Brennan's lineup

[David Von Pein]

27 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

And now I'm going to take a break and read Case Closed.

And then give this one a try too ....

https://www.amazon.com/book/Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Edited January 15, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And then give this one a try too ....

https://www.amazon.com/book/Beyond Reasonable Doubt

OK, I spent my lunch money on the Kindle edition.  I love how just about every JFK book on Amazon has 50% 5-star reviews and 50% 1-star reviews.  With the search feature (even on my old 2nd generation), the Kindle seems to me the way to go for books that you might use for future reference.

There is an entire series of "multi-view" Christian books that I love.  Things like "Four Views on the Atonement" and "Four Views on the Book of Revelation."  Four serious scholars write an essay, and each of the other three comments on it (often very harshly).  I could see something like this being fascinating with the Kennedy assassination if the topics were narrow enough - not "Four Views on Who Killed JFK" but "Four Views on the Magic Bullet" and that sort of thing. 

[James DiEugenio]

Davey, are you a glutton of punishment or what?

Martin Hay utterly wrecked your sorry excuse for a book:

I recommend everyone read this to see just what kind of author DVP really is:

 

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/ayton-mel-and-david-von-pein-beyond-reasonable-doubt

[James DiEugenio]

And the book's definition of its title is simply a canard.

It a bait and switch as Martin points out.  The only lawyer around who would endorse it is Lance Payette.

Who, I think as we all can see now, is about as objective as Davey's mentor VB.

[James DiEugenio]

As per Posner's book, chew on this one:

The problem with all this hoopla, which was designed to coincide with the 30thanniversary of the assassination, is that it was completely unwarranted. There were several reviews that showed just how flawed Case Closed was: for instance, David Wrone’s. (See also this index of items on this site.) In fact, there were so many problems with Posner’s book that activist Dave Starks put together a compendium page of articles to show that, not only was Case Closed a very bad piece of scholarship, but it might have been worse than that. In his haste to do a hatchet job on the critics, Posner may have created interviews he did not actually do. For instance, Peter Scott talked to Carlos Bringuier after Case Closed came out. Contrary to the book’s claims, Bringuier said he never talked to Posner. (Author interview with Scott in San Francisco in 1994) Same with Dealey Plaza witness James Tague, who the author clearly states he talked to on two successive days. (See Posner, paperback edition, p. 546) When Gary Aguilar talked to Tague, he said he never spoke to Posner. To use another example, although the author said he interviewed JFK’s forensic pathologist Thornton Boswell, Boswell told Aguilar he never spoke to him. (Click here for Starks’ devastating page on Posner.)

David Ferrie & Lee Oswald, Civil Air Patrol (1955)

Posner also committed some outright howlers in his much-ballyhooed book. For example, in his schematic drawings of the assassin at the Texas School Book Depository window, he has him posed as firing from an extreme left to right angle. So much so that these “Posner shots” would have ended up in the railroad yards behind the picket fence. (See Appendix A of Case Closed, paperback edition.) This makes one wonder if Posner was ever in Dallas. Because to anyone who has been to the building and peered out the sixth floor window—which was possible back then—it presents a slight right to left angle. Posner also wrote that there was no evidence to connect David Ferrie with Oswald. (Posner, p. 425) This was utterly ridiculous on many counts. But to name just one, when the book came out PBS did a special which featured a photo of Oswald and Ferrie together at a Civil Air Patrol (CAP) barbecue. They found it by questioning some other members of the CAP. Which means Posner could have done the same if he had knocked on some doors in the Crescent City. Posner also writes that there was no such personage as Clay Bertrand in New Orleans. When the JFK Act declassified both the Jim Garrison files and the papers of the HSCA, Posner again ended up with custard pie on his face. Those documents reveal that the number of witnesses who stated that Clay Shaw used the alias of Clay Bertrand was in the double digits. (Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, by James DiEugenio, pp. 211, 387, 388)

[James DiEugenio]

Beyond Reasonable Doubt, when:

 

1.Oswald was not on the sixth floor

2. When the gun in evidence is not the gun the WC says the accused ordered

3.When the bullet that is supposed to be CE 399, arrived over one hour before it was supposed to be there and does not Todd;s initials on it, which Hoover said it did.  (Davey said he was going to Washington to prove this was false.  He never did. Or he did and he found out they were not there.)

4. When in fact Stringer says the photos of the brain in question were not taken by him.

 

Give us all a break will you.

[David Von Pein]

7 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Davey, are you a glutton of punishment or what?

Martin Hay utterly wrecked your sorry excuse for a book:

I recommend everyone read this to see just what kind of author DVP really is:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/ayton-mel-and-david-von-pein-beyond-reasonable-doubt

As Paul Harvey used to say....

And here's the rest of the story....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-926.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/04/beyond-reasonable-doubt.html

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Don't waste your time clicking through to those URL's.

Davey did not directly reply to anything Martin said.

It was his usual cheap smear about "all CTers think everything is phony etc."

When, in fact, Martin does not think that and uses virtually nothing like that in his review.  Therefore its nothing but a misrepresentation of the facts. 

BTW, can anyway show me where TInk Thompson in Six Seconds, or Mark Lane in RTJ, or Sylvia Meagher in AAF, or Weisberg in Whitewash ever said anything was faked?

But they all skewered the WCR did they not?

 

Edited January 15, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

6 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Davey said he was going to Washington to prove this was false.  He never did.

Any chance you're ever going to stop spreading this lie about me "going to Washington", Jimmy? I never said any such thing--ever--because I have never had any intention of ever going to the National Archives in Washington. (As if anybody would just allow me to walk into NARA and start examining the actual bullet in the first place. Yeah, right.)

And Jim's constant moaning about "the wrong rifle" is also something he should finally pull the plug on too. Because Jimbo knows full well what the reasonable explanation is to that "mystery". We've discussed it numerous times, like here:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-99.html

Do ANY of the debunked conspiracy myths ever go stale in your mind, Jimmy? I guess not, huh?

 

[Alistair Briggs]

Just to try and get the thread more back to the subject of Brennan and his line up...

 

On 11/01/2017 at 8:23 PM, James DiEugenio said:

... Here is Fritz on Brennan and the line up: "I don't think I was present, but I will tell you what, I helped Mr. Sorrells find the time that that man--we didn't show that he was shown at all on our records, but Mr. Sorrells called me and said he did show him and he wanted me to give him the time of the show up.  I asked him to find out from his officers who were with Mr. Brennan the names of the people that we had there, and he gave me those two Davis sisters, and he said, when he told me that, of course I could tell what show up it was and then I gave him the time."

That part of Fritz's WC testimony has always struck me as being 'odd', the way it is worded seems to be all over the place - what is Fritz actually trying to say. I have tried to figure it out and have come up with a possible 'extrapalation'...

First I think it is important to quote the entire relevant part of Fritz's WC testimony as it shows perhaps that Fritz at the time had not actually been told the name of the witness was Brennan...

Mr. McCLOY. Were you present at the showup at which Brennan was the witness?
Mr. FRITZ. Brennan?
Mr. McCLOY. Brennan was the alleged----
Mr. FRITZ. Is that the man that the Secret Service brought over there, Mr. Sorrels brought over?
Mr. McCLOY. I don't know whether Mr. Sorrels----
Mr. FRITZ. I don't think I was present but I will tell you what, I helped Mr. Sorrels find the time that that man--we didn't show that he was shown at all on our records, but Mr. Sorrels called me and said he did show him and he wanted me to give him the time of the showup. I asked him to find out from his officers who were with Mr. Brennan the names of the people that we had there, and he gave me those two Davis sisters, and he said, when he told me that, of course, I could tell what showup it was and then I gave him the time.
Mr. McCLOY. But you were not present to the best of your recollection when Brennan was in the showup?
Mr. FRITZ. I don't believe I was there, I doubt it.

