Jump to content
The Education Forum
David Von Pein

Gerald Ford And Howard Brennan

Recommended Posts

Today I was reading Gerald Ford's article that originally appeared in the October 2, 1964, issue of LIFE Magazine, and I noted something odd on page 50 of that magazine when Ford said this....

"H.L. Brennan, who actually saw Oswald shoot the President and provided the first description, decided soon afterward that his own life was in critical danger. At the first police lineup, he later told us, he recognized Oswald immediately but feared to admit it. At the second lineup, he made the identification despite the feared consequences."

Oct-2-1964-LIFE-Magazine-Excerpt-Page-50

But I am unaware of a SECOND police lineup attended by Howard Brennan. No second lineup is mentioned in Brennan's Warren Commission testimony.

The above quote by Gerald Ford, in which he tells America in LIFE Magazine that Howard Brennan DID positively identify Lee Harvey Oswald at a police lineup, has no doubt raised the hackles (and the suspicions) of some conspiracy theorists who are aware of the quote.

And it is quotes like that one, which is just blatantly false (unless I am severely misinformed as to the correct number of police lineups attended by Howard L. Brennan in November of 1963), that make it even more difficult to convince the public that the Warren Commission's investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy was a completely honest and forthright one.

I can only shrug my shoulders and wonder why Mr. Ford would want to invent a "second lineup", when such a thing is directly contradicted by Ford's very own Warren Commission final report (on Page 143, where it's stated fairly clearly that Brennan only attended one single lineup at the Dallas Police Department), as well as being contradicted in the testimony of Howard Brennan himself in WC Volume 3 and in Brennan's May 7, 1964, affidavit which also appears in Warren Commission Volume 11. All of which can easily be verified by any conspiracy theorist who takes the time to check out the information.

~big shrug~

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it might be that Mr. Ford and the truth were only passing acquaintances?

Just a question....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And maybe LBJ was right when he said that Gerald Ford played too much football without a helmet. (So he put him on the Warren Commission.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today I was reading Gerald Ford's article that originally appeared in the October 2, 1964, issue of LIFE Magazine, and I noted something odd on page 50 of that magazine when Ford said this....

"H.L. Brennan, who actually saw Oswald shoot the President and provided the first description, decided soon afterward that his own life was in critical danger. At the first police lineup, he later told us, he recognized Oswald immediately but feared to admit it. At the second lineup, he made the identification despite the feared consequences."

Oct-2-1964-LIFE-Magazine-Excerpt-Page-50

But I am unaware of a SECOND police lineup attended by Howard Brennan. No second lineup is mentioned in Brennan's Warren Commission testimony.

The above quote by Gerald Ford, in which he tells America in LIFE Magazine that Howard Brennan DID positively identify Lee Harvey Oswald at a police lineup, has no doubt raised the hackles (and the suspicions) of some conspiracy theorists who are aware of the quote.

And it is quotes like that one, which is just blatantly false (unless I am severely misinformed as to the correct number of police lineups attended by Howard L. Brennan in November of 1963), that make it even more difficult to convince the public that the Warren Commission's investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy was a completely honest and forthright one.

I can only shrug my shoulders and wonder why Mr. Ford would want to invent a "second lineup", when such a thing is directly contradicted by Ford's very own Warren Commission final report (on Page 143, where it's stated fairly clearly that Brennan only attended one single lineup at the Dallas Police Department), as well as being contradicted in the testimony of Howard Brennan himself in WC Volume 3 and in Brennan's May 7, 1964, affidavit which also appears in Warren Commission Volume 11. All of which can easily be verified by any conspiracy theorist who takes the time to check out the information.

~big shrug~

what lone nut graphics company is doing your graphics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it be here that Mr. Von Pein just MAY be willing to admit that at least one member of the Warren Commission was not 100% truthful when talking about the JFK assassination?

If so...this is a day I thought I'd never see. I thought that, in DVP's world, only CT'er lied or thought that anyone connected with the WC had lied.

I'm sure he'll likely find an excuse to reconcile why Ford's statement contradicts the evidence, but how neither the evidence nor Ford's words contain a lie. I'm just not certain how he'll perform such a contortionist act, but I'm sure we'll see it soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it be here that Mr. Von Pein just MAY be willing to admit that at least one member of the Warren Commission was not 100% truthful when talking about the JFK assassination?

I think I made that relatively clear (without actually coming right out and calling Gerald Ford the L-word) when I said this in my thread-opener....

"And it is quotes like that one, which is just blatantly false (unless I am severely misinformed as to the correct number of police lineups attended by Howard L. Brennan in November of 1963), that make it even more difficult to convince the public that the Warren Commission's investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy was a completely honest and forthright one." -- DVP

I'm sure he'll likely find an excuse to reconcile why Ford's statement contradicts the evidence, but how neither the evidence nor Ford's words contain a lie. I'm just not certain how he'll perform such a contortionist act, but I'm sure we'll see it soon.

Part of the reason I created this thread was to gauge CTer reaction to that quote of Ford's, and also to find out how many people here were even aware that Ford said such a thing in LIFE Magazine in late 1964. (I certainly had not been previously aware of the quote, and I have never once in the past heard anyone else mention it either.)

It is disconcerting to me to think that a member of the Warren Commission would make such a false statement in an article that he knew would be seen by millions of people. I just don't know what to make of it. I really don't.

