Paul Jolliffe
-
Posts
760 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Paul Jolliffe
-
-
On 8/2/2020 at 7:57 AM, Mark Stevens said:
I've spent some considerable time trying to determine where Brennan was and what his line of sight was.
I've come to the personal conclusion that Brennan was not directly facing the TSBD but was instead directly facing the Dal-Tex. The TSBD was clearly in his line of sight, but was not immediately in front of him and the building as well as the "snipers nest" was to his left.
While I'm not able to speculate on his WC testimony, I believe it's evident the information he gave during the testimony is not completely accurate.
Not often mentioned is the fact that Brennan had considerable health problems after the assassination:
This may have been related to his sandblasting accident. I'm searching, but I doubt there's much information out there about that event.
He also spent considerable time in therapy:
I bet he was obsessed with that fear, I wonder what the co-conspirators of Kennedy's Assassination were afraid he saw?
This is all fairly rudimentary, but it is a collection of some of the things I have which not only show where Brennan was sitting, but what his relative view was from this position as well. Next time I'm in Dealey I plan on gathering more in this area, but that will be some time.
The various assassination video stills show where Brennan was sitting. The WC recreation is included to show that the WC placed him in the entirely wrong position and that by doing so they changed his entire perspective. The views with the yellow lines denote where he was sitting and what direction he was immediately facing. The Plaza diagram with the fountain corner also overlays this perspective and his general FOV.
The other shots are to and from this basic location as well as a shot of the spot Brennan was sitting in.
I think it's clear where exactly Brennan was sitting and which building he was immediately facing. Now I guess the question is, did he see everything he claims in the building directly in front of him or did he witness those actions in the building to his left?
Does that look and sound like someone looking at the TBSD from Brennan's position?
Personally, I don't think so.
Mark,
That was precisely my point a few days ago: by deliberately mislocating Brennan ten feet to the west along the concrete wall, the Warren Commission was able to hide the actual direction he was facing during the assassination. They had him facing due north, not northwest. And therefore, they concealed the building to which he referred in his first day affidavit ("the large, red brick building"), i.e. the Dal-Tex.
As Tim Smith pointed out in his article at "Kennedys and King", David Belin KNEW that Brennan was not where they had located him. And as I pointed out a few days ago, a confused Gerald Ford (!!!) couldn't understand then how the official exhibits could reflect a "true position."
-
31 minutes ago, Richard Price said:
I have still been searching for info on Brennan. I came across this "out of the blue" when I searched for anything from the HSCA. Very interesting! Again, if the file will not open let me know and I'' try again.
Great stuff, Richard!
That completely confirms my suspicion (and yours) that Brennan gave an "altered" version of events to the Warren Commission in 1964. The HSCA in 1978 realized that he'd lied and that he was now terrified about telling what he'd really seen. Brennan refused to sign the form on 5/28/78 indicating that his statements were accurate.
The HSCA had zeroed on five of Brennan's statements. I bet we have a pretty good idea of which ones!
The HSCA believed that Brennan was very scared, and they even wrote about what they called the "Dean Andrews" syndrome - the intimidation of "little people", potential witnesses whose accounts were in conflict with the narrative pushed by such powerful forces in America.
The HSCA was never able to get any statement from Brennan, apparently.
Brennan died in 1983 at the age of 64. David Belin died in 1999 at the age of 70. So Belin was still very much alive when the HSCA wanted Brennan to testify to them in 1978.
I am convinced beyond any doubt that David Belin suborned perjury from Howard Brennan in 1964. I wouldn't be surprised if someone had dropped a hint to Brennan in 1978 that it would be a really bad idea to start telling the truth.
"In American law, Scots law, and under the laws of some English-speaking Commonwealth nations, subornation of perjury is the crime of persuading or permitting a person to commit perjury, which is the swearing of a false oath to tell the truth in a legal proceeding, whether spoken or written."
In this article from the Eugene (Oregon) Register Guard newspaper edition of June 25, 1967, WC attorney Joseph Ball is quoted as saying;
"Epstein says (Edward Epstein)that I told him when we constructed the episode that 'Brennan had difficulty seeing a figure in the window." I never said that. In the first place, we didn't have Brennan at the reconstruction to see whether he could see. (No, of course not. Who cares if a witness's testimony is truthful?) We had him there so that he could mark positions on a photo."
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=w6lVAAAAIBAJ&pg=6440%2C5455217
In other words, Ball admitted that when the WC arranged for Brennan to revisit the assassination site, they had no interest in learning what he could (or could not) see of the sixth floor window!
The fix was in, and by the time Howard Brennan testified in 1964, both he and David Belin knew what to say and what to avoid.
-
17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Paul:
In point 8, why do you think the film was cut?
And are you implying that whoever was cut from this film, that person plus the DPD guy who talked to Brennan on Houston (point 6) , they gave Brennan his story?
Jim,
Howard Brennan testified under oath that the local TV news station footage of himself was cut. When Belin was questioning Brennan about his location when he talked with the Secret Service agent, Brennan told Belin his exact location was on film!
Belin DID NOT want any part of that - he asked no questions and immediately changed the subject!
"Mr. BELIN. All right.
Will you put a mark to "G" at the end? And I believe you said that the car that you talked to the Secret Service agent in was at point "G" approximately?
Mr. BRENNAN. Right.
Mr. BELIN. Now, are these accurate or approximate locations, Mr. Brennan?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, don't you have photographs of me talking to the Secret Service men right here?
Mr. BELIN. I don't believe so.
Mr. BRENNAN. You should have. It was on television before I got home my wife saw it.
Mr. BELIN. On television?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. At this time we do not have them.
Do you remember what station they were on television?
Mr. BRENNAN. No. But they had it. And I called I believe Mr. Lish who requested that he cut those films or get them cut of the FBI. I believe you might know about them. Somebody cut those films, because a number of times later the same films were shown, and that part was cut.
Mr. BELIN. Who would Mr. Lish be with?
Mr. BRENNAN. The FBI.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
We thank you very much for that information.
Is there anything else that you did at point "G" or anywhere else after the time of the assassination before you went to the Sheriff's office? . . ."In answer to your second question Jim, no I don't think anyone with whom Brennan spoke pressured him on 11/22/63. That's why his first day affidavit is so interesting - he was clearly referencing the Dal-Tex building.
Did he also see some things in the TSBD? Well, he saw at least some black employees hanging out windows on the fifth floor. Whatever (and whoever) else he may have seen was undoubtedly subject to subtle pressure later.
Is Richard Price correct in his assertion that Brennan's "accident" (sandblast to the face) was no accident, but a warning to Brennan?
I don't know, but it is not unreasonable to suspect that Brennan himself might have viewed it that way.
In any event, David Belin managed to take testimony from Brennan in a manner that completely clouded whatever observations Brennan might have had about the Dal-Tex building.
-
32 minutes ago, Richard Price said:
In the referenced document at the link below, Brennan makes another very confusing statement if you think he is referring to the alleged snipers nest. He states that the person he was viewing (shooter) is 90 YARDS away. He is at most 30 yards away from the TSBD building. Google earth shows the distance from Brennan's position to the TSBD as 33+/- yds. and the distance to the extreme SE Dal-Tex building as in the neighborhood of 70+/- yards. He seems to me to be very exacting in his descriptions of times, locations and distances. He seems always to use directional references from fixed landmarks. The interviewing persons always interpret or lead him back to the TSBD, but his descriptions seem to point to the Dal-Tex building and the windows on the south eastern side of it. I am going to have to go back and study as much as I can find of his actual statements. In the Mary Ferrell database there are references to trying to debunk his testimony in order to show someone other than LHO did the shooting. I think this may have contributed to many researchers not paying attention to what he was saying/pinning him down on exactly what he saw. I also saw an article in which he says he had exceptional vision at a distance. This changed after an (accident?) in January of 1964 in which his eyes were "sandblasted". I wonder if this was really an accident or if it was more coercion of witnesses. There are also references to his being discredited because he saw too many details considering the distance. Before his "accident", he would have indeed had this ability, as he relates in the newspaper article that was done before January 1964. I would post a link to the article which quotes him on his exceptional vision at a distance, but I've already lost it in the maze of websites I've visited.
Mary Ferrell Chronologies - November 22, 1963, Book 1, pg 57
Richard,
The more I re-read Brennan's testimony to the WC, the more I am convinced that David Belin knew exactly what to avoid.
Notice that the first questions are about the phony location of Brennan in the WC Exhibits 477 and 478. It's been well established that Brennan was NOT facing directly at the TSBD on the retaining wall - he was instead facing NE to the Dal-Tex building.
By mis-locating Brennan ten feet further to the west along the wall, Belin was able to hide the direction Brennan was actually facing.
Belin even went so far as to have Brennan identify the direction in which the camera was pointed for Exhibit 478 - south! This gave the impression that Brennan was facing north, when he was not - he was looking northeast.
Further, as Tim Smith pointed out in his article, Brennan's true location was known to and commented on by David Belin: "Well, your legs in this picture, I notice, are not dangling on the front side there, is that correct?"
So Belin knew that the witness had just misidentified his own location in the two previous exhibits. No wonder that a confused Gerald Ford immediately made a point of asking Brennan if the exhibits showed his "true location"!
Representative Ford. Are those the positions where you were sitting on November 22?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. At about 12
Mr. BRENNAN. From about 12:22 or 12:24 until the time of the assassination.
Representative FORD. In both pictures, that is a true--
Mr. BRENNAN. True location.
Representative FORD. True location of where you were sitting November 22d?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.It got better.
To make sure that anyone trying to parse Brennan's testimony would be at their wit's end, Belin (purportedly to show the route Brennan took from lunch at Main and Record to his location in Dealey Plaza) introduced Warren Commission Exhibit 361, a map. However, this map doesn't show Main and Record. It doesn't even show Dealey Plaza or the assassination site. It shows the area north and west of the TSBD, but . . . it is upside down. North is at the bottom of the map. South is at the top. East is to the left. West is to the right.
Also, as the WC printed it, they completely obscured Brennan's own lettering, making it impossible to decipher which of his letters are which. (After all, it was only the assassination of the president and they needed to save pennies by making the map as small and as indistinct as the could!)
Exhibit 361 in all its glory (Dealey Plaza is off the map to the top right!):
Brennan repeatedly testified that he talked with and gave his suspect description to Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels. No one ever contradicted him on that point. The timing though destroyed the story that Brennan was Sawyer's source for the 12:45 suspect description. What was fascinating was that television news crews filmed Brennan talking with a Secret Service agent, and Brennan's wife saw him on TV. Yet when those same films were re-run later, the scene with Brennan and the unidentified Secret Service agent (on the east side of Houston, north of Elm!) was cut from the news broadcasts at the request of "Mr. Lish of the FBI. . . "
Yet David Belin and Warren Commission did NOT want to know anything about that strange and sinister action by the FBI. No questions were asked.
Brennan testified that he was mistaken in his identification of the window out of which the two "negroes" were looking at the time of the shooting. When confronted with Exhibit 481, he backed down in his assertion that they were in the window he had marked as "B" in Exhibit 477. (See above.)
Why is this significant?
Because Bonnie Ray Williams, Harold Norman and James Jarman were all on the fifth floor at the time of the shooting, and Harold Norman was (allegedly) directly beneath the "sniper's window" at the moment of the shooting. Norman claimed to have heard the sound of ejected shells hitting the floor from directly over his head!
Belin had a dilemma: the Warren Commission needed the testimony of those three to put the shooter in the "sniper's nest" (directly above their heads), but they also needed Brennan to make an identification of the shooter, and Brennan had just missed on the window out of which the "negroes" were leaning. If Brennan was originally correct, then Williams, Norman and Jarman were incorrect . . .)
(At least according to WC Exhibits 480, and 481, which purport to be authentic assassination photos taken by Thomas Dillard of the Dallas Morning News within about 15 to 30 seconds of the shots. Others have argued that Dillard's original photos were switched out for FBI re-enactment photos - these - taken a few days later. But that's a separate thread.)
Brennan told the Warren Commission he could accurately identify the "Negroes" he'd seen on the 5th floor, yet when shown this Exhibit 482, he could . . . NOT!
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this: You said you saw the man with the rifle on the sixth floor, and then you said you saw some Negroes on the fifth floor.
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did you get as good a look at the Negroes as you got at the man with the rifle?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did you feel that your recollection of the Negroes at that time was as good as the one with the man with the rifle?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes--at that time, it was. Now--the boys rode up with me on the plane of course I recognize them now. But as far as a few days later, I wouldn't positively say that I could identify them. I did identify them that day.
Mr. BELIN. Well, for instance, when I showed you Exhibit 482, you said that you could not identify
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, the picture is not clear enough, as far as distinct profilesWe all know that Brennan never identified anyone in the custody of the Dallas Police as the shooter. He even admitted under oath that when he saw "Oswald" on television, "he looked much younger on television than he did from my picture of him from the window - not much younger, but a few years younger - say 5 years younger."
To recap:
Belin took much testimony from Brennan in a manner that obscured, rather than clarified such details as:
1. Brennan's location
2. The direction Brennan was facing
3. Belin failed to introduce Brennan's own first day affidavit to the Dallas Sheriff's Office, and the important details about the "large red brick building" with all the fire escapes . . .
4. No mention whatsoever of Herbert Sawyer, the Dallas Police Inspector to whom (allegedly) Brennan gave his description, which then became (allegedly) the basis for the infamous 12:45 broadcast of the suspect. Belin could have arranged for Brennan to see a picture of Sawyer - they lived and worked in Dallas! Instead, Belin asked exactly ZERO questions to Brennan about Sawyer! Belin (and the WC) KNEW that Brennan was not Sawyer's mysterious source, but they dared not ask too much - Brennan might refuse to identify Sawyer!
5. Belin never pinned down with whom Brennan spoke in the DPD. Belin did not want to know, because that officer might well have confirmed that Brennan did indeed talk with the Secret Service's Forrest Sorrels, which would be way too late to make the "Brennan was Sawyer's source" story true.
6. Belin muddied the record about Brennan's walk on the east side of Houston Street, NORTH of Elm (right next to the Dal-Tex building!) with an unknown DPD cop for a vague amount of time before Brennan was able to give his suspect description. Belin asked exactly ZERO questions about why Brennan was walked on the east side of Houston, north of Elm.
7. Belin introduced an upside down map, completely inappropriate for the (ostensible) purpose, but perfect for muddying the waters.
8. Belin did NOT want to know why the FBI cut the TV news footage of Brennan and a Secret Service agent. The rest of the film ran a number of times, but Brennan and the Secret Service agent were cut. The fact that the men were on the east side of Houston, north of Elm (next to the Dal-Tex) is mighty intriguing . . .
9. Belin heard testimony from his own witness that this witness identified neither the shooter in the "sniper's window" nor the men on the floor beneath that window, nor even the right window, not even when shown WC Exhibit 482.
David Belin knew exactly what to ask and exactly what to avoid.
For the conspirators, they could not have been a better lawyer than David Belin to take Brennan's testimony.
-
Further, from Brennan's WC testimony, he claimed that he first noticed the "fire escape ACROSS from the Texas Book Store on the east side of the Texas Book Store . . ."
Huh?
From his vantage point on the wall, he could NOT have seen people in either the windows or fire escape on the east side of the TSBD!
So what did he mean? (Did someone "improve" his testimony later by deleting oh I dunno, "the large red brick building" and inserting that strange clause "the Texas Book Store on the east side of the Texas Book Store"? You betcha!!)