*Looking at Sorrels WC testimony it could back up the thinking that Fritz at the time did not know the name of the witness was Brennan,

Mr. SORRELS ... I also got information to Captain Fritz that I had this witness, Brennan, that I had talked to, and that I would like very much for him to get a chance to see Oswald in a lineup. And Captain Fritz said that would be fine... ...I got ahold of Captain Fritz and told him that the witness was there, Mr. Brennan. He said, "I wish he would have been here a little sooner, we just got through with a lineup. But we will get another fixed up." ...

In those words by Sorrels, yes he mentions the name Brennan but that would have been for clarity for the benefit of the WC as he testified. In all likliehood Sorrels at the time wouldn't have told Fritz the name of the witness and just referred to him as a witness. I digress...

Back to the 'odd' thing that Fritz said. I have had a think about it and tried to deduce what he was actually meaning to say... I offer this up just as a possibility for consideration only;

 

• Mr. FRITZ. I don't think I was present at that line up, but I will tell you what, later on, Sorrels wasn't sure what time it had taken place at and wanted to find out, for his report, the time that he took that man to a lineup. I didn't have any records to show that that witness (Brennan) was shown a lineup so I wasn't sure that he had, but Sorrels told me that he did show that witness (Brennan) to a lineup and he wanted to know what time the lineup had been. I asked Sorrels to find out the names of other people that had been there at the same time, and he gave me those two Davis sisters, and when Sorrels told me that, of course, I could tell what showup it was as I had a record of the Davis sisters being there, and then I told Sorrels that the time had been 7:55.

 

On 14/01/2017 at 10:06 PM, James DiEugenio said:

...

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.

.

On points 3,4,5 & 6... I don't think it is fair to go on the assumption that other people would have known the name Brennan. It seems that unless the name of Brennan is directly said by, say, Brown, Dhority or the Davis sisters then he couldn't possibly have been there. There is no reason to think that any of those four would have known his name anyway, and not knowing his name how could they name him...

I have already, more than once, posted relevant parts of the WC testimony of Brown, Dhority and Barbara Davis that (however backhandedly) carry the inference that Brennan was there - it's just they didn't actually directly name him.

I have also already mentioned why both Brown and Dhority (who presumably after the fact would have found out the name of Brennan) don't make mention of it in their 'reports', and that is because their reports were to be brief reports on the subject of the shooting of Tippit - ipso facto they wouldn't have included reference therin to a witness there for another purpose.

On point 7. Sorrels was at the line up but didn't know the exact time and later went to check with Fritz so he got it correct for his report - no mystery there, Sorrels just didn't know what the time was and, not wanting to just 'guess', seeked clarification.

Points 1 & 2 are very interesting indeed and are possibly a whole new avenue to look in to as both speak to the kind of 'attitude' that Brennan had to being a witness. *Fun fact, in the relevant part of Brennan's testimony he uses the phrase 'more or less' a total of 9 times!. I think it might be prudent in terms of clarity to post the two relevant parts of Brennan's WC testimony to see what he exactly said...

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

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember how many people were in the lineup?
Mr. BRENNAN. No; I don't. A possibility seven more or less one.

We know that there were 4 'suspects' in the line up, and we think how can a person confuse 4 people with 6,7 or 8 people! Perhaps it is all about perspective though! It could be that he mistook the question of 'in the lineup' to mean 'at the lineup' and at the time he was at the line up he glanced round the room and saw a number of people but didn't actually count them but when testifying to the WC takes a stab at it as being about 7! That does seem quite a reasonable 'mistake' of the question for Brennan to make and would actually act also as 'proof' that Brennan was there at the same time as the Davis sisters. Having said that, in terms of context of the rest of the relevant part of Brennan's testimony it seems highly unlikey that Brennan confused 'in the lineup' for 'at the lineup' - is there another explanation then for Brennan saying that there may have been 8 people in the line up? Well, let's be fair, each of the 'suspects' was accompanied by an officer ( Sims/Boyd/Hall/Moore)...

2.) He did not recall if there were any blacks in the line up.

Mr. BELIN. Were the other people in the lineup, do you remember--were they all white, or were there some Negroes in there, or what?
Mr. BRENNAN. I do not remember.

There is actually quite a big difference from what Brennan was asked and answered to the thought that 'he did not recall if there were any blacks in the line up'. Such an 'extrapalation' from what he was actually asked could be seen to be a bit 'naughty'! After all, Brennan wasn't merely asked if there were some 'Negroes' in the lineup was he! What he was actually asked was, well, the 'or what' is quite a qualifier - with that in mind Brennan's response of 'I do not remember' seems a lot more reasonable under the cirumstances. Also, it can be argued that Brennan would not be particularly paying attention to the other 'suspects' anyway, and would, in the meantime, probably have forgotten much about them... In reality what Brennan is saying is that he doesn't remember if all the other 'suspects'  were all white like Oswald...

Regards

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Just to try and get the thread more back to the subject of Brennan and his line up...

 

I would respectfully suggest that a non-issue has been beaten past the point of death.  I've never had any trouble understanding what Fritz was saying, which is basically the same as your paraphrase.

My God, Howard Brennan was a 44-year-old steamfitter suddenly caught up in one of the most traumatic events in American history.  For the line-up, he was dragged from home on the evening of the assassination.  Instead of taking the easy way out and making everyone happy, he declined to identify LHO.  Under the circumstances, he performed as well as could reasonably be expected.  His story was consistent and credible.

What is even the issue here?  What is supposed to be interesting?  What is supposed to be significant?  I'm not criticizing - I've tried to play along here just because it's been raining for three days and piddling around in the files is kind of interesting, but I genuinely DO NOT UNDERSTAND what this thread is about.  I see absolutely no mystery.

Let's say we put the most conspiracy-friendly spin on the Brennan saga we possibly can, whatever that might be.  Where would this get us?  The bottom line is Brennan's WC testimony, where he admitted that he hadn't identified LHO in the line-up, admitted that his perception might have been affected by TV coverage, stated that the clothes LHO was wearing at the line-up weren't the same as those of the man he had seen on the 6th floor, etc., etc. He was scarcely the Shining Star witness Belin and the WC might have wanted.  The WC report pretty candidly noted his defects and assigned his testimony no more than "probative" value.

So again I ask, what is this thread about?  Is it just mental masturbation?  Are we just supposed to be obsessed with every last detail of the assassination, regardless of whether it's relevant to anything?  Have I wandered into a Monty Python skit and failed to realize it?

While Jim has done some high quality and very interesting writing on the assassination, his contributions here are simply SILLY.  Surely you realize they are simply SILLY.  Ian Griggs' chapter on Brennan is simply SILLY.  Can we just admit that in this instance the emperor is buck naked and move on? 

[James DiEugenio]

Davey did say that he was going to check on CE 399 and show that Todd's initials are on it.

In fact, I harangued him about it to the point that a certain lone nut ally of his stepped in and defended him on it.

As per his whole wrong rifle diversion:  IT IS THE WRONG RIFLE!  Over and out.  That is a fact.  Period.

Again, do not bother clicking through to his link.  Its more Von Peinian baloney, it compares the rifle found in the TSBD with the one in NARA.   Which is another card sharp trick by Davey since that is not the point.

The point is that the WC says that the accused ordered a certain rifle.  But the rifle they placed in evidence is not that rifle.  

Please show me where the WC ever admitted this?

 

Edited January 16, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Steve Thomas]

13 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Just to ask for clarity (as I'm not sure I am fully understanding here) are you saying that the DPD version has been changed, and the evidence of that is that the CE2003 version is clearly a photocopy of the DPD archive version, but the DPD archive version has 'hand written 'notes' on it that aren't on the 'photocopied' version and thus that shows that the DPD Archive version has been changed afterwards?

