothing but shine an "unjust" light on these employees being discussed here, and these men certainly do not deserve that, let alone the offending of others, including myself here on the Forum. Taking this post to this level is totally uncalled for, and certainly unprofessional. Im sure I can speak for others, and am not alone with this opinion concerning these last few replies. -MS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post started out to be something of value.... But I have to say, where this post has gone, up to this point, has dropped to a new low. ....
Lighten up; we don't have to be serious all the time!

I agree regarding the "accusations" made against West and Piper; they're totally indefensible and unsupportable beyond my analogy that if they can't prove they were in New Hampshire, then they must've been in California.

My original question stands unanswered:

My primary curiosity here is to determine what, if any, results came about from the dusting of the Dr Pepper bottle that Bonnie Ray Williams left on the sixth floor. The bottle along with other "remains of the chicken lunch" were removed from the 6th floor on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; I'm not personally aware of the disposition of those items of evidence; can anyone elucidate them?

Does anybody know the answer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post started out to be something of value.... But I have to say, where this post has gone, up to this point, has dropped to a new low. ....
Lighten up; we don't have to be serious all the time!

I agree regarding the "accusations" made against West and Piper; they're totally indefensible and unsupportable beyond my analogy that if they can't prove they were in New Hampshire, then they must've been in California.

My original question stands unanswered:

My primary curiosity here is to determine what, if any, results came about from the dusting of the Dr Pepper bottle that Bonnie Ray Williams left on the sixth floor. The bottle along with other "remains of the chicken lunch" were removed from the 6th floor on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; I'm not personally aware of the disposition of those items of evidence; can anyone elucidate them?

Does anybody know the answer?

I have a great sense of humor, and joke around most of the time. But when it comes to these types of things, I dont have a choice but to be serious. To be honest, Ive looked at this subject at length before, and with others. My point wasnt about the post, but about your content of replies concerning these men. If you wont address that, and move right along continuing your posts, like it doesnt matter, fine. My opinion was made concerning what was posted about these men, and that is what matters to me. Im sure, as I stated earlier, that Im speaking for others also. Im sure your original question will remain unanswered. -MS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... My point wasnt about the post, but about your content of replies concerning these men. ... My opinion was made concerning what was posted about these men, and that is what matters to me. Im sure, as I stated earlier, that Im speaking for others also. Im sure your original question will remain unanswered. -MS
I apologize if any of my comments offended you; they were not intended to reflect my own opinions, but the "tone" and - I'm sorry to say - the reality of the times. That they were wrong realities doesn't make them any less realistic. We've moved well past the day when going to the back of the bus, watching movies from the balcony and drinking from a separate water fountain were the accepted norm; but 1963 was "the day when," and those things were "accepted" - even if not acceptable in everyone's eyes - in large measure, including by those victimized by them.

Were that not so, the name Rosa Parks would never have entered our consciousness: she would've just been someone doing what everyone else did, no big deal. The point is, tho', that they didn't, and that's why her name will be forever memorialized.

Removing anything "of color" from the discussion, neither Troy West nor Eddie Piper were by nature men who were aggressive, and shooting a gun at someone is definitely aggressive. I'm referring to a man who sat in one place all day long and wrapped packages because "that's where his work was." The other's job was as janitor, and what I described him doing is exactly what was described in official reports to be his job. If "scrubbing commodes" sounds less than glamorous, if that's what your job is, there's nothing "derogatory" or "demeaning" about someone saying that that's what you do, even if actually doing the job is.

As to their participation in any conspiracy that day, I reject the possibility out of hand unless and until someone can come up with something a lot better than "I don't think their 'alibi' is good enough," as if they even needed one.

Once again, please accept my apologies for anything offensive; it wasn't intended to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... My point wasnt about the post, but about your content of replies concerning these men. ... My opinion was made concerning what was posted about these men, and that is what matters to me. Im sure, as I stated earlier, that Im speaking for others also. Im sure your original question will remain unanswered. -MS
I apologize if any of my comments offended you; they were not intended to reflect my own opinions, but the "tone" and - I'm sorry to say - the reality of the times. That they were wrong realities doesn't make them any less realistic. We've moved well past the day when going to the back of the bus, watching movies from the balcony and drinking from a separate water fountain were the accepted norm; but 1963 was "the day when," and those things were "accepted" - even if not acceptable in everyone's eyes - in large measure, including by those victimized by them.

Were that not so, the name Rosa Parks would never have entered our consciousness: she would've just been someone doing what everyone else did, no big deal. The point is, tho', that they didn't, and that's why her name will be forever memorialized.

Removing anything "of color" from the discussion, neither Troy West nor Eddie Piper were by nature men who were aggressive, and shooting a gun at someone is definitely aggressive. I'm referring to a man who sat in one place all day long and wrapped packages because "that's where his work was." The other's job was as janitor, and what I described him doing is exactly what was described in official reports to be his job. If "scrubbing commodes" sounds less than glamorous, if that's what your job is, there's nothing "derogatory" or "demeaning" about someone saying that that's what you do, even if actually doing the job is.

As to their participation in any conspiracy that day, I reject the possibility out of hand unless and until someone can come up with something a lot better than "I don't think their 'alibi' is good enough," as if they even needed one.

Once again, please accept my apologies for anything offensive; it wasn't intended to be.

Accepted. The facts you state are true. There were many situations back then that unfortunately are still unchanged today, sad but true. If not for alot of people such as MLK who took the chance to make changes in the lives of others, and to make all peoples lives better, things today would be the same as it was at the turn of the Century. That may seem extreme, but it really isnt when you think about it. Look at what is happening today down in Louisiana right now. See the post by Peter Lemkin on that. {I forget the post right now} But unfortunately, our government stops these things before they get too much power behind them. Look at Medgar Evers 63', MLK 68', RFK 68', and even JFK 63'. They all were people who wanted change. Who wanted peace between all races. Unfortunately, many people didnt want that, especially our government, who still dont want it today, regardless of what they say, and how much money they say they spend to make the "change" needed to make lives better for all. Enough of this. No problem here. -MS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's make one thing perfectly clear.

The lunch did not consist of chicken bones.

The bones were left-over after the meat on the bones was consumed!

Are you kidding? You mean - you're saying - you're trying to tell me that Bonnie Ray's nickname of "Insinkerator" - pulverizing chicken bones - is - isn't - you mean - it's not - it's not true?!?

Oh ... My ... Gawd. This sheds a whole new light on things, doesn't it.

To imagine someone put whole chicken legs onto a couple of slices of bread - or peeled the meat off the bones before making a sandwich of it ... and here all this time, I'd thought the man was someone who bit soda bottles open (after all, no evidence of a church key, right?).

I'm devastated. Deflated. Derailed. Deranged. Debunked. But mostly just deranged ....

Where's that emoticon with the balloon flying around at when ya need it most?

I've been trying to look this up, but have had no luck. Weren't there 2 employees of the TSBD on the fifth floor, and didn't they report later that they could hear the shell casings hitting the floor from above on the 6th floor? (I wish I had a citation for this -- maybe Harvey and Lee.)

James Worrell near the corner of Elm saw a rifle at the 6th floor window before the motorcade arrived. I guess he couldn't tell anybody because he was afraid of getting shot? I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. How could he not know Kennedy was going to be killed? And according to Harvey and Lee, it was Lee Oswald, hoping onlookers would think it was Harvey.

Kathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... My point wasnt about the post, but about your content of replies concerning these men. ... My opinion was made concerning what was posted about these men, and that is what matters to me. Im sure, as I stated earlier, that Im speaking for others also. Im sure your original question will remain unanswered. -MS
I apologize if any of my comments offended you; they were not intended to reflect my own opinions, but the "tone" and - I'm sorry to say - the reality of the times. That they were wrong realities doesn't make them any less realistic. We've moved well past the day when going to the back of the bus, watching movies from the balcony and drinking from a separate water fountain were the accepted norm; but 1963 was "the day when," and those things were "accepted" - even if not acceptable in everyone's eyes - in large measure, including by those victimized by them.

Were that not so, the name Rosa Parks would never have entered our consciousness: she would've just been someone doing what everyone else did, no big deal. The point is, tho', that they didn't, and that's why her name will be forever memorialized.

Removing anything "of color" from the discussion, neither Troy West nor Eddie Piper were by nature men who were aggressive,

Oh? Is there testimony, or other evidence to corroborate this, Duke?

and shooting a gun at someone is definitely aggressive. I'm referring to a man who sat in one place all day long and wrapped packages because "that's where his work was." The other's job was as janitor, and what I described him doing is exactly what was described in official reports to be his job. If "scrubbing commodes" sounds less than glamorous, if that's what your job is, there's nothing "derogatory" or "demeaning" about someone saying that that's what you do, even if actually doing the job is.

So their job descriptions rule them out as potential suspects? Interesting way to proceed...

As to their participation in any conspiracy that day, I reject the possibility out of hand unless and until someone can come up with something a lot better than "I don't think their 'alibi' is good enough," as if they even needed one.

Testimony indicated an elderly Negro was at the "snipers nest" up to 5 minutes before the shooting. A description was even given. Shelley told the FBI only two men fit that description: Piper and West. That neither had an alibi which stands up to even the slightest scrutiny - and that they were the only two black men in the building without a good alibi, is worth considering. If you don't feel the same way, so be it.

Once again, please accept my apologies for anything offensive; it wasn't intended to be.

FWIW, I agree, you just said it like it was back when (and maybe so still in some parts).

This is my last foray into this thread. I understand you have a hot date with a Dr Pepper you'd like to get to, and I don't want to hold you up any further. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...