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

[Colin Crow]

As I have not dismissed "Brennan’s book" as you stated I will reclaim my open mindedness and lack of bias back.



It sure appears to me that you dismissed the book! You can claim anything you want back. But it ain’t gonna wash with me.

I only dismissed the anecdote that was not reported at the time but appeared 20 years later. It was the only thing you posted from the book. If you want to post more I am happy to evaluate with evidence he delivered under oath and at a time closer to the event.

I cannot what appears to you, just as you are unable/incapable to assess the state of my mind and biases. Just as you thought the Brennan memory was corroboration. You are not willing to venture where the assembled evidence leads. I suspected DVP and Bill Brown knew the endpoint and failed to engage at the outset because they knew where it led. You took a step into the unknown and are now unsure where the path leads. Better to stay safe than answer simple a simple question just in case. You never know what the next one might be.

[Colin Crow]

Doesn't take much to convince a nutter -- DOH + ROFL

Seems the detail his wife wanted at the time either 1) were not referred to a few months alter to refresh his memory during his testimony before the WC and he failed to recall looking at his watch at 12.22 or 2) was a created recollection of something that never occurred.

Am I being less than open minded and biased? After all I did take Brennan’s contemporaneous testimony, delivered under oath, and found that the ambulance call and his observations about his journey largely substantiated his estimation of taking position on the wall about 12.22-12.24.

[Charles Collins]

Doesn't take much to convince a nutter -- DOH + ROFL

So, now you must think that Louise Brennan is in on the conspiracy and/or coverup?  That figures!

[Charles Collins]

Coverup, WTF are you talking about?

I don't believe that she would be signing her name to a book that she didn't believe told the truth.

As if Louise (or you) believing in a book has any evidentiary value -- DOH!

The WC report and accompanying volumes are also books. So you believe that they don’t have any evidentiary value?

[Martin Weidmann]

The WC report and accompanying volumes are also books. So you believe that they don’t have any evidentiary value?

The WC report is an opinion (i.e. a prosecutorial circumstantial case) and as such hase no evidentiary value whatsoever. Anybody who believes an opinion can somehow be evidence needs his head examined.

Some of the material in the 26 volumes does have evidentiary value under the proviso that the actual evidence is sufficiently authenticated.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Fascinating analysis about Brennan's focus during the WC testimony....

And yet...

Mr. BELIN. And then after lunch, where did you go?
Mr. BRENNAN. I finished lunch and I glanced at a clock--I don't know exactly where the clock is located--and noticed it was 12:18. So I thought I still had a few minutes, that I might see the parade and the President. I walked to the corner of Houston and Elm.


Later he simply offers 12.22-12.24. No recollection of his watch at that point in 1964 under oath.

He offers this. He remembered a specific time leaving the cafe....go figure. He obviously lost focus later on and forgot about looking at his watch but remembered doing so for a book written years later.....of course. One published posthumously in 1987. Right on the money.

The WC had one standard for witnesses who supported the lone-gunman scenario and a very different standard for those who did not. Compare their treatment of Brennan with their treatment of Arnold Rowland. WC apologists have followed the same standard. They look for any nit-picky reason to reject witnesses they don't like, but they exhibit no such attitude toward such problematic witnesses as Brennan and Markham.

[Colin Crow]

So, now you must think that Louise Brennan is in on the conspiracy and/or coverup?  That figures!

Did she mention in the book whether she read her husband's WC testimony? If she did. does she explain whether she chastised Howard for not mentioning the watch glance?