Buell Wesley Frazier

[Martin Weidmann]

I'm not exactly sure what you are taking issue with since you didn't articulate a single point while acting like a petulant child upset to learn that there is no Santa Claus.  Oswald was balding and looked much older than 24.  I would have guessed his age as late 20s or early 30s.  Estimating his age as in his 30s is reasonable.  Particularly for someone who saw him through a 6th floor window.  The description is not "way off."  That is an absurd characterization.  It highlights the incredible bias that you bring to this case.  You would have us believe that it could only be Oswald if Brennan had performed like a circus worker and precisely guessed his age and weight.   In your fantasy world, any discrepancy in his estimate negates the real evidence such as Oswald's prints on the SN, the presence of his rifle, and fired shell casings on behind the window.   That's breathtaking and the only truly unresolved issue is not whether Oswald was the shooter but why anyone would go to such tortured lengths to try to exonerate him.

I'm not exactly sure what you are taking issue with

Quelle surprise 

It's always funny when a completely unreasonable man considers himself to be reasonable....

[Tom Sorensen]

It doesn't matter whether Brennan was "remarkably accurate" or "way off", he failed to recognize Oswald at the lineup. Game over. It's remarkable that Richard insists on stumping his small feet to evade this brutal fact.

[John Mytton]

It doesn't matter whether Brennan was "remarkably accurate" or "way off", he failed to recognize Oswald at the lineup. Game over. It's remarkable that Richard insists on stumping his small feet to evade this brutal fact.

Game over? Game over?

Sorry Tom but but neither you or I are in a position to make that assertion, it would come down to an unbiased Jury to balance the evidence and then they could draw their own conclusion.

1) As already stated, Brennan's first day affidavit and the subsequent Police radio broadcast closely matched Oswald's description and would be powerful evidence.
2) Oswald's fresh prints in the sniper's nest, the same window Brennan identified.
3) Oswald's rifle.
4) Oswald's flight from the scene of the crime.
5) Special agent Sorrels who testified at the line-up that Brennan told him that man 2, "Oswald" was the closest man.
6) Brennan's testimony under oath that he was afraid for his family because of a possible Communist connection. A very real worry.
7) Brennan stating categorially in his testimony under oath that he could have identified Oswald.

And there you have it, personally I believe it's a slam dunk.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Game over? Game over?

Sorry Tom but but neither you or I are in a position to make that assertion, it would come down to an unbiased Jury to balance the evidence and then they could draw their own conclusion.

1) As already stated, Brennan's first day affidavit and the subsequent Police radio broadcast closely matched Oswald's description and would be powerful evidence.
2) Oswald's fresh prints in the sniper's nest, the same window Brennan identified.
3) Oswald's rifle.
4) Oswald's flight from the scene of the crime.
5) Special agent Sorrels who testified at the line-up that Brennan told him that man 2, "Oswald" was the closest man.
6) Brennan's testimony under oath that he was afraid for his family because of a possible Communist connection. A very real worry.
7) Brennan stating categorially in his testimony under oath that he could have identified Oswald.

And there you have it, personally I believe it's a slam dunk.

JohnM

And there you have it, personally I believe it's a slam dunk.

And I, personally, believe you have been fooled.....  Go figure!

[Tom Sorensen]

Game over? Game over?

Sorry Tom but but neither you or I are in a position to make that assertion, it would come down to an unbiased Jury to balance the evidence and then they could draw their own conclusion.

1) As already stated, Brennan's first day affidavit and the subsequent Police radio broadcast closely matched Oswald's description and would be powerful evidence.
2) Oswald's fresh prints in the sniper's nest, the same window Brennan identified.
3) Oswald's rifle.
4) Oswald's flight from the scene of the crime.
5) Special agent Sorrels who testified at the line-up that Brennan told him that man 2, "Oswald" was the closest man.
6) Brennan's testimony under oath that he was afraid for his family because of a possible Communist connection. A very real worry.
7) Brennan stating categorially in his testimony under oath that he could have identified Oswald.

And there you have it, personally I believe it's a slam dunk.

JohnM

To my knowledge, no other witness pulled the commie card, certainly not those who pointed their finger at Oswald. Brennan's commie paranoia BS would be a hard sell in court, especially since it cured itself so quickly. "Under oath" only means you can get in trouble if you're caught lying. Your list would obviously not have stood unchallenged, so your jury argument is essentially moot; the defense would have destroyed it, especially "Oswald's rifle." —ROFL.

[John Mytton]

To my knowledge, no other witness pulled the commie card, certainly not those who pointed their finger at Oswald. Brennan's commie paranoia BS would be a hard sell in court, especially since it cured itself so quickly. "Under oath" only means you can get in trouble if you're caught lying. Your list would obviously not have stood unchallenged, so your jury argument is essentially moot; the defense would have destroyed it, especially "Oswald's rifle." —ROFL.

Destroyed it? Destroyed it?

Talk about delusional

To my knowledge, no other witness pulled the commie card, certainly not those who pointed their finger at Oswald.

How many eyewitnesses were there that went to a line-up who saw the President of the United States being shot? Brennan had every right to fear for his family

Brennan's commie paranoia BS would be a hard sell in court, especially since it cured itself so quickly.

After Oswald was killed and his lone nutter status quickly became clear, Brennan had little reason to fear any reprisals. And what did Brennan get out of this, not much!

"Under oath" only means you can get in trouble if you're caught lying.

Yeah, and lying about any evidence in connection with the murder of the President of the United States could mean a long stay behind bars, so Brennan's best interest was to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth and since he swore on the bible, lying could mean eternal damnation in the pits of Hell!

Your list would obviously not have stood unchallenged, so your jury argument is essentially moot; the defense would have destroyed it, especially "Oswald's rifle." —ROFL.

Sure a good defence would challenge everything, let's see how far that gets you in connection with my list.

1) No debate Brennan's extremely close description was broadcast on the Police radio at 12:45

2) Oswald's relatively fresh prints were in the sniper's nest, these prints on multiple boxes according to the FBI Experts were no more than 3 days old, and in addition the Rolling reader boxes which were moved half way across the 6th floor were a unique size perfectly suitable to create a rifle rest and to top it off Oswald's prints were on top of the closer Rolling Reader box orientated as if Oswald was looking down Elm street, the Defence could argue that Oswald worked there but the prosecution would counter with, every employee was not paid to touch every box in the building every three days making the prohibitive probability that Oswald touched these boxes as a matter of his job extremely low.

3) Oswald's rifle was ordered, paid for, sent to his PO Box, was photographed with and was found at his work! The defence could argue that each of these were faked by persons unknown and the rifle was planted but you'd be laughed put of court, pathetic!

4) Again this is a no brainer Oswald decided to leave not at the start of lunch, not at the end of lunch but within 3 minutes of the President being shot. Then Oswald in a blind panic bashes on the door of a bus stuck in Traffic then after a short time jumps off and gets a cab which then stops way past his rooming house. Every step shows a consciousness of guilt, the defence would have no hope justifying any of this. Their best bet would be to say Oswald knew something and fled, but that could only mean Oswald was involved and the Death Penalty would equally apply to him.

5+6+7) Explained above. The defence could say that it was "Game Over" because of the initial apprehension but when weighed with his first description along with a very real fear of his family being slaughtered, His testimony would sway any jury.

See Tom, you've been smashed! Next time, Try Harder!

JohnM

[Tom Sorensen]

Destroyed it? Destroyed it?

Talk about delusional

How many eyewitnesses were there that went to a line-up who saw the President of the United States being shot? Brennan had every right to fear for his family

After Oswald was killed and his lone nutter status quickly became clear, Brennan had little reason to fear any reprisals. And what did Brennan get out of this, not much!

Yeah, and lying about any evidence in connection with the murder of the President of the United States could mean a long stay behind bars, so Brennan's best interest was to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth and since he swore on the bible, lying could mean eternal damnation in the pits of Hell!

Sure a good defence would challenge everything, let's see how far that gets you in connection with my list.

1) No debate Brennan's extremely close description was broadcast on the Police radio at 12:45

2) Oswald's relatively fresh prints were in the sniper's nest, these prints on multiple boxes according to the FBI Experts were no more than 3 days old, and in addition the Rolling reader boxes which were moved half way across the 6th floor were a unique size perfectly suitable to create a rifle rest and to top it off Oswald's prints were on top of the closer Rolling Reader box orientated as if Oswald was looking down Elm street, the Defence could argue that Oswald worked there but the prosecution would counter with, every employee was not paid to touch every box in the building every three days making the prohibitive probability that Oswald touched these boxes as a matter of his job extremely low.

3) Oswald's rifle was ordered, paid for, sent to his PO Box, was photographed with and was found at his work! The defence could argue that each of these were faked by persons unknown and the rifle was planted but you'd be laughed put of court, pathetic!

4) Again this is a no brainer Oswald decided to leave not at the start of lunch, not at the end of lunch but within 3 minutes of the President being shot. Then Oswald in a blind panic bashes on the door of a bus stuck in Traffic then after a short time jumps off and gets a cab which then stops way past his rooming house. Every step shows a consciousness of guilt, the defence would have no hope justifying any of this. Their best bet would be to say Oswald knew something and fled, but that could only mean Oswald was involved and the Death Penalty would equally apply to him.

5+6+7) Explained above. The defence could say that it was "Game Over" because of the initial apprehension but when weighed with his first description along with a very real fear of his family being slaughtered, His testimony would sway any jury.

See Tom, you've been smashed! Next time, Try Harder!

JohnM

There was no trial, and there was no jury; consequently, Brennan wasn't cross-examined, and his commie BS excuse wasn't challenged. You have no clue what the defense would have uncovered and how a jury would have reacted. The Carcano "paper trail" the FBI was spoon-feeding Earl Warren's boys would have been trashed. I schooled you on this years ago, and you got smoked, as in totally smoked. Why do you keep doing this to yourself?