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

[Michael T. Griffith]

Ok, let's get a few facts straight about Howard Brennan:

Brennan's testimony would have been torn to shreds in a trial. Brennan couldn't even identify which sixth-floor window he supposedly observed, and the Zapruder film shows he was not looking up until after frame 207, over two seconds after the first shot was fired (at around frames 145-160). Brennan said the man he saw in the window was standing when he fired each of the shots, a fanciful proposition that even the Warren Commission rejected.

In addition, Brennan failed to identify Oswald in a police line-up on November 22, even though he had seen Oswald's picture beforehand. Posner deals with this problem by advancing Brennan's claim that he could have identified Oswald in the November 22 line-up but was afraid to do so because he feared Oswald had accomplices who would kill him if he made the identification! Yet, on November 22, Brennan spoke with reporters about the assassination, and he even gave them his name--strange behavior for a man who supposedly feared he would be killed if he identified Oswald in a police station.

Moreover, it was only after months of "questioning" by federal agents that Brennan gave a positive identification of Oswald as the sixth-floor shooter. The HSCA found Brennan's testimony to be so full of contradiction and confusion that it ignored his story entirely.

There is another serious problem with Brennan's testimony that is often overlooked. Brennan said that when he looked up after the presidential limousine had driven away, he still saw Oswald in the sixth-floor window! Brennan added that Oswald remained at the window for at least a few seconds after that! Then, said Brennan, Oswald "simply moved away from the window until he disappeared from my line of vision." "He didn't appear to be rushed," recalled Brennan. Anyone who knows the case well knows the serious problem this poses for the already impossible task of getting Oswald down to the second-floor lunchroom in time to be seen by Officer Baker.

If Brennan had not succumbed to the pressure to identify Oswald, the WC would have treated him much the same way it treated Arnold Rowland. I believe most of Brennan's account, just not his identification of Oswald and the bit about the gunman firing while standing. His statement that the gunman stayed in the window for a bit and did not rush off is consistent with the testimony of Bonnie Williams, who was a few feet below the sixth-floor window and who said he heard no movement in the window after the shots were fired.

[Bill Chapman]

not likely on a half assed investigation.
good luck with that

What's half-assed is your automatic dovetailing back to the WC instead of looking up the reason why FMJ ammo was designed to pass through-and-through (aka 'over-penetrate') a body.

[Bill Chapman]

Ok, let's get a few facts straight about Howard Brennan:

Brennan's testimony would have been torn to shreds in a trial. Brennan couldn't even identify which sixth-floor window he supposedly observed, and the Zapruder film shows he was not looking up until after frame 207, over two seconds after the first shot was fired (at around frames 145-160). Brennan said the man he saw in the window was standing when he fired each of the shots, a fanciful proposition that even the Warren Commission rejected.

In addition, Brennan failed to identify Oswald in a police line-up on November 22, even though he had seen Oswald's picture beforehand. Posner deals with this problem by advancing Brennan's claim that he could have identified Oswald in the November 22 line-up but was afraid to do so because he feared Oswald had accomplices who would kill him if he made the identification! Yet, on November 22, Brennan spoke with reporters about the assassination, and he even gave them his name--strange behavior for a man who supposedly feared he would be killed if he identified Oswald in a police station.

Moreover, it was only after months of "questioning" by federal agents that Brennan gave a positive identification of Oswald as the sixth-floor shooter. The HSCA found Brennan's testimony to be so full of contradiction and confusion that it ignored his story entirely.

There is another serious problem with Brennan's testimony that is often overlooked. Brennan said that when he looked up after the presidential limousine had driven away, he still saw Oswald in the sixth-floor window! Brennan added that Oswald remained at the window for at least a few seconds after that! Then, said Brennan, Oswald "simply moved away from the window until he disappeared from my line of vision." "He didn't appear to be rushed," recalled Brennan. Anyone who knows the case well knows the serious problem this poses for the already impossible task of getting Oswald down to the second-floor lunchroom in time to be seen by Officer Baker.

If Brennan had not succumbed to the pressure to identify Oswald, the WC would have treated him much the same way it treated Arnold Rowland. I believe most of Brennan's account, just not his identification of Oswald. His statement that the gunman stayed in the window for a bit and did not rush off is consistent with the testimony of Bonnie Williams, who was a few feet below the sixth-floor window and who said he heard no movement in the window after the shots were fired.

 

I thought you said you were going to get 'a few facts straight'..

[Michael T. Griffith]

I thought you said you were going to get 'the facts straight'..

I did. Every statement I made about his story is factual. He did not ID Oswald in the police lineup. At first he wasn't sure which window he saw. He said the shooter lingered in the window. He claimed he didn't ID Oswald at the police station because he feared for his life, yet he spoke with reports about the shooting and identified himself while speaking with them, on 11/22--odd behavior if he feared Oswald's accomplices might kill him.

We should remember that Brennan only agreed to ID Oswald as the shooter after prolonged "interviews" by federal agents. Most of his testimony is credible and agrees with that of several other witnesses. The only doubtful element in his testimony, other than his belated Oswald ID, is his statement that the gunman was standing.

[Charles Collins]

I did. Every statement I made about his story is factual. He did not ID Oswald in the police lineup. At first he wasn't sure which window he saw. He said the shooter lingered in the window. He claimed he didn't ID Oswald at the police station because he feared for his life, yet he spoke with reports about the shooting and identified himself while speaking with them, on 11/22--odd behavior if he feared Oswald's accomplices might kill him.

We should remember that Brennan only agreed to ID Oswald as the shooter after prolonged "interviews" by federal agents. Most of his testimony is credible and agrees with that of several other witnesses. The only doubtful element in his testimony, other than his belated Oswald ID, is his statement that the gunman was standing.

Where did you get information that supposedly indicates that Howard Brennan spoke with reporters and identified himself on 11/22/63?

[Bill Chapman]

Ok, let's get a few facts straight about Howard Brennan:

Brennan's testimony would have been torn to shreds in a trial. Brennan couldn't even identify which sixth-floor window he supposedly observed, and the Zapruder film shows he was not looking up until after frame 207, over two seconds after the first shot was fired (at around frames 145-160). Brennan said the man he saw in the window was standing when he fired each of the shots, a fanciful proposition that even the Warren Commission rejected.

In addition, Brennan failed to identify Oswald in a police line-up on November 22, even though he had seen Oswald's picture beforehand. Posner deals with this problem by advancing Brennan's claim that he could have identified Oswald in the November 22 line-up but was afraid to do so because he feared Oswald had accomplices who would kill him if he made the identification! Yet, on November 22, Brennan spoke with reporters about the assassination, and he even gave them his name--strange behavior for a man who supposedly feared he would be killed if he identified Oswald in a police station.

Moreover, it was only after months of "questioning" by federal agents that Brennan gave a positive identification of Oswald as the sixth-floor shooter. The HSCA found Brennan's testimony to be so full of contradiction and confusion that it ignored his story entirely.

There is another serious problem with Brennan's testimony that is often overlooked. Brennan said that when he looked up after the presidential limousine had driven away, he still saw Oswald in the sixth-floor window! Brennan added that Oswald remained at the window for at least a few seconds after that! Then, said Brennan, Oswald "simply moved away from the window until he disappeared from my line of vision." "He didn't appear to be rushed," recalled Brennan. Anyone who knows the case well knows the serious problem this poses for the already impossible task of getting Oswald down to the second-floor lunchroom in time to be seen by Officer Baker.

If Brennan had not succumbed to the pressure to identify Oswald, the WC would have treated him much the same way it treated Arnold Rowland. I believe most of Brennan's account, just not his identification of Oswald and the bit about the gunman firing while standing. His statement that the gunman stayed in the window for a bit and did not rush off is consistent with the testimony of Bonnie Williams, who was a few feet below the sixth-floor window and who said he heard no movement in the window after the shots were fired.

'Anyone who knows the case well knows the serious problem this poses for the already impossible task of getting Oswald down to the second-floor lunchroom in time to be seen by Officer Baker'
>Testers proved you wrong

'Brennan said the man he saw in the window was standing when he fired each of the shots"
> Brennan also said Jarman and Williams appeared to be standing as well: Guess why..

[Bill Chapman]

Not sure what the point is you're trying to make, but if you are calling me an atheist then you are right.   
I don't like to be told that I have to believe something for which there is no conclusive evidence at all..... hence my dislike of the WCR

But that has nothing to do with your idiotic claim that Oswald is sending memos from Hell. Now, how about that postal service?

Telling you you're not imaginative enough isn't the same as claiming authorship of anything. It is, however, a confirmation of a severe lack of creativity on your part

Yes, but I don't see that every day I step outside on the terrace of my "basement".

Not sure what the point is you're trying to make
> You started it. My OMG page offered up 'to each his own'

but if you are calling me an atheist then you are right.
> My OMG page includes two dogmatic belief systems

'I don't like to be told that I have to believe something for which there is no conclusive evidence at all..... hence my dislike of the WCR'
> 

But that has nothing to do with your idiotic claim that Oswald is sending memos from Hell. Now, how about that postal service?
>

'Telling you you're not imaginative enough isn't the same as claiming authorship of anything'
> Translation, please

'It is, however, a confirmation of a severe lack of creativity on your part
> Do you think you're creative? Show us.

Yes, but I don't see that every day I step outside on the terrace of my "basement"
> Translation, please

In the meantime: