Question for the trolls --RE: Howard Brennan
Gil Jesus
pg 293 ) omits Howard Brennan from its list of witnesses who viewed
Oswald in a police lineup ?
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0183a.htm
YoHarvey
aeffects
hold on Yo *I got sesame seeds for nuts* Harvey, can't duck
troll.......
Gil Jesus
Yeah, mistake....the DPD forgot that their star witness and the ony
one who could put Oswald in the window firing the gun, picked him out
as a result of viewing him in a lineup.
ROFLMAO.....what an idiot.
YoHarvey
Jesus? Are you not the MORON who believes the DPD incompetent??????
I mean, they didn't even see John or Nellie Connally shoot JFK, now
did they? roflmao
Bud
You can read that?
Bud
In what meaningful way have you ruled out that his name not
appearing was the result of a mistake?
Gil Jesus
> � In what meaningful way have you ruled out that his name not
> appearing was the result of a mistake?-
Yeah, mistake....the DPD forgot that the only witness who could put
Oswald in the window firing the gun picked him out of a lineup.
Gil Jesus
>
> Jesus? �Are you not the MORON who believes the DPD incompetent??????
> I mean, they didn't even see John or Nellie Connally shoot JFK, now
> did they? � �roflmao-
No, YOU'RE the ones who said that they couldn't tell a Mauser from an
Italian Carbine, although both were clearly marked.
YOU'RE the ones who said that they couldn't tell a .38 auto shell from
a .38 special, although both were clearly marked.
YOU'RE the ones who said that the cops gave Oswald a nitrate test that
they KNEW was unreliable.
YOU'RE the ones who said that the cops "forgot" that Brennan viewed
Oswald in a police lineup.
In short, YOU'RE the ones who said that the cops were incompetent.
I, on the other hand, believe that they were "dumb" like foxes.
I guess that makes YOU the morons.
YoHarvey
Good lord. Jesus? You were a cop. Look out fucking incompetent you
are!!!!!
Bud
I said "meaningful way", not merely repeating the same meaningless
comment. Human beings make mistakes every day, making it the leading
contender amongst explanations. Do you have a contending explanation
you`d like to offer?
aeffects
ya know what CT's like about you? You're the only Lone Nut incompetent
that smiles walking into a buzz saw.... You're a complete, total
idiot. Please, PLEASE keep coming back. .john has no idea the
monumental favor he did for CT's by exposing you and the true Lone Nut
concept to the real world....
aeffects
a the two primary troll's come-a-runnin'.... LMFAO Gotta to love
YoHarvey and Bud the Dudster.... Yank that Nutter chain!
Walt
Who can name all of the witnesses who viewed a line up at the DPD on
11 / 22 63?
I can name seven of them.....
1. Helen Markham
2. Cecil Mc Watters
3. Ted Callaway
4. Sam Ginyard
5. Barbara Davis
6. Virginia Davis
7. Howard Brennan
On Saturday 11 /23 /63 @ 2:15 pm William Scoggins and William Whaley
viewed a line up
That makes a total of nine witnesses who saw Oswald in a line up.
There is NO RECORD of Howard Brennan's statement at the time he vied
the line up . However we KNOW for a FACT that he DID NOT identify
Oswald as the man he'd seen with the rifle in the WEST end window on
the sixth floor of the TSBD.
Howard Brennan was the ONE and ONLY witness who saw the sixth floor
sniper firing a rifle from the TSBD, and when he viewed the police
line up he said the sniper was NOT in that line up. Brennan told the
Warren Commission that he did not identify Oswald as the sniper, even
though the cops were twisting his arm to make a positive
identification.
All of the other witnesses apparently could not resist the
intimidation of the DPD because all of them are listed as giving a
"positive identification" of Oswald as the man they saw at the scene
of Tippit's murder. The only witness NOT listed is the PRIME witness
who did NOT give a positive identification. The FACT that Brennan
gave a NEGATIVE identification and he was the STAR witness to the
murder of JFK is probably the reason that there is no record of
Brennan's statement after viewing the line up.
Walt
> On Dec 11, 7:02 pm, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Jesus? Are you not the MORON who believes the DPD incompetent??????
> > I mean, they didn't even see John or Nellie Connally shoot JFK, now
> > did they? roflmao-
>
> No, YOU'RE the ones who said that they couldn't tell a Mauser from an
> Italian Carbine, although both were clearly marked.
No, YOU'RE the ones who said that they couldn't tell a Mauser from an
Italian Carbine, although both were clearly marked.
Gil, as long as you cling to this monumental piece of bullshit, you
will continue to run around in circles getting nowhere. I urge you
to seriously think about the absurd story of a mauser being
found...ans weigh that story against the actual evidence. I know you
smart enough to see the truth, you just have to apply some critical
thinking.
curtjester1
Hehe, a mistake indeed since Brennan trying to ID Oswald was a
'mistake'.
CJ
tims...@gmail.com
Any explanation from you as to why you take this DPD document as
gospel, yet do everything to disparage the DPD document that shows
General Walker was injured when Oswald shot at him but chose not to
seek medical attention?
BTW, this document you have provided is barely readable. I don't see
that it makes your point at all.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...
Walt
> TOP POST
>
> Any explanation from you as to why you take this DPD document as
> gospel, yet do everything to disparage the DPD document that shows
> General Walker was injured when Oswald shot at him but chose not to
> seek medical attention?
>
> BTW, this document you have provided is barely readable. I don't see
> that it makes your point at all.
The document can be found on page 347 of volumne 24 of the hearings.
The document is a listing of all of the witnesses who claimed the saw
Oswald at various places in the two hours following the murder of
JFK. Of course Howard Brennan is NOT listed because he DID NOT see
Oswald in the TSBD .....He saw some other man aiming a rifle out of
the west end window of the TSBD and therefore he could not identify
Oswald in the positive way that the DPD and FBI wanted him to identify
Oswald.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> On Dec 12, 8:32 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Any idea why the Dallas Police report on the assassination (CE 2003,
> > pg 293 ) omits Howard Brennan from its list of witnesses who viewed
> > Oswald in a police lineup ?
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Walt,
Well I already know where it is, from reading the link Gil put up.
That doesn't mean that the document is readable, though.
On another topic, if only one backyard photo was genuine, why are two
of them pasted side by side in Oswald's photo album?
Oswald was an idiot to paste them in his photo album, LOL!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> > >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...Hide quoted text -
Walt
> TOP POST
>
> Hi Walt,
>
> Well I already know where it is, from reading the link Gil put up.
> That doesn't mean that the document is readable, though.
>
> On another topic, if only one backyard photo was genuine, why are two
> of them pasted side by side in Oswald's photo album?
On another topic, if only one backyard photo was genuine, why are two
of them pasted side by side in Oswald's photo album?
Oh, There's two different BY photo's in Oswald's photo album....That's
news to me. Would it be too much trouble for you post a link to
"Oswald's" photo album.
> > > >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
And Brennan makes ten...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/17/1794-003.gif
> There is NO RECORD of Howard Brennan's statement at the time he vied
> the line up . However we KNOW for a FACT that he DID NOT identify
> Oswald as the man he'd seen with the rifle
We also know that he could have identified Oswald as the man he saw,
but did not for reasons of his own. He explained this.
> in the WEST end window on
> the sixth floor of the TSBD.
Brennan never said he saw a shooter in a west window. That is the
product of your retarded imagination.
> Howard Brennan was the ONE and ONLY witness who saw the sixth floor
> sniper firing a rifle from the TSBD, and when he viewed the police
> line up he said the sniper was NOT in that line up.
And later he explained he could have made a positive identification
of Oswald as the man he saw, but declined to.
> Brennan told the
> Warren Commission that he did not identify Oswald as the sniper, even
> though the cops were twisting his arm to make a positive
> identification.
As he admitted later, he could have made an identification then,
but choose not to. Likely the cops knew he wasn`t being honest, as he
admitted later he was not.
> All of the other witnesses apparently could not resist the
> intimidation of the DPD because all of them are listed as giving a
> "positive identification" of Oswald as the man they saw at the scene
> of Tippit's murder.
Oswald was the man they saw. just because you believe you would have
lied in this situation doe not mean that these people did.
> The only witness NOT listed is the PRIME witness
> who did NOT give a positive identification.
I found his name in the Dallas archives as having witnessed a line-
up. All the witnesses lists and evidence and such is there in rough
form, likely someone just missed Brennan on the bottom of the page I
linked to when transposing it to it`s final form. Hard for me to say,
since I can`t read the page Gil linked to.
> The FACT that Brennan
> gave a NEGATIVE identification and he was the STAR witness to the
> murder of JFK is probably the reason that there is no record of
> Brennan's statement after viewing the line up.
That would be the answer a retard would be comfortable with. But,
since Brennan didn`t come clean about not selecting Oswald when he
could have until after the FBI took over the investigation, he
couldn`t have been the STAR witness for the DPD you and Gil are
claiming he was, could he?
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Walt,
Oh sure. Here you are:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10484&relPageId=224
say, I wonder if all the other photos are fake, Walt?
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> > > > >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...text -
Walt
>
Oh sure. Here you are: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=104...
ha.ha,ha, ha,hee,hee,hee...ROTFLMAO!!.... What a dumbass..... That's
NOT Oswald's photo album you moron, those are the pictures that were
supposedly found in Paines garage on sarurday afternoon at about 3:30
pm. They weren't in any album, theywere just loose photographs, in
envelopes.
Incidentally ....You may be surprised to learn that Captain Fritz was
asking Oswald for information about a Back Yard photo during an
interrogation session that took place two hours BEFORE the BY photos
were supposedly found in the Paines garage. Perhaps you can explain
how Captain Fritz knew about the BY photo BEFORE it was discovered.
> > > > > >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...-
tims...@gmail.com
LOL! Well who gives a toss whether they are in his album or not. They
were found together. Either they are both fake or they are both
genuine. I say they are genuine.
As for your other assertion, prove it with some evidence and
citations, Walt. If you can...
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
dcwi...@netscape.net
Don't forget that there was a follow-up DPD schedule of witnesses at
that lineup. In this one, Brennan *does* appear
Gil Jesus
> Don't forget that there was a follow-up DPD schedule of witnesses at
> that lineup. �In this one, Brennan *does* appear
Oh my, ANOTHER change to the evidence ?
Why am I NOT surprised ?
Bud
Because you are a retard who jumps to stupid conclusions with
little information and no ability to reason.
aeffects
> TOP POST
>
> Hi Walt,
>
> Well I already know where it is, from reading the link Gil put up.
> That doesn't mean that the document is readable, though.
>
> On another topic, if only one backyard photo was genuine, why are two
> of them pasted side by side in Oswald's photo album?
>
> Oswald was an idiot to paste them in his photo album, LOL!
luv it when you have a, ahh, experience of untold proportions, carry
on troll (from Fresno, er down-undah)!
> > > >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...quoted text -
Walt
Just go to page 347 of volume XXIV for a clear view of the document.
Dud, Ian Griggs published the hand written record of the line ups in
his book "No Case to Answer".
That hand written recod can be seen in photo section #2 following
page 214.
The record for showup #3 which occurred at 7:55 PM shows ONLY Barbra
Jeanette Davis and Virginia Davis at that 7:55 showup. The typed
record that you provided a link to does not look like the official DPD
document that was presented to the Warren Commission. ( CE 2003 page
293 ) Who knows where the "record" you linked to came from??
>
> > The FACT that Brennan
> > gave a NEGATIVE identification and he was the STAR witness to the
> > murder of JFK is probably the reason that there is no record of
> > Brennan's statement after viewing the line up.
>
> That would be the answer a retard would be comfortable with. But,
> since Brennan didn`t come clean about not selecting Oswald when he
> could have until after the FBI took over the investigation, he
> couldn`t have been the STAR witness for the DPD you and Gil are
> claiming he was, could he?
Are you now trying to wiggle and squirm away from your previous stance
that Howard brennan was your star witness??
Why are you trying to distance yourself from Brennan's statement's
Dud?? Is it because you're finally starting to realize that Brennan
made it very clear, by DESCRIBING the gunman and the location of the
gunman, that Oswald was NOT the man he'd seen in that west end window
with a hunting rifle??
I'm glad to you point out that during his Warren Commission
intimidation and manipulation he said that he could have identified
Oswald as the gunman but then in the next breath said " He (Oswald)
was dressed differently than the man I'd seen in the window, AND I
TRIED TO TELL THEM THAT!"
So even though they had managed to manipulate Brennan into saying what
they wanted him to say, he stuck his foot in the door and kept them
from closing it by saying...Oswald was dressed differently than the
man I'd seen firing the rifle from the sixth floor window. Since he
was already on record of DESCRIBING that gunman's clothing, it's
patently obvious that Brennan KNEW what the gunman's clothing looked
like. He KNEW that the gunman had been wearing a light colored shirt
that could have been khaki or a dingy white color, and trousers that
were a shade lighter than his shirt. When he saw Oswald in the line
up he told the cops that Oswald was NOT the man he'd seen. The cops
pressed him and asked him how he could be so certain that Oswald was
NOT the man he'd seen, and he told them..."Well, for one thing he
( the gunman) was wearing LIGHT colored clothes and Oswald was wearing
DARK colored clothes. " The cops told Brennan that Oswald had gone
to his room and changed his clothes, and that was the reason he didn't
have on the light colored clothes. But that explanation did not
cause Brennan to change his mind, he still maintained that Oswald was
not the man he'd seen. And it was still in his memory when he
appeared before the Warren Commission.
Incidentally the cops were being disingenuious when they tried to get
Brennan to identify oswald as the gunman when they told him that LHO
had gone home and changed his clothes.... Brennan wrote a description
of the gunman's clothes in his affidavit and he told the cops that the
gunman had been wearing light colored clothes and those same cops KNEW
that there had been NO LIGHT COLORED CLOTHES found in Oswald's room at
1026 N.Beckley.
With that information and Brennan's refusal to identify Oswald they
should have known that they had the wrong man....
- Hide quoted text -
Bud
I don`t have the WCR. The Mary Ferrel site probably has a clearer
copy of it, but the only way to get to page 347 that I know of is to
page through one page at a time. There probably is another way, but i
don`t know it.
> Dud, Ian Griggs published the hand written record of the line ups in
> his book "No Case to Answer".
> That hand written recod can be seen in photo section #2 following
> page 214.
>
> The record for showup #3 which occurred at 7:55 PM shows ONLY Barbra
> Jeanette Davis and Virginia Davis at that 7:55 showup. The typed
> record that you provided a link to does not look like the official DPD
> document that was presented to the Warren Commission. ( CE 2003 page
> 293 ) Who knows where the "record" you linked to came from??
Dallas Municipal archives, idiot, where do you think? All the
interviews are recorded on 4 pages (06-01-73).
> > > The FACT that Brennan
> > > gave a NEGATIVE identification and he was the STAR witness to the
> > > murder of JFK is probably the reason that there is no record of
> > > Brennan's statement after viewing the line up.
>
> > That would be the answer a retard would be comfortable with. But,
> > since Brennan didn`t come clean about not selecting Oswald when he
> > could have until after the FBI took over the investigation, he
> > couldn`t have been the STAR witness for the DPD you and Gil are
> > claiming he was, could he?
>
> Are you now trying to wiggle and squirm away from your previous stance
> that Howard brennan was your star witness??
Idiot, Gil`s claim was that he was the DPD`s star witness. How could
he be, when he did not make an identification. He only came clean that
it was actually Oswald he saw in later interviews with the FBI.
> Why are you trying to distance yourself from Brennan's statement's
> Dud?? Is it because you're finally starting to realize that Brennan
> made it very clear, by DESCRIBING the gunman and the location of the
> gunman, that Oswald was NOT the man he'd seen in that west end window
> with a hunting rifle??
These are the musings of a retard. We`ve been over this ground about
the descriptions, nothing he said rules out Oswald as being the man he
saw. You haven`t shown that Brennan must nail the details of a person
he saw briefly in order to recognize that person when he saw him
again. Same thing with Markham. Using words to describe a person you
saw is difficult, it isn`t something people are called on to do very
often, so many people just aren`t good at it. What people do every day
is recognize people they met or seen before.
> I'm glad to you point out that during his Warren Commission
> intimidation and manipulation he said that he could have identified
> Oswald as the gunman but then in the next breath said " He (Oswald)
> was dressed differently than the man I'd seen in the window, AND I
> TRIED TO TELL THEM THAT!"
Yah, he was using the clothing as an excuse not to make the
identification he later confessed he could honestly make.
> So even though they had managed to manipulate Brennan into saying what
> they wanted him to say, he stuck his foot in the door and kept them
> from closing it by saying...Oswald was dressed differently than the
> man I'd seen firing the rifle from the sixth floor window. Since he
> was already on record of DESCRIBING that gunman's clothing, it's
> patently obvious that Brennan KNEW what the gunman's clothing looked
> like. He KNEW that the gunman had been wearing a light colored shirt
> that could have been khaki or a dingy white color, and trousers that
> were a shade lighter than his shirt. When he saw Oswald in the line
> up he told the cops that Oswald was NOT the man he'd seen. The cops
> pressed him and asked him how he could be so certain that Oswald was
> NOT the man he'd seen, and he told them..."Well, for one thing he
> ( the gunman) was wearing LIGHT colored clothes and Oswald was wearing
> DARK colored clothes. " The cops told Brennan that Oswald had gone
> to his room and changed his clothes, and that was the reason he didn't
> have on the light colored clothes. But that explanation did not
> cause Brennan to change his mind, he still maintained that Oswald was
> not the man he'd seen. And it was still in his memory when he
> appeared before the Warren Commission.
He said it was Oswald that he had seen in the window shooting at
the President. He explained why he didn`t make the identification he
could have at the time.
> Incidentally the cops were being disingenuious when they tried to get
> Brennan to identify oswald as the gunman when they told him that LHO
> had gone home and changed his clothes.... Brennan wrote a description
> of the gunman's clothes in his affidavit and he told the cops that the
> gunman had been wearing light colored clothes and those same cops KNEW
> that there had been NO LIGHT COLORED CLOTHES found in Oswald's room at
> 1026 N.Beckley.
He didn`t want to make an identification, so the clothes were an
excuse he used. It is only kook expectations that in order to make an
identification you must be able to make an accurate description of the
clothes. You`ve done no study to determine how well witnesses do when
they give descriptions of clothes, so your expectations are
groundless.
Walt
Riiiight!.... That's why several hours before he went to view the
lineup he wrote in his affidavit..." He ( the gunman) was dressed in
LIGHT COLORED clothes".... Do you really believe that Brennan knew
Oswald would be arrested and put in a line up dressed in DARK colored
clothes, so when he wrote his affidavit he lied and said the gunman
was dressed in LIGHT colored clothes. You're not the brightest bulb
on the tree are you??
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
It`s possible Oswald was wearing the same clothes when Brennan saw
him in the line-up as when Brennan saw him shooting Kennedy. These
simple truths elude you because you are an idiot.
Gil Jesus
> � �It`s possible Oswald was wearing the same clothes when Brennan saw
> him in the line-up as when Brennan saw him shooting Kennedy. �These
> simple truths elude you because you are an idiot.
Here's a simple truth that eludes YOU, Bud.
Brennan LIED when he said that he didn't finger Oswald because he
feared for his safety.
Brennan KNEW he wasn't the only witness who saw the gunman.
HE WAS THE ONE WHO POINTED OUT AMOS EUINS AS THE OTHER WITNESS
Mr. STERN. How did you happen to talk to Mr. Brennan?
Mr. SORRELS. I asked--I don't know who, someone there "Is there anyone
here that saw anything?" And someone said, "That man over there."
He was out in front of the building and I went right to him.
Mr. STERN. Did Mr. Brennan tell you anything else?
Mr. SORRELS. .........And I also asked if he had seen anybody else,
and he pointed to a young colored boy there, by the name of Euins.
( 7 H 349 )
People say you're an idiot, Bud.
Believe them.
Bud
> On Dec 13, 6:31 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > It`s possible Oswald was wearing the same clothes when Brennan saw
> > him in the line-up as when Brennan saw him shooting Kennedy. These
> > simple truths elude you because you are an idiot.
>
> Here's a simple truth that eludes YOU, Bud.
>
> Brennan LIED when he said that he didn't finger Oswald because he
> feared for his safety.
> Brennan KNEW he wasn't the only witness who saw the gunman.
Who other than Brennan saw the shooter well enough to make an
identification, idiot? Several people saw him (Fischer,
Edwards,Rowland, Euins), but Brennan was the only witness who could
make an ID.
> HE WAS THE ONE WHO POINTED OUT AMOS EUINS AS THE OTHER WITNESS
>
> Mr. STERN. How did you happen to talk to Mr. Brennan?
>
> Mr. SORRELS. I asked--I don't know who, someone there "Is there anyone
> here that saw anything?" And someone said, "That man over there."
>
> He was out in front of the building and I went right to him.
>
> Mr. STERN. Did Mr. Brennan tell you anything else?
>
> Mr. SORRELS. .........And I also asked if he had seen anybody else,
> and he pointed to a young colored boy there, by the name of Euins.
>
> ( 7 H 349 )
>
> People say you're an idiot, Bud.
>
> Believe them.
Why believe idiots?
Walt
> On Dec 13, 6:50 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 13, 6:31 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > It`s possible Oswald was wearing the same clothes when Brennan saw
> > > him in the line-up as when Brennan saw him shooting Kennedy. These
> > > simple truths elude you because you are an idiot.
>
> > Here's a simple truth that eludes YOU, Bud.
>
> > Brennan LIED when he said that he didn't finger Oswald because he
> > feared for his safety.
> > Brennan KNEW he wasn't the only witness who saw the gunman.
>
> Who other than Brennan saw the shooter well enough to make an
> identification, idiot? Several people saw him (Fischer,
> Edwards,Rowland, Euins), but Brennan was the only witness who could
> make an ID.
That's simply a lie, Dud.....Arnold Rowland also identified the gunman
with a hunting rifle who was dressed in clothing that was light
colored just as Brennan did.
>
>
>
>
>
> > HE WAS THE ONE WHO POINTED OUT AMOS EUINS AS THE OTHER WITNESS
>
> > Mr. STERN. How did you happen to talk to Mr. Brennan?
>
> > Mr. SORRELS. I asked--I don't know who, someone there "Is there anyone
> > here that saw anything?" And someone said, "That man over there."
>
> > He was out in front of the building and I went right to him.
>
> > Mr. STERN. Did Mr. Brennan tell you anything else?
>
> > Mr. SORRELS. .........And I also asked if he had seen anybody else,
> > and he pointed to a young colored boy there, by the name of Euins.
>
> > ( 7 H 349 )
>
> > People say you're an idiot, Bud.
>
> > Believe them.
>
> Why believe idiots?- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Bud the Dud wrote:......" It`s possible Oswald was wearing the same
clothes when Brennan saw him in the line-up as when Brennan saw him
shooting Kennedy. "
Ha, ha, ha, ha, hee, hee, hee.... Dud's idea is so stupid that it
makes Rob look like a genius.... Hee, hee, hee
Hey genius... If that was true why would Brennan wrote in his
affidavit several hours before the line up that the gunman was wearing
LIGHT colored clothes??? It's patently obvious that Howard Brennan
KNEW what color clothes the gunman was wearing.....and his DESCRIPTION
was corroborated by three other witnesses who saw the man on the sixth
floor. If the man had been Oswald Brennan would have wrote that the
gunman was dressed in a reddish brown shirt and dark grey
trousers......
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Bud
> On 13 Dec, 18:26, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 13, 6:50 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 13, 6:31 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > It`s possible Oswald was wearing the same clothes when Brennan saw
> > > > him in the line-up as when Brennan saw him shooting Kennedy. These
> > > > simple truths elude you because you are an idiot.
>
> > > Here's a simple truth that eludes YOU, Bud.
>
> > > Brennan LIED when he said that he didn't finger Oswald because he
> > > feared for his safety.
> > > Brennan KNEW he wasn't the only witness who saw the gunman.
>
> > Who other than Brennan saw the shooter well enough to make an
> > identification, idiot? Several people saw him (Fischer,
> > Edwards,Rowland, Euins), but Brennan was the only witness who could
> > make an ID.
>
> That's simply a lie, Dud.....Arnold Rowland also identified the gunman
> with a hunting rifle who was dressed in clothing that was light
> colored just as Brennan did.
You don`t view a line-up to identify clothes, idiot. Brennan was
only person who saw the shooter well enough to make an identification
of that person.
Bud
I`m sure you`ll offer nothing substantial in rebuttal. Again, you
have no background or knowledge about how accurate the information
related by witnesses is in general. You are ignorant on the subject.
> Hey genius... If that was true why would Brennan wrote in his
> affidavit several hours before the line up that the gunman was wearing
> LIGHT colored clothes???
Because he was pressed to supply details, and a witness will do this
when pressed. By these impressions are not necessarily accurate or
correct.
> It's patently obvious that Howard Brennan
> KNEW what color clothes the gunman was wearing.....
The opposite is true. He knew it was Oswald he saw when he viewed
the line-up, but his impressions of the clothing was incorrect.
>and his DESCRIPTION
> was corroborated by three other witnesses who saw the man on the sixth
> floor.
By "corroborated" you mean the witnesses differed substantially on
details like age, hair color, ect, right?
> If the man had been Oswald Brennan would have wrote that the
> gunman was dressed in a reddish brown shirt and dark grey
> trousers......
Those are just an idiot`s expectations. The description Brennan gave
and it being Oswald he saw are not mutually exclusive.
tims...@gmail.com
LOL! Bud has just blown Walt's nonsense right out of the water by
posting the link to Dallas Municipal Archives. Now Walt has to fall
back on his speculations to explain things.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
tims...@gmail.com
Walt wrote:
> Just go to page 347 of volume XXIV for a clear view of the document.
I write (using tomnln style vernacular here):
That is not a clear view of the document, Walt. It is the same dud
view that Gil provided in the first place.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
aeffects
> TOP POST
>
> LOL! Bud has just blown Walt's nonsense right out of the water by
> posting the link to Dallas Municipal Archives. Now Walt has to fall
> back on his speculations to explain things.
>
posting a link? Sitdown Timmster, Fresno aliases (nor stupidity) don't
count here. If your gonna hold the Bud the Dudsters scummy jockstrap,
your gonna get your hands dirty, moron!
dcwi...@netscape.net
Uh, to what conclusion, exactly, did Gil jump here? I myself find the
change quite interesting, but any number of explanations could be
offered....
dw
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Toots,
You missed the doco Bud posted? Here ya go:
QUOTE ON:
And Brennan makes ten...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/17/1794-003.gif
QUOTE OFF
Blows Walt's nonsense into next week, doesn't it Mr David *aeffects*
Healy?
Walt looks like a total dumbass, to use one of Wally's favourite
expressions.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Bud
I`ll try to walk you through it, allow I doubt what i say will be
helpful to you, as you suffer from the same deficiencies as Gil. You
and he use the same flawed approach, and your bias drives you to a
predetermined destination. You both try to take the end information,
which is a small portion of everything that transpires, and must
contain flaws, gaps, discrepancies, ect, and try to cram "conspiracy"
into any gap or flaw you can find. In many, many instances, there
might just not be enough information available to make a positive
determination, the authorities are investigation a crime, they aren`t
providing a minute by minute accounting of their activities so that
idiots in the future can be satisfied. That what you posit is
ridiculous on it`s face and the idea presented impossible should be
evidence enough. You can`t support the amazing using your approach,
you need information from the other end outwards. Walt has 8 out of 9
witnesses lying at the behest of the authorities. Yet for the rest of
their lives, none of these witnesses say anything that would support
the fantastic idea Walt presented. This is fairly impossible. He and
Gil want to believe that the officers conducting the line-up wanted to
frame an innocent man, and by doing this, let the murderer of their
fellow officer get away. Again, how many officers in the room? 10? Ten
more people heaped onto the pile, more people who know about this
conspiracy and remain quiet their whole lives. And why would they mess
with the line-ups when they know Oswald is going to trial, where
anything they will be used by the defense? But even this isn`t what
most shows your ideas to be impossible. It is the impossibility of
coordination at all these different locations and situations. Kooks
have underhanded shit going on EVERYWHERE, Oswald`s roominghouse (just
look at this alone. The cops get there, and wait on personnel from the
sheriffs department to show. Then, I think even the judge who issued
the warrent came and helped look. Is this what you do when you want to
keep a huge, super-secret, get as many people in on it as possible?),
the Paine`s house, The TSBD, the line-ups. This kind of thing need
constant communication, people need to be told what is to be expected
of them, what their roles are. The kooks can show none of this, none
of the people being told what to do have come forward, nothing leaked,
nothing. This just could not be if what the kooks assert occurred.
Unless you can get evidential support from the actual people, you are
wasting your time trying to support a fantastic idea like "everyone
was out to get Oswald" using the kook approach you, Walt and Gil try.
David Von Pein
>>> "Unless you can get evidential support from the actual people, you are wasting your time trying to support a fantastic idea like "everyone was out to get Oswald" using the kook approach you, Walt and Gil try." <<<
And, Bud, unfortunately (and somewhat incredibly), such retarded and
idiotic "The World Vs. The Patsy" thinking isn't just limited to the
fabulously-stupid batch of conspiracy kooks we deal with daily here in
this acj asylum. No. That type of unbelievably-silly thinking has been
adopted by people in higher places than here at the acj warehouse --
such as the late D.A. in New Orleans, Mr. Garrison.
Plus, there are people like influential filmmaker Oliver Stone. He has
to fall into the "The World Was Out To Get Oswald" category too. Plus
many authors of best-selling conspiracy books as well.
Jim Garrison, late in his life in 1988, actually had the monster-sized
balls to utter the following bullshit on the cable-TV mini-series that
all CT-Kooks just seem to love -- the putrid "The Men Who Killed
Kennedy":
"Lee Oswald was totally, unequivocally, completely innocent of
the assassination...and the fact that history, or in the re-writing of
history, disinformation has made a villain out of this young man who
wanted nothing more than to be a fine Marine...is in some ways the
greatest injustice of all." -- Jim Garrison
After reading such tripe coming from a person who should certainly
have known better, I can only shake my head as I reach for the barf
bag.
Addendum......
I had a thought cross my mind just yesterday that I don't think had
ever really occurred to me before (at least not in this exact
context). I was thinking how virtually impossible it would be for Lee
Harvey Oswald to be the kind of innocent "patsy" that so many
conspiracy theorists paint Oswald to be....from the following
standpoint:
If Lee Oswald was truly the completely-innocent patsy that many CTers
think he actually was in November 1963 (i.e., he didn't fire any shots
at JFK, and he also didn't shoot Officer J.D. Tippit), then this would
also have to mean (by definition) that BOTH of the official U.S.
Government organizations that were specifically assigned the task of
getting to the bottom of the assassination and finding out who killed
JFK and Officer Tippit (the WC and the HSCA)--incredibly--BOTH blew
it!
Via such an "Innocent Patsy" TRUTH, we'd have to actually buy into the
notion that not only did the Warren Commission come to a completely-
WRONG conclusion about Oswald's guilt in both of those murders....but
we'd also have to believe that a SECOND Government committee (the
HSCA) came to the VERY SAME DEAD-WRONG CONCLUSION regarding Oswald's
guilt in TWO murders!
Any idea what the odds might be of having both the WC and the HSCA (15
years apart) screwing up in such a bold, horrendous, and blatantly-
incorrect manner?
Does anybody here (except me) think that the chances of both of those
organizations getting things ALL WRONG with respect to whether Oswald
was guilty or innocent are probably pretty doggone small?
Will the CT retort be --- "The WC and the HSCA were filled with
nothing but liars"?
Well, if that's the retort, it might be wise to ask a secondary
question then:
What are the "They Were All Liars" odds?
Walt
> TOP POST
>
> Hi Toots,
>
> You missed the doco Bud posted? Here ya go:
>
> QUOTE ON:
>
> And Brennan makes ten...
Hey Timmy.... Apparently you lack the fundamentals just like the
Dud..... If you had fundamental reading comprehension you'd know that
Brennan does NOT make ten.... If you'd have been able to comprehend
you'd have noticed that Brennan was INCLUDED in the list of NINE
witnesses that I posted.
Why is it that you keep whimpering and whining about the inability to
read the document that Gil posted.... Everybody knows that that
document is the witness list of the EIGHT witnesses who viewed the
police line ups at DPD headquarters. The document in the link doesn't
have to be legible when there is a good legible copy of it in Volume
XXIV , page 347. Just go to that page and read the list which shows
ONLY eight witnesses. The STAR witness, Howard Brennan, who DESCRIBED
the gunman he saw firing a rifle out of the window is NOT listed.
They didn't want Brennan listed because he was the ONE and ONLY
witness who actually saw a man aiming a rifle out of the sixth floor
window. He KNEW that the man was NOT Lee Oswald and he would not put
the finger on Oswald when he saw him in the line up. Brennan had
already seen Oswald on TV before he ever went to view the
police line up so he knew who the cops wanted him to identify as the
gunman, but he KNEW that oswald was NOT that gunman and his good
character would not allow him to identify an innocent man just to
appease the cops.
I'm sure that Gil is attempting to make the point that Howard Brennan
never even viewed a line up because there is no record of Brennan
having seen a line up. Gil is correct that Brennan is not LISTED in
the OFFICIAL list that was turned over to the Warren Commission, but
that doen't prove that Brennan didn't view a line up.
There is no doubt that Brennan did in fact view a line up on Friday
evening...That FACT is corroborated by many people who knew that
Brennan was taken to the police station by Secret Service agent
Forrest Sorrels. Since Brennan was accompanied by Sorrels he was not
officially viewing the line up for the DPD, so they simply didn't
list him as one of their witnesses.
> > > > claiming he was, could he?- Hide quoted text -
Walt
No, they didn't "blow it" Von Pea Brain..... They DELIBERATELY
covered up the truth. Most of the members of those organizations
just went along with Hoover's decree because they felt that national
security was at stake. They figured that if Hoover with his superb
investgative organization had decreed that Oswald was the lone gunman
then they would go along with that story, even though they
instinctively knew that it wasn't the whole truth. ( A half truth is
a lie) Many of them concluded that Hoover must know something that
they didn't know which would be a danger to the welfare of the nation
if it was disclosed, so they just went along with the lie.
Gil Jesus
assassination.
If a witness didn't see Oswald, he/she didn't see anybody.
i.e. Arnold Rowland
i.e. Acquilla Clemmons
Brennan wasn't listed NOT because he didn't view a lineup ( I believe
he most certainly did ), but rather he wasn't listed because he
WOULDN'T finger Oswald.
Why not ? Oswald was NOT the man he saw in the window.
After Oswald was dead, a government agent approached Brennan and
advised him to change his identification and told him what to say to
explain it.
The WC didn't buy Brennan's cock-a-mayme story.
The HSCA ignored him.
The NUTS love him
awthr...@gmail.com
I have a word or two for you: Paragraphs. The plural.
They are a new invention. Try 'em.
Ben Holmes
awthr...@gmail.com says...
>
>On Dec 14, 8:07=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 1:22 am, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 13, 5:30 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Dec 13, 4:05 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Dec 13, 2:53 am, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>>
> at
>> > > > > that lineup. In this one, Brennan *does* appear
>>
>> > > > Oh my, ANOTHER change to the evidence ?
>>
>> > > > Why am I NOT surprised ?
>>
>> > > little information and no ability to reason.
>>
>e
>> > change quite interesting, but any number of explanations could be
>> > offered....
>> > dw
>>
I've often noted the interesting fact that when the trolls are frustrated, and
have no facts... they tend to fill the space with an excess of words. Perhaps
thinking that if they pile enough of it, no-one will bother to refute.
David Von Pein
>>> "I've often noted the interesting fact that when the trolls are frustrated, and have no facts..." <<<
<uproarious laughter ensues from the audience, as the kook spews his
ridiculous nonsense, as per usual>
"No [LN] facts"??
LOL.
>>> "...they [THE LNers WHOM THE KOOK THINKS HAVE "NO FACTS" ON THEIR SIDE AT ALL; ROFL!] tend to fill the space with an excess of words. Perhaps thinking that if they pile enough of it, no-one will bother to refute." <<<
Looks like it must've worked too.
No refutations at all from the kooks (to date).
Nice job.
David Von Pein
>>> "No, they [THE WC & THE HSCA] didn't "blow it"..." <<<
Oh, good. So Oswald's a double-murderer then.
Thanks for confirming that for us, Walt.
>>> "...They [WC & HSCA] DELIBERATELY covered up the truth." <<<
Both official panels did this, right Walter? Both the WC and the HSCA
(comprised of DIFFERENT human beings, 14 to 15 years apart), decided
to "DELIBERATELY [cover] up the truth" regarding the murder of their
President.
Right, Mr. Super-Retard?
Good job, Walt. You never disappoint us. You've figured it all out.
The WC was composed of 100% liars....and (incredibly) the HSCA was
composed of nothing but a pack of rubber-stamping liars too.*
* = The only problem now for Walt is this --- Why on Earth would that
second pack of pure liars (the HSCA) possibly want to conclude that a
conspiracy DID exist with respect to the events in Dallas on 11/22/63?
You'd think that such rotten shills/liars/assholes would have gone
whole hog and concluded that they, too, could find no evidence of a
conspiracy at all (just like the WC properly determined).
Why did those rotten liars at the HSCA do such a terrible thing to the
poor, late J. Edgar?
Please enlighten the mere shills among us with your vast knowledge
about why the HSCA was filled with nothing but liars on one hand--but
believers in conspiracy on the other.
Bud
Good advice, that was a stream of consciousness thing, the thoughts
and points were not well placed (one sentence doesn`t necessarily have
anything to do with the point made or issues raised in the previous
one), I wrote them as they occurred to me. It really doesn`t matter,
it isn`t the any of the kooks will address any of the concepts
expressed, it doesn`t show on their radar. They are content to keep
heaping as many people onto the conspiracy pile as their silly ideas
require, regardless of how high the pile gets, or ever once
considering that every person they add makes their ideas that much
more unlikely. The ideas put forth are more for use by other LN,
hopefully ones with better writing skills. I do see germs of ideas
I`ve presented being utilized by other LN, just as I use ideas or ways
of looking at things from what other LN present. I tend o think it`s
more important to get ideas out, then to present them perfectly (it`s
possible to do both, it seems others can, but too much of a chore for
me, and this is recreation, not work, hence strung out sentences, with
a lot of commas). In any case, this isn`t like writing an article for
a magazine, people can insert comment right after any point I make, so
paragraphs might not really apply as they would if this was a wok of
literature.
Bud
> In article <ef776730-71ee-467f-bff9-f39cf94b3...@q30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> awthraw...@gmail.com says...
I noticed you didn`t attempt to address any of the points made, the
major one being "What points does all the chewing on difficulties and
details of the case make if the overall concept of conspiracy as
expressed by the kooks is an obvious impossibility?" It just could not
have went down the way the kooks need it to have for their version of
reality to be correct, and you only need to take a few steps back and
look at the overall picture to know this to be true. This is why the
kook stay focuses on the minute, individual issues, while never
considering the big picture. While searching Oz`s roominghouse, they
have DPD, sheriff`s department and members of judiciary. Is this what
you do when you think something might pop up that needs covering up,
get as many people from diverse backgrounds as possible, more
potential people seeing or hearing something that might need covering
up later? Or, have as many witnesses from as many diverse backgrounds
in the interrogations (police, FBI, postal inspectors), so you have
that many more people hearing things you might not want heard? Or cram
as many people as you can from diverse backgrounds in on the autopsy
you want use to conceal and cover up? The kook approach is after the
fact, when things are static, while a conspiracy (as presented by the
kooks) would have a thousand variables to contend with, tongues to
worry about wagging,ect. You just don`t keep information under wraps
by having the maximum number of people possible in position to get
that information. Since what the kook are presenting is an impossible
unworthy of consideration, the WC conclusions are the only ones left
to make. There just could not be what there is in evidence, and not
have people coming forward, if the kook version was the reality of
things. Coordination would be impossible. Communication would be
impossible. Logistics would be impossible. Knowing everyone that would
be at an given location would be impossible. Controlling those people
would be impossible. And contending with variables and dealing with
unforeseen problems as they arose would be impossible. So, Occum wins
hands down, and you kooks need a new hobby, cause I`m shutting this
motherfucker down.
dcwi...@netscape.net
Doubt there was much nefariousness going on by the time each lineup
was conducted. Coaching must have occurred long before the lineup.
Extreme case was Scoggins, with whom the authorities had some 24 hours
to coach before he went to a lineup....
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
concerns the WC. Garbage in, g. out applies here. The WC, for
instance, had to make do with a corrupted transcription (Henslee's) of
the DPD radio logs, & officers who backed up those corrupted portions--
e.g., Insp Sawyer testifying that he radioed that the hulls were found
on the 5th floor, when what he radioed was that they were found on the
3rd floor. Or Sgt Hill testifying that someone else sent the
"automatic" transmission! In both cases, Henslee seemed to back up
the officers, but the actual radio logs contradict transcriber *and*
transcribees....
dw
David Von Pein
In response to Donald Willis:
Chaff = A CT-Kook's best friend.
Without it....the "patsy's" guilty.
Simple as that.
Bud
Or maybe the time was spent teaching him to juggle, another thing
you can`t begin to show.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On 14 Dec, 00:36, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > TOP POST
>
> > Hi Toots,
>
> > You missed the doco Bud posted? Here ya go:
>
> > QUOTE ON:
>
> > And Brennan makes ten...
>
> Hey Timmy.... Apparently you lack the fundamentals just like the
> Dud..... If you had fundamental reading comprehension you'd know that
> Brennan does NOT make ten.... If you'd have been able to comprehend
> you'd have noticed that Brennan was INCLUDED in the list of NINE
> witnesses that I posted.
>
> Why is it that you keep whimpering and whining about the inability to
> read the document that Gil posted.... Everybody knows that that
> document is the witness list of the EIGHT witnesses who viewed the
> police line ups at DPD headquarters. The document in the link doesn't
> have to be legible when there is a good legible copy of it in Volume
> XXIV , page 347. Just go to that page and read the list which shows
> ONLY eight witnesses. The STAR witness, Howard Brennan, who DESCRIBED
> the gunman he saw firing a rifle out of the window is NOT listed.
>
> They didn't want Brennan listed because he was the ONE and ONLY
> witness who actually saw a man aiming a rifle out of the sixth floor
> window.
I am NOT siding with Tim on this, but the truth must be told. This
comment about Brennan being the only witness to seeing a man aiming a
rifle out of the sixth floor window is totally untrue. We have Arnold
Rowland and Amos Euins as well who saw a man with a rifle in the
TSBD. Even Brennan knew this as he was asked by Forrest Sorrels if he
was the only witness or had he seen anybody else and Brennan pointed
to Euins as he also saw a man in the southeast corner of the TSBD.
(VII, p. 349)
> He KNEW that the man was NOT Lee Oswald and he would not put
> the finger on Oswald when he saw him in the line up.
Correct, he failed to ID LHO at the police lineup.
> Brennan had
> already seen Oswald on TV before he ever went to view the
> police line up so he knew who the cops wanted him to identify as the
> gunman, but he KNEW that oswald was NOT that gunman and his good
> character would not allow him to identify an innocent man just to
> appease the cops.
This is an interesting point, as an ID will NOT stand up in a court of
law IF the witness had seen the accused before they ID'd them. Thus,
even if Brennan had ID'd LHO, which he didn't, it would have been
inadmissable in court since he had seen him on t.v. beforehand. IT is
amazing how the WC's witnesses fought off the pressure and more times
than not did NOT pick LHO as the one they saw.
> I'm sure that Gil is attempting to make the point that Howard Brennan
> never even viewed a line up because there is no record of Brennan
> having seen a line up. Gil is correct that Brennan is not LISTED in
> the OFFICIAL list that was turned over to the Warren Commission, but
> that doen't prove that Brennan didn't view a line up.
He did view a lineup with Sorrels and Fritz and he said he "could NOT
make a positive identification" of LHO as the man he saw with the
rifle on the sixth floor of the TSBD, even after seeing LHO on t.v.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
dcwi...@netscape.net
"Chaff" = Henslee, Hill, & Sawyer's screwing of the WC?!!?
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
he let slip during his testimony that he went with the cops almost
immediately, Friday, around 1:30pm, some 20 hours earlier. Why didn't
the cops want anyone to know about those extra 20 hours? Whyever did
they think that that might look... bad?
dw
Ben Holmes
dcwi...@netscape.net says...
>
>On Dec 15, 5:49=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 15, 1:23 am, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 14, 6:07 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Dec 14, 1:22 am, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Dec 13, 5:30 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Dec 13, 4:05 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Dec 13, 2:53 am, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>>
>sses at
>> > > > > > > that lineup. In this one, Brennan *does* appear
>>
>> > > > > > Oh my, ANOTHER change to the evidence ?
>>
>> > > > > > Why am I NOT surprised ?
>>
>ith
>> > > > > little information and no ability to reason.
>>
>d the
>> > > > change quite interesting, but any number of explanations could be
>> > > > offered....
>> > > > dw
>>
>> > > helpful to you, as you suffer from the same deficiencies as Gil. You
>> > > and he use the same flawed approach, and your bias drives you to a
>> > > predetermined destination. You both try to take the end information,
>> > > which is a small portion of everything that transpires, and must
>> > > contain flaws, gaps, discrepancies, ect, and try to cram "conspiracy"
>> > > into any gap or flaw you can find. In many, many instances, there
>> > > might just not be enough information available to make a positive
>> > > determination, the authorities are investigation a crime, they aren`t
>> > > providing a minute by minute accounting of their activities so that
>> > > idiots in the future can be satisfied. That what you posit is
>> > > ridiculous on it`s face and the idea presented impossible should be
>> > > evidence enough. You can`t support the amazing using your approach,
>> > > you need information from the other end outwards. Walt has 8 out of 9
>> > > witnesses lying at the behest of the authorities. Yet for the rest of
>> > > their lives, none of these witnesses say anything that would support
>> > > the fantastic idea Walt presented. This is fairly impossible. He and
>o
>> > > frame an innocent man
>>
>> > Doubt there was much nefariousness going on by the time each lineup
>> > Extreme case was Scoggins, with whom the authorities had some 24 hours
>> > to coach before he went to a lineup....
>>
>> you can`t begin to show.
>>
>Officially, Scoggins didn't meet with authorities till Saturday, but
>he let slip during his testimony that he went with the cops almost
>immediately, Friday, around 1:30pm, some 20 hours earlier. Why didn't
>the cops want anyone to know about those extra 20 hours? Whyever did
>they think that that might look... bad?
>dw
Ouch!!
You just keep whacking 'em upside the head with the evidence, and they don't
appear to notice that they're black & blue.
>> > dw
>>
>> > , and by doing this, let the murderer of their
>>
>> > > fellow officer get away. Again, how many officers in the room? 10? Te=
>n
>> > > more people heaped onto the pile, more people who know about this
>> > > conspiracy and remain quiet their whole lives. And why would they mes=
>s
>> > > with the line-ups when they know Oswald is going to trial, where
>> > > anything they will be used by the defense? But even this isn`t what
>> > > most shows your ideas to be impossible. It is the impossibility of
>> > > coordination at all these different locations and situations. Kooks
>> > > have underhanded shit going on EVERYWHERE, Oswald`s roominghouse (jus=
>t
>> > > look at this alone. The cops get there, and wait on personnel from th=
>e
>> > > sheriffs department to show. Then, I think even the judge who issued
>> > > the warrent came and helped look. Is this what you do when you want t=
>o
>> > > keep a huge, super-secret, get as many people in on it as possible?),
>> > > the Paine`s house, The TSBD, the line-ups. This kind of thing need
>> > > constant communication, people need to be told what is to be expected
>> > > of them, what their roles are. The kooks can show none of this, none
>> > > of the people being told what to do have come forward, nothing leaked=
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <8867768c-09ab-4595-ac30-bb04c4001...@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> dcwill...@netscape.net says...
Unsupported innuendo is more like it. Where's your "evidence" that
Scoggins was coached?
Gil Jesus
Mr. BELIN. Sometime later, AFTER THE LINEUP, did any of the police
officers show you with a picture of anyone and ask you if you could
identify him?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember if he was an FBI man or a Dallas policeman
or a Secret Service agent?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He was an FBI or a Secret Service.
Mr. BELIN. What did he ask you and what did you tell him?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He gave me some pictures, showed me several pictures
there,, which was, some of them were, pretty well resembled him, and
some of them didn't, and they looked like they was kind of old
pictures, and I THINK I PICKED THE WRONG PICTURE. I am not too--
Mr. BELIN. Did he say to you something like "These are pictures we
have of Lee Harvey Oswald"? Did he use that name in front of you, or
did he say, "Here are some pictures. See if you can identify them"--if
you remember?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I don't remember, but after I got through looking at
them and everything, and I says, I told them one of these two pictures
is him, out of this group he showed me, and the one that was actually
him looked like an older man than he was to me. Of course, I am not
too much on identifying pictures. It wasn't a full shot of him, you
know, and then HE TOLD ME THE OTHER ONE WAS OSWALD.
( 3 H 335 )
Doesn't sound like a positive ID, does it ?
So, Steve, answer me this......
If the Dallas Police weren't trying to "coach" Scoggins. WHY would
they be showing him PICTURES of suspects AFTER he had already made a
positive ID of Oswald from a live police lineup ?
Gil Jesus
Oh My. Here's another example of a witness being "coached":
Mr. BALL. --I HAVE ASKED YOU THAT QUESTION BEFORE did you recognize
anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
( 3 H 310 )
This is the first exchange in the 26 volumes where Ball asks Mrs.
Markham the question.
So when he says that:
"I have asked you that question before" , what is he talking about ?
"Going over" what the witness is supposed to testify to prior to her
testimony, off the record ?
muc...@gmail.com
My name is not Steve, but I'll answer anyway. Perhaps you missed that
DW thinks the authorities coached Scoggins for up to 24 hours *before*
the lineup. Seems that either DW is wrong, or those DPD goons didn't
try quite hard enough...
Gil Jesus
> My name is not Steve, but I'll answer anyway. Perhaps you missed that
> DW thinks the authorities coached Scoggins for up to 24 hours *before*
> the lineup. Seems that either DW is wrong, or those DPD goons didn't
> try quite hard enough...-
Of course it's not...
I didn't "miss" anything. You posted:
> Where's your "evidence" that Scoggins was coached?
Which I answered and asked:
If the Dallas Police weren't trying to "coach" Scoggins. WHY would
they be showing him PICTURES of suspects AFTER he had already made a
positive ID of Oswald from a live police lineup ?
Which you did NOT answer.
From a legal standpoint, does it matter if Scoggins was "coached"
before or after he saw the lineup ?
The guy was coached.
So now answer my question, please.
muc...@gmail.com
> On Dec 16, 6:42 am, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > My name is not Steve, but I'll answer anyway. Perhaps you missed that
> > DW thinks the authorities coached Scoggins for up to 24 hours *before*
> > the lineup. Seems that either DW is wrong, or those DPD goons didn't
> > try quite hard enough...-
>
> Of course it's not...
>
> I didn't "miss" anything. You posted:
>
> > Where's your "evidence" that Scoggins was coached?
You either missed the context of my question or deliberately tried to
change the topic.
> Which I answered and asked:
>
> If the Dallas Police weren't trying to "coach" Scoggins. WHY would
> they be showing him PICTURES of suspects AFTER he had already made a
> positive ID of Oswald from a live police lineup ?
>
> Which you did NOT answer.
>
> From a legal standpoint, does it matter if Scoggins was "coached"
> before or after he saw the lineup ?
>
> The guy was coached.
>
> So now answer my question, please.
>
> WHY would they be showing him PICTURES of suspects AFTER he had
> already made a positive ID of Oswald from a live police lineup ?
How does this support DW's theory that the authorities coached
Scoggins for up to 24 hours *before* the lineup?
-Mark
Gil Jesus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your question wasn't "Where's your evidence that Scoggins was coached
24 HOURS BEFORE THE LINEUP ? "
Your question was "Where's your 'evidence' that Scoggins was coached"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/51114f576aa6facb
Like I said, there's no difference from a legal standpoint whether a
witness is coached before or after making an identification.His
identifcation is still inadmissable either way.
And that IS the point.
I answered YOUR question and added one of my own.
It's obvious that you prefer to pass on answering mine.
Bud
Not the way it works, dw. You have to show the hanky-panky, I don`t
have to show that none occurred. Can you prove the time wasn`t spent
teaching Scoggins to juggle?
Bud
> In article <8867768c-09ab-4595-ac30-bb04c4001...@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
What "ouch", idiot, he didn`t produce anything. It`s merely
retarded speculation that the information was something anyone wanted
to hide, and that Scoggins let it "slip". It is typical of a kook
finding some gap in the record, and trying to shoehorn conspiracy into
it. It`s easier than actually showing Scoggins was coached, which
would require actual testimony from someone that it occurred.
> You just keep whacking 'em upside the head with the evidence, and they don't
> appear to notice that they're black & blue.
Oh, oh, dw has found that there was a delay when Scoggins gave his
affidavit. How can the LN position absorb such crippling damage? I
know, we`ll ask that you show some malfeasance!
Bud
How do you couch someone on who to pick out of a line-up after the
line-up, idiot?
Bud
He didn`t he went over what she was supposed to say, idiot, he said
that he had questioned her previously. Am I giving you too much credit
by assuming you know the difference between "questioning" and
"couching"?
Gil Jesus
>Am I giving you too much credit
> by assuming you know the difference between "questioning" and
> "couching"?-
You apparently don't.
Gil Jesus
>
> � How do you couch someone on who to pick out of a line-up after the
> line-up, idiot?-
It's COACH , not COUCH, you reject from an education system. We're
talking about leading witnesses, not sofas.
You in-bred IDIOT.
Oswald WASN'T ID'd by Scoggins during the police lineup and THAT'S why
they showed him the pictures, hoping to "coach" him into an
identification by the pics, but Scoggins picked the WRONG picture.
Bud
> On Dec 16, 6:42 am, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > My name is not Steve, but I'll answer anyway. Perhaps you missed that
> > DW thinks the authorities coached Scoggins for up to 24 hours *before*
> > the lineup. Seems that either DW is wrong, or those DPD goons didn't
> > try quite hard enough...-
>
> Of course it's not...
>
> I didn't "miss" anything. You posted:
>
> > Where's your "evidence" that Scoggins was coached?
>
> Which I answered and asked:
>
> If the Dallas Police weren't trying to "coach" Scoggins. WHY would
> they be showing him PICTURES of suspects AFTER he had already made a
> positive ID of Oswald from a live police lineup ?
I can`t think of any real reason to show him photos to make an
identification after he has made a positive ID in a live line-up. The
live ID would trump any photo ID. Perhaps they were using someone who
knew what Oswald looked like to determine which of the photos they
should use to show to witnesses who were not being brought in for line-
ups. You don`t want a bad photo, you want one that a witness who has
seen Oswald can say "thats the guy I saw (or not).
> Which you did NOT answer.
>
> From a legal standpoint, does it matter if Scoggins was "coached"
> before or after he saw the lineup ?
<snicker> That would be wiping your ass before you shit, idiot. Why
couch him after the event?
> The guy was coached.
You`ve show nothing like it.
> So now answer my question, please.
>
> WHY would they be showing him PICTURES of suspects AFTER he had
> already made a positive ID of Oswald from a live police lineup ?
What bearing does this have on the positive identification he made
during the live line-up that he viewed previously?
Bud
You`re retarded. What effect can ANYTHING said to Scoggins after the
line-up influence the line-up?
> And that IS the point.
Being shown photographs is not coaching, idiot. Coaching is telling
someone who to select. Do you have anything like that?
muc...@gmail.com
Can't you read? DW was talking about his theory that the authorities
had "coached" Scoggins for up to 24 hours *before* the lineup, when
Ben chimed in with a commentary on the way DW was "whacking [other
posters] upside the head with the evidence". It seems to me that
you're not helping your friends by arguing that it was necessary for
the DPD to coach Scoggings *after* the lineup. Until you can point to
the evidence Ben alluded to, your input here is irrelevant.
Walt
> On Dec 13, 2:53 am, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>
> > that lineup. In this one, Brennan *does* appear
>
> Oh my, ANOTHER change to the evidence ?
>
> Why am I NOT surprised ?
I'm not sure what Don was talking about when he wrote:....."there was
a follow-up DPD schedule of witnesses at
that lineup. In this one, Brennan *does* appear"
Perhaps Don will clarify what he meant....
Walt
> On Dec 13, 1:34 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> I don`t have the WCR. The Mary Ferrel site probably has a clearer
> copy of it, but the only way to get to page 347 that I know of is to
> page through one page at a time. There probably is another way, but i
> don`t know it.
>
> > Dud, Ian Griggs published the hand written record of the line ups in
> > his book "No Case to Answer".
> > That hand written recod can be seen in photo section #2 following
> > page 214.
>
> > The record for showup #3 which occurred at 7:55 PM shows ONLY Barbra
> > Jeanette Davis and Virginia Davis at that 7:55 showup. The typed
> > record that you provided a link to does not look like the official DPD
> > document that was presented to the Warren Commission. ( CE 2003 page
> > 293 ) Who knows where the "record" you linked to came from??
>
> Dallas Municipal archives, idiot, where do you think? All the
> interviews are recorded on 4 pages (06-01-73).
>
> > > > The FACT that Brennan
> > > > gave a NEGATIVE identification and he was the STAR witness to the
> > > > murder of JFK is probably the reason that there is no record of
> > > > Brennan's statement after viewing the line up.
>
> > > That would be the answer a retard would be comfortable with. But,
> > > since Brennan didn`t come clean about not selecting Oswald when he
> > > could have until after the FBI took over the investigation, he
> > > couldn`t have been the STAR witness for the DPD you and Gil are
> > > claiming he was, could he?
>
> > that Howard brennan was your star witness??
>
> Idiot, Gil`s claim was that he was the DPD`s star witness. How could
> he be, when he did not make an identification. He only came clean that
> it was actually Oswald he saw in later interviews with the FBI.
Idiot, Gil`s claim was that he was the DPD`s star witness. How could
he be, when he did not make an identification. He only came clean that
it was actually Oswald he saw in later interviews with the FBI.
Idiot..... If Howard Brennan wasn't their star witness who they
thought they had to use in presenting their case
( He'd been seen on TV less than an hour after the shooting and
DESCRIBED a gunman who was NOT Oswald, but they were stuck with
him .) As a result of Brennan's being seen on TV, the shyster
lawyers knew they had to "use" Brennan and twist his words to make him
their star witness.
>
> > Why are you trying to distance yourself from Brennan's statement's
> > Dud?? Is it because you're finally starting to realize that Brennan
> > made it very clear, by DESCRIBING the gunman and the location of the
> > gunman, that Oswald was NOT the man he'd seen in that west end window
> > with a hunting rifle??
>
> These are the musings of a retard. We`ve been over this ground about
> the descriptions, nothing he said rules out Oswald as being the man he
> saw. You haven`t shown that Brennan must nail the details of a person
> he saw briefly in order to recognize that person when he saw him
> again. Same thing with Markham. Using words to describe a person you
> saw is difficult, it isn`t something people are called on to do very
> often, so many people just aren`t good at it. What people do every day
> is recognize people they met or seen before.
>
> > I'm glad to you point out that during his Warren Commission
> > intimidation and manipulation he said that he could have identified
> > Oswald as the gunman but then in the next breath said " He (Oswald)
> > was dressed differently than the man I'd seen in the window, AND I
> > TRIED TO TELL THEM THAT!"
>
> Yah, he was using the clothing as an excuse not to make the
> identification he later confessed he could honestly make.
>
>
>
>
>
> > So even though they had managed to manipulate Brennan into saying what
> > they wanted him to say, he stuck his foot in the door and kept them
> > from closing it by saying...Oswald was dressed differently than the
> > man I'd seen firing the rifle from the sixth floor window. Since he
> > was already on record of DESCRIBING that gunman's clothing, it's
> > patently obvious that Brennan KNEW what the gunman's clothing looked
> > like. He KNEW that the gunman had been wearing a light colored shirt
> > that could have been khaki or a dingy white color, and trousers that
> > were a shade lighter than his shirt. When he saw Oswald in the line
> > up he told the cops that Oswald was NOT the man he'd seen. The cops
> > pressed him and asked him how he could be so certain that Oswald was
> > NOT the man he'd seen, and he told them..."Well, for one thing he
> > ( the gunman) was wearing LIGHT colored clothes and Oswald was wearing
> > DARK colored clothes. " The cops told Brennan that Oswald had gone
> > to his room and changed his clothes, and that was the reason he didn't
> > have on the light colored clothes. But that explanation did not
> > cause Brennan to change his mind, he still maintained that Oswald was
> > not the man he'd seen. And it was still in his memory when he
> > appeared before the Warren Commission.
>
> He said it was Oswald that he had seen in the window shooting at
> the President. He explained why he didn`t make the identification he
> could have at the time.
>
> > Incidentally the cops were being disingenuious when they tried to get
> > Brennan to identify oswald as the gunman when they told him that LHO
> > had gone home and changed his clothes.... Brennan wrote a description
> > of the gunman's clothes in his affidavit and he told the cops that the
> > gunman had been wearing light colored clothes and those same cops KNEW
> > that there had been NO LIGHT COLORED CLOTHES found in Oswald's room at
> > 1026 N.Beckley.
>
> He didn`t want to make an identification, so the clothes were an
> excuse he used. It is only kook expectations that in order to make an
> identification you must be able to make an accurate description of the
> clothes. You`ve done no study to determine how well witnesses do when
> they give descriptions of clothes, so your expectations are
> groundless.
>
>
>
> > With that information and Brennan's refusal to identify Oswald they
> > should have known that they had the wrong man....
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
The DPD only ran the investigation for a few days, during which time
Brennan was only a witness who failed to make a positive
identification. That he was their "star witness" is only the product
of you and Gil`s retarded imagination.
>who they
> thought they had to use in presenting their case
> ( He'd been seen on TV less than an hour after the shooting and
> DESCRIBED a gunman who was NOT Oswald, but they were stuck with
> him .) As a result of Brennan's being seen on TV, the shyster
> lawyers knew they had to "use" Brennan and twist his words to make him
> their star witness.
What happened was that Brennan came clean that it was Oswald he
saw.
Walt
Duh.... Are you related to Rob?? A witness is only useful at
trial..... Brennan wasn't the DPD's star witness, because they were
not the ones who were conducting the trial.
Although they were desperate to have Brennan's positive identification
after Oswald was murdered, it was the Warren Commission who were
responsible for proving ..."to the American that Oswald was the one
and only person involved in the murder of JFK, and any questions as to
possible motive should be cut off"... (Nick Katzenbach)
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Gil Jesus
> � �What happened was that Brennan came clean that it was Oswald he
> saw.
ROFLMAO
Gil Jesus
I find it difficult to believe that there's anyone on the face of the
planet, who's breathing, that's as stupid as this poster posting under
the name of "Bud".
He HAS to be pulling our chains because he has the IQ of a turnip.
Bud
I`m not the one who thinks it`s possible to coach a witnesses about
who to select in a line-up after that person has already made a
positive identification in that line-up, idiot.
dcwi...@netscape.net
> On Dec 14, 10:57 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > In response to Donald Willis:
>
> > Chaff = A CT-Kook's best friend.
>
> > Without it....the "patsy's" guilty.
>
> > Simple as that.
>
> "Chaff" = Henslee, Hill, & Sawyer's screwing of the WC?!!?
> dw
I guess that's what DVP's saying! Perjury & alteration of transcripts
is just "chaff"....
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
authorities some 20 hours before he was supposed to have met with
them. Do I know how their conversations went on Friday? No, but I
assume they *talked* to Scoggins after he went to the station, maybe
even en route. Yet, that talk did not issue in a lineup appearance
Friday, & they could have put him into one of *three* different lineup
viewings, between 4:30 & 7:30. Inquiring minds will wonder why.
Closed minds will call this "innuendo"!
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
Well, that, too, but the more interesting delay was the 20 hours it
took Scoggins to attend a lineup after the cops took him in. Why did
they cover up the fact that it was so long between the time he went
with them & the time he attended a lineup?
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
I don't have to prove what transpired in those 20 hours. All I have
to know is that it took the cops some 20 hours before they could bring
him around to ID'ing Oswald, & that they covered up that delay.
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
A list of witnesses & cops for the 7:20/30 lineup appears in "With
Malice," in an appendix, & neither Brennan nor whatisname the SS Guy
in Charge of Dallas appears on it. A poster on these newsgroups found
another 7:20 list in the online DPD files which included Brennan.
dw
robcap...@netscape.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Scoggins was INCAPABLE of ID'ing the shooter because there was a row
of hedges in his line-of-sight at the time of the shooting.
Mr. BELIN. When you first saw him, I believe you said you saw the
man's face, or did you not say that?
Mr. SCOGGINS. **I couldn't see the man's face from there. I saw the
face when he passed the cab.**
The WC took his sighting of a man passing his cab and tried to get him
to say this was the same man who shot Tippit. Scoggins said the man
was WALKING WEST when he saw him, whereas the WC claimed LHO was
walking east.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you see?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I noticed he stopped down there, and I wasn't paying too
much attention to the man, you see, just used to see him every day,
but then I kind of looked down the street, saw this, someone, that
looked to me like he was going west, now, I couldn't exactly say
whether he was going west or was in the process of turning around, but
he was facing west when I saw him.
Who is the "man" Scoggins did NOT pay attention to because "...you
see, just used to see him every day...."? Was he refering to Tippit?
Why did Belin NOT ask him who this man was?
Scoggins will again state he DID NOT see the shooter's face.
Mr. BELIN. Which man did you see fall?
Mr. SCOGGINS. The policeman. I was excited when I heard them shots,
and I started to get out-- since we went back over there the other day
and reenacted that scene, I must have seen him fall as I was getting
out of my cab, because I got out of the cab, **and in the process of
getting out of the cab I seen this guy coming around, so I got out of
sight.** I started to cross the street, but I seen I didn't have
enough time to cross the street before he got down there, so I got
back behind the cab, **and as he cut across that yard I heard him
running into some bushes, and I looked up and seen him going south on
Patton and then when I jumped back in my cab I called my dispatcher.**
It is very unclear what kind of look Scoggins would have gotten of the
shooter's face under these conditions. He was then asked:
Mr. BELIN. When you saw the officer fall, when was the next place that
you saw the man, or did you see him at the same time you saw the
officer fall, the other man?
Mr. SCOGGINS. No, I saw him coming kind of toward me around that
cutoff through there, **and he never did look at me.** He looked back
over his left shoulder like that, as he went by. It seemed like I
could see his face, his features and everything plain, you see.
If he did see his "face, his features and everything plain" it would
have to have been in profile, because he just said the man/shooter
NEVER looked at him. How accurate could he be with just a profile?
Now the man he did see was NOT dressed like LHO:
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to
see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-
colored jacket on.
Mr. BELIN. Now, you saw a man with a light-colored jacket. With
relation to the police car, was the man east of the police car, west
of the police car, or kind of.
The DPD would show him CE162 (Gray, zipper jacket) and he will fail to
identify it. The DPD also will never show the jacket to LHO to have
say if it is his or not. Why? Why didn't they make LHO wear it in
the lineups they conducted for the JDT witnesses if he allegedly wore
while shooting JDT?
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Scoggins, handing you Exhibit 162, have you ever seen
any jacket on any person in that area of East 10th and Patton that
looks familiar to, or looks anything similar to this exhibit, or does
this appear to be lighter or darker than the jacket?
Mr. SCOGGINS. It appears to be a little lighter, but the sleeves look
familiar all right, the type of sleeve. He had on a jacket, the type
of sleeve of that, but I thought it was a little darker.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether it was a zipper or button jacket or
don't you
Mr. SCOGGINS. No; I couldn't tell you that.
Ditto for the shirt.
Mr. BELIN. A light shirt?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I wouldn't say it was white, but--
Mr. BELIN. Would the shirt be lighter than Exhibit 150 or about the
same color or darker or would Exhibit 150 look anything like the shirt
you thought he was wearing, if you know?
Mr. SCOGGINS. No, I don't, so I couldn't answer that.
In the lineup Scoggins allegedly picked LHO out of there was a ton of
controversy. This was the same one Whaley, the cab driver, supposedly
picked LHO out of. Whaley had said of the lineup, "You could have
picked him (Oswald) without identifying him by just listening to
him." (II, p. 261)
Scoggins brought up another interesting point when he said he did not
recall the WC's star witness, Markham, being where she said she was
at the time Tippit was killed.
Mr. BELIN. One more question, Mr. Scoggins. You rode up here to
Washington on an airplane with Mrs. Markham, did you not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Before you saw Mrs. Markham the other day, did you ever
recognize her as having seen her from the time of the Tippit shooting
at all or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes, I saw her down there talking to the policemen after
I came back. You see, I saw her talking to them.
Mr. BELIN. You never actually saw her standing on the street, did
you?
Mr. SCOGGINS. **I never actually observed her there.**
He wasn't the only one who never saw on her on the street like she
would claim in front of the WC.
Bud
By all means, shows someone covering this information up.
> Do I know how their conversations went on Friday? No, but I
> assume they *talked* to Scoggins after he went to the station, maybe
> even en route. Yet, that talk did not issue in a lineup appearance
> Friday, & they could have put him into one of *three* different lineup
> viewings, between 4:30 & 7:30. Inquiring minds will wonder why.
But where will wondering take you?
> Closed minds will call this "innuendo"!
It doesn`t even rise to that level. It`s nothing until you can make
something out of it.
Bud
Agreed. Neither do I.
> All I have
> to know is that it took the cops some 20 hours before they could bring
> him around to ID'ing Oswald, & that they covered up that delay.
"covered up" how?
Bud
wrote:
He was positive Oswald was the man he saw run past him seconds after
the shooting, though.
Scoggins is clear it was oswald he saw.
> Mr. BELIN. When you saw the officer fall, when was the next place that
> you saw the man, or did you see him at the same time you saw the
> officer fall, the other man?
>
> Mr. SCOGGINS. No, I saw him coming kind of toward me around that
> cutoff through there, **and he never did look at me.** He looked back
> over his left shoulder like that, as he went by. It seemed like I
> could see his face, his features and everything plain, you see.
>
> If he did see his "face, his features and everything plain" it would
> have to have been in profile, because he just said the man/shooter
> NEVER looked at him. How accurate could he be with just a profile?
>
> Now the man he did see was NOT dressed like LHO:
>
> Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to
> see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-
> colored jacket on.
>
> Mr. BELIN. Now, you saw a man with a light-colored jacket. With
> relation to the police car, was the man east of the police car, west
> of the police car, or kind of.
>
> The DPD would show him CE162 (Gray, zipper jacket) and he will fail to
> identify it. The DPD also will never show the jacket to LHO to have
> say if it is his or not. Why? Why didn't they make LHO wear it in
> the lineups they conducted for the JDT witnesses if he allegedly wore
> while shooting JDT?
Because, idiot, a defense lawyer would say they were dressing him to
look like the shooter.
> Mr. BELIN. Mr. Scoggins, handing you Exhibit 162, have you ever seen
> any jacket on any person in that area of East 10th and Patton that
> looks familiar to, or looks anything similar to this exhibit, or does
> this appear to be lighter or darker than the jacket?
>
> Mr. SCOGGINS. It appears to be a little lighter, but the sleeves look
> familiar all right, the type of sleeve. He had on a jacket, the type
> of sleeve of that, but I thought it was a little darker.
>
> Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether it was a zipper or button jacket or
> don't you
>
> Mr. SCOGGINS. No; I couldn't tell you that.
>
> Ditto for the shirt.
>
> Mr. BELIN. A light shirt?
>
> Mr. SCOGGINS. I wouldn't say it was white, but--
>
> Mr. BELIN. Would the shirt be lighter than Exhibit 150 or about the
> same color or darker or would Exhibit 150 look anything like the shirt
> you thought he was wearing, if you know?
>
> Mr. SCOGGINS. No, I don't, so I couldn't answer that.
>
> In the lineup Scoggins allegedly picked LHO out of there was a ton of
> controversy. This was the same one Whaley, the cab driver, supposedly
> picked LHO out of. Whaley had said of the lineup, "You could have
> picked him (Oswald) without identifying him by just listening to
> him." (II, p. 261)
Whaley said it sure it was oswald he saw also.
> Scoggins brought up another interesting point when he said he did not
> recall the WC's star witness, Markham, being where she said she was
> at the time Tippit was killed.
>
> Mr. BELIN. One more question, Mr. Scoggins. You rode up here to
> Washington on an airplane with Mrs. Markham, did you not?
>
> Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes.
>
> Mr. BELIN. Before you saw Mrs. Markham the other day, did you ever
> recognize her as having seen her from the time of the Tippit shooting
> at all or not?
>
> Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes, I saw her down there talking to the policemen after
> I came back. You see, I saw her talking to them.
>
> Mr. BELIN. You never actually saw her standing on the street, did
> you?
>
> Mr. SCOGGINS. **I never actually observed her there.**
>
> He wasn't the only one who never saw on her on the street like she
> would claim in front of the WC.
The Davis girls saw here there screaming.