Which Howard Brennan Does the WC Supporters Believe ?

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I believe the Howard Brennan his supervisor Sandy Speaker said the Secret Service, FBI, or Government agents (CIA?) took off for 2-3 weeks, that came back a wreck.  I.E., he couldn't identify Oswald on the sixth floor, or in a lineup.  Initially.  Until after he was coerced.

I suspect this is a factoid. If Brennan was threatened or brainwashed, he would have just said that Oswald was the guy, as opposed to making his ID contingent on Oswald not wearing the brown shirt the WC claimed he'd been wearing. 

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Pat,

The key word in Hanlon's rule of thumb which you seem to have sidestepped in your courtroom scenario above is this important word:

"Adequately."

 

Well, what does that mean? All questions were adequately answered in the scenario I presented. Anyone with common sense would refuse to believe it, but it adequately covered the questions. 

This is a pretty close parallel to the fibers on the rifle butt story. That the fibers were dangling on the butt plate and got wrapped around the butt plate when Day dusted the rifle for prints is theoretically possible, but it's highly unlikely, and fails to pass a smell test. I have read dozens of forensics texts and articles on this stuff, and fibers are sometimes found on oily weapons, but wrapped around the butt plate? On top of fingerprint powder? This is ludicrous on its face. You will find no reference to anything like this in the forensics literature, and it's doubtful even that the fiber evidence would have been introduced at trial, should Oswald have not been executed while in police custody.  

I mean, the prosecution says the fibers found on the rifle matched the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested.

Under cross, the defense exposes that the fibers were found on top of fingerprint powder. 

Then the defense has its turn. Fritz is forced to concede that Oswald told him he had worn a different shirt to work on the day of the shooting than the one he was wearing when arrested. He is then forced to concede that Oswald told him this before he knew that fibers from the other shirt had been found on the rifle. 

The defense then calls a fiber expert who testifies to the improbability of fibers being found wrapped around a butt plate...on top of fingerprint powder.

During his final summation, the defense attorney lays out that the fibers were probably planted by the DPD.

Reasonable doubt? Maybe. When taken together with a print being "found" on the rifle--a week after the FBI said there was no such print? Definitely.

 

Edited February 2, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Greg Doudna]

45 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Under cross, the defense exposes that the fibers were found on top of fingerprint powder. 

Then the defense has its turn. Fritz is forced to concede that Oswald told him he had worn a different shirt to work on the day of the shooting than the one he was wearing when arrested. He is then forced to concede that Oswald told him this before he knew that fibers from the other shirt had been found on the rifle. 

The defense then calls a fiber expert who testifies to the improbability of fibers being found wrapped around a butt plate...on top of fingerprint powder.

During his final summation, the defense attorney lays out that the fibers were probably planted by the DPD.

Pat I read your analysis on this a while ago and the single most compelling point to me is that Oswald changed shirts at 1 pm at the rooming house, and only then put on the brown shirt. Prior to that point (the night before and morning of Nov 22) he wore CE 151, a lighter maroon-colored shirt (of which you were I believe the first in history to belatedly obtain a color photograph from NARA--well done). 

If the brown arrest shirt was in a dresser drawer in a rooming house on Beckley at the time the shots were fired at the time of the assassination, how did fibers from that shirt--in a dresser drawer at Beckley--get on the butt of the rifle? 

David von Pein, I agree with most of your skepticisms toward profligate declarations that physical evidence was fabricated by police, but it might be worth keeping in mind that that was precisely what the Warren Commission staff investigators led by Rankin themselves suspected of the Dallas Police, and the relevant FBI liaison with the Dallas Police personally believed to be the case, in the case of the palm print, though the Warren Commission ultimately concluded that had not happened. The point: in light of police scandals over decades, the notion of police cooking evidence to help colleagues put away a bad person (pesky judges keep insisting on evidence in court) is not a priori as unthinkable as you may be thinking, and was not to the Warren Commission staff investigators themselves. Pat Speer has made an argument in the present instance that rises above ad hoc or trivial.

Pat Speer's article on this, "Threads of Evidence": https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence

Edited February 2, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[David Von Pein]

59 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Well, what does that mean? All questions were adequately answered in the scenario I presented. Anyone with common sense would refuse to believe it, but it adequately covered the questions. 

But, via Hanlon's adage, the "stupidity" you laid out in your simulated scenario is certainly NOT "adequate". And, just as you said, nobody with an ounce of brains could possibly even begin to believe such nonsense. Therefore, Hanlon's Razor cannot possibly be applied in your given scenario.

But the "Fibers Wedged In The Butt Plate" situation is rather different, and when looking at the WC testimony of the FBI's hair and fiber expert, Paul Stombaugh, I see no problem at all in believing that the fibers became legitimately adhered to Oswald's rifle via ordinary non-conspiratorial, non-planted means. It seems likely to me that when Lt. Day was dusting the rifle for prints, he merely pushed the fibers into the butt-plate crevice. And that's precisely what Stombaugh says in his testimony (excerpted below):

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I found a tiny tuft of fibers which had caught on that jagged edge, and then when the individual who dusted this dusted them, he just folded them down very neatly into the little crevice there, and they stayed. These I removed and put on a glass microscope slide, and marked this particular slide "No. 2," because this little group of fibers--little tuft of fibers, appeared to be fresh. The fibers on the rest of the gun were either adhering to a greasy, oily deposit or jammed into a crevice and were very dirty and apparently very old.

[...]

Mr. STOMBAUGH. ...This was just a small tuft. They were adhering to the gun on a small jagged edge. In other words, the gun had caught on a piece of fabric and pulled these fibers loose. They were clean, they had good color to them, there was no grease on them and they were not fragmented. They looked as if they had just been picked up. They were folded very neatly down in the crevice.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were these fibers in a position where they could have easily been knocked off by rough use?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; they were adhering to the edge rather tightly.

Mr. EISENBERG. In the crevice?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, it had the jagged edge sticking up and the fibers were folded around it and resting in the crevice.

Mr. DULLES. I think you testified, though, that might have been done in part by the dusting?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; I believe when the fingerprintman dusted it he probably ran his brush along the metal portion here.

Mr. EISENBERG. Of the butt plate?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Of the butt plate, and at the time the brush folded these down into the crevice.

Mr. EISENBERG. What led you to the particular conclusion that they had been folded into the crevice by the dusting?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Because of the presence of fingerprint powder being down in and through the crevice here. It looked as if it had been dusted with a brush. You could make out the bristlemarks of the brush itself.

-------------------

Pat,

Where did you get your information about the fibers being ON TOP of the fingerprint powder? I can't find anything in Stombaugh's testimony where he says any such thing. The closest would be this passage here, but he doesn't specifically say the fibers were resting ON TOP of the powder:

"These were fairly good long fibers. They were not dirty, with the exception of a little bit of fingerprint powder on them which I cleaned off, and the color was good."

Is there other testimony from somebody other than Stombaugh about the rifle fibers which says they were "On Top" of the powder?

Also....

Pat, do you also believe that the fibers found in the CE142 paper bag (which generally matched the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage) were "planted" by the cops too? Just wondering.

 

Edited February 2, 2023 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

54 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

...the single most compelling point to me is that Oswald changed shirts at 1 pm at the rooming house, and only then put on the brown shirt.

But there are statements from multiple witnesses who saw Oswald on Nov. 22 BEFORE he ever went home to his Beckley room, with those witnesses saying that they saw Oswald wearing a BROWN shirt. Marrion Baker being one such witness (and I think it's reasonable to think that when Baker said "brown jacket", he was talking about LHO's brown untucked shirt, because we know that Oswald didn't even own a brown "jacket").

Another "brown shirt" witness is Mary Bledsoe, who saw Oswald on Cecil McWatters' bus, which was also before Oswald ever had any chance to get to his roominghouse to change any clothes on 11/22:

Mr. BALL - Now, what color shirt did he have on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - He had a brown shirt.

And another "brown shirt" witness is cab driver William Whaley:

Mr. WHALEY -- He had on a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it.

 

Edited February 2, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Mark Ulrik]

Apart from the idea that Oswald used the shirt in a half-assed attempt to "wipe down" the rifle, isn't it plausible that he simply used it for padding to make the bag he brought to work less "noisy"? That would also account for the shirt having rubbed against the stock of the rifle. I don't remember reading anything about where the shirt was supposed to have been kept, so could it have been in the Paine garage?

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

But, via Hanlon's adage, the "stupidity" you laid out in your simulated scenario is certainly NOT "adequate". And, just as you said, nobody with an ounce of brains could possibly even begin to believe such nonsense. Therefore, Hanlon's Razor cannot possibly be applied in your given scenario.

