David Von Pein

Re-release:

But, Sean, don't you think the fact that Oswald left the building at 12:33, via ANY exit, is a sign of guilt? Or at least possible guilt (esp. when factoring in the evidence that was found upstairs -- his gun, his prints in the Nest, etc.)?

But can you argue with my logic in that post? If so, go ahead. The difference in the lies is considerable, because I, of course, believe that Brennan REALLY DID see Oswald in that window. And the evidence on the sixth floor backs up my belief. So we really have a kind of REVERSE lie being told by Brennan -- i.e., he lied (at the police line-up) about not being able to do something that he almost certainly COULD have done--I.D. Oswald. But in Roger Craig's case, he lied about being able to identify something (the rifle) when we know he really COULDN'T identify it at all. And, in fact, Craig himself told us he had no idea what kind of rifle he saw on the sixth floor--in his 1968 newspaper interview:

Then I guess that means that this "Baker/Brennan" thing doesn't carry any weight with you at all, eh Martin? Even though we know that Baker IS describing OSWALD here.... BRENNAN -- "White man." BAKER ---- "White man." BRENNAN -- "In his early 30s." BAKER ---- "Approximately 30 years old." BRENNAN -- "165 to 175 pounds." BAKER ---- "165 pounds."

Read my last post.

Yes. Of course he did. But it's not the type of "lie" you think it was. Yes, Brennan lied when he refused to I.D. Oswald, even when he COULD have positively identified him. That's the "lie" he told. But, as mentioned, Brennan had what I consider to be a good reason for telling that falsehood. How can I be confident enough to make the above statement, you might ask? Mainly because the physical evidence left behind by the person Brennan saw on the sixth floor fully corroborates the theory that it was Oswald (and nobody else) who was firing shots at JFK from the Depository's sixth floor. Hence, Howard Brennan almost certainly did see Lee H. Oswald in that window--even though Brennan would not positively I.D. him on Nov. 22, due to the fears he had for his own safety at that time, and the safety of his family. Now, Sean, can you provide for me a more reasonable and more logical explanation than the one I just provided above? IOW -- Is it truly MORE reasonable for me to believe that Howard Brennan saw somebody else OTHER than Lee Oswald firing at the President--even though ALL of the physical evidence left behind by the real sniper had "OSWALD WAS HERE" practically stamped all over it (shells, prints, paper bag with LHO's prints, fibers in bag matching blanket, and the rifle itself)? If that latter option is supposedly more rational and reasonable than my explanation, I'd like to know why? (And the standard "Everything Was Planted" response doesn't hold much weight in my house. So maybe you could try another tack.)

I'll stand by my previous statement: "Brennan explained his "fears". That's why he did not I.D. Oswald. And I'm guessing that his fears grew and grew between the time he signed that affidavit and the time he went down to I.D. Oswald."

Why are you playing defense lawyer, Sean? We're not in a courtroom. Don't you care about WHY Brennan did a flip-flop? Doesn't his explanation seem the slightest bit reasonable under the circumstances? If not, please explain why not.

Sean, you're being silly. Brennan explained his "fears". That's why he did not I.D. Oswald. And I'm guessing that his fears grew and grew between the time he signed that affidavit and the time he went down to I.D. Oswald. Now, tell me why that reasonable explanation is not even remotely possible in your CT world? As for the above inquiry about Brennan being able to determine the approx. height and weight of Oswald: Brennan saw Oswald in the window PRIOR to the shooting too--- "I saw this one man on the sixth floor which left the window to my knowledge a couple of times." -- H.L. Brennan; WC Testimony Brennan could have estimated LHO's height and weight at those earlier times. Plus: The CTers have nowhere to go with that argument anyway -- because the fact remains that Brennan DID estimate the sniper's weight and age and "slender" status (but not his height) on November 22nd. It's right there in his 11/22 affidavit. Do CTers think the cops FORCED those descriptions into Brennan's mouth and, hence, into his sworn and signed affidavit on 11/22? More fakery? Did the cops EVER stop faking stuff?

Sean knows why Brennan failed to positively I.D. Oswald at City Hall on Nov. 22. But Sean wants to pretend not to know (or care) about Brennan's perfectly understandable reason for not IDing LHO. Don't you, Sean?

