Lance Payette speaks and How this would play out in court!

[Bill Chapman]

Try again, Bill.  He said he could see him from the belt up at the time of the head shot.

How do you think the gunman was positioned for the head shot?

I think you're talking about Brennan.  He wrote a 128 page book about a 6 second experience.

Hold on, not so fast. He testified 'a possibilty' from the belt up.

Mr. BELIN. At the time you saw this man on the sixth floor, how much of the man could you see?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up.

[Walt Cakebread]

Hold on, not so fast. He testified 'a possibilty' from the belt up.

Mr. BELIN. At the time you saw this man on the sixth floor, how much of the man could you see?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up.

 But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up.

Yes ...and using common sense in conjunction with what he wrote in his affidavit an intelligent person would conclude that Brennan was merely saying that he could have been off a couple of inches above the belt because he may not have actually seen a belt.....  Without doubt Brennan saw the man standing and aiming the rifle from a window.....That window had to have been wide open because Brennan saw him steadying the hunting rifle against the side of the open window and he could see all of the barrel of the rifle.

[John Iacoletti]

Setting aside Walt's fabrication that Brennan's gunman was standing up in the west end window, how does Brennan see any part of a gunman in the SE corner window taking aim for the head shot, other than possibly part of a face and an arm?

[credit Colin Crow]

[Walt Cakebread]

Setting aside Walt's fabrication that Brennan's gunman was standing up in the west end window, how does Brennan see any part of a gunman in the SE corner window taking aim for the head shot, other than possibly part of a face and an arm?

[credit Colin Crow]

So you recognize that Howard Brennan could NOT have been referring to the partially open window at the SE corner of the sixth floor ......but refuse to believe Brennan's affidavit in which he clearly describes a window that had to have been wide open....

[John Iacoletti]

So you recognize that Howard Brennan could NOT have been referring to the partially open window at the SE corner of the sixth floor ......but refuse to believe Brennan's affidavit in which he clearly describes a window that had to have been wide open....

Brennan has no credibility whatsoever.

[Tim Nickerson]

From the DiEugenics guy over on the ED Forum:

Lance:

Just out of curiosity, how long have you been investigating this case?

I say that because your urge to find closure on this issue, with conclusions that to most people would seem jerry built strikes me as being rather odd for any kind of person who is very familiar with this case. Also, your lack of any interviews or documentary research into the provenance of the money order is also puzzling.

I mean lawyers are supposed to be ultra vigilant about the issues of chain of possession. That is, how did a piece of evidence get from one step to another, how did it originate? Because if there are any lacunae in that chain, the court, the jury and judge will look askance at that evidence.

Yet, in your eagerness for finality, you have not asked one question about this issue. Therefore in just a matter of days and sixteen posts, you have done what say Gil Jesus, David Josephs, John Armstrong, Martha Moyer and the later Ray Gallagher could not do in literally years of research, going back to the nineties.

Are you familiar with those issues at all? Have you researched them? Or are they irrelevant to you?

 

[Walt Cakebread]

Brennan has no credibility whatsoever.

LBJ's Special Select Cover Up Committee certainly thought he had credibility, and he was their prime witness who they needed to use to convince the public that Leee Harrrrrvey Osssswald was guilty.

[Tom Scully]

From the DiEugenics guy over on the ED Forum:

Lance:

Just out of curiosity, how long have you been investigating this case?

I say that because your urge to find closure on this issue, with conclusions that to most people would seem jerry built strikes me as being rather odd for any kind of person who is very familiar with this case. Also, your lack of any interviews or documentary research into the provenance of the money order is also puzzling.

I mean lawyers are supposed to be ultra vigilant about the issues of chain of possession. That is, how did a piece of evidence get from one step to another, how did it originate? Because if there are any lacunae in that chain, the court, the jury and judge will look askance at that evidence.

Yet, in your eagerness for finality, you have not asked one question about this issue. Therefore in just a matter of days and sixteen posts, you have done what say Gil Jesus, David Josephs, John Armstrong, Martha Moyer and the later Ray Gallagher could not do in literally years of research, going back to the nineties.

Are you familiar with those issues at all? Have you researched them? Or are they irrelevant to you?

 

...........

I think it is reasonable to expect it would have required bus loads of pre-assassination planners and post assassination coordinators and fakery
management to bring the beliefs and conclusions of DiEugenio and Sandy to the realm of possibilities.

Whoops......I almost neglected to lump Caprio in with DiEugenio and Sandy.