Brennan's lineup

[David Von Pein]

How about answering this simple question, Mr. DiEugenio.....

If the whole "BRENNAN ATTENDED A LINEUP" story was only a manufactured story from the get-go, then what useful purpose did such a fairy tale serve?

At the lineup that you say Brennan never attended, Brennan said he COULD NOT positively identify Oswald as the assassin! So what good did it do to say Brennan attended a lineup in the first place?

If the whole thing had been a lie (with Brennan participating in the lie), Brennan would have identified Oswald. But he didn't.

The whole ridiculous "Brennan Never Attended A Lineup" theory collapses into a cloud of dust based on just the common sense in my last sentence alone.

Edited January 14, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Michael Walton]

I did this little gif focusing on Brennan...  he doesn't appear to be looking up at any time...  and he kinda shoots himself in the foot with this testimony, no?

David Joseph's GIF, though nice, shows Brennan way too early.  The frames he used are of the Z film at the very beginning when the limo is first gliding down Elm.  If you believe what Josh Thompson, others and I do, that the shots do not start until Kennedy first appears from behind the sign, then those frames in the GIF are showing Brennan before the shots are even fired.

Again, I know this will cause further debate because a lot of people here will now say, "Oh, no....the shots started way earlier than what Walton is saying here."  I don't believe the did for the main reason that the bad guys were not dumb.  They had to make a somewhat plausible shooting sequence and if they fired any earlier than what we see in the Z film, it would have been impossible to hit Kennedy from the fake "sniper's lair" because the large oak tree was blocking any clear shot.

So if Brennan is saying he heard a shot and looked up and saw the rifle, you're not going to see it in David's GIF because Brennan was already out of the frame in the Z film.

You can see it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9w6zveedj0o

[Michael Walton]

I notice that Lance Payette likes to play it soft here as a "lawyer" - oh, I'm just an objective lawyer here and I do legal work, and I have no vested interest in this and don't care who Kennedy was or is and I'm oh-so objective...blah blah blah...

So I'll leave you with this Lance...

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62268#relPageId=29

This is one of your best buds - a fellow lawyer and with the backing of the full force of the US government and the media elite, this is what the full force of the US government is saying after the one and sole suspect had been gunned down on live TV in front of a city's entire police force by an "upstanding" citizen who shed a tear or two for the murdered president's wife.

Now ask yourself this Lance - if the US government had truly been crying about the loss of their slain president, do you think one of its top lawyers would have ever written a memo like the above if they truly and honorably had every vested interest in finding out what happened on 11/22?

Let's take away some of things we know - and none of the people below means these people planned the murder; it's simply a way of showing how vigorously (or not) they - the most powerful people in the US government - were going to pursue what happened:

Allen Dulles - Kennedy fired his ass because he misled him on the Bay of Pigs; he later is quoted as saying "That Kennedy fellow really thought he was going to be president."

Johnson - couldn't stand the Kennedys

Hoover - also couldn't stand the Kennedys and it was rumored that Kennedy was going to fire his ass after the '64 election.

So let's change hats for a minutes - let's say that these three guys above absolutely loved Kennedy like Obama seems to love Biden and vice versa.  Do you really truly think that the memo link above would have been written? To just "cut off all speculation" of conspiracy? Do you not see that this memo pretty much is the government's marching orders on how to conduct the Warren investigation in the ensuing months?

I think not. I think they would have put the full force of the investigation into play and would have found out everything that had happened. But because that's not the case, there was relief and joy that he was out of the way and business as usual could return. And so doing what lawyers do best, twisting and turning and sweeping and muddling, they could twist a line of testimony here, cajole or threaten a witness there, and POOF we have the Warren Report which remarkably meets the same guidelines down to a "T" of what Katzenbach wrote in his memo seven months before.
 

[Michael Walton]

David,

As I've mentioned in the past - you've done a great job of collecting footage, photos and so on of Kennedy.  But it's such a weirdly strange phenomenon with you - you dig up all manner of Kennedy media to share on your site, and yet you believe little old Lee Oswald gunned him down with two perfect shots, one with a super bullet that went through two male adults causing all manner of injuries, and with a second bullet that splattered Kennedy's head all over the place and even had so much power to it that it threw his body violently backward.

But his third shot was so way off target that it hit the curb of the street kicking up debris which hit a bystander.

Then this same assassin rushed down the steps, out the building, took a bus, then a cab  to his rooming house, was walking down the street going somewhere, pumped numerous shots into a policeman that called him over to his car, threw his wallet down at the scene, emptied his gun of the shells, threw a jacket off, went to a theater to hide out, was captured and arrested, claimed that he was nothing but a patsy, and then gunned down two days later in the police department's jail.

So it's a weirdly strange thing with you, digging up all of this media for your website and yet believing that *that's* what happened.  Could it be because you're of of those flag-lapel wearing, flag-waving "USA USA" kind of guys, believing your government got it 100% right?

I'm just trying to figure it out here.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Now, back to the real world:  Ian established that:

1.) Brennan did not even know how many people were at the line up.  That does seem odd.  But why wouldn't a cooked-up witness have simply been programmed to give the correct number?  Doesn't his fumbling on this point suggest precisely the oppose of what you seem to think it does?

2.) He did not recall if there were any blacks in the line up--recall, this is Texas in 1963.  I would have expected anyone to know there were no Blacks in a line-up in which LHO was the suspect.  Again, why wouldn't a cooked-up witness have been programmed to give the obvious and correct answer?  Doesn't his fumbling on this point likewise suggest precisely the oppose of what you seem to think it does?

3.) No one recalled Brennan at any line up, even the one he was supposed to be at. 

4.)  When Sorrells called Fritz, its clear Fritz has no recall of Brennan at any line up.(p. 94)

5.)  Beyond that, it is also clear that there was no record of Brennan being at a line up. (p. 94)  In regard to 3, 4 and 5, then what is the DPD line-up sheet stating that he "failed to identify" LHO at the same line-up the Davis sisters-in-law attended?  Isn't this a record of him being at the line-up (City of Dallas, Box 15, Folder 2, Item 63)?  If it was fabricated, what was its purpose - and especially the purpose of saying he had failed to identify LHO?  Doesn't this sheet point in the opposite direction from what you are suggesting?

6.) Even though there was no memory or record of Brennan being at  a line up, Sorrels insisted he was.  Not only did Sorrels and Brennan say they were, the line-up sheet confirms it.

7.)  But, Sorrels did not know the time  of the line up. Fritz had to tell him.  Fritz said Sorrels later called him to confirm the time.  Fritz asked Sorrels who else had been at the line-up.  Sorrels said the Davis sisters-in-law.  This enabled Fritz to easily give Sorrels the time of the line-up.

Brennan said he had been picked up at his home early in the evening by SS Agent Patterson and driven to the DPD.  Sorrels testified, "And when they came down there with him, I got ahold of Captain Fritz and told him that the witness was there, Mr. Brennan.  He said, 'I wish he would have been here a little sooner, we just got through with a lineup. But we will get another fixed up.'"

This all suggests that either Brennan was brought into the back of the room toward the end of the line-up for the Davises (they were in a row of chairs at the front) or, perhaps more likely, that the same line-up that was used for the Davises was immediately re-assembled for Brennan.  This would explain why the notation about Sorrels and Brennan appears to have been added on to the sheet after the typical information for the line-up for the Davises.

Griggs seems completely unaware of the notation about Brennan on the line-up sheet.  Griggs correctly points out that nothing is said about Brennan on the line-up sheet provided to the WC (WC Exhibit 2003, page 293); I have not seen an explanation for this discrepancy.  Griggs suggests that either Brennan did not attend any line-up or that all references to it were expunged because Brennan had failed to identify LHO.  We now know that all references were not expunged and that, in fact, Brennan's failure to identify LHO was noted on the line-up sheet, in FBI reports and in Brennan's own WC testimony.

I must say, I'm totally and completely lost as to what point you even think you are making here.  As far as I can tell, the entire Brennan saga is almost completely consistent, completely credible, and completely devoid of any indication that Brennan was being managed or manipulated.  Indeed, it is full of wrinkles that cut against him being the Super Star Identifier of LHO, which is precisely what we would expect if everything was on the up and up.  You seem to want to simply ignore the line-up sheet, the references to the line-up in FBI reports, and the WC testimony of Brennan and Sorrels.  What is the conspiracy we are supposed to be seeing - or are you so lost in the trees that it no longer even matters whether anything even makes sense?

