Did EVEN the Warren Commission Believe Howard Brennan?

[James DiEugenio]

A very good question.  Joe Ball wanted Brennan out and Belin asked: if you were sitting there then where are your legs dangling over the ledge?

He was not sitting where he said he was.  You can see that in the Z film.

As I showed with Thornley, and Tim does here, the WR was a conscious deception.   These guys knew it was a put up job and they went along with it .

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/did-even-the-warren-commission-believe-howard-brennan

 

[John Butler]

On ‎7‎/‎16‎/‎2020 at 11:11 PM, James DiEugenio said:

He was not sitting where he said he was.  You can see that in the Z film.

As I showed with Thornley, and Tim does here, the WR was a conscious deception.   These guys knew it was a put up job and they went along with it .

Couldn't agree more, but with the exception of the Z film.  It can't be trusted on many things.  Howard Brennan was on the SW corner of Elm and Houston Street.  He is shown there in both the Zapruder film and Elsie Dorman in roughly the same place.  However, there are many anomalies on the SW corner.  This is one from the Martin film.

This striking anomaly is a figure sitting on the retaining wall.  It is not Howard Brennan?  This person is not in the Zapruder film or the Elsie Dorman film.  Some could say this was a camera problem, but the figure is too humanoid to be a camera blob.

People scoff at the idea that the films and photos of Dealey Plaza have been edited.  There are far to many examples like the above that one has to fairly consider the idea.  They say there was not time to do all the editing that one sees.  That's not correct.  They had these films for a long time before returning them to their owners or in some cases view by the public.

IMO, the WC story line was set on the afternoon of the assassination.  There were variations later.  But, the main story was conceived by some one in Dealey Plaza that afternoon.  Again, IMO, it was whoever was supervising the assassination on site.  General Landsdale was said to be in Dealey Plaza captured in a photo.  He makes a good suspect for this supposition. 

This Dorman mosaic shows an object of some sort in the place of the Martin figure:

This Mosaic and frames from the Zapruder film show there is a significant difference in the number of people on the SW corner in the two films. Nothing that is seen in Dealey Plaza that afternoon can be trusted for truthfulness.  The CIA and FBI photo labs have worked these films over to the point that they can't be used in court to convict anyone.  There is enough tell-tale clues or errors if you will for this idea to become prominent in just about any film or photo.

Folks will say the government never had the Elsie Dorman film.  A lawyer kept the film in his safe.  She was just an extremely poor photographer.  Both the CIA and the FBI were known to be "black bag" experts on burglarizing places.  The Elsie Dorman film has definitely been edited to the point of absurdity.  If the film had not been edited on Houston Street the real truth and not the WC truth would have been available.   

 

Edited July 18, 2020 by John Butler

[John Butler]

FROM:  Friday, 10 July 2020 18:42

Did EVEN the Warren Commission Believe Howard Brennan?

Written by Tim Smith

“This appears to be a negative from a moving picture film [Z-188, approximately—and keep in mind, the negative of which he was handed had already been published in Life magazine as a color photo]. And I will hand you a magnifying glass—the negative has been enlarged. This negative appears to be a picture of the Presidential motorcade on the afternoon of November 22^nd. I ask you to state if you can find yourself in the crowd in the background in that picture.”

From his previously noted reply, Brennan also knew that exhibits CE-477 and CE-478—which were recreations shot in March—were inconsistent with what he was swearing to. The actual photo, CE-479, shows Brennan sitting on the ledge of the reflecting pool, facing east towards Houston Street, not north toward the Texas Schoolbook Depository. Yet, note what author Richard Trask writes: “Brennan had been sitting on the concrete retaining wall by the north reflecting pool and was facing the Book Depository.” (Richard Trask, Pictures of the Pain: Photography and the Assassination of President Kennedy, p. 493) That is rubbish and Trask must know it. He has a keen eye for detail and often brings out matters that the casual reader would not necessarily notice. It is clear from a collection of Zapruder frames that Brennan was, in fact, facing east and had to lean his left arm well back to look over his shoulder to see Kennedy’s car when it was in front of the Depository. Brennan would pose, on March 20 (his birthday), sitting right in the middle of the concrete wall looking into the Depository, and again, David Belin caught him lying."

