Howard Brennan: The "Star Witness" Who Wasn't

[Gil Jesus]

https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1619/howard-brennan-star-witness-who

[Ron Ege]

Gil, thank you for another outstanding presentation - authenticating the "Howard Brennan ID of Oswald As the Shooter Nail", in the coffin of WR's Lone Assassin myth, just as you've done with others before.  

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

However, Brennan's wordage tells us that (1) Oswald stood up & back after he had fired 2 shots -- & that (2) Oswald did not fire at Z313.

Brennan was one of the most important witnesses.

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

However, Brennan's wordage tells us that (1) Oswald stood up & back after he had fired 2 shots -- & that (2) Oswald did not fire at Z313.

Brennan was one of the most important witnesses.

Oswald wasn't even in the window. Have you not read any of the new research on Oswald's whereabouts during the shooting?

In fact, Brennan failed to make a positive identification of Oswald in a police lineup on November 22, even though he had seen Oswald's picture on TV beforehand. Only after weeks of "questioning" by federal agents did Brennan positively identify Oswald as the sixth-floor shooter. Moreover, a number of points in Brennan's account actually cast doubt on the official version of the shooting. The House Select Committee ignored Brennan's story entirely.

I am inclined to believe that Brennan did see someone firing from the sixth-floor window,
but that the gunman he saw was not Oswald. I believe Brennan later identified Oswald
only because he was pressured into doing so. Brennan's description of the gunman's
clothing matches that given by four other witnesses who reported seeing a man in the window. Brennan and the other witnesses described the man's shirt as a regular "light-
colored" shirt. However, Oswald did not wear a light-colored shirt to work that day. He wore a brown, rust-colored shirt that day, and he was seen in that shirt in the second-floor lunchroom less than ninety seconds after the shots were fired.

I should add that two witnesses who saw the sixth-floor gunman said his hair was light-colored or light-brown, whereas Oswald's hair was solid brown and not light-colored at all.

[Pat Speer]

The one thing I would add, Gil, is that the FBI agent who convinced Brennan to come forward was named Kenneth Jackson. Jackson was sent out to talk to Brennan on 12-17-63 and wrote the report in which Brennan first claimed it was Oswald. It seems to me that the WC should have questioned him as to the nature of his conversation with Brennan and how much encouragement he provided to Brennan to come forward. But that's just me. 

From patspeer.com, Chapter 3:

Oh, Howard!

On 3-24, we finally get the sworn testimony of the one man to ever claim he saw Oswald fire the rifle. Howard Brennan (3-24-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 3H140-161) "I told Mr. Sorrels and Captain Fritz at that time that Oswald--or the man in the lineup that I identified looking more like a closest resemblance to the man in the window than anyone in the lineup...I saw his picture twice on television before I went down to the police station for the lineup...I told them I could not make a positive identification...I believe some days later--I don't recall exactly--and I believe the Secret Service man identified hisself as being Williams, I believe, from Houston. I won't swear to that-whether his name was Williams or not...Well, he asked me he said, 'You said you couldn't make a positive identification.' He said, 'Did you do that for security reasons personally, or couldn't you?' And I told him I could with all honesty, but I did it more or less for security reasons--my family and myself...I believed at that time, and I still believe it was a Communist activity, and I felt like there hadn't been more than one eyewitness, and if it got to be a known fact that I was an eyewitness, my family or I, either one, might not be safe...After Oswald was killed, I was relieved quite a bit that as far as pressure on myself of somebody not wanting me to identify anybody, there was no longer that immediate danger... (When asked if he could have sworn that Oswald was the shooter when he saw Oswald in the line-up) I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him as being the same man."

We have reason to doubt Brennan's story. First, by his own admission, he lied to the Dallas Police and Secret Service when he said he could not identify Oswald at the line-up. Second, he says he felt relief when Oswald was killed, even though Oswald's death at the hands of Ruby made a conspiracy, communist or otherwise, only more likely. Third, the whole series of events surrounding Brennan just doesn't ring true. On 11-22 Brennan had signed a statement (19H470), asserting "I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again." He then refused to ID Oswald in a line-up. An 11-23-63 FBI report (CD5 p12) confirms "He advised he attended a lineup at the Dallas Police Department on November 22, 1963 on which occasion he picked Lee Harvey Oswald as the person most closely resembling the man he had observed with the rifle in the window of the Texas School Book Depository building. He stated, however, he could not positively identify Oswald as the person he saw fire the rifle." This means, if Brennan's testimony is to be believed, that he lied to the FBI as well as the Dallas Police and Secret Service.

To make things worse, Brennan didn't admit his deception until weeks after Oswald's death, after the nation had been assured of Oswald's sole guilt by the FBI's leaks to the media, and he did so then only at the urging of a "Secret Service man" named "Williams" (apparently, he meant FBI agent Kenneth B. Jackson, who was indeed from Houston) who, amazingly, has not been called before the commission to explain his actions. A 12-18-63 FBI report on a 12-17 interview by Jackson (CD205, p15) only adds to our doubts of Brennan's veracity. It relates that Brennan "now can say that Lee Harvey Oswald was the person he saw in the window at the time of the President's assassination. He pointed out that he felt a positive identification was not necessary when he observed Oswald in the police line-up at the Dallas Police Department at about 7 P.M., November 22, 1963, since it was his understanding Oswald had already been charged with the slaying of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit. He 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 of Oswald at that time." Well, heck. The problem with this report is that it fails to mention a couple of the important elements of Brennan's subsequent testimony. For one, it fails to report that Brennan was coerced to come forward by Jackson. For two, it fails to relate that Brennan had failed to identify Oswald because he'd been in fear for his life. Instead it explains that Brennan had seen Oswald on television and that he was afraid that this had "clouded" his judgment. Pathetically, it even blames his viewing Oswald on his daughter. What it does not relate--which is key--is Brennan's response to seeing Oswald on television. Clearly, if his eventual testimony is to be believed, he would have to have had an immediate response to seeing Oswald on television. If he felt Oswald was the man from seeing him on television, then why didn't he say so later? And if he knew Oswald was the shooter from the first time he saw him on television, then why is his seeing Oswald on TV before the line-up even an issue?

That the FBI refused to put much stock in Brennan's latter day positive ID of Oswald is confirmed by a 1-10-64 report based on a 1-07-64 re-interview of Brennan (CD329 p7). It concludes: "Mr. Brennan added that after his first interview at the Sheriff's office, on November 22, 1963, he left and went home at about 2 P.M. While he was at home, and before he returned to view a lineup, which included the possible assassin of President Kennedy, he observed Lee Harvey Oswald's picture on television. Mr. Brennan said that this, of course, did not help him retain the original impression of the man in the window with the rifle; however, upon seeing Lee Harvey Oswald in the police line-up, he felt that Oswald most resembled the man whom he had seen in the window." (This wasn't saying much, as the other men only marginally resembled Brennan's earlier description of the man in the window.) Here, there is no mention of Brennan's telling an agent almost a month after the shooting that "Oh, by the way, I knew it was Oswald all the time!" and that he did so now at the FBI's urging. Here, there is still no hint that Brennan had been too frightened to identify Oswald on the 22nd. As a result, it seems likely that Brennan was unable to ID Oswald based on the images he saw on television, and was unsure whether his subsequent belief that Oswald, of the four divergent men in the line-up, "most resembled" the shooter, was based on his own recollections, or by his seeing Oswald on television. This makes his subsequent positive Identification of Oswald, at the FBI's urging, essentially worthless.

 

 

P.S. It s also of interest that, at least officially, Jackson was sent out to talk to Brennan to clarify a minor point--whether or not Brennan saw the shooter before the shooting as well as during the shooting. As Brennan said he couldn't ID the man as Oswald, this would indeed be a minor point, correct? But Jackson goes out to talk to Brennan--I mean he could have called him on the phone, right?--and Brennan now reveals that "Aw shucks, I knew it was Oswald all along."

I'm not sure I buy this. It's certainly not unreasonable to suspect Jackson went out there with an agenda. 

[Mark Ulrik]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Brennan's description of the gunman's clothing matches that given by four other witnesses who reported seeing a man in the window. Brennan and the other witnesses described the man's shirt as a regular "light-colored" shirt. However, Oswald did not wear a light-colored shirt to work that day. He wore a brown, rust-colored shirt that day, and he was seen in that shirt in the second-floor lunchroom less than ninety seconds after the shots were fired.

Use your imagination. Despite the unusual circumstances, it's hardly an impossible feat to put on a shirt in 90 seconds.

[Michael Griffith]

17 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Use your imagination. Despite the unusual circumstances, it's hardly an impossible feat to put on a shirt in 90 seconds.

I'm guessing you haven't read the recent research on Oswald's whereabouts during the shooting either.

There is no way, no way, he could have gotten from the sixth-floor window to the second-floor lunchroom in time to avoid being seen by Truly, who was running ahead of Baker. No way. This is not to mention the people who were on or near the stairs who also would have seen or heard Oswald coming down them, but did not. This is covered well in JFK Revisited.

Even the super careful, uber cautious Anthony Summers makes a strong case that Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting. You might start with his section on Oswald's whereabouts at 12:30 on 11/22.

 

Edited April 25, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Mark Ulrik]

7 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

I'm guessing you haven't read the recent research on Oswald's whereabouts during the shooting either.

There is no way, no way, he could have gotten from the sixth-floor window to the second-floor lunchroom in time to avoid being seen by Truly, who was running ahead of Baker. No way. This is not to mention the people who were on or near the stairs who also would have seen or heard Oswald coming down them, but did not. This is covered well in JFK Revisited.

Even the super careful, uber cautious Anthony Summers makes a strong case that Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting. You might start with his section on Oswald's whereabouts at 12:30 on 11/22.

I haven't read JFK Revisited, but this seems to be a completely separate issue. Will you admit that the mysterious 6th floor shooter, whoever it was, could plausibly have managed to put on his brownish shirt in less than 90 seconds?

[Michael Crane]

It stressed that Brennan was in an "excellent position" ( ibid. ) to observe anyone in the window and described him as an "accurate observer" ( Pg. 145 ).

I have seen this "ibid" in different books.

Can someone on this forum please tell me what it means?

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Mark Ulrik said:

I haven't read JFK Revisited, but this seems to be a completely separate issue. Will you admit that the mysterious 6th floor shooter, whoever it was, could plausibly have managed to put on his brownish shirt in less than 90 seconds?

The problem is that none of those seeing a man in the window said he was wearing a tee-shirt, or that they could see his bare arms. This problem is amplified by the statements of Euins, moreover, who said he saw the shooter fire the rifle, but could not tell the man's race. If he saw him fire the rifle, he would have seen his arm, and have known his race. It follows then that the shooter was not wearing a tee-shirt. Some of the confusion, it seem, comes from the term "sport shirt." A "sport shirt" is not a tee-shirt. or at least wasn't in 1963. A "sport shirt" was a long-sleeved shirt of a pattern or material which distinguished it from a dress shirt--which was most commonly white. 

 

Howard Brennan (11-22-63 statement to the Sheriff’s Department, 19H470): “He was a white man in his early 30’s, slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds.He had on light colored clothing but definitely not a suit...There was nothing unusual about him at all in appearance. I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again.”

Howard Brennan (11-22-63 FBI interview, as reflected in an 11-23-63 FBI report, CD5 p12-14) "Brennan described the man with the rifle as a white male, who appeared to be in his early 30's. about 5'10" tall, and about 165 pounds in weight. He said this individual was not wearing a hat and was dressed in 'light color clothes in the khaki line.' He added this individual may have been wearing a light-weight jacket or sweater; however, he could not be positive about the jacket or sweater."

 

Robert Edwards (11-22-63 statement to the Sheriff’s Department, 19H473): “I noticed that he had on a sport shirt, it was light colored, it was yellow or white, something to that effect, and his hair was rather short. I thought he might be something around twenty-six, as near as I could tell.”

Ronald Fischer (11-22-63 statement to the Sheriff’s Department, 19H475): “all I could see was his head. I noticed that he was light-headed and that he had on an open-necked shirt, and that was before the motorcade rounded the corner. I noticed his complexion seemed to be clear, and that he was in his twenty’s, appeared to be in his twenty’s.” (Note: Fischer would later allow that the shooter may have been wearing a tee-shirt, but continued to insist he did not see the arms of the shooter and could not say as much.)

James Crawford (CD329, p22) explains "By the time the sound of the third shot had passed, Mr. Crawford looked around and in looking up at the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, he observed a movement which he described as a movement such as something being withdrawn quickly...Mr. Crawford stated he could describe the movement he observed as light colored, possibly white, and it might have been the reflection of sunlight upon a light colored object...Mr. Crawford stated that he believes that the motion he observed in the window was a person, but he could not determine if it was the figure of a man or a woman because of the short glimpse he got. He stated he could therefore, not give a description of what he had observed except that it was a quick white movement made by a figure which he had immediately concluded to be a person."

Edited April 25, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Steve Thomas]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Howard Brennan (11-22-63 statement to the Sheriff’s Department, 19H470): “He was a white man in his early 30’s, slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds.

Howard Brennan (11-22-63 FBI interview, as reflected in an 11-23-63 FBI report, CD5 p12-14) "Brennan described the man with the rifle as a white male, who appeared to be in his early 30's. about 5'10" tall, and about 165 pounds in weight.

 

Pat,

I just love this 5'10", 165lb guy.

See this Education Forum thread:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24831-510/

Steve Thomas

Edited April 25, 2023 by Steve Thomas

[Denny Zartman]

1 hour ago, Michael Crane said:

It stressed that Brennan was in an "excellent position" ( ibid. ) to observe anyone in the window and described him as an "accurate observer" ( Pg. 145 ).

I have seen this "ibid" in different books.

Can someone on this forum please tell me what it means?

I believe ibid means the same source as the one just previously cited.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

On 4/26/2023 at 2:42 AM, Michael Griffith said:

Oswald wasn't even in the window. Have you not read any of the new research on Oswald's whereabouts during the shooting?

In fact, Brennan failed to make a positive identification of Oswald in a police lineup on November 22, even though he had seen Oswald's picture on TV beforehand. Only after weeks of "questioning" by federal agents did Brennan positively identify Oswald as the sixth-floor shooter. Moreover, a number of points in Brennan's account actually cast doubt on the official version of the shooting. The House Select Committee ignored Brennan's story entirely.

I am inclined to believe that Brennan did see someone firing from the sixth-floor window,
but that the gunman he saw was not Oswald. I believe Brennan later identified Oswald
only because he was pressured into doing so. Brennan's description of the gunman's
clothing matches that given by four other witnesses who reported seeing a man in the window. Brennan and the other witnesses described the man's shirt as a regular "light-
colored" shirt. However, Oswald did not wear a light-colored shirt to work that day. He wore a brown, rust-colored shirt that day, and he was seen in that shirt in the second-floor lunchroom less than ninety seconds after the shots were fired.

I should add that two witnesses who saw the sixth-floor gunman said his hair was light-colored or light-brown, whereas Oswald's hair was solid brown and not light-colored at all.

Bang---Oswald fires at pseudo-Z104 (when JFK is unluckily in line with the support arm of the signals).

………… click--clack--clockk--klunketyklunketyklunk.………. (Oswald then takes aim).

Bang—-Oswald fires at Z216 (the magic bullet).

………… click--clack--clockk--klunketyklunketyklunk.

Oswald stands up & back from the window (Oswald duznt fire his last bullet). Brennan's wordage tells us that this must be so.

Oswald (at Z300-Z313) sees SSA Hickey fire an autoburst of his AR15 that hits JFK in the head.

Oswald rushes away quietly (he duznt delay to pick up his 3 hulls & his homemade rifle bag).

Oswald wipes the Carcano -- & conceals it near the stairs.

Oswald gets to the 2nd floor in 48 sec after Z313. 

He stops--what to do next? 

Should he continue down to the first floor? 

Should he go to the first floor via the front stairs? 

Should he lay low in the lunch room? 

His jacket is in the Domino Room.

Uh Oh--he hears Adams & Styles klomping down the stairs in a real hurry.

Best to visit the coke machine & hope that whoever it is goes clean past.

They pass--he comes back out--what to do next?

He can't decide--he will be less conspicuous if he takes the front stairs (but he would then have to walk back into & throo the storage area to get his jacket in the Domino Room).

He decides to continue down the back stairs.

He makes a start but then Truly hollers up the elevator shaft--so he goes back up.

Then he hears Baker & Truly galloping up the stairs--he retreats to the coke machine a second time.

He walks slow & cool. 

He would have been better off diving into the lunchroom in a hurry (& laying low)(he knows there is no-one in there), but he knows that if seen rushing (by Truly & Co) it will be a sure sign that he is guilty of something.

He nearly makes it--another couple of slow steps & he will be out of sight.

Damn--Baker spots a bit of him throo the glass of the door & says to come back.

Truly says that Oswald works here--& Baker & Truly gallop off.

Oswald gets a coke to look less guilty & more cool if confronted again (& assassinations go better with coke).

The back stairs are now dangerous.

He heads for the front stairs (either forgetting about his jacket or deciding that his jacket is a dead duck).

But just in case more dumb cops are entering along the corridor he goes via the office.

Damn--he meets Jeraldean Reid as she returns to her desk.

She says something as they pass & he mumbles something back.

Its not a good look--he has no business in the office--unless wanting change for the coke machine.

Its not even a short cut to the stairs—damn--anyhow no big deal.

He goes down the front stairs & mixes with the growing throng in the lobby near the front door.

Someone asks him about a phone.

Ok--things aint so bad--praps he can take a chance & get his jacket from the Domino Room anyhow.

Hmmm--he can get his jacket by going out the front door & down the steps & around & entering via the Houston dock (like he does each morning)(& walking 13 paces to the jacket). 

Getting caught walking in shouldn’t result in getting bitten by a cop.

So--off he goes--but he gets a little ways up Houston & he sees Officer Barnett on sentry duty at the dock (& Barnett looks vicious).

So--a quick U-turn & back down Houston. 

Buell Frazier sees him walking south along Houston.

No--the jacket is a dead duck.

He decides to get out of there asap--he crosses Houston & then crosses Elm.

Tippit is waiting.

Edited April 26, 2023 by Marjan Rynkiewicz

[Gil Jesus]

13 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

It stressed that Brennan was in an "excellent position" ( ibid. ) to observe anyone in the window and described him as an "accurate observer" ( Pg. 145 ).

I have seen this "ibid" in different books.

Can someone on this forum please tell me what it means?

"ibid" means  that you can find it at the previously cited source. For example, you might have a citation, ( 3 H 425 ) and further down you have one that says "ibid.". If there's no source between them, that means that the "ibid" source is the same 3 H 425. It makes it so you don't have to repeat the source.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ibid&oq=ibid&aqs=chrome..69i57.1547j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

11 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

I believe ibid means the same source as the one just previously cited.

That's correct. It's an abbreviation of ibīdem, the Latin word for 'at the same place'. It saves the writer the bother of having to cite the full source.

Michael might also come across a couple of other mysterious but labour-saving Latin abbreviations:

op. cit. is short for opus citatum (literally, 'the work cited'). This is normally used in conjunction with an author's name, to refer to the most recently mentioned book or article (or whatever) by that author.

loc. cit. is short for loco citato (literally, 'the place cited'). This too is used in conjunction with an author's name, in this case to refer to the same page in the most recently mentioned work by that author.

Here endeth today's lesson.