The Importance Of The First-Day Witness Affidavits

[David Von Pein]

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

When thinking recently about the various affidavits that were filled out
by JFK assassination witnesses, it dawned on me how important many of
those early FIRST-DAY affidavits truly are. They are very helpful tools,
especially in dismantling some conspiracy theories.

Take Howard Brennan's 11/22/63 affidavit as a good example. The notion put
forth by many conspiracy believers is that Brennan did not see Oswald in
the window and that he really didn't see much of ANYTHING important at
all. Jim DiEugenio even went so far as to make this ridiculous comment
five years ago --- "I think Brennan is a completely created witness." --
J. DiEugenio; 5/27/2010

But when we look at Brennan's affidavit, filled out within just a few
hours of the shooting (maybe even less than that), we find all kinds of
things that indicate Brennan saw a lot of stuff in that window. And he
gave a description of the gunman ON DAY ONE, in this very affidavit seen
below, that most certainly does NOT exclude Lee Harvey Oswald:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jTmnYgFvqzM/Tvw3vTpzhsI/AAAAAAAABuI/QJ__Z34iHho/s1500-h/Howard-Brennan-Affidavit.gif

Another valuable "Day 1" (November 22, 1963) affidavit is the one prepared
by Buell Wesley Frazier, a witness a lot of conspiracy theorists like to
call a liar nowadays. But what do we find in Frazier's original affidavit,
written within hours of the assassination? We find several things that
conspiracists are now convinced were all just MADE UP from whole cloth by
Frazier, such as the "curtain rod" story and Oswald carrying a package
INTO the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning of November
22nd.

So if Buell Frazier was fabricating those stories, he sure did it in a big
hurry.

Also take note of Lee Bowers' 11/22/63 affidavit. He's the witness that
conspiracy theorists such as Mark Lane love so much. But in Bowers'
affidavit, you'll see that he is much more concerned with those three cars
that circled the parking lot than he is about seeing any "commotion" or
unusual activity near the stockade fence atop the Grassy Knoll.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/jfk-assassination-affidavits.html


BROCK T. GEORGE SAID:

Poor, poor, Patsy Lee. Looks like people started fabricating damning facts
from day one!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, Brock. And evidently, per the conspiracy believers, even Oswald's
friends and family members were framing him -- e.g., Buell Frazier and
George DeMohrenschildt. And even his own wife, Marina, was apparently
aiding in the frame-up too (what with all the lies the CTers claim she
told to make LHO look guilty).

The CTers, though, will just say: Well, Dave, it wasn't so much those
people WANTING to frame poor Lee. They were FORCED to do it by the corrupt
Dallas Police and the FBI.

In other words, I guess the CTers must think that none of the witnesses
had any will of their own and hence they had no chance at fighting back
against the evil DPD and FBI. Whatever the cops wanted out of a
witness--they immediately received. To quote a conspiracy clown---

"Shaky eyewitness Howard Brennan couldn't be relied upon to put Oswald on
the sixth floor. .... Therefore, they needed Frazier and his 'Oswald
carrying a package' story. .... I think Wesley Frazier was pressured into
doing what he did, and the Dallas police forced him into doing it because
they needed somebody besides Brennan to pin the thing on Oswald." -- Jim
DiEugenio

https://www.facebook.com/groups/243480929145732/permalink/406407399519750/?comment_id=406672556159901

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/9/2015 11:52 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> When thinking recently about the various affidavits that were filled out
> by JFK assassination witnesses, it dawned on me how important many of
> those early FIRST-DAY affidavits truly are. They are very helpful tools,
> especially in dismantling some conspiracy theories.
>

Especially in confirming some conspiracy theories.
And in proving that the WC's star witnesses were liars.
So, did you finally read Loftus and look for the earliest statements?
Like Zapruder's statement to the SS that the position of the shooter was
behind him? How about TV interviews before the cops had a change to
threaten witnesses?

> Take Howard Brennan's 11/22/63 affidavit as a good example. The notion put
> forth by many conspiracy believers is that Brennan did not see Oswald in
> the window and that he really didn't see much of ANYTHING important at
> all. Jim DiEugenio even went so far as to make this ridiculous comment
> five years ago --- "I think Brennan is a completely created witness." --
> J. DiEugenio; 5/27/2010
>

As if that means anything.

> But when we look at Brennan's affidavit, filled out within just a few
> hours of the shooting (maybe even less than that), we find all kinds of
> things that indicate Brennan saw a lot of stuff in that window. And he
> gave a description of the gunman ON DAY ONE, in this very affidavit seen
> below, that most certainly does NOT exclude Lee Harvey Oswald:
>

Yeah, he saw a lot of conspiracy stuff BEFORE and AFTER the shooting,
but did not see the shooter DURING the shooting. So don't try to make
him your star witness.

> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jTmnYgFvqzM/Tvw3vTpzhsI/AAAAAAAABuI/QJ__Z34iHho/s1500-h/Howard-Brennan-Affidavit.gif
>
> Another valuable "Day 1" (November 22, 1963) affidavit is the one prepared
> by Buell Wesley Frazier, a witness a lot of conspiracy theorists like to
> call a liar nowadays. But what do we find in Frazier's original affidavit,

A witness that the kooks rely on to prove Oswald's innocence, so of
course you have to attack him.

> written within hours of the assassination? We find several things that
> conspiracists are now convinced were all just MADE UP from whole cloth by
> Frazier, such as the "curtain rod" story and Oswald carrying a package
> INTO the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning of November
> 22nd.
>

No, no one says that Frazier just made up the curtain rod story.
WC defenders say that conspiracy believers just made up the curtain rod
story to prove Oswald innocent.

> So if Buell Frazier was fabricating those stories, he sure did it in a big
> hurry.
>

But it's ok for you to claim that Oswald made up stories.
Because he's the guy that you want to frame.

What you don't tell people is that the cops also wanted to frame
Frazier and had typed up a confession for him and told him to sign it.
Why didn't that come out on the first day? Why didn't Nixon confess on
the first day?

> Also take note of Lee Bowers' 11/22/63 affidavit. He's the witness that
> conspiracy theorists such as Mark Lane love so much. But in Bowers'

But you just said we should pay more attention to the first day
statements. When we do you call us terrorists.

> affidavit, you'll see that he is much more concerned with those three cars
> that circled the parking lot than he is about seeing any "commotion" or
> unusual activity near the stockade fence atop the Grassy Knoll.
>

So you are accusing Mark Lane of ignoring the grassy knoll?
Maybe he was more interested in the Goldwater bumper stickers.
Which you just ignore.

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/jfk-assassination-affidavits.html
>
>
> BROCK T. GEORGE SAID:
>
> Poor, poor, Patsy Lee. Looks like people started fabricating damning facts
> from day one!
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Yeah, Brock. And evidently, per the conspiracy believers, even Oswald's
> friends and family members were framing him -- e.g., Buell Frazier and
> George DeMohrenschildt. And even his own wife, Marina, was apparently
> aiding in the frame-up too (what with all the lies the CTers claim she
> told to make LHO look guilty).
>

No. Marina was scared into cooperating.
You'd be scared too if we told you we're going to deport you to Russia.

> The CTers, though, will just say: Well, Dave, it wasn't so much those
> people WANTING to frame poor Lee. They were FORCED to do it by the corrupt
> Dallas Police and the FBI.
>

And you give the SS and INS a free pass?

> In other words, I guess the CTers must think that none of the witnesses
> had any will of their own and hence they had no chance at fighting back
> against the evil DPD and FBI. Whatever the cops wanted out of a
> witness--they immediately received. To quote a conspiracy clown---
>

I guess you've never seen any real cases of witness intimidation.

> "Shaky eyewitness Howard Brennan couldn't be relied upon to put Oswald on
> the sixth floor. .... Therefore, they needed Frazier and his 'Oswald
> carrying a package' story. .... I think Wesley Frazier was pressured into
> doing what he did, and the Dallas police forced him into doing it because
> they needed somebody besides Brennan to pin the thing on Oswald." -- Jim
> DiEugenio
>

Again, why would you bother quoting DiEugenio? You want me to start
quoting Lifton about the medical evidence? Get real. At least stuff some
more straw into your scarecrow.

> https://www.facebook.com/groups/243480929145732/permalink/406407399519750/?comment_id=406672556159901
>

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

One of the best arguments for Oswald's guilt is that many of his defenders
have to say that all or most of the evidence was faked or planted.

They don't say the evidence is inconclusive or not dispositive. They have
to reject it in toto.

As the legal saying goes, you can pound the facts, you can pound the law,
or, if you have nothing else, you can pound the table.

This is all table pounding by the conspiracy fantasists.

This doesn't mean you have to accept the evidence. We all sift through it
to separate, as best as we can, facts from falsehood. Fine. But to claim
it is all made up or planted is simply a desperate act of pounding the
table.

[BOZ]

David is right. The affidavits are extremely important because the
statements are close in time to the actual events

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 11:52:11 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> When thinking recently about the various affidavits that were filled out
> by JFK assassination witnesses, it dawned on me how important many of
> those early FIRST-DAY affidavits truly are. They are very helpful tools,
> especially in dismantling some conspiracy theories.
>
> Take Howard Brennan's 11/22/63 affidavit as a good example. The notion put
> forth by many conspiracy believers is that Brennan did not see Oswald in
> the window and that he really didn't see much of ANYTHING important at
> all. Jim DiEugenio even went so far as to make this ridiculous comment
> five years ago --- "I think Brennan is a completely created witness." --
> J. DiEugenio; 5/27/2010
>
> But when we look at Brennan's affidavit, filled out within just a few
> hours of the shooting (maybe even less than that), we find all kinds of
> things that indicate Brennan saw a lot of stuff in that window. And he
> gave a description of the gunman ON DAY ONE, in this very affidavit seen
> below, that most certainly does NOT exclude Lee Harvey Oswald:
>
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jTmnYgFvqzM/Tvw3vTpzhsI/AAAAAAAABuI/QJ__Z34iHho/s1500-h/Howard-Brennan-Affidavit.gif
>

Ten to one a cop escorted Brennan to where they had the forms for
afidavits. It continues to be very strange that Amos Euins was standing
right within feet of Brennan and could not make out anything of
consequence, yet Brennan got tons of detail. Thought he didn't identify
Oswald until another day.

> Another valuable "Day 1" (November 22, 1963) affidavit is the one prepared
> by Buell Wesley Frazier, a witness a lot of conspiracy theorists like to
> call a liar nowadays. But what do we find in Frazier's original affidavit,
> written within hours of the assassination? We find several things that
> conspiracists are now convinced were all just MADE UP from whole cloth by
> Frazier, such as the "curtain rod" story and Oswald carrying a package
> INTO the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning of November
> 22nd.
>
> So if Buell Frazier was fabricating those stories, he sure did it in a big
> hurry.
>

As a proud CT, I have no complaint at all with Frazier saying that
Oswald took in a paper bag to the TSBD. Did his testimony say it was a
rifle?

> Also take note of Lee Bowers' 11/22/63 affidavit. He's the witness that
> conspiracy theorists such as Mark Lane love so much. But in Bowers'
> affidavit, you'll see that he is much more concerned with those three cars
> that circled the parking lot than he is about seeing any "commotion" or
> unusual activity near the stockade fence atop the Grassy Knoll.
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/jfk-assassination-affidavits.html
>

Of course, you're leaving out the statements of Bowers' friend Walter
Rischel who gave the FULL Bowers testimony. So the first Bowers statement
may not have been the best one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcXJJsZs7LE&index=33&list=PL9E4BA6662A2F4404

Skip to 2:45 in the video for Rischel's Lee Bowers story.

>
> BROCK T. GEORGE SAID:
>
> Poor, poor, Patsy Lee. Looks like people started fabricating damning facts
> from day one!
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Yeah, Brock. And evidently, per the conspiracy believers, even Oswald's
> friends and family members were framing him -- e.g., Buell Frazier and
> George DeMohrenschildt. And even his own wife, Marina, was apparently
> aiding in the frame-up too (what with all the lies the CTers claim she
> told to make LHO look guilty).
>

Marina had lost her meal ticket, and she was afraid of deportation, so
she said whatever they wanted to hear.

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

He [Howard Brennan] saw a lot of conspiracy stuff BEFORE and AFTER the

shooting, but did not see the shooter DURING the shooting.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I wonder why Marsh is telling this blatant falsehood? The fact is: Howard
Brennan most definitely saw the shooter DURING the shooting. He always
said that. From Day 1 he said that, as proven by this November 22
statement....

"I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was taking aim
with a high powered rifle. .... I was looking at the man in this window at
the time of the last explosion." -- Howard L. Brennan; 11/22/63 Affidavit

And if you, Tony Marsh, actually believe that the above words written by
Mr. Brennan are proven wrong by the Zapruder Film, you are sadly in error,
because the Z-Film doesn't show Brennan at the time of the third shot.
Zapruder's camera isn't even close to showing the area where Brennan was
located (near the Elm and Houston corner) at the time of the fatal shot at
Z-frame 313. And you know that's true. So why did you say this to me on
October 10, 2011?.....

"The Zapruder film...shows that he [Howard Brennan] was looking at the
limo at the time of the shots, not up at the TSBD." -- Tony Marsh;
10/10/11

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/3F99R84bs6w/lFw8_nqf8GAJ


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

A witness [Buell Frazier] that the kooks rely on to prove Oswald's

innocence, so of course you have to attack him.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Huh? You think I was "attacking" Wesley Frazier in my previous comments
concerning his 11/22 affidavit? I was attacking the conspiracy clowns who
want to make Frazier out to be a liar. Now, how is that "attacking"
Frazier?

(Marsh is making less sense with each passing day.)

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

No, no one says that Frazier just made up the curtain rod story.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh really? Go ask Ian Griggs and see what he says. And Jim DiEugenio. They
both think Frazier invented the long brown package from utter whole cloth.
(The cops forced him to do it, per Jimbo.)

And there are now also countless Internet CTers who are playing "Follow
The Leader" and have decided to believe that Frazier lied about the
package too.

In other words, let's pretend everybody was lying except the person who
really was lying, Oswald. That's always a fun game to play, isn't it? The
CTers think so anyway.

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

WC defenders say that conspiracy believers just made up the curtain rod
story to prove Oswald innocent.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I know of zero "WC defenders" who have ever said anything stupid like
that. In order to believe that idiotic theory, those same "WC defenders"
would have to totally snub their noses at Buell Frazier's testimony and
statements that indicate Oswald said the words "curtain rods" to Frazier
twice on November 21 and 22.

Do you think the "WC defenders" were able to falsify Frazier's 11/22
affidavit where Frazier specifically mentions "curtain rods"?

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

But it's ok for you to claim that Oswald made up stories. Because he's the
guy that you want to frame.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Who had more of a reason to want to make up stories after the
assassination --- Buell Wesley Frazier or Lee Harvey Oswald?

As for wanting to frame Oswald --- Lee accomplished that feat all by
himself, by killing two people on November 22 and leaving behind physical
evidence of his (double) guilt.

So, knowing the evidence as I do, why on Earth would I "want to frame" an
obviously guilty double murderer? There's no reason for anybody to even
want to do that, because the evidence convicts Oswald ten times over. And
neither you or any other conspiracy theorist on the face of this planet
has ever proved that even ONE piece of the evidence in the JFK or Tippit
murder cases was fake or fraudulent. Many CTers pretend they have "proved"
it. But they haven't. Not even close.

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Marina was scared into cooperating. You'd be scared too if we told you
we're going to deport you to Russia.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, right, Tony. As if Marina (a RUSSIAN) being sent back to her own
native country (RUSSIA) would have been a fate worse than death for
her.

Get real. You're hilarious.

[donald willis]

On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 8:52:11 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:

> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> When thinking recently about the various affidavits that were filled out
> by JFK assassination witnesses, it dawned on me how important many of
> those early FIRST-DAY affidavits truly are. They are very helpful tools,
> especially in dismantling some conspiracy theories.

I myself find especially helpful bus driver McWatters' first-day
affidavit. He has Oswald board the bus at Elm & Houston and get off on
Marsalis, in Oak Cliff. Later, that day, he positively identifies the man
as Oswald. This affidavit alone clears Oswald of killing Tippit.
McWatters couldn't have got to Marsalis before abut 1:15pm, hardly enough
time for Oswald to go to his room & get his gun, then get to 10th &
Patton!

dcw

[mainframetech]

Of course, if you have the resources of the US Government to do what you
need to do, it gets much easier. Then the LN kooks have something to crow
about...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

Indeed! The list of over 40+ witnesses to the 'large hole' in the BOH
of JFK is such a document. I got the quotes as early as I could for them
all. No guarantee, I just tried for the earliest.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 9:40:41 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 11:52:11 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> >
> > So if Buell Frazier was fabricating those stories, he sure did it in a big
> > hurry.
> >
> As a proud CT, I have no complaint at all with Frazier saying that
> Oswald took in a paper bag to the TSBD. Did his testimony say it was a
> rifle?
>

You've already conceded that Oswald brought a rifle into work on 11/22/63.
Are you pulling a Marsh and backpeddling from that position?

