Jump to content
The Education Forum

"No shots from sixth floor sniper's nest window" claim ...


Recommended Posts

I'm listening to the most recent broadcast of Black Op Radio. Len Osanic believes that no shots were fired from the sixth floor sniper's nest window. Jim DiEugenio thinks that's probably correct.

http://www.blackopradio.com/black481b.ram at ~ 21:20:

Len: I have never really felt that there was any shots coming from that window ... do you have that opinion ... I'm talking about the sixth floor, sniper's nest.

Jim: I don't really know ... I tend to think probably not.

So who was that man that Howard Brennan saw firing a gun from the sniper's nest as the motorcade passed? The 'pipe' sticking out of the window that Amos Euins saw? What about the TSBD employees on the fifth floor who heard the shots come from directly above them, and even heard the bolt action of the rifle and the shells hitting the floorboards?

I'm interested in understanding how any researcher can entertain the idea that no shots were fired from the sixth floor sniper's nest.

Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm listening to the most recent broadcast of Black Op Radio. Len Osanic believes that no shots were fired from the sixth floor sniper's nest window. Jim DiEugenio thinks that's probably correct.

http://www.blackopradio.com/black481b.ram at ~ 21:20:

Len: I have never really felt that there was any shots coming from that window ... do you have that opinion ... I'm talking about the sixth floor, sniper's nest.

Jim: I don't really know ... I tend to think probably not.

So who was that man that Howard Brennan saw firing a gun from the sniper's nest as the motorcade passed? The 'pipe' sticking out of the window that Amos Euins saw? What about the TSBD employees on the fifth floor who heard the shots come from directly above them, and even heard the bolt action of the rifle and the shells hitting the floorboards?

I'm interested in understanding how any researcher can entertain the idea that no shots were fired from the sixth floor sniper's nest.

Paul.

Well, we can agree on this one, Paul. SOMEONE fired at the motorcade from behind. SOMEONE was seen with a gun in that window. So why would someone propose that NO shots were fired from this location? I don't know. I suspect Len and Jim were just making the point that the evidence is so sketchy in places, that even the evidence someone shot from the window is open to question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What about the TSBD employees on the fifth floor who heard the shots come from directly above them, and even heard the bolt action of the rifle and the shells hitting the floorboards?"

According to their own statements to the Warren Commission - Norman was the only one to make this claim.

"What about the TSBD employees [employee] on the fifth floor who heard the shots come from directly above them [him], and even heard the bolt action of the rifle and the shells hitting the floorboards?"

Jarman

Mr. JARMAN - Hank said, Harold Norman, rather, said that he thought the shots had came from above us, and I noticed that Bonnie Ray had a few debris in his head. It was sort of white stuff, or something, and I told him not to brush it out, but he did anyway.

Mr. BALL - He had some white what, like plaster?

Mr. JARMAN - Like some come off a brick or plaster or something.

Mr. BALL - Did Norman say anything else that you remember?

Mr. JARMAN - He said that he was sure that the shot came from inside the building because he had been used to guns and all that, and he said it didn't sound like it was too far off anyway. And so we ran down to the west side of the building.

Mr. BALL - Did Norman say anything about hearing cartridges or ejection or anything like that, do you remember?

Mr. JARMAN - That was after we got down to the west side of the building.

...

Mr. JARMAN - He said it was something sounded like cartridges hitting the floor, and he could hear the action of the rifle, I mean the bolt, as it were pulled back, or something like that.

Mr. BALL - Had you heard anything like that?

Mr. JARMAN - No, sir; I hadn't

...

Mr. BALL - When you were on the fifth floor, did you pay any attention to whether or not there was noise above you, before the shots were fired?

Mr. JARMAN - No, sir; I didn't.

Mr. BALL - In other words, if there was noise up there let's put it this way.

If there had been any noise up there, you didn't notice it?

Mr. JARMAN - No, sir; I didn't.

Mr. BALL - Now after the shooting, did you hear any noise from upstairs?