The fire escapes on the Dal-Tex. Those fire escapes were plain as day, directly in his line of sight. And there were people hanging out the Dal-Tex windows and on the fire escape!
When shown a picture of the "sniper's window", Brennan (incredibly) declined to identify it!
Mr. Brennan: "I am confused whether this is the same window."
Mr. Belin: "You mean because some windows are open below it?"
Mr. Brennan: "No. The way the building is built, it seems like this is more or less a long window with a divider in the middle . . . "
Because of "the way the building is built?" What the . . .?
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0076a.htm
Later, after Brennan told a cop what he'd seen, the cop had to "give some orders or something on the east side of the building on Houston Street."
Hmm.
Brennan (supposedly) just identified the very window from which the shots came (in the TSBD?), but the cop then gives "orders" on the east side of the building on Houston Street"?
Later, Brennan testified that the DPD walked him on . . . Houston Street, but just as he was going to tell us that they "walked back to" . . . Belin immediately cut him off with "Well, just put a mark in there"
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0079b.htm
This strange exchange makes me think Brennan testified not only about the 6th floor window, but also about some other window somewhere else:
Mr. Belin: "Mr. Brennan, in this sixth floor window (THIS sixth floor window? As opposed to the other sixth floor window about which Brennan had information?) where you saw the gun fired, did you see any objects of any kind in the window, or near the window?"
Mr Brennan: "Yes. Through the window, which I referred to as back in the book store building, I could see stacks of boxes."
"Back in the book store building"? I thought in the official story there was only ONE building that mattered.
Yet here in this bizarre exchange, both Belin and Brennan clearly implied that there was another window in another building of interest!
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0080b.htm
To sum up,
I believe in both his first day affidavit, and in his WC testimony, Howard Brennan (inadvertently) dropped hints that the Dal-Tex building was the location of at least some conspiratorial activity to which he was a witness.
-
After re-reading Howard Brennan's affidavit to the Sheriff's Office on 11/22, there is something really strange here. It might be just terrible syntax on Brennan's part, but I doubt it.
This may seem crazy at first read, but here it goes:
Before the motorcade got to Elm and Houston, beyond any doubt, Brennan, seated on the retaining wall, and facing northeast, was looking directly at . . .
The Dal-Tex Building.
"I was facing in a northerly direction looking not only at Elm Street but I could see the large red brick building across the street from where I was sitting. I take this building across the street to be about 7 stories anyway in the east end of the building and the second row of windows from the top I saw a man in this window."
"The president's car . . . was about 50 yards from the intersection of Elm and Houston and to a point I would say THE PRESIDENT'S BACK WAS IN LINE WITH THE LAST WINDOW I HAVE PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED I heard what I though was a backfire. It run in my mind that it might be someone throwing firecrackers out of the WINDOW OF THE RED BRICK BUILDING and I looked up at the building . . ."
" Then the man let the gun down to his side and stepped down out of sight."
As I wrote earlier, it's impossible for anyone to stand and shoot out the 6th floor SE window in the TSBD.
But could someone have have been standing in a window of the Dal-Tex building and been visible from the waist up to Howard Brennan?
http://www.prayer-man.com/sniper-position-in-daltex-building-by-shell-hershorn/#
Maybe so. Those re-enactment photos show that for at least a little while, honest investigators thought so, too. (We know it was impossible to stand and shoot through the TSBD window.)
So, what can we say for certain?
1. Brennan was facing directly at the Dal-Tex building before the assassination.
2. While both the TSBD and the Dal-Tex building were brick, the Dal-Tex buiding was a deep RED. On 11/22/63, within an hour or so of the assassination, Brennan TWICE described the building's brick as RED!
3. Both the TSBD and the Dal-Tex had seven stories.
4. Brennan's confused wording about the "last window" refers NOT to the westernmost window in the TSBD (as many of us have assumed), but instead to the one he said "previously described". Because Elm street had a double curve to it and because William Greer took a very wide turn onto Elm, a sniper in the Dal-Tex might well waited a moment for the limo to be centered in the middle of the street. This seems to be what Brennan said!
This picture below was taken on Monday, 11/25/63. The "sniper's window" in the TSBD was never "in line" with the motorcade on Elm.
But this view of the Dal-Tex shows it sure was!
If you didn't already know the "official" story, which one of these two buildings would you pick as the "large red brick building"?
Richard E. Sprague, Jim Garrison, Josiah Thompson and Fletcher Prouty all believed at least some shots came from the Dal-Tex building. I can personally attest that Harold Weisberg was almost certain of it.
If any conspirator/shooter/radioman/spotter etc. was in the Dal-Tex, and if that person was seen by Brennan, then enormous pressure would have placed on Brennan to change his statement.
By the time of his Warren Commission testimony, that would appear to be the case.
-
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 6th 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!)
![[Howard-Brennan-Affidavit.gif]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jTmnYgFvqzM/Tvw3vTpzhsI/AAAAAAAABuI/QJ__Z34iHho/s1200/Howard-Brennan-Affidavit.gif)
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.
-
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.
-
8 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:
Mark,
J. Edgar Hoover wrote a letter to J. Lee Rankin on January 14, 1964 that the Dallas Police Department had provided this description of the assailant based on the description provided by an unknown citizen, of a man seen running from the Texas School Book Depository immediately after the assassination. This unknown man had never reported to the Sheriff’s office as instructed.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=109
On November 2, 1964 ( two months after the Warren Report was published) Rankin again asked Hoover to find out where that description came from. Hoover responded with a letter on November 12, 1963 that, according to the Dallas police the information came from an ‘unidentified citizen’.”
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=72 -
The description had nothing to do with Brennan.
Steve Thomas
Steve,
It is really fascinating that two months AFTER the publication of the 888 page Warren Report (and just days before the publication of the 26 volumes of Hearings and Evidence), Rankin was still writing Hoover, trying to pin down the source of the 12:45 description.
At that late date, the die was cast - the WR had already been published, and its claims were open for all to read! The writers of the report were careful to use weasel words ("probably" and "primarily'") when implying Sawyer's source was Brennan. (WR, page 5.)
So Steve, why did Rankin care at that moment? Was he subtly trying to pressure Hoover into some sort of belated "official" finding that would settle that nagging question once and for all?
Might Rankin have feared that careful readers would discern the problem (they did!) and try to track down the mystery man themselves? And if successful, couldn't that lead to an unraveling of the official "solution"?
Is that why Rankin was still worried about this critical point seven weeks after the publication of the Report itself?
-
3 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:
Mark,
Sorry. The correct link is:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57753&relPageId=109
Rankin had asked Hoover to find the source for the description of the shooter broadcast by the police at 12:45 pm on the 22nd of Nov.
Hoover wrote him back and said that according to the police, the source was from an "unidentified citizen". By January of 64, Brennan had certainly been identified.
Steve Thomas
Steve,
This would seem to have a bearing on my point from yesterday: I doubt that the DPD themselves were the source of the description broadcast at 12:45 because Sawyer claimed he'd received information from two sources, the second of which was an unnamed Dallas Sheriff's Deputy. (The first source, of course, was our unknown "35 year old man".)
The "Sheriff's Deputy" story could have easily been disproved, if it was false - if a Sheriff's Deputy did NOT actually tell Sawyer about someone's claim that Charles Givens (supposedly) had information about the shooter. Sawyer implied this Sheriff's Deputy received this information from an unknown citizen.
If that was all a pack of lies, then Sawyer ran the real risk that the FBI would disprove it easily.
I speculated that the same man with whom Sawyer spoke briefly at 12:43 was the same source for the Sheriff's Deputy. Either this Sheriff's Deputy did or did not approach Sawyer soon after and relay this unknown witness's claim that Givens had important information.
