If Oswald Was The Assassin, Did He Plan His Escape From The TSBD Very Well?

[Martin Weidmann]

Oh, come on. If he could see the man clearly enough to clearly see his face, he should have been able to tell rather easily whether the man was standing or kneeling. Go read Brennan's testimony. Brennan did not "assume" the man was standing: he said "he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot."


Brennan actually said: "Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.
And, at the same moment, I was diving off of that firewall and to the right for bullet protection of this stone wall that is a little higher on the Houston side."

There is a difference in saying "it appeared to me he was standing up" and saying "he was standing up." Like I said earlier, there is no way to tell the distance between the window sills and the floors below them when viewing the TSBD from the outside. Brennan had no way of knowing that there is only about 12" of wall between the floor and the window sill. LHO was sitting on a box and was visible to Brennan when he leaned forward to look out the window. And he disappeared from Brennan's view when he simply sat up straight. He was positioned near the left side of the window when viewed from the interior. And the wall hid him from Brennan's view when he sat up straight. It is easy to believe that Brennan thought LHO walked away from the window when he disappeared from view. And therefore that could have been another reason that he assumed he must have been standing up. Just because Brennan assumed wrong about this particular aspect, it doesn't follow that he didn't get a good look at LHO.


I notice you did not address the point that Brennan said that the man did not rush off but lingered in the window for a bit, and that the man did not appear to be rushed at all--"he did not seem to be in any hurry." Nor did you address the point that Brennan said the man was wearing light-colored clothing, which is not the clothing that we know Oswald was wearing at work that day.

1. Brennan said: "As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared

So you think that an estimated 3-seconds worth of pausing and observing made it impossible for LHO to make it to the second floor lunchroom by the time Baker and Truly did???   Nonsense!

2. Have you ever considered that LHO was wearing a white t-shirt under the darker shirt, and that he might have removed the outer shirt because the sunlight streaming in the windows made him warm? Or that he did this because he wanted to change his appearance as part of his escape? The discarding of the jacket after the Tippit shooting would be a similar tactic. Your reasons for disbelieving Brennan are simply lame and can be easily explained away to anyone with an unbiased view.


Here is another problem with Brennan's testimony, if you are using him to support the WC's story: Brennan said he could see "70 to 85 percent" the rifle and that he saw no scope on the rifle.


Here is what Brennan said: Mr. BRENNAN. "I do not know if it had a scope or not"

This is an example of a detail that he simply was not paying attention to. I wouldn't expect Brennan or anyone else to remember every detail.



Really? I mean, really? If you look at videos of interviews that reporters did with witnesses that day, you'll see that one of the first things the reporters did was, logically enough, to ask the person for their name. They asked them who they were and where they had been standing during the shooting. Just common sense. But you have to assume that not one of the reporters with whom Brennan spoke that day asked him for his name, and of course that Brennan did not volunteer his name.

Before you can make that argument, you need to find a reporter that says he "interviewed" Brennan. The five sentences from the 11/23/63 DMN article: Dallas Morning News Saturday Nov 23, 1964 ---- The Assassin Crouched And Took Deadly Aim by Kent Biffle
"After the first shot, I looked up and saw him. The gun was sticking out of the window. I saw him fire a second time. He was a slender guy, a nice looking guy. He didn’t seem to be in no hurry.”  said Brennan. don't indicate that Kent Biffle actually interviewed Brennan. In fact Biffle was in the motorcade and went into the TSBD with the first wave of cops. Then was locked inside the TSBD for most of the afternoon. Given all that I would guess that either those words could have been overheard by Hugh Aynesworth (who was outside the TSBD, nearby Brennan when he was talking to the police. Or they could have been leaked by the police to the DMN that evening.



And I ask again, why did Brennan volunteer the information to the DPD that same afternoon, in writing, that he believed he could recognize the man in the window if he saw him again, if he was so afraid for his life? If Brennan truly feared for his life, the last thing he would have done would have been to say such a thing. He would not have given any inkling that he could ID the guy if he saw him again.

