JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 994)


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

A rather boring and mildewed question that comes from the LNers in trying to defend the indefensible idea that the throat wound was an exit is "What happened to the bullet then? Where did it exit?"

From Michael Griffith:

"I believe the throat wound was an entrance wound, just as the doctors at Parkland Hospital originally reported. The throat bullet might have ranged downward into the chest, as some of the Parkland doctors initially suspected, and it could have been removed at the Bethesda Naval Hospital prior to the autopsy. Another possibility is that the throat wound was caused by a fragment of glass blown from the windshield toward Kennedy."

[End Griffith Quote.]

So stop with the stupid question, all you boring LNers. You could have figured out this answer for yourselves if you had any imagination whatsoever.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, brother. What lame and laughable "throat wound" excuses those are.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

And what a powerful rejoinder from DVP, who is quite familiar with the lame and laughable from its use on his website. When that's all one has to say about a topic, it inevitably means that the person has no ammo left in his weapon, that no argument can be made.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, right, Garry. Keep pretending I've never even discussed any reasonable theories for the throat wound being the exit that the AUTOPSY SURGEONS determined it was. But what do they know, right? We should all listen to the great Michael Griffith--whoever he is--rather than listen to the three guys who did the post-mortem exam. Right, Garry?

As I said---laughable. The CT laughs never cease.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

You may have discussed some theories about the throat wound, but if your conclusion is that it was an exit, I assure you your theories were NOT reasonable.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, just because the "Throat Wound Was An Exit Wound" conclusion is PART OF THE OFFICIAL AUTOPSY REPORT and is the only reasonable and logical conclusion to come to after weighing all the evidence---yeah, why would any idiot come to THAT silly "It Was An Exit" conclusion? Right, Garry P.?


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Since the prosectors never saw the throat wound, and indeed, have claimed not to have even known of its existence during the autopsy - they cannot make *any* statement about it.

Other than what they stated... that they'd not seen it.

Anything else is sheer speculation - and cannot *possibly* be more credible than the original opinions of doctors who *DID* see the wound.

Run Davey... RUN... like the coward you are...

If you had any honesty at all, you'd admit that the prosectors never saw the wound, and you'd admit that *YOU* don't believe the Autopsy Report.

But you're just a coward...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, that's correct, Ben. The autopsy doctors did not actually SEE the wound in President Kennedy's throat (because Dr. Perry's tracheotomy that was performed at Parkland essentially obliterated that entire bullet hole).

But what I said in my previous post is still valid. I said that concluding that JFK's throat wound was an exit wound "is the only reasonable and logical conclusion to come to after weighing all the evidence".

The key words there are -- "...after weighing all the evidence."

Maybe you missed those key words. Or, just perhaps, you're doing what you always do, Ben -- you're doing a really crappy job at properly evaluating the evidence in the JFK murder case. (I'd place my bet on that last option.)

Here's a replay of something I said a year ago:

"And there is the oft-overlooked fact that it was the AUTOPSY doctors who really got the SBT rolling....for it was THOSE guys who declared that the bullet that entered JFK's upper back MUST have "made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck". And WHY did Humes and Company reach that conclusion? Because there were NO BULLETS in JFK's body, plus NO significant enough damage in JFK's body that could possibly account for TWO bullets just stopping on a dime in Kennedy's neck AND upper back." -- DVP; May 2014


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Go ahead, Davey ... *CITE* for something earlier than Dec 6th, 1963... that gives the "transit" explanation you're currently tasking the prosectors with.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I already did when I cited the conclusions reached by ALL THREE autopsy surgeons (Humes, Boswell, and Finck, whose signatures ALL adorn the autopsy report that appears in Warren Commission Appendix No. 9 (please note the signatures of all three autopsy doctors on that linked page).

That autopsy report was signed by those three physicians on NOVEMBER 24, 1963. And nobody can prove otherwise. And the last time I checked, November 24 comes before December 6. (Also see the excerpts from Dr. Humes' Warren Commission testimony below.)

------------------

ARLEN SPECTER -- "We will use the Commission Exhibit No. 387 and I will ask you first of all, for the record, to identify what this document is, Dr. Humes."

COMMANDER JAMES J. HUMES -- "This document is a copy of the gross autopsy report which was prepared by myself, Dr. Boswell, and Dr. Finck, and completed within approximately 48 hours after the assassination of the President."

[Later in his Warren Commission testimony...]

