Jump to content

Fried Chicken assassin


megobari
 Share

Recommended Posts

Larry, I'd agree Negroes in the South were vulnerable in such situations. However, in Williams' case, he had nothing to fear by admitting he'd eaten his lunch on the 6th floor (if indeed, that had been true). Reason being, he had an alibi for the time of the shooting, and witnesses to support that alibi.

Having two Negros being the source of his alibi may not have been all that comforting to him IMO in Dallas and in 1963. And I can understand him being a Negro that he could be coerced into saying something that wasn't true, but within 24 hrs he is telling about being on the 6th floor, so is it not possible that his notes were vague and just left that part out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having two Negros being the source of his alibi may not have been all that comforting to him IMO in Dallas and in 1963. And I can understand him being a Negro that he could be coerced into saying something that wasn't true, but within 24 hrs he is telling about being on the 6th floor, so is it not possible that his notes were vague and just left that part out?

Of course it's possible, Larry. Antti also raised the possibility that Williams simply left out some details from this statement. But consider:

1) DPD would have directed what information they wanted in these witness statements. We can deduce from the statement here that Williams was asked to write down everything he did and saw between leaving for lunch and the immediate aftermath of the assassination. Given such a direction revolving around a lunch break, is it really likely (notwithstanding your "fear of arrest" thesis) that he would leave out the actual detail of going to the 6th floor and eating up there, before going down to the 5th, making it sound like he only went to the 5th in the fisrt place?

2) This piece of his testimony:

Mr. Ball.

Why did you go to the sixth floor?

Mr. Williams.

Well, at the time everybody was talking like they was going to watch from the sixth floor. I think Billy Lovelady said he wanted to watch from up there. And also my friend; this Spanish boy, by the name of Danny Arce, we had agreed at first to come back up to the sixth floor. So I thought everybody was going to be on the sixth floor.

This also has the appearance of being added to his story. Not one of the other 6th floor workers mentioned such an agreement, but it gives Williams a reason to be up there.

3) In his original statement, he said, "...I went back up on the 5th floor with a fellow called Hank and Junior. I don't know his last name..." Again, I see no rerason for him to lie about this. And guess what? Junior (Jarman) did not give a statement until the day after Williams, and his statement deals with everything BUT this particular period of time. And what of Norman? If he gave a statement to the DPD at all, it's been "lost".

4) Finally, Williams changed story fits into a pattern of TSBD witnesses whose stories morphed over time. Givens is probably the best example - but far from the only. One common denominator in the changes: each served a purpose of either tying Oswald circumstantially to the murder, or helping to tidy up a loose end (and some chicken bones...) :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it's possible, Larry. Antti also raised the possibility that Williams simply left out some details from this statement. But consider:

1) DPD would have directed what information they wanted in these witness statements. We can deduce from the statement here that Williams was asked to write down everything he did and saw between leaving for lunch and the immediate aftermath of the assassination.

Greg - I thought the Williams hand written statement wasn't that detailed. And if Williams was being guided to make Oswald look guilty, then why did he say he heard only two shots?

The WC testimony is interesting, but Williams had mentioned being on the 6th floor to the FBI on 11/23/63. Unless he misspoke on his 11/22/63 note, it certainly appears he added an extra shot by going from hearing two shots to three.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg - I thought the Williams hand written statement wasn't that detailed. And if Williams was being guided to make Oswald look guilty, then why did he say he heard only two shots?

The WC testimony is interesting, but Williams had mentioned being on the 6th floor to the FBI on 11/23/63. Unless he misspoke on his 11/22/63 note, it certainly appears he added an extra shot by going from hearing two shots to three.

Larry, the statement was as detailed as it needed to be if those were his only movements for the timeframe involved. Correct me if I'm wrong - but I believe you may be assuming lack of detail only because of lack of mention of 6th floor solo lunch.

I never said Williams was being guided to make Oswald look guilty in his first statement.

What I was trying to say is that it would be standard police practice to tell a witness what information they want in the the statement. In the case of Williams, the information they seemed to be after was what his movements were and what he saw and heard between the start of the lunch break and the immediate aftermath of the shooting.

As you say, he gave the account of going to the 6th floor to the FBI the day after the assassination. That fits what what I have long said: things went wrong in the plan to to pin it on Oswald as an agent of Castro, and evidence had to be altered, stories had to change to go from that to a Lone Nut scenario.

The change from hearing two shots to three is an example of that. There had to be at least three shots. If williams only heard two, that was evidence one came from somewhere else. That was NOT a problem on the day - when a Castro/Commie conspiracy was the whole idea - hell, let 'em find evidence of a hundred sniper's - doesn't matter. It became a problem when Oswald was taken in alive. The evidence, as it stood, no longer worked. It required Oswald dead - and preferrably out of the country.

The change with the 6th floor lunch appears to be a separate matter; they simply needed to have someone other than the sniper up there eating the chicken. Williams appears to have been chosen for that role - same as Givens was chosen to change his story to include going back up there for a coat he said in the hearings he never even wore that day. The point of the change was to have a witness actually place Oswald up there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe that the testimony of Jarman, Williams et al. was truthful. Considering the eye witness testimony of individuals spotted on the 6th floor and maybe also the 5th floor. One of the people had to have seen someone who didn't belong up there. I'm guessing about 20-30 people worked in that building, only Danny Arce and one of the administration ladies recalls seeing someone unfamiliar in the building either immediately before or after the shooting.