Mr. JARMAN - No, sir.

Mr. BALL - Did you listen for any?

Mr. JARMAN - No, sir.

Mr. BALL - How long was it before you ran down to the west end, from the time of the shots until you ran down to the west end, about how much time do you think it was?

Mr. BALL - After the third shot was fired I would say it was about a minute.

Mr. McCLOY You have had military experience, haven't you?

Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. And you can recognize rifle shots when you hear them?

Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY - But you didn't hear, you didn't catch the sound of the bolt moving?

Mr. JARMAN - No, sir.

Williams

Mr. BALL. Did you notice where did you think the shots came from?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, the first shot-I really did not pay any attention to it, because I did not know what was happening. The second shot, it sounded like it was right in the building, the second and third shot. And it sounded-it even shook the building, the side we were on cement fell on my head.

Mr. BALL. You say cement fell on your head?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Cement, gravel, dirt, or something from the old building, because it shook the windows and everything. Harold was sitting next to me, and he said it came right from over our head. If you want to know my exact words, I could tell you.

Mr. BALL. Tell us.

Mr. WILLIAMS. My exact words were, "No bull xxxx." And we jumped up.

Mr. BALL. Norman said what?

Mr. WILLIAMS. He said it came directly over our heads. "I can even hear the shell being ejected from the gun hitting the floor." But I did not hear the shell being ejected from the gun, probably because I wasn't paying attention.

Mr. BALL. Norman said he could hear it?

Mr. WILLIAMS. He said he could hear it. He was directly under the window that Oswald shot from.

Mr. BALL. He was directly under. He told you as he got up from the window that he could hear the shells ejected from the gun?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; he did.

Mr. BALL. After he made the statement that you mentioned, he thought it came from overhead, and you made some statement, did Jarman say anything? Mr. WILLIAMS. I think Jarman, he I think he moved before any of us. He moved towards us, and he said, "Man, somebody is shooting at the President." And I think I said again, "No bull xxxx." And then we all kind of got excited, you know, and, as I remember, I don't remember him saying that he thought the shots came from overhead. But we all decided we would run down to the west side of the building.

...

Mr. BALL. Well, did Norman say anything about hearing the bolt of the rifle?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I don't remember him saying anything about it.

Mr. BALL. But you heard him say he could hear the cartridges?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I heard Harold Norman--pardon me, I thought you were saying James Jarman.

Mr. BALL. Did Norman say anything about the bolt?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes. He said he could hear the rifle, and it sounded like it was right above. He said he could hear the rifle being ejected, the shells hitting the floor.

Mr. BALL. But you could not hear this?

Mr. WILLIAMS. No; I could not hear it.

Mr. BALL. That was an old floor, wasn't it?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; it was.

Mr. BALL. Could you see light through the floor from the fifth to the sixth floor as you would look above your window?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time, that day of November 22d, I did not notice that. But the other day when you were questioning me, even after the thick new floor that was put over the old floor on the sixth floor, well, you still could see light. And the new floor extended a little beyond the old floor. So therefore I would say that you could see light much more when the old floor was there.

Mr. BALL. When you were there the other day, you looked up through a crack in the ceiling of the fifth floor?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Could you see the new floor?

Mr. WILLIAMS. You could. You could see daylight through.

Mr. BALL. Now, where was that crack with reference to the wall of the fifth floor?

Mr. WILLIAMS. With reference to the wall of the fifth floor, the crack that speaking about was directly over my head, and also directly over Norman's head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice going Lee. I have always had questions about these guys.

Especially if you look at the first day affidavit of B. R. WIlliams, well, its quite interesting as compared to his WC testimony.

The other thing is, their testimony evolved over time from their first statements to the Secret Service. Patricia Lambert, who once did good work, wrote an interesting essay on this.

I strongly suspect the guy who was involved in altering their testimony was Elmer Moore of the Secret Service. A guy almost unknown several years ago,but who today is seen a lynchpin of the cover up.

Thanks Jim - that is great info also. My suspicion has always been that Williams in particular was used as the primary trail sweeper - his use of the words 'I believe" and 'I think' in his testimony - plus the photographic re-enactment, plus the surprise indicated by the Commission at the way Williams [and the others] answered certain questions was a strong indicator to me that there was serious coaching - with the aim at hiding whatever it was that went on - not only on 5, but earlier on 6 - plus creating the circumstantial case against Oswald. By way of example - as you pointed out, the affidavit and questions with respect to what was told to the Feds [Carver and Griffin? never saw an actual report - only references to these earlier questions] - doesn't add. Smacks of the set-up. Hemming was related a tale of being permitted to listen to one of the alleged hitters who was overcome with mirth and hysteria at the idea of the Boxes being used as a sniper's nest - Hemming said that this individual stated that it was a blind created by the workers in question for their use in privacy for viewing pornography. Wouldn't that be a kick in the head. It's only hearsay though - I don't know where such a recording would be. Hemming placed said shooter on the west side - which made the whole 'which window' situation interesting when Byrd removed a different window [as a token of history] - you'd think the guy would know.

If you consider what Oswald relates - it also seems much more likely that one of these three [Williams] had lunch in the Domino room as usual. Not by himself up on a hot, dusty floor [where he'd also been stuck working all that morning], alone - and eating a chicken on the bone sandwich [as stated] in under 15 minutes. And Alyea made it clear - he was baffled as to why so many cops would inaccurately make statements about the chicken lunch being discovered on 5 and brought up to 6.

What did Williams account buy? A clear 5 & 6 [where was Jack again?], an owner for the chicken lunch and soda bottle, and placement of the elevators at a minimum.

And if we want to drag in Brennan [saw your article btw - fantastic stuff] - any decent attorney would have ripped him to shreds immediately upon noting that Brennan places BOTH Jarman and Norman in the 1) same window, and 2) and the wrong window entirely when compared to the [alleged] Dillard photo [which doesn't correlate to Powers] and the Ball re-enactment and their respective testimony.

Here's one I haven't seen an answer for yet also - if Givens is across the street in a parking lot someplace, Jarman, Williams and Norman are all neatly accounted for on 6, then who did Couch see hanging out the window about, roughly, third or fourth floor in the middle of the south side?

Mr. BELIN - Did you see any other people in any other window in the building?

Mr. COUCH - Yes; I recall seeing - uh - some people standing in some of the other windows - about, roughly, third or fourth floor in the middle of the south side. I recall one - it looked like a negro boy with a white T-shirt leaning out one of those windows looking up - up to the windows above him.

And who is the black man standing on the stairs with the other TSBD employees?

lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know Baker, sometimes you should read, and listen, more carefully.

Jim, there's really no need to get defensive, or offensive. I don't believe I know everything already. I asked what I thought was a pertinent question based on my understanding of the assassination, and what I heard on Black Op Radio, which I find quite incredible.

So in your opinion as a 'serious' researcher, whatever evidence there is that points to a sniper's nest shooter is either flawed or fabricated? If the shots came from somewhere else, where are the witnesses to that? There were plenty of people around.

Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howard Brennan has about as much credibility on this case as John McAdams.

I think that's unfair, unless you're implying that Brennan's testimony should be taken seriously. Personally I think Mr McAdams site is a bastion of common sense. I also heard the debate on Black Op Radio and thought he came across very well. But we digress.

In order to stay on topic I'll take a look in those directions you've pointed me, thanks. I'd be interested to see which windows in the TSBD were open as the motorcade passed. If there was a shooter in the Dal-Tex building, I'm sure someone would have seen something, since spectators are visible there in the best known Altgens photograph. So why no witnesses?

Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howard Brennan has about as much credibility on this case as John McAdams.

I think that's unfair, unless you're implying that Brennan's testimony should be taken seriously. Personally I think Mr McAdams site is a bastion of common sense. I also heard the debate on Black Op Radio and thought he came across very well. But we digress.