I've been an appellate lawyer for 35 years.  I know how to research, I know how to argue.  Take all the potshots at lawyers and at me personally you want, but if you want to play hardball:  Bring your batting helmet, because you're going to need it.  Enraged bluster isn't going to win any arguments here.

 

 

Edited January 15, 2017 by Guest

[James DiEugenio]

Good point Mike.  I wonder if LP ever complained about good ole Nicky's memo which was written after consultation with Hoover. 

As for DVP's rhetorical question, he gets  this from his special brand of Bulgiosi sauce.  Which he has countless shelves of at his house, I think he uses it on his chicken.  

Vince used this throughout his book:  well, even if the critics are right, what did it matter?  

My God in heaven, this ignores the key, overwhelming fact:  OSWALD WAS MURDERED SO THERE WAS NO TRIAL!!!

The WC did not need to follow any rules of evidence, or convince a neutral jury of his peers.  They could do anything they wanted--and they did.  

Does DVP really think there was not a debate inside the WC about using horrendous witnesses like Marina Oswald, Markham and Brennan?  That shows you either how bad of a researcher he is, or what a prevaricator he is.  Because this whole thing was laid out in detail way back in 1966.  Let me repeat that--in 1966!  It was in the pages of Inquest.  Unlike LP and DVP, the WC lawyers did not want to use Markham, Marina Oswald or Howard Brennan.  Since they had so many liabilities.  (Oh you mean did they says LP)

So again let us return to the real world. According to Epstein, this is what the WC staff thought of Brennan: He failed to ID Oswald for the DPD, and then over a month later he told the FBI he could not ID him.  But suddenly for the WC, he does ID  him and blames the previous failures on a commie plot.  (The Assassination Chronicles, p. 143)  But further, during a reconstruction it turned out that Brennan had problems seeing at a distance. (ibid)

This was all hushed up at the time and Redlich, on orders from above, that is The Troika (Dulles, McCloy and Ford) overruled the lower layers of the WC.  After all, they only had to convince the media.  Which were pushovers.  But as Liebeler later predicted in his famous memo, these witnesses--specifically Markham--would not stay hidden for long.  And they didn't.  Any objective observer would see the problems with these three.  Since DVP and LP are not objective, they refuse to look at or acknowledge them.

Edited January 15, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

BTW,  LP goes into this act about "What in tarnation are you talking about?"

I mean he actually says well since he was noted on the DPD record later, then Brennan had to have been there.

Can anyone over the age of 21 really ignore all the evidence that Ian adduces?  (Forgot, LP already did.)

If LP wants to ply dumb, then fine, but we are not in court here.  Even DVP seems to realize the problem, all one has to do is read Fritz's comments about his complete lack of knowledge of Brennan at a line up and Sorrells having to call him and tell him he was since they had no record of it, and Sorrell's not knowing the time Brennan was there even though the note says it was Sorrels who brought him to the station.

I could draw this all out on a chalkboard, but we don't have them here.  Or maybe LP can go back to law school and study the significance of time sequence in a story being constructed.

 

 

Edited January 15, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

My review of Rodger Remington's discussion of Brennan in his  critique of Bugliosi Biting the Elephant. 

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)

[James DiEugenio]

Continued:

 

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)

[James DiEugenio]

Last part:

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.

Now please play close attention to the following:

One of the most interesting parts of Biting the Elephant is that Remington actually proffers a method as to how this happened. He writes of a little noted debate within the Commission over "preparation" of witnesses. This occurred in January of 1964. According to Remington the lawyers who were in favor of witness preparation were Arlen Specter, Joe Ball, and David Belin. They were opposed by assistant General Counsel Norman Redlich. Ultimately, Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin stepped in and decided the dispute in favor of the three assistant counsels. (Remington, p. 53) The understanding arrived at was that "preparations would be summarized in memoranda to be submitted to Redlich. Apparently, somewhere along the way, the requirement for memoranda gave way to the demands of limited time and they were not always provided." (ibid) I can attest that Remington is right on this. I have seen some of the memoranda at the Dallas Public Library. Before a witness testified the Commission had notes arranged like bullet points as to what the witness would say on specific evidentiary points. It would seem that this is why witnesses were pre-interviewed – sometimes repeatedly – by the FBI, the Secret Service, and sometimes both. One can argue that this preparation occurs at trials today all the time. But at an actual trial, the witness is also cross-examined by the opposing lawyer. No rigorous cross-examination on Oswald's behalf ever happened during the Commission hearings.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

I notice that Lance Payette likes to play it soft here as a "lawyer" - oh, I'm just an objective lawyer here and I do legal work, and I have no vested interest in this and don't care who Kennedy was or is and I'm oh-so objective...blah blah blah...