There's no doubt in my mind of Howard Brennan lying with a capital L, lying.  But, I don't know whether I agree with this or not.  I could be a matter of perspective.

This mosaic shows that the retaining wall is curved.  This might show Brennan apparently facing east toward Houston St from Zapruder's perspective.  I mention this in hope that a better camera perspective person will take a look at the issue.  I'm with Tim Smith, hoping he has a better handle on this.

Z frame 188:

"(Richard Trask, Pictures of the Pain: Photography and the Assassination of President Kennedy, p. 493) That is rubbish and Trask must know it." 

I have the Trask book and that's pretty much my thoughts on his work.  If there wasn't a WC statement available he fashioned one for these photos.  He ignored all of the questionable things in the photos in his book.  I may be a tad bit unfair here, but I was disappointed with this book.

And, here's where I get into big trouble with folks.  I think there are different camera perspectives, at least 3, in assembling the stage area of the SW corner of Elm and Houston.  This depends on which part of the film one is looking at,  pre-gap or post-gap.   

Edited July 18, 2020 by John Butler

[Chris Davidson]

Frontside and backside views stabilized.

[James DiEugenio]

That is really good Chris.  He is about 25 feet from where he said he was.

As you follow the car, he goes out of the picture at the point he is supposed to be at.

 

Correct?

[Joe Bauer]

Fascinating clips CD.

Thank you for sharing them.

Is Brennan the guy sitting on the wall well before the curve ends on Elm?

Seeing the little girl running excitedly after JFK's limo starting well back from the point where we see her much further down Elm is quaintly and innocently touching.

These colorized clips really take you back to the event in a "right there" visceral connection type way.  Like you just took a wondrous trip back there in a time machine.

 

 

 

Edited July 18, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[Chris Davidson]

If CE477/8 represents where he thought he was, I'd suggest using the wall block openings as a measuring tool for the distance between the two locations with a minor radius length added in.  The lamp-post at left and my red arrow would be a similar distance.

Plotting Bell's LOS pretty much agrees with this photo that puts him directly across from the western edge of the first window opening in the TSBD.

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Joe:

You can see Brennan clearly in Butler's blow up of Z 188.

He is faced toward Houston.

You cannot see his legs as you would  if he was in the position the WC wanted him in. He is near the edge of the ridge in front of the reflecting pool, there is a red object near his hand, and his head is craning around to watch JFK as he nears the freeways sign on Elm.

As Tim notes in his article, to have him where he is in the March recreation photos, he would have to be moved about 25 feet to his left.  No person, except maybe Bob Beamon, could jump that far at the sound of the first shot.

[John Butler]

The Warren Commission exhibits misplace Brennan less than 10 feet to the west of where he is shown sitting in Zapruder, Bell, and Dorman.

Zapruder, Bell, and Dorman comparison:

I don't trust Dealey Plaza films and photos.  However, 3 films put Howard Brennan in the same area.  It's a fair bet be was where the Bell crop above places him.  This differs from the Warren Commission exhibits 477 and 478.  In those he is less than 10 feet west of where he is in the Bell crop.  10 feet is based on a foot per square hole and maybe 4 to 6 inches in between holds.  There are 4 to 5 square holes difference.

These films generally show Brennan facing towards the east in Dorman and Zapruder and less so in the Bell film.

In Z 188 Bell is sitting in what may be considered an easterly direction, but he is facing west, head turned toward the west.

The directions Brennan is facing at any one time may simply be an expression of where the p. limo is and the time it was viewed.  In Zapruder you can't tell whether he is sitting exactly in the same place as the other films.  But, he appears to be.  If the person in blue south of Brennan is Toni Glover then he is in the right place.  That's very difficult to see. 

