Steve Roe Consulting

[David Von Pein]

16 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Euins is neither more nor less believable than Brennan. That is the nature of so much witness testimony in the JFKA.

Cherry-picking is allowed....

Well, Benjamin, when comparing the two choices of assassins provided by Euins and Brennan, and then looking at all that other stuff in evidence that all screams "OSWALD"....which witness is more likely to be correct---Euins or Brennan?

And they obviously can't BOTH be correct, right?

Not a difficult choice at all.

And Euins, in my opinion, got his floors mixed up. He didn't see a black man on the sixth floor. The "black man" he saw was on the fifth floor.

Edited July 11, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Benjamin Cole]

25 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Well, Benjamin, when comparing the two choices of assassins provided by Euins and Brennan, and then looking at all that other stuff in evidence that all screams "OSWALD"....which witness is more likely to be correct---Euins or Brennan?

And they obviously can't BOTH be correct, right?

Not a difficult choice at all.

And Euins, in my opinion, got his floors mixed up. He didn't see a black man on the sixth floor. The "black man" he saw was on the fifth floor.

Euins actually declined to ID the race of the shooter he saw. 

Which is interesting. Euins said he saw the man extend a pipe-like object from the window. 

Euins, like Gov. Connally, also said reports from the weapon were too rapid to have been from a single-shot bolt-action rifle. 

Was something wrong with Euins' hearing? 

Cherry-picking witnesses and testimony is easy...and a mug's game.  

There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence that LHO was in the TSBD, and involved in something 11/22. 

There is also a ton of hard evidence of shots fired too rapidly to have been issued from a lone single-shot bolt-action rifle on 11/22. 

Such as JBC doing a 180-degree turn in his seat, after JFK appears to have been struck in the throat. In your version, after JBC was shot through the chest also. JBC was just unaware he had been shot through the chest. 

Does that hold water? 

And then JBC being thrust forward violently about Z-295. 

What caused JBC to be violently pushed forward? 

Whatever pushed JBC forward violently is invisible....

 

 

Edited July 11, 2022 by Benjamin Cole

[Benjamin Cole]

Well, too much to re-paste here, but it seems Brennan's observations about LHO are malleable, to put it mildly. 

https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/Brennan.htm

Brennan himself says he saw LHO on TV, and that may have triggered the thought or false memory he saw LHO in the TSBD. 

From an FBI report:

He (Brennan) said that another factor which made him hesitate to make a positive identification of Oswald in the police line-up was that prior to appearing at the police line-up on November 22, 1963, he had observed a picture of Oswald on his television set at home when his daughter asked him to watch it. He said that he felt that since he had seen Oswald on television before picking Oswald out of the line-up at the police station that it tended to "cloud" any identification he made of Oswald at that time.

---30---

Oh dear. Brennan saw LHO on TV as the captured assassin?

And what are the khaki colored clothes about? 

This is the best witness placing LHO in the TSBD window?  Brennan estimated he was 90 yards from the TSBD at the time of shooting.

And Connally did a 180-degree turn in his seat and peered at JFK...after being shot through the chest? 

 

And yes, Brennan did not pick LHO out of the police line-up on 11/22. 

 

Edited July 12, 2022 by Benjamin Cole

[Pat Speer]

11 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Well, Benjamin, when comparing the two choices of assassins provided by Euins and Brennan, and then looking at all that other stuff in evidence that all screams "OSWALD"....which witness is more likely to be correct---Euins or Brennan?

And they obviously can't BOTH be correct, right?

Not a difficult choice at all.

And Euins, in my opinion, got his floors mixed up. He didn't see a black man on the sixth floor. The "black man" he saw was on the fifth floor.

A couple of points. 

1: The rifle was not wiped down. This is something you invented so you could have it both ways. 

2. If you're claiming Euins was confused when he said he saw a black man, you are acknowledging he said he saw a black man, when several police officers swore he did not. The only say-so that he said as much comes from two members of the press. If they were telling the truth it would mean the police lied. Are you acknowledging, then, that some of the police lied?