Re: The quotes from Mike Griffith: Typical conspiracy monger's approach -- Instead of casting ANY suspicion whatsoever on Lee Oswald (whose prints WERE on two of the boxes that were DEEP WITHIN the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest (exactly where the killer of President Kennedy must have been located, per Brennan, Couch, Jackson, and Euins) -- the conspiracy monger instead wants to know why MORE of Oswald's prints weren't on the boxes. That backward approach to the known evidence is kind of like asking this: Why in the world was Officer Tippit only shot FOUR times by Lee Harvey Oswald on Tenth Street? He had 11 more rounds of ammunition with him when the shooting occurred, so why didn't he plug Tippit with still more bullets? IOW -- Even though the evidence against Oswald is very powerful (and the fingerprint evidence on those boxes IS powerful, even though the conspiracy theorists treat that evidence like it EXONERATES Oswald instead of incriminates him in any way), what the conspiracists require is still MORE evidence to even BEGIN to suspect that Lee H. Oswald was anywhere near the 11/22/63 crime scenes on the sixth floor AND on Tenth Street. Pa-thet-ic. Footnote: I just got through watching a vomit-inducing video featuring JFK conspiracy theorist Richard Belzer (the video below). And I realized while watching it that Belzer would feel perfectly at home here on this Anybody-But-Ozzie forum, with Belzer belching out one false conspiracy myth after another -- from Oswald not having enough time to get to the lunchroom after the shooting....to the myth that refuses to die about Oswald drinking a Coke in the lunchroom during the Baker/Truly encounter....to the myth about the Mauser....to the myth about JFK being shot twice in the head simultaneously....and on and on. In short, Belzer believes ANYTHING--as long as he doesn't have to come within a country mile of accusing Lee Harvey Oswald of any wrong-doing. In short (again), Belzer is "Dead Wrong".

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?

Greg, You REALLY want to be on the record saying Marrion Baker did NOT see Lee Harvey Oswald in the lunchroom on 11/22/63?? Really?? Geesh. Repeat after me -- That's absolute craziness. The man Baker saw in the TSBD was positively Oswald. There's not even a shred of a doubt about that fact. Roy Truly is the proof. (Is Truly another plotter/xxxx, Greg? That suspects list is getting longer.) And it doesn't matter one bit that Baker didn't finger Oswald at City Hall. The fact remains that the man Baker encountered in the lunchroom was, in fact, Lee Oswald, because LHO was identified DURING THE ENCOUNTER by Roy S. Truly.* * I don't mean that Truly said to Baker: "That man is Lee Oswald." I mean Truly told Baker that the man was an employee of the building, with Truly, of course, later verifying in his official statements that the man WAS Oswald. As early as his 11/23/63 affidavit, Roy Truly IDed the man in the lunchroom as OSWALD when Truly wrote these words in that affidavit -- "Lee Oswald was in there [lunchroom]. The officer had his gun on Oswald and asked me if he was an employee." So, is this affidavit a lie too, Greg?: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-djogMaF_-g0/Tvw-eAI5W5I/AAAAAAAABxg/hFmp8gCMmRo/s1200-h/Roy-Truly-Affidavit.gif Unless Truly is yet another conspirator and a xxxx, it was Oswald that Baker saw. Period. "[it was] either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like Oz did it alone." -- Bud; January 19, 2007

Oh, good! Now Marrion Baker is on the ever-growing list of people who were out to frame the poor sap named Oswald. And probably Roy Truly too. Right, Richard? When a person has to add one plotter on top of another, until the list grows to absurd and outlandish proportions, isn't it just time to admit that Oswald is probably guilty? After all, how likely is it that the 1,358 suspects that appear in all of the conspiracy theorists' books are actually ALL guilty of framing that snow-white Communist sympathizer named Oswald? Or, to put it another way, here are some excellent quotes that I've culled from the alt.conspiracy.jfk Usenet Newsgroup over the last several years (all written by a very astute LNer named Bud). He's hit the nail right squarely on the head too: "[it was] either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like Oz did it alone." -- Bud; January 19, 2007 "Keep heaping those witnesses on. A cast of thousands, cutting across all walks of life, all working against the poor patsy, all quiet to this day. Just because it can't happen won't stop kooks from insisting it did." -- Bud; August 11, 2007 "When you are desperate enough, and you scour the evidence thinking real hard how each thing could be fishy or suspicious, you will come to the conclusion that everything you look at is fishy and suspicious. It's inevitable." -- Bud; June 21, 2010 "To kooks, all the Dallas Police are suspects in the conspiracy also. The world vs. the patsy." -- Bud; April 27, 2006 Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

To mimic Jack Paar.... As I was saying.... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20147&st=15#entry272544

Another brilliant say-nothing post from David "Zapruder Wasn't Even On The Pedestal" Healy. If we were to remove the terms "hon", "poo", "deep fryer", ".John wannabe", and "carry on, son" from Healy's vocabulary, we'd have nothing left at all. And this is a guy who actually had something he wrote PUBLISHED in a JFK book? Yikes! Those poor readers!

Richard, 1.) OSWALD took OSWALD'S rifle to work on the day of JFK's visit to Dallas. 2.) OSWALD'S prints were all over the place where the assassin of JFK was located (the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor). 3.) OSWALD was identified by a witness as the person who shot Kennedy. 4.) OSWALD shot and killed Officer Tippit. 5.) OSWALD put up a wild fight in the Texas Theater and punched out a cop while drawing a revolver (the same revolver, of course, that was used to murder Tippit 35 minutes earlier). 6.) Bullets and bullet shells from OSWALD'S two guns turn up everywhere where the killer of Kennedy and the killer of Tippit were known to have been (and in KENNEDY'S CAR even!). And I won't even add "CE399" to this list, because CTers hate that bullet so much. But, as can easily be seen, CE399 isn't even really needed to convict OSWALD, because there's so much other stuff besides 399 that convicts him too. Yeah, that's some innocent and framed "patsy" you've got there. LOL. Regarding Point #3: I know you probably think Howard Brennan is worthless as a witness, but shouldn't we also consider the description that Mr. Brennan gave of the assassin in his 11/22 affidavit too? The description in that affidavit, which was written by Brennan within hours of the assassination and months before he ever talked to anybody from the Warren Commission, can, indeed, be considered very "general" in nature, but it also can fit the person who owned the rifle found on the sixth floor, especially when combined with Officer Marrion Baker's description of Oswald. And we KNOW Baker saw OSWALD, not somebody else, on the second floor. Just look at these two descriptions in these November 22nd affidavits. One of these witnesses (Brennan) is describing the sniper on the sixth floor of the Depository; while the other witness (Baker) is describing a man he himself personally encountered--a person Baker was just inches away from in the second-floor lunchroom just 2 minutes or so after Brennan saw the man he describes in his affidavit. These descriptions are identical in several key respects, right down to each witness thinking the man they were describing was about 30 years old. Here's a direct comparison (and keep in mind that we KNOW Baker IS describing Lee Harvey Oswald here, not some mystery person whose identity is still unknown): BRENNAN -- "White man." BAKER ---- "White man." BRENNAN -- "In his early 30s." BAKER ---- "Approximately 30 years old." BRENNAN -- "165 to 175 pounds." BAKER ---- "165 pounds." http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jTmnYgFvqzM/Tvw3vTpzhsI/AAAAAAAABuI/QJ__Z34iHho/s1200-h/Howard-Brennan-Affidavit.gif http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4oxRP0t5ZBM/Tvw52B7FIGI/AAAAAAAABwU/QbBHYHhIM4Q/s1200-h/Marrion-Baker-Affidavit.gif Those identical descriptions are an interesting "coincidence", huh? Do conspiracy theorists now want to claim that Marrion L. Baker wasn't really describing Lee Oswald at all in his above affidavit? Or did Marrion decide to just make up those descriptive details out of whole cloth in order to conform perfectly with the only witness in all of Dealey Plaza who actually saw the assassin firing a gun during the shooting of President Kennedy -- right down to the incorrect age and weight estimates?

I guess it depends on your definition of "non-distinctive". To some, Roger Stone's loony book up there about LBJ might be considered a classic. (Robert Morrow probably will think so.) While to others, it's not worthy to line the bird cage. Take Vince Palamara's overboard critique of Doug Horne's five volumes of body-altering garbage (with this review being written in 2009, after Vince P. had already fully endorsed and praised Vincent Bugliosi's book two years earlier): "Douglas P. Horne, the author of this latest masterpiece, "Inside The Assassination Records Review Board," has achieved a literary feat worthy of a Pulitzer Prize. His 5 volume study (5 books in one, so to speak) reads almost like the Defense's side of the case; the perfect answer to the Prosecution's ("Reclaiming History") masterful plea to the bench. I am amazed and highly impressed with the book as both a very inspired, well put together piece of art (it's a great read!) AND for the substance--and length---of the (counter) argument." -- Vincent M. Palamara; December 16, 2009 Complete review (full of hilarity): http://www.amazon.com/review/R23U3HRSNOQ2X3 So, as we can see, one man's Pulitzer Prize winner is another man's trash.

Good point. But maybe he was able to find 20 or 30 more people that he can pretend had direct "connections" to the assassination. After all, the well of imagined suspects never runs dry for CTers. Two of them (in late 2010 and April 2012). Or what.

Well, Pat, you had to know that the list of new books for the 50th was going to be considerable, right? So why are you surprised at all? I'm not. Even on non-"round number" anniversary years, there are a bunch of new JFK-related books entering the market. So for the 50th, could you expect anything less than a tidal wave? http://kennedy-books-videos.blogspot.com/2011/03/kennedy-catalog.html#New-Releases

Because it's still a fairly "new" release, that's why.

The Tague hit could very well have come from a fragment from the head shot. The angle's almost perfect for that to happen. I, myself, favor the first (missed) shot being the Tague shot, but the theory that Tague got hit by a head-shot fragment is certainly not out of the question at all. And, in fact, the Warren Commission fully acknowledged that possibility regarding the head shot on Page 117 of the WCR, thereby destroying the crazy notion that the WC was FORCED into adopting the SBT because of James Tague's injury. More Jim Leavelle stuff: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/02/james-leavelle.html