He had not had time to think much, or for the fear to develop fully yet when he made that statement. I believe that Brennan's fear increased as the afternoon and evening progressed. The fact that there were FBI agents who were assigned to watch Brennan and explained that they were there to protect him. The fact that some TV commentators kept insisting that there "must have been a conspiracy" that afternoon and evening. Additionally, when you read what Brennan describes in his book, he was pissed off at the situation. His expectations for being able to go in and identify LHO while keeping his identity confidential had been totally demolished. And I can understand his reluctance to fully cooperate under those circumstances. I don't believe that he did the right thing. But I can understand why he did it.



And I notice that you still have not explained why it took the FBI several weeks to get Brennan to ID the man as Oswald. What took so long?


I don't believe that anything the FBI could have said to Brennan, after they let him down regarding his confidentiality during the lineup, could have convinced him to do the right thing. He was that upset. When LHO was murdered it was some relief, but not a complete release of his fears. Eventually, I believe that Brennan realized that he needed to do the right thing.

LHO was sitting on a box and was visible to Brennan when he leaned forward to look out the window. And he disappeared from Brennan's view when he simply sat up straight. He was positioned near the left side of the window when viewed from the interior. And the wall hid him from Brennan's view when he sat up straight. It is easy to believe that Brennan thought LHO walked away from the window when he disappeared from view.

This is actually correct, in as much that anybody sitting upright on a box in that corner would be shielded by the wall and thus not visible to anybody outside the building. If that person leaned forward, he would indeed expose himself to people outside the building, but they would - at best - only see his head and shoulders. So, how could Brennan give a far more detailed description of the man, even to such an extend that it could be given out on DPD radio? It doesn't add up!

Before you can make that argument, you need to find a reporter that says he "interviewed" Brennan. The five sentences from the 11/23/63 DMN article: Dallas Morning News Saturday Nov 23, 1964 ---- The Assassin Crouched And Took Deadly Aim by Kent Biffle "After the first shot, I looked up and saw him. The gun was sticking out of the window. I saw him fire a second time. He was a slender guy, a nice looking guy. He didn’t seem to be in no hurry.”  said Brennan. don't indicate that Kent Biffle actually interviewed Brennan.

Silly argument. Even if Biffle did not interview Brennan himself, he nevertheless got his name and published it in the paper. Even if Biffle overheard the name being mentioned, the ultimate source for the name can only have been Brennan himself, unless you want to argue that somebody else recognized him and somehow passed his name to the paper.

[Charles Collins]

"Healthy young observer"? Brennan was 44 on the day of the shooting, and he required glasses.

Oh, come on. If he could see the man clearly enough to clearly see his face, he should have been able to tell rather easily whether the man was standing or kneeling. Go read Brennan's testimony. Brennan did not "assume" the man was standing: he said "he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot."

I notice you did not address the point that Brennan said that the man did not rush off but lingered in the window for a bit, and that the man did not appear to be rushed at all--"he did not seem to be in any hurry." Nor did you address the point that Brennan said the man was wearing light-colored clothing, which is not the clothing that we know Oswald was wearing at work that day.

Here is another problem with Brennan's testimony, if you are using him to support the WC's story: Brennan said he could see "70 to 85 percent" of the rifle and that he saw no scope on the rifle.

So Brennan saw the wrong kind of rifle, saw a man dressed in the wrong color of clothing, and said the man lingered at the window as if trying to make sure he had hit his target and then casually stepped away. None of this fits with the WC's version of events.

Also, at first Brennan estimated that he was only 75 feet from the window, and then he said he "calculated" that he was 93 feet from the window. The FBI determined that Brennan was 120.2 feet from the window.

Really? I mean, really? If you look at videos of interviews that reporters did with witnesses that day, you'll see that one of the first things the reporters did was, logically enough, to ask the person for their name. They asked them who they were and where they had been standing during the shooting. Just common sense. But you have to assume that not one of the reporters with whom Brennan spoke that day asked him for his name, and of course that Brennan did not volunteer his name.

And I ask again, why did Brennan volunteer the information to the DPD that same afternoon, in writing, that he believed he could recognize the man in the window if he saw him again, if he was so afraid for his life? If Brennan truly feared for his life, the last thing he would have done would have been to say such a thing. He would not have given any inkling that he could ID the guy if he saw him again.

And I notice that you still have not explained why it took the FBI several weeks to get Brennan to ID the man as Oswald. What took so long?

"Healthy young observer"? Brennan was 44 on the day of the shooting, and he required glasses.



Many of the best baseball players have better than 20/20 visual acuity, especially at a long distance. This is what Brennan said he had. A baseball diamond by standard specifications must have second base at a distance of 127'- 3-3/6" from the back tip of home plate. That is over seven more feet than the distance from Brennan to the sniper's nest window sill. And the catcher must position himself a bit further back to avoid being hit by the bat when it is swung. Yet, it is routine for signals for the upcoming pitch selection from the catcher to the pitcher to be coded. This is to keep an opposing team runner on second base from stealing the signals. Some batters are able to discern the spin of the baseball as it is hurled towards the plate at 95 mph. Outfielders are able to recognize who is batting and clearly see how the ball leaves the bat after it is hit. Hank Aaron was 42 when he retired from playing baseball, he hit 755 home runs in his career. And Hank Aaron now wears glasses. Brennan needed glasses for near vision (reading, etc.) his distance vision was still good until his accident (not too long after the assassination).

I have had poor vision my entire life. But I had no trouble recognizing a granddaughter from beyond the centerfield fence when batting or catching behind the plate.

So the healthy young observer part is not exclusive for better than average acuity at a distance. Just indicative that some aspects of vision are usually affected by age.

[Jack Nessan]

Oh, come on. If he could see the man clearly enough to clearly see his face, he should have been able to tell rather easily whether the man was standing or kneeling. Go read Brennan's testimony. Brennan did not "assume" the man was standing: he said "he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot."


Brennan actually said: "Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.
And, at the same moment, I was diving off of that firewall and to the right for bullet protection of this stone wall that is a little higher on the Houston side."

There is a difference in saying "it appeared to me he was standing up" and saying "he was standing up." Like I said earlier, there is no way to tell the distance between the window sills and the floors below them when viewing the TSBD from the outside. Brennan had no way of knowing that there is only about 12" of wall between the floor and the window sill. LHO was sitting on a box and was visible to Brennan when he leaned forward to look out the window. And he disappeared from Brennan's view when he simply sat up straight. He was positioned near the left side of the window when viewed from the interior. And the wall hid him from Brennan's view when he sat up straight. It is easy to believe that Brennan thought LHO walked away from the window when he disappeared from view. And therefore that could have been another reason that he assumed he must have been standing up. Just because Brennan assumed wrong about this particular aspect, it doesn't follow that he didn't get a good look at LHO.


I notice you did not address the point that Brennan said that the man did not rush off but lingered in the window for a bit, and that the man did not appear to be rushed at all--"he did not seem to be in any hurry." Nor did you address the point that Brennan said the man was wearing light-colored clothing, which is not the clothing that we know Oswald was wearing at work that day.

1. Brennan said: "As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared

So you think that an estimated 3-seconds worth of pausing and observing made it impossible for LHO to make it to the second floor lunchroom by the time Baker and Truly did???   Nonsense!

2. Have you ever considered that LHO was wearing a white t-shirt under the darker shirt, and that he might have removed the outer shirt because the sunlight streaming in the windows made him warm? Or that he did this because he wanted to change his appearance as part of his escape? The discarding of the jacket after the Tippit shooting would be a similar tactic. Your reasons for disbelieving Brennan are simply lame and can be easily explained away to anyone with an unbiased view.


Here is another problem with Brennan's testimony, if you are using him to support the WC's story: Brennan said he could see "70 to 85 percent" the rifle and that he saw no scope on the rifle.