But what makes this all so suspicious is the fact that Givens was no longer in the building, and he had not yet talked to any official. So how could any law enforcement officer (or anyone else, really) then know what Givens did (or didn't) see, if he wasn't around to be questioned yet?
No, this mysterious informer could not have been a police officer. This person was an outsider, and it sure seems he was a conspirator, intent on directing the police to an easily malleable witness, Charles Givens. Givens ("a colored boy") really did have previous run-ins with the law, which made him vulnerable to pressure to produce a statement "identifying" "Oswald."
I bet that's why Givens' name was initially given to the Dallas Sheriff's Deputy - he'd say what the conspirators wanted him to say!
Sawyer as much as said so right in his testimony to Belin:
Mr. BELIN. What do you mean the colored boy that worked in that depository?
Mr. SAWYER. He is one that had a previous record in the narcotics, and he was supposed to have been a witness to the man being on that floor. He was supposed to have been a witness to Oswald being there.
Mr. BELIN. Would Charles Givens have been that boy?
Mr. SAWYER. Yes, I think that is the name, and I put out a description on him -
As a quick follow up, i argued in another post a year ago that there was good evidence that the DPD officer whom Brennan accosted and demanded to be taken to a Secret Service agent, was Marion Baker. Roy Truly said so in a fascinating interview in the spring of 1964, and I think he was (inadvertently) destroying the 2nd Floor Lunchroom encounter between Baker and our "Oswald."
But that's a different thread.
-
2 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:
I'm quite certain this is the description attributed to Brennan.
Mark,
Yes the Warren Commission wrote that Sawyer's description "probably" originated with Howard Brennan.
However, the problems with Brennan's 'identification" of "Oswald" are myriad and have been well-documented for over 55 years.
In a nutshell, the criticisms fall into a couple of basic categories: Brennan simply could not have seen that to which he later testified.
1.It was impossible for anyone on the ground outside the TSBD to estimate the height and weight of an only partly visible man on the sixth floor who was crouching on boxes while firing a rifle out a window only one foot from the floor! Yet Brennan testified that the shooter was standing up! His eyesight was never good, but the Warren Commission dared not get into that topic.
2. The top of the window when fully open, was only 26" from the floor. So if Brennan saw a man standing and firing, the shooter was firing through the glass.
3. The DPD failed to take his name at the time of the description, and so had there been a trial of our "Oswald", then the prosecution would have been forced to admit that the police had no idea from whom their information came.
4. Brennan, when he did later talk with the DPD, gave a clothing description, but said nothing about the weapon used. Brennan did not know nor guess what weapon was used. Yet paradoxically, the 12:45 broadcast DID have a weapon description, but OMITTED the clothing description!
5. Brennan was seated on the concrete wall across from the TSBD, BUT HE WAS FACING EAST, NOT NORTH! He claimed to have dived behind the wall at the sound of the last shot he heard ("positively two. I do not recall a second shot . . ." wtf?) which, if true, completely undermines his statement that the shooter stepped back from the window to admire his work.
6. Brennan claimed to have spoken first with a Secret Service man, and in fact, he did talk to Forrest Sorrels. Yet Sorrels did not return to Dealey Plaza until 12:55, more than ten minutes after Sawyer got his description from the mystery man.
7. Sawyer told the DPD dispatcher at 12:43 "It's unknown whether he (the shooter) is still in the building or not known whether HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." But if Brennan were the source of Sawyer's description, then Sawyer would know that the shooter HAD been in the TSBD!
8. There is no evidence at all that Brennan ever was present at an ID lineup later, and no evidence that he identified "Oswald.."
WC Exhibit 2003, page 293 does not list Brennan and Will Fritz did not remember him there.
No, if (as Gerald Ford would later write in his book "Portrait of an Assassin") Howard Brennan was the best witness the WC had, then they had absolutely nothing.
-
8 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:
Paul.
No, I don't believe that there was any "unidentified man" who gave Gerald Hill a description of Tippit's killer. I believe Hill had that description in hand went out to the shooting scene.
The idea that an eyewitness to a shooting (especially of a police officer) would walk up to a police investigator and tell him that he was an eyewitness to the shooting and that investigator would allow that witness to simply walk away and would not get that witness's name and address for use in a later trial simply defies all logic and common sense.
Steve Thomas
Intriguing.
If so, then wouldn't Hill be a witting conspirator to Tippit's murder? After all, he arrived very shortly after the murder (within just a very few minutes) yet he already knew for whom to suspect? Hill must have been tipped off about the murder before it happened, right?
I don't trust Sgt. Hill - he may well have been in on the framing of our "Oswald"after the fact. Yet his infamous call about the bullet casings found at the scene in which he identified the gun as an "automatic" (rather than the .38 later allegedly taken from "Oswald") would seem to indicate some naivety about what was to happen, exactly. (The Tippit shooter should have left shells behind that could be easily linked to "Oswald's" gun. But they weren't - the ballistics remained a mess.)
What do you think about the mystery man in the TSBD with whom (very probably) both Sawyer and the unnamed Sheriff's deputy spoke?
-
On 7/23/2020 at 9:27 AM, Steve Thomas said:
I first posed the question on November 22, 2004 in the Education Forum JFK Assassination Seminars
“How did the Police First Learn that Oswald Lived at 1026 N. Beckley?”
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/2331-how-did-the-police-first-learn-of-1026-n-beckley/
At 12:45 PM, a call went out over the Dallas Police Department’s Dispatch Network.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/
“Attention Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male, all squads. Attention all squads. The suspect in the shooting at approximately thirty, slender build, height five feet ten inches, weight one hundred sixty-five pounds, reported to be armed with what is thought to be a 30 caliber rifle. Attention all squads. The suspect from Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male about thirty, slender build, five feet ten inches tall, one hundred sixty-five pounds, armed with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle. No further description at this time, or information. 12:45.”
No one knows where this description came from.
At 2:40 PM, W.E. Potts, B.L. Senkel and Lt. E.L. Cunningham were dispatched to 1026 N. Beckley. Potts wrote in his after-action report (Box 2, Folder# 9, Item# 32) http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box2.htm that after he finished taking some affidavits, Fritz dispatched them to the Beckely St address at 2:40 and they arrived at Beckley at 3:00PM.
Detective B.L. Senkel also said in his after action report (Dallas Police Archives Box 3, Folder# 12, Item#1) that they arrived at 1026 N. Beckley at 3:00PM.
When they arrived, housekeeper at 1026 N. Beckley, Earlene Roberts told the Warren Commission that when the police arrived they were looking for Harvey Lee Oswald.WC testimony of Earlene Roberts April 8, 1964
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/robertse.htm
Mr. BALL. Do you remember the day the President was shot?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; I remember it---who would forget that?
Mr. BALL. And the police officers came out there?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Do you remember what they said?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was Will Fritz' men---it was plainclothesmen and I was at the back doing something and Mr. Johnson answered the door and they identified themselves and then he called me.
Mr. BALL. What did they say?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, they asked him if there was a Harvey Lee Oswald there.According to Will Fritz, someone, whose name he could not remember gave him Oswald's Beckley address before he began interrogating Oswald:
(4H207)https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=34#relPageId=215&tab=page
Mr. FRITZ. When I started to talk to this prisoner or maybe just before I started to talk to him, some officer told me outside of my office that he had a room on Beckley, I don't know who that officer was, I think we can find out, I have since I have talked to you this morning I have talked to Lieutenant Baker and he says I know maybe who that officer was, but I am not sure yet.
