Eddie Piper

[Greg Parker]

The fact of the matter is - there was never any mention of Williams being on the 6th floor - until his WC testimony. Prior to that, he had indicated he went to the 5th from the 1st floor.

What I said before about earlier statements having more weight than later ones ...?

What you said was along the lines that in the chaos and tension of those statements being taken, mistakes were inevitable. And I'd agree with that to a point.

But that does not explain Norman's statement taken by the Secret Service on Dec 4 when no such chaos or tension could interfere with obtaining a clear and accurate statement.

Norman told the Secret Service that About 12:15 P.M. on this same date, after I had eaten my lunch, I went to the fifth floor of the building to watch the parade of the President pass the building. Bonnie Ray Williams and James Jarman, who also worked at this building went with me.

But I have a feeling you'll now attempt to broaden the meaning of "went with me [to the 5th floor]" to include the possibility of one of those named "meeting him on the 5th floor". Hope I'm wrong

Anyway, they went around the back of the TSBD and rode the freight elevator upstairs to the 6th floor. Jarman estimated that this was at 12:26 or 12:28 if memory serves. Jarman also testified that Williams met them after they had arrived, although Norman said that he wasn't certain whether Williams was already there when they'd arrived, or if he'd come afterward (but he certainly did join up with them at some point!).

Close enough. He said 12:25 or 12:28.

... And he said that Bonnie Ray joined them after that.

Sticking to earliest statements, he doesn't say anything at all about going back up - but in their earliest statements, both BRW and Norman agreed that Williams went to the 5th from the 1st.

We also know from Roy Truly's testimony that, when he and Officer Baker had gotten to the elevator shaft, both elevators were at the fifth floor. This jibes with the fact that Hank and Junior said that they'd taken the freight elevator to the fifth floor, and that Williams testified that he had ridden the passenger elevator first to the sixth floor, and then back down to the fifth floor when he decided to go downstairs.

What was Odum's motive for changing Williams' statement of Nov 23 to read that he took the west stairs down to the 5th?

I'm clueless as to people's motives, but ... what I'd said previously with respect to Euins' statements ...?

You got me, I don't recall your take on Euin's statements. Forget motive if you can't think of one. Can I at least get you to agree that Williams denied in testimony that he ever told the FBI he'd taken the west stairs - and if that was truly the case, the FBI - for whatever reason, must have changed his statement to include that piece of information?

Maybe someone else can think of why Odum would do that. I can't come up with any reason at all.

Or, on the other hand, maybe it's just that Williams had to change lies about this mythical 6th floor descent to account for the elevator?

I don't have to guess - I know there is more - at least concerning Piper wink.gif

Doesn't seem like it.

I'm compelled to note that Rowland added that, as to the man who "seemed to me an elderly Negro" that he "didn't pay very much attention to him." His identification of the man as a Negro was tenuous at best, his description as "elderly" no better.

I take the opposite view. In his description of the other man, Rowland would not be pushed to give more than he was sure of. His description of this person as an "elderly Negro" was again, as much as he was sure of.

Bonnie Ray said that he was upstairs on six; Eddie Piper made no such claim, nor did anyone make one about him being there.

I disagree. I think this early newspaper account could only be referring to Piper: 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.

There was only one employee who claimed to have watched the motorcade from the ground floor - Piper, and though his official job title was "Janitor", not "Porter", he was referred to as a "Porter" in a DPD Intelligence Report. Unfortunately for Piper, no one seems to have noticed him on the first floor until after the assassination.

What, anyway, would Bonnie Ray's purpose be in lying about going up to the sixth floor if he didn't? To explain the "chicken bone sandwich?" Shoot, they already had an explanation for that, that it had been Slim Givens', and that it had been eaten before the lunch break. Wouldn't it have been a whole lot easier either for Slim to admit it, or at least to have lied about something someone else (Bill Shelley) already remembered? Fewer webs to weave....

BRW's purpose in lying would be in playing ball and not bringing the law and/or whoever down on him. Givens denied the sandwich was his, and Shelley acknowledged that in his testimony.