Here is what Brennan said: Mr. BRENNAN. "I do not know if it had a scope or not"

This is an example of a detail that he simply was not paying attention to. I wouldn't expect Brennan or anyone else to remember every detail.



Really? I mean, really? If you look at videos of interviews that reporters did with witnesses that day, you'll see that one of the first things the reporters did was, logically enough, to ask the person for their name. They asked them who they were and where they had been standing during the shooting. Just common sense. But you have to assume that not one of the reporters with whom Brennan spoke that day asked him for his name, and of course that Brennan did not volunteer his name.

Before you can make that argument, you need to find a reporter that says he "interviewed" Brennan. The five sentences from the 11/23/63 DMN article: Dallas Morning News Saturday Nov 23, 1964 ---- The Assassin Crouched And Took Deadly Aim by Kent Biffle
"After the first shot, I looked up and saw him. The gun was sticking out of the window. I saw him fire a second time. He was a slender guy, a nice looking guy. He didn’t seem to be in no hurry.”  said Brennan. don't indicate that Kent Biffle actually interviewed Brennan. In fact Biffle was in the motorcade and went into the TSBD with the first wave of cops. Then was locked inside the TSBD for most of the afternoon. Given all that I would guess that either those words could have been overheard by Hugh Aynesworth (who was outside the TSBD, nearby Brennan when he was talking to the police. Or they could have been leaked by the police to the DMN that evening.



And I ask again, why did Brennan volunteer the information to the DPD that same afternoon, in writing, that he believed he could recognize the man in the window if he saw him again, if he was so afraid for his life? If Brennan truly feared for his life, the last thing he would have done would have been to say such a thing. He would not have given any inkling that he could ID the guy if he saw him again.

He had not had time to think much, or for the fear to develop fully yet when he made that statement. I believe that Brennan's fear increased as the afternoon and evening progressed. The fact that there were FBI agents who were assigned to watch Brennan and explained that they were there to protect him. The fact that some TV commentators kept insisting that there "must have been a conspiracy" that afternoon and evening. Additionally, when you read what Brennan describes in his book, he was pissed off at the situation. His expectations for being able to go in and identify LHO while keeping his identity confidential had been totally demolished. And I can understand his reluctance to fully cooperate under those circumstances. I don't believe that he did the right thing. But I can understand why he did it.



And I notice that you still have not explained why it took the FBI several weeks to get Brennan to ID the man as Oswald. What took so long?


I don't believe that anything the FBI could have said to Brennan, after they let him down regarding his confidentiality during the lineup, could have convinced him to do the right thing. He was that upset. When LHO was murdered it was some relief, but not a complete release of his fears. Eventually, I believe that Brennan realized that he needed to do the right thing.

In the Ball/Belin Report of February 1964, pages 3 through 10 are about Brennan and his statements to the FBI and Dallas Sheriff Dept. Brennan obviously felt his identity as someone who could identify Oswald was unknown to the press.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Ball-Belin%20Report.pdf

[Martin Weidmann]

In the Ball/Belin Report of February 1964, pages 3 through 10 are about Brennan and his statements to the FBI and Dallas Sheriff Dept. Brennan obviously felt his identity as someone who could identify Oswald was unknown to the press.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Ball-Belin%20Report.pdf

Remarkably, according to the report Brennan did not identify Oswald at the DPD line up because it was his understanding that Oswald had already been identified for the Tippit murder. Seems a silly reason not to identify him for the Kennedy murder.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Oh, come on. If he could see the man clearly enough to clearly see his face, he should have been able to tell rather easily whether the man was standing or kneeling. Go read Brennan's testimony. Brennan did not "assume" the man was standing: he said "he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot."

Brennan actually said: "Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure himself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.

And, at the same moment, I was diving off of that firewall and to the right for bullet protection of this stone wall that is a little higher on the Houston side."

There is a difference in saying "it appeared to me he was standing up" and saying "he was standing up."

SMH. Really? What's the substantive difference? There is no meaningful difference in this context. He was testifying about what he saw. So just because he used the phrase "appeared to me" does not mean he was somehow qualifying his account. How about if Brennan had said "he looked like he was standing up"? With Brennan's supposedly exceptionally good distance vision, the man appeared to be standing up. That is no different than simply saying “When I saw him, he was standing.”

Like I said earlier, there is no way to tell the distance between the window sills and the floors below them when viewing the TSBD from the outside. Brennan had no way of knowing that there is only about 12" of wall between the floor and the window sill. LHO was sitting on a box and was visible to Brennan when he leaned forward to look out the window. And he disappeared from Brennan's view when he simply sat up straight. He was positioned near the left side of the window when viewed from the interior. And the wall hid him from Brennan's view when he sat up straight. It is easy to believe that Brennan thought LHO walked away from the window when he disappeared from view. And therefore that could have been another reason that he assumed he must have been standing up. Just because Brennan assumed wrong about this particular aspect, it doesn't follow that he didn't get a good look at LHO.

This gives new meaning to the terms "labored" and "strained." Stop and think about what you just said. You are implying that Brennan assumed that the window sill was  3-4 feet above the floor, and that Brennan could not tell the difference between a man standing up and aiming a rifle out a window and a man sitting down and necessarily bent over while aiming the rifle.

I notice you did not address the point that Brennan said that the man did not rush off but lingered in the window for a bit, and that the man did not appear to be rushed at all--"he did not seem to be in any hurry." Nor did you address the point that Brennan said the man was wearing light-colored clothing, which is not the clothing that we know Oswald was wearing at work that day.

1. Brennan said: "As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared

So you think that an estimated 3-seconds worth of pausing and observing made it impossible for LHO to make it to the second floor lunchroom by the time Baker and Truly did???

Yes, absolutely, because Oswald would not have had 2-3 seconds to spare. Again, why didn't Jarman hear anyone moving around in the sniper's nest above him after the shots were fired? He could hear shells hitting the floor during the shooting, so he should have easily been able to hear any marked movement above him after the firing stopped, but he said he heard none, and Williams did not mention hearing any movement above him after the shots.

2. Have you ever considered that LHO was wearing a white t-shirt under the darker shirt, and that he might have removed the outer shirt because the sunlight streaming in the windows made him warm?

Really?! So you want to add time for him to put his shirt back on?! Nobody who saw a man in that window described seeing him take any such action. Again, Brennan said "he did not seem to be in a hurry," but the WC's reenactment showed that he would have had to be in a very big hurry to get down to the second floor in time to be seen by Baker. He had no time to linger 2-3 seconds at the window, and he certainly had no time to put a shirt back on.

Or that he did this because he wanted to change his appearance as part of his escape?

LOL! Are we talking about the same guy who supposedly "leaned forward to look out the window"? Are we talking about the same guy who allegedly had photos taken of himself holding the alleged murder weapon and then directed police to the room where they were stored? Are we talking about the same guy who supposedly carried around and then somehow dropped a Hidell card on the day of the shooting, an ID card in the same name as the name he allegedly used to order the Carcano? Are we talking about the same guy?

The discarding of the jacket after the Tippit shooting would be a similar tactic.

You don't know if Oswald was ever even at the Tippit shooting scene that day, not to mention the contradictions about the jacket's color. You simply assume he shot Tippit and proceed from there.

Your reasons for disbelieving Brennan are simply lame and can be easily explained away to anyone with an unbiased view.

Then why have you been unable to provide credible, rational explanations for the problems with Brennan's testimony? Are you aware that we have known for years that even some WC staffers doubted Brennan's testimony? Why do you suppose that the HSCA Report does not even mention Brennan once?

Here is another problem with Brennan's testimony, if you are using him to support the WC's story: Brennan said he could see "70 to 85 percent" the rifle and that he saw no scope on the rifle.

Here is what Brennan said: Mr. BRENNAN. "I do not know if it had a scope or not"

Now you are being misleading. Just seconds before Brennan said that, he specified that he did not see a scope on the rifle:

Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had any kind of a scope on it?
Mr. BRENNAN. I did not observe a scope.

This is an example of a detail that he simply was not paying attention to. I wouldn't expect Brennan or anyone else to remember every detail.

SMH. So Brennan sees a guy pointing a rifle at the motorcade but didn't bother to take a good look at it, if nothing else to make sure he was seeing a rifle? Plus, a scope is very hard to miss on a rifle. A rifle with a scope looks rather different than a rifle without a scope.

Really? I mean, really? If you look at videos of interviews that reporters did with witnesses that day, you'll see that one of the first things the reporters did was, logically enough, to ask the person for their name. They asked them who they were and where they had been standing during the shooting. Just common sense. But you have to assume that not one of the reporters with whom Brennan spoke that day asked him for his name, and of course that Brennan did not volunteer his name.

Before you can make that argument, you need to find a reporter that says he "interviewed" Brennan. The five sentences from the 11/23/63 DMN article: Dallas Morning News Saturday Nov 23, 1964 ---- The Assassin Crouched And Took Deadly Aim by Kent Biffle

"After the first shot, I looked up and saw him. The gun was sticking out of the window. I saw him fire a second time. He was a slender guy, a nice looking guy. He didn’t seem to be in no hurry.”  said Brennan. don't indicate that Kent Biffle actually interviewed Brennan. In fact Biffle was in the motorcade and went into the TSBD with the first wave of cops. Then was locked inside the TSBD for most of the afternoon. Given all that I would guess that either those words could have been overheard by Hugh Aynesworth (who was outside the TSBD, nearby Brennan when he was talking to the police. Or they could have been leaked by the police to the DMN that evening.

Sigh. . . .  Well, when you speaking with reporters, most people would say you were being interviewed by reporters. You are parsing words to the point of silliness.

Furthermore, Brennan told the WC that jumped up during the shooting because it occurred to him that there might be other gunmen and a plot:

Mr. BELIN. Now, I believe you said that after the last shot you jumped off this masonry structure on which you were sitting. Why did you jump off?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, it occurred to me that there might be more than one person, that it was a plot which could mean several people, and I knew beyond reasonable doubt that there were going to be bullets flying from every direction.

So if it occurred to him during the shooting that "it was a plot which could mean several people," why would he have talked with any reporters at all that afternoon? Why would he have said one word to the police about being able to ID the man in the window?

And I ask again, why did Brennan volunteer the information to the DPD that same afternoon, in writing, that he believed he could recognize the man in the window if he saw him again, if he was so afraid for his life? If Brennan truly feared for his life, the last thing he would have done would have been to say such a thing. He would not have given any inkling that he could ID the guy if he saw him again.

He had not had time to think much, or for the fear to develop fully yet when he made that statement. I believe that Brennan's fear increased as the afternoon and evening progressed. The fact that there were FBI agents who were assigned to watch Brennan and explained that they were there to protect him. The fact that some TV commentators kept insisting that there "must have been a conspiracy" that afternoon and evening. Additionally, when you read what Brennan describes in his book, he was pissed off at the situation. His expectations for being able to go in and identify LHO while keeping his identity confidential had been totally demolished. And I can understand his reluctance to fully cooperate under those circumstances. I don't believe that he did the right thing. But I can understand why he did it.

You just keep repeating this tale, as if repetition will make it come true. You cannot credibly explain the fact that he did not act like a man who did not want to ID Oswald because he feared retribution from accomplices.

Even Belin seemed to have doubts about Brennan's excuse for taking several weeks to ID Oswald as the man he'd seen:

Mr. BELIN. Now, is there anything else you told the officers at the time of the lineup?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I told them I could not make a positive identification.
Mr. BELIN. When you told them that, did you ever later tell any officer or investigating person anything different?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. When did that happen?
Mr. BRENNAN. 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.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. BRENNAN. And he could have been an FBI. As far as I remember, it could have been FBI instead of Secret Service.
But I believe it was a Secret Service man from Houston.
And I--
Mr. BELIN. What did he say to you and what did you say to him?
Mr. BRENNAN. 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.
Mr. BELIN. What do you mean by security reasons for your family and yourself?
Mr. BRENNAN. I believe 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.
Mr. BELIN. Well, if you wouldn't have identified him, might he not have been released by the police?
Mr. BRENNAN. Beg pardon?
Mr. BELIN. If you would not have identified that man positively, might he not have been released by the police?
Mr. BRENNAN. No. That had a great contributing factor--greater contributing factor than my personal reasons was that I already knew they had the man for murder, and I knew he would not be released.
Mr. BELIN. The murder of whom?
Mr. BRENNAN. Of Officer Tippit.

Belin then asked Brennan what had caused him to no longer be afraid to positively ID Oswald, and Brennan said Oswald's death "relieved" his fear "quite a bit":

Mr. BELIN. Well, what happened in between to change your mind that you later decided to come forth and tell them you could identify him?
Mr. BRENNAN. 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.

But that's ridiculous. Oswald was killed less than 48 hours after the assassination. Brennan didn't tell the FBI that he could positively ID Oswald until December 17, over three weeks after Oswald's death.

And I notice that you still have not explained why it took the FBI several weeks to get Brennan to ID the man as Oswald. What took so long?

I don't believe that anything the FBI could have said to Brennan, after they let him down regarding his confidentiality during the lineup, could have convinced him to do the right thing. He was that upset. When LHO was murdered it was some relief, but not a complete release of his fears. Eventually, I believe that Brennan realized that he needed to do the right thing.

Sigh. . . .  You have no actual evidence that the FBI "let him down regarding his confidentiality" other than his very belated claim to this effect in his book. He said nothing--not one word--about this nonsense in his WC testimony.

[Bill Chapman]

Point out where I said 'in this thread'
OAKers are rife here, there and everywhere.

So, in your pathetic attempt to make a point, you are making a vague claim that can not be substantiated. Got it...

The 'Lack of Damage to Ce399' thread on this forum is a fine example of what I have claimed here:
For instance, Gary Craig has failed to include the butt end view along with the side view:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1648.msg82893.html#msg82893

So what? The thread's name is correct. CE399 has a lack of damage. If you wanted to point out the obvious damage to the butt, you could have done so.

Additionally, nowhere in that 42-page thread has any OAKer intentionally posted a proper view of the butt-end of Ce399. And in a thread about damage to Ce399, no less!!

Again, so what.... From all the cherry picking of evidence that goes on here, by both LNs and CTs, this is a minor issue. It is also near impossible to keep on repeating all the details for every aspect of the case. If that were done, nobody would be able to wade through the pages. So, stop whining, cry baby!

'Point out where I said 'in this thread' OAKers are rife here, there and everywhere.'
So, in your pathetic attempt to make a point, you are making a vague claim that can not be substantiated. Got it...
> Claiming CTers/JAQers (aka OAKers) are rife on these forums is vague and cannot be substantiated?

'The 'Lack of Damage to Ce399' thread on this forum is a fine example of what I have claimed here: For instance, Gary Craig has failed to include the butt end view along with the side view':
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1648.msg82893.html#msg82893
So what? The thread's name is correct. CE399 has a lack of damage. If you wanted to point out the obvious damage to the butt, you could have done so.
> Check out my avatar and post count. And just how much damage do you think should have occurred to Ce399?

'Additionally, nowhere in that 42-page thread has any OAKer intentionally posted a proper view of the butt-end of Ce399. And in a thread about damage to Ce399, no less!!'
Again, so what.... From all the cherry picking of evidence that goes on here, by both LNs and CTs, this is a minor issue. It is also near impossible to keep on repeating all the details for every aspect of the case. If that were done, nobody would be able to wade through the pages. So, stop whining, cry baby!
> I am impervious to your verbal barbs. And tell us just how many pages posting the butt-end view of Ce399 require.

[Bill Chapman]

"Healthy young observer"? Brennan was 44 on the day of the shooting, and he required glasses.

Oh, come on. If he could see the man clearly enough to clearly see his face, he should have been able to tell rather easily whether the man was standing or kneeling. Go read Brennan's testimony. Brennan did not "assume" the man was standing: he said "he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot."

I notice you did not address the point that Brennan said that the man did not rush off but lingered in the window for a bit, and that the man did not appear to be rushed at all--"he did not seem to be in any hurry." Nor did you address the point that Brennan said the man was wearing light-colored clothing, which is not the clothing that we know Oswald was wearing at work that day.

Here is another problem with Brennan's testimony, if you are using him to support the WC's story: Brennan said he could see "70 to 85 percent" of the rifle and that he saw no scope on the rifle.

So Brennan saw the wrong kind of rifle, saw a man dressed in the wrong color of clothing, and said the man lingered at the window as if trying to make sure he had hit his target and then casually stepped away. None of this fits with the WC's version of events.

Also, at first Brennan estimated that he was only 75 feet from the window, and then he said he "calculated" that he was 93 feet from the window. The FBI determined that Brennan was 120.2 feet from the window.

Really? I mean, really? If you look at videos of interviews that reporters did with witnesses that day, you'll see that one of the first things the reporters did was, logically enough, to ask the person for their name. They asked them who they were and where they had been standing during the shooting. Just common sense. But you have to assume that not one of the reporters with whom Brennan spoke that day asked him for his name, and of course that Brennan did not volunteer his name.

And I ask again, why did Brennan volunteer the information to the DPD that same afternoon, in writing, that he believed he could recognize the man in the window if he saw him again, if he was so afraid for his life? If Brennan truly feared for his life, the last thing he would have done would have been to say such a thing. He would not have given any inkling that he could ID the guy if he saw him again.

And I notice that you still have not explained why it took the FBI several weeks to get Brennan to ID the man as Oswald. What took so long?

I notice you did not address the point that Brennan said that the man did not rush off but lingered in the window for a bit, and that the man did not appear to be rushed at all--"he did not seem to be in any hurry."
> Why would he necessarily be in a hurry? Are you sure that Oswald expected to escape?

>Mr. BRENNAN. Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.

[Martin Weidmann]

'Point out where I said 'in this thread' OAKers are rife here, there and everywhere.'

So, in your pathetic attempt to make a point, you are making a vague claim that can not be substantiated. Got it...

> Claiming CTers/JAQers (aka OAKers) are rife on these forums is vague and cannot be substantiated?

Yes

'The 'Lack of Damage to Ce399' thread on this forum is a fine example of what I have claimed here: For instance, Gary Craig has failed to include the butt end view along with the side view':
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1648.msg82893.html#msg82893

So what? The thread's name is correct. CE399 has a lack of damage. If you wanted to point out the obvious damage to the butt, you could have done so.

> Check out my avatar and post count. And just how much damage do you think should have occurred to Ce399?

Ok, so you've got an avatar which can be seen with every post your write. So why are you whining?

'Additionally, nowhere in that 42-page thread has any OAKer intentionally posted a proper view of the butt-end of Ce399. And in a thread about damage to Ce399, no less!!'

Again, so what.... From all the cherry picking of evidence that goes on here, by both LNs and CTs, this is a minor issue. It is also near impossible to keep on repeating all the details for every aspect of the case. If that were done, nobody would be able to wade through the pages. So, stop whining, cry baby!

> I am impervious to your verbal barbs. And tell us just how many pages posting the butt-end view of Ce399 require.

No need to... You are the one whining about it. So, how many pages will "please" his lordship?

I'm not even sure what your goddamned point is. The bullet now in evidence as CE399 has limited damage to it's butt due to being fired. So what?