From patspeer,com, chapter 7b

Amos Euins. Beyond the confusion as to Euins' location during the shooting, there is considerable confusion over Euins' earliest statements, and whether or not he said the shooter was a white man or a black man. Statements regarding his identification of the shooter's race have been highlighted. (11-22-63 report to KRLD and CBS by Jim Underwood, about 30 minutes after the assassination) "As I told you earlier, a youngster said that he saw a colored man fire three times from the window of that building... one of the officers found a small colored boy who said he that he saw a man fire from about the fourth floor window of the school book depository building." (Note: this officer was D.V. Harkness, who never confirmed nor denied Underwood's claim Euins said the shooter was black.) (11-22-63 signed statement to the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, 16H963, 19H474) “I saw the President turn the corner in front of me and I waived at him and he waived back. I watched the car on down the street and about the time the car got near the black and white sign I heard a shot. I started looking around and then I looked up in the red brick building. I saw a man in the window with a gun and I saw him shoot twice…I could tell the gun was a rifle and it sounded like an automatic rifle the way he was shooting. This was a white man, he did not have on a hat. I just saw this man for a few seconds. As far as I know, I had never seen this man before.” (11-29-63 memorandum from SA Leo Robertson in the Dallas FBI files, as found in the Weisberg Archives) "Amos Lee Euins...advised that on the day of the assassination he was standing on the the northeast corner of the intersection of Elm and Houston Streets. He stated that the car in which the President was riding had turned the corner and was proceeding on down Elm. He stated since he could no longer see the President's car, he happened to glance up and noticed what appeared to be the barrel of a rifle protruding from a window near the top of the Texas School Book Depository Building. He stated he saw a man's hand on what appeared to be the rifle stock and that he knew it was a rifle because he heard the shots fired. He stated he could not tell anything about the man and that he never saw anything other than what appeared to be his hand on the stock." (12-14-63 FBI report, CD205 p12) "He said after the President's car started down the hill, he heard what he thought was a car backfire and he looked around and also glanced at the TSBD building, and on the fifth floor where he he had seen what he thought to be a metal rod, he noticed a rifle in the window and saw the second and third shots fired. He stated he saw a man's hand on what appeared to be the trigger housing and he could also see a bald spot on the man's head. He stated he did not see the face of this individual and could not identify him. He said he was sure this man was white, because his hand extended outside the window on the rifle. He stated he also heard what he believes was a fourth shot, and that the individual in the window, after firing the fourth shot, began looking around and he (EUINS) at this time hid behind a concrete partition. He said he saw this individual withdraw his rifle and step back in the window... Euins advised he could not distinguish the features of the man standing at the window, and as he had previously stated, he only saw his hand and a bald spot on his head." (12-23-63 FBI report, CD205 p.i) “Amos Lee Euins, age 14, states saw white man…in window…with rifle after first shot and observed this man fire second and third shots and what he believes may have been a fourth shot.” (3-10-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 2H201-210) ‘then when the first shot was fired, I started looking around, thinking it was backfire. Everybody else started looking round. Then I looked up at the window, and he shot again... I got behind this little fountain, and then he shot again. (When asked how many shots he heard) “I believe there was four to be exact…After he shot the first two times, I was just standing back here. And then after he shot again, he pulled the gun back in the window. And then all the police ran back over here in the track vicinity… The first shot I was standing here… And as I looked up there, you know, he fired another shot, you know, as I was looking. So I got behind this fountain thing right in there, at this point B… I got behind there.  And then I watched, he did fire again. Then he started looking down towards my way, and then he fired again.” (When asked what he saw in the building) "I seen a bald spot on this man's head, trying to look out the window. He had a bald spot on his head. I was looking at the bald spot. I could see his hand, you know the rifle laying across in his hand. And I could see his hand sticking out on the trigger part. And after he got through, he just pulled it back in the window." (When asked what kind of a look he got at the shooter) "All I got to see was the man with a spot in his head, because he had his head something like this." (When asked for the record if he means the man was looking down the rifle) "Yes, sir, and I could see the spot on his head." (When asked to describe the man) "I wouldn't know how to describe him, because all I could see was the spot and his hand." (When if he was slender or fat) "I didn't get to see him." (When asked if he could if he was tall or short) "No." (When asked the man's race) "I couldn't tell, because these boxes were  throwing a reflection, shaded." (When asked if he could tell if the man was black or white) "No, sir." (When asked by an incredulous Arlen Specter 'Couldn't even tell that? But you have described that he had a bald--) "Spot in his head. Yes, sir; I could see the bald spot in his head." (When asked if he could tell the color of the man's hair) "No, sir." (When asked if he could tell if his hair was dark or light) "No, sir." (When asked how far back the bald spot stretched) "I would say about right along in here." (Specter then asks: "Indicating about 2 1/2 inches above where you hairline is. Is that about what you are saying? To which Euins responds) "Yes, sir; right along in here." (When asked again if he'd got a good look at the man) "No, sir; I did not." (When asked if he could tell anything about the man's clothes) "No, sir." (Specter then reads Euins the statement he'd signed in which he claimed the shooter was a white man. He is then asked if the statement refreshes his memory) "No, sir; I told the man that I could see a white spot on his head, but I didn't actually say it was a white man. I said I couldn't tell. But I saw a white spot in his head." (When then asked if his best recollection was that he doesn't know if the man was a white man or a negro) "Yes, sir." (When then asked if he'd told the police he'd seen a white man, or if they'd made a mistake) "They must have made a mistake, because I told them I could see a white spot on his head."