The oft-quoted statement that Givens would change his testimony for money btw, has been entirely misunderstood. That statement was made in the context of changing it for a price to exonerate Oswald via the media, Mark Lane et al.

Edited April 28, 2008 by Greg Parker

[Duke Lane]

We also know from Roy Truly's testimony that, when he and Officer Baker had gotten to the elevator shaft, both elevators were at the fifth floor. This jibes with the fact that Hank and Junior said that they'd taken the freight elevator to the fifth floor, and that Williams testified that he had ridden the passenger elevator first to the sixth floor, and then back down to the fifth floor when he decided to go downstairs.

What was Odum's motive for changing Williams' statement of Nov 23 to read that he took the west stairs down to the 5th?

I'm clueless as to people's motives, but ... what I'd said previously with respect to Euins' statements ...?

You got me, I don't recall your take on Euin's statements. ...

It was in the post prior to the one you've replied to. I had to break the reply in two because I had too many blocks of quoted text.

I'm compelled to note that Rowland added that, as to the man who "seemed to me an elderly Negro" that he "didn't pay very much attention to him." His identification of the man as a Negro was tenuous at best, his description as "elderly" no better.

I take the opposite view. In his description of the other man, Rowland would not be pushed to give more than he was sure of. His description of this person as an "elderly Negro" was again, as much as he was sure of.

Greg, there is another recent thread - should be on the first page - where this is being discussed; the one about the Man in Brown Sportscoat," this post in particular (mine; I never said I was humble!).

In addition to Arnold Rowland and Amos Euins, there were at least four other people on record describing a man or men on the upper floors. Of them, only one described anyone of a darker complexion. There are similarities in their descriptions, but none of them describe an "elderly Negro," or for that matter, anyone "elderly." As close as anyone comes to that is suggesting that one of them might have had blond or light brown hair.

(You'll find Henderson and Wather's statements at 24H524-28, by the way.)

I agree that Rowland only would say as much as he felt comfortable with, but he also didn't insist on the "elderly Negro" description, qualifying it by saying that he didn't pay much attention to the man, and certainly not that he was "sure" of it. It may have been his impression either at the time or after a period of months, but it was not a clear and distinct impression, one that he'd "swear to" (yes, even despite being under oath!).

None of the other witnesses who saw two men corroborated the "elderly Negro" description, and clearly their own impressions (recalling that both Henderson and Walther's statements were taken much closer to the event) don't even agree with each other's. So it's not actually even an established fact that there was such a person up there, much less that it was the building janitor.

The business about the newspaper report of the "porter" taking Oswald up to the sixth floor fails to stand up as probative inasmuch as it makes little sense that someone would make that statement while Oswald was still alive, yet fail to mention it - and by so doing bolster the case against Oswald - after he was dead.

The same is true of Bonnie Ray: what if Eddie Piper had said testified that he'd brought Oswald upstairs, and Williams that he'd watched him construct the "sniper's nest" (and Jack Dougherty saying that Oswald had run down the stairs afterward, almost knocking him over)? Would we even be having this discussion? No; there would have been eyewitnesses whose testimony would've been hard if not impossible to refute.

That they didn't cement Oswald's guilt when they had the chance after he was dead and posed no threat to them is highly suggestive of the fact that they couldn't implicate Oswald. If the "porter" story is true, but that said porter didn't actually take Oswald upstairs, how can we be sure any of it's true?

Also, as noted earlier, nobody was specifically asked if they had seen Piper, so the fact that nobody corroborated his whereabouts is not particularly striking just because they didn't volunteer the (unimportant) information. By the same token, nobody said they saw Jack Dougherty, yet Jack himself said that he was on the fifth and sixth floors during the shooting, and directly in the path of the supposedly fleeing Oswald; why doesn't he figure into your theory?

[Duke Lane]

dupe

Edited April 28, 2008 by Duke Lane

[Robert Howard]

dupe

There was an address for the Knights of Pythias Temple as 2601 Elm St at one time. That's all I can add.

