Jump to content
The Education Forum

Brennan's lineup


Steve Thomas
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

From the link you provided David, I checked the one for Callaway and Guinyard and they both mention the lineup in that too...

So I reckon Steve was meaning something else.

I doubt it. Steve very likely just overlooked the "lineup" references in Guinyard's and Callaway's affidavits.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:

I doubt it. Steve very likely just overlooked the "lineup" references in Guinyard's and Callaway's affidavits.

That's a possibility, hopefully he can confirm. ;)

By the way I did just come across a hand written version by Virginia Davis

0126-001.gif

Is it possible that she wrote that in the presence of Dhority before the line up and then went back to it and added the last line (the only reference to the lineup) and then it was 'sent to be 'typed' up'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And to follow on, here is Callaway's handwritten notes (presumably taken before his lineup)

0081-001.gif

And here is his 'typed up' affadavit from after the line up...

2825-001.gif

The only difference then is the part about the lineup, so with Callaway a 'statement' was taken before his lineup, then after the lineup an 'offical' affadavit was typed up from his previous statement and also added the part about the lineup which happened after the original hand written statement was made. (hope that makes sense)...

My presumption then is that with Barbara Davis her hand written statement was indeed taken before the line up (as Brown testified) and the bit about the lineup was added after the lineup and then it was typed up as an 'official' affadavit.

Makes sense to me at least. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

I doubt it. Steve very likely just overlooked the "lineup" references in Guinyard's and Callaway's affidavits.

David,

 

I was relying on Dhority and Brown's after action reports in the DPD Archives Box 3, Folder# 5, Item# 11 and Box 3, Folder# 3, Folder# 6, Item# 5

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box3.htm

 

Steve Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

 I think a lot is to be gained by stepping back and saying, "Wait a minute?  What is really going on here?  What agenda is being promoted? 

Lance,

 

I can't answer that, but I do know that an attempt was made to alter the Dallas Police Department records in some respects. You can see this reflected with respect to whether or not an interrogation of Oswald took place at 12:35 on Saturday the 23rd.

 

Compare Fritz's version in CE 2003 and Appendix XI of the Warren Report with the DPD version in Box's 5 and 15. Someone went into the DPD Archives after the Warren Report and its 26 volumes of the Hearings and Exhibits were published and tried to change them.

 

CE 2003 p. 268&269

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140#relPageId=286&tab=page

 

Warren Report Appendix XI p. 607&608

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=631&tab=page

 

 

DPD Archives Box 5, Folder# 3, Item# 3 pp. 9&10

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box5.htm

 

DPD Archives, Box 15, Folder# 1, Item# 111 pp. 9&10

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box15.htm

 

As to who did this and why, I can't say.

 

Steve Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steve Thomas said:

Compare Fritz's version in CE 2003 and Appendix XI of the Warren Report with the DPD version in Box's 5 and 15. Someone went into the DPD Archives after the Warren Report and its 26 volumes of the Hearings and Exhibits were published and tried to change them.

 

Just to ask for clarity (as I'm not sure I am fully understanding here) are you saying that the DPD version has been changed, and the evidence of that is that the CE2003 version is clearly a photocopy of the DPD archive version, but the DPD archive version has 'hand written 'notes' on it that aren't on the 'photocopied' version and thus that shows that the DPD Archive version has been changed afterwards?

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Lance,

 

I can't answer that, but I do know that an attempt was made to alter the Dallas Police Department records in some respects. You can see this reflected with respect to whether or not an interrogation of Oswald took place at 12:35 on Saturday the 23rd.

 

"An attempt was made to alter" has sinister implications to me.  When we trace through the documents, I think the correct phrase would be "drafts were edited" before the transmittal of the final report to the WC.

The "alterations" to which you refer all appear to be handwritten notations on typed pages.  The document with the handwritten notations in Box 5, Folder 3, Item 3 is described as "Interrogation, by an unknown author. Draft of interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald, (Original), date unknown."  The document in Box 15, Folder 1, Item 111, which appears to be identical, is described as "Interrogation, by J. W. Fritz.  Draft of the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald, (Photocopy  Poor Quality), date unknown."  A much earlier, and much more heavily annotated, version of the same report is in Box 1, Folder 15, Item 1.  This latter document appears to be an early draft, almost like it has been typed from a dictation tape, because it is really heavily edited.  It is described as "Interrogation, by an unknown author. Typed rough draft with handwritten corrections pertaining to the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald, (Original), date unknown."  None of these documents was transmitted to the WC.  The final version of the report as transmitted to the WC is part of CE 2003, and it of course is a clean typed document with no handwritten notations.  Unless I missed it, it is not among the documents at the City site at all.