But the existence of such a strange quote has certainly NOT suddenly erased or destroyed the large amount of evidence that supports Lee Harvey Oswald's lone guilt in JFK's murder. Yes, it's a quote that I do not think is accurate at all--and it is entirely misleading as well (giving the impression to LIFE's readers that a key witness to the assassination had, in fact, made a positive identification of Oswald during an official police lineup at the Dallas Police Department--which I'm nearly certain did not happen at any time in November 1963).

But, based on that one foolish and inaccurate statement about Howard Brennan made by Gerald R. Ford, to then make a giant leap and to also start believing that the thousands of pages of documents and testimony and evidence that fully support and, in my opinion, confirm Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murders are all now suddenly fraudulent and inaccurate is too much for any reasonable person to accept. (IMO.)

In wrestling with the words contained in Ford's quote, in an attempt to find some kind of a fair and halfway reasonable explanation that could reconcile the statement in a manner that doesn't end up with Gerald Ford coming across as a bald-faced L-word, the only thing I could come up with is the following scenario (and it's not very satisfying to me, particularly since Ford made the statement at a time when the Warren Commission was undoubtedly still in existence in September 1964, which means his memory is not likely to have faded very much, if at all, when it comes to recalling the events and testimony surrounding the assassination)....

Mr. Ford, somehow, in some inexplicable manner, had it in his mind and honestly believed (as of September 1964, just a few months after Howard Brennan testified to something completely different in front of the Commission) that Mr. Brennan had, indeed, identified Oswald at a second police lineup at the DPD on either November 22 or 23, 1963 (the only two days Brennan could have possibly seen Oswald in a lineup).

In other words, via this wholly speculative scenario I'm painting here, Gerald Ford, who did know that Brennan did positively identify Lee Oswald at some point in time after the assassination, had it stuck in his mind that Brennan's positive IDing of Oswald while he was testifying in front of the Warren Commission was actually a positive identification provided by Brennan months earlier at a second police lineup at the Dallas Police Department.

A pretty ridiculous explanation, isn't it? Yeah, as I said, I think it is too. But in an effort to give Mr. Gerald Rudolph Ford every benefit of every doubt I can muster, it's about the only explanation I can come up with that would explain Ford's quote in a manner which has Mr. Ford NOT telling a whopper of a lie to the American people in one of the USA's most popular magazines on October 2, 1964.

David Von Pein

August 11, 2015

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ford was full of it, period. Take the article he wrote with David Belin (there's a team for you) claiming that Harry Holmes proved there was no conspiracy, at least as far as that two-bit nightclub owner Jack Ruby was concerned. If Holmes hadn't decided to go interrogate Oswald that morning instead of going to church (one's civic duty comes before God), Oswald would have been transferred earlier with no Jack Ruby there. Ergo Ruby's shooting of Oswald was not a planned hit, it was a spur-of-the-moment thing when Ruby just happened to show up later.

It's safe to say that Ford (and Belin) thought his readers were just as dumb as he was, as it wouldn't occur to them that if Ruby's shooting of Oswald was planned, Oswald would naturally have been held until such time as Ruby was in place and the signal was given. Holmes's police work was simply a good excuse for the "delay" in transferring Oswald.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron,

The "Harry Holmes Delayed The Transfer" thing is something I've used many times in the past too. And that's because it is TRUE. If Holmes had not decided to go downtown and interrogate Oswald, then Ruby could not possibly have shot Oswald, because Oswald's transfer would very likely have already taken place by the time Ruby got done with his Western Union business.

That makes perfect sense to me. Just as it also makes perfect sense to say that if stripper Karen Carlin had not telephoned Ruby when she did on the morning of 11/24/63 (10:20 AM), then Oswald would very likely not have been shot. (And who in their right mind thinks Karen Carlin was a co-conspirator in a plot to rub out Oswald?)

IOW---Oswald was killed not by a conspiracy, but instead as a result of good old garden-variety HAPPENSTANCE. To believe anything else requires twisting yourself into a pretzel in order to bring "conspiracy" into Jack Ruby's movements on November 24th in Dallas.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, whatever you say, Dave.

Karen Carlin: Jack, could you wire me some money this morning?

Jack Ruby: Yeah, no problem. Western Union is right down the street from where I have some business to attend to. I'll leave a little early and do it on the way. But get this straight: This is the last time you'll be getting any money from me.

Edited by Ron Ecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The "Harry Holmes Delayed The Transfer" thing is something I've used many times in the past too. And that's because it is TRUE. If Holmes had not decided to go downtown and interrogate Oswald, then Ruby could not possibly have shot Oswald, because Oswald's transfer would very likely have already taken place by the time Ruby got done with his Western Union business."

I've never understood Holmes's role in interrogating Oswald. Holmes was a federal officer. Oswald was not charged with violating any federal law. Will Fritz and Henry Wade should have kept Holmes away from Oswald. Holmes was as much an interloper as would have been anyone off the street.

Edited by Jon G. Tidd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Holmes was as much an interloper as would have been anyone off the street.

That's kind of a ridiculous thing to say, Jon. Holmes was a U.S. postal inspector, and the POST OFFICE played a part in the evidence connected to Lee Harvey Oswald (via the P.O. Boxes he rented in 1963 and the U.S. Postal Money Order that Oswald used to order the assassination weapon).

So, Jon, I think Harry D. Holmes was a little bit more significant to the investigation than just any ol' John Doe pulled in off the street.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holmes was as much an interloper as would have been anyone off the street.

Yes, and that's why Holmes has all the earmarks of a nonsensical excuse for the cops to hold Oswald until Ruby was in position. It suggests that there may have been no set time for Ruby to be there, or that his wire to Carlin delayed him. In any case Ruby knew he had to show up, and the transfer wasn't happening till he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...