(4-1-64 testimony before the Warren Commission of KRLD reporter James Underwood) (Describing the aftermath of the shooting, 6H167-171) "I ran down there and I think I took some pictures of some men--yes, I know I did, going in and out of the building. By that time there was one police officer there and he was a three-wheeled motorcycle officer and a little colored boy whose last name I remember as Eunice." (When asked "Euins?") "It may have been Euins. It was difficult to understand when he said his name. He was telling the motorcycle officer he had seen a colored man lean out of the window upstairs and he had a rifle. He was telling this to the officer and the officer took him over and put him in a squad car. By that time, motorcycle officers were arriving, homicide officers were arriving and I went over and asked this boy if he had seen someone with a rifle and he said "Yes, sir." I said, "Were they white or black?" He said, "It was a colored man." I said, "Are you sure it was a colored man?" He said, "Yes, sir" and I asked him his name and the only thing I could understand was what I thought his name was Eunice." (4-9-64 testimony before the Warren Commission of officer D.V. Harkness, 6H308-315) (When asked by David Belin if he remembered anything Euins had told him beyond that the shots had come from the sniper's nest window) "No, sir." (When then asked if Euins had said he'd seen a rifle.) "He couldn't tell." (Note that this last response is at odds with Euins' own statements, and suggests Harkness was being deliberately vague about Euins' statements to him outside the building. Well, this in turn, suggests Euins DID tell Harkness he saw a black man, and that Harkness was under pressure to deny Euins told him anything beyond that the shots came from the sniper's nest. Or not. It also seems possible Harkness was anticipating Belin's asking him about Euins' statements regarding the race of the shooter, and responded to that question instead of the one in the transcript--about the rifle.) (March 1964 account of Dallas Morning News reporter Kent Biffle, reporting on the witnesses he saw and heard in Dealey Plaza just after the shooting on 11-22-63, published in an 11-19-78 Dallas Times Herald article, and subsequently published in JFK Assassination: The Reporters' Notes, 2013) (After first running to the grassy knoll to see what was going on) "I ran east toward the Texas School Book Depository. 'A policeman was talking to a black boy. 'It was a colored man done it. I saw him' the boy was saying. The boy was pointing toward the upper levels of the building." (5-7-64 testimony before the Warren Commission of Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrels, 7H332-350) (When asked if he'd interviewed Euins in Dealey Plaza a short period after the shots had been fired) "Yes, sir; I did. And he also said that he had heard the noise there, and that he had looked up and saw the man at the window with the rifle, and I asked him if he could identify the person, and he said, no, he couldn't, he said he couldn't tell whether he was colored or white." (11-21-64 AP article found in the Brandon Manitoba Sun) "Amos Lee Euins, 16, schoolboy who went with friends to the end of the motorcade route because he thought they could get a better view than in the crowds downtown. He saw the president fine. And also saw a rifle being withdrawn from the sixth floor of the Depository. Ever since the phone has been ringing at the Euins home. Often it is a man with a heavy voice saying "Amos better be careful with what he says. I have a complete copy of what he told police." "I got a phone call just last week," said Amos' mother, Eva, 40. "Twenty minutes later he called back. It sounded like the same heavy voice. I don't think it's a prank "cuz no grown man is going to play that much. It. makes me uneasy, it really does." The Euins' told police but didn't ask for protection and none was offered. There have been a lot of crank calls to figures in the assassination. Meanwhile at the Euins home a light burns on the front and back porches all night. Amos doesn't usually take the bus to school. Members of the family take him by car. He isn't allowed to roam too far alone. Amos does not appear concerned over the calls." (12-15-64 interview with Dallas Police Officer J. Herbert Sawyer as reported in FBI File 105-82555, sec. 224, p39) "Sawyer continued that only one other person was brought to him who had reportedly seen the assassin. This person was a young negro boy named Euins. However, upon talking to this youth, it was determined that the boy could not describe the subject, not even to the detail as to whether the man he had seen had been a white man or a negro."

Edited July 11, 2022 by Pat Speer

[James DiEugenio]

14 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

BTW- Ruth Paine was either "misremembering" or dissembling when she denied that she had spoken to Oliver Stone in Max Goode's movie. In 2013, I asked Oliver at the Wecht 50th anniversary program why he had changed the names of the Paines to Williams but did not change the names of any other important characters. He said it was because the Paines threatened to sue him and his production company.

Too bad Max did not know this when he interviewed her.  She made it sound like Oliver was either afraid to contact her or ignored her because she would contradict his thesis. Even if it was the Paines' lawyer who contacted Stone, her statement was inaccurate. And she did that laugh when she said that which is her "tell" when she is being evasive.

I wish Max had also grilled her on the phone message from the employment office. She was evasive with Liebler who was not interested in getting a straight answer.  

Thanks for this Larry.

Oliver did not tell me it was that bad.  He just said that she refused to talk to him.

But now his other comment makes sense.  He added, "And you can take that to the bank."