On the evening of 11/22/64, a cable was sent from Washington to Fort Macdill in Florida concerning the FPCC, In part, the cable reads:
112th IINTELLIGENCE CORPS GROUP
SPOT REPORT (REGION II)
Date Sent: 22 Nov 63
Time Sent: 17:30 hrs
-
INTC, Region II, Dallas, Texas
-
Spot Report No. 417
-
Subject: Lee Harvey Oswald
-
Reference to Previous Reports: Spot Report No. 415
-
Time, Date, and Place: 17:15 hrs., 22 Nov, 1963, Dallas
-
Personnel, Organization, or Installation Involved: SUBJECT and Dallas Police
-
Summary:
“Assistant Chief, Don Stringfellow, Intelligence Section, Dallas Police Dept., notified Region II that Oswald had confessed to the shooting of President Kennedy and Police Officer Tippitt. The only additional information they obtained from Oswald at this time is that he defected to Cuba in 1959, and that he is a card carrying member of the Communist Party.”
My conclusion back in 2004 was that the information concerning Oswald living on Beckley came from some source in military intelligence.
Others have come to the same conclusion.
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=8636.0;wap2On 7/20/2020, in the Education Forum, Mark Stevens published some clippings from the AP Wire Service photos. Clippings from The Bulletin, November 25, 1963.
Included was this paragraph:
Dallas Assistant Police Chief, George Lumpkin was the Commandant of the 4150th U.S.Army Reserve Training School in Dallas. TX.
https://newspaperarchive.com/tags/george-lumpkin/?pc=24581&psi=94&pci=7&pt=23960&ob=1/
Colonel, B.B. (Boise) Smith. Director, Civil Defense and Disaster Commission. Dallas Police Department, Deputy Chief of Police was also a member of the 4150th’s faculty.
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth782328/m1/2/
Col. B.B. Smith
Daily Palmer Rustler October 14, 1954 page 2
(Member of the faculty 4150th U.S.Army Reserve Training School)
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth782328/m1/2/
He Reported directly to Chief Curry.
Batchelor Exhibit 5002
https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pdf/WH19_Batchelor_Ex_5002.pdf
When asked how he identified the killer of Patrolman, J.D. Tippit, Sergeant Gerald Hill told the Warren Commission,
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hill_gl.htm
“We went on to the scene of the shooting where we found a squad car parked against the right or the south curb on 10th Street, with a pool of blood on the left-hand side of it near the side of the car.
Tippit had already been removed. The first man that came up to me, he said, "The man that shot him was a white male about 5'10", weighing 160 to 170 pounds, had on a Jacket and a pair of dark trousers, and brown bushy hair."Gerald Hill did not identify who this man was that identified the killer.
I don't know what this all means for sure. What I am thinking right now is that members of the U.S. Army Reserves had access to a dossier of a blue-eyed, 5'10" 165 lb, wavy brown-hair headed Harvey Lee Oswald that they handed over to the Dallas Police Department, They told the police, "This is the guy you're looking for. His name is Harvey Lee Oswald and he lives over on Beckley"
Who was the source for the assassin’s description sent out at 12:45 PM?
I think it was the Dallas Police themselves.
Steve Thomas
Steve,
Hmm. I wonder.
J. Herbert Sawyer of the DPD said that an unknown Dallas Sheriff's Deputy was collecting statements from witnesses. And, this unknown deputy (somehow) knew that Charles Givens had (supposedly) witnessed the shooter, yet Givens was nowhere to be found. Further, Sawyer remembered calling in a description of Givens to the Dallas PD Dispatcher, yet that call was not in any of the transcripts before Sawyer when he testified to Belin in April of 1964. Sawyer hinted that the transcripts had been altered or edited!
Mr. BELIN. I then notice on this radio log---I don't see anything more under 9, at least until after the, well, it is down until we have gone as far as 1:30 p.m., I don't see anything else, do you, sir?
Mr. SAWYER. No. There is another broadcast in there somewhere, though. I put out another description on the colored boy that worked in that department.
Mr. BELIN. What do you mean the colored boy that worked in that depository?
Mr. SAWYER. He is one that had a previous record in the narcotics, and he was supposed to have been a witness to the man being on that floor. He was supposed to have been a witness to Oswald being there.
Mr. BELIN. Would Charles Givens have been that boy?
Mr. SAWYER. Yes, I think that is the name, and I put out a description on him.
Mr. BELIN. How do you know he was supposed to be a witness on that?
Mr. SAWYER. Somebody told me that. Somebody came to me with the information. And again, that particular party, whoever it was, I don't know. I remember that a deputy sheriff came up to me who had been over taking these affidavits, that I sent them over there, and he came over from the sheriff's office with a picture and a description of this colored boy and he said that he was supposed to have worked at the Texas Book Depository, and he was the one employee who was missing, or he was missing from the building.
He wasn't accounted for, and that he was suppose to have some information about the man that did the shooting.
Mr. BELIN. When you say about the man who did the shooting, did you know at that time who did the shooting?
Mr. SAWYER. No.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know about what time in the afternoon this was?
Mr. SAWYER. Somewhere along in here; let's see if we can't find it.
Mr. BELIN. This doesn't go past 1:53 p.m.
Mr. SAWYER. What about your other transcript?
Mr. BELIN. I have a transcript of another one here, at least I did haveSteve, you and I agree that officially, of course, it was Sawyer's bland physical suspect description at 12/43 that was the reason for the 12:45 DPD Dispatch announcement.
And we all know that the Warren Commission did NOT try to pin down the source of that description. Sawyer was no help at all:
Mr. SAWYER. We are talking now about the colored man?
Mr. BELIN. No, I am talking about the one that is on Sawyer's Deposition Exhibit A, that shows you at 12:43.
Mr. SAWYER. That description came to me mainly from one witness who claimed to have seen the rifle barrel in the fifth or sixth floor of the building, and claimed to have been able to see the man up there.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know this person's name?
Mr. SAWYER. I do not.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know anything about him, what he was wearing?
Mr. SAWYER. Except that he was--I don't remember what he was wearing. I remember that he was a white man and that he wasn't young and he wasn't old. He was there. That is the only two things that I can remember about him.
Mr. BELIN. What age would you categorize as young?
Mr. SAWYER. Around 35 would be my best recollection of it, but it could be a few years either way.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember if he was tall or short, or can't you remember anything about him?
Mr. SAWYER. I can't remember that much about him. I was real hazy about that.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember where he said he was standing when he saw the person with the rifle?
Mr. SAWYER. I didn't go into detail with him except that from the best of my recollection, he was standing where he could have seen him. But there were too many people coming up with questions to go into detail. I got the description and sent him on over to the Sheriff's Office.
Mr. BELIN. Inspector, do you remember anything else about this person who you say gave you the primary description?
Mr. SAWYER. No, I do not, except that I did send him with an escort to the Sheriff's Office to give fuller or more complete detail.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know if he was taken there to see a lineup at the police station?
Mr. SAWYER. No.
Mr. BELIN. Did you ever see him again?
Mr. SAWYER. Not to my knowledge.So, we have Sawyer's sworn testimony that he received two different pieces of information:
1. The first - a description of the shooter from an unknown 35 year old male. Sawyer heard this man briefly and then sent him to the "Sheriff's Office."
2. The second - a Dallas Sheriff's deputy (unnamed and apparently unknown to Sawyer) had learned (somehow) that Charles Givens had information about the shooter, yet Givens was not around!
Steve, I believe that if Sawyer was actually trying to conceal that the DPD itself was the source of the 12:45 description, he would not have named the Dallas Sheriff's department as his second source. Had Belin or the FBI wanted to track that deputy down, they could have done so easily. They did not because they had no interest in discovering from whom the Dallas Sheriff's deputy learned about Givens. (That person was a conspirator and would lead away from "Oswald". Therefore that person had to remain un-investigated.)
In other words, if Sawyer was lying about the Dallas Sheriff's deputy, any FBI investigation would have revealed the lie, and therefore, I think Sawyer told the truth - the 12:45 description came from an unknown man, outside of the DPD.
Further, I strongly suspect that this same unknown man was also very probably the source for the Dallas Sheriff's Office belief that Charles Givens had information about the shooter, even though the Sheriff's Office itself had not yet located or interviewed Givens!
Steve, you've guessed that an unknown member of U.S. Army Reserves around 1: 25 pm may have told Gerald Hill at the Tippit scene about the "5'10" 165 lb. bushy brown haired" suspect.
I would add the high probability that this same man - with a similar description of the suspect - was earlier in the TSBD around 12:43 pm and talked to both J. Herbert Sawyer of the DPD and then someone from the Dallas Sheriff's Office a few moments later.
-
-
On 7/23/2020 at 9:57 AM, John Butler said:
Paul,
There was also the comment by Marina saying she had 2 husbands. Some take this is just a psychological reference to two natures of her husband Lee Harvey Oswald. I take it she was actually speaking about 2 people, Harvey and Lee. The incident you mention and others brings one to the conclusion that Marina Oswald knew of the double Oswald usage by the CIA. It's my opinion that she lived with each alternatively.
If what you say is true then Ruth Paine did also. Ruth Paine, IMO, was the CIA handler (or keeper) for the double agent, Marina Oswald. But, she may have been a triple agent. I base that on what she did after Harvey died.
However, there is a part of me that says the Russians may have been aware of the Oswald Project as early as the 1940s. Someone knew and that information and it came out in the Tippit telephone call in November. 1963.
There are many odd occurrences concerning the Dynamic Duo. Generally, folks overlook those things. It is speculative, or not evidentiary enough, or it does not fit with the evidence they have accumulated, or the theory they are working out of at that time. There are odd things that can throw a person's views off, and sometimes to a point of 180 degree turn, if true.
What if the following was true?:
Here is a photo of Harvey's suicide scar. Or, a scar which very closely fits the definition of his suicide scar. The problem is it is on the wrong arm. According to the Russian medical reports the scar should be on his left wrist. Harvey's autopsy doesn't mention this scar on the right wrist. This suicide scar this (?) is on his right wrist. The photo is not reversed. We can see Harvey's left ear in the photo (it is distinctive). There is no mention of cutting both wrists in the Russian reports.
If this was really Harvey showing his suicide scar as a means of identification to his superiors saying I am Harvey and not Lee who has been taken to the jail. It could be because some of his handlers suffered from the inability to adequately see the differences in faces. Many people have this problem and there are probably more than you think.
So, if this was true would it change your beliefs? For folks on the Forum probably not. This may be unfair, but from what I have seen on the forum a lot of people would simply ignore this because it doesn't fit with what they know and it is so outlandish that it is easy to dismiss.
I'll probably get a couple of good kicks for this, but I see this kind of thing here.
John,
Bizarre as it seems, there might (might) be a slight chance that Marina actually lived with another man briefly in the spring of 1963.
Remember, our "Oswald" vehemently denied to Captain Fritz that he had ever lived at 214 W. Neely Street in Dallas, yet the Warren Commission concluded that both "Oswald" and Marina and June all lived there for the better part of two months in March and April of 1963.
This is strange - there was no logical reason for our "Oswald" to deny living there, if, in fact, he really did so. However, if he did not actually live there, then a denial makes sense - it was the the truth!
The FBI could come up with exactly zero neighbors who could identify "Oswald" at Neely.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95675&relPageId=52
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=232&tab=page
Marguerite even said that Marina lived there with another man (and now I have to dig up and source the quote, but I've got it somewhere - I hope!)
-
9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Ruth Pain knew that HARVEY was an imposter? Oh, I can't believe that. Unless a mistake was made and somehow she figured it out. The whole H&L operation would have been highly compartmented and each intelligence operative given just enough information to do their jobs. There was no reason for Ruth Paint to know about the Oswald Project. At least none that I can think of.
James, can you tell me where I can get more information on this topic?
Sandy,
Clifton Shasteen's testimony raises the possibility that both Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine were acquainted with a second "Oswald."
According to Shasteen, the "Oswald" he knew regularly DROVE to Shasteen's barber shop in a 1955 green and white Chevy station wagon (undoubtedly this one linked below),, yet Marina insisted that her husband NEVER drove anywhere except when practicing with Ruth Paine.
https://wtvr.com/2016/07/15/lee-harvey-oswald-car/
This LHO was accompanied on at least two occasions by a 14-year old boy, but no such boy was ever in the company of our "Oswald" in Dallas, let alone identified and questioned.
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shasteen.htm
Further:
Gertrude Hunter and Edith Whitworth were adamant (they never backed down) that Marina and two children had been to their Furniture Mart in Irving in the company of a man in the first week of November of 1963.This man drove the family there in a two-toned Ford. Gertrude Hunter provided details about seeing Marina around town a number of times before the visit to the Furniture Mart - she even correctly described the rose jacket Marina wore one time!
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you saw Mrs. Oswald, or who you think was Mrs. Oswald, in ,the Station there that day before you saw her in the Furniture Mart; is that right?
Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, when you saw her in the Furniture Mart, did you recognize her?
Mrs. HUNTER. No; it didn't dawn on me I didn't think a thing in the world about it.
Mrs. OSWALD. Excuse me, do you remember how I was dressed and was I pregnant at that time?
Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.
*Mrs. OSWALD. And what did I have on?
Mrs. HUNTER. All I know is you had on a jacket.
*Mrs. OSWALD. What color?
Mrs. HUNTER. It was pretty chilly--it was a rose or more of a--it wasn't red.
Mrs. OSWALD. Was it blue?
Mrs. HUNTER. It was more of a rose.
*Mrs. OSWALD. I had a rose short one.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you testified before you had seen Mrs. Oswald several times.
Mrs. HUNTER. Yes; but I didn't know who she was.
Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us about the other times you saw her.
Mrs. HUNTER. I have seen her in Minyards Grocery Store.
Mr. LIEBELER. What is that?
Mr. McKENZIE. [Spelling] M-i-n-y-a-r-d-s.
Mr. LIEBELER. Where is that?
Mrs. HUNTER. On Irving Boulevard.
*Mrs. OSWALD. Grocery store?
Mrs. HUNTER. And this drive-in grocery that I was talking about, if you remember there I think I had seen her there.While it may seem that this man must have been our "Oswald" at the Irving Furniture Mart the first week in November, in fact, the Warren Commission simply could not place him there.
Why not?
Because they had irrefutable evidence that our "Oswald" was indeed at work at the TSBD at that very time!
And since they wanted no part of a second LHO, they were forced to conclude, in spite of the convincing testimony, that Whitworth and Hunter were (somehow) wrong. Wesley Liebeler even went so far as to arrange an actual visit to the Furniture Mart. He nearly succeeded in getting Marina to deny ever having been there, until she said added that she didn't know whether she'd been there!
Mr. LIEBELER. You are now standing directly in front of the store at 149 East Irving Boulevard, aren't you?
*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you are sure you have never been here before?
*Mrs. OSWALD. No; I have never been here before.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have anything to add, Mr. McKenzie?
Mr. McKENZIE. No.
*Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know if I were inside this store, but I don't recall it now.
Mr. LIEBELER. You don't recognize this store as a place you have ever been before?
*Mrs. OSWALD. No.
Mr. LIEBELER. I have no further questions, and this will adjourn the deposition."With that, Liebeler (figuratively) threw in the towel.
To sum up, there are strong hints in the testimony of at least three Irving witnesses that a second LHO was driving around Irving in the company of Marina, and very possibly in Ruth Paine's automobile.
The fact that the Warren Commission and FBI were unable to resolve these contradictions does not inspire confidence in the "official" narrative.
"
-
14 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Paul:
I went over this issue at length and in depth in the second edition of Destiny Betrayed. There, using people like Bill Davy and Joe Biles, the actual Sodium Pentothal transcripts, and most of all Matt Herron, I impaled that whole BS story put out by Phelan. God that guy was such a l--r. And I later exposed him as a government stooge. As anyone who reads the actual transcripts can see, there was no leading the witness by Chetta.
The thing is, IMO, that was not Oswald at that gathering. As I discuss in my book, I think that was an Oswald double. It might have been the "Leon Oswald" at Odio's door, and the one that Nagell and others have talked about. Niles Peterson, who was there, told Davy that this was the guy's name. (DiEugenio, pp. 248-49)
Thanks, Jim.
I own and have read the first edition of "Destiny Betrayed", but I guess I'll have to read the second edition.
I, too, have long suspected that Ferrie might have been interacting with a different LHO (i.e. not our "Oswald"). So a mid-September meeting with Shaw and Ferrie, Russo probably met a different LHO.
For that matter, Richard Case Nagell's observations of LHO in Mexico City, must have been a different LHO - our "Oswald' didn't even go (supposedly) to Mexico City until after Nagell had been arrested in El Paso!
The pro-segregationist LHO hanging around with Guy Bannister on the LSU/NO campus in the summer of 1963 was very likely an imposter, too, although our "Oswald" probably made an appearance at Bannister's office at 544 Camp. (Guy Bannister knew both our "Oswald" and the impostor - no wonder he died of a "heart attack" in the the spring of 1964!)
-
11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
BTW, in this new article in The Telegraph, its like nothing happened on the New Orleans scene since 1991.
This Fordy guy wants to take us back to the 1967-71 hatchet jobs on Jim Garrison.
When, in fact, so many of the ARRB releases had to do with New Orleans and the Garrison inquiry. I mean, just what we know today about what the CIA and FBI did to thwart Garrison is really remarkable. And what makes it even worse is that so much of the FBI information coincided with what Garrison was digging up.
Nothing by Mr. Fordy in that regard. DId this guy read even one declassified file?
Jim,
What is your basic take on Perry Russo?
He was adamant over the years that he attended some kind of "party" (maybe on September 13) at which David Ferrie raved about killing JFK. He also admitted in this interview (linked below) that he strongly disliked JFK. Russo blamed President Kennedy for the failure at the Bay of Pigs and considered the Cuban Missile Crisis an American failure and sell-out. Russo was strongly anti-Castro and was closely affiliated with some Cuban groups.
What's particularly curious to me is Russo's description of "Leon Oswald": dirty, unshaven, unshowered, and a regular overnight guest at David Ferrie's apartment. Supposedly, Russo could not identify our "Oswald' until a sketch artist dirtied-up his picture. Russo freely talked about a second LHO running around.
So:
Did Perry Russo actually meet our "Oswald" (the man shot to death by Jack Ruby) and was there really a gathering attended by Shaw, Russo, Ferrie, "Leon Oswald" and a few others at which the assassination of JFK was discussed? Or, since he admitted he'd been in regular contact with the CIA up until 1979, was he some kind of disinformation agent?
I honestly don't know, and I'd like your thoughts.
Thanks.
http://www.jfklancer.com/Perry.html
-
15 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:
Not to distract from Thornley or Oswald but as Garrison is part of the story I thought this might fit here as it's maybe not worth a thread by itself.
I thought I'd read something about a possible hit attempt or plot against Garrison's life during/preceding the Shaw trial. After reading about it in his book I wondered where I might have seen this. I looked in Destiny Betrayed since it deals with Nawlins but didn't find Edward Whalen in the name index.
Garrison found his story credible. Whalen came to Garrison's office and made a statement to Asst. DA Jim Alcock. He was a life long criminal, spending most of it in the penitentiary. In Columbus Ohio a un named mutual acquaintance put him on the phone with Ferrie who promised opportunities for theft regarding a hotel and jewelry. He stole a car went to NO and ditched it. Ferrie proposed a bigger job, provided a place to stay, and a vehicle. Introduced him to Clay Bertrand. Then said he could get a $10,000 advance and 15,000 more for killing someone who Bertrand said might put him n prison for a long time. He already had doubt's about Ferrie and the plan but then Ferrie told him it was the local DA. He said no. Another meeting including Shaw trying to convince him where they ended up at Ferrie's apartment and a man named Dean Andrews appeared, and spoke with Shaw privately.
Ferrie told Whalen Dean Andrews had told him and Bertrand Garrison was investigating them.
Garrison had had lunch with Andrews, pressing him for information on Ferrie and Shaw. Andrews tap danced, Garrison mentioned the investigation, Andrews walked out without finishing lunch. Andrews was the only person to know about the investigation other than his tight at that early time team of investigators, per Garrison. Which helps make Whalen at least somewhat legit for him.
Never knew any of the details of this myself.
Any more detail? Anyone?
Ron,
Hmm.
I remember the Whalen story from “On The Trail . . .”, but I don’t recall any further details.
However, consider the probable outcome, had Garrison really gone for Whalen’s version of events: Dean Andrews would have been discredited in Garrison’s eyes.
If Dean Andrews was not believable to Garrison, then much of the case against Shaw would go away. (Not all of it, but it would weaken.)
Could the CIA have pushed Whalen (a career criminal who supposedly turned down $10,000 - 15,000!) to tell Garrison this story, and thus improve their own asset’s chances in the courtroom?
-
On 7/13/2020 at 5:19 PM, B. A. Copeland said:
@Rob Clark as guest host on Midnight Writer News show by S.T Patrick:
MWN Episode 145 – Rob Clark on The Fan & Harold Weisberg
B.A.,
I look forward to listening to the interview later tonight.
Meanwhile, I can attest personally that Mr. Weisberg did indeed realize at a very early date the significance of both the “False Oswald” and of the “ False false Oswald.”
He was seeking witnesses to the “Second Oswald” in the Marine Corps by 1967.
Further, he confided to me that the key was to figure out exactly who controlled the autopsy - that was a path to the conspirators.
During that phone conversation, he mentioned he suspected his phone was tapped ( this was in 1999 or 2000.) As soon as he said “Admiral Kenney” (USN Surgeon General in 1963), a loud audible hum started on our phones.
He believed certain names triggered an automatic recording system.
For all I know, he may have been right.
-
On 7/13/2020 at 5:59 PM, James DiEugenio said:
The thing is, Newman describes the early undercover leafleting at places like Tulane, and a liberal anti nuke group.
One of the students at Tulane recalled the name Hidell on the handbill. (p. 311)
Also, in the later open phase, there was the ITM incident. Where Oswald hired a coupe of other people from the UE office and the handbills were delivered to him by Quiroga.
The "Hidell" name might really have been on a handbill on Tulane's campus. The Secret Service asked Mr. M.E. Lapham, the Provost at Tulane, about the handbills and requested a check on names, including "Alek James Hidell". The name check came back negative "after a careful check of all students, faculty members and employees of the university . . ." (Yeah right. I'll bet that was a "careful" check.)
What is more interesting to me is Dean Andrew's statement that "Oswald" confessed to him that he, "Oswald", received $25 a day to pass out the literature. Big money, in other words. To a guy later making $1.25/hour at the TSBD, the days of passing out flyers for $25 must have seemed like a gold mine. "Oswald" was specifically asked by Lt. Francis Martello about payment for leaflet distribution and he denied it ("just enjoyed doing it.")
The WC did not want to pursue possible evidence that "Oswald's" pamphlet/flyer/literature distribution was at the behest of other, unnamed parties. Parties who were paying "Oswald" big money for an easy job.
WC Exhibit 3904, p. 467
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0371a.htm
-
4 hours ago, John Butler said:
Thanks for this info. I didn't know Oswald made two distributions let alone 3. Harold Weisberg in Oswald in New Orleans P. 55 says, well the way he put it one can calculate August 16 as the date, but not where. He said "Two weeks after his arrest from the handbill distribution- on August 22, only 6 days after his third and last operation...."
This then becomes:
1. May 29- 1000 FPCC handbills ordered (Tracy Parnell timeline)
2. June 16- Distributed on Dumaine St.
3. August 9- Canal Street
4. August 16- ?
I just found out there was an earlier CIA printing of leaflets, July 29, 1961, concerning "Crimes against Cuba". At the time Oswald was in Russia. Oswald in New Orleans, had a copy of this printing from 1961 in his possession when arrested on August 9, 1963.
Oswald had lots of strange things in his possession at one time or another, this leaflet "Crimes against Cuba, a recent copy of Hungarian poetry in Hungarian, a minox camera, brother Robert's camera, and weapons he didn't buy.
John,
All good points.
The CIA bought 50 copies of the 1961 edition of the "Crimes Against Cuba" pamphlet, but I've never read that they printed the thing.
At the time of "Oswald's" arrival in New Orleans in the late spring of 1963, that edition was no longer available commercially. This, of course, meant that "Oswald" got his copy from someone else, someone who was in the United States in 1961. Predictably, the Warren Commission had no interest in learning from whom or how "Oswald" got his copy of that edition. (Because that unnamed person would probably have been a path to possible conspirators, the WC did NOT want to know anything more!)
-
Going further here for just a moment:
There is a credible argument that Ferrie did not leave New Orleans for Texas until 9:00 pm. If true, then that would seem to be evidence that Ferrie was unaware of his pending Houston trip until shortly before he left. That strikes me as a sign that Ferrie's role - whatever it was - was a hasty spur-of-the-moment improvisation on someone's part. While this might seem to undermine the "backup getaway pilot" theory of Ferrie's curious trip, I am not so sure.
According to the National Weather Service, there really were storms, rain and thunder throughout Friday afternoon and into the evening in Louisiana and eastern Texas. If (as Broshears alleged), Ferrie's job was to meet two conspirators flying in from Dallas in a single engine plane and then to fly them to an unknown destination in a twin-engine airplane, it's possible that the weather really did force some late changes to the getaway plans. (A Dallas departure on Friday afternoon/early evening may have been OK, but a Houston arrival for "Carlos" and the other conspirator may have been a problem. And apparently, the Dallas conspirators never got to Houston. But Ferrie, instead of returning immediately to New Orleans, instead drove to Galveston and spent the night of the 23rd there. So on Saturday evening, was it possible there were still some conspirators who might have needed a flight out of Texas and that Ferrie might still have been the getaway pilot from Galveston?)
The twin-engine detail got me curious, and according to this quote from AOPA "There’s no denying the fact that flying over vast expanses of trees, mountains, and water—especially at night—is basically a no-brainer in a twin. Any pilot of a single who isn’t worried when flying over such terrain is delusional or still possesses the mind of a teenager" then the twin-engine detail meant that Ferrie was to make a night flight to . . . where?
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2013/june/pilot/dogfight-twin-versus-single
-
13 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:
Paul, regarding "Ferrie's role in Houston". I just read a bit about this a week or so ago In Garrison's On Trail of the Assassins. If we might believe Raymond Broshears, who, Garrison says he had statements taken from three times and there was "little variation in detail from one to the next" then Ferrie was to fly two members of the assassination team out of Houston.
To summarize Broshears said after knowing Ferrie for a few months he would talk about the Houston trip but only when he was drunk. He says he didn't believe Ferrie initially but after hearing the same story multiple times he came to realize he was not making it up. Ferrie told him a Carlos, a Cuban exile he knew from New Orleans who knew how to fly a single engine plane was to fly himself and another from Dallas to Houston. Ferrie was to fly them on a longer trip, to a never named destination, in a twin engine plane Carlos was not qualified to fly. "It developed there had been a last-minute change in the departure plans of these two particular members of the assassination team". pgs. 120-124.
Thanks, Ron. I read Garrison’s book years ago and had long been aware of Broshear’s allegations, but I’d forgotten the bit about “Carlos” and the other unnamed conspirator.
That is a likely explanation: nothing else would have compelled Ferrie to race to Houston from New Orleans. As I recall, Ferrie left the NO courthouse (where he was assisting G. Wray Gill’s defense of Carlos Marcello) around 3:30 pm.
Ferrie picked up the two boys before he left, and it was a 400 mile drive, so he couldn’t have arrived much before 11 pm at the earliest.
Obviously Ferrie’s phone calls at the ice rink were the actions of a man desperate to know what to do next.
Ferrie’s piloting skills were real, so this presumed role fits well.
Nothing else really explains his haste on that Friday afternoon.
Did EVEN the Warren Commission Believe Howard Brennan?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Gentlemen,
I agree that a shot was fired at the limo shortly after the turn onto Elm Street. However, I don't believe it hit anyone in the car. Others, years ago, pointed out the obvious splice and damage to the Tina Towner film which contains evidence that such a shot occurred.
Tina Towner was standing and filming the motorcade from the sidewalk at the southwest corner of Elm and Houston. She was in front and slightly to the left of Howard Brennan.
Her film shows (here at the 15 second mark) an obvious splice of several frames, and big black blotches for a frame or two just after the limo completed its turn. Immediately after the splice, we can see the president sit back up to his right, as if he just ducked to his left in reaction to something. We can also see that he pulled his right hand back quickly in mid-wave.
This would seem to be evidence of a missed shot that traveled over JFK's right shoulder and struck the pavement just as the limo was completing its wide turn. Such a location coincides with the numerous witnesses who believed that something was thrown or fired at the motorcade at that point.
Her film was damaged and spliced at the 15 second mark while in the custody of the FBI, allegedly.
Remarkably, the Robert Hughes film also was damaged just as the limo made its turn. Several frames were blobbed, so any close look at the president's reaction at that moment is now impossible. Again, the damage occurred (allegedly) while the film was in the hands of the FBI. See the 23 second mark.
If you ignore the commentary of the two image analysts who claim that "Oswald" was in the window, there is something else much more interesting: the positions of Harold Norman, James Jarman and Bonnie Ray Williams. This clip shows the re-enactment photos taken from within the fifth floor of the TSBD, and the three men are positioned kneeling and looking out the windows.
The official Warren Commission Exhibit 481, allegedly a photo taken within 15-30 seconds of the shots by Thomas Dillard of the Dallas Morning News, shows the three men looking out the windows of the TSBD.
However, it has long been argued that Exhibit 481 above is NOT the actual Dillard photo. Instead, goes the argument, Exhibit 481 is a photo taken from the street months later at the same time the men "re-enacted" their locations inside the TSBD so the authorities could take their picture.
This photo, taken surreptitiously, would then replace the original Dillard photo.
Why would anyone do that?
To hide whatever information was actually in the original Dillard photo . . . (Evidence of two men? Someone not named "Oswald"? Norman, Williams and Jarman were not where they claimed to be when they claimed to be there? etc.)
The evidence for this claim is provocative: the poses of the men seem to be exactly identical in both Exhibit 481 and in these reenactment photos, Exhibits 485 and 486. The men appear to be wearing the same clothing, yet Exhibit 481 and (Exhibits 485 and 486) were taken months apart.
Exhibits 485 and 486 below, to be compared with Exhibit 481 above - allegedly the original Dillard photo from 12:31 pm on 11/22/63:
So to sum up:
In the Zapruder film, the Towner film and the Hughes film, there is a splice and or damage to these films at the same point in the motorcade - just as the limo completed its turn onto Elm.
Such damage and/or a splice would hide evidence of a shot, albeit a missed shot. JFK's reaction to this missed shot was entirely inconsistent with a shot from the "sniper's nest" window of the TSBD, yet entirely in line with a missed shot from an eastern location, including the south windows of the Dal-Tex building, as Richard Price (and I) have pointed out for some days.
Howard Brennan's first day affidavit to the Dallas Sheriff's office seems to be strong evidence that, in addition to whatever other activity he may have seen in the TSBD, Brennan saw a shooter in the Dal-Tex building.