[bigdog]

On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 9:40:41 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>

> Of course, you're leaving out the statements of Bowers' friend Walter
> Rischel who gave the FULL Bowers testimony. So the first Bowers statement
> may not have been the best one.
>

Of course disregard what Bowers said under oath and go with what his
friend said Bowers said. Neither what Rischel said nor what he claims
Bowers told him was under oath. Conspiracy hobbyists never want to go to
the best source to get their information.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/9/2015 9:40 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 11:52:11 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> When thinking recently about the various affidavits that were filled out
>> by JFK assassination witnesses, it dawned on me how important many of
>> those early FIRST-DAY affidavits truly are. They are very helpful tools,
>> especially in dismantling some conspiracy theories.
>>
>> Take Howard Brennan's 11/22/63 affidavit as a good example. The notion put
>> forth by many conspiracy believers is that Brennan did not see Oswald in
>> the window and that he really didn't see much of ANYTHING important at
>> all. Jim DiEugenio even went so far as to make this ridiculous comment
>> five years ago --- "I think Brennan is a completely created witness." --
>> J. DiEugenio; 5/27/2010
>>
>> But when we look at Brennan's affidavit, filled out within just a few
>> hours of the shooting (maybe even less than that), we find all kinds of
>> things that indicate Brennan saw a lot of stuff in that window. And he
>> gave a description of the gunman ON DAY ONE, in this very affidavit seen
>> below, that most certainly does NOT exclude Lee Harvey Oswald:
>>
>> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jTmnYgFvqzM/Tvw3vTpzhsI/AAAAAAAABuI/QJ__Z34iHho/s1500-h/Howard-Brennan-Affidavit.gif
>>
>
>
> Ten to one a cop escorted Brennan to where they had the forms for
> afidavits. It continues to be very strange that Amos Euins was standing
> right within feet of Brennan and could not make out anything of

It continues to be strange that you keep saying things that you know are
not true. Euins was not within feet of Brennan.

Euins was the only person in Dealey Plaza to point up to the sniper's
nest. Brennan got tons of details by watching TV.

[Robert Harris]

David Von Pein wrote:
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> When thinking recently about the various affidavits that were filled out
> by JFK assassination witnesses, it dawned on me how important many of
> those early FIRST-DAY affidavits truly are. They are very helpful tools,
> especially in dismantling some conspiracy theories.

I couldn't agree more.

But you don't seem too concerned about the almost unanimous recollection
of every witness that day, who commented on the spacing of the shots.

The fact that they heard only one audible, early shot which most didn't
even recognize as a gunshot, and then closely bunched shots at the end
is much more than just an opinion. It is a fact which is fully
corroborated and consistent with the science of top American physicists
and the visual evidence of shots fired at 285-288 and 313.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv7Lz25Xyno

We only see reactions like that twice - within a third of a second of
285 and within a third of a second of 313.

The fact that we see nothing like this in reaction to the earlier shots
is fully consistent with those witnesses. More importantly, it proves
that those early shots, one of which was totally inaudible to the
witnesses, could not have come from a high powered, unsuppressed rifle.

I admire your adherence to the facts and evidence. That's rare in this
newsgroup. But I am not nearly as impressed by your decision to ONLY
talk about the evidence that supports your "side" of the debate.

If you believe nothing else I ever tell you David, believe that you
cannot become a legitimate researcher until you are 100% objective. And
that requires that you address the evidence you don't like.

Years ago, I argued against the SBT, a shot at from the rear at 313,
Oswald's guilt, and numerous other things on the hardcore CT's certified
list of required dogma.

It was only when I made a conscious decision to become objective, that I
faced the evidence which proved me wrong on most of those issues.

David, you understand this stuff. That's why you refused to answer my
question about your error, claiming that the reactions were caused by a
shot at 224. Isn't it?

When are you going to come out? Other than being hated by most people on
both sides of the debate, what do you have to lose:-)

>
> Take Howard Brennan's 11/22/63 affidavit as a good example. The notion put
> forth by many conspiracy believers is that Brennan did not see Oswald in
> the window and that he really didn't see much of ANYTHING important at
> all.

The question is not whether he saw someone; it is whether he saw Oswald.
He might have, but the fact that he first lied, makes him a dubious
witness. Right or wrong, he was obviously persuaded by someone, to state
that he identified Oswald.

Looking up at the 6th floor, it had to have been tough to see very much
detail. Others who saw that shooter, could not identify him and some
described him as much different than Oswald.

And if one refuses to believe that Brennan was persuaded to claim that
he ID'd Oswald, there remains the possibility that he was simply
mistaken. After all, don't you guys make a career out of telling us how
unreliable those witnesses are:-)


Robert Harris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! Did you hear me say there was no rifle? Don't begin
fantasizing again. That the rifle got to the TSBD is not in doubt, but
the method of delivery may be in doubt since the cops failed to photo the
bag in situ as they did with everything else, like the bullets and the
rifle. I'm simply pressing the case, since it came up. Let's see what
the answer is.

Chris

[BOZ]

The bus transfer in Oswald's pocket?

[mainframetech]

Nope, WRONG again! You'll never get it right! Your schooling follows:
What Bowers said was true but he left some things out of his statement.
He didn't take it all the way, probably out of fear of reprisals from the
plotters.

Rischel finished off what Bowers saw and was afraid he would be killed
for. And his death had some oddities about it, enough so that the
insurance company didn't want to pay out because it didn't look right.
In bright daytime he ran his car off the highway and into a concrete
abutment.

As well, Rischel had no fame or fortune in mind when he told his story,
and it might be just as dangerous for him to do it as for Bowers.
Rischel spoke up after Bowers died. I believe he was angry that it was
done to him.

To hear the story from Walter Rischel, watch this after skipping to 2:45

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcXJJsZs7LE&index=33&list=PL9E4BA6662A2F4404

Chris

[Bud]

Not really, he gave an understandable excuse, who wouldn`t worry about their family?

It`s routine for a witness who lied initially to come clean and have his
testimony given weight. The bombers who were convicted for bombing the
16th street Baptist Church killing 4 black girls were helped by the
testimony of witnesses who lied initially, and continuously for years.

Brennan`s testimony should be given weight on it`s merits, he was in a
position to see what he claimed to have seen and parts of what he said
were corroborated by other witnesses and physical evidence. Also to think
that he went to the police early on with the purpose of telling lies is an
extraordinary idea with no real support.

> Right or wrong, he was obviously persuaded by someone, to state
> that he identified Oswald.

What difference does it make if he was persuaded to tell the truth?

> Looking up at the 6th floor, it had to have been tough to see very much
> detail. Others who saw that shooter, could not identify him and some
> described him as much different than Oswald.

They also give details that are very much like Oswald.

> And if one refuses to believe that Brennan was persuaded to claim that
> he ID'd Oswald, there remains the possibility that he was simply
> mistaken. After all, don't you guys make a career out of telling us how
> unreliable those witnesses are:-)

I doubt any LNer would say Oswald was guilty based solely on Brennan`s
identification of him as the shooter.


>
> Robert Harris

[bigdog]

Oh, so now your story has taken another strange twist. You don't doubt
Oswald brought the rifle into the TSBD but you question that he brought it
in that morning in the bag. When do you suppose he did bring it in?

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

He wrote:

"I don't remember where I left this man off but I believe I left him off
at Marsalis."

He scratched out the: "but I believe I left him off at Marsalis".

In any case, he said he "believe."

That's pretty flimsy evidence - "I believe" - to refute all of the other
evidence on Oswald's whereabouts.

His hand written affidavit: http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340552/m1/1/

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/11/2015 12:15 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> When thinking recently about the various affidavits that were filled out
>> by JFK assassination witnesses, it dawned on me how important many of
>> those early FIRST-DAY affidavits truly are. They are very helpful tools,
>> especially in dismantling some conspiracy theories.
>
> I couldn't agree more.
>
> But you don't seem too concerned about the almost unanimous recollection
> of every witness that day, who commented on the spacing of the shots.
>
> The fact that they heard only one audible, early shot which most didn't
> even recognize as a gunshot, and then closely bunched shots at the end
> is much more than just an opinion. It is a fact which is fully
> corroborated and consistent with the science of top American physicists
> and the visual evidence of shots fired at 285-288 and 313.
>

Another phony Argument by Authority.

[Bud]

On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 4:35:34 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 6:48:18 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 9:40:41 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > >
> > > Of course, you're leaving out the statements of Bowers' friend Walter
> > > Rischel who gave the FULL Bowers testimony. So the first Bowers statement
> > > may not have been the best one.
> > >
> >
> > Of course disregard what Bowers said under oath and go with what his
> > friend said Bowers said. Neither what Rischel said nor what he claims
> > Bowers told him was under oath. Conspiracy hobbyists never want to go to
> > the best source to get their information.
>
>
>
> Nope, WRONG again! You'll never get it right! Your schooling follows:
> What Bowers said was true but he left some things out of his statement.
> He didn't take it all the way, probably out of fear of reprisals from the
> plotters.

When a conspiracy hobbyist says "probably" it means "what my silly ideas require".

> Rischel finished off what Bowers saw and was afraid he would be killed
> for. And his death had some oddities about it, enough so that the
> insurance company didn't want to pay out because it didn't look right.
> In bright daytime he ran his car off the highway and into a concrete
> abutment.

Insurance companies don`t like to pay out on suicides.

> As well, Rischel had no fame or fortune in mind when he told his story,

Would you know who he was if he hadn`t told this story?

> and it might be just as dangerous for him to do it as for Bowers.
> Rischel spoke up after Bowers died. I believe he was angry that it was
> done to him.

The beliefs of conspiracy hobbyists are meaningless things.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 4:35:34 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:

You can't think of any other reason people make up stories other than fame
or fortune? Is that why you think Hillary Clinton and Brian Williams made
up stories about coming under fire. The both already had fame and fortune.
Other people make up stories because they like the attention. You have
this ridiculous idea that everything anyone has claimed about the
assassination is true even if you don't have one iota of corroboration for
their stories and even if those stories conflict with the body of
evidence. Then you turn around and assume that the people who really were
in position to know things lied even though their accounts are
corroborated by the body of evidence. It's no wonder that after 51 years
you still can't figure out something so simple the DPD had solved it in
the first 12 hours.

[Jason Burke]

Through the sewer?

[donald willis]

I'm sure that the transfer in evidence was the same transfer found in his
pocket....

dcw

[donald willis]

Thank you. That sentence doesn't matter. Earlier, you'll notice, in the
above affidavit, McWatters says that he went on out Marsalis & picked up a
woman. The latter didn't think the man McWatters picked up at Elm &
Houston should be grinning when talking about the shooting of the
President. He goes on to say that this is the man he saw in a lineup
later that day. Note that Oswald could not have been let off the bus any
*earlier* than Marsalis....

dcw

[mainframetech]

WRONG! I didn't say he brought the rifle in another day. I questioned
the lack of a photo of the bag. That's all. Don't make another 'theory'
out of it for us to have to trash.

Chris

[Bud]

He doesn`t seem to have much real world experience to bring to bear.
Heres a few links to help him out....


http://articles.philly.com/2002-10-18/news/25351453_1_ak-74-police-chief-charles-moose-washington-area-sniper


http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/prosecutor-admits-witnesses-likely-lied-under-oath-michael-brown-case


He also thinks that you can`t determine whether someone has done
something unless you can state why they did it. He just isn`t well suited
to be looking into these things at all, or second guessing those who can.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you claim they didn't make up anything?

> Other people make up stories because they like the attention. You have
> this ridiculous idea that everything anyone has claimed about the
> assassination is true even if you don't have one iota of corroboration for
> their stories and even if those stories conflict with the body of
> evidence. Then you turn around and assume that the people who really were
> in position to know things lied even though their accounts are
> corroborated by the body of evidence. It's no wonder that after 51 years

Not corroborated.

> you still can't figure out something so simple the DPD had solved it in
> the first 12 hours.
>

Yeah, and they were going to charge Oswald with conspiracy.

[mainframetech]

Odd that you speak words and have no understanding of what you're
saying! Rather than make an argument against the story of Walter Rischel,
you try to insult him! But even the insults make no sense, like much of
what you say. Rischel obviously didn't claim attention because he said
his piece and went on about his life without trying to harvest any more
attention from then on. So that idea of yours turns out to be WRONG.

Williams had attention, and wanted more. For a newscaster enhancing the
reputation keeps you in the public eye making money. I can't speak to
Clinton, I can't think of a time when she was proven to have lied.

And again you're WRONG! You said that anyone that says anything about
the case is to be believed by me, but I have clearly stated that the FBI
at times can't be trusted, and the prosectors couldn't be trusted outside
of the autopsy. I certainly wouldn't trust Gerry Ford on the WC, and I
distrust the whole WC for that matter! So when are you going to try and
tell the truth? Schooling you might need to be sped up and put on more
heavily!

Chris

[Robert Harris]

The fact that an excuse is "understandable", does not mean it is true.
Other witnesses who had at least as good of a view as Brennen, could not
identify the shooter - Euinns, who had younger eyes with no visual issues,
said it was an older man with a bald spot on his head. On 11/22, he told a
reporter that the shooter was a "negro".

There is simply no way to know why Brennan changed his story, or if he was
encouraged to change it.

I am pretty sure however, that if a proconspiracy witness had lied and
changed his story, you would not be nearly as forgiving, regardless of how
"understandable" his excuse was:-)


Robert Harris

[bigdog]

What Rischel said conflicts with what his deceased friend had said under
oath. He was accusing his friend of having perjured himself. Some
friend.

> Williams had attention, and wanted more. For a newscaster enhancing the
> reputation keeps you in the public eye making money.

You don't think doing a nightly newscast put him in the public eye and
that he was already being paid a lot of money.

> I can't speak to
> Clinton, I can't think of a time when she was proven to have lied.
>

I guess you forgot her bullshit story about landing in Bosnia under fire.
News footage surfaced which proved that hadn't happened. She even was
forced to admit it was a lie. I guess that's not proof enough for you.
Nothing ever is.

> And again you're WRONG! You said that anyone that says anything about
> the case is to be believed by me, but I have clearly stated that the FBI
> at times can't be trusted, and the prosectors couldn't be trusted outside
> of the autopsy. I certainly wouldn't trust Gerry Ford on the WC, and I
> distrust the whole WC for that matter! So when are you going to try and
> tell the truth? Schooling you might need to be sped up and put on more
> heavily!
>

As I already pointed out, you put blind faith in unsworn witness accounts
that don't have a bit of corroborating evidence to support them but you
completely reject what people have said under oath which is supported by
the body of evidence. And you do this because as you admitted in another
thread, you choose what you want to believe rather than believing what the
evidence dictates. You have every right to do that. Just don't expect
anyone to take you seriously when you do.

[Bud]

Only plausible. And not extraordinary.

> Other witnesses who had at least as good of a view as Brennen, could not
> identify the shooter - Euinns, who had younger eyes with no visual issues,
> said it was an older man with a bald spot on his head. On 11/22, he told a
> reporter that the shooter was a "negro".

So you are trying to trump a good witness with one who is not as good.

Euins corroborates Brennan about a shooter in that window. Brennan was
better at observing and relating details about that shooter. Look at the
affidavit he provided before Oswald was caught. He is providing useful
information to narrow down the search. He is expressing confidence that he
can make an identification.

> There is simply no way to know why Brennan changed his story,

Or doubt the reason he gave.

> or if he was
> encouraged to change it.

Witnesses are often encouraged to tell the full truth. Brennan hedged a
little for reasons of his own, but eventually came clean.

> I am pretty sure however, that if a proconspiracy witness had lied and
> changed his story, you would not be nearly as forgiving, regardless of how
> "understandable" his excuse was:-)

I`m not sure what you mean by "proconspiracy" witness, I`m only aware of
witnesses. You weigh the information they provide. You just aren`t good at
this.


> Robert Harris

[donald willis]

I want to reiterate my faith in first-day affidavits! According to
McWatters' 11/22 affidavit, then--after the challenge, below--Oswald was
on a slow bus to Oak Cliff that day and could not have shot Tippit.

dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

Guess what? The acoustics evidence corroborates that there was a shooter
in that window. So you have to dispute the acoustics evidence.

> better at observing and relating details about that shooter. Look at the
> affidavit he provided before Oswald was caught. He is providing useful
> information to narrow down the search. He is expressing confidence that he
> can make an identification.
>
>
>> There is simply no way to know why Brennan changed his story,
>
> Or doubt the reason he gave.
>
>> or if he was
>> encouraged to change it.
>
> Witnesses are often encouraged to tell the full truth. Brennan hedged a
> little for reasons of his own, but eventually came clean.
>

Maybe fear for his own safety and the safety of his family?

[mainframetech]

Oh, get off it. The when Rischel made his statement Bowers had already
died, with some odd circumstances. That's what drew Rischel out. He knew
that it was too late for Bowers, so he felt angry at the death (my belief)
and told the truth of the full story.

> > Williams had attention, and wanted more. For a newscaster enhancing the
> > reputation keeps you in the public eye making money.
>
> You don't think doing a nightly newscast put him in the public eye and
> that he was already being paid a lot of money.
>

Of course, he was getting good pay. But some that get to the top want
more, or want to insure that they stay on top. Think it through.

> > I can't speak to
> > Clinton, I can't think of a time when she was proven to have lied.
> >
>
> I guess you forgot her bullshit story about landing in Bosnia under fire.
> News footage surfaced which proved that hadn't happened. She even was
> forced to admit it was a lie. I guess that's not proof enough for you.
> Nothing ever is.
>

I didn't hear of it, but I'll accept it for now, while I go check it out.

>
> > And again you're WRONG! You said that anyone that says anything about
> > the case is to be believed by me, but I have clearly stated that the FBI
> > at times can't be trusted, and the prosectors couldn't be trusted outside
> > of the autopsy. I certainly wouldn't trust Gerry Ford on the WC, and I
> > distrust the whole WC for that matter! So when are you going to try and
> > tell the truth? Schooling you might need to be sped up and put on more
> > heavily!
> >
>
> As I already pointed out, you put blind faith in unsworn witness accounts
> that don't have a bit of corroborating evidence to support them but you
> completely reject what people have said under oath which is supported by
> the body of evidence. And you do this because as you admitted in another
> thread, you choose what you want to believe rather than believing what the
> evidence dictates. You have every right to do that. Just don't expect
> anyone to take you seriously when you do.

WRONG! I didn't specify it that way. I made it clear that I look at a
number of things about a statement, including how it fits with other
things said or done by others. I never use "blind faith" that would be
like just believing in theories! Now I know that certain people have been
ordered to lie about certain findings at the autopsy, and since they lied,
I have no problem saying so, but I will always give my reasons. I don't
do like you and pretend something and then swear to it for a day or so
until I think of another gimmick.

In the case of you taking me seriously, I'm sure that you do, and just
as sure that you will never be able to admit it. My reaon is that you
never miss the chance to try to oppose something that I say, meaning that
I've said something that might catch on and has to be dealt with...:)

Chris

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 10:00:45 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> Guess what? The acoustics evidence corroborates that there was a shooter
> in that window. So you have to dispute the acoustics evidence.
>

Is that supposed to be problematical?

[bigdog]

I guess it's odd he died when he crashed his car into a bridge abutment.

> That's what drew Rischel out. He knew
> that it was too late for Bowers, so he felt angry at the death (my belief)
> and told the truth of the full story.
>

So you are guessing as to why Rischel called his friend a liar/perjuror.

>
>
>
> > > Williams had attention, and wanted more. For a newscaster enhancing the
> > > reputation keeps you in the public eye making money.
> >
> > You don't think doing a nightly newscast put him in the public eye and
> > that he was already being paid a lot of money.
> >
>
> Of course, he was getting good pay. But some that get to the top want
> more, or want to insure that they stay on top. Think it through.
>

Oh. So he told this whopper in order to make more money. How'd that work
out for him?

>
>
> > > I can't speak to
> > > Clinton, I can't think of a time when she was proven to have lied.
> > >
> >
> > I guess you forgot her bullshit story about landing in Bosnia under fire.
> > News footage surfaced which proved that hadn't happened. She even was
> > forced to admit it was a lie. I guess that's not proof enough for you.
> > Nothing ever is.
> >
> I didn't hear of it, but I'll accept it for now, while I go check it out.
>

Gee that's big of you. You often find things out long after the rest of
the civilized world knows about them.

>
>
> >
> > > And again you're WRONG! You said that anyone that says anything about
> > > the case is to be believed by me, but I have clearly stated that the FBI
> > > at times can't be trusted, and the prosectors couldn't be trusted outside
> > > of the autopsy. I certainly wouldn't trust Gerry Ford on the WC, and I
> > > distrust the whole WC for that matter! So when are you going to try and
> > > tell the truth? Schooling you might need to be sped up and put on more
> > > heavily!
> > >
> >
> > As I already pointed out, you put blind faith in unsworn witness accounts
> > that don't have a bit of corroborating evidence to support them but you
> > completely reject what people have said under oath which is supported by
> > the body of evidence. And you do this because as you admitted in another
> > thread, you choose what you want to believe rather than believing what the
> > evidence dictates. You have every right to do that. Just don't expect
> > anyone to take you seriously when you do.
>
> WRONG! I didn't specify it that way. I made it clear that I look at a
> number of things about a statement, including how it fits with other
> things said or done by others. I never use "blind faith" that would be
> like just believing in theories! Now I know that certain people have been
> ordered to lie about certain findings at the autopsy, and since they lied,
> I have no problem saying so, but I will always give my reasons.

You know nothing of the sort. You simply assume something for which there
is no evidence.

> I don't
> do like you and pretend something and then swear to it for a day or so
> until I think of another gimmick.
>

I've pretty much stuck to the same story for over 3 decades. Oswald did it
all by himself.

> In the case of you taking me seriously, I'm sure that you do, and just
> as sure that you will never be able to admit it. My reaon is that you
> never miss the chance to try to oppose something that I say, meaning that
> I've said something that might catch on and has to be dealt with...:)
>

Pointing out silliness has become a hobby of mine.

[mainframetech]

Well, he was a pretty careful guy, but he had complained of having
coffee along the way and felt woozy from it. He was awake for a bit after
the accident and they thought it odd then. The insurance company was more
telling, because they said they weren't going to pay out because there was
something fishy about it all.

"Bowers died of his wounds at 1 p.m. in a Dallas hospital. He was 41.
There was no autopsy, and he was cremated soon afterward. Doctors saw no
evidence that he had suffered a heart attack. A doctor from Midlothian,
who rode in the ambulance with Bowers, noticed something peculiar about
the victim. "He was in a strange state of shock," the old doctor said, "a
different kind of shock than an accident victim experiences. I can't
explain it. I've never seen anything like it."

Bowers widow at first insisted to Penn Jones that there was nothing
suspicious about her husband's death. Then she became flustered and said:
"They told him not to talk."

From: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread710323/pg1



> > That's what drew Rischel out. He knew
> > that it was too late for Bowers, so he felt angry at the death (my belief)
> > and told the truth of the full story.
> >
>
> So you are guessing as to why Rischel called his friend a liar/perjuror.
>

WRONG! He didn't call him a liar. You'll never get straight. He knew
why Bowers didn't tell the whole story, and let it go. When Bowers was
killed anyway, Rischel was angry about that and told the full story, even
though it might endanger himself.

> >
> >
> >
> > > > Williams had attention, and wanted more. For a newscaster enhancing the
> > > > reputation keeps you in the public eye making money.
> > >
> > > You don't think doing a nightly newscast put him in the public eye and
> > > that he was already being paid a lot of money.
> > >
> >
> > Of course, he was getting good pay. But some that get to the top want
> > more, or want to insure that they stay on top. Think it through.
> >
>
> Oh. So he told this whopper in order to make more money. How'd that work
> out for him?
>

For Brian? A flood of negative stories came out and they canned him.
A random event. Some get caught and some don't.

> >
> >
> > > > I can't speak to
> > > > Clinton, I can't think of a time when she was proven to have lied.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I guess you forgot her bullshit story about landing in Bosnia under fire.
> > > News footage surfaced which proved that hadn't happened. She even was
> > > forced to admit it was a lie. I guess that's not proof enough for you.
> > > Nothing ever is.
> > >
> > I didn't hear of it, but I'll accept it for now, while I go check it out.
> >
>
> Gee that's big of you. You often find things out long after the rest of
> the civilized world knows about them.
>

As has been the case for you. You're so wound up in the WCR that for 51
years you have been under misconception after misconception from being
brainwashed. All new evidence is unknown to you, and so you think it's
just baloney.

> >
> >
> > >
> > > > And again you're WRONG! You said that anyone that says anything about
> > > > the case is to be believed by me, but I have clearly stated that the FBI
> > > > at times can't be trusted, and the prosectors couldn't be trusted outside
> > > > of the autopsy. I certainly wouldn't trust Gerry Ford on the WC, and I
> > > > distrust the whole WC for that matter! So when are you going to try and
> > > > tell the truth? Schooling you might need to be sped up and put on more
> > > > heavily!
> > > >
> > >
> > > As I already pointed out, you put blind faith in unsworn witness accounts
> > > that don't have a bit of corroborating evidence to support them but you
> > > completely reject what people have said under oath which is supported by
> > > the body of evidence. And you do this because as you admitted in another
> > > thread, you choose what you want to believe rather than believing what the
> > > evidence dictates. You have every right to do that. Just don't expect
> > > anyone to take you seriously when you do.
> >
> > WRONG! I didn't specify it that way. I made it clear that I look at a
> > number of things about a statement, including how it fits with other
> > things said or done by others. I never use "blind faith" that would be
> > like just believing in theories! Now I know that certain people have been
> > ordered to lie about certain findings at the autopsy, and since they lied,
> > I have no problem saying so, but I will always give my reasons.
>
> You know nothing of the sort. You simply assume something for which there
> is no evidence.
>

There is a great deal of evidence, as I've listed for you over and over.
Your opinion doesn't count here, just evidence and sensible reasons. You
may not like the evidence I put forward, but it's reasonable to use it to
arrive at conclusions.

> > I don't
> > do like you and pretend something and then swear to it for a day or so
> > until I think of another gimmick.
> >
>
> I've pretty much stuck to the same story for over 3 decades. Oswald did it
> all by himself.
>

Naah. You've used all kinds of gimmicks in specific cases aside from
the general theories of the WC lawyers. And when one doesn't work, you
quickly shift to some other fantasy and try that one.

> > In the case of you taking me seriously, I'm sure that you do, and just

> > as sure that you will never be able to admit it. My reason is that you

> > never miss the chance to try to oppose something that I say, meaning that
> > I've said something that might catch on and has to be dealt with...:)
> >
>
> Pointing out silliness has become a hobby of mine.

Let me know when you're going to start. So far, all I've heard from
you is WCR. Silly enough, I admit, but please!

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Watch Fox News much? Like 24 hours a day!

You're only here for the giggles.

[Sandy McCroskey]

That's all you guys have to offer.

[bigdog]

A classic non-denial denial. Are you disputing that Hillary lied about her Bosnia experience. Are you disputing that she falsely claimed she was under fire after landing or are you claiming she actually was under fire.

Irony alert!!!

[Robert Harris]

In article <5edc9f18-238d-45a3...@googlegroups.com>,

Bullshit!!

What you mean is, what you call "good", actually means that you like
what he said, better.

>
> Euins corroborates Brennan about a shooter in that window.

Yes, that's a given.

> Brennan was
> better at observing and relating details about that shooter.

Nonsense!

Euins provided considerably more detail than Brennan did - stating that
this was an older man with a dark complexion and a bald spot on his
head.

> Look at the
> affidavit he provided before Oswald was caught. He is providing useful
> information to narrow down the search.

Uh huh.. except Oswald was not in his thirties and didn't weigh 170
pounds.

> He is expressing confidence that he
> can make an identification.

He said no such thing in that affidavit.

>
>
> > There is simply no way to know why Brennan changed his story,
>
> Or doubt the reason he gave.

Except that he deliberately lied and his description didn't match Oswald.

Other than that, he was one helluva witness:-)






Robert Harris

[Bud]

A witness that can make an identification is better than one who can`t.

> >
> > Euins corroborates Brennan about a shooter in that window.
>
> Yes, that's a given.
>
> > Brennan was
> > better at observing and relating details about that shooter.
>
> Nonsense!
>
> Euins provided considerably more detail than Brennan did - stating that
> this was an older man with a dark complexion and a bald spot on his
> head.

http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessmap/euins.htm

You ever hear of someone identified by their bald spot?

> > Look at the
> > affidavit he provided before Oswald was caught. He is providing useful
> > information to narrow down the search.
>
> Uh huh.. except Oswald was not in his thirties and didn't weigh 170
> pounds.

A slender, youngish white man does indeed narrow down the search.
Conspiracy hobbyists have no real idea how to conduct an investigation.

If Oswald appears to be 170 pounds to Brennan and also appears to 170 to
some cop that stops him does his actual weight matter? Do you think if
they put him on a scale and it comes out 150 they let him go?

> > He is expressing confidence that he
> > can make an identification.
>
>
> He said no such thing in that affidavit.

He said exactly that in his affidavit.

"I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brennan1.htm

> >
> >
> > > There is simply no way to know why Brennan changed his story,
> >
> > Or doubt the reason he gave.
>
> Except that he deliberately lied

Why would you assume that a person who wasn`t completely forthright at
one point in time can`t tell the truth later on when they give a
completely understandable reason why they hedged in the first place?
Especially when your own possibilities involve arm twisting you can`t
show?

> and his description didn't match Oswald.

Not bad. Oswald was a slender, young white male.

> Other than that, he was one helluva witness:-)

Not bad. Likely his testimony alone would be enough to put Oswald in the
chair.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris