Sean Murphy

Did Brennan lie on 11/22 or not, David? Simple question.

David, you're being defensive. Your position is that Brennan went on the record with a statement that he knew not to be true. In other words, he lied. A lying witness named Howard.

David, are you claiming that when Brennan stated on the record within hours of the assassination that he could not positively identify this man Lee Oswald as the shooter, he was actually telling the truth? If not, then you're calling him a xxxx.

And if I were an Anybody-But-Oz CTer, the tons of evidence that proves Brennan DID see Oswald in that window wouldn't bother me at all. I'd just say that Brennan had bad eyesight on 11/22 (which he didn't) and I'd simply say that all of the evidence was faked to frame Oswald. Done deal. And if I were a conspiracy theorist, I wouldn't wonder why the fingerprints of Oswald were all over the place where Kennedy's killer was located, which just happened to be the exact same window where Howard Brennan says he saw Oswald. Meh. Just more fake stuff. And a lying witness named Howard. Right? On the contrary, Brennan told the truth when he was shown Oswald: No, I cannot identify that man as the man who shot at the President. You're the one who's saying he lied when he said that. No?

Howard Brennan's 11/22 affidavit ends with the confident assertion: "I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again." Well, Mr. Brennan did see an individual by the name of Lee Oswald later that day and--refused point-blank to identify him as the man he had seen firing from the sixth floor window. It's also most probable that Brennan would have seen Oswald exiting the TSBD by the front entrance just minutes after the assassination. Again, no identification. If I were as naive as David von Pein, these simple facts would not trouble me.

Mary Hollies mentioned this to me few years back. If I recall correctly, she claimed to have been in the elevator herself at the time and to have heard the exchange.

David, do you have an exact cite for the part in red? It would be most helpful to establish that such information from Truly's wife was indeed printed so early. Presently, I do not have an exact cite. This information comes from very extensive newspaper archives research which I did between 1969 and 1974 at the UCLA Research Library. On microfilm (and via Interlibrary Loan), I ordered the newspapers from all five cities that Kennedy visited in Texas. Then, expanding on that, I added major cities to the list--regardless of whether they were in Texas. I made hundreds of pages of notes, and collected hundreds of pages of newspaper printouts. In connection with all that, one of the articles that came through was published in either the Philadelphia Bulletin or Inquirer. It was a major article on the assassination (and published that weekend, as were many such articles, in the American press). As I recall the reporter called Truly's residence but wasn't able to reach Truly. But his wife related what her husband had said. It was pretty specific, and so he included that in his story: that her husband commented on how unruffled Oswald was, despite being confronted, at the soda machine, by a police officer with a drawn gun. Today, I would have scanned such an item; back then, I clipped it, and put it into a "Baker-Truly" subject file. But setting that particular item aside--i.e., putting aside what Truly's wife told a newspaper reporter--there are multiple FBI reports of Truly himself being interviewed about the events of that day by FBI agents on Friday November 22, and then again on Saturday, November 23. Those reports essentially say the same thing. As I'm sure you know, Truly testified that he (Truly) was racing up the stairs, was located between the second and third floor when he first realized that the officer was no longer behind him. He then returned to the second floor landing, and saw the scene unfold that he described repeatedly--to newspaper reporters, and, most importantly, to three FBI agents in two separate interviews--one on 11/22, the other on 11/23. Per the two FBI reports: Officer Baker, gun drawn, was inching his way towards the door of a room, in which Oswald was getting a coke. This whole scene reeks of foreknowledge--and that's the key issue. As I wrote in BEST EVIDENCE, I believe that Oswald came very close to getting shot, right in the lunchroom (and that might well have happened, had Truly not been present). And that's what this is really all about. This entire episode reminds me of the statement that Sgt. Hill made to a California radio station at 6:45 P.M. (Dallas time) on the evening of 11/22/63. Referring to the President's murder just hours earlier (and the apprehension of Oswald), he summed it up this way: "It was a tragedy that it ever had to happen, but at the same time, if it did happen and if this man—this man turns out to be the one, we’ll feel that we sort of took the blot our face a little bit by being able to catch him ourselves." (CD 1210) FWIW: I agree with Oswald's mother who publicly stated not just that her son was set up, and (in her opinion) that he was supposed to have been murdered in the building. As the saying goes, "Actions speak louder than words." Officer's Baker's actions--recorded on film as he rushed into building, and then, insofar as what transpired inside the building (as reported by Truly)-- speak very loudly, and I think any reasonable person, reading the entire record, will understand that. If I come across the file containing the clip with the quote from Truly's wife, I of course will post that. DSL 4/7/13; 5:40 PM PST Los Angeles, California Many thanks for the information, David, and for the further reflections on the Baker-Oswald matter. And yes, if you do come across that Philadelphia newspaper clipping, please do post it. I'm most keen to find the earliest public mention of the second-floor lunchroom incident. Sean