[Benjamin Cole]

9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

A couple of points. 

1: The rifle was not wiped down. This is something you invented so you could have it both ways. 

2. If you're claiming Euins was confused when he said he saw a black man, you are acknowledging he said he saw a black man, when several police officers swore he did not. The only say-so that he said as much comes from two members of the press. If they were telling the truth it would mean the police lied. Are you acknowledging, then, that some of the police lied?

From patspeer,com, chapter 7b

Amos Euins. Beyond the confusion as to Euins' location during the shooting, there is considerable confusion over Euins' earliest statements, and whether or not he said the shooter was a white man or a black man. Statements regarding his identification of the shooter's race have been highlighted. (11-22-63 report to KRLD and CBS by Jim Underwood, about 30 minutes after the assassination) "As I told you earlier, a youngster said that he saw a colored man fire three times from the window of that building... one of the officers found a small colored boy who said he that he saw a man fire from about the fourth floor window of the school book depository building." (Note: this officer was D.V. Harkness, who never confirmed nor denied Underwood's claim Euins said the shooter was black.) (11-22-63 signed statement to the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, 16H963, 19H474) “I saw the President turn the corner in front of me and I waived at him and he waived back. I watched the car on down the street and about the time the car got near the black and white sign I heard a shot. I started looking around and then I looked up in the red brick building. I saw a man in the window with a gun and I saw him shoot twice…I could tell the gun was a rifle and it sounded like an automatic rifle the way he was shooting. This was a white man, he did not have on a hat. I just saw this man for a few seconds. As far as I know, I had never seen this man before.” (11-29-63 memorandum from SA Leo Robertson in the Dallas FBI files, as found in the Weisberg Archives) "Amos Lee Euins...advised that on the day of the assassination he was standing on the the northeast corner of the intersection of Elm and Houston Streets. He stated that the car in which the President was riding had turned the corner and was proceeding on down Elm. He stated since he could no longer see the President's car, he happened to glance up and noticed what appeared to be the barrel of a rifle protruding from a window near the top of the Texas School Book Depository Building. He stated he saw a man's hand on what appeared to be the rifle stock and that he knew it was a rifle because he heard the shots fired. He stated he could not tell anything about the man and that he never saw anything other than what appeared to be his hand on the stock." (12-14-63 FBI report, CD205 p12) "He said after the President's car started down the hill, he heard what he thought was a car backfire and he looked around and also glanced at the TSBD building, and on the fifth floor where he he had seen what he thought to be a metal rod, he noticed a rifle in the window and saw the second and third shots fired. He stated he saw a man's hand on what appeared to be the trigger housing and he could also see a bald spot on the man's head. He stated he did not see the face of this individual and could not identify him. He said he was sure this man was white, because his hand extended outside the window on the rifle. He stated he also heard what he believes was a fourth shot, and that the individual in the window, after firing the fourth shot, began looking around and he (EUINS) at this time hid behind a concrete partition. He said he saw this individual withdraw his rifle and step back in the window... Euins advised he could not distinguish the features of the man standing at the window, and as he had previously stated, he only saw his hand and a bald spot on his head." (12-23-63 FBI report, CD205 p.i) “Amos Lee Euins, age 14, states saw white man…in window…with rifle after first shot and observed this man fire second and third shots and what he believes may have been a fourth shot.” (3-10-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 2H201-210) ‘then when the first shot was fired, I started looking around, thinking it was backfire. Everybody else started looking round. Then I looked up at the window, and he shot again... I got behind this little fountain, and then he shot again. (When asked how many shots he heard) “I believe there was four to be exact…After he shot the first two times, I was just standing back here. And then after he shot again, he pulled the gun back in the window. And then all the police ran back over here in the track vicinity… The first shot I was standing here… And as I looked up there, you know, he fired another shot, you know, as I was looking. So I got behind this fountain thing right in there, at this point B… I got behind there.  And then I watched, he did fire again. Then he started looking down towards my way, and then he fired again.” (When asked what he saw in the building) "I seen a bald spot on this man's head, trying to look out the window. He had a bald spot on his head. I was looking at the bald spot. I could see his hand, you know the rifle laying across in his hand. And I could see his hand sticking out on the trigger part. And after he got through, he just pulled it back in the window." (When asked what kind of a look he got at the shooter) "All I got to see was the man with a spot in his head, because he had his head something like this." (When asked for the record if he means the man was looking down the rifle) "Yes, sir, and I could see the spot on his head." (When asked to describe the man) "I wouldn't know how to describe him, because all I could see was the spot and his hand." (When if he was slender or fat) "I didn't get to see him." (When asked if he could if he was tall or short) "No." (When asked the man's race) "I couldn't tell, because these boxes were  throwing a reflection, shaded." (When asked if he could tell if the man was black or white) "No, sir." (When asked by an incredulous Arlen Specter 'Couldn't even tell that? But you have described that he had a bald--) "Spot in his head. Yes, sir; I could see the bald spot in his head." (When asked if he could tell the color of the man's hair) "No, sir." (When asked if he could tell if his hair was dark or light) "No, sir." (When asked how far back the bald spot stretched) "I would say about right along in here." (Specter then asks: "Indicating about 2 1/2 inches above where you hairline is. Is that about what you are saying? To which Euins responds) "Yes, sir; right along in here." (When asked again if he'd got a good look at the man) "No, sir; I did not." (When asked if he could tell anything about the man's clothes) "No, sir." (Specter then reads Euins the statement he'd signed in which he claimed the shooter was a white man. He is then asked if the statement refreshes his memory) "No, sir; I told the man that I could see a white spot on his head, but I didn't actually say it was a white man. I said I couldn't tell. But I saw a white spot in his head." (When then asked if his best recollection was that he doesn't know if the man was a white man or a negro) "Yes, sir." (When then asked if he'd told the police he'd seen a white man, or if they'd made a mistake) "They must have made a mistake, because I told them I could see a white spot on his head."

(4-1-64 testimony before the Warren Commission of KRLD reporter James Underwood) (Describing the aftermath of the shooting, 6H167-171) "I ran down there and I think I took some pictures of some men--yes, I know I did, going in and out of the building. By that time there was one police officer there and he was a three-wheeled motorcycle officer and a little colored boy whose last name I remember as Eunice." (When asked "Euins?") "It may have been Euins. It was difficult to understand when he said his name. He was telling the motorcycle officer he had seen a colored man lean out of the window upstairs and he had a rifle. He was telling this to the officer and the officer took him over and put him in a squad car. By that time, motorcycle officers were arriving, homicide officers were arriving and I went over and asked this boy if he had seen someone with a rifle and he said "Yes, sir." I said, "Were they white or black?" He said, "It was a colored man." I said, "Are you sure it was a colored man?" He said, "Yes, sir" and I asked him his name and the only thing I could understand was what I thought his name was Eunice." (4-9-64 testimony before the Warren Commission of officer D.V. Harkness, 6H308-315) (When asked by David Belin if he remembered anything Euins had told him beyond that the shots had come from the sniper's nest window) "No, sir." (When then asked if Euins had said he'd seen a rifle.) "He couldn't tell." (Note that this last response is at odds with Euins' own statements, and suggests Harkness was being deliberately vague about Euins' statements to him outside the building. Well, this in turn, suggests Euins DID tell Harkness he saw a black man, and that Harkness was under pressure to deny Euins told him anything beyond that the shots came from the sniper's nest. Or not. It also seems possible Harkness was anticipating Belin's asking him about Euins' statements regarding the race of the shooter, and responded to that question instead of the one in the transcript--about the rifle.) (March 1964 account of Dallas Morning News reporter Kent Biffle, reporting on the witnesses he saw and heard in Dealey Plaza just after the shooting on 11-22-63, published in an 11-19-78 Dallas Times Herald article, and subsequently published in JFK Assassination: The Reporters' Notes, 2013) (After first running to the grassy knoll to see what was going on) "I ran east toward the Texas School Book Depository. 'A policeman was talking to a black boy. 'It was a colored man done it. I saw him' the boy was saying. The boy was pointing toward the upper levels of the building." (5-7-64 testimony before the Warren Commission of Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrels, 7H332-350) (When asked if he'd interviewed Euins in Dealey Plaza a short period after the shots had been fired) "Yes, sir; I did. And he also said that he had heard the noise there, and that he had looked up and saw the man at the window with the rifle, and I asked him if he could identify the person, and he said, no, he couldn't, he said he couldn't tell whether he was colored or white." (11-21-64 AP article found in the Brandon Manitoba Sun) "Amos Lee Euins, 16, schoolboy who went with friends to the end of the motorcade route because he thought they could get a better view than in the crowds downtown. He saw the president fine. And also saw a rifle being withdrawn from the sixth floor of the Depository. Ever since the phone has been ringing at the Euins home. Often it is a man with a heavy voice saying "Amos better be careful with what he says. I have a complete copy of what he told police." "I got a phone call just last week," said Amos' mother, Eva, 40. "Twenty minutes later he called back. It sounded like the same heavy voice. I don't think it's a prank "cuz no grown man is going to play that much. It. makes me uneasy, it really does." The Euins' told police but didn't ask for protection and none was offered. There have been a lot of crank calls to figures in the assassination. Meanwhile at the Euins home a light burns on the front and back porches all night. Amos doesn't usually take the bus to school. Members of the family take him by car. He isn't allowed to roam too far alone. Amos does not appear concerned over the calls." (12-15-64 interview with Dallas Police Officer J. Herbert Sawyer as reported in FBI File 105-82555, sec. 224, p39) "Sawyer continued that only one other person was brought to him who had reportedly seen the assassin. This person was a young negro boy named Euins. However, upon talking to this youth, it was determined that the boy could not describe the subject, not even to the detail as to whether the man he had seen had been a white man or a negro."

Pat S---Thank you for your exhaustive treatment of Euins. 

My point is that this business of citing cherry-picked witness statements by either LN'ers or CT'ers...is, well, cherry-picking. 

Brennan's ID of LHO is very weak. Made at 90 yards, and Brennan did not pick LHO out of a line-up on the same day. And by then Brennan had seen LHO on TV as the arrested assassin, which of course pollutes his memory.  Brennan himself say his memory could be polluted by the TV image of LHO he saw. 

Euins statement's are inconsistent, although if one assumes the Euins' affidavits are fishy, then his other comments become more consistent. 

The take-away: Witness statements are very squishy. Seemingly, squishier in the JFKA than usual. 

No one seems to have reliably ID'ed the shooter in the TSBD window (s), or shooters. 

After the JFKA, the pressure was to conclude LHO was the lone assassin. 

 

[Pat Speer]

20 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Pat S---Thank you for your exhaustive treatment of Euins. 

My point is that this business of citing cherry-picked witness statements by either LN'ers or CT'ers...is, well, cherry-picking. 

Brennan's ID of LHO is very weak. Made at 90 yards, and Brennan did not pick LHO out of a line-up on the same day. And by then Brennan had seen LHO on TV as the arrested assassin, which of course pollutes his memory.  Brennan himself say his memory could be polluted by the TV image of LHO he saw. 

Euins statement's are inconsistent, although if one assumes the Euins' affidavits are fishy, then his other comments become more consistent. 

The take-away: Witness statements are very squishy. Seemingly, squishier in the JFKA than usual. 

No one seems to have reliably ID'ed the shooter in the TSBD window (s), or shooters. 

After the JFKA, the pressure was to conclude LHO was the lone assassin. 

 

Yes, absolutely. Euins is not reliable. My best guess would be that he thought the man was white because his hand was in the sun but said he may have been black, or something equally vague, and the press jumped all over it saying he said the man was black and the DPD and FBI etc then pretended he never said anything about him being black. The smoking gun that something was afoot was that, months and months after the DPD/Sheriff's Dept. wrote up a statement from Euins saying that the man was white, several of those who talked to him on that day said he could not ID the race of the man. 

My point in the post about Brennan was to the ongoing war between LNs and CTs. The LNs insist that they are logical and consistent. But when it comes to Brennan they simply choose to believe his latter-day ID of Oswald and pretend Brennan's ID did not come with a proviso--that he only ID'ed Oswald under the belief he was not wearing the shirt the DPD and FBI and WC had decided Oswald was wearing. 

It's like a badly-programmed computer that melts down when asked a question it can not answer. 

Do you believe Brennan? They say yes. Then you say "Well he said the man he saw was not wearing the shirt the DPD, FBI, and WC said Oswald was wearing. So either Oswald was wearing the shirt, and Brennan did not ID him, or Oswald was wearing a different shirt, and the fibers on the shirt were planted. You can't have it both ways."

Complete meltdown ensues. 

There is plenty of sloppy thinking on both sides of the fence, but this one sticks out, and can be used as a litmus test to determine if someone is a serious student of the case or just a zealot reciting propaganda. 

Edited July 12, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Benjamin Cole]

30 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Yes, absolutely. Euins is not reliable. My best guess would be that he thought the man was white because his hand was in the sun but said he may have been black, or something equally vague, and the press jumped all over it saying he said the man was black and the DPD and FBI etc then pretended he never said anything about him being black. The smoking gun that something was afoot was that, months and months after the DPD/Sheriff's Dept. wrote up a statement from Euins saying that the man was white, several of those who talked to him on that day said he could not ID the race of the man. 

My point in the post about Brennan was to the ongoing war between LNs and CTs. The LNs insist that they are logical and consistent. But when it comes to Brennan they simply choose to believe his latter-day ID of Oswald and pretend Brennan's ID did not come with a proviso--that he only ID'ed Oswald under the belief he was not wearing the shirt the DPD and FBI and WC had decided Oswald was wearing. 

It's like a badly-programmed computer that melts down when asked a question it can not answer. 

Do you believe Brennan? They say yes. Then you say "Well he said the man he saw was not wearing the shirt the DPD, FBI, and WC said Oswald was wearing. So either Oswald was wearing the shirt, and Brennan did not ID him, or Oswald was wearing a different shirt, and the fibers on the shirt were planted. You can't have it both ways."

Complete meltdown ensues. 

There is plenty of sloppy thinking on both sides of the fence, but this one sticks out, and can be used as a litmus test to determine if someone is a serious student of the case or just a zealot reciting propaganda. 

Amen. 

