(PART 603)


"When Rowland testified before the Commission on March 10, 1964, he claimed for the first time to have seen another person on the sixth floor." (WCR 251)

What's amusing about this lie, is that the Warren Commission itself, ON THE SAME PAGE(!!), demonstrates that it lied.

"The only possible corroboration for Rowland's story is found in the testimony of Roger D. Craig, a deputy sheriff of Dallas County, whose testimony on other aspects of the case has been discussed in chapter IV. Craig claimed that about 10 minutes after the assassination he talked to a young couple, Mr. and Mrs. Rowland, "...and the boy said he saw two men on the sixth floor..." " (WCR 251)

Now, either Mr. Rowland was, for the first time, telling someone that he saw two people on the sixth floor on March 10th, 1964, or he was doing so just 10 minutes after the assassination on November 22nd, 1963. They both cannot be true.

In their efforts to discredit eyewitnesses who had damaging testimony to offer, the Warren Commission would *ALWAYS* either ignore their testimony, refuse to take their testimony, lie about their testimony, or discredit their testimony.

But no-one can dispute that in this case, the Warren Commission Report itself demonstrated that they lied.


Ben Holmes is now implying that the Warren Commission was so stupid that they "lied" one minute and then went ahead and started telling the truth the next minute -- with the "truth" therefore negating the so-called "lie" they told on the very same page of the WCR.

Yes, Holmes, that does indeed appear to be an inconsistent statement made by the WC concerning Arnold Rowland on page 251. But it certainly would be really, really WEIRD (not to mention DUMB) if they deliberately "LIED" on the very same page where they also had to know they were EXPOSING THAT "LIE".

Right, Ben?

[EDIT -- Plus, the Commission does seem to be casting some doubt over the person who provided the "only possible corroboration for Rowland's story" -- Roger D. Craig -- who we all know was a liar when it comes to other aspects of the JFK case.]

The bottom line is (as it always is) -- Kook Holmes is nitpicking the 888 pages of the excellent Warren Commission Report to death, in order to dredge up some kind of inconsistencies that he (Kook Holmes) can prop up as alleged "lies".

And, naturally, if someone spends all of their days and nights going over some type of very lengthy and intricate document (like the Warren Report) with a fine-toothed comb, searching for things to gripe about....they're probably going to end up finding a few things to gripe about -- especially when that lengthy document is the WCR, which is a report that was written in a fairly-short amount of time (when considering the vast amount of material that had to be weighed, considered, and placed into the report in about a 9-month time period).

Yes, it's true that the Warren Commissioners and staff members have always said they were not really "rushed" in any way to get their work done. But, let's face facts, there was a LOT of stuff to go through before those 888 pages were typed up and put in print in September 1964, including the task of having to assess the testimony of 552 witnesses!

Good gosh, it takes most authors several YEARS to write lengthy books (and I doubt that any of those authors had to weigh and consider the testimony of 552 witnesses before publishing their books). The Warren Commission completed its work in just nine months. So a few ragged edges can be expected here and there. And, in my opinion, the number of "ragged edges" in the Warren Commission Report is a very small number indeed.

But a kook named Ben Holmes, though, undoubtedly considers all 888 pages of the WCR to be "ragged". Right, Mr. Chaff?

David Von Pein
June 28, 2009
February 1, 2014