David, do you have an exact cite for the part in red? It would be most helpful to establish that such information from Truly's wife was indeed printed so early.

Thanks. Your suggested explanation for Linnie Mae & Wesley's 'size reduction' is interesting. If we put the case that Oswald was indeed tricked into bringing the rifle to work that morning, then it's not at all hard to guess what his very first action upon hearing the shots and/or 'commotion' might have been: check for the rifle. Now where might he have left it that morning? Kent Biffle got closer than any other reporter to Roy Truly in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. From the report he filed that evening for the Dallas Morning News:

David, do you believe the MC rifle was in the bag Oswald brought to work that morning? And if so, do you believe he was tricked into bringing it?

But Jim, you were using this bag to make Frazier's story suspect. Which makes no sense. Frazier's story makes it suspect.

Greg, it directly threatens the official theory by throwing into question the claim that Oswald brought that rifle in that bag to that building that morning. Sean, I don't see any sign that anyone has ever felt threatened by anything Frazier has said post-WC. He is simply dismissed as wrong on the basis that he only had a quick look. The only effect he has had is in making himself look innocent by NOT lying about the size of Oswald's bag. Meanwhile his guilt or innocence has never been tested with the RIGHT set of questions. Not even informally, let alone under conditions in which he is compelled to tell the truth. If Frazier has something major to hide along these specific lines, wouldn't drawing people's attention all over again to the Oswald-bag part be the very last thing one would expect him to be doing in 2013? No. That part has not drawn any attention to anything. It just causes endless debate about the size of the bloody bag. What has drawn attention is him saying he avoided his drunken step-father in Huntsville,then deciding to spend all afternoon and evening visiting him in hospital after leaving work on the day of the assassination; his own varied testimonies on where he ate lunch that day and where he normally ate lunch; his timing in arriving and getting his job vs timing in public knowledge of JFK Dallas trip and; statements made by fellow TSBD employees to HSCA investigators and not discovered until Richard Gilbride liberated them. His public statements about the length of the bag are just a distraction - fodder to feed into various forum chat rooms. Greg, what do you suspect Frazier is actually hiding? What was his true involvement?

So what are we accusing Frazier of doing now, Jim? Trying to frame Oswald for overconsumption?

On the contrary, Jim, if those two statements are accurate, then Frazier's story makes perfect sense: Oswald brought a different, smaller bag into work that morning.

Greg, it directly threatens the official theory by throwing into question the claim that Oswald brought that rifle in that bag to that building that morning. If Frazier has something major to hide along these specific lines, wouldn't drawing people's attention all over again to the Oswald-bag part be the very last thing one would expect him to be doing in 2013?

Sean, IMHO one little thing that undermines Frazier's overall credibility a wee bit is the fact that when he asked Oswald on 11/21/63 why Oswald wanted to go to Irving that evening, Oswald told him that he wanted to pick up some curtain rods. Then on the morning of the very next day Frazier saw the package on the back seat and instead of saying, "Are those the curtain rods you told me about yesterday, Lee?," had to ask Oswald what was in the package! --Tommy Hardly, Tommy.

Jim, this just makes it even odder that an Aynesworth/Perry-controlled Frazier would be publicly reiterating doubts about the paper bag in 2013.

Greg, Jim, I have no illusions about Aynesworth/Perry. But why on earth would they be permitting--still less encouraging--Frazier to go out in public and reiterate loudly a memory of events that undermines a key plank in the case against Oswald? Seems to me their influence over him must be very far from total.

Protesting that the package Oswald brought to work could not have contained the rifle is hardly cleaving to the Aynesworth-Perry script, is it?

From the article: To this day, Frazier insists that the package Oswald took to work wasn’t long enough or big enough around to hold a rifle — even if its stock had been disassembled from the barrel. The Warren Commission concluded that Frazier’s memory was faulty — that Oswald was carrying the rifle used to shoot JFK. Wrapping paper smeared with gun oil was found near the sniper’s sixth-floor perch, as was the weapon. Still, Frazier stands by his story. “I don’t know how the rifle got in the building,” he said last week, adding: “They kept trying to get me to change my testimony.” Frazier's steadfast insistence that the package Oswald brought to work that morning was too short is pretty impressive. Makes it much harder to see him (Frazier) in a suspicious light.

Email from Gary Mack: You made an inaccurate assumption when you wrote: #1: opinion not fact. #5: does not follow logically from #4. Regardless of any personal opinion, the historical record is exceptionally clear that every major investigation - DPD, FBI, WC, HSCA - concluded Oswald shot President Kennedy. The record is just as clear that that finding has never been overturned. Sure, many folks disagree and that’s part of the record, too; nevertheless, conflicting theories and opinions have yet to alter the Oswald-did-it findings. So as one who works in the history profession, my observations were correct. Now it’s reasonable to wonder if Oswald knew when Kennedy would be in Dealey Plaza. The record includes many observations that he read newspapers at the TSBD and he both watched TV with others and listened to the radio in his room at the Beckley rooming house. As one who is well informed about pre-assassination media coverage, it would have been odd if he did not know at least some of the schedule. For example, the Wednesday, 11/20 Dallas Morning News included a large section titled: Timetable Announced for President's Visit (..........) 12:30 P.M. - Arrives at Trade Mart to address luncheon sponsored by the Dallas Citizen's Council, Dallas Assembly and the Graduate Research Center of the Southwest. There were several mentions of the Fort Worth and Dallas schedules in both daily Dallas papers (and Fort Worth), which means Oswald had plenty of opportunity to know what was ahead. True, the morning of the assassination he asked an employee what the gathering crowd was waiting for and was told the president’s motorcade. Was he really clueless, or just trying to establish an alibi by feigning innocence? Still, at least so far, the historical record stands that Oswald killed JFK. Gary Mack ** Gary, 1. It is quite illogical to translate "the historical record is exceptionally clear that every major investigation - DPD, FBI, WC, HSCA - concluded Oswald shot President Kennedy" into "History tells us that Oswald shot President Kennedy". That's not how history works. You didn't use to make such a basic error. You used to be quite clear on the crucial distinction in principle between 'official findings' and 'historical truth'. 2. It is not the job of "one who works in the history profession" to casually elide the distinction between 'official findings' and 'historical truth'. That would be the job of one who works in the official propaganda profession. 3. If you truly believed that 'official findings' did translate into 'historical truth', then you would make a point of mentioning in your every media appearance and your every talk at the Sixth Floor Museum that "History tells us that President Kennedy was shot as the result of a conspiracy". Why? Because the most recent major official investigation--the HSCA--concluded that there was a conspiracy. 4. I agree that Oswald, like everyone else, could have known the expected Trade Mart arrival time. But if we cannot safely discredit Carolyn Arnold's story, then we cannot safely put him on the sixth floor at a time when, as you correctly pointed out in 2000, an assassin would have needed to be there. 5. There is, as you say, no proof that Carolyn Arnold's story is correct. Fine: let's not call it historical. Let's be scrupulously agnostic. By the same token however there's no proof that Oswald shot JFK. Nor for that matter is there any proof that all the witness claims central to the case against Oswald as JFK's assassin are correct. Yet that doesn't stop you from routinely talking in public of Oswald's guilt as though only a wild conspiracy buff would seriously doubt it. If you are going to cite 'proof' as the gold standard of 'History-tells-us'-style claims, then you cannot do so with such blatant inconsistency. 6. In 2000 you took Arnold's claim very seriously indeed. Arnold's claim hasn't changed since 2000. Nor has its level of credibility. What has changed, Gary, is--if you'll pardon the bluntness--you. Why is this? Is there a clause in your contract that states that you are not allowed to express any doubts about what happened on 11/22/63 in the building that now houses the Sixth Floor Museum? Or is there some other explanation for this extraordinary change in your public attitude to the question of Oswald's guilt? 7. Out of interest, when was the last time you publicly expressed any doubt whatsoever about Oswald's guilt as the sixth-floor shooter? Is your current level of certainty on that score 100%? Thank you, Sean