DR. HUMES -- "The examination was concluded approximately at 11 o'clock on the night of November 22. The final changes in the notes prior to the typing of the report were made, and I will have to give you the time because whatever time Mr. Oswald was shot, that is about when I finished. I was working in an office, and someone had a television on and came in and told me that Mr. Oswald had been shot, and that was around noon on Sunday, November 24th."


------------------

And, BTW, it's pretty clear that the media (including LIFE Magazine) had no idea what was contained in the official autopsy report. I don't think any of the details relating to JFK's autopsy were made available to the public or the news media until the Warren Report was released.

So the LIFE Magazine story about JFK turning around to face the Depository in order to get hit with a bullet in the throat was obviously just pure out-and-out guesswork and sheer speculation. Which, of course, is speculation that is easily debunked by watching the Zapruder Film, which LIFE Magazine owned at the time.

But the author of that speculative piece, Mandel, obviously must not have seen the film in its entirety--or he had no sense of where the TSBD Building was located in relation to where Kennedy was when he was shot. In any event, Mandel was speculating wildly--everybody can easily see that that was the case. And he was trying his best to reconcile how a bullet could enter JFK's throat (which he thought was the true course of the bullet at that time, because he obviously had not seen the autopsy report either) and yet still be fired by Oswald in the Book Depository.

As for the things J. Lee Rankin and the Warren Commission were speculating about in their early executive sessions in December 1963 and January 1964 -- Again, they were grappling with the material they had yet to fully examine and probe. They knew that some of the Parkland people had thought the throat wound was an entry wound. And yet they also had lots of information that pretty much confirmed that all of the shots had come from the TSBD Building behind the President.

The Commission, including Rankin, were still attempting to sort out the vast amount of information they had in front of them in those early executive meetings. And after taking the testimony of many of the people involved (including Dr. Humes and Dr. Perry), the Commission realized that there was only one logical conclusion to reach --- President Kennedy's throat wound was the exit wound for the bullet which had entered JFK's upper back. Only a person incapable of assessing ALL of the data could arrive at a different conclusion from that one. Are you such a person, Ben Holmes? It would appear so.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Have you even *READ* Mandel's article?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, I don't recall reading the Mandel article at all.* But I know about the "turning around to face the TSBD" stuff that it contains. And it's obvious to me what happened. It was a clueless journalist who was trying to reconcile some inaccurate information he had at that time regarding JFK's throat wound.

Bad information usually leads to bad conclusions. I know all about that---because I argue with JFK CTers all the time. And they own the patents on "bad information" and "bad conclusions".

* On August 9, 2015, I read the Mandel article after I looked it up and found out it was available on the Internet. HERE is the entire article.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Yep... that's what I expected.

You're a believer, you enjoy speculating about things you know *NOTHING* about.

Since you've never even *read* the article, you have absolutely no idea at all what Mandel said, or how he justified it.

That makes *YOU* a liar.

"Many rumors have grown out of the presumed difficulty of firing three accurate shots in the time Oswald had and at the ranges over which he fired. But an 8mm film of the assassination provides a frame by frame chronology of events, and from the movie camera's known speed of 18 frames a second - two frames a seconds faster than it should have run - it is possible to reconstruct the precise timing and placing and feasibility of the shots."

"The first strikes the President, 170 feet away, in the throat; 74 frames later the second fells Governor Connally; 48 frames after that the third, over a distance of 260 feet, hits the President's head. From first to second shot 4.1 seconds elapse; from second to third, 2.7 seconds. Altogether, the three shots take 6.8 seconds - time enough for a trained sharpshooter, even through the bobbing field of a telescopic sight."


Now tell us, Davey... did Life magazine lie to the public about the Kennedy assassination?

It's a simple yes or no question, and I've QUOTED a few relevant paragraphs.

Let's hear your explanation.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, Ben, LIFE didn't "lie". They were just wrong--and clueless. Just as Mandel was wrong (and clueless) about JFK turning around to face Oswald's window.

Let me repeat what I said a few minutes ago (maybe you should tattoo this on your forearm for future reference, Ben)....

"Bad information usually leads to bad conclusions." -- DVP; 8/8/15


BEN HOLMES SAID:

So go ahead and explain where they came up with the frame counts.

Then explain why Mandel states that the film "shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd."

You claim it to be a mistake... explain to everyone how you can make a mistake such as these...

Walk us through it... step by step.

How, for example, did they come up with the frame numbers without looking at the film... how could they make the "mistake" of stating that they could see President Kennedy "turning his body far around"...