So I'll leave you with this Lance...

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62268#relPageId=29

This is one of your best buds - a fellow lawyer and with the backing of the full force of the US government and the media elite, this is what the full force of the US government is saying after the one and sole suspect had been gunned down on live TV in front of a city's entire police force by an "upstanding" citizen who shed a tear or two for the murdered president's wife.

Now ask yourself this Lance - if the US government had truly been crying about the loss of their slain president, do you think one of its top lawyers would have ever written a memo like the above if they truly and honorably had every vested interest in finding out what happened on 11/22?

Let's take away some of things we know - and none of the people below means these people planned the murder; it's simply a way of showing how vigorously (or not) they - the most powerful people in the US government - were going to pursue what happened:

Allen Dulles - Kennedy fired his ass because he misled him on the Bay of Pigs; he later is quoted as saying "That Kennedy fellow really thought he was going to be president."

Johnson - couldn't stand the Kennedys

Hoover - also couldn't stand the Kennedys and it was rumored that Kennedy was going to fire his ass after the '64 election.

So let's change hats for a minutes - let's say that these three guys above absolutely loved Kennedy like Obama seems to love Biden and vice versa.  Do you really truly think that the memo link above would have been written? To just "cut off all speculation" of conspiracy? Do you not see that this memo pretty much is the government's marching orders on how to conduct the Warren investigation in the ensuing months?

I think not. I think they would have put the full force of the investigation into play and would have found out everything that had happened. But because that's not the case, there was relief and joy that he was out of the way and business as usual could return. And so doing what lawyers do best, twisting and turning and sweeping and muddling, they could twist a line of testimony here, cajole or threaten a witness there, and POOF we have the Warren Report which remarkably meets the same guidelines down to a "T" of what Katzenbach wrote in his memo seven months before.
 

This is a thread about Howard Brennan's participation in a line-up.  You apparently want to escalate it to a discussion of the entire assassination.  I hope you don't think you are educating me with the Katzenbach memo or your breaking news about Dulles, Johnson and Hoover.  I've been in and out of the JFK assassination for at least 40 years.  Although my interest has never been at the level of an obsession, I'm not exactly a tabula rasa.

By the time the Katzenbach memo was written (November 25), I believe a determination had already been made to keep the lid on the Lone Nut theory.  I believe there are several reasons why this was the case:  One, working backwards from the Texas Theatre to the murder of Tippit to the 6th floor sniper's nest, I believe the authorities genuinely believed the assassination was the work of a Lone Nut.  Two, I believe the authorities were concerned about the possible consequences for the country if the public believed the assassination were the work of a foreign, domestic left-wing or domestic right-wing conspiracy.  Third, I believe the authorities feared the embarrassment to themselves if LHO's connections with the FBI were exposed.  Particularly in light of the second and third considerations, I believe the authorities were willing to sacrifice the greater certainty that a more in-depth investigation would have provided for a quick, clean Lone Nut conclusion.  This approach does not strike me as entirely unreasonable.  The Katzenbach memo, I believe, just put words to what was already being discussed and implemented.

Is it possible there was an assassination conspiracy?  Certainly - anything from a small-scale conspiracy that was merely one step up from a Lone Nut to a full-tilt Deep Politics conspiracy involving all the usual suspects.  Is it possible there was a cover-up conspiracy?  Certainly - anything from one merely designed to keep the lid on the Lone Nut theory to an elaborate one directly tied to the assassination conspiracy.  Was the WC interested in any of that?  No, for the reasons stated above.

Is it possible everyone was bound-and-determined to keep the lid on the Lone Nut theory for the reasons stated above - but the Lone Nut theory was, in fact, correct?  Indeed it is.  The fact that so many people hated JFK that a conspiracy seems entirely plausible does not mean one occurred.  LHO may have realized killing JFK would be such a popular act that it played right into his warped fantasies.  We don't know - that's why we continue to investigate and debate the evidence.

I'm not sure what point you think you are making with your emphasis on me being a lawyer.  Am I supposed to be offended by the Katzenbach memo?  Am I supposed to be outraged that the authorities didn't bring the country to a standstill and risk civil war or World War III by investigating and proving The Grand Conspiracy we all "know" there was?  I am quite sure that my emotional investment in the assassination of JFK, in the Lone Nut theory, or in any conspiracy theory, does not even approach that of many participants here.  Many of the folks here seem to have an emotional investment that strikes me as almost pathological, but so be it.  I don't, but so be it - and so what?

Edited January 15, 2017 by Guest

[David Von Pein]

James DiEugenio said:

...during a reconstruction it turned out that Brennan had problems seeing at a distance...

And yet we KNOW that Brennan was able to see well enough to identify both Norman and Jarman as two of the black men he saw on the fifth floor, just one floor below the sniper's window. And Brennan IDed those men within minutes of the shooting. So don't give me the bunk about Brennan making up that part of his story later on.

Plus, DiEugenio is surely aware that Brennan's problems with his eyesight only occurred AFTER the assassination. His eyes were injured in a sandblasting accident in early 1964, months after he had already seen Oswald kill the President from the Depository.

Jim DiEugenio, of course, doesn't care one whit about logical questions like:

What useful purpose did it serve for the cops to pretend Brennan was at a lineup?

and....

If there was never a long brown bag in the first place, then why didn't Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle make sure to make their MAKE-BELIEVE BAG big enough to hold Oswald's rifle?

Such questions are totally brushed aside by conspiracy fantasist James DiEugenio of Los Angeles. He'd rather ignore such reasonable inquiries. Jimbo, after all, hasn't yet reached 1,000 on his Liars List yet. (But he must be getting close to that number by now.)

 

Edited January 15, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Now please play close attention to the following:

I would simply point out:

• You did not respond to any of my points.
• You do not seem to realize that Griggs was completely unaware of the DPD sheet showing Brennan's and Sorrel's attendance at a line-up.
• You did not address DVP's or my challenge to explain how the record we have - the line-up sheet, the FBI reports, and Brennan's fumbling, hemming-and-hawing WC testimony - fits with any notion that he was being carefully managed or any notion that there was some conspiracy to make him a star witness against LHO.

I really and truly question whether you even read posts that challenge your views.  "He just likes to hear himself talk" is a phrase that comes to mind.

Over and out, at least for this thread.

[James DiEugenio]

Now let me continue with why the last quote in my review of Remington is important.

Within the canon of legal ethics there is a difference between preparing a witness, and COACHING a witness.  The last is not allowed, and is a reason for disbarment proceedings.

In my book, Reclaiming Parkland I indicated two instances of this technique. On pages 143-46, I discuss Arlen Specter's numerous meetings with the autopsy doctors and how he arranged for them to give false testimony through the Rydberg drawings and how in fact Rydberg was deliberately chosen for the simple reasons of his youth and inexperience.  So he would go along with the charade, which he does not do today.

The other instance where I detail this is on pages 225-27.  This is my discussion on the whole set up of Ruby going into the police station to murder Oswald.  There, with help from Greg Parker, i dissect how the FBI and Secret Service got Bruce and Karen to go along with the "urgent" phone call for Ruby to make the wire transfer on Sunday morning.  The agents were intent on creating the  urgency of the wire and the call not being Ruby's idea.  They badgered Bruce at all hours of the night, and they actually got him fired from his job until he capitulated. Karen was interviewed by the SS seven times. To the point that on the witness stand she said she could not be certain about anything anymore.  The couple brought a lawyer with them.

This is why it is the  height of irresponsibility to  rely only on the WC testimony.  Because with the force of the FBI and SS, plus the cooperation of the WC Troika, they did not care how they achieved their end result. If they had to abuse and coach witnesses on what to say, they did.

I would think a lawyer would have some ethical reservations about those tactics.

 

Edited January 15, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

Michael Walton said:

So I'll leave you with this Lance...

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62268#relPageId=29

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-971.html

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOUXJRSDlsaVk0MTg/view

 

Edited January 15, 2017 by David Von Pein