In order to stay on topic I'll take a look in those directions you've pointed me, thanks. I'd be interested to see which windows in the TSBD were open as the motorcade passed. If there was a shooter in the Dal-Tex building, I'm sure someone would have seen something, since spectators are visible there in the best known Altgens photograph. So why no witnesses?

Paul.

Paul,

Since the Sixth Floor Sniper went out of his way to be seen - and a number of people either saw him in his white shirt and bald spot, it would be a bastion of common sense to me that the visibililty was part of the frame job, along with the rifle, to implicate Oswald, The Patsy.

Other snipers who went by the book, stood back in the windows of either TSBD or Dal Tex and nobody saw them, but they had a clear shot into the kill zone.

That's the way I look at what happened.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice going Lee. I have always had questions about these guys.

Especially if you look at the first day affidavit of B. R. WIlliams, well, its quite interesting as compared to his WC testimony.

The other thing is, their testimony evolved over time from their first statements to the Secret Service. Patricia Lambert, who once did good work, wrote an interesting essay on this.

I strongly suspect the guy who was involved in altering their testimony was Elmer Moore of the Secret Service. A guy almost unknown several years ago,but who today is seen a lynchpin of the cover up.

Jim,

Quick one. Is the change in Bonnie Ray William's story concerning his "chicken sandwich" simply a way to explain away the presence of the bag, soda bottle and bones that were found in the 'snipers nest'? In other words, Williams was never on the 6th floor?

The thing that somewhat bugs me about this, is that if Williams changed his version of events to help out with the "lunch sack" problem because Oswald's prints were not on the bottle, this "new" story then left open the problem of Williams not seeing anybody in the snipers nest.

If this is the case, was the bottle that important to get rid of as evidence to open up, what would appear on the surface, a much bigger problem the FBI and Commission?

Hope you're well

Lee

As having Williams on the sixth floor after 12:00 is incredibly problematic to the WC's proposition Oswald built the sniper's nest and put together his rifle just before the shots, we should suspect he really was on the sixth floor at this time. I mean, why would "they" concoct a cover story which damages their case against Oswald?

The key about Williams that most everyone misses is that his original statements make clear he only heard TWO shots fired. This is really hard to believe...If three shots were fired from an open window less than ten feet away from the open window in which he was kneeling. It follows then that only two shots were fired from the nest. This is consistent with Brennan's testimony as well.

In the rush to destroy the credibility of the closest witnesses--including Brennan--some researchers miss that these witnesses--the ones supposedly proving the case against Oswald--actually do not. In other words, too many CTs buy into the LN spin on these witnesses.

That is one of the reasons I created my data base of witness statements. When taken as a whole they suggest an entirely different scenario than the one claimed by the Posners and Bugliosis of the world. I have challenged LNs to make a similar database, presenting ALL the witness statements, in which they argue these witnesses support THEIR BS scenario of a first shot miss, a shot hitting both Kennedy and Connally, and a head shot. None of them will meet this challenge, which to me is as good as an admission that they know their chosen scenario is something they made up so they can sleep at night...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remington begins his first chapter with the unwise words of Gerald Ford in Life magazine of 10/2/64. With a mixture of laughter and tears, the reader will recall that Ford described Howard Brennan like this: "The most important witness to appear before the Warren Commission in the 10 months we sat was a neat, Bible-reading steam fitter from Dallas. His name was H. L. Brennan, and he had seen Lee Harvey Oswald thrust a rifle from a sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository and shoot the President of the United States." (Remington, p. 22)

Immediately afterwards, the author shows just how biased Ford must have been to write this. For Brennan told assistant counsel David Belin, "Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot." (ibid)

In his discussion of Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, Remington points out that this is very hard to believe since it would necessitate a bullet going through a glass window. (Remington, p. 352; see also Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, p. 83) Further, the author shows that, during his visit to Dallas for reconstruction purposes, Belin almost certainly falsified the positioning of Brennan in CE 477. Belin placed him on the wrong ledge of a retaining wall and facing the wrong street. As Rodger points out, the Zapruder frames featured on the cover of Reclaiming History show that Belin was wrong in this. Yet Bugliosi fails to point this out. (ibid, Remington)

The author points out something else worth noting about this curious witness that Ford was so enamored with. Brennan admitted that he didn't see the first shot. He actually thought it was a firecracker. But he also admitted that he did not see the rifle explode for the second and third shots either. (WC Vol. III, p. 154) The author deduces that if we are to take this seriously, then Brennan must have been jerking his head back and forth between Kennedy being killed and the shooter in the TSBD – and with miraculous speed and anticipation. In reality, Brennan is not to be taken seriously. As Rodger writes, given these qualifications, "...there is absolutely no factual basis for identifying Howard Brennan as an eyewitness to the shooting..." (pgs. 35-36) Amen.

But I should add, there may be a reason that Brennan said what he did, in the way he did. As attorney Bob Tanenbaum has stated, if one goes with the Commission's version of the so-called sniper's nest, Brennan's testimony is weird. He is supposed to be the source of the original description of the assassin's height and weight. But as Tanenbaum notes: If Oswald was kneeling down behind that stack of boxes, how could Brennan have determined his clothing color, height and weight? (WC Vol. III p. 144) This may be why Brennan depicted him standing. But, if that was so, then why did he build the "sniper's nest"? (It is true that Brennan also said he saw the man before the shooting, but then he said he was sitting on the sill. He later seemed to contradict himself by saying he did not see the window until after the first shot. WC Vol. III, pgs. 144, 154)

Remington leaves out another dubious point about this strange witness. After the assassination, Brennan went home and said he watched television. During which he viewed Oswald's face twice. (WC Vol. III, p. 148) Although the Warren Report is confusing on this issue, it seems to say that he then viewed a line-up the evening of the murder and failed to pick out Oswald. (Warren Report, p. 145) David Belin realized this was a problem for boss Gerald Ford's star witness. So when Brennan testified before the Commission, an excuse was forthcoming. He failed to make the identification that night because he was afraid a communist plot would endanger his family. (ibid,) It was that fear which held him back from making the positive ID at police headquarters the night of the 22nd.

In his book, No Case to Answer, Ian Griggs has made a detailed and valuable analysis of the Oswald line-ups (pgs. 81-91). In this regard, it is important to note some of the comments made by Brennan on the issue of the line-ups to the Commission. When asked by Belin if he recalled how many people were in the line-up, Brennan answered that he was not sure, possibly "seven more or less one." (WC Vol. III, p. 147) Which would mean anywhere from 6-8. According to Griggs, there were never more than four men in any line-up. And in fact, there could not have been either 7 or 8. Why? Because the placement allotment allowed for only six people. (Griggs, p. 91) Belin then asked the "star witness" about the ethnic makeup of the line-up, "were they all white, or were there some Negroes in there, or what?" Brennan replied with, "I do not remember." (ibid) Which is a startling answer. Why? This is 1963, at the height of King's civil rights movement. The March on Washington occurred several months previous. The Klan was blowing up buildings and buses. Yet Brennan does not recall if there were any black men in the only line-up he ever saw in the most important murder ever in Dallas?

In this regard, Mark Lane and Harold Weisberg made two brief but telling comments about Brennan's alleged presence at an Oswald line-up. Harold Weisberg wrote in Whitewash, "It is true that Brennan 'viewed' the line-up, although he appears to be the one person of whose presence the police have no written record." (p. 90) Mark Lane echoed this in Rush to Judgment: "The Dallas police submitted to the Commission a document which they said incorporated the name of every person who attended any of the four line-ups at which Oswald was shown to witnesses. Brennan's name, however, does not appear therein." (Lane, p. 91) Odd that the Commission's star witness should be notable by his absence.