[Greg Parker]

We also know from Roy Truly's testimony that, when he and Officer Baker had gotten to the elevator shaft, both elevators were at the fifth floor. This jibes with the fact that Hank and Junior said that they'd taken the freight elevator to the fifth floor, and that Williams testified that he had ridden the passenger elevator first to the sixth floor, and then back down to the fifth floor when he decided to go downstairs.

What was Odum's motive for changing Williams' statement of Nov 23 to read that he took the west stairs down to the 5th?

I'm clueless as to people's motives, but ... what I'd said previously with respect to Euins' statements ...?

You got me, I don't recall your take on Euin's statements. ...

It was in the post prior to the one you've replied to. I had to break the reply in two because I had too many blocks of quoted text.

Sorry, I think I must have rushed through reading it before with the intent of reading it more closely later. Later rarely gets here, though...

I'm compelled to note that Rowland added that, as to the man who "seemed to me an elderly Negro" that he "didn't pay very much attention to him." His identification of the man as a Negro was tenuous at best, his description as "elderly" no better.

I take the opposite view. In his description of the other man, Rowland would not be pushed to give more than he was sure of. His description of this person as an "elderly Negro" was again, as much as he was sure of.

Greg, there is another recent thread - should be on the first page - where this is being discussed; the one about the Man in Brown Sportscoat," this post in particular (mine; I never said I was humble!).

Duke,

I've been reminded privately that Rowland did in fact give some description of the man he saw - Fifty, possible 55 or 60 - bald or practically bald, very thin hair if he wasn't bald - and wearing a very bright[-]color[ed] plaid shirt. No way that describes Williams - very thin - 5' 8" to 5' 10" - very dark or fairly dark, not real dark compared to some Negroes, but fairly dark. Seemed like his face was either--I can't recall detail but it was either very wrinkled or marked in some way. Except for the complexion and thin build there is no way that describes Williams.

In addition to Arnold Rowland and Amos Euins, there were at least four other people on record describing a man or men on the upper floors. Of them, only one described anyone of a darker complexion. There are similarities in their descriptions, but none of them describe an "elderly Negro," or for that matter, anyone "elderly." As close as anyone comes to that is suggesting that one of them might have had blond or light brown hair.

As you keep saying, 50 to 55 is not elderly by most folks standards. My point has been that it probably was to Rowland, who was only 19.

(You'll find Henderson and Wather's statements at 24H524-28, by the way.)

I agree that Rowland only would say as much as he felt comfortable with, but he also didn't insist on the "elderly Negro" description, qualifying it by saying that he didn't pay much attention to the man, and certainly not that he was "sure" of it. It may have been his impression either at the time or after a period of months, but it was not a clear and distinct impression, one that he'd "swear to" (yes, even despite being under oath!).

None of the other witnesses who saw two men corroborated the "elderly Negro" description, and clearly their own impressions (recalling that both Henderson and Walther's statements were taken much closer to the event) don't even agree with each other's. So it's not actually even an established fact that there was such a person up there, much less that it was the building janitor.

The business about the newspaper report of the "porter" taking Oswald up to the sixth floor fails to stand up as probative inasmuch as it makes little sense that someone would make that statement while Oswald was still alive, yet fail to mention it - and by so doing bolster the case against Oswald - after he was dead.

Yet this taking upstairs business happens at the same time Piper would later claim he spoke to Oswald with Oswald telling him he was going up (or out) for lunch. There is more to come on this, but I haven't had the "peace and quiet" time I need to put it all together.

The same is true of Bonnie Ray: what if Eddie Piper had said testified that he'd brought Oswald upstairs,

I'd say he was "mistaken" in that I don't believe it was Oswald - which was why he was scared out of his wits (part of what is to come) and was persuaded to change the story.

and Williams that he'd watched him construct the "sniper's nest"

Then Williams would be committing perjury - which he did in other ways.

(and Jack Dougherty saying that Oswald had run down the stairs afterward, almost knocking him over)? Would we even be having this discussion? No; there would have been eyewitnesses whose testimony would've been hard if not impossible to refute.

Dougherty was Truly's boy. If Truly was involved in any way, Dougherty was up there keeping an eye out.

