BRENNAN: BUD'S "STAR" WITNESS
Gil Jesus
resembled the man he had seen in the window with the rifle, but he
failed to make a positive identification.
Later, Brennan told police he could have made a positive
identification but was afraid for the safety of himself and his
family. Then, when an FBI agent spoke with him a few weeks later,
Brennan seemed to revert to being unable to positively identify
Oswald. When he appeared before the Warren Commission, Brennan stated
that he could have made the identification.
The Zapruder film shows Brennan still looking at the motorcade on Elm
Street--and not at the TSBD-as late as frame 207, some time after most
feel a shot was fired. Brennan was confused as to whether the man he
had seen was standing or sitting, and, as we shall see, his
description of the clothing worn by the man in the window is
inconsistent with the outfit Oswald apparently wore at that time.
His failure to make a positive identification of Oswald, as well as
the issue of the gunman's clothing, make it impossible to fairly cite
Brennan as proof that Lee Harvey Oswald was on the sixth floor, a fact
which even the Warren Commission recognized.
The Warren Commission dealt with the dilemma of Brennan's uncertainty
in this manner: "The Commission ... does not base its conclusions
concerning the identity of the assassin on Brennan's subsequent
certain identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man he saw fire the
rifle.,, (WR, p. 146)
In 1987, twenty-four years after the assassination, Mr. Brennan joined
with a Baptist minister named Edward Cherryholmes to write a book
about his observations. In the book, Brennan added many details, some
of them contradictory to his sworn statements of 1963-64.
The Brennan-Cherryholmes book, Eyewitness to History: The Kennedy
Assassination As Seen by Howard Brennan, written twenty four years
after the event, and, of course, not sworn to.
FEARED FOR HIS LIFE ?
Brennan's explanation that he failed to identify Oswald out of fear
that he was the only eyewitness and, as such, might be silenced or
killed. Posner cites the fact that Brennan considered moving his
family and that the FBI posted guards at his house for three weeks.
This picture of a scared and reluctant witness has some cracks in it,
however:
*According to Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels, Brennan knew that
he was not the only eyewitness. When Sorrels spoke with Brennan at the
TSBD about half an hour after the assassination, Brennan himself
pointed out young Amos Euins as one who had seen the gunman. (7 H
349)
*In both his Sheriff's Department statement and his comments to
Sorrels, Brennan indicated a willingness to identify the man in the
window "if I ever saw him again." The most reasonable explanation for
Brennan's failure to ever make a positive identification of the man is
that he never saw him again--at the lineup or elsewhere.
*It was not Brennan but a "Secret Service man from Houston" who first
suggested "security reasons" as an excuse to the reluctant witness:
"You said you couldn't make a positive identification. Did you do that
for security reasons personally or couldn't you?" is how Brennan
quoted the agent. (3 H 148)
* Brennan's subsequent actions belie his claim that he feared being
harmed because of what he had seen and so took steps to avoid public
exposure. In August, 1964, before the release of the Warren Report,
Brennan spoke on camera with CBS News, for their nationwide broadcast,
"CBS News Extra: November 22, 1963 and the Warren Report," aired on
September 27, 1964. Interviews were done, according to narrator Walter
Cronkite, a month before the telecast and the release of the Warren
Report. Brennan also posed for a photograph which appeared in the
October 2, 1964 issue of Life magazine. If Brennan was taking steps to
avoid public exposure, they were certainly extraordinary steps. (In
the CBS program, Brennan blatantly contradicted his sworn Warren
Commission testimony when, having blown his cover, he told the nation
that "The President's head just exploded." Brennan had told the
Commission that he was looking at the gunman--not Kennedy--when the
last shot was fired and that he had stopped looking at the
Presidential car after the first shot. (3 H 143-144)
Bud
> At the lineup, Brennan selected Oswald as the person who most closely
> resembled the man he had seen in the window with the rifle, but he
> failed to make a positive identification.
>
> Later, Brennan told police he could have made a positive
> identification but was afraid for the safety of himself and his
> family. Then, when an FBI agent spoke with him a few weeks later,
> Brennan seemed to revert to being unable to positively identify
> Oswald. When he appeared before the Warren Commission, Brennan stated
> that he could have made the identification.
Had Oswald lived to go to trial, it`s likely Brennan would have said
this same thing at trial. Likely, also, that the jury would believe
him, as there is really no good reason not to. This is neither here
nor there, as Ruby took the verdict out of the jury`s hands (nice
shooting, Jack!). But, the FACT remains that Brennan said Oswald was
the man he saw shooting at Kennedy. And it is a fact the kooks hate.
Gil Jesus
> � Had Oswald lived to go to trial, it`s likely Brennan would have said
> this same thing at trial. Likely, also, that the jury would believe
> him, as there is really no good reason not to. This is neither here
> nor there, as Ruby took the verdict out of the jury`s hands (nice
> shooting, Jack!). But, the FACT remains that Brennan said Oswald was
> the man he saw shooting at Kennedy. And it is a fact the kooks hate.
===================================================
Bud, you obviously are living in a fantasy world, where official
citations mean nothing if they don't support your argument. I've
provided you with citations, testimony and evidence, none of which you
will accept.
You've provided no evidence to support your "fact", while I've
provided evidence that there was no reason for Brennan not to identify
Oswald on the day of the assassination.
Unless, of course, he wasn't the gunman.
Brennan lied to the Warren Commission. He knew he wasn't the only one
who saw the gunman.
When he said that he thought he was the only one who saw the gunman,
he committed perjury. He lied under oath. (7H 349)
Was Brennan under oath when he made that comment on your tape ?
When you use terms like "it's likely" or "probably" or "possibly" ,
you've just about admitted defeat, as those terms represent an opinion
and not fact.
Like Nero as Rome burned, you just keep fiddling no matter what
happens.
Your star witness committed perjury, Bud. I doubt any jury would have
believed him.
The Warren Commission couldn't rely on him. The HSCA ignored him.
NOW YOU KNOW WHY HE ASKED THE HSCA FOR IMMUNITY.
He perjured himself before the Warren Commission.
Have a nice dream life, Bud.
Bud
> On Sep 1, 3:18 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > Had Oswald lived to go to trial, it`s likely Brennan would have said
> > this same thing at trial. Likely, also, that the jury would believe
> > him, as there is really no good reason not to. This is neither here
> > nor there, as Ruby took the verdict out of the jury`s hands (nice
> > shooting, Jack!). But, the FACT remains that Brennan said Oswald was
> > the man he saw shooting at Kennedy. And it is a fact the kooks hate.
>
> ===================================================
>
> Bud, you obviously are living in a fantasy world, where official
> citations mean nothing if they don't support your argument. I've
> provided you with citations, testimony and evidence, none of which you
> will accept.
I have the FACTS on my side. The FACT is, Brennan said he saw
Oswald shoot Kennedy. You hate this FACT.
> You've provided no evidence to support your "fact", while I've
> provided evidence that there was no reason for Brennan not to identify
> Oswald on the day of the assassination.
I think any rational person would accept the reason Brennan gave.
> Unless, of course, he wasn't the gunman.
I know you have yourself convinced that is the only possibility.
Kooks can convince themselves of anything.
> Brennan lied to the Warren Commission. He knew he wasn't the only one
> who saw the gunman.
Seeing the gunman, and seeing the gunman well enough to make an
identification are two different things, aren`t they?
> When he said that he thought he was the only one who saw the gunman,
> he committed perjury. He lied under oath. (7H 349)
See above.
> Was Brennan under oath when he made that comment on your tape ?
No. What he did was look right at the camera and say he could have
identified Oswald that day. I believed him. I expect a jury would
also. Certainly you kooks give no good reason to doubt him, other than
some unhealthy patsy worship.
> When you use terms like "it's likely" or "probably" or "possibly" ,
> you've just about admitted defeat, as those terms represent an opinion
> and not fact.
I posted the FACT. Brennan said he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy. You
kooks hate that FACT.
> Like Nero as Rome burned, you just keep fiddling no matter what
> happens.
I stick to the FACTS, rather than be distracted by kooks looking for
justification to disregard witnesses who say things they don`t want to
hear.
> Your star witness committed perjury, Bud. I doubt any jury would have
> believed him.
When you use phrases like "I doubt", you are already admitting
defeat.
> The Warren Commission couldn't rely on him. The HSCA ignored him.
>
> NOW YOU KNOW WHY HE ASKED THE HSCA FOR IMMUNITY.
I know why he asked for immunity. Some idiot like yourself (but
much more powerful) might claim he committed perjury if he said
something they didn`t want to hear.
> He perjured himself before the Warren Commission.
>
> Have a nice dream life, Bud.
This witness said he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy. You hate this FACT.
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1b00c324-2128-4d3f...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:e61f09db-186d-4afd...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Bud
> Brennan needed "IMMUNITY" from the HSCA because he lied.
Only an idiot would make that assumption.
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
tomnln
> On Sep 2, 1:24 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Brennan needed "IMMUNITY" from the HSCA because he lied.
>
> Only an idiot would make that assumption.
Only a Lying Asshole (Bud) would Not know it's in the official record.
Looks like Bud's total knowledge of the subject is Limited to Meyers'
CARTOON.
Bud
>
> > On Sep 2, 1:24 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> Brennan needed "IMMUNITY" from the HSCA because he lied.
>
> > Only an idiot would make that assumption.
>
> Only a Lying Asshole (Bud) would Not know it's in the official record.
It isn`t in the official record. That Brennan requested immunity
might be. The reason you gave for him doing so is an idiot`s
assumption.
tomnln
> On Sep 2, 2:25 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:eefec22c-5470-46c3...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Sep 2, 1:24 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> Brennan needed "IMMUNITY" from the HSCA because he lied.
>>
>> > Only an idiot would make that assumption.
>>
>> Only a Lying Asshole (Bud) would Not know it's in the official record.
Bud wrote;
> It isn`t in the official record. That Brennan requested immunity
> might be. The reason you gave for him doing so is an idiot`s
> assumption.
I write;
Proving that Bud doesn't know any more about the HSCA "Official Records"
than he knows about the WC Hearings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gil Jesus
> � This witness said he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy. You hate this FACT.
This witness was a LIAR who LIED UNDER OATH.
And I love THAT fact.
robcap...@netscape.com
Your dead on Gil! Yes, his early comments show it wasn't LHO, but so
do several others so he is not vital to CT side. Besides as Jim Marrs
pointed out long ago he is seen in one of the films (can't remember
off the top of my head which one) he is seen and NOT looking up when
he claimed to be.
His biggest contribution was he did NOT ID LHO on 11/22/63 in the
police lineup. As for weight and height I again ask how someone could
guess this from a waist up view from the distance and angles (street
level to sixth floor) he supposedly did, but NO LNer can ever explain
this to me. His lack of ID is very important, but we have many other
witnesses whereas they only have him.
Gil Jesus
under oath lie again and say that he throught that he was the only
witness who saw the gunman and then explain why he pointed out Amos
Euins to Sorrels as another witness who saw the gunman.
Bud thinks that because a man says something, it's the truth.
Unless, of course the man was Lee Harvey Oswald.
Atheists have no problem with lying under oath and apparently they
believe that as long as someone is NOT under oath, they're telling the
truth.
That's why Bud believes a PROVEN LIAR.
robcap...@netscape.com
They could never find the officer Brennan allegedly gave the
description to either. Brennan claimed it was Sorrels but he was at
the PH at 12:40-12:45 PM. Why can't the LNers produce the person that
took Brennan's descripion if he did in fact give one?
Walt
> On Sep 2, 2:25 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:eefec22c-5470-46c3...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Sep 2, 1:24 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >> Brennan needed "IMMUNITY" from the HSCA because he lied.
TRUE!!!.... Howard Brennan was still carrying a heavy burden of guilt
for not testifying honestly when he appeared before the WC. He KNEW
he'd lied ( because that's what the WC wanted of him) but he also knew
that lying while under oath is a crime. He wanted to tell the truth
but if he did then it would be obvious that he had lied to the WC. He
requested immunity because he didn't want to be charged with
perjury.
> > >> >> Presidential car after the first shot. (3 H 143-144)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walt
Gil .... WAKE UP! Sure Brennan lied to the Warren Commission
( because that's what they wanted him to do) But the bottom line is:
Howard Brennan was NOT lying on the day of the assassination, when he
said It was NOT Oswald he'd seen in the window of the TSBD.
Gil Jesus
> Gil .... WAKE UP! � � Sure Brennan lied to the Warren Commission
> ( because that's what they wanted him to do) But the bottom line is:
> Howard Brennan was NOT lying on the day of the assassination, when he
> said It was NOT Oswald he'd seen in the window of the TSBD.
agreed
tomnln
"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:eea9cec6-c62a-4657...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
The FIRST question a policeman asks a witness is for a...."Clothing
Description".