The gun , bought by LHO , that fired the shots , that killed the JFK ..........
cdddraftsman
about the only evidence that is worthy of discussion . The small
handful of solid physical evidence , that would of convicted LHO . The
gun , bought by LHO , that fired the shots , that killed the JFK , his
shirt fibers , his palm and finger prints , on box's and the gun . His
presence , unknown at the time of the shooting . His propensity for
violent behavior . All those attributes and evidence that point towards
him and him alone . By focusing attention away from these important
clues , everyone does everyone else a disservice to the cause of truth
in these matters .........TL
jwrush
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159221482....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Of course it wasn't good for him that he shot Tippit and tried to shoot
McDonald in the theater or that he had asked his wife to take pictures of
him posing with the rifle and the radical magazines, and of course there
was that little matter of his trying to shoot Walker and trying to get a
visa to get into Cuba, and his walking around Canal Street with the "Viva
Fidel" sign.
cdddraftsman
Dulles , Angleton and Helmes . ............TL
charles wallace
involved in the murder of JFK. Do you understand that evidence can be
manipulated to make it appear that a person did something which he did not
do? He said he was just a patsy. This statement implies that he knew
that certain evidence was real and pointed to him.
He knew he was tricked into bringing his rifle to work and that it was
used to incriminate him in the assassination. He compounded this
incrimination by lying to authorities about some things as well. If you
look at the totality of the evidence you will conclude that Oswald was not
the shooter and not even a knowing member of the conspiracy which killed
JFK.
Case Wide Open: A JFK Murder Investigation
http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK
jwrush
"charles wallace" <ccwa...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22194-45...@storefull-3178.bay.webtv.net...
> Yes, there is evidence that makes it appear that Oswald is guilty of being
> involved in the murder of JFK. Do you understand that evidence can be
> manipulated to make it appear that a person did something which he did not
> do? He said he was just a patsy.
That's what he wanted everyone to think. He wanted everyone to blame the
Dallas right-wingers and not him.
>This statement implies that he knew
> that certain evidence was real and pointed to him.
Well, doh, he was seen firing his own rifle at the President, he was seen
shooting Tippit, he was seen trying to shoot McDonald, the cops found the
photos of him holding the rifle, the ones that he made Marina take. Marina
said she took the pictures and it was his rifle.
>
> He knew he was tricked into bringing his rifle to work and that it was
> used to incriminate him in the assassination.
Tricked?? Lol. I'm glad you acknowledge there weren't any "curtain rods"
in the package. Yes, he brought the rifle to work and shot the President
with it. He went home and got his pistol and shot Tippit with that and
tried to shoot McDonald with it.
>He compounded this
> incrimination by lying to authorities about some things as well.
Yeah, like saying, "I didn't shoot anybody."
> If you
> look at the totality of the evidence you will conclude that Oswald was not
> the shooter and not even a knowing member of the conspiracy which killed
> JFK.
The total evidence reveals that Oswald did it and did it by himself.
charles wallace
You say Oswald was seen firing at the President with his rifle. You
must be referring to witness Howard Brennan. Brennan was a good witness
if ignore that the authorities got him to say it was Oswald he saw.
Brennan told them a number of times that he could not say it was Oswald.
He did say the shooter was wearing a light colored shirt. Four other
witnesses say the same thing. Oswald was not wearing a light colored
sports shirt open in a vee. Brennan's weight estimate for the shooter
was more than Oswald weighed. Brennan said the shooter appeared to be
35 years old. My research indicates that the shooter was close to this
age estimate. Oswald was in his early twenties.
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
> If you ignore the evidence then you can have any conclusion you desire.
> You say Oswald was seen firing at the President with his rifle. You
> must be referring to witness Howard Brennan. Brennan was a good witness
> if ignore that the authorities got him to say it was Oswald he saw.
> Brennan told them a number of times that he could not say it was Oswald.
> He did say the shooter was wearing a light colored shirt. Four other
> witnesses say the same thing. Oswald was not wearing a light colored
> sports shirt open in a vee. Brennan's weight estimate for the shooter
> was more than Oswald weighed.
Charles, it'd be good to get past the weight guessing carnival argument-
few witnesses have any such experience in guessing weight. Whether you say
135 or 165, you're still talking about a slight build.
Brennan said the shooter appeared to be
> 35 years old.
Hell, I'd say that by looking at photos of him.
My research indicates that the shooter was close to this
> age estimate. Oswald was in his early twenties.
Oswald didn't look to be in his early 20's.
Chad
Jean Davison
> If you ignore the evidence then you can have any conclusion you desire.
> You say Oswald was seen firing at the President with his rifle. You
> must be referring to witness Howard Brennan. Brennan was a good witness
> if ignore that the authorities got him to say it was Oswald he saw.
> Brennan told them a number of times that he could not say it was Oswald.
> He did say the shooter was wearing a light colored shirt. Four other
> witnesses say the same thing. Oswald was not wearing a light colored
> sports shirt open in a vee. Brennan's weight estimate for the shooter
> was more than Oswald weighed. Brennan said the shooter appeared to be
> 35 years old. My research indicates that the shooter was close to this
> age estimate. Oswald was in his early twenties.
>
Did Brennan say specifically "35 years old," Charles? His 11/22
affidavit says, "He was a white man in his early 30's, slender, nice
looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds." But here's the
thing..... Patrolman Baker saw Oswald in the TSBD after the shooting.
Baker's 11/22 affidavit also described a man in his 30s with the same
build: "The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9",
165 pounds, dark hair...." That's *Oswald* he is talking about, very
similar to Brennan's description.
Oswald's receding hairline made him look older:
That old, stretched t-shirt could've been confused with an
open-neck white shirt from a distance, imo.
Jean
Marty
"Jean Davison" <walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:451b4e27$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Hi Jean
In all the fuss and flurry - when do you suppose Oswald had time to put on
his brown shirt? Baker identified the brown shirt. (3 H 257)
Glad to see you posting again.
Martha
>
charles wallace
LNers,
You speculate that the witnesses really saw Oswald and suggest that they
made mistakes in their information about the man they saw. You suggest
they saw Oswald in just his T-shirt. Arnold Rowland said the light
colored shirt was unbuttoned about half way down from the collar and
that he could see a T-shirt in that vee opening. You suggested that the
witnesses saw Oswald's receding hairline and thought the guy was in his
thirties. Arnold Rowland said he did not appear to have a receding
hairline and he thought the guy was in his thirties.
It is not wrong to speculate and witnesses do make mistakes. I speculate
about things to assist researchers in finding the truth. For instance, I
speculate that the witnesses were WRONG also about the light colored
shirt they thought they saw. I believe it was a light colored jacket
zipped up halfway and that the guy had his real shirt unbuttoned half
way and they could not see that it was dark blue because it was hidden
by the jacket. The shooter took off this jacket immediately after the
shots.
If you go to my website you can see for yourself that the guy was in his
thirties, about 5 feet 8 inches or more in height and weighed 150 pounds
or more. This picture of him agrees with the six eye witnesses that saw
him except that he no longer has the light colored jacket on.
An anonymous poster in 1999-2000 on alt.conspiracy.jfk claimed that the
photo is of the TSBD shooter because he knew him and what he did. He
claimed the shooter was in his thirties at the time of the
assassination, wore glasses, and wore a dark blue police uniform. He
claimed the shooter hated Kennedy for aiding the blacks.
Regards, Charles
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie; deliberate,
contrived and dishonest, but the myth.....persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic," John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1962
tomnln
shortly after the shooting.
Unless of course someone wants to claim it's Oswald.
"Marty" <jam...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:wqWSg.9546$6S3...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Jean Davison
"Marty" <jam...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:wqWSg.9546$6S3...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
Hi Martha,
To put each arm in a sleeve, how long could it take? The shirt
wasn't tucked in, according to Baker, leading him to mistake it for a
jacket.
It took Baker about two minutes to get to the 2nd floor, by Gary
Mack's calculation, and a TV re-enactment got Oswald there in under 50
seconds, if I remember correctly. That'd give him a minute and 10 seconds
to put on his shirt. ;-)
> Glad to see you posting again.
>
Thanks, Martha. Always good to see you here.
Jean
Anthony Marsh
> "charles wallace" <ccwa...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:22194-45...@storefull-3178.bay.webtv.net...
>> Yes, there is evidence that makes it appear that Oswald is guilty of being
>> involved in the murder of JFK. Do you understand that evidence can be
>> manipulated to make it appear that a person did something which he did not
>> do? He said he was just a patsy.
>
> That's what he wanted everyone to think. He wanted everyone to blame the
> Dallas right-wingers and not him.
>
Doesn't work. Oswald expected to be caught or killed for the Walker
shooting. Do you really think that Oswald thought he could shoot the
President and get away with it? And once they catch Oswald, who in his
right mind would conclude that Oswald was acting on behalf of the
right-wing?
cdddraftsman
beginning , no CTer willing to discuss the hard physical evidence , yet
more than willing to immediately go off on a tangent to disguise the
fact that LHO killed President Kennedy ......I thank you all for your
comments .......A new thread is requested .....I shall post one soon
......TL
David Von Pein
Well-stated, Tom. I fully concur.
There's not a single solitary thing that Lee Harvey Oswald did after 12:30
PM on 11/22/63 that helps a CTer to exonerate the lowlife crumb named
Oswald.
Plus -- Oswald's web of lies that he began to spin from almost the very
first moment he was shoved in that police car on Jefferson Boulevard
certainly don't do anything to aid a CTer's case for conspiracy either.
More on those topics below.......
David Von Pein
Yet another excellent post by Miss Davison. Thank you, Jean.
Coincidentally, while perusing Officer Marrion Baker's 11/22/63 affidavit
just today (while ripping apart a CTer's total misrepresentation of said
document), I also took note of Baker's description of Oswald --
"approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds". That's almost a perfect
match to Brennan's description of the 6th-Floor assassin. The only
difference is the height...and by just one inch.
Also -- Jean, you are correct re. Brennan's "age" statements -- i.e.,
Brennan never once said the SN killer was "35 years old". He said "early
30s" both in his 11/22 affidavit and in his WC testimony months later.
.....
"To my best description, a man in his early thirties, fair complexion,
slender but neat, neat slender, possibly 5-foot 10." -- Howard L. Brennan;
To WC
Some more CS&L (Common Sense & Logic) regarding the unfairly-maligned
Howard Brennan can be found at the links below:
David Von Pein
It is certainly worth again noting the following for those CTers who
think Howard Brennan's testimony is full of crap.....
As previously mentioned by Jean Davison --- Marrion Baker, in his
11/22/63 affidavit, described the person whom he had encountered in the
second-floor lunchroom as being "A white man approximately 30 years
old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket".
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
And since we know for a fact that the man Baker was talking about here
was positively Lee Harvey Oswald, it puts a bit of a different light on
Howard Brennan's very-similar stats regarding the gunman he saw in the
Sniper's Nest window just minutes earlier.
Brennan said the assassin on the 6th Floor was in his "Early 30s,
slender, 5'10" tall, and 160-175 pounds". (That weight estimate is a
combination of figures from Brennan's two statements re. the assassin's
approximate weight....Brennan, in his 11/22/63 affidavit, said the
gunman weighed "about 165 to 175 pounds"; but he later told the Warren
Commission "from 160 to 170 pounds". But either figure perfectly aligns
with the figure Marrion Baker gave in his signed affidavit.)
IOW -- Just like Howard Brennan (a man that CTers love to try to
discredit in every way imaginable), Officer Baker ALSO thought Lee
Oswald looked older than his true age (which was 24), and also was of
the opinion that Oswald weighed more than his true weight (which was
estimated to be "150 pounds" via LHO's autopsy report).
Very interesting parallel there, IMO, re. Baker's and Brennan's
nearly-identical physical facts 'n figures with respect to a man who
was inside the Depository at the time of JFK's murder -- with one man
(Baker) positively seeing Oswald himself and describing him in the very
same physical fashion as another man (Brennan), who saw a 6th-Floor
sniper whose description perfectly matched Baker's description of
Oswald.
Officer Baker's description of Oswald only enhances the likelihood that
Brennan most certainly ALSO saw Oswald on the sixth floor of the TSBD
in the SN window.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>A follow-up from a previous post........
>
>It is certainly worth again noting the following for those CTers who
>think Howard Brennan's testimony is full of crap.....
It's not necessarily full of crap, he just wasn't able to positively
ID Oswald.
>
>As previously mentioned by Jean Davison --- Marrion Baker, in his
>11/22/63 affidavit, described the person whom he had encountered in the
>second-floor lunchroom as being "A white man approximately 30 years
>old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket".
Note the "light brown jacket"? <g> And why didn't you include the line
about WHERE he encountered this man in the light brown jacket?
Could it be be cause he didn't say it was in or near the lunchroom
.... but on the 3rd or 4th floor?
Here's the quote:
"As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from
the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back
toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then
turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a
white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and
wearing a light brown jacket."
>
>http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
>
>And since we know for a fact that the man Baker was talking about here
>was positively Lee Harvey Oswald, it puts a bit of a different light on
>Howard Brennan's very-similar stats regarding the gunman he saw in the
>Sniper's Nest window just minutes earlier.
Must be the brown coat, eh?
>
>Brennan said the assassin on the 6th Floor was in his "Early 30s,
>slender, 5'10" tall, and 160-175 pounds". (That weight estimate is a
>combination of figures from Brennan's two statements re. the assassin's
>approximate weight....Brennan, in his 11/22/63 affidavit, said the
>gunman weighed "about 165 to 175 pounds"; but he later told the Warren
>Commission "from 160 to 170 pounds". But either figure perfectly aligns
>with the figure Marrion Baker gave in his signed affidavit.)
Do you know how much just-turned-24 yr old Oswald actually weighed?
>
>IOW -- Just like Howard Brennan (a man that CTers love to try to
>discredit in every way imaginable),
Why bother? He failed to positively ID Oswald.
>Officer Baker ALSO thought Lee
>Oswald looked older than his true age (which was 24), and also was of
>the opinion that Oswald weighed more than his true weight (which was
>estimated to be "150 pounds" via LHO's autopsy report).
Ahh...I see ... a dismissive wave...
>
>Very interesting parallel there, IMO, re. Baker's and Brennan's
>nearly-identical physical facts 'n figures with respect to a man who
>was inside the Depository at the time of JFK's murder -- with one man
>(Baker) positively seeing Oswald himself and describing him in the very
>same physical fashion as another man (Brennan), who saw a 6th-Floor
>sniper whose description perfectly matched Baker's description of
>Oswald.
Save a brown coat. And whatd'ya think about that 3rd or 4th floor
(minus any lunchroom mention) bit?
>
>Officer Baker's description of Oswald only enhances the likelihood that
>Brennan most certainly ALSO saw Oswald on the sixth floor of the TSBD
>in the SN window.
He may have. Or he may have seen someone else who he described that
way. What we do know is that off-on-off-on Brennan failed to
positively identify Oswald.
Barb :-)
>
David Von Pein
The "brown jacket" reference made by Baker is perfectly understandable
-- Baker (quite obviously) saw Oswald's brown SHIRT (untucked) over the
white T-shirt, and mistakenly thought the untucked "shirt" was a
"jacket". Simple. And very reasonable. As can be seen here.....
www.saintaardvarkthecarpeted.com/images/oswald_press_conference.jpg
>>> "Do you know how much just-turned-24-yr.-old Oswald actually weighed?" <<<
Approx. 150 pounds (per his "estimated" weight at autopsy; 11/24/63).
>>> "Why bother? He failed to positively ID Oswald." <<<
Wrong...again.
>>> "And whatd'ya think about that 3rd or 4th floor (minus any lunchroom mention) bit?" <<<
Baker obviously wasn't sure exactly what floor he stopped Oswald on
(per his affidavit)....hence the verbiage "3rd or 4th floor". But since
we also have Baker's WC testimony and Roy S. Truly's WC testimony,
which verify that Oswald was stopped in the 2nd-Floor lunchroom....your
whole point is a moot one with respect to (as per the CT norm)
attempting to make a skyscraping conspiracy-flavored Mount Everest out
of an ordinary non-hinky anthill.
Truly said the "encounter" took place on Floor #2. And so did Baker
(via WC comments).....
OFFICER BAKER -- "As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly
was ahead of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know,
the rooms, and I caught a glimpse of this man walking away from this--I
happened to see him through this window in this door. I don't know how
come I saw him, but I had a glimpse of him coming down there."
>>> "What we do know is that off-on-off-on Brennan failed to positively identify Oswald." <<<
Wrong (yet again). Brennan IDed Oswald...positively. .....
Mr. BELIN -- "Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or
cannot positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as
the same man that you saw in the police station?"
Mr. BRENNAN -- "I could at that time I could, with all sincerity,
identify him as being the same man."
~~~~~~~~
Also --- Do you think it was pure coincidence that BOTH Baker's and
Brennan's 11/22 affidavits mirrored each other in multiple ways re. the
physical description of.....
A.) The person Brennan saw firing a rifle in the SN.
and:
B.) The person Baker saw in the lunchroom minutes later (a person who
was positively Lee Harvey Oswald)?
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>>>> "Must be the brown coat, eh?" <<<
>
>The "brown jacket" reference made by Baker is perfectly understandable
>-- Baker (quite obviously) saw Oswald's brown SHIRT (untucked) over the
>white T-shirt, and mistakenly thought the untucked "shirt" was a
>"jacket". Simple. And very reasonable. As can be seen here.....
>
>www.saintaardvarkthecarpeted.com/images/oswald_press_conference.jpg
>
>
>>>> "Do you know how much just-turned-24-yr.-old Oswald actually weighed?" <<<
>
>Approx. 150 pounds (per his "estimated" weight at autopsy; 11/24/63).
>
>
>>>> "Why bother? He failed to positively ID Oswald." <<<
>
>Wrong...again.
>
>
>>>> "And whatd'ya think about that 3rd or 4th floor (minus any lunchroom mention) bit?" <<<
>
>Baker obviously wasn't sure exactly what floor he stopped Oswald on
>(per his affidavit)....hence the verbiage "3rd or 4th floor". But since
>we also have Baker's WC testimony and Roy S. Truly's WC testimony,
>which verify that Oswald was stopped in the 2nd-Floor lunchroom....your
>whole point is a moot one with respect to (as per the CT norm)
>attempting to make a skyscraping conspiracy-flavored Mount Everest out
>of an ordinary non-hinky anthill.
Nope ... just pointing out that:
1. You selectively quote
2. Baker made errors in his original affidavit that he learned
correctly before he testified.
That he and Truly ran into Oswald is a known.
>
>Truly said the "encounter" took place on Floor #2. And so did Baker
>(via WC comments).....
>
>OFFICER BAKER -- "As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly
>was ahead of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know,
>the rooms, and I caught a glimpse of this man walking away from this--I
>happened to see him through this window in this door. I don't know how
>come I saw him, but I had a glimpse of him coming down there."
Yes, he had learned it was the second floor ... but go figure how he
also later knew it was a lunchroom.
>
>
>>>> "What we do know is that off-on-off-on Brennan failed to positively identify Oswald." <<<
>
>Wrong (yet again). Brennan IDed Oswald...positively. .....
No, actually, he did not. He was a no-yes-no-yes witness ... no valid
positive ID that night ... and wishy washy afterwards.
>
>Mr. BELIN -- "Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or
>cannot positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as
>the same man that you saw in the police station?"
The key word there being "NOW" ....
>
>Mr. BRENNAN -- "I could at that time I could, with all sincerity,
>identify him as being the same man."
The word Brennan leaves out but is known when all is taken in context
is that he NOW claimed he COULD **HAVE** ... but the point is, he
didn't.
>
>~~~~~~~~
>
>Also --- Do you think it was pure coincidence that BOTH Baker's and
>Brennan's 11/22 affidavits mirrored each other in multiple ways re. the
>physical description of.....
>
>A.) The person Brennan saw firing a rifle in the SN.
>
>and:
>
>B.) The person Baker saw in the lunchroom minutes later (a person who
>was positively Lee Harvey Oswald)?
It also fit half the men in Dallas. Well, some with a tan jacket and
some without. :-)
Baker made errors. Brennan made more. And bottomline, Brennan didn;t
positively ID Oswald as the man he saw in the window with the rifle.
Even the Dallas police chief later said that no one had been able to
put Oswald in thaty window with that rifle.
My comments were mostly because of your selective quoting and spin you
got, or tried, to get out of it because of that.
Barb :-)
>
Donald Willis
Pein says...
>
>A follow-up from a previous post........
>
>It is certainly worth again noting the following for those CTers who
>think Howard Brennan's testimony is full of crap.....
>
>As previously mentioned by Jean Davison --- Marrion Baker, in his
>11/22/63 affidavit, described the person whom he had encountered in the
>second-floor lunchroom as being "A white man approximately 30 years
>old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket".
>
who--less than a minute after Baker saw Oswald in a jacket/long-sleeved
shirt--testified that she saw Oswald wearing a white (sleeveless) T shirt with
no overshirt or jacket....
dw
Donald Willis
Pein says...
>
>>>>"Very nice job synching Baker & Brennan. Now, try synching Baker & Mrs Reid,
>>>>who--less than a minute after Baker saw Oswald in a jacket/long-sleeved
>>>>shirt--testified that she saw Oswald wearing a white (sleeveless) T shirt with
>>>>no overshirt or jacket..." <<<
>
>
>the noose from around an obvious murderer's neck, Don? Surely there are
>hundreds more....after all, there WERE 216 total DP witnesses I think
>was the number (approx. anyway)....and if every single one of them
>doesn't corroborate all of the other 215....well, the plot's
>exposed....right?
>
>Humbug! And pfffttt to that shit.
>
>I wrote the following essay for another JFK-related topic (re. the Jim
>Garrison interview with Johnny Carson in the late 1960s)....but some of
>it applies here (re. the "clothing" thing), so I'll post it here too.
>.......
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Stuff about Jim Garrison and his TV interview with Johnny
>Carson..........
>
>http://www.prouty.org/garrison.html
>
>The link above provides access to several interesting Jim Garrison
>audio files, including his entire interview with Johnny Carson in the
>late 1960s....which I had never heard or seen heretofore.
>
>By the way, the Carson interview is fascinating (IMO), and I was very
>impressed by Johnny Carson's depth of knowledge concerning the JFK
>case. Much more so than I was with Mr. Garrison's paper-thin
>pro-conspiracy arguments. (But then, too, I guess I would be inclined
>to be more impressed by Johnny, even if he hadn't known the names of
>the two Nov. 22 victims, seeing as how I think Mr. Garrison is [was] a
>total loon when it comes to anything the man ever said re. the
>assassination of John Kennedy.)
>
>About the only thing Johnny seemed unsure of (regarding any REAL
>evidence in the case) was the mentioning of Dr. Humes burning his
>notes, a topic that Garrison brought up to make things seem more
>"shady" of course. Garrison lied (as usual) when he said he didn't know
>why Humes burned his notes....even though he should have known full
>well why Humes burned them, because Humes told the WC why he did so,
>with the reason being: the notes were blood-stained and Humes didn't
>want notes with the President's blood all over them to become a part of
>the permanent record in the case. So, Humes re-copied (verbatim) many
>of his original notes.
>
>More on the Carson/Garrison interview --- Garrison likes to make huge
>conspiracy-flavored mountains of out of things that can just as easily
>be explained in non-hinky ways. E.G.: The differing eyewitness accounts
>of the color of the Depository sniper's clothing. Garrison wants
>Carson's audience to believe that just because a certain witness
>described a "blue shirt" (vs. another color garment), this therefore is
>absolute PROOF that it wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald in the window.
>
>That type of argument is nonsense for several reasons, of course....not
>the least of which is the fact that eyewitness accounts re. "clothing"
>and "hair color" and "height", etc., are almost always (in any criminal
>case) going to differ whenever you get several witnesses together to
>compare these things. People, in general, just do not recall details
>like this very well (esp. under conditions when they have no real NEED
>to notice these mundane things at the time they are seeing them).
>
>The same goes for "timelines", which are hardly EVER exactly the same
>from one witness to the next. In the JFK case for example, the
>witnesses told of the shooting taking anywhere from 5 seconds to 5
>MINUTES to complete. (One witness actually thought the shots were a
>total of FIVE MINUTES apart; James Altgens thought the shooting took up
>to a full thirty seconds as well, illustrating how people don't measure
>"time" very well when they are asked to do so.)
>
>Back to Oswald's clothing -- There were, indeed, varying versions from
>the witnesses as to what the ONE ASSASSIN IN THE SNIPER'S NEST was
>wearing. Meaning: somebody's got to be wrong. Unless Mr. Garrison (and
>other CTers) actually want to believe that there were MULTIPLE KILLERS
>jammed and squeezed into that teeny-tiny sniper's nook at the very same
>time on 11/22.
>
>Some CTers do seem to feel that there were multiple killers on the 6th
>Floor at the very same time. But as far as I can recall, not ONE
>witness reported seeing more than ONE single man in the SN at any given
>time. Nobody ever saw TWO men at the same time in the SN, which IMO is
>rather important. Because it means that there was most likely just ONE
>man up there, period.*
>
>* = Unless CTers want to purport that the TWO killers were very, very
>careful about their movements as they approached the SE corner window
>and the SN, making sure that just ONE of them at a time would ever be
>seen by any witnesses, instead of somebody catching a glimpse of BOTH
>of these men at the same point in time in the Nest.
>
>But the bottom line is that the whole case against Oswald can't be
>simply tossed into Garrison's trash bin just because of a witness'
>description of the assassin's shirt.
>
>Plus, there's the possibility (however remote) that Oswald DID have on
>a different shirt when he was shooting JFK, and then changed to the
>brown shirt in flight (just after leaving the Nest), possibly putting
>on the brown shirt hastily as he descended the four floors to the
>lunchroom. Why was that simplistic clothes-changing activity not
>possible in Mr. Garrison's mind?
>
Actually, we don't have to speculate about Oswald's changing shirts that
day. Apparently, he changed shirts every day, according to James Jarman,
who told the FBI that O kept his long-sleeved shirts & jackets in a closet
on the first floor, & generally worked upstairs in his T shirt. And
certainly on this day, if he were a shooter, he wouldn't want to attract
attention by varying his clothing routine.
So, to explain what you clearly find inexplicable.... O was upstairs in
his T shirt, & came into Mrs Reid's office as the latter said he would do,
in his T shirt, & was looking for change for the machines. But this was
*not* after 12:30: Geneva Hine, one of the secretaries, testified that
*she* was the first back to the office, after 12:30, & saw no one else,
until Mrs Reid came in with a group. Clearly, Mrs Reid was thinking of an
earlier time when O was working, & came by.
But how did Baker come across O in sleeves, on the 2nd floor, when that
would have seemed unusual to his co-workers, & he thus if he were a perp,
would seem not have wanted to vary his routine? You have an explanation,
based on Baker & Truly's WC testimony. But earlier, Truly told reporters
that he & Baker accosted O just as the latter was leaving the building;
and years later Baker told the same story for "JFK First Day Evidence".
This would tally with Jarman's FBI interview: Leaving the building, O
retrieved his shirt from the 1st-floor closet, & B&T ran into him just
after that, near the front entrance....
dw
Donald Willis
Pein says...
>(Similar to what he did to change his appearance when he tossed aside
>his windbreaker jacket after shooting Officer Tippit.)
That was easy to say when all we had was Warren Reynolds' WC testimony
that he last saw the suspect running past the Texaco station, towards the
lot where the jacket was found. And, oh yes, in a statement, Texaco
employee Robert Brock seconding Reynolds. The End.
Easy, until about 10 years ago, when WFAA-TV footage from 11/22/63 circa
1:30 turned up showing Reynolds telling police that he last saw the
suspect running into the rear of an *old house". So, now, we've got
jacket over here, suspect over there, & gee how did that jacket get
there...? Why did Reynolds & Brock lie?
dw
Marty
How come you are so sure of Brennan's ID of Oswald?
Quoting from the WR (145-146) "Although the record indicates that Brennan
was an accurate observer, he declined to make a positive identification of
Oswald when he first saw him in the police lineup. The Commission,
therefore, does not base it s conclusion concerning the identity of the
assassin on Brennan's subsequent certain identification of Lee Harvey Oswald
as the man he saw with the rifle."
Marty
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1161496964.5...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
In a nutshell --- Because Brennan's I.D.ing of Oswald corroborates
everything ELSE with respect to the evidence at hand in the JFK case.
I.E.:
It was Oswald's gun on that same 6th Floor;
Oswald's prints in the very area where Brennan saw the sniper;
Shells from Oswald's gun in the very area where Brennan saw the sniper;
Plus Brennan's description of the killer perfectly aligns with Marrion
Baker's description of Oswald almost to the letter.*
* = And while reading some pages from Dale Myers' Tippit book ("With
Malice") yesterday I discovered another interesting "link" between
Baker's and Brennan's overall description of The Sniper/Oswald ---
Gerald Hill talked to a witness who said Tippit's killer was "a white
male, about 5-foot-10, 160 to 170 pounds". Which, again, aligns with
the numbers given by Brennan and by Baker....with the latter person
(Baker), of course, actually describing Oswald to the exclusion of all
others.
Given all of the above items which back up the notion that Brennan was
right when he positively identified Oswald as the SN shooter --
somebody tell me the odds of the person Brennan saw in the window NOT
being Lee Harvey Oswald?
Given these other pieces of "Oswald Was There" evidence (coupled with
Brennan's eyewitness account, including his INITIAL AFFIDAVIT), the
odds of the SN sniper actually NOT being Mr. Oswald must be pert-near
close to being in the "Impossible" range.
Why are CTers so quick to totally dismiss this "Linkage Of Overall
Evidence" re. the possibility/probability of Brennan actually having
seen LHO in the SN? (Is it due to a preordained belief in "Patsy"-ism
perhaps? That'd be my guess.)
Because even if CTers wish to believe that Brennan did not give Sawyer
the description used in the 12:43 PM DPD APB broadcast, there's still
Brennan's initial 11/22 affidavit. Was Brennan strong-armed into say
these things about the sniper within just hours (or maybe minutes) of
the assassination?.......
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brennan1.htm
And Howard Brennan almost certainly did give that description to Sawyer
as well. Because if he DIDN'T, then it really only doubles the
likelihood that Oswald was in the SN window...because it would mean
that yet ANOTHER witness gave a description of the killer to the police
which perfectly mirrored Brennan's account via Brennan's 11/22
affidavit.
More on an unfairly-maligned witness named Howard Brennan:
Donald Willis
Pein says...
>
>>>> "How come you are so sure of Brennan's ID of Oswald?" <<<
>
>In a nutshell --- Because Brennan's I.D.ing of Oswald corroborates
>everything ELSE with respect to the evidence at hand in the JFK case.
>
>I.E.:
>
>It was Oswald's gun on that same 6th Floor;
>Shells from Oswald's gun in the very area where Brennan saw the sniper**
*O's prints in the very area where he worked, is another way of putting it
**We don't know for sure (a) where the hulls were found, (b) how many
hulls were found, or (c) what kind of hulls they were, because Homicide
Capn Fritz picked them up before they could be photographed, as per Luke
Mooney, Jack Faulkner & Tom Alyea.
dw
Marty
>>>> "How come you are so sure of Brennan's ID of Oswald?" <<<
>
> In a nutshell --- Because Brennan's I.D.ing of Oswald corroborates
> everything ELSE with respect to the evidence at hand in the JFK case.
Did you read the quote I cited from the WR? Commission obviously had
problems with Brennan's story. There are pictures in the exhibits showing
a re-creation of a person, same size as LHO, seated and standing at the
window. Because of the height of the open window - he could not have been
standing, as described by Brennan, or he would have shot through the
window pane. Even seated there would have been problems. Remember there
was a book box tilted in the window that would have blocked some of the
view (which Brennan does not mention). That being said - I do not doubt
Brennan saw someone in the window but his identification did not sell the
Warren Commission.
Marty
David Von Pein
of the sniper that almost mirrored the Marrion Baker description of
Oswald...just by pure coincidence right? The REAL sniper just happened
to match LHO's physical make-up perfectly. Right?
Good job by the plotters to get such a perfect Oswald look-alike
indeed. Too bad they planted the wrong rifle up there, though, huh?
(Per the "It Was A Mauser" CT crowd.) ;)
Can't be good at everything I guess. Patsy-Framing, after all, is a
hit-&-miss operation I suppose.
Donald Willis
Pein says...
>
>But Brennan just HAPPENED to give a description in his 11/22 affidavit
>of the sniper that almost mirrored the Marrion Baker description of
>Oswald...just by pure coincidence right?
No, obviously there had to be some coordination here, behind the scenes.
Brennan could not, on his own, have possibly guessed the approximate weight of a
person, or rather a *part* of a person, seen in a half-closed window 6 stories
up. Or, rather, on his own, he would not have *attempted* to guess the weight.
Clearly, he needed some prompting. A little common sense, please! Look at the
photos of Williams, Norman & Jarman. What are their respective weights? You
couldn't possibly guess, right? You wouldn't want to try, except there's
something at stake here.
What was at stake was the DPD-radio suspect description, an obvious plant.
Baker saw Oswald close up; the folks in Oak Cliff (Scoggins et al) saw the
assailant at least at the same (street) level--they had a clear chance to size
the man up. Brennan did not. But the Dealey suspect description, it was
apparently thot, should have some grounding, some witness backing, & Brennan was
chosen to provide stats. To his credit, he did not attempt to hazard a guess at
*height* in his affidavit--he merely, properly, said "slender". But, to his
discredit, he threw out a *weight* estimate (165 to 175 pounds), which could not
have been of his own concoction.
The DPD radio description is a complete concoction: No one on the ground saw a
shooter 5 or 6 floors up, in a half open window, & ventured, "five feet ten, one
sixty five"! Height?!? Jeezus! Weight?!? Kee-rist! Pardon me. And some say
*CTers* are kooky! Those stats didn't come from a witness....
dw
Donald Willis
Pein says...
>
>But Brennan just HAPPENED to give a description in his 11/22 affidavit
>of the sniper that almost mirrored the Marrion Baker description of
>Oswald...just by pure coincidence right?
No, obviously there had to be some coordination here, behind the scenes.
Brennan could not, on his own, have possibly guessed the approximate
weight of person, or rather a *part* of a person, seen in a half-closed
window 6 stories up. Or, rather, on his own, he would not have
*attempted* to hazard such a guess. Clearly, he needed some prompting.
A little common sense, please! Look at the photos of Williams, Norman &
Jarman in the windows. What are their respective weights? You couldn't
possibly guess, right? You wouldn't want to try, except there's something
at stake here.
What was at stake was the DPD-radio suspect description, an obvious
plant--courtesy primarily of DPD Inspector J H Sawyer. Baker saw Oswald
close up; the folks in Oak Cliff (Scoggins et al) saw the assailant at
least at the same (street) level--they had a clear chance to size the man
up. Brennan did not. But the Dealey suspect description, it was
apparently thot, should have some grounding, some witness backing, &
Brennan as chosen to provide stats. To his credit, he did not attempt to
hazard a guess at *height* in his affidavit--he merely, properly, said
"slender". But, to his discredit, he threw out a *weight* estimate (165
to 175 pounds), which could not have been of his own concoction.
(By the time of Brennan's Commission testimony, he *did* venture a foolish
guess as to height: cave-in complete. I mean "foolish" that he would
throw out something so obviously gift-wrapped *for* him....)
The DPD radio description is a total concoction: No one on the ground saw
a shooter 5 or 6 floors up, in a half open window, & ventured, "five feet
ten, one sixty five"! Height?!? Jeezus! Weight?!? Kee-rist! Pardon
me. And some say *CTers* are kooky! It's hilariously obvious that those
stats didn't come from a witness. At 12:44, the cover-up was already
beginning....
dw