Regards

Alistair,

 

I don't know when CE 2003 was prepared, but it appears to be a copy of CD 81. CD 81 is the DPD Case file that was turned over to the Warren Commission by the Attorney General of Texas, Waggoner Carr in January, 1964. (CD 81).  If you compare CE 2003 p. 268 to CD 81 p. 460

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140#relPageId=286&tab=page

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10483#relPageId=460&tab=page

 

they read line by line, word for word, although CE 2003 is a much cleaner copy and looks like it was done on a different typewriter.

 

If there was a change to the copy that's in the DPD Archives, that change had to have been done after the case file went to the Attorney General's Office, and then on to the WC. Whoever  made those changes had access to the police department files, but not the documents that were in the hands of the Federal or State authorities.

 

I personally believe that the reason you only find one place where Brennan is added to the police record of the lineup that you find in Box 6, Folder# 1, Item# 73 is because Sorrells was preparing his testimony to the WC in May of 1964 and called Fritz about Brennan being in a lineup. as Fritz said, "We didn't have him in our records". The DPD wouldn't, because it wasn't a police lineup. It was a Sorrels' lineup.

 

That's just my personal belief.

 

Steve Thomas

[Alistair Briggs]

9 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I would respectfully suggest that a non-issue has been beaten past the point of death.  I've never had any trouble understanding what Fritz was saying, which is basically the same as your paraphrase.

Yeah it probably has been beaten past the point of death, Steve even made such a mention in his very first post - he still had a question about it though hence why he started the thread. Personally, I hadn't really given much thought to anything to do with the Brennan lineup/Davis lineup and everything else that is entwined therein, so no matter how much it had been 'beaten to death in the past', it was kind of new to me... and from what I myself have discovered by delving more deeply in to the issue, yes, I would say that it is a 'non-issue' but I'm glad that I found that out for myself and not just taking someone else's word for it...

... I am glad to hear you say that my 'paraphrase' was a good understanding of what Fritz was saying - in totality, for everything I have put forward in this thread, I did quite a bit of 'leg-work' to be able to work out in my head what was going on; as I said it was kind of new to me, but I think throughout this thread I have shown that I have grasped quite an understanding on the issue...

 

9 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

...

What is even the issue here?  What is supposed to be interesting?  What is supposed to be significant?  I'm not criticizing - I've tried to play along here just because it's been raining for three days and piddling around in the files is kind of interesting, but I genuinely DO NOT UNDERSTAND what this thread is about.  I see absolutely no mystery.

...

So again I ask, what is this thread about?  Is it just mental masturbation?  Are we just supposed to be obsessed with every last detail of the assassination, regardless of whether it's relevant to anything?  Have I wandered into a Monty Python skit and failed to realize it?

Realistically, it is only Steve that can explain exactly his reasons behind starting this thread... the way I look at it is that he asked a question as he sought a response and from that a discussion on the whole subject sprang up, and along the way there was a couple of 'diversions'...

When I noticed that James had mentioned me in a comment I saw something there on which I wanted to ask clarification on, to which, Lance, you responded to (which I'm glad you did), when I saw that I started a response on the 'matter in hand' (the 7 points that James had mentioned earlier on in the thread and the 'odd' bit Fritz said)... whilst I was in the process of composing that response, another 10 responses were posted and not one of them had any real relevance to the topic of the thread - hence my reason for putting " Just to try and get the thread more back to the subject of Brennan and his line up.. " at the top of my comment. I notice that it was just that comment alone you decided to pick up on rather than addressing directly any of the other things I mentioned in my last comment - that is fine, I have no problem with that - afterall, Lance, you have been quite vocal in saying that the whole issue is a 'non-issue'... and that may well be the case, but you knowing it and me having reached agreement on it through my own 'leg-work', and others knowing it does not draw a line under it. The only person who can really draw a line under it is Steve who started the thread to ask a question that he sought an answer for...

10 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

While Jim has done some high quality and very interesting writing on the assassination, his contributions here are simply SILLY.  Surely you realize they are simply SILLY.  Ian Griggs' chapter on Brennan is simply SILLY...

Seen as your response, Lance, was to something I had said, I will presume that when you say 'Surely you realize...' that the 'you' means 'me'! Well, no I don't think that the contributions from James have been 'silly' - not in totality anyway... I have chosen to respond directly to some of the things he has said in this thread that (I felt) were in relevance to the thread, I have deliberatly not responded to other things that (I felt) he has said that weren't... If you want to call them 'silly' that's your right, personally I make no contentions on it and deal only with what I want to deal with.

10 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

 Can we just admit that in this instance the emperor is buck naked and move on? 

Again, it's not really up to you and I to decide when to 'draw a line under it'. Sure, we can individually decide to move on, holding the opinion that enough is enough, that the issue is over and nothing more needs said and that there is no mystery and we will say no more, but in terms of the topic at hand it really is Steve's decision whether or not it's time to 'move on'. It was after all Steve who started the thread for a reason and until such time that he has 'had his curiosity satisfied' (either way) then it really is 'game on'...

On that point, I note that Steve has responded directly to something I asked him earlier on in the thread; a continuance of the topic the thread was started about. Seems like 'game on' to me. I will respond to Steve next...

[Alistair Briggs]

2 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Alistair,

 

I don't know when CE 2003 was prepared, but it appears to be a copy of CD 81. CD 81 is the DPD Case file that was turned over to the Warren Commission by the Attorney General of Texas, Waggoner Carr in January, 1964. (CD 81).  If you compare CE 2003 p. 268 to CD 81 p. 460

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140#relPageId=286&tab=page

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10483#relPageId=460&tab=page

 

they read line by line, word for word, although CE 2003 is a much cleaner copy and looks like it was done on a different typewriter.

I disagree that the difference in look is because they were done on a different typewriter. To me it looks like CD 81 p. 460 is just a very very poor 'photo-copy' of CE 2003 p. 268, I base that thinking on how the I 138 A at the bottom of each page looks.

If that is correct, and CD 81 is a copy of CE 2003 then CE 2003 must have come first... does that make sense though? In fact,

a CE 2003 p. 268&269 a

 a Warren Report Appendix XI p. 607&608  a

a CD 81 p. 460 a

From looking at those 3 documents, it seems that CE 2003 is the best version and that Warren Report Appendix XI is a photo copy of it and that CD 81 is a photo copy of that. Look at the I 138 A at the bottom of each page, it's the same but deteriorates as each one is copied from the previous one...

... now, with regards to the 'Archives' you mentioned earlier...'DPD Archives, Box 15, Folder# 1, Item# 111 pp. 9' seems to be a photo-copy of 'DPD Archives Box 5, Folder# 3, Item# 3 pp. 9',

Comparing 'DPD Archives, Box 15, Folder# 1, Item# 111 pp. 9' to 'CE 2003 p. 268' it can be noted that the 138 A at the bottom of the page is totally different and was written by two different people...

2 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

 

If there was a change to the copy that's in the DPD Archives, that change had to have been done after the case file went to the Attorney General's Office, and then on to the WC. Whoever  made those changes had access to the police department files, but not the documents that were in the hands of the Federal or State authorities.

 

 

Ok I get that...

... considering the difference of the 138 A hand written at the bottom, perhaps this is what happened,

When the DPD were asked to send on the archives to the Attorney General's Office, and then on to the WC, they made a copy and kept one set and sent the other on. At that point, on the relevant pieces mentioned herein, there was no additional hand written parts on either copy. At some point after (either at the AGO or the WC) the I 138 A was handwritten on the bottom of their version and someone else, at some point later added the 138 A to the copy left at the DPD archives (for reasons of clarity/reference?) 

Regards