And, despite your ignorant statement that Mandel didn't know where the TSBD was in relationship to JFK when he was shot, the article makes it quite clear that he *DID* know this... "Since by this time [the first shot] the limousine was 50 yards past Oswald and the President's back was turned almost directly to the sniper..."

You are FLAGRANTLY lying about the Mandel article, and you really should stop your "speculative" opinions that are PROVABLY false... and either stop making false statements, or learn what his article actually said.

I'll be *vastly* amused if you actually attempt to explain how LIFE was "just wrong."

I rather expect you to dissemble again, or simply run.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

LIFE Magazine, like almost everyone else, knew that the preponderance of evidence indicated the ONE AND ONLY ASSASSIN was shooting from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building.

LIFE also did not have the autopsy report to rely on (quite obviously).

LIFE also no doubt knew that the throat wound was PRESUMED to be an entry wound by some of the Parkland physicians.

And LIFE also unquestionably was TOTALLY CLUELESS about the very important fact that JFK had another bullet hole in his body---in his UPPER BACK. So that's why LIFE, clueless all the way, said this (via the excerpts you were kind enough to provide earlier) -- "The first strikes the President, 170 feet away, in the throat."

But absolutely NOTHING about a wound in the upper back of the President. So, again, LIFE is flying blind. They are utterly clueless--and yet trying to reconcile the THREE-bullet shooting while relying on information that is inaccurate and, more importantly, incomplete.

Why the LIFE article would say this --- "...shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd" --- I have no idea. Although JFK does turn to his RIGHT and waves at about the time of the first (missed) shot in the Z160s on the Zapruder Film. Perhaps it's that "right turn" that the article is referring to--although, granted, Kennedy doesn't turn nearly as far to his right to justify the "far around to the right" quote that is attributed to the LIFE Magazine article. But I would guess that it's JFK's right turn in the Z160s that the article is talking about there.

Yes, the "right turn" reference is severely overstated. No doubt about that. But it's probably overstated merely because LIFE was confronted with a situation where they wanted to be able to somehow explain the shooting scenario to its readers via the information they had available to them at the time. And, remember, LIFE hasn't a clue that Kennedy was hit in his upper back with a bullet. So I kind of feel sorry for Mandel and LIFE in that situation.

They had bad and incomplete data and were trying to explain it. And that's what they did. They tried to explain things while using a bunch of inaccurate and incomplete information. If you want to call that situation a "lie", fine. Go ahead. I'll call it what it obviously was --- A major U.S. publication, which was no doubt under a lot of pressure to put out useful information to the American public shortly after the President of the United States had been assassinated, attempting to win a horse race with a three-legged horse.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

LIFE magazine OWNED the Zapruder film, and Davey-poo cannot figure out why the writer lied about JFK's movements? Imaginative constipation, it affects all believers eventually.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

They owned the film, and therefore they MUST LIE about what the film shows, eh? Ohhh, what brilliant logic! Paranoia diarrhea. It always happens sooner or later with all conspiracy-happy clowns. Somebody get Puffer the Charmin--quick.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Not at all what I said.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Sure sounded that way to me.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Mandel knew the throat wound was an entry wound.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Wrong.

Paul Mandel was relying on INACCURATE early information. That's the whole point, Garry!

Mandel THOUGHT (incorrectly) that the throat wound was an entry wound, and at the same time he also THOUGHT (correctly this time) that all the shots came from Oswald's Sniper's Nest in the TSBD.

So he was in a quandary---how can those two seemingly contradictory things BOTH be correct? So, he came up with a scenario in which both of those things could be true. But he was wrong, of course. But he was not lying. He was trying to reconcile the info that he had at that time.

He undoubtedly thought he was providing true and accurate information at the time he provided it in LIFE Magazine on December 6, 1963.

Does anyone in their right mind really believe that one of America's most respected magazines would have had a willful desire to do either one of the following two things?:

1.) To look like total idiots by saying something in one of their articles--which would be seen by millions of people--that they knew was completely untrue.

2.) To engage in a deliberate cover-up of the assassination of President Kennedy in an effort to convince America that Lee Harvey Oswald was JFK's lone killer.

Either of the above options is too absurd to give credence to.

Therefore, since both #1 and #2 above are options not worthy of consideration at all, it means that Paul Mandel of LIFE Magazine believed he was telling the truth in his 12/6/63 article about the manner in which JFK met his death.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

No, Davey-poo, it isn't the whole point. He [Paul Mandel] was relying on ACCURATE information and he lied about what the film showed to reconcile that ACCURATE information with the now-debunked notion that Oswald fired all the shots from the TSBD.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're wrong. Plain and simple--you are incorrect. The throat wound was not an "entry". It was an exit, just as the three autopsists determined in their ONE AND ONLY autopsy report, which was signed on Nov. 24, 1963. (So stop with the "three autopsy reports" nonsense. That's the reddest of red herrings and everybody knows it. Humes did burn a first draft, but only because it contained ERRORS. Why would he keep an INACCURATE report? That's dumb. So he got rid of the incorrect draft and kept the correct one. Why is that so hard to believe or understand?)


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

He [Mandel] lied, Davey-poo, he wasn't "mistaken." That's ridiculous. He had the film or at least stills, and he could see that there is no point where JFK's throat is exposed to the TSBD, but he needed that so he made it up. That's called a LIE.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I prefer my version better -- Mandel "overstated". But I'm not sure (nor are you) exactly WHAT Mandel was using to guide him in his article. Maybe he was looking at the whole film (in motion). But maybe he was relying on stills, as you also speculated was possible. I just don't know.

And I also don't know for sure if Mandel had a clear sense of exactly where Oswald's window was located in relation to JFK's position in the limousine throughout the whole shooting timeline.

But to think Mandel was deliberately trying to deceive America is, I think, a silly thing to believe. But if you want to believe that, and you obviously do, go right ahead.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

So now that you've provably had access to it [the LIFE Magazine article], are you going to retract the lies you told about it?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I told no lies about the Mandel article, Ben.

Everything I said before still stands. LIFE (and Mandel) were flying blind in many respects. They were attempting to put together a jigsaw puzzle while working with some incorrect and MISSING pieces of the puzzle.

And there are a few other errors in that Mandel article too -- such as when Mandel says that a bullet was found on "the stretcher that carried the President". And the part about how "threads from Oswald's clothing were found in the warehouse sniper's nest".


PATRICK COLLINS SAID:

Ref Mandel,

Draft for article linked [HERE].

The draft clearly is full of mistakes.

I have not checked the actual published version - as linked by DVP earlier - it may be the same.

This illustrates the simple point that the information available to Mandel at the time was somewhat confusing and not surprisingly either. Although by today's standards 2 weeks is quite some time to get a story about right, it is perfectly reasonable to expect errors and misinterpretation.

I can think of several recent news stories that have broken over here [in the United Kingdom] that changed over a few days, it's par for the course. Information including pictures can of course be disseminated and shared far more quickly and easily than in 1963. It is nonetheless surprising to me that Mandel seemed to think JFK had turned round so far that he presented his neck to the TSBD - especially had he seen the film (I had expressed speculation that perhaps he had not - but that is guesswork on my part). However to suggest he was deliberately misleading to fit the lone assassin theory is ridiculous.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Patrick,

Thanks for linking to the draft version of Paul Mandel's article. One change that exists between that draft and the final December 6th LIFE Magazine article sticks out like a sore thumb--and it's just a one-word change. For some reason, the word far was added to Mandel's original draft in the sentence where Mandel was talking about JFK turning around to his right. The draft version says this:

"The 8mm film shows the President turning his body around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd."



But the final version that appeared in LIFE Magazine says this (emphasis added by DVP):

"The 8mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd."



Both versions still say that JFK's throat was "exposed" to the Sniper's Nest during the shooting, which, of course, is totally wrong, but it's interesting that someone at LIFE Magazine (Mandel? The Editor in Chief?) decided they wanted to add the word "far" to the above sentence, even though that word doesn't appear in Mandel's original draft.

It's just too bad that Mandel and LIFE Magazine didn't know about the entry wound in President Kennedy's back. If they had been aware of that crucial piece of the assassination puzzle which was missing when LIFE's December 6th issue was printed, perhaps Paul Mandel of LIFE Magazine would have been the first person to have suggested the "Single-Bullet Theory" truth to the world (instead of the members of the Warren Commission staff being the first to do so).

BTW, if anyone is interested in reading the entire LIFE Magazine issue from December 6, 1963, CLICK HERE. The Mandel article starts on Page 52F.

To see the LIFE issue from the previous week (November 29, 1963), GO HERE.





David Von Pein
August 7-10, 2015


==============================


A "LIFE MAGAZINE" ADDENDUM:


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I was recently reading Gerald Ford's article that originally appeared in the October 2, 1964, issue of LIFE Magazine, and I noted something odd on
Page 50 of that magazine when Ford said this....

"H.L. Brennan, who actually saw Oswald shoot the President and provided the first description, decided soon afterward that his own life was in critical danger. At the first police lineup, he later told us, he recognized Oswald immediately but feared to admit it. At the second lineup, he made the identification despite the feared consequences."



But I am unaware of a SECOND police lineup attended by Howard Brennan. No second lineup is mentioned in Brennan's Warren Commission testimony.

The above quote by Gerald Ford, in which he tells America in LIFE Magazine that Howard Brennan DID positively identify Lee Harvey Oswald at a police lineup, has no doubt raised the hackles (and the suspicions) of some conspiracy theorists who are aware of the quote.

And it is quotes like that one, which is just blatantly false (unless I am severely misinformed as to the correct number of police lineups attended by Howard L. Brennan in November of 1963), that make it even more difficult to convince the public that the Warren Commission's investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy was a completely honest and forthright one.

I can only shrug my shoulders and wonder why Mr. Ford would want to invent a "second lineup", when such a thing is directly contradicted by Ford's very own Warren Commission final report (on Page 143, where it's stated fairly clearly that Brennan only attended one single lineup at the Dallas Police Department), as well as being contradicted in the testimony of Howard Brennan himself in WC Volume 3 and in Brennan's May 7, 1964, affidavit which also appears in Warren Commission Volume 11. All of which can easily be verified by any conspiracy theorist who takes the time to check out the information.

~big shrug~


MARK KNIGHT SAID:

Could it be here that Mr. Von Pein just MAY be willing to admit that at least one member of the Warren Commission was not 100% truthful when talking about the JFK assassination?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think I made that relatively clear (without actually coming right out and calling Gerald Ford a liar) when I said this in my thread-opener....

"And it is quotes like that one, which is just blatantly false (unless I am severely misinformed as to the correct number of police lineups attended by Howard L. Brennan in November of 1963), that make it even more difficult to convince the public that the Warren Commission's investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy was a completely honest and forthright one." -- DVP


MARK KNIGHT SAID:

I'm sure he'll likely find an excuse to reconcile why Ford's statement contradicts the evidence, but how neither the evidence nor Ford's words contain a lie. I'm just not certain how he'll perform such a contortionist act, but I'm sure we'll see it soon.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Part of the reason I created this discussion was to gauge CTer reaction to that quote of Ford's, and also to find out how many people here were even aware that Ford said such a thing in LIFE Magazine in late 1964. (I certainly had not been previously aware of the quote, and I have never once in the past heard anyone else mention it either.)

It is disconcerting to me to think that a member of the Warren Commission would make such a false statement in an article that he knew would be seen by millions of people. I just don't know what to make of it. I really don't.

But the existence of such a strange quote has certainly NOT suddenly erased or destroyed the large amount of evidence that supports Lee Harvey Oswald's lone guilt in JFK's murder. Yes, it's a quote that I do not think is accurate at all--and it is entirely misleading as well (giving the impression to LIFE's readers that a key witness to the assassination had, in fact, made a positive identification of Oswald during an official police lineup at the Dallas Police Department--which I'm nearly certain did not happen at any time in November 1963).

But, based on that one foolish and inaccurate statement about Howard Brennan made by Gerald R. Ford, to then make a giant leap and to also start believing that the thousands of pages of documents and testimony and evidence that fully support and, in my opinion, confirm Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murders are all now suddenly fraudulent and inaccurate is too much for any reasonable person to accept. (IMO.)

In wrestling with the words contained in Ford's quote, in an attempt to find some kind of a fair and halfway reasonable explanation that could reconcile the statement in a manner that doesn't end up with Gerald Ford coming across as a bald-faced liar, the only thing I could come up with is the following scenario (and it's not very satisfying to me, particularly since Ford made the statement at a time when the Warren Commission was undoubtedly still in existence in September 1964, which means his memory is not likely to have faded very much, if at all, when it comes to recalling the events and testimony surrounding the assassination)....

Mr. Ford, somehow, in some inexplicable manner, had it in his mind and honestly believed (as of September 1964, just a few months after Howard Brennan testified to something completely different in front of the Commission) that Mr. Brennan had, indeed, identified Oswald at a second police lineup at the DPD on either November 22 or 23, 1963 (the only two days Brennan could have possibly seen Oswald in a lineup).

In other words, via this wholly speculative scenario I'm painting here, Gerald Ford, who did know that Brennan did positively identify Lee Oswald at some point in time after the assassination, had it stuck in his mind that Brennan's positive IDing of Oswald while he was testifying in front of the Warren Commission was actually a positive identification provided by Brennan months earlier at a second police lineup at the Dallas Police Department.

A pretty ridiculous explanation, isn't it? Yeah, as I said, I think it is too. But in an effort to give Mr. Gerald Rudolph Ford every benefit of every doubt I can muster, it's about the only explanation I can come up with that would explain Ford's quote in a manner which has Mr. Ford NOT telling a whopper of a lie to the American people in one of the USA's most popular magazines on October 2, 1964.


MARK KNIGHT SAID:

Mr. Von Pein, I thank you for an honest and forthright answer.

PERSONALLY, I figure Ford didn't believe that anyone would be looking further into the JFK assassination, once the Warren Commission Report was filed. So my guess is that he actually thought he could say anything about Oswald being guilty without ever being challenged.

And, honestly...I don't recall anyone ever challenging this statement of Ford's while he was alive. I think he was THAT zealous in his desire to convince the public of Oswald's guilt, that he believed that one "little white lie" wouldn't matter, because if no one followed up, his "little white lie" would never be discovered.

And he truly ALMOST got away with it.


LARRY HANCOCK SAID:

As much as I hate to butt in, my recollection is that some years later Brennan actually wrote either a short book or was cited in an article in which he made a number of claims far beyond his earlier testimony - he talked about his extremely exceptional vision (regardless of some factual questions about his eyesight and glasses), he did say he had recognized Oswald but had been afraid to say so ....there was a lot that would raise considerable questions about his credibility but it may be what was picked up on by Ford. Sorry, cannot recall the source but some searching might bring it up. The later statements, plus photo studies showing he was not in the position he stated nor could have seen what he said he saw at the proper times has come up before in research - it's an oldie that I have not seen discussed recently.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Larry,

But what about Brennan's FIRST-DAY (Nov. 22) affidavit? In that affidavit, Brennan clearly indicates he saw a "slender...white man in his early 30s ... taking aim with a high powered rifle" from an upper-story window on the east end of the TSBD Building.

That's Brennan's FIRST-DAY account, within hours of the assassination---and that affidavit perfectly matches just about everything he told the Warren Commission a few months later. I see no discrepancies at all between the things Brennan laid out in his voluntary statement on Nov. 22 and his later testimony.

And I find it nearly impossible to comprehend how anyone could even begin to believe (as some do) that NO SHOTS AT ALL came from the sixth floor of the Depository after reading Howard L. Brennan's 11/22/63 affidavit. But, incredibly, there are some CTers who believe no shots at all came from the sixth floor. And among them was the late Harold Weisberg....



I guess Mr. Weisberg must have thought Brennan just made up this statement (below) from whole cloth: ~shrug~




LARRY HANCOCK SAID:

David, the remarks from Brennan that I'm citing have to do with his purported first day positive identification of the man he saw shooting as Lee Oswald, something he did not state for the record at the time.

I'm afraid I cannot rely on my memory to go further into his elaborations and issues [related] to them, I just wanted to alert everyone that it is out there somewhere. If I'm correct it was being discussed well over a decade ago.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Okay. Thanks, Larry.

For the record, here's what Howard Brennan told the Warren Commission on March 24, 1964 [at 3 H 148]....

DAVID W. BELIN -- "Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man that you saw in the police station?"

HOWARD L. BRENNAN -- "I could at that time—I could, with all sincerity, identify him as being the same man."



ALISTAIR BRIGGS SAID:

Interesting David Von Pein.

Rather than it (Brennan at 2 line-ups) being either the truth or a lie, could it not just be a mistake?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, yes, I guess that's possible. But I don't know if a "mistake" is likely, since the LIFE article (apparently written by Gerald Ford himself) clearly says that there was a "second lineup" attended by Brennan at the DPD.

And I just took note of another place in the LIFE article (here) where it says that "Brennan later identified Oswald in a police lineup", which, of course, is a totally misleading statement.


ALISTAIR BRIGGS SAID ALL THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thank you, Alistair. Your explanation makes perfect sense. (And it's much more palatable than the one I offered up previously.)

David Von Pein
August 11, 2015
January 12, 2017