But the "Fibers Wedged In The Butt Plate" situation is rather different, and when looking at the WC testimony of the FBI's hair and fiber expert, Paul Stombaugh, I see no problem at all in believing that the fibers became legitimately adhered to Oswald's rifle via ordinary non-conspiratorial, non-planted means. It seems likely to me that when Lt. Day was dusting the rifle for prints, he merely pushed the fibers into the butt-plate crevice. And that's precisely what Stombaugh says in his testimony (excerpted below):

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I found a tiny tuft of fibers which had caught on that jagged edge, and then when the individual who dusted this dusted them, he just folded them down very neatly into the little crevice there, and they stayed. These I removed and put on a glass microscope slide, and marked this particular slide "No. 2," because this little group of fibers--little tuft of fibers, appeared to be fresh. The fibers on the rest of the gun were either adhering to a greasy, oily deposit or jammed into a crevice and were very dirty and apparently very old.

[...]

Mr. STOMBAUGH. ...This was just a small tuft. They were adhering to the gun on a small jagged edge. In other words, the gun had caught on a piece of fabric and pulled these fibers loose. They were clean, they had good color to them, there was no grease on them and they were not fragmented. They looked as if they had just been picked up. They were folded very neatly down in the crevice.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were these fibers in a position where they could have easily been knocked off by rough use?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; they were adhering to the edge rather tightly.

Mr. EISENBERG. In the crevice?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, it had the jagged edge sticking up and the fibers were folded around it and resting in the crevice.

Mr. DULLES. I think you testified, though, that might have been done in part by the dusting?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; I believe when the fingerprintman dusted it he probably ran his brush along the metal portion here.

Mr. EISENBERG. Of the butt plate?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Of the butt plate, and at the time the brush folded these down into the crevice.

Mr. EISENBERG. What led you to the particular conclusion that they had been folded into the crevice by the dusting?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Because of the presence of fingerprint powder being down in and through the crevice here. It looked as if it had been dusted with a brush. You could make out the bristlemarks of the brush itself.

-------------------

Pat,

Where did you get your information about the fibers being ON TOP of the fingerprint powder? I can't find anything in Stombaugh's testimony where he says any such thing. The closest would be this passage here, but he doesn't specifically say the fibers were resting ON TOP of the powder:

"These were fairly good long fibers. They were not dirty, with the exception of a little bit of fingerprint powder on them which I cleaned off, and the color was good."

Is there other testimony from somebody other than Stombaugh about the rifle fibers which says they were "On Top" of the powder?

Also....

Pat, do you also believe that the fibers found in the CE142 paper bag (which generally matched the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage) were "planted" by the cops too? Just wondering.

 

Geez, David. The testimony you posted proved my point. Use your noodle. Stombaugh says the fibers were folded into the crevice by the dusting, and then says the powder was down and in the crevice there. If the powder was on top of the fibers he wouldn't have said he thought the fibers were folded into the crevice by the dusting. He would have said they were folded into the crevice before the dusting. 

As far as the bag fiber...it was like one fiber, that matched Oswald's blanket, not his shirt. It was suggestive at best, and its forensic value was nil seeing as the FBI shipped the bag and blanket together, and even photographed them together. (Photo courtesy John Hunt and Ian Griggs. RIP) 

[David Von Pein]

27 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The testimony you posted proved my point.

No it didn't. Not even close.

 

27 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Use your noodle. Stombaugh says the fibers were folded into the crevice by the dusting, and then says the powder was down and in the crevice there. If the powder was on top of the fibers he wouldn't have said he thought the fibers were folded into the crevice by the dusting. He would have said they were folded into the crevice before the dusting. 

You're being too overzealous in your efforts to paint the DPD as rotten evidence-planters here, Pat. You're telling us what you THINK Stombaugh SHOULD have said in a given scenario. But I don't think you're correct in your assumptions about Stombaugh's testimony at all.

Because there's no reason to believe that Lt. Day's dusting of the rifle couldn't have resulted in some of the fingerprint powder working its way down into the crevice of the gun. And this section of Stombaugh's testimony says that the fibers were "caught" on a "jagged edge" of the gun, and then Lt. Day pushed ("folded") them further down into the crevice:

"I found a tiny tuft of fibers which had caught on that jagged edge, and then when the individual who dusted this dusted them, he just folded them down very neatly into the little crevice there, and they stayed."

Nothing sinister or even unusual there at all, IMO. And there's most certainly nothing in Stombaugh's testimony that would lead me to think the fibers were definitely resting ON TOP of all of the fingerprint powder. He just simply did not make any such definitive statement.

 

Edited February 2, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

33 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

No it didn't. Not even close.

 

You're being too overzealous in your efforts to paint the DPD as rotten evidence-planters here, Pat. You're telling us what you THINK Stombaugh SHOULD have said in a given scenario. But I don't think you're correct in your assumptions about Stombaugh's testimony at all.

Because there's no reason to believe that Lt. Day's dusting of the rifle couldn't have resulted in some of the fingerprint powder working its way down into the crevice of the gun. And this section of Stombaugh's testimony says that the fibers were "caught" on a "jagged edge" of the gun, and then Lt. Day pushed ("folded") them further down into the crevice:

"I found a tiny tuft of fibers which had caught on that jagged edge, and then when the individual who dusted this dusted them, he just folded them down very neatly into the little crevice there, and they stayed."

Nothing sinister or even unusual there at all, IMO. And there's most certainly nothing in Stombaugh's testimony that would lead me to think the fibers were definitely resting ON TOP of all of the fingerprint powder. He just simply did not make any such definitive statement.

 

Oh my. He said the fibers were folded down neatly into the crevice there. In other words, the fibers didn't get there by the butt plate's rubbing against Oswald. He then conjured up a scenario in which this could have happened when Day or whomever was dusting the rifle. In other words, it didn't happen when Oswald or anyone else wiped down the rifle. Why? Because the fibers were neatly folded and powder was down in the crevice. Well, this wouldn't make any sense if the powder was atop the fibers. So that leaves us with the fibers being on top of the powder. 

So, is it possible the powder beneath the fibers somehow slipped past the fibers, and misled Stombaugh? Perhaps but he didn't think so. So this left him with the only "innocent" explanation he could come up with--that the fibers were wrapped around the butt plate edge and down into the crevice when Day or whomever dusted the rifle. That is his testimony.

So...Is this feasible? No, not really. As stated, I've read what amounts to probably a dozen books on evidence collection, with a focus on fingerprint evidence and fiber evidence. And fibers aren't found neatly wrapped around the butt plates of rifles atop fingerprint powder. It doesn't happen that way. If you actually studied the case as opposed to repeating what you want to believe you would know this. 

The weapon is supposed to be inspected for fibers before it is dusted, in part, because the act of dusting a weapon will normally remove the fibers. But not here. Here, we're supposed to believe that the dusting of the rifle somehow folded the fibers into a crevice, and essentially glued the fibers to the rifle, instead of removing them from the rifle. It smells to high heaven. 

 

[Bill Brown]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Geez, David. The testimony you posted proved my point. Use your noodle. Stombaugh says the fibers were folded into the crevice by the dusting, and then says the powder was down and in the crevice there. If the powder was on top of the fibers he wouldn't have said he thought the fibers were folded into the crevice by the dusting. He would have said they were folded into the crevice before the dusting. 

As far as the bag fiber...it was like one fiber, that matched Oswald's blanket, not his shirt. It was suggestive at best, and its forensic value was nil seeing as the FBI shipped the bag and blanket together, and even photographed them together. (Photo courtesy John Hunt and Ian Griggs. RIP) 

 

You're hinting at cross-contamination.

 

Just an FYI, the photo you posted was taken AFTER the items were examined.

 

[Gil Jesus]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Geez, David. The testimony you posted proved my point. Use your noodle. Stombaugh says the fibers were folded into the crevice by the dusting, and then says the powder was down and in the crevice there. If the powder was on top of the fibers he wouldn't have said he thought the fibers were folded into the crevice by the dusting. He would have said they were folded into the crevice before the dusting. 

As far as the bag fiber...it was like one fiber, that matched Oswald's blanket, not his shirt. It was suggestive at best, and its forensic value was nil seeing as the FBI shipped the bag and blanket together, and even photographed them together. (Photo courtesy John Hunt and Ian Griggs. RIP) 

How did we get from Howard Brennan to the shirt fibers on the rifle ? Looks like David Von Pein has once again changed the subject as he usually does.

So let me stick my two cents in in support of Pat Speer.

This is what Pat is talking about. There was fingerprint powder in the crevice but the shirt fibers were clean, indicating that the fibers didn't get onto the rifle until AFTER the rifle was dusted for fingerprints.

Stombaugh testified that the fibers, "were clean" and "looked as if they had just been picked up" by the rifle, in spite of the fact that there was a "presence of fingerprint powder being down in and through the crevice."

Since we know that the rifle was dusted for fingerprints at the TSBD, this is evidence that the fibers could not have gotten onto the rifle prior to or during the assassination.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/lt-day-dusting-rifle.mp4

Below is Stombaugh's testimony that proves Pat's argument.

Mr. Von Pein or his allies are now free to change the subject....again.

Edited February 2, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Guest]

On 2/1/2023 at 5:28 PM, Pat Speer said:

C'mon Lance. While Brennan was presented as the "best witness" in Life Magazine, and numerous LN articles, there are heaping problems for the LN scenario within his statements and testimony. Here are a few:

1. He failed to ID Oswald when first shown Oswald, and only ID'ed Oswald after Oswald had been murdered and an FBI agent came to his house to have a talk with him. 

2. The DPD and SS failed to write reports on Brennan's initial refusal to ID Oswald, after signaling he could ID the shooter if he saw him again. One can not say then if there were other eyewitnesses who said they could ID the shooter, who also passed when shown Oswald. We just don't know.

3. Brennan thought the man he viewed was standing up and not crouching down. This draws into question his ability to make out and accurately remember the face of this man.

4. Brennan's ID of Oswald was contingent on his wearing a different shirt than the one whose fibers matched the rifle. The WC ignored this and pretended both his ID of Oswald was accurate, and the shirt was the one Oswald had been wearing at the time of the shooting. (This is something I've discussed for decades now. It's an important point, and I'm glad Gil has dragged it back out.) 

5. The reddish shirt Oswald said he'd been wearing was repeatedly described in the DPD and FBI records as a brown shirt. In light of the FBI and WC's use of the fibers of the other shirt--the one Oswald said he'd put on at the rooming house--as evidence against him, their mis-representation of this shirt can be seen as suspicious.

6. Brennan could only swear to hearing two shots. Well, this suggests he heard one of the shots--almost certainly one of the bangs in the bang-bang scenario described by others--as a single shot. This is at odds with the single-assassin conclusion. 

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Pat Speer]

44 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

You're hinting at cross-contamination.

 

Just an FYI, the photo you posted was taken AFTER the items were examined.

 

I've got insomnia tonight, or perhaps I'm merely sleepwalking.

1. How do you know that the photo was taken after the items were examined?

2. What would be the purpose of such a photo?

3. Is it routine to throw evidence willy-nilly on a table after inspection, or is it routine to keep these items separate? 

[Guest]

On 2/2/2023 at 1:38 AM, Mark Ulrik said:

Apart from the idea that Oswald used the shirt in a half-assed attempt to "wipe down" the rifle, isn't it plausible that he simply used it for padding to make the bag he brought to work less "noisy"? That would also account for the shirt having rubbed against the stock of the rifle. I don't remember reading anything about where the shirt was supposed to have been kept, so could it have been in the Paine garage?

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Pat Speer]

5 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Well, OK, but other than your insistence that there is an issue with the shirt, I don't really see that what you've said is wildly different than what I said. It may well be that Brennan's testimony was so flawed as to count for nothing, at least under rigorous cross-examination. It may be that the WC and Life emphasized him more than he was worth. In my analysis, he's at best just a witness who, within minutes of the assassination, reported a rifleman precisely where Oswald's rifle was found and those on the floor immediately below experienced shots being fired. (Is "reddish" versus "brown" really a big deal?)

Brennan felt positive the shirt the shooter was wearing was lighter than the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested. The shirt Oswald claimed he'd been wearing at work was lighter than the shirt he was wearing when arrested. Instead of embracing this, and saying "Well, that suggests Oswald's guilt, then, don't it?" all the LNs I know claim Brennan was wrong about the shirt, and that we can dismiss pretty much all his testimony outside that the shooter was Oswald.

Why? Why such sloppy thinking? As a student of religion you can no doubt spot that this has to do with faith. Blind faith. Many if not most LNs are not truly engaged in an exploration of the evidence, and are more concerned with preserving the reputations of the DPD FBI and WC than they are in getting at the truth of the matter. (The inverse is true for most CTs but that's a separate issue.) Here I handed them evidence for Oswald's guilt on a silver platter--and they slapped it away because it would suggest malfeasance by those investigating the case.

It's quite revealing, IMO.