[David Von Pein]

54 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Do you believe Brennan? They say yes. Then you say "Well he said the man he saw was not wearing the shirt the DPD, FBI, and WC said Oswald was wearing. So either Oswald was wearing the shirt, and Brennan did not ID him, or Oswald was wearing a different shirt, and the fibers on the shirt were planted. You can't have it both ways."

Oswald NOT wearing the brown shirt during the shooting most certainly does NOT automatically mean "the fibers were planted". Why on Earth would you, Pat, one of the more sensible CTers in this place, even suggest such a thing?

A shirt can easily be taken off and then put back on. And we know Oswald was wearing a T-shirt that day too. So even if he took off his brown shirt, he'd still have at least some shirt on. As I have suggested previously, Oswald could very easily have shed his outer shirt and shot JFK while just wearing his T-shirt. This point, of course, can never be proven one way or the other. So it's a stalemate, and always will be.

And you also cannot prove that Oswald did not use that shirt as a print-wiping rag right after the shooting. But, again, I can't prove he DID either. So that point is a wash as well. Although, a huge point in my favor on this topic is the fact that there were fibers generally matching Oswald's arrest shirt wedged in the rifle.

But your insistence that the fibers must have been planted if Oswald was not wearing the brown arrest shirt is just ridiculous.

Edited July 12, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Tom Gram]

4 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Oswald NOT wearing the brown shirt during the shooting most certainly does NOT automatically mean "the fibers were planted". Why on Earth would you, Pat, one of the more sensible CTers in this place, even suggest such a thing?

A shirt can easily be taken off and then put back on. And we know Oswald was wearing a T-shirt that day too. So even if he took off his brown shirt, he'd still have at least some shirt on. As I have suggested previously, Oswald could very easily have shed his outer shirt and shot JFK while just wearing his T-shirt. This point, of course, can never be proven one way or the other. So it's a stalemate, and always will be.

And you also cannot prove that Oswald did not use that shirt as a print-wiping rag right after the shooting. But, again, I can't prove he DID either. So that point is a wash as well. Although, a huge point in my favor on this topic is the fact that there were fibers generally matching Oswald's arrest shirt wedged in the rifle.

But your insistence that the fibers must have been planted if Oswald was not wearing the brown arrest shirt is just ridiculous.

You should really read Pat’s chapter on this: 

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence

The point is that to avoid having to deal with the idea that evidence may have been fabricated by the DPD and/or FBI, you are literally rejecting potentially stronger evidence of Oswald being the man observed on the sixth floor - and that’s what Pat thinks is ridiculous, I think. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that Oswald did not wear the dark brown shirt to work; and instead of confronting the very reasonable possibility of planted evidence, for which there is ample precedent, you’ll defend the integrity of institutions we know were corrupt even when it actually hurts the case for Oswald’s guilt. 

Edited July 12, 2022 by Tom Gram

[Pat Speer]

13 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Oswald NOT wearing the brown shirt during the shooting most certainly does NOT automatically mean "the fibers were planted". Why on Earth would you, Pat, one of the more sensible CTers in this place, even suggest such a thing?

A shirt can easily be taken off and then put back on. And we know Oswald was wearing a T-shirt that day too. So even if he took off his brown shirt, he'd still have at least some shirt on. As I have suggested previously, Oswald could very easily have shed his outer shirt and shot JFK while just wearing his T-shirt. This point, of course, can never be proven one way or the other. So it's a stalemate, and always will be.

And you also cannot prove that Oswald did not use that shirt as a print-wiping rag right after the shooting. But, again, I can't prove he DID either. So that point is a wash as well. Although, a huge point in my favor on this topic is the fact that there were fibers generally matching Oswald's arrest shirt wedged in the rifle.

But your insistence that the fibers must have been planted if Oswald was not wearing the brown arrest shirt is just ridiculous.

Oh my Lord, we must have been through this before. 

1. On 11-22, Oswald said he changed his pants at his rooming house but apparently said nothing about his shirt. (The shirt Mary Bledsoe insisted was filthy). 

2. That night, the shirt he was wearing while arrested--which was not IDed by any of his co-workers as a shirt he'd worn that day-was taken from him and flown to Washington to be tested by the FBI. 

3. Something is already fishy. Lt. Day of the DPD and Vincent Drain of the FBI both claimed all the evidence sent to the FBI (which would include the shirt) was transferred at 11:30. Problemita: Oswald was caught on camera still wearing this shirt roughly an hour later. 

3. The next morning fibers from this shirt were found wrapped around the butt plate on the rifle. As no prints were found on the rifle, and no one IDed Oswald as the shooter, this was one of the most important pieces of evidence linking Oswald to the shooting. 

4. When asked that day about his trip to his rooming house. Oswald told the DPD and FBI he'd changed his pants AND shirt, and that the shirt he had worn at work had been a reddish shirt with a button-down collar. 

5. No such shirt was mentioned in the numerous listings by the DPD, FBI, and WC, of Oswald's clothing recovered at the rooming house. As a result, the non-existence of this shirt was used by LNs to suggest Oswald lied about everything and had simply made up the shirt. 

6. About ten years ago, however, I prevailed upon the archives to sell me some color photos of a supposedly brown shirt found in the rooming house I suspected was the reddish shirt. Sure enough, it was both reddish and filthy--and was almost certainly the shirt Oswald had said he'd worn to work.

7. When when one looks at the FBI's testimony about the fibers found on the rifle, for that matter, it gets even uglier. The fibers were found ON TOP of fingerprint powder. This led the FBI to offer as ;pure conjecture that Lt. Day--whose job involved inspecting the rifle for fibers BEFORE dusting--had not noticed the fibers and had inadvertently wrapped them around the butt plate while rapidly brushing the fingerprint powder. Another probelmita: Day had attended the FBI's course on fingerprinting and the FBI's course had stressed that one should not brush rapidly, for fear of brushing away a print.

8. Of course, there's another problem, a big problem. One can search through forensics journals and textbooks for years and years--I know I have--and not find any other incident in the history of police work in which a tuft of fibers was found neatly wrapped on the butt plate of a rifle. Individual fibers are sometimes found on greasy rifles, or in the mechanism, etc. But a tuft neatly wrapped around the butt plate? Never happened! (And it didn't happen this time, either!) 

 

It should be clear to anyone aware of these facts (yes, even the ghost of Bugliosi and his sycophants), moreover, that someone (most probably Day and/or Drain) planted these fibers on the rifle to implicate Oswald in the crime. It doesn't mean Oswald was innocent. 

But it may provide a motive for his murder. Think about what a smart attorney could do with these facts. It could provide a reasonable doubt in the minds of a jury. Now think about the fact that Oswald was murdered as he was on the verge of getting such a lawyer. Well, hell, if you're the DPD you can't have this commie killer dragging your department through the dirt. Better off having him get killed--in which the DPD would look like clowns--than letting him get off because you faked evidence. I mean, think about it. Dozens if not hundreds of other men convicted by Wade and Fritz could very well have received new trials as a result of this one massive screw-up. The commie killer had it coming, man!

Edited July 12, 2022 by Pat Speer

[James DiEugenio]

One of the best analyses of Brennan is by Ian Griggs in his book No Case to Answer. (pp. 90-95)

He points out that Brennan did not even recall how many men were in the line ups he said he saw, or if there were any people of color in them.  Recall, this is Texas in 1963.

And I don't know how one gets around Brennan and the HSCA.  When the HSCA wanted to do a home interview, Brennan said he would have to be subpoenaed.  For a sit down home interview?

When the HSCA asked him to reconsider, he refused.  When they said this left them no choice but to subpoena him, Brennan said he would not come to Washington under any circumstances. And if they issued a subpoena he would fight the process. He then said he would get his doctor to give him a medical excuse.  And if they forced him to come he would simply clam up.

When the HSCA sent him records they wanted him to examine, Brennan refused to sign for the receipt.  They then offered him immunity, he still declined.  I mean, whew. (Palamara, Honest Answers, pp. 186-89)

Edited July 12, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

The reason I brought up the WC and Marina, and the WC and Markham, and the WC and Brennan was to make a certain important point.  Which Epstein did, through certain attorneys, in his book.

Its not so much the serious problems with all three, but the fact the WC KNEW OF THESE PROBLEMS AND USED THEM ANYWAY!

What Epstein's book does is it gives us a good example of the guys doing the day to day work, ratting out the guys at the top.  Redlich was their messenger: the Commission wants it and I work for the Commission.  That was their naked rationale. It was simply a power play with these three.  I mean we all know that Ball called Markham a screwball in public right?  That was technically his witness. And he did not buy her.  Or Ball finding out that Brennan had vision problems?  Or Marina reversing her story twice, and on two crucial issues. And then throwing in Nixon for fun?

These are the people and the process these guys want to make disappear, hiding behind a cloak of sanctity.  That they do not notice that it is splattered with mud. 

Edited July 12, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Bill Brown]

On 7/11/2022 at 2:40 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks for this Larry.

Oliver did not tell me it was that bad.  He just said that she refused to talk to him.

But now his other comment makes sense.  He added, "And you can take that to the bank."

So it's Oliver's word versus Ruth's word.  Why do you automatically accept Oliver's over Ruth's? How could you possibly know? None of us could know; only the two of them. 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

So it's Oliver's word versus Ruth's word.  Why do you automatically accept Oliver's over Ruth's? How could you possibly know? None of us could know; only the two of them. 

Exactly. Also, we have two versions of the story now. Stone tells Schnaph that the Paines threatened to sue which implies communication with them. But he tells DiEugenio that they wouldn't talk to him and says nothing about a lawsuit.