That they didn't cement Oswald's guilt when they had the chance after he was dead and posed no threat to them is highly suggestive of the fact that they couldn't implicate Oswald. If the "porter" story is true, but that said porter didn't actually take Oswald upstairs, how can we be sure any of it's true?

You can't without going back to those earliest statements and newspaper accounts before anyone realised what truths and whose memories had to be "improved".

Also, as noted earlier, nobody was specifically asked if they had seen Piper, so the fact that nobody corroborated his whereabouts is not particularly striking just because they didn't volunteer the (unimportant) information. By the same token, nobody said they saw Jack Dougherty, yet Jack himself said that he was on the fifth and sixth floors during the shooting, and directly in the path of the supposedly fleeing Oswald; why doesn't he figure into your theory?

As far as I'm aware, there was only one other person who claimed to be on the first floor prior to the assassination. Troy West. Here's what he said:

Mr. BELIN - Did you see anyone else on the first floor while you were eating your lunch? Anyone else at all did you see on the first floor?

Mr. WEST - It wasn't anybody. I didn't see anybody around at that time.

Mr. BELIN - At any time while you were making coffee or eating your lunch, did you see anyone else on the first floor?

Mr. WEST - No, sir; I didn't see.

There was an address for the Knights of Pythias Temple as 2601 Elm St at one time. That's all I can add.

Thanks Robert.

[Duke Lane]

The difficulty lies in that there were at least six witnesses who saw a man or men upstairs: Rowland, Amos Euins, Ronald Fischer, Robert Edwards, Ruby Henderson and Carolyn Walther.

Ronald Fischer said he saw one man in the southeast corner window, whom, he said:

"... had--he had on an open--neck shirt, but it-uh--could have been a sport shirt or a T-shirt. It was light in color; probably white, I couldn't tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color."

He did not mention a second man. Robert Edwards, who was downtown to watch the parade with Fischer, described the one man he saw upstairs as wearing a "light colored shirt, short sleeve and open neck."

Ruby Henderson (24H524) said she'd seen two men, one wearing a white shirt, the other wearing a dark shirt, and that the man in the white shirt - the one that everyone else described - had dark hair and dark complexion, and was "possibly a Mexican, but could have been a Negro. All she would say about the other man - in the dark shirt - was that he was taller than the other.

Carolyn Walther (24H522) reported seeing a man leaning out of the southeast window of "either the fourth or fifth floor" holding a rifle in his hands, the rifle pointing downward. He was wearing a white shirt and had either blond or light brown hair. She also saw a second man behind and to the left of the first whom she said was "apparently wearing a brown suit coat," although she said that she could only see the right side of him from about his waist to his shoulders. She had no recorded opinion as to his further appearance.

Amos Euins saw a man shooting the rifle, but offered no opinion - stated, in fact, that he could not distinguish - whether the man was white or black or somewhere in between. This man, he said, had a "bald spot" that he could clearly see and which captured his attention.

Rowland said of the first man in the southwest window:

"He was was just slender in build in proportion with his widthwas just slender in build in proportion with his width. ... He appeared to be fair complexioned, not fair, but light complexioned, but dark hair. ... I would say either a light Latin or a Caucasian. ... He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue or a color such as that. This was open at the collar. I think it was unbuttoned about halfway, and then he had a regular T-shirt, a polo shirt under this, at least this is what it appeared to be. He had on dark slacks or blue jeans, I couldn't tell from that I didn't see but a small portion."

The second, of course, he said "seemed to me an elderly Negro" whom he "didn't pay very much attention to."

Of all of these descriptions, there are only two suggestions of a dark complexion, one of them on the man in the lighter shirt in the forefront, not the man in the background, and no other indication of his being elderly (which is distinct, I might add, from "old," even to a 19-year-old, "elderly" usually connoting white hair, slack skin, etc. A 50-year old man such as myself is "old" to my 20-year-old stepdaughter, but I daresay I'm not "elderly" to her!).

It's also noteworthy that Rowland made two mentions of the man he'd seen who was "at the time I saw the man in the [southwest] window, I saw this man hanging out the window ... the one on the east end of the building, the one that they said the shots were fired from." He was "a colored man, I think." In full light of day, unobstructed by dirty windows, he was not quite certain that the man was black. This is the same man he later said was "elderly," whom he "didn't pay very much attention to," and only said "I think" he was black.

The point of all this so far is that there is only one other mention of a black man, who was possibly a Mexican and who was wearing a white shirt; Rowland's "elderly Negro" wasn't described as wearing anything in particular at all, so can we presume it was a white shirt? In almost all cases, a man in a white shirt is who is described as doing the shooting and/or holding a rifle, in some cases there being another man in the background, dressed in darker clothes.

Does this mean, then, that this "black man in a white shirt" who, like others described as wearing a white shirt and leaning out of the window to one degree or another, must've been the shooter? I'm having trouble constructing it any other way. If Rowland's "elderly Negro" was not the shooter, what became of him? Was he the man in the background described by Walther and Henderson, neither of whom offered a description of his complexion?

Even if Eddie Piper was on the sixth floor near that window, what was the deal with him being described as "leaning out of the window" while the only other(?) person similarly described was also described as holding a rifle? That hardly describes someone who was there against his will.

There also seems to be a propensity toward assuming that any such "elderly Negro" must've worked in the building. Says who? Just because there was such a description that the FBI inquired of TSBD management, and TSBD management - Bill Shelley in particular - made the connection (or was led to the connection) to who that worked for the TSBD fit that description, does not mean that any such "elderly Negro" did work for the TSBD.

Hence, any such person seen in that window fitting that description is not limited to being only West and Piper, or Bonnie Ray Williams for that matter. If a white guy could've gotten into the TSBD and gotten upstairs, the so could a black man - or a Mexican (or a Cuban!) or anyone else - just as easily.

The added propensity of your theory to extend any possibility to make this person Eddie Piper (why not Troy West? Nobody said they saw him either!) such that 50-55 years old would be "elderly" to a 19-year-old and that the "white spot" seen by Amos Euins (on the shooter's head) could've been Piper's glasses (since he was old enough to maybe need them, tho' I'm not sure we know he actually did wear them, are we?) and that the newpaper's "porter" story could only describe a janitor, i.e., Eddie Piper, only stands when a bunch of "if's" are satisfied.

Perhaps I'd be more inclined to buy into it if someone had said, for example, that they'd last seen Piper walking toward the elevators (since it seems there'd be a reason to ask people, just as Bill Shelley was asked, what the two "elderly Negroes" in TSBD's employ were seen doing), a positive statement that "I didn't see him" (as opposed to simply nobody volunteering that they did), or if perhaps even Rowland had volunteered a clothing description that might've matched what a janitor might be expected to wear (certainly not, for example, a brown sportscoat ... how about a white shirt?).

As it is, however, we have only a tenuous statement about an "elderly Negro" ("I think ... I didn't pay very much attention to him"), an inquiry about "elderly Negro" employees to Bill Shelley, and a leap that such a "elderly Negro" must've therefore been either West or Piper (or a TSBD employee at all!), and more likely Piper because of a newspaper article about a building "porter," who must be a janitor. Did anyone at all even try to glorify Piper's janitor job by calling him a "porter?"

The business about the newspaper report of the "porter" taking Oswald up to the sixth floor fails to stand up as probative inasmuch as it makes little sense that someone would make that statement while Oswald was still alive, yet fail to mention it - and by so doing bolster the case against Oswald - after he was dead.

Yet this taking upstairs business happens at the same time Piper would later claim he spoke to Oswald with Oswald telling him he was going up (or out) for lunch. There is more to come on this, but I haven't had the "peace and quiet" time I need to put it all together.

The same is true of Bonnie Ray: what if Eddie Piper had said testified that he'd brought Oswald upstairs,

I'd say he was "mistaken" in that I don't believe it was Oswald - which was why he was scared out of his wits (part of what is to come) and was persuaded to change the story.

and Williams that he'd watched him construct the "sniper's nest"

Then Williams would be committing perjury - which he did in other ways.

I'm clearly going to have to show you how to do this "quote" stuff so you don't have to use those atrocious colors: bright violet just doesn't cut it!!

Something I don't quite get: you allow for the possibility that Piper was "scared out of his wits" and could've been "persuaded to change his story," but conversely don't allow for the possibility that Williams, et al., might've likewise been "persuaded." Why not?

Consider Williams being on the sixth floor, encountering the shooter(s) in the midst of his (their) preparations. Clearly, Williams cannot be let go; he might raise the alarm, dash the assassination plans, and get everyone arrested to boot. Not a good idea. So there he sits with all of this stuff going on, "bad guys" waiting for Kennedy's motorcade to arrive, sweating for his life just as you imagine Piper would've been.

(Let me add here that Billy Lovelady and Danny Arce were supposed to have met back upstairs, but obviously did not ... or at least didn't end up there. Lovelady claimed to have gone to the second floor to "get a coke" after having washed up; Arce said he'd eaten lunch with Jack Dougherty ... the only person to have given Jack any sort of alibi, incidentally. A close analysis of the timing of what all of the boys did on the first floor shows that Lovelady took an inordinate amount of time to go upstairs, get a coke, and come back downstairs before going out almost immediately. The possibility exists that they did go upstairs, but were shooed back down before they saw anything of significance.)

Anyway, there's Bonnie Ray, wondering if he might be a second casualty, shot while the assassin made his getaway so no witnesses would be left behind. He couldn't be killed before the motorcade arrived: it would've attracted attention. Then, before any action could be taken on this - that is, before the motorcade arrived - we hear voices and footsteps of other people on the floor below. Now we have a problem of disposing of not just one, but possibly several witnesses: could our patsy Oswald credibly accomplish that?

Chances are, not. So Williams is spared and led downstairs with the admonishment not to even try to leave the building, and not to say anything to anyone on threat of serious bodily harm to himself, whomever he might tell, and possibly his family: they know who he is and will hunt him down if even a hint of treachery comes to their ears. To ensure that no such attempt at escape is made, perhaps Jack Dougherty stands guard "ten feet west of the west elevator" (where he said he was when he heard "a backfire") so there is no possibility of Williams - or Jarman or Norman - using either the stairs or elevator to leave the fifth floor.

According to your apparent reckoning, Williams and company would tell the absolute truth about his and their actions the first time out, with anything else added being a mere concoction, perjury as it were. Piper, without any indication of his having been upstairs other than the fact that nobody mentioned seeing him (and that he might be considered an "elderly" Negro), would not tell the absolute truth at the start and would be "persuaded" to "change his story" only after he told the "real" one to a newspaper reporter but not the police.

Williams and company's earliest statements would seem to reflect that they were only upstairs a short time, got up only to the fifth floor (not the sixth floor, no sir! We didn't see nothin'!), etc. Yet their testimonies - made outside the hearing of any local authorities and with no apparent expectation that it would be published for all the world to see - suggest that all is not as they told people locally: Bonnie Ray wasn't upstairs for only two or three minutes, but until, oh, around 12:20; Hank and Junior didn't go upstairs at any 12:15, but after they'd heard the motorcade was on Main (12:22 or later), arriving three to five minutes before the shooting and before Bonnie Ray came from wherever he was to join them, after 12:20 and very possibly after 12:25 or 12:28 when Jarman estimated they'd gotten upstairs.

... what if Eddie Piper had said testified that he'd brought Oswald upstairs, and Williams that he'd watched him construct the "sniper's nest," and Jack Dougherty [said] that Oswald had run down the stairs afterward, almost knocking him over? Would we even be having this discussion? No; there would have been eyewitnesses whose testimony would've been hard if not impossible to refute.

My point here being that these were some tremendous opportunities to cinch the case against Oswald that were apparently overlooked. Oops.

[Greg Parker]

Edited April 30, 2008 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

I'm clearly going to have to show you how to do this "quote" stuff so you don't have to use those atrocious colors: bright violet just doesn't cut it!! laugh.gif

Please do!

Just a few things I can respond to quickly.

On age and youth

Sergeant Harkness was 42 years old at the time of the assassination.

Here's how Euins described him:

Mr. SPECTER. Do you know what the name of that policeman was, who was in that position where you have marked C?

Mr. EUINS. No, sir. He was kind of an old policeman. I ran down and got him. And he ran up here.

Rowland's "elderly Negro" wasn't described as wearing anything in particular at all, so can we presume it was a white shirt?

The bright violet must have blinded you. From my previous post: "...wearing a very bright[-]color[ed] plaid shirt."

(Let me add here that Billy Lovelady and Danny Arce were supposed to have met back upstairs,

Neither of them said that. This comes from a single source: Williams said there had been agreement among the floor crew to meet back on 6. As there was no corroboration for this arrangement, and no one else in fact, did go back up there, my belief is that Williams lied about it to give cause as to why he (allegedly) went back up there. Alternatively, for anyone who believes Oswald was on 6 at the time the crew broke up, and again around the time of the shooting, perhaps Oswald was the only other invitee? His(alleged) comment to Piper then about going up for lunch makes some sense.

If Rowland's "elderly Negro" was not the shooter, what became of him?

Rowland said it was up to 5 minutes before the motorcade arrived that he last saw the "elderly Negro". I don't think he was a shooter. When the shooting began, I believe he was cowering behind some boxes. There is evidence to the effect that someone was - and that this someone was an "old" Negro who was a janitor.

There also seems to be a propensity toward assuming that any such "elderly Negro" must've worked in the building. Says who?

At least one FBI agent.

(why not Troy West? Nobody said they saw him either!)

Piper better fits the description, his alibi has more holes in it, he admitted speaking to Oswald, he was a janitor, and he was the one zeroed in on by DPD (naturally) regarding the information about the "old" janitor cowering behind boxes came to light.

Be patient. I'll get around to putting the full details together eventually...

Even if Eddie Piper was on the sixth floor near that window, what was the deal with him being described as "leaning out of the window"... That hardly describes someone who was there against his will.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I honestly don't recall ever suggesting he was held against his will. I did hypothesize that he may have been asked to escort a "Secret Service agent" up to the 6th, and then asked if he wanted to hang around for a while, maybe even asked if he'd like to hold the rifle and play "agent" for a minute...I'll add This. Euin's description of a pipe was when only a small part of it was being extended out by a tentative Piper. Euins only realized it was a rifle when the real shooter took it back, protrudes it further than Piper did, and actually starts shooting. Euins could not see the person well enough to give a description, and therefore not well enough to know it had been two different people.

Did anyone at all even try to glorify Piper's janitor job by calling him a "porter?"

Yes. The DPD in an intelligence report.

Something I don't quite get: you allow for the possibility that Piper was "scared out of his wits" and could've been "persuaded to change his story," but conversely don't allow for the possibility that Williams, et al., might've likewise been "persuaded." Why not?

Williams clearly was persuaded to change his story. If you've inferred otherwise from anything I've said, it was not my intention.

According to your apparent reckoning...Piper, without any indication of his having been upstairs other than the fact that nobody mentioned seeing him (and that he might be considered an "elderly" Negro), would not tell the absolute truth at the start and would be "persuaded" to "change his story" only after he told the "real" one to a newspaper reporter but not the police.

Piper did not give the story to the newspapers, and I don't recall ever suggesting he did.

[Greg Parker]

... what if Eddie Piper had said testified that he'd brought Oswald upstairs, and Williams that he'd watched him construct the "sniper's nest," and Jack Dougherty [said] that Oswald had run down the stairs afterward, almost knocking him over? Would we even be having this discussion? No; there would have been eyewitnesses whose testimony would've been hard if not impossible to refute. My point here being that these were some tremendous opportunities to cinch the case against Oswald that were apparently overlooked. Oops.

Complicated, isn't it? I certainly can't figure out an easy way to explain it except by saying that each time a story got "improved" to cover one potential problem, it at times, created further unforeseen problem... necessitating the need for further changes - maybe at the point of the original problem, or at some other point in the mosaic - even if it meant at times ditching potentially incriminating statements. The mosaic was a work in progress being flung together in great haste and under much stress. And what did incriminating statements matter anyway, since this was never going to get to trial?