(PART 36)

More distortions of the facts by James DiEugenio:

DiEugenio said on Black Op Radio on May 27, 2010, that Vincent
Bugliosi, in his book "Reclaiming History", was dishonest by adding
emphasis to various authors' quotes via the use of italics.

DiEugenio claimed that Bugliosi should have put a notation after every
single use of italics in "Reclaiming History", in order to denote that the
italics (i.e., emphasis) had been added by the author (Bugliosi).

But Jim D. obviously doesn't realize that Mr. Bugliosi wrote the
following disclaimer regarding the use of italics very early in the
book (in the Introduction section):

"Note: Throughout this book emphasis by italics in quotations
has been added by the author unless otherwise indicated." -- Page xvi
of "Reclaiming History"



Jim DiEugenio has now added one more "liar" to his already huge list
of liars and cover-up artists associated with President Kennedy's
assassination. And that person is witness Howard L. Brennan.

Brennan could conceivably have already been on DiEugenio's "liars"
list prior to May of 2010. I'm not sure if he was or not. But as of
5/27/10, we can now be certain that DiEugenio thinks that the late
Howard Brennan was positively a liar, because DiEugenio has said he
now believes that Brennan never viewed a police lineup AT ALL on
November 22, 1963:

"I don't think Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all
manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created
witness." -- Jim DiEugenio; 5/27/10

Nice, huh? DiEugenio has decided that Howard Leslie Brennan was a
rotten liar too. (Jim recently also added civilian witnesses Buell
Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle to his list of liars as well.)

For the record, Brennan said this to the Warren Commission:

"They told me they were going to conduct a lineup and wanted me
to view it, which I did." -- Howard L. Brennan; Via his 1964 Warren
Commission testimony [at 3 H 147].

Plus, Brennan also said the following things in his Sheriff's Department
affidavit that he filled out on the DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION (I
wonder if DiEugenio thinks this is a fake document too?):

"In the east end of the building and the second row of windows
from the top I saw a man in this window. I had seen him before the
President's car arrived. .... He was a white man in his early 30's,
slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175
pounds. .... I then saw this man I have described in the window and he
was taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the
barrel of the gun. I do not know if it had a scope on it or not. I was
looking at the man in this window at the time of the last explosion.
Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped down out of
sight. He did not seem to be in any hurry. I could see this man from
about his belt up. There was nothing unusual about him at all in
appearance. I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him
again." -- Howard L. Brennan; 11/22/63 Affidavit

So, Brennan--on the day of the assassination!--told the Dallas County
Sheriff's Department (via his affidavit) that "I could identify this man
if I ever saw him again".

And so, even though these key words are contained within Brennan's
November 22nd affidavit -- "I could identify this man if I ever saw
him again" -- Jim DiEugenio thinks that the police NEVER TOOK THIS

In addition, there is Commission Exhibit 2006, which contains an FBI
report of an interview that the FBI had with Brennan on January 7, 1964.
Here are some highlights from that FBI interview (which took place two
months before Brennan's Warren Commission session):

"Mr. BRENNAN added that after his first interview at the Sheriff's Office,
on November 22, 1963, he left and went home at about 2 P.M. While
he was at home, and before he returned to view a lineup, which included
the possible assassin of President KENNEDY, he observed LEE HARVEY
OSWALD'S picture on television. Mr. BRENNAN said that this, of course,
did not help him retain the original impression of the man in the window
with the rifle; however, upon seeing LEE HARVEY OSWALD in the police
lineup, he felt that OSWALD most resembled the man whom he had seen
in the window."

And in addition to now labelling Howard Brennan as a liar regarding
the lineup, DiEugenio is also forced (by necessity) to place the label
of "liar" around the neck of Secret Service agent Forrest V. Sorrels
as well. And that's because Sorrels made the following statements to
the Warren Commission concerning Howard Brennan viewing a lineup on
the night of November 22, 1963 [at 7 H 354]:

"I also got information to Captain Fritz that I had this witness, Brennan,
that I had talked to, and that I would like very much for him to get a
chance to see Oswald in a lineup. And Captain Fritz said that would be
fine. So I instructed Special Agent Patterson, I believe it was, after I
had located Brennan--had quite a difficult time to locate him, because
he wasn’t at home. And they finally prevailed upon his wife to try to
help me locate him, and she, as I recall it, said that she would see if
she could locate him by phone. I called her, I believe, the second time
and finally got a phone number and called him and told him we would
like for him to come down and arrange for him to meet one of our agents
to pick him up at the place there. And when they came down there with
him, I got ahold of Captain Fritz and told him that the witness was
there, Mr. Brennan. He said, “I wish he would have been here a little
sooner, we just got through with a lineup. But we will get another fixed


"So when we got to the assembly room, Mr. Brennan said he would like
to get quite a ways back, because he would like to get as close to the
distance away from where he saw this man at the time that the shooting
took place as he could. And I said, “Well, we will get you clear on to the
back and then we can move up forward.” They did bring Oswald in in a
lineup. He [Brennan] looked very carefully, and then we moved him up
closer and so forth, and he said, “I cannot positively say.” I said, “Well,
is there anyone there that looks like him?” He said, “Well, that second
man from the left,” who was Oswald--“he looks like him.”" -- Forrest V. Sorrels


In short, James DiEugenio doesn't care how many innocent people he has
to smear in order to promote his nonsensical theories. The more liars, the
merrier, it would seem.

It has become quite apparent to me in the last several months that Mr.
DiEugenio is a delusional nutcase when it comes to the topic of the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

David Von Pein
May 29, 2010




Instead of denying an obvious fact—Howard L. Brennan viewing Lee Harvey Oswald in a police lineup at Dallas City Hall on November 22, 1963—conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio should probably be focusing more of their attention on this potential lie that appeared in LIFE Magazine in October 1964, which concerns whether or not Mr. Brennan really viewed Oswald in two different lineups at the Dallas Police Department shortly after President Kennedy's assassination:


Does anyone seriously think Brennan was at no line-up at all?


Yes, Lance, there are people who are silly enough to believe that very thing. ....

"I don't think Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created witness." -- James DiEugenio; May 2010


Oh, dear, I had no idea. My head is spinning. So the conspirators were so diabolically clever that they created an eyewitness, created evidence that he had failed to identify LHO in a line-up, created FBI reports confirming his failure, trained him so well that he could stumble through his WC testimony and convincingly give the appearance of a guy who was simply telling the truth (even though his testimony was not nearly as damning to LHO as it could have been), and then apparently helped him write and publish a book that was consistent with what he'd always said?

And this all furthered the conspiracy by ... by ... well, how on earth did it further the conspiracy??? Why not just create an eyewitness and have him testify at the WC - why throw the line-up monkey wrench into the story? I have said it in at least 50% of my posts, but the elaborate conspiracy theories always posit conspirators who are geniuses half the time and idiots half the time (and always depending on how they want to force-fit the evidence into the theory).


Uh Legal Partners in Support of the WC:

LP [Lance Payette] says he read Ian [Griggs'] essay. But evidently, he wants to ignore all the problems Ian exposed and, as usual, just go with Brennan's WC testimony--which of course, is completely unchallenged. But of course, LP would say in this regard, "Well, defense lawyers are a nuisance anyway. Who needs them, so what if it's a legal right. Prosecutors can do the job without them." BTW, that is only slight exaggeration, is it not? After all, it just adds confusion. Right?

Now, back to the real constitutional world. Ian established that:

1.) Brennan did not even know how many people were at the line up. (p. 91 [of Ian Griggs' book, No Case To Answer])

2.) He did not recall if there were any blacks in the line up. (p. 91) Recall, this is Texas in 1963. (But I am sure LP and DVP would say, "So what are you implying, there was racism in Texas at the time?" To which I reply (again back to the real world) uh, well what about those impeach Earl Warren signs in Dallas?)

3.) No one recalled Brennan at any line up, even the one he was supposed to be at. (p. 92)

4.) When Sorrells [sic] called Fritz, it's clear Fritz has no recall of Brennan at any line up. (p. 94)

5.) Beyond that, it is also clear that there was no record of Brennan being at a line up. (p. 94)

6.) Even though there was no memory or record of Brennan being at a line up, Sorrels insisted he was. (ibid)

7.) But, Sorrels did not know the time of the line up. Fritz had to tell him. (ibid) And...it was Sorrells [sic] who was supposed to be there since it says so on the record.

This happens all the time, does it not? Every day in every police department in the country, correct? Only wild eyed conspiracy nuts could even think up such stuff.

LP did a typical lawyers' trick in his allusion to Ian's book. He went ahead and accented the poor line up choices Ian adduces, which is pretty much old news. I mean the first generation of critics did a nice job in that regard. Ian's book was published in 2005. The main part of his essay dealt with all these evidentiary holes in the Brennan records about the line up he was supposed to be at. LP ignores all that completely. This is what a card sharp does: he attracts your eye one way with some kind of dealing flourish so you don't notice what he is doing with his other hand underneath the deck.

I would have thought people here had become a little sick of that kind of cheap lawyer technique. I guess LP and DVP think it's still OK to do this kind of stuff. Sorry, but some of us are familiar with that old chestnut.


How about answering this simple question, Mr. DiEugenio.....

If the whole "HOWARD BRENNAN ATTENDED A LINEUP" story was only a manufactured story from the get-go, then what useful purpose did such a fairy tale serve?

At the lineup that you say Brennan never attended, Brennan said he COULD NOT positively identify Oswald as the assassin! So what good did it do to say Brennan attended a lineup in the first place?

If the whole thing had been a lie (with Brennan participating in the lie), Brennan would have identified Oswald. But he didn't.

The whole ridiculous "Brennan Never Attended A Lineup" theory collapses into a cloud of dust based on just the common sense in my last sentence alone.


During a reconstruction, it turned out that Brennan had problems seeing at a distance.


And yet we KNOW that Brennan was able to see well enough to identify both Harold Norman and James Jarman as two of the black men he saw on the fifth floor, just one floor below the sniper's window. And Brennan IDed those men within minutes of the shooting. So don't give me the bunk about Brennan making up that part of his story later on.

Plus, DiEugenio is surely aware that Brennan's problems with his eyesight only occurred AFTER the assassination. His eyes were injured in a sandblasting accident in early 1964, months after he had already seen Oswald kill the President from the Depository.

Jim DiEugenio, of course, doesn't care one whit about logical questions like:

What useful purpose did it serve for the cops to pretend Brennan was at a lineup?


If there was never a long brown bag in the first place, then why didn't Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle make sure to make their MAKE-BELIEVE BAG big enough to hold Oswald's rifle?

Such questions are totally brushed aside by conspiracy fantasist James DiEugenio of Los Angeles. He'd rather ignore such reasonable inquiries. Jimbo, after all, hasn't yet reached 1,000 on his Liars List yet. (But he must be getting close to that number by now.)


So, who was there at Brennan's lineup?


There was no 'Brennan lineup'... it was the 'Davis lineup', and it's just that Brennan was 'shoehorned in' and whilst being there at the same time.


Sorrels is in the same office talking to Fritz and tells him that Brennan is at the police HQ right now, that's when Fritz replies, I wish he would have been here a little sooner, we just got through with a lineup (the 6:30 line up. Note that what Fritz is saying is that had he known Brennan was there in time for that line up, he would have 'shoehorned' Brennan in to that one!) but we will get another fixed up.

Fritz then turns to Brown and Dhority just before they leave to go and retrieve the shell [at the scene of the Tippit murder] and instructs them to instead bring the Davis sisters in, get a statement, and then a lineup will be arranged for them.

Two birds, one stone.


Excellent, Alistair. The chronology you laid out makes perfect sense to me.

WHY anyone wants to pretend Howard Brennan never attended a police lineup on 11/22/63 is a big mystery to me. As I asked previously: What purpose would such a charade have served, since Brennan failed to I.D. Oswald? It makes no sense.

David Von Pein
January 12-15, 2017