Deconstructing Bugliosi's "53 pieces of evidence"

[Martin Weidmann]

Yes. That evidence is "Howard Brennan".

I know CTers will forever toss Mr. Brennan into the nearest gutter, practically treating him as if he had witnessed nothing at all in Dealey Plaza, but Brennan's Warren Commission testimony will forever be part of the record of the JFK case, whether conspiracists like it or not.

And if Brennan's WC testimony and positive identification of Oswald as the assassin is to be believed (and I think it is), then that means Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor with a gun at 12:30 PM, which also therefore has to mean he did manage to get from the sixth floor down to the second floor (unnoticed) in less than (approx.) 90 seconds, because we know (via Roy S. Truly's verification) that Oswald did encounter Police Officer Marrion L. Baker in the lunchroom at approximately 12:32 PM.

Plus, of course, there's also the circumstantial evidence of the JFK murder weapon positively being the C2766 Carcano rifle that was found on the 6th floor. And that's a rifle that was owned by Lee Oswald, whether stubborn CTers want to admit that fact or not. And on any given day--including 11/22/63--please tell me who is MORE likely to be using OSWALD'S gun if not Lee Oswald himself? That's very good circumstantial evidence right there---especially when it's ADDED TO Howard Brennan's Warren Commission testimony.

No conspiracy believer, however, wants to face up to the fact that the "rifle" evidence is, in fact, excellent circumstantial evidence pointing to Lee Harvey Oswald as the President's murderer.

In other words all you really have as "evidence" are basically two assumptions, of which one is based on a large number of other assumptions.

Any lawyer will tell you that witness testimony is the most unreliable evidence there is. Nevertheless you assume that Brennan's "identification" of Oswald during his WC testimony, months later, is more reliable than his initial failure to identify Oswald in a line up. There is no reason, other than wishful thinking, to place more value on the belated "identification". Even more so because the testimony was given several months later after Brennan, just like everybody else, had been exposed to continuous media reports declaring Oswald's alleged guilt. In addition, Brennan has been proven to be lying about what he was doing when the second shot was fired. He claimed he looked up to the TSBD window, but the Zapruder film shows that he actually was looking at the motorcade. He also lied about where on the wall he was sitting. He claimed he was facing the main entrance of the TSBD (which would place him on Elm street) but photographic evidence show he was in fact sitting facing Houston with his back to Dealey Plaza.

The second assumption you make is that the rifle found at the TSBD belonged to Oswald. The only justification for that assumption is the opinion of one FBI expert who claimed the Klein's order form was written by Oswald. Never mind that another FBI expert (I can't recall his name instantly) later stated that the handwriting sample (and the fact that the documents were photocopies) made it impossible to make such a determination with any kind of certainty. You also have to assume that Klein's did in fact send a rifle and Oswald received it. There is no evidence for either, expect that Waldman stated that a circle around the letters "PP" (on Waldman 7) means a rifle was send. Next you have to assume that Oswald ordered the rifle for himself and kept it in his possession between March and November 1963, which means that you also have to assume that the rifle allegedly stored in Ruth Paine's garage was indeed C2766. There isn't corroborating evidence for any of it.

What it basically comes down to is this; if I register a weapon in your name and leave it behind at a crime scene some six months later, would that be evidence that you were at that crime scene?

You are of course aware of the fact that Jesse Curry is on record saying that they never had any conclusive evidence that placed Oswald on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting, right? And that fact that Robert Tanenbaum, the former prosecutor and deputy chief counsel of the HSCA, has said that the evidence there was against Oswald was insufficient to secure a conviction.

Your cherry picked "evidence" is paper thin and in fact highly inconclusive.

[Richard Smith]

"Adding Up" the various unusual things that Lee Oswald did on 11/21 and 11/22

Translation for "adding up" is making assumptions to "connect" one thing somehow "unusual" with another thing somehow "unusual".

But perhaps you can help us out here, David.

For about six months now, I have been asking Richard Smith to provide evidence for his claims that (1) Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired and (2) that he came down the stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot. Richard told me to look at up in the WC report, but I couldn't find any evidence to support either claim in Chapter 4, which deals with the assassin.

All I could find is that the WC somehow considered the presence of the MC rifle (allegedly bought by Oswald) on the 6th floor as proof that Oswald was there when the shots were fired, which is, on so many levels, completely absurd.

Do you, David, know of any evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired and/or that he did indeed come down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds of the last shot?

"All" Martin can find is that Oswald left his rifle at the crime scene!  HA HA HA.  Imagine any other crime in history where the weapon was left at the crime scene and can be linked to an individual who was known to be in building, who fled the scene, shot a police officer, had no credible alibi and then lied to the police about his ownership of the rifle.  What a mystery to solve!  But that is "all" the evidence we have.  There is no HD film of Oswald pulling the trigger or a time machine to prove it.  So it is all just an "assumption" in the contrarian fantasy world!  And it's just an amazing string of bad luck that Oswald was the only TSBD employee who "worked in the building" who left his prints on the SN boxes, left his wedding ring and a large amount of money with his wife, made an unusual visit to the location where his rifle was kept the night before the assassination, carried his lunch in a bag over two feet long, looked exactly like the assassin and Tippit murderer according to several witnesses.  So much bad luck that day!

[Martin Weidmann]

"All" Martin can find is that Oswald left his rifle at the crime scene!  HA HA HA.  Imagine any other crime in history where the weapon was left at the crime scene and can be linked to an individual who was known to be in building, who fled the scene, shot a police officer, had no credible alibi and then lied to the police about his ownership of the rifle.  What a mystery to solve!  But that is "all" the evidence we have.  There is no HD film of Oswald pulling the trigger or a time machine to prove it.  So it is all just an "assumption" in the contrarian fantasy world!  And it's just an amazing string of bad luck that Oswald was the only TSBD employee who "worked in the building" who left his prints on the SN boxes, left his wedding ring and a large amount of money with his wife, made an unusual visit to the location where his rifle was kept the night before the assassination, carried his lunch in a bag over two feet long, looked exactly like the assassin and Tippit murderer according to several witnesses.  So much bad luck that day!

"All" Martin can find is that Oswald left his rifle at the crime scene!  HA HA HA.

Why am I not surprised that a fool makes an utterly foolish bogus claim?

And btw I never said that "Oswald left his rifle at the crime scene". That's just another thing you've made up.


There is no HD film of Oswald pulling the trigger or a time machine to prove it.  So it is all just an "assumption" in the contrarian fantasy world!

When you have no proof - as you just said - it's not a fantasy to call it an assumption because that's exactly what it is.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that assumptions are not evidence?

[Richard Smith]

"All" Martin can find is that Oswald left his rifle at the crime scene!  HA HA HA.

Why am I not surprised that a fool makes an utterly foolish bogus claim?

And btw I never said that "Oswald left his rifle at the crime scene". That's just another thing you've made up.


There is no HD film of Oswald pulling the trigger or a time machine to prove it.  So it is all just an "assumption" in the contrarian fantasy world!

When you have no proof - as you just said - it's not a fantasy to call it an assumption because that's exactly what it is.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that assumptions are not evidence?

Comedy gold.  Arguing that it is not Oswald's rifle is bad enough.  Arguing that EVEN if it is Oswald's rifle, that it still doesn't prove anything is laughable.  A rifle found at the scene belonging to Oswald is not evidence of his involvement according to our resident Inspector Clouseau.  It is just an "assumption."  HA HA HA.  Maybe that time machine will be invented one day to solve the crime. 

[Bill Chapman]

BRENNAN
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brennan.htm



Mr. BRENNAN. And I walked over to this retainer wall of this little park pool and jumped up on the top ledge.
Mr. BELIN. You jumped up on the retaining wall?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I hand you what has been marked as Exhibit 477.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 477 for identification.)
Mr. BELIN. I ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Will you please tell the Commission what this is?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is the Book Store at the corner of Houston and Elm.
Mr. BELIN. By the Book Store, you mean the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr. BRENNAN. Right.
Mr. BELIN. Now, do you know what
Mr. BRENNAN. That is the retainer wall which I perched on.
Mr. BELIN. All right. This is. the retaining wall on which you perched. I believe that this is actually you sitting on this retaining wall in a picture that we took in Dallas pursuant to your showing us where you were November 22; we took that picture on this past Friday.
Mr. BRENNAN. That is correct.
Mr. BELIN. Which would be the 20th of March. Is that correct?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is correct.
Mr. BELIN. All right. I hand you now what the reporter has marked as Commission Exhibit 478.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 478 for identification.)
Mr. BELIN. I ask you to state, if you know, what this is.
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes. That is the retaining wall and myself sitting on it at Houston and Elm.
Mr. BELIN. You remember that the photographer was standing on the front steps of the Texas School Book Depository when that picture was taken On the 20th of March?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes; I do.
Mr. BELIN. And the camera is pointed in what direction?
Mr. BRENNAN. South.
Representative Ford. Are those the positions where you were sitting on November 22?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. At about 12
Mr. BRENNAN. From about 12:22 or 12:24 until the time of the assassination.
Representative FORD. In both pictures, that is a true--
Mr. BRENNAN. True location.
Representative FORD. True location of where you were sitting November 22d?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, I am going to hand you a negative, which has been marked as Commission Exhibit 479.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 479 for identification.)
Mr. BELIN. This appears to be a negative from a moving picture film. And I will hand you a magnifying glass--the negative has been enlarged. This negative appears to be a picture of the Presidential motorcade on the afternoon of November 22d. I ask you to state if you can find yourself in the crowd in the background in that picture.
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes. I am sitting at the same position as I was in the picture taken Friday, with the exception, I believe, my hand is resting on the wall, and Friday my hand, I believe, was resting on my leg.
Mr. BELIN. Well, your legs in this picture, Exhibit 479, I notice, are not dangling on the front side there, is that correct?
142

Mr. BRENNAN. No.
Mr. BELIN. What were you wearing on November 22d? What clothes were you wearing?
Mr. BRENNAN. Gray khaki work clothes, with a dark gray hard helmet.
Mr. BELIN. Your head here appears to be the highest in the group, a little bit left of center in the upper part of the picture, is that correct?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Does this scene depict the scene as you recollect it on that day, November 22d?
Mr. BRENNAN. It does.

[Michael Walton]

I've always found it hard to believe that Brennan was able to "clearly" see from 90 feet away looking upward to a very small window with the pane cracked open halfway that he could identify someone, especially when his eyes - like many people there - were focused on the motorcade. We're talking pandemonium here with the cars and cycles going by, the cheering and so on.

[Richard Smith]

I've always found it hard to believe that Brennan was able to "clearly" see from 90 feet away looking upward to a very small window with the pane cracked open halfway that he could identify someone, especially when his eyes - like many people there - were focused on the motorcade. We're talking pandemonium here with the cars and cycles going by, the cheering and so on.

This doesn't seem like a great mystery.  Brennan is standing below on the street, hears gun shots, does the logical thing and looks for the source of the noise and sees Oswald with his rifle.  If there is anything that is surprising, it is that many more witnesses didn't do the same (although others did see the rifle in that window confirming that is the location of the shooter - unless you believe lunatic things like Oswald was firing blanks etc).