Griggs thought all the above more than just odd. So the former British detective followed up on it. Griggs found out that although he could find particular times assigned to the four line-ups the police listed, there was no time that the Commission assigned to the one Brennan was allegedly at. (Griggs, p. 90) Griggs found a book – Judy Bonner's Investigation of a Homicide – in which the author said that Brennan was at the same line-up as Barbara and Virginia Davis, who were witnesses to the Tippit murder. This line up took place on the 22nd at 7:55 PM. (Griggs, p. 88) Yet, when Griggs checked this out with Barbara Davis, she said she did not recall Brennan being there. (ibid, p. 92) Griggs also discovered that no other line-up witness mentioned seeing Brennan. (Griggs, p. 94)

The detective also found the police notes used to make up the official reports on the four line-ups. Brennan's name is not listed there either. (ibid, p. 93) Neither is his name in any of the affidavits or testimony of the police officers who supervised the line-ups. (ibid)

I've saved the best for last. John McCloy asked Capt. Will Fritz if he was at the line-up attended by Brennan. Fritz said the following: "I don't think I was present but I will tell you what, I helped Mr. Sorrels find the time that that man – we didn't show that he was shown at all on our records, but Mr. Sorrels called me and said he did show him and wanted me to give him the time of the showup. I asked him to find out from his officers who were with Mr. Brennan the names of the people that we had there, and he gave me those two Davis sisters, and he said, when the told me that, of course, I could tell what showup it was and then I gave him the time." (ibid, p. 94, italics added) This is the man directly supervising the police investigation. Yet he doesn't know that 1.) Barbara Davis didn't see Brennan, and 2.) He doesn't care if Brennan is not listed by his own men as being at that line-up. If someone can find a piece of Commission testimony more openly indicating the cops cooperating with Washington in aid of a cover-up, I would like to see it.

Like Mary Bledsoe, Wesley Frazier, and others, the weight of the evidence indicates that Brennan was one of the Commission's manufactured witnesses. If Oswald had participated in a real trial – which the Warren Commission did not even resemble – a skilled and knowledgeable defense attorney would have dismantled Brennan piece by piece. Which is probably why Oswald was killed.

So much for Mr. Brennan.

Anybody who's been studying the assassination for more than five minutes has to be aware of the problems with Brennan's story. The sad fact is, the LNers believe him because they want to believe him so pointing out the facts is unlikely to change their minds.

While it's clear Brennan's statements, when taken as a whole, damage the Oswald did-it scenario, it's also clear he saw someone in the window. He signed a statement a short time after the shooting claiming he saw someone in the window, and that he thought he could identify this man. He then REFUSED to ID Oswald, after being shown him in a line-up. The Secret Service and DPD then--suspiciously--forgot to make any record of Brennan's attending this line-up. In fact, it wasn't until weeks later, and at the urging of the Secret Service, that Brennan suddenly changed his mind and said the man he saw was Oswald.

This sequence of events casts great doubt on Brennan's ID of Oswald. Making things even worse is that Brennan could recall hearing but two shots; as he was sitting near Houston and Elm, this suggests the possibility one of the loud sounds heard by others came from somewhere else, or came so close to one of the shots heard by Brennan that he thought it was an echo.

In either event, Brennan is a fairly LOUSY witness for the Oswald fired all three shots scenario pushed by the WC, and it is a bit silly to think he was paid to pretend he saw something, or some such thing.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SOME INFORMATION FROM ALLAN EAGLESHAM; FYI, http://www.manuscriptservice.com/SN/shots.htm

“Robert Frazier’s tests of the rifle revealed that cartridges landed within a 47-inch circle, located at right angles to the ejection port, or 90 degrees from the line of sight, and at a distance of 80 inches from the ejection port [34]. After bouncing on the floor within this circle, momentum carried the cartridges from 8 inches up to 15 feet [35]. In view of the ranges in angle of ejection and in momentum from cartridge to cartridge, it is inconceivable that any three would have landed as observed by Tom Alyea. Captain Fritz may have compromised the putative crime scene because he did not want Alyea to record the unlikely cluster of cartridges.”

34. 3H401.

35. 3H402.

A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...