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

[Charles Collins]

People who are determined to believe Howard Brennan will ignore all the problems with his story. Let's just summarize those problems:

* By any fair, objective measurement, Brennan's behavior toward the HSCA was not what one would expect from an honest witness who had nothing to hide and who had no reason to fear being critically questioned about his previous statements.

* Brennan said he did not observe a scope on the rifle, and that he saw 70-85% of the rifle. A scope is a pretty hard thing to miss. A rifle with a scope looks very different from a rifle without one. If Brennan could see so well that he could see the man's face clearly enough to be able to ID him later, he should have had no problem seeing the scope on the rifle. If there was no scope on the rifle, then that rifle was a different rifle than the one that Oswald allegedly used.

* Brennan's belated story that he failed to ID Oswald in the lineup because he feared retribution from accomplices is belied by his willingness to talk with journalists earlier in the day.

* Brennan said the man fired while standing up. Brennan even specified the man's exact position while he was firing: the man was "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 said the man lingered in the window for a few seconds and did not appear to be in a hurry, and this part of his testimony agrees with that of the men who were beneath the window, one of whom specified that he did not hear any movement above him right after the shots were fired. This is a devastating blow to the theory that Oswald was in the window and that he dashed from the window down to the second floor in time to be seen by Officer Baker in the second-floor lunchroom.

* Brennan said the man was wearing light-colored clothing. This is another part of Brennan's testimony that agrees with that of four other witnesses, who gave a similar description of the man's clothing and two of whom said the man's shirt was partially unbuttoned, which argues against the theory that the man was just wearing a T-shirt. But we know Oswald wore a dark shirt to work that day and was seen in that shirt less than 90 seconds on the second floor after the shooting.

* Brennan insisted that the man only fired two shots. Here, too, Brennan's testimony agrees with that of a number of other witnesses. It also agrees with the ballistics evidence found in the sniper's nest: one of the spent shells had a dent and could not have been used to fire a bullet that day. Australian detective Colin McLaren reasonably argues that the casing was simply used as a chamber plug to keep dirt and grease out of the chamber. This means that the sixth-floor gunman could have fired only two shots.

* Brennan's distance vision would have had to be remarkable, exceptional to enable him to see the man's face in any detail from 120.2 feet and looking through a halfway-closed window. It is very doubtful that he could have seen the man's face clearly enough to be able to ID him later. Brennan would have been able to see hair color, general facial shape, and complexion, but not specific facial features that would have enabled future identification of the man.

* Brennan repeatedly underestimated how far away he was from the window. He gave two distances, both of which were markedly lower than the actual distance (120.2 feet).

* Brennan said nothing about his alleged anger at reporters in his WC testimony. Not one word.

* The Zapruder film shows that Brennan was not even looking up until after frame 207, over 2 seconds after the first shot was fired (Z145-160).

* Brennan did not agree to ID Oswald as the man in the window until December 17, nearly 4 weeks after the shooting.

* Brennan's foreman said that federal agents pressured Brennan to ID Oswald and that Brennan was "a nervous wreck" after dealing with them.

I would be curious to take a poll among those who accept Brennan's Oswald ID to see how many of them also accept Arnold Rowland's far more credible and far less problematic testimony regarding activity that he saw on the sixth floor 15 minutes before the shooting.

When the discussion starts going in circle and covering the same items over and over again it is time for me to just ignore it. The sad part is that you believe your own untruths and refuse to listen to reason. One cannot reason with an unreasonable person, period.

[Michael T. Griffith]

When the discussion starts going in circle and covering the same items over and over again it is time for me to just ignore it. The sad part is that you believe your own untruths and refuse to listen to reason. One cannot reason with an unreasonable person, period.

But you have not explained a single one of those points. You've found it necessary to misrepresent Brennan's testimony on the rifle scope and on the man's position while firing. You've offered only specious excuses for Brennan's combative conduct toward the HSCA. You've quoted a source that said that a young person with exceptional distance vision could have seen the man's face clearly, apparently unaware that Brennan was 44 and wore glasses at the time of the shooting. You have yet to address the fact that the Z film shows that Brennan didn't even look up until after Z207. You've tried to explain away Brennan's corroborated statement about the color of the man's clothing by speculating that the man took off his shirt and was just wearing his T-shirt while firing, ignoring the fact that two other witnesses said the man's shirt had buttons and was partially unbuttoned. You have yet to address the fact that Jarman said he heard no movement above him after the shots were fired and that Williams' testimony supported Jarman's, and yet you claim that Oswald would have had an extra 3-4 seconds to linger at the window and put his shirt back on, when the WC had to severely rig its reenactment of Oswald's alleged movements to get him down to the second floor in time. Etc., etc., etc.

We are going around in circles, but only because you will not credibly and honestly deal with the problems with Brennan's account.

[Gerry Down]

If Oswald was planning to escape, wouldn't he have arranged to have a car nearby to escape in?

[Michael T. Griffith]

If Oswald was planning to escape, wouldn't he have arranged to have a car nearby to escape in?

Clearly, Oswald did not have any idea that he would need to escape.

We don't know Oswald's entire side of the story. We have only snippets of his account through the filter of DPD and federal agents. Incredibly, not one of Oswald's interrogations was recorded, nor even stenographed. Unbelievable. The crime of the century, if not the millennium, and neither the DPD, the SS, nor the FBI managed to record or stenograph a single one of Oswald's interrogations. And then the DPD allowed Jack Ruby into the basement and enabled him to silence Oswald forever. Oswald might have lived if the DPD officers had not waited for an ambulance instead of driving him immediately to the hospital, and if they had not pressed on his chest/stomach, the very opposite of what you should do with someone who has a stomach wound. 

[Gerry Down]

Clearly, Oswald did not have any idea that he would need to escape.

Unless Oswald went to a predetermined area where he was supposed to get in a car and then found there was none. Then realized he was on his own and had been ditched. That would explain why he then got on a bus that was clearly a bad idea because it was heading back into Dealey Plaza.

[Gerry Down]

...if they [the DPD] had not pressed on his chest/stomach, the very opposite of what you should do with someone who has a stomach wound.

I never heard this detail before. They tried to give him CPR? Which officers tried to do that?

[Charles Collins]

But you have not explained a single one of those points. You've found it necessary to misrepresent Brennan's testimony on the rifle scope and on the man's position while firing. You've offered only specious excuses for Brennan's combative conduct toward the HSCA. You've quoted a source that said that a young person with exceptional distance vision could have seen the man's face clearly, apparently unaware that Brennan was 44 and wore glasses at the time of the shooting. You have yet to address the fact that the Z film shows that Brennan didn't even look up until after Z207. You've tried to explain away Brennan's corroborated statement about the color of the man's clothing by speculating that the man took off his shirt and was just wearing his T-shirt while firing, ignoring the fact that two other witnesses said the man's shirt had buttons and was partially unbuttoned. You have yet to address the fact that Jarman said he heard no movement above him after the shots were fired and that Williams' testimony supported Jarman's, and yet you claim that Oswald would have had an extra 3-4 seconds to linger at the window and put his shirt back on, when the WC had to severely rig its reenactment of Oswald's alleged movements to get him down to the second floor in time. Etc., etc., etc.

We are going around in circles, but only because you will not credibly and honestly deal with the problems with Brennan's account.

If I remember correctly, our interaction began when I simply asked for your source of information for your claim that Brennan's alleged "willingness to talk with and give his name to journalists earlier in the day." Your answer was in Mark Lane's book. Mark Lane's claim is based on the Dallas Morning News dated 11/23/63. A quote from Kent Biffle's article (posted here by Jack Neesan) in that paper does not support Lane's apparent assumption that Brennan talked to reporters, much less gave them his name. I was genuinely interested in knowing the basis for your claim. If there had been credible evidence that it was true, I would have had a different opinion of Brennan. Yet you have apparently convinced yourself that it is true without any credible supporting evidence, only a very obvious assumption by Mark Lane. Thank you for providing the information that I asked about.

The irony regarding Brennan's behavior that occurs to me is that he apparently let his emotions control his decisions regarding identifying LHO on 11/22/63, And his reactions to the HSCA inquiry. And I believe that many conspiracy theorists have a similar issue. Instead of listening to reason, they emotionally cannot accept the idea of a nobody like LHO being able to pull off the assassination alone and will not listen to a reasonable explanation. It should therefore follow that the CTs could readily identify with Brennan's actions. But they usually say that Brennan's actions "don't make any sense," or something similar. And that is how most of the LN folks view the CT arguments: "they don't make any sense."