On the other hand there is testimony from Richard Carr, Roger Craig, Arnold Rowland and Amos Euins to mention a few.

Then there are the stair cases and elevators as escape routes. Immediately following the shooting, both elevators were upstairs (no one near the stairs or using the stairs; would recall seeing anyone running down the stairs.)

Oswald was spotted in or around the lunch room at 11:55 (by one of the gentlemen referred to above) and 12:15 (Carolyn Arnold) and 12:32 (Officer Baker).

As with a number of other key issues; not many things add up, when you use the Warren Commission depositions as a source. There are too many conflicts and missing items.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oswald was spotted in or around the lunch room at 11:55 (by one of the gentlemen referred to above) and 12:15 (Carolyn Arnold) and 12:32 (Officer Baker).

Actually the 12:15 p.m. time attributed to Carolyn Arnold was done by the FBI. That would be the same FBI who told Arnold Rowland that they weren't interested in the other man seen on the 6th floor, the same FBI that changed Mrs. Hartman's statement that the furrow in the grass leading back to the TSBD rather than the knoll, that would be the same FBI that discouraged O'Donnell and Dave Powers from mentioning they heard a shot from the right front of the President. In the one Carolyn Arnold statement that were of her own words - the time that she gave was 12:25 p.m., well after other people were being seen on the 6th floor - one if them holding a rifle. Mark Oakes filmed an interview with Ronald Fischer, an assassination witness, who told Mark that when he was telling Commission attorney Belin what the man with the rifle looked like, Belin would stop the deposition and complain that his description wasn't matching Lee Oswald. It seems Fischer described a man in a light colored or white polo shirt or T-shirt with light sandy colored hair. It should be noted that the Warren Commission used Dillard's photo of the TSBD taken just seconds after the rifle was pulled back into the window, but the Commission for some unexplained reason shows the photo with the far west window of the 6th floor being cropped off. Look below at the 6th floor westmost window of the TSBD from an ucropped Dillard print that many, including myself, believe the Warren Commission didn't want anyone to see. The clip comes from Lancer's site.

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
I don't believe that the testimony of Jarman, Williams et al. was truthful. Considering the eye witness testimony of individuals spotted on the 6th floor and maybe also the 5th floor. One of the people had to have seen someone who didn't belong up there. I'm guessing about 20-30 people worked in that building, only Danny Arce and one of the administration ladies recalls seeing someone unfamiliar in the building either immediately before or after the shooting.

I was wrong. According to the New York Times (an article published around 11/22/1963) the more accurate number of people employed at the TSBD was 90. Believe it or not, only about 2 staff members remembered/admitted seeing strange individuals in the building before, or immediately after the shooting.

Odd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oswald was spotted in or around the lunch room at 11:55 (by one of the gentlemen referred to above) and 12:15 (Carolyn Arnold) and 12:32 (Officer Baker).

Actually the 12:15 p.m. time attributed to Carolyn Arnold was done by the FBI. That would be the same FBI who told Arnold Rowland that they weren't interested in the other man seen on the 6th floor, the same FBI that changed Mrs. Hartman's statement that the furrow in the grass leading back to the TSBD rather than the knoll, that would be the same FBI that discouraged O'Donnell and Dave Powers from mentioning they heard a shot from the right front of the President. In the one Carolyn Arnold statement that were of her own words - the time that she gave was 12:25 p.m., well after other people were being seen on the 6th floor - one if them holding a rifle. Mark Oakes filmed an interview with Ronald Fischer, an assassination witness, who told Mark that when he was telling Commission attorney Belin what the man with the rifle looked like, Belin would stop the deposition and complain that his description wasn't matching Lee Oswald. It seems Fischer described a man in a light colored or white polo shirt or T-shirt with light sandy colored hair. It should be noted that the Warren Commission used Dillard's photo of the TSBD taken just seconds after the rifle was pulled back into the window, but the Commission for some unexplained reason shows the photo with the far west window of the 6th floor being cropped off. Look below at the 6th floor westmost window of the TSBD from an ucropped Dillard print that many, including myself, believe the Warren Commission didn't want anyone to see. The clip comes from Lancer's site.

What is that in the western window? I don't see anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

Many researchers suggest that in this photo, the westernmost window contains the faintly visible face and upper body of a man looking down towards the street.

In the two photos posted by Larry, the larger one depicts the cropped photo, which does not include the window containing the man. The bottom picture includes the window and the faintly visible man. You should see the man in the bottom half of the window with his face looking in the direction from which this photo was taken. To the right of the head of the man you can see a light (from a lamp in the ceiling).

Edited by Antti Hynonen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

Many researchers suggest that in this photo, the westernmost window contains the faintly visible face and upper body of a man looking down towards the street.

In the two photos posted by Larry, the larger one depicts the cropped photo, which does not include the window containing the man. The bottom picture includes the window and the faintly visible man. You should see the man in the bottom half of the window with his face looking in the direction from which this photo was taken. To the right of the head of the man you can see a light (from a lamp in the ceiling).

Oh, thanks for clarifiying. But it looks like a man with a very elongated face and long hair.

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...