Email from Gary: Hmmmm, looks to me like I summarized the implications of Carolyn Arnold’s story quite accurately, especially the last part that reads, Unfortunately, there's no known way to confirm or deny her story. Was her time estimate correct or not? If not, how far off was she? Did she change her story over time? There’s no way to know for sure, but without some sort of confirmation, Arnold’s story is just that – a story, not proof. In fact, while I doubt it happened, Oswald might have learned of the progress of the motorcade, but there’s absolutely no evidence that he did or could have done so. KRLD radio stationed two reporters along the route, Wes Wise and, downtown at Main & Akard, Bob Huffaker; the station’s coverage and the reporters’ locations were heard live on KRLD.. Huffaker’s report includes the sounds of the crowd cheering and motorcycles passing by. One or more other radio stations also had live reports of the motorcade’s progress. What is known without doubt is that the luncheon was scheduled to begin at 12 noon so the 2000+ attendees could arrive and have time to enjoy their lunch prior to Kennedy’s live broadcast address at 1pm. His 12:30 arrival time at the Trade Mart and complete schedule was highly publicized in advance; the details were mentioned in newspapers and on local TV and radio, especially with the Love Field arrival coverage. Gary Mack ** Thanks to Gary for confirming that his view of the Carolyn Arnold story has not changed since 2000. I agree with him on several counts: his observation that his 2000 summary of the implications of Carolyn Arnold's story was quite accurate his explanation of the 12 noon start time for the Trade Mart luncheon his doubt that Oswald learned of the progress of the motorcade live by radio. ** So what's the problem? In 2000, Gary's chain of logic was as follows: 1. The official story tells us that Oswald was the sixth-floor shooter. 2. Carolyn Arnold's story, if true, would on its own virtually exonerate Oswald as the sixth-floor shooter. 3. The truth of Carolyn Arnold's story can be neither safely credited nor safely discounted. 4. Our inability safely to discount Carolyn Arnold's story means that we cannot safely say that Oswald was the sixth-floor shooter. 5. Therefore the official story--that Oswald was the sixth-floor shooter--is unsafe. #1: fact #5: follows logically from #4 In 2013, Gary's chain of logic based on the exact same data has mysteriously morphed into this: 1. History tells us that Oswald was the sixth-floor shooter. 2. Carolyn Arnold's story, if true, would on its own virtually exonerate Oswald as the sixth-floor shooter. 3. The truth of Carolyn Arnold's story can be neither safely discounted nor safely credited. 4. Our inability safely to credit Carolyn Arnold's story means that we cannot safely say that Oswald was not the sixth-floor shooter. 5. Therefore History's verdict--that Oswald was the sixth-floor shooter--stands. #1: opinion not fact. #5: does not follow logically from #4.

Check out Gary's own contribution this week to the Oswald/gun control discussion: http://www.wfaa.com/...-199595691.html The segment is as disgracefully one-sided as the Maddow segment. And yet again we see Gary happily participating in a discussion that is framed by the assumption that Oswald is the known assassin of JFK. Now unless Gary has come across material grounds for revisiting his 2000 opinion of Carolyn Arnold's lunchroom claim, we know that he knows better. So what's going on? Why does Gary continue to mislead the general public by omitting again and again and again to mention that there are serious grounds for doubting that Oswald was on the sixth floor when the motorcade was passing? It would be all very clear if Gary just stuck to the LN script the whole time. But--to give him credit where it is due--he doesn't. Gary does still raise doubts about the Lone Nut Theory. But these days those doubts only ever relate to events other than those in the TSBD. It seems the TSBD side of things is simply not up for discussion. Look for instance at this video from a couple of years back: http://www.c-spanvid.../program/SixthF Gary's 'honest broker' message to his audience is clear: a ) "History has told us" that Oswald shot JFK; b ) There are troubling anomalies--such as the 'SS agent' on the Grassy Knoll--but none of them relate to the Oswald-on-the-Sixth-Floor side of things. Is Gary under very specific contract with the Sixth Floor Museum not to express any doubts about the official version of what happened in that building on 11/22/63? Is that why he will rather snippily defend the indefensible when the footage of his buddy Dave Perry's laughable SN-to-lunchroom 'time trial' is exposed as phoney? And is that also why he doesn't want to talk about Carolyn Arnold anymore?

I have no problem with Gary or anyone else asking hard questions of CT-leaning witnesses such as Jean Hill. That's what researchers are supposed to be doing. The problem, again, is Gary's complete lack of even-handedness in recent years. Comparison with a researcher like Duke Lane is instructive in this regard. While I haven't always agreed with Duke's conclusions, there is one thing upon which you can always rely with him: he will bring the selfsame principles of caution, scepticism and fact-checking to "conspiracy" claims as to "official story" claims. The Duke Lane who asks inconvenient questions about James Worrell Jr. or Richard Randolph Carr is recognisably the same Duke Lane who will ask inconvenient questions about Jack Dougherty or the Tippit murder. He's not a CT researcher. He's a researcher who happens to believe there was a conspiracy. It's what Gary Mack calls questioning all sides of the issues and coming to one's own conclusions. But I find it depressingly hard to recognise in the Gary Mack who has fallen hook, line and sinker for the story told in the Warren Report about events in the TSBD the Gary Mack who will happily talk with hard-boiled and often justified cynicism about untenable conspiracy claims. So--to return to the litmus test example I mentioned in my previous post--the question still stands: Does Gary still take Carolyn Arnold's claim about seeing Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom as seriously as he did in 2000? A simple yes or no would be great.

Gary has emailed further: Are you thinking I believed the Roscoe White story? If so, you are mistaken. I was the first, or one of the first, in the local research community to openly doubt it. While questioning the story I met Dave Perry and we thoroughly disproved it. The Roscoe White story is what made me question all sides of the issues and come to my own conclusions. It was the best decision I ever made! Gary Mack My thanks to Gary for the clarification. However this doesn't begin to address the question I was raising. Gary speaks of questioning "all sides of the issues". What a laudable aim! But it seems these days all of Gary's critical faculties are reserved exclusively for CT-leaning claims. The Gary Mack who used to ask probing questions about the official story of what happened in the TSBD has all but disappeared from the scene. If anything, he seems awfully anxious to put Oswald in that window with that rifle at that time. Let's take a specific example of this strange metamorphosis: In 2000 Gary posted comments to the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup regarding Carolyn Arnold and her 1978 claim to Anthony Summers that she saw Oswald sitting in the second-floor lunchroom several minutes before the assassination. Gary mentioned that he had personally spoken with the former Ms. Arnold twice. He then spelled out her story and its implications: She saw Oswald in the lunchroom about 12:15-12:20, which was the approximate time the motorcade should have been in Dealey Plaza to reach it's destination on time. It turns out it was running about five minutes late, but the assassin(s) could not have known that. The gunman in the TSBD needed to be in that window no later than 12:15. If that was Oswald in the lunchroom at that time, Arnold's story virtually exonerates him. Unfortunately, there's no known way to confirm or deny her story. Note that last sentence. It is the voice of sensible, critical caution. The correctness of Arnold's claim is not simply taken as read. Nor by the same token is her claim just ignored or waved away as non-credible. Here's what I'd love to know. Has Gary Mack become aware since 2000 of new information that undermines the former Ms. Arnold's claim? If so, what is that information and why have we not heard about it? If not, does Gary still take Carolyn Arnold's claim as seriously as he did in 2000? And if the answer to that last question is yes, how on earth can Gary not be haunted by doubt and embarrassment every time he talks blithely about all the 'hard evidence' putting Oswald in the Sniper's Nest firing at JFK? How can he not in good conscience make a point of mentioning in his numerous media appearances the fact that there remain good and credible grounds not just for suspecting that there may have been more to this whole thing than just Oswald but also for doubting that Oswald was even on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting?