Brennan's lineup

[David Von Pein]

Thank you, Alistair. Your explanation about the Gerald Ford LIFE article makes perfect sense. (And it's much more palatable than the one I offered up previously.)

 

[James DiEugenio]

58 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

These are all the available frames with Brennan on them...This takes up thru z207, a point after which LIFE believed a shot was fired...

Seems he should have been looking up by then... 

Yes, one would think so.

[Steve Thomas]

12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Yes, one would think so.

I think he testified that he watched the presidential limo until it got about 50 yards from the TSBD, and then looked up.

 

BTW, have you ever read the second and third sessions of his WC appearance?

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/wit.htm

That's the most bewildering thing I ever saw.

Mr. BRENNAN. I saw two but I can't identify which one it was.
Mr. BELIN. Could it have been neither one of these persons that you saw?
Mr. BRENNAN. I think it was one of them. I think it was this boy on the end.
Mr. BELIN. You thought it was Mr. Norman. And what about Mr. Jarman?
Mr. BRENNAN. I believe it was him, too. Am I right or wrong?
Mr. BALL. I don't know.

 

Steve Thomas

[Alistair Briggs]

Steve that is bewildering - I had to read his testimony about 10 times to make a guess at what he was trying to say, and I'm still not sure I have it right. lol

[James DiEugenio]

What the heck is he talking about?

[David Von Pein]

That particular section of Howard Brennan's testimony is easily understandable if you just look at the whole thing.....

 

Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, you testified here this morning, is that correct?
Mr. BRENNAN. Right.
Mr. McCLOY. You are still under oath, Mr. Brennan.
Mr. BELIN. I believe that you testified that you thought you recognized two of the people that you saw looking out of the fifth floor of the School Book Depository Building you thought you recognized outside of the building sometime after the assassination, is that correct? The two people that you saw, are they any of these three people here?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes. I believe it is the one on the end and this one here, I am not sure.
Mr. BELIN. By that you would mean--
Mr. BRENNAN. I don't know which of those two.
Mr. BALL. Let's identify.
Mr. BELIN. Which person do you mean, you mean Mr. Norman sitting opposite?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes; I believe he was one of them.
Mr. BELIN. And you believe it was Mr. Jarman together?
Mr. BRENNAN. Jarman.
Mr. BELIN. Were they with some policeman as they came out of the building or in custody of some plainclothesman?
Mr. BRENNAN. I don't believe they were.
Mr. BELIN. You saw them together come out of the building?
Mr. BRENNAN. I don't believe they were. I don't recall seeing any officer bring them out or with them.
Mr. BELIN. Now you do not believe then that it was Mr. Williams?
Mr. BRENNAN. No; I won't say for sure. I can't tell which of those two it was.
Mr. BELIN. In other words, you say that you can't, when you say you can't tell whether it was Mr. Williams or Mr. Norman, did you just see one person or two?
Mr. BRENNAN. I saw two but I can't identify which one it was.
Mr. BELIN. Could it have been neither one of these persons that you saw?
Mr. BRENNAN. I think it was one of them. I think it was this boy on the end.
Mr. BELIN. You thought it was Mr. Norman. And what about Mr. Jarman?
Mr. BRENNAN. I believe it was him, too. Am I right or wrong?
Mr. BALL. I don't know.
Mr. BRENNAN. I explained that to you this morning.
Mr. BALL. I understand. Any questions?
Mr. McCLOY. Did you recognize anyone in this room that you saw in the fifth floor window while you were sitting on the masonry opposite the school book depository?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is the two boys that I am speaking of now.
Mr. McCLOY. That you are speaking of now?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. You saw these two men in the fifth-floor window and you saw them again on the first floor?
Mr. BRENNAN. Coming out of the building down the stairway, coming out on the street, those were the only two people I could identify.

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

And...speaking of the above testimony of Howard L. Brennan....

"Another important point to be made concerning Brennan's ability to
positively identify people within the Book Depository from his location
across the street from that building is the fact that Brennan, minutes after
the shooting, correctly identified two of the three black men he had observed
in the fifth-floor window (directly under the rifleman's window) at the time
he had also observed the gunman on the sixth floor.

Brennan's Warren Commission testimony in that regard [at 3 H 146]:

MR. BRENNAN -- "{I} spoke to Mr. Sorrels, and told him that those were
the two colored boys that was [sic] on the fifth floor, or on the next
floor underneath the man that fired the gun."

GERALD FORD -- "You positively identified them?"

MR. BRENNAN -- "I did, at that time."

Brennan's identification of both Harold Norman and James Jarman Jr.
(the "colored boys" on the 5th Floor) is, in my view, very important
information -- because it proves beyond all doubt that is WAS, indeed,
possible for an eyewitness to positively identify specific human beings
located on the upper floors of the Depository Building from Brennan's
vantage point across Elm Street." -- DVP; February 2006

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan.html

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Steve Thomas]

19 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Brennan's identification of both Harold Norman and James Jarman Jr.
(the "colored boys" on the 5th Floor) is, in my view, very important
information -- because it proves beyond all doubt that is WAS, indeed,
possible for an eyewitness to positively identify specific human beings
located on the upper floors of the Depository Building from Brennan's
vantage point across Elm Street." -- DVP; February 2006

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan.html

 

David,

 

You see, that's my problem with Brennan. Suspecting, at the time, that there might be a "plot to shoot the President involving several people", and feeling then and still feeling when he testified to the WC that it was a "communist activity", he didn't hesitate to finger these two "colored" guys. It never crossed his mind that these two might be part of the "plot"?

Was it because Oswald was the "shooter", or was it because these guys were "colored"?

 

There were people on the next floor down, which is the fifth floor, colored guys. In particular, I only remember two that I identified.

 

Mr. BELIN. Now, I believe you said that after the last shot you jumped off this masonry structure on which you were sitting. Why did you jump off?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, it occurred to me that there might be more than one person, that it was a plot which could mean several people, and I knew beyond reasonable doubt that there were going to be bullets flying from every direction.

 

Mr. BRENNAN. And I immediately identified these two boys to the officers and Mr. Sorrels as being on the fifth floor.

 

Mr. BRENNAN. Spoke to Mr. Sorrels, and told him that those were the two colored boys that was on the fifth floor, or on the next floor underneath the man that fired the gun.
Representative FORD. You positively identified them?
Mr. BRENNAN. I did, at that time.

 

Mr. BELIN. Is there anything else now up to the time you got down to the Dallas Police Station?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, nothing except that up until that time, through my entire life, I could never remember what a colored person looked like if he got out of my sight. And I always thought that if I had to identify a colored person I could not. But by coincidence that one time I did recognize those two boys.

Mr. BRENNAN. I believe at that time, and I still believe it was a Communist activity, and I felt like there hadn't been more than one eyewitness, and if it got to be a known fact that I was an eyewitness, my family or I, either one, might not be safe.

 

Steve Thomas

 

 

[Guest]

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 1:23 PM, James DiEugenio said:

(But alas this is all a tempest in a teapot, Payette and DVP would say there is no real problem with this evidentiary record.)

Please, the name of the law firm is DVP & Payette PLLC.  I'm just a junior partner.  I haven't even earned my Lone Nut merit badge yet.

Isn't this to some extent an example of Elaborate Conspiracy theorists "proving too much," as the saying goes?  I just re-read the line-up section of Ian Griggs' book, BTW.  As line-ups go, all the line-ups of LHO were clearly a travesty.  As Griggs suggests, anyone pulled in off the street should have been able to pick LHO out of those line-ups as the "perpetrator" even if they didn't know what the crime was supposed to be.  The bruised, disheveled LHO may as well have worn a sign saying "Pick me."

That being said, the line-up card says Brennan "failed to identify."  In the FBI report of 12-18-63, Brennan is reported as saying he failed to identify LHO because he was concerned TV coverage had clouded his perception, he didn't think a positive identification was necessary, and he was concerned about being known as the one who had identified LHO.  In the FBI report of 1-10-64, he is again reported as saying TV coverage had affected his perception but that LHO was the one in the line-up who most resembled the man he saw in the 6th floor window.  His Warren Commission testimony likewise fumbled through all of these issues in a manner entirely consistent with what he had previously said, although he "kinda sorta" identified LHO as the man in the window.  The WC did not rely on him as having made a positive identification of LHO.

Lastly, from his statement on 11-22-63 forward he said he could see the rifle barrel but could not see a scope.  I see no inconsistencies at all, unless one thinks his WC estimate of 70-85% versus his previous estimate of at least 50% is significant.  Since he consistently said he did not know if the rifle had a scope, I don't see this as significant.

So where is the smoking gun here that I'm supposed to be seeing?  Does anyone seriously think Brennan was at no line-up at all, with all of the references in the record to his failure to identify LHO - and not just out of fear, but also because he realized TV coverage had colored his perception (which would be very damaging if you wanted him to be The Witness Who Could Positively Identify LHO in the Window)?  If we accept an Elaborate Conspiracy in which critical witnesses were carefully prepped, managed and intimidated as necessary - Brennan being Oswald Identification Witness #1 - wouldn't we expect a record free of all of Brennan's hemming and hawing?  Doesn't the record, at least in regard to the line-up, cut in precisely the opposite direction of what the Elaborate Conspiracy theorists are suggesting and actually suggest that Brennan was just another Average Joe caught up in an unprecedented situation and trying to tell the truth as he knew it?

Edit:  Consider this exchange, right at the end of Brennan's WC testimony:

Mr. BELIN. All right.
Could you see the man's trousers at all?
Do you remember any color?
Mr. BRENNAN. I remembered them at that time as being similar to the same color of the shirt or a little lighter. And that was another thing that I called their attention to at the lineup.
Mr. BELIN. What do you mean by that?
Mr. BRENNAN. That he was not dressed in the same clothes that I saw the man in the window.
Mr. BELIN. You mean with reference to the trousers or the shirt?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, not particularly either. In other words, he just didn't have the same clothes on.
Mr. BELIN. All right.

I realize there is some controversy as to whether LHO changed his clothes, as well as how much Brennan could have seen through the 6th floor window - but good lord, does this sound like a carefully prepped and managed critical witness?

Edited January 14, 2017 by Guest

[David Von Pein]

Lance Payette said:

Does anyone seriously think Brennan was at no line-up at all?

Yes, Lance, there are people who are silly enough to believe that very thing. ....

"I don't think Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created witness." -- James DiEugenio; May 27, 2010 (http://box.com/audio/DiEugenio)

 

Edited January 14, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Guest]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes, Lance, there are people who are silly enough to believe that very thing. ....

"I don't think Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created witness." -- James DiEugenio; May 27, 2010 (http://box.com/audio/DiEugenio)

 

Oh, dear, I had no idea.  My head is spinning.  So the conspirators were so diabolically clever that they created an eyewitness, created evidence that he had failed to identify LHO in a line-up, created FBI reports confirming his failure, trained him so well that he could stumble through his WC testimony and convincingly give the appearance of a guy who was simply telling the truth (even though his testimony was not nearly as damning to LHO as it could have been), and then apparently helped him write and publish a book that was consistent with what he'd always said?  And this all furthered the conspiracy by ... by ... well, how on earth did it further the conspiracy???  Why not just create an eyewitness and have him testify at the WC - why throw the line-up monkey wrench into the story?  I have said it in at least 50% of my posts, but the elaborate conspiracy theories always posit conspirators who are geniuses half the time and idiots half the time (and always depending on how they want to force-fit the evidence into the theory).

Edited January 14, 2017 by Guest

[David Von Pein]

22 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Oh, dear, I had no idea.

I'm ashamed of you, Lance! I posted that information about DiEugenio's silliness three days ago in this very thread (below). Why didn't you see it? The boss at DVP & Payette PLLC isn't gonna like such sloppiness on your part, Lance.

BTW, did you also know that Mr. DiEugenio has decided that Lee Oswald carried no large bag to work at all on 11/22/63?

Yep. You heard right. The whole "paper bag/curtain rod" story was just a big fairy tale, per some CTers.

And yet those same CTers never once have bothered to ask themselves: Well, gee, if there never was any bag in the first place, and Buell Frazier just made the whole thing up, then why didn't he make the make-believe bag big enough to hold the rifle that was supposed to be inside that bag?

Funny, huh? (In more ways than one.)

 

Edited January 14, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I'm ashamed of you, Lance! I posted that information about DiEugenio's silliness three days ago in this very thread (below). Why didn't you see it? The boss at DVP & Payette PLLC isn't gonna like such sloppiness on your part, Lance.

Yep, I malpracticed, I admit it.  I'm overworked and underpaid.  I'll do better next time.

The events the day before the assassination and the morning of the assassination are, to me, some of the strongest Lone Nut evidence.  To get around those events requires some really preposterous extensions of the conspiracy.  And that is my main problem with the conspiracy theories, at least the elaborate ones - they require such constant gerrymandering that eventually you have to say "No conspiracy in the history of the world ever worked like this or ever could work like this."

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

The events the day before the assassination and the morning of the assassination are, to me, some of the strongest Lone Nut evidence.  To get around those events requires some really preposterous extensions of the conspiracy.

Amen. ....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/everything-oswald-did-says-guilt.html

 

[James DiEugenio]

Uh Legal Partners in Support of the WC:

 

Please note all the problems that have been revealed above before we hear a lot of LP's  (Long playing not Lance P)  "My Dears"  and "irresponsible conspiracy theorists"

LP says he read Ian's essay.  But evidently, he wants to ignore all the problems  Ian exposed and, as usual, just go with Brennan's WC testimony--which of course, is completely unchallenged.  But of course, LP would say in this regard, "Well defense lawyers are a nuisance anyway.  Who needs them, so what if its a legal right. Prosecutors can do the job without them."  BTW, that is only slight exaggeration is it not?  After all it just adds confusion. Right.

Now, back to the real constitutional world.  Ian established that:

1.) Brennan did not even know how many people were at the line up. (p. 91)

2.) He did not recall if there were any blacks in the line up. (p. 91) Recall, this is Texas in 1963.  (But I am sure LP and DVP would say, "So what are you implying, there was racism in Texas at the time?"  To which I reply (again back to the real world) uh, well what about those impeach Earl Warren signs in Dallas?)

3.) No one recalled Brennan at any line up, even the one he was supposed to be at. (p. 92)

4.)  When Sorrells called Fritz, its clear Fritz has no recall of Brennan at any line up.(p. 94)

5.)  Beyond that, it is also clear that there was no record of Brennan being at a line up. (p. 94)

6.) Even though there was no memory or record of Brennan being at  a line up, Sorrels insisted he was. (ibid)

7.)  But, Sorrels did not know the time  of the line up. Fritz had to tell him. (ibid)  And if you read David's document, it was Sorrells who was supposed to be there since it says so on the record.

This happens all the time does it not?  Every day in every police department in the country, correct?  Only wild eyed conspiracy nuts could even think up such stuff.

LP did a typical lawyers' trick in his allusion to Ian's book.  He went ahead and accented the poor line up choices Ian adduces, which is pretty much old news.  I mean the first generation of critics did a nice job in that regard.  Ian's book was published in 2005.  The main part of his essay dealt with all these evidentiary holes in the Brennan records about the line up he was supposed to be at.  LP ignores all that completely.  This is what a card sharp does: he attracts your eye one way with some kind of dealing flourish so you don't notice what he is doing with his other hand underneath the deck.  

I would have thought people here had become a little sick of that kind of cheap lawyer technique.  I guess LP and DVP think its still OK to do this kind of stuff.  Sorry but some of us are familiar with that old chestnut.

 

 

.

Edited January 14, 2017 by James DiEugenio