In the pages you cited, the only genuine alteration would be crossing out "12:35" and inserting "6 p.m." on page 9 (which I realize is no small change).  In the margin is written "3rd Int."  On page 10, "3rd" is written over what appears to be "Bookhout."  Page 11 has even more noticeable annotations - http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/13/1376-011.gif.   "4th Int." is written in the margin.  Above the name of Holmes in the text is written "Ins. Holmes - Sorrels - Bookout [sic]."  It would appear that someone was trying to figure out the correct sequence of the interviews.  I would assume this related to the controversy as to how LHO could have been questioned about the backyard photos before they supposedly were discovered.

I see that the DPD documents were transmitted to the City in 1989 and 1992.  The earliest inventories in Box 1 include documents as late as 1968.  The last boxes contain documents from the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s.  It thus is possible that the notations referred to in the above paragraph were made after the transmittal of the final report to the WC.  Since those notations seem to reflect someone who is thinking "There is something wrong with this sequence," and the change from 12:35 to 6 p.m. was not made in the document transmitted to the WC, I would think that after-the-fact notations are likely.  Yes, the documents in Box 5 and Box 15 are described as "drafts" at the City site, but they also say "date unknown."  In other words, my guess would be they were mistaken for drafts but are actually after-the-fact notations on a retained copy of the final report that had previously been transmitted to the WC.  The one in Box 1 is definitely a pre-WC draft.

I'll let others speculate as to whether there is anything sinister about all this, but it doesn't strike me that way.

Even in his earliest draft, Fritz attempted to cover himself regarding potential confusion in the sequence:

0412-012.gif

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to close the loop on this endlessly fascinating (NOT) topic:

None of the four line-up cards found in Box 6, Folder 1, Item 73 (which includes the one indicating Brennan failed to identify LHO at line-up #3) were transmitted to the WC.  These appear to have been something like index cards, one for each line-up.  What was transmitted to the WC and is included in CE 2003 appears to be a single page combining the information on the four cards (omitting, of course, the reference to Brennan).

Fritz appears to have been present only at the Markham line-up (#1) at 4:35 on Nov. 22nd.

It thus makes sense that when Sorrels later called Fritz to get the time of the line up, Fritz had to ask Sorrels who was there.  Frizt then would have consulted the time of the line-up for the Davis sisters-in-law, and this would have given Sorrels the time for Brennan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LP: This actually is an important point.  I've been struck by the approach of the more extreme segments of the conspiracy community, and this absolutely explains it.  They are not truth-seekers, but rather defense attorneys. 

 

What a bunch of utter crapola.  Davey pulls an old quote from me out of context, twists its meaning on his site, and then good ole card sharp lawyer Lance tries to pile it on.

No one is ever going to know for sure what happened in this case, for the simple reason that the WC screwed it up so badly that the thing is simply  a mess.  But we can prove that in spades: namely that the WC deliberately screwed up the evidence and made a verdict that was not deductive from the evidence.  Ford admitted hat to Giscard D'Estaing.  A point DVP runs from.

So therefore, what we can do is give Oswald the defense that he never got.  I guess Lance and DVP do not like that.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 And BTW, all Alistair is doing is putting together a narrative to fit what he thinks the facts are:  "The room was darkened and he was shoehorned in and it was for TIppit slaying etc."

If he wants to do that then fine. And I can see why Davey would play the leaping exegete to that.

But that does not cover all the problems that Ian pointed out in his essay, and that DVP and Lance want to paper over, and the latter wants to play dumb about.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

 And BTW, all Alistair is doing is putting together a narrative to fit what he thinks the facts are:  "The room was darkened and he was shoehorned in and it was for TIppit slaying etc."

If he wants to do that then fine. And I can see why Davey would play the leaping exegete to that.

But that does not cover all the problems that Ian pointed out in his essay, and that DVP and Lance want to paper over, and the latter wants to play dumb about.

James,

when you mention the 'problems that Ian pointed out in his essay' are you referring solely to the 7 points you posted in this comment HERE or is there more to it than that?