 

Edited July 19, 2020 by John Butler

[John Butler]

Howard Brennan and the Presidential Limousine Distance

IMO, Howard Brennan was cooperating with the authorities on what happened in Dealey Plaza from the very beginning.  He was saying what they wanted to hear.  This may have been through fear and intimidation.  However, he was a bad witness.  He did not say completely what they wanted to hear.  I think this was his way of not agreeing to a false story.  It may have been his way of fighting back.  That's an argument without a real answer.   

Many people think Howard Brennan was a deceptive person.  It’s true he did lie.  He made mistakes lying and had to make further statements about what he saw.  He had to be questioned until he said what the authorities wanted to hear.  Were these mistakes intentional, or was he just a bad deceiver.

 An example of this was what he saw in the 6^th floor window, later known as the Sniper’s Nest, of the TSBD.  He saw someone in the 6^th floor window with a rifle.  But, at the time could not identify who.  He just gave a description.  At a later lineup at 7:PM he did not identify Lee Oswald as the person in the window.  Later he changed this to identifying Oswald as in the window, but was uncertain due to seeing Oswald on TV.  He gave a really dumb answer on why he didn’t identify Oswald the first time around.

He saw a man with a rifle in the window, but didn’t see a scope on the rifle.  He heard shots or similar sounds, but said he could say whether the man with the rifle fired those shots.  He couldn’t say that shots were fired from the Sniper’s Nest.  He said he heard just one shot, but stated there must have been two.  And, now to the point of this. 

Howard Brennan’s initial statements on where the President was when he first heard a shot or noise similar to a shot were not acceptable.  Over time he changes this until he gets a suitable answer for the authorities.  In his Sheriff’s Office statement of 11-22-63 he said:

50 yards from the intersection of Elm and Houston would be 150 feet from the intersection.  This would put the first shot at about the Stemmons sign.  That is 100 feet for the TSBD width, 10 or 20 feet from the SW corner of the TSBD to the R L Thornton sign, and another 40 feet to the Stemmons sign.  This is about where most people think the first shot occurred or just before the sign.  I don’t see the problem here.  This more or less matches with the Zapruder film. 

The next statement he makes on distance to the presidential limousine is on the same day as his first statement.  This time it is to the Dallas Police:

These answers were acceptable to the Sheriff’s Office and the Dallas Police on 11-22-63.  He is pretty certain that the presidential vehicle was 50 yards away.  But, some one was not.  IMO, the government’s story began to evolve on the afternoon and evening of the 22^nd and was pretty much in place by the 23^rd.  There were evolving variations in later times.  The government’s story was the Zapruder film (only this film was not known to all at this time) with 3 shots coming from the 6^th floor, last window toward the east.  Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin.

The following day on the 23^rd of November Howard Brennan made a statement to the FBI:

On thought, this was not an acceptable answer on where the President was when Brennan heard a shot-like noise.  30 yards equal 90 feet.  From where Brennan was this puts the first shot at the SW corner of the TSBD.  If you do 90 ft. from the intersection this puts the first shot almost below the trees in front of the TSBD.  Several witnesses in the building said they could not see the presidential vehicle when they heard a shot due to trees being in the way.

This question had to be worked out between the authorities and Brennan.  First, a distance from Howard’s position to the Sniper’s Nest had to be arrived at.  Howard said,

“Did you ever tell anyone that you were 90 yards away from that window

where you saw the gun?

 

Mr. Brennan. No. It was a misunderstanding. My first calculation was that

I was about 75-foot out from the window, and the calculation of the window 75-

foot up. So the hypotenuse there would be approximately 110-foot. That was

my first calculation.  But since we made a step of the grounds Friday, I was farther out than 75 feet. Approximately 93 feet is what we calculated Friday.”

93 feet from the window given so that what he saw was perfectly reasonable to see for that distance.  It seems this is an exact measurement.

However, how exactitude goes out the window when how far he was away from the president’s vehicle:

 

 

This is one of the statements that lead me to believe that none of the information given by Howard on the distance to the presidential limo is the truth.

How far was Howard Brennan from the President when he heard a backfire or shot?  Well, he said twice 50 yards (150 ft.), then he said 30 yards (90 ft.).  After making these statements he said he didn’t know or “I really couldn’t say”.  But, ended with a “short distance I would say,”.  That answer was good enough.

How far he was from the 6^th floor window turns out to be an exact measurement, 93 ft.  

The next answer Howard gave at the WC hearing on distance was an acceptable answer.  This is though it makes no logical sense:

“At that time did you make that statement to the FBI — and this would be on

22 November. To the best of your recollection?

Mr. Brennan. There was a mistake in the FBI recording there. He had

asked me the question of how far the shot was fired from too, and also he had

asked me the question of how far I was from the shot that was fired. I cal-

culated the distance at the angle his gun was resting that he must have been

firing 80 to 90 yards.

Now, I

Mr. Belin. You mean 80 or 90 yards from where?

Mr. Beennan. From Kennedy’s position.

Mr. Belin. But could you see Kennedy’s position?

Mr. Brennan. No ; I could not. But I could see before and after.”

80 yards at a minimum is 270 feet.  This is 270 feet from the Sniper’s Nest to where the President was when Howard saw the man in the window aiming his gun.  270 feet would be somewhere down around the Grassy Knoll.   

But, at this point Howard could not see the presidential limo.  Something was blocking his view.  He was seated on the retaining wall giving him a better view than folks on the sidewalk.  There was nothing blocking his view.  Seeing a gun angled from a 6^th story window would not be a reliable way to calculate a 80 or 90 yard distance to the President, particularly when you could not see the vehicle.

He didn’t see a scope.  He didn’t hear any firing from the TSBD 6^th floor.  He did not immediately identify Lee Harvey Oswald as the shooter in the window.  The description he gave as white, early 30’s, 5’10”, 165 to 175 pounds, and dressed in light colored clothing.  His description didn’t fit a 130-pound Oswald killed by Jack Ruby.   

He couldn’t really tell how far away the President was when he heard shooting.  He ended up saying a short distance.  And, what was a short distance.  Would that be less than 30 yards?  IMO, I believe the assassination occurred directly in front of him. 

He couldn’t see the presidential limousine when shots were heard.  Something was blocking his way when there was nothing to block his vision.  But, he could calculate 80 or 90 yards to where the President was at from this position by seeing someone aim a rifle from 93 feet away and 65 feet in the air.  And, so on.

All together reviewing what Brennan said I can see how he is viewed as an untruthful person.  Was his lying forced, intentional, or was he just a big fool.  IMO, I think Howard Brennan did the best he could to keep from answering fully in the manner that the authorities wanted.  He talked around and evaded many of the critical pieces that the police, FBI, and the Warren Commission wanted.  A good question that was never asked is "Did you see the same thing that Toni Glover saw".  This is not an unreasonable question since they were a short distance apart and both on an elevated position. 

This is not a vindication of Howard Brennan.  I think there is enough here in these statements to destroy Howard Brennan as a witness in court.  The question is was he just a bad witness or did he intentionally seek to undermine the people who were forcing him to say things he didn’t intend.      

 

[Ron Bulman]

I don't think anyone on the Warren Omission really believed Brennan.  But with coaching he kind of sort of in a roundabout way said what three of them wanted to hear, and, since one of them, Dulles, was in charge, the truth didn't matter.

[James DiEugenio]

Sure looks that way I think.

[Paul Jolliffe]

On 7/21/2020 at 3:32 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Sure looks that way I think.

Yeah, I agree - but we've all known that for decades. The Warren Commission had no interest in conducting an honest investigation. They had an "official" pre-conceived "solution" to the assassination and they were determined to reach it, come hell or high water, namely: "Oswald" did it, "Oswald" did it alone, and "Oswald" did it because he was a nut. 

Nothing else was acceptable.

[Paul Jolliffe]

On 7/19/2020 at 3:02 PM, John Butler said:

 

He didn’t see a scope.  He didn’t hear any firing from the TSBD 6^th floor.  He did not immediately identify Lee Harvey Oswald as the shooter in the window.  The description he gave as white, early 30’s, 5’10”, 165 to 175 pounds, and dressed in light colored clothing.  His description didn’t fit a 130-pound Oswald killed by Jack Ruby.         

 

John,

While your work on Brennan's variation in estimates of the limo's distance from Houston Street when the shots rang out is novel, I think it misses the point of why the Warren Commission was so interested in him. (No less than President Gerald Ford in his book "Portrait of the Assassin" called Brennan the "most important witness" to the WC!)

They needed him to bolster their claim that "Oswald" was seen in the 6th floor southeast window of the TSBD. (And therefore to pretend that Brennan was the source for Sawyer's 12:44 call to the DPD dispatch about the suspect.)

But:

1. His 11/22/63 affidavit made NO MENTION OF HEIGHT! (The infamous 5'10" is NOT there!)

2. Brennan DID include a clothing description ("light colored clothing, but definitely not a suit"), yet when Sawyer was asked directly by the DPD dispatch "any clothing description?" Sawyer replied "About 30, 5'10" , 165 pounds." Sawyer did not include Brennan's clothing description, ever! Even more surprising, the dispatcher on his own then added the modifier "slender build" to Sawyer's suspect description. I believe this proves that Brennan could NOT have been Sawyer's source. 

As was pointed out decades ago, 5'10" and 165 pounds is not a "slender build." (Yet our "Oswald" at 5'9" and 131 pounds definitely had a "slender build.")

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/

3. Brennan alleged that he could estimate the height and weight of a man he could only see from the waist up. Further, Brennan testified under oath that he saw the assassin fire while standing up!

The infamous "sniper's window" bottom sill was only 13" from the floor and only opened to 26" from the floor. An assassin "standing up and resting against the left window sill" (Brennan's testimony) would have been firing through the glass.

Impossible. Yet that is what Brennan swore.

4. Brennan signed a first day affidavit in which he claimed that he COULD identify "this man" again, yet he never made any such identification at any lineup. 

5. There is no official record that Brennan was ever present at any DPD lineup, and further, Will Fritz himself had no memory that Brennan was ever there.

Tim Smith's summary article, published by Jim DiEugenio over at Kennedys and King, is well worth reading.

 

Edited July 27, 2020 by Paul Jolliffe

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

While your work on Brennan's variation in estimates of the limo's distance from Houston Street when the shots rang out is novel, I think it misses the point of why the Warren Commission was so interested in him. (No less than President Gerald Ford in his book "Portrait of the Assassin" called Brennan the "most important witness" to the WC!)

They needed him to bolster their claim that "Oswald" was seen in the 6th floor southeast window of the TSBD. (And therefore to pretend that Brennan was the source for Sawyer's 12:44 call to the DPD dispatch about the suspect.)

Paul,

I agree.  I'm researching what Howard Brennan said on a narrow point.  Where was the p. limo when he heard shots.  And, once you cut through what he was saying that was either coerced by the FBI or he was helping with what he thought the FBI wanted to hear you come up with the real answer:  A short distance.  In other words directly in front of him.

In my re-examination of witnesses I've moved from 54 witnesses to 62 that say the p. limo was in the intersection or directly in front of the TSBD.

I wonder why Gerald Ford would say that?  I am sure that was just a propaganda statement to make the most of what Brennan said.  If I can find flaws, a good lawyer would have destroyed Howard Brennan's testimony and made a laughing -stock out of him.