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

LP: This actually is an important point.  I've been struck by the approach of the more extreme segments of the conspiracy community, and this absolutely explains it.  They are not truth-seekers, but rather defense attorneys. 

 

What a bunch of utter crapola.  Davey pulls an old quote from me out of context, twists its meaning on his site, and then good ole card sharp lawyer Lance tries to pile it on.

No one is ever going to know for sure what happened in this case, for the simple reason that the WC screwed it up so badly that the thing is simply  a mess.  But we can prove that in spades: namely that the WC deliberately screwed up the evidence and made a verdict that was not deductive from the evidence.  Ford admitted hat to Giscard D'Estaing.  A point DVP runs from.

So therefore, what we can do is give Oswald the defense that he never got.  I guess Lance and DVP do not like that.

 

I'm not suggesting the WC did a model investigation.  But no commission like that would ever permit things to be sidetracked by allowing someone like Mark Lane to play defense lawyer for a dead client; the hearings would have lasted 15 years and ended in utter confusion.  Even today, surely all this is not about giving dead patsy LHO the defense he never got?  If I were on a jury today, and truly applying the demanding legal standard, I'd probably vote "not guilty" because there seem to be enough questions to constitute reasonable doubt - but I'd probably go home being convinced LHO did it or was at least an intimate part of it.  (I say this as someone who has read none of the Lone Nut literature but tons of the conspiracy literature - more than a jury would ever be permitted to hear.  Perhaps if I heard a full prosecution case I'd vote "guilty.")

By no means do I believe the WC railroaded LHO.  I believe the WC was a relatively quick, cursory investigation with a foregone conclusion for the three reasons stated in my post that you quoted ("relatively" meaning it was quick and cursory in comparison to what it might have been - it was hardly quick or cursory as such investigations go).  I believe those were, individually and cumulatively, legitimate reasons.

Any efforts today surely should be aimed at nailing down the truth, let the chips fall where they may - not "giving Oswald the defense he never got."  If one starts with the defense mentality, one is going to end up doing what defense attorneys do - i.e., sowing as much confusion as possible, the truth be damned.  And that's what I see from the extreme segments of the conspiracy community - sowing confusion wherever and whenever possible, sometimes without regard to whether it even makes sense (and often with disdain for their conspiracy brethren who have conflicting theories and equally high mountains of dubious "evidence").

All the wild, mutually contradictory conspiracy theories that have been floated over the past 50 years and are still being floated today, all the wild "evidence" supporting each of those theories, all the sniping and hostility that exists within the JFK research community today - yeah, that's what the WC would have looked like if the objective had been to give LHO the defense he never got.

And now I'm going to take a break and read Case Closed, which I've actually never read.  Still working on that Lone Nut merit badge, DVP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alistair Briggs said:

James,

when you mention the 'problems that Ian pointed out in his essay' are you referring solely to the 7 points you posted in this comment HERE or is there more to it than that?

Regards

I know your question isn't addressed to me, but I have Griggs' book right in front of me (on Kindle) and have read the section on Brennan several times.  He was unaware of the line-up card we have identified.  He has nothing but what Jim has already discussed.  He concludes that either Brennan attended no line-up or that all references were expunged because he had failed to identify LHO.  Neither of which, in light of the line-up card, the references in the FBI reports, and Brennan's WC testimony, makes any sense whatsoever as far as I can tell or would be consistent with any conspiracy theory I can fathom.  Please, True Believers, explain this deep dark issue to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

No one is ever going to know for sure what happened in this case, for the simple reason that the WC screwed it up so badly that the thing is simply a mess.  

Talk about utter crapola. The WC did a very good job at getting at the truth. And the reason we can know that they did a good job is because after 50+ years of CTers trying desperately to uncover a conspiracy, they have failed miserably at achieving that goal. Ergo, the WC's Lone Assassin conclusion is still erect and holding up very well. (A CTer's whining about it notwithstanding, of course.)

 

Quote

But we can prove that in spades: namely that the WC deliberately screwed up the evidence and made a verdict that was not deductive from the evidence.

LOL. What a crock. Based on the evidence the WC had, which all pointed to LHO, what should they have concluded, Jim? Should they have just IGNORED all that evidence and declared Oswald innocent (just like you have been doing for 20+ years)?

Edited by David Von Pein
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...