Deconstructing Bugliosi's "53 pieces of evidence"

[Michael T. Griffith]

What Brennan swore to in his affidavit on 1/22/63 is the truth as he remembered seeing the events at the time of the murder.....  He was not lying...... but he may have been confused about some aspects.    It was only after seeing Lee Oswald murdered ( who he knew was innocent of shooting JFK) that  he saw the light and decided to support the official tale.

That's an accurate, fair analysis. Brennan was hounded by federal agents to testify that the man he saw was Oswald. Brennan failed to positively ID Oswald even in the grossly rigged police lineup that he was shown, but, after being hounded by federal agents, Brennan later told the WC that the man he saw was Oswald.

Moreover, Brennan's description of the gunman's clothing does not match the clothes Oswald was wearing but does match the description given by four other witnesses who reported seeing a man in the window. Brennan and the other witnesses described the man's shirt as a regular "light-colored" shirt. However, Oswald did not wear a light-colored shirt to work that day. He wore a brown, rust-colored shirt that day, and he was seen in that shirt in the second-floor lunchroom less than ninety seconds after the shots were fired. I should add that two witnesses who saw the sixth-floor gunman said his hair was light-colored or light-brown, whereas Oswald's hair was solid brown and not light-colored at all.

Plus, new research regarding the witnesses who were near and/or on the TSBD stairs right after the shooting proves that Oswald did not go down those stairs to get to the second-floor lunchroom, as is detailed in the new documentary JFK Revisited.

[Bill Chapman]

That's an accurate, fair analysis. Brennan was hounded by federal agents to testify that the man he saw was Oswald. Brennan failed to positively ID Oswald even in the grossly rigged police lineup that he was shown, but, after being hounded by federal agents, Brennan later told the WC that the man he saw was Oswald.

Moreover, Brennan's description of the gunman's clothing does not match the clothes Oswald was wearing but does match the description given by four other witnesses who reported seeing a man in the window. Brennan and the other witnesses described the man's shirt as a regular "light-colored" shirt. However, Oswald did not wear a light-colored shirt to work that day. He wore a brown, rust-colored shirt that day, and he was seen in that shirt in the second-floor lunchroom less than ninety seconds after the shots were fired. I should add that two witnesses who saw the sixth-floor gunman said his hair was light-colored or light-brown, whereas Oswald's hair was solid brown and not light-colored at all.

Plus, new research regarding the witnesses who were near and/or on the TSBD stairs right after the shooting proves that Oswald did not go down those stairs to get to the second-floor lunchroom, as is detailed in the new documentary JFK Revisited.

The whole gang was there, covering for each other: Oswald of course... and O.H. Lee, Hidell, and my favourite, Dirty Harvey (I made that one up. I'm very clever.)

Meanwhile:


Bill Chapman/Dead Oswald Tour
Above: Gang of Four

Dirty Harry: "Smith, Wesson... and me"
--------------------------------------------
Dirty Harvey: Smith, Wesson... and Lee

[Richard Smith]

That's an accurate, fair analysis. Brennan was hounded by federal agents to testify that the man he saw was Oswald. Brennan failed to positively ID Oswald even in the grossly rigged police lineup that he was shown, but, after being hounded by federal agents, Brennan later told the WC that the man he saw was Oswald.

Moreover, Brennan's description of the gunman's clothing does not match the clothes Oswald was wearing but does match the description given by four other witnesses who reported seeing a man in the window. Brennan and the other witnesses described the man's shirt as a regular "light-colored" shirt. However, Oswald did not wear a light-colored shirt to work that day. He wore a brown, rust-colored shirt that day, and he was seen in that shirt in the second-floor lunchroom less than ninety seconds after the shots were fired. I should add that two witnesses who saw the sixth-floor gunman said his hair was light-colored or light-brown, whereas Oswald's hair was solid brown and not light-colored at all.

Plus, new research regarding the witnesses who were near and/or on the TSBD stairs right after the shooting proves that Oswald did not go down those stairs to get to the second-floor lunchroom, as is detailed in the new documentary JFK Revisited.

Brennan wasn't "hounded" by anyone to confirm Oswald was the assassin.  In fact, it's exactly the opposite, he explained that he did not initially ID Oswald as the assassin because he was fearful to do so.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Brennan wasn't "hounded" by anyone to confirm Oswald was the assassin.  In fact, it's exactly the opposite, he explained that he did not initially ID Oswald as the assassin because he was fearful to do so.

So why didn't they lie and say he identified Oswald at the time of the lineups? Brennan could be "hounded" to say he did. If they "hounded" him to ID Oswald later why not "hound" him at that time? Or "hound" him to say he did? This was all a sham, a fraud, a setup of Oswald: the lineups were a lie, the identification by the witnesses were all lies. But they "allowed" Brennan to not identify Oswald?

The silliness of conspiracy believers is endless. The conspirators both frame and not frame people, hound and not hound people, do obvious things and not do obvious things, plant evidence but not plant evidence, coverup but not coverup. They are both incompetent and powerless and all powerful and in total control of events.

This is either some weird game they play - "JFK Assassination The Game" where you score points by coming up with the most original idea or claim - or the assassination is the vehicle for these people to express their grievances about the world, the US, "the Establishment", the CIA, the media, the police. For anti-American types - some of these people from the UK are a real hoot - it's the evil US as a whole, whatever monsters they have in their heads.

Multiple generations of Americans - Democrat and Republican and independent, liberal and conservatives, JFK haters and JFK lovers - have gone to Washington over these 60 years or so. They've served in the CIA and other agencies. From top to bottom and in between. And all of them - every single one - has covered up the government's role - the CIA most specifically - in the assassination. Why? There is no reason to do so. They would be recognized as heroes for uncovering this treason. But they didn't. They all have suppressed the truth.

This is, frankly, either gross ignorance about human behavior and human nature or a type of paranoid mentality. What's another explanation?

[Jon Banks]

Brennan was an unreliable witness. There's no way he could've identified the suspect's height and weight from his vantage point. That much has been clear for almost 60 years.

[Richard Smith]

So why didn't they lie and say he identified Oswald at the time of the lineups? Brennan could be "hounded" to say he did. If they "hounded" him to ID Oswald later why not "hound" him at that time? Or "hound" him to say he did? This was all a sham, a fraud, a setup of Oswald: the lineups were a lie, the identification by the witnesses were all lies. But they "allowed" Brennan to not identify Oswald?

The silliness of conspiracy believers is endless. The conspirators both frame and not frame people, hound and not hound people, do obvious things and not do obvious things, plant evidence but not plant evidence, coverup but not coverup. They are both incompetent and powerless and all powerful and in total control of events.

This is either some weird game they play - "JFK Assassination The Game" where you score points by coming up with the most original idea or claim - or the assassination is the vehicle for these people to express their grievances about the world, the US, "the Establishment", the CIA, the media, the police. For anti-American types - some of these people from the UK are a real hoot - it's the evil US as a whole, whatever monsters they have in their heads.

Multiple generations of Americans - Democrat and Republican and independent, liberal and conservatives, JFK haters and JFK lovers - have gone to Washington over these 60 years or so. They've served in the CIA and other agencies. From top to bottom and in between. And all of them - every single one - has covered up the government's role - the CIA most specifically - in the assassination. Why? There is no reason to do so. They would be recognized as heroes for uncovering this treason. But they didn't. They all have suppressed the truth.

This is, frankly, either gross ignorance about human behavior and human nature or a type of paranoid mentality. What's another explanation?

Yes, and think of all the seemingly random, average citizens that CTers have suggested were somehow coerced into implicating Oswald including his own wife.  From all walks of life.  And they were apparently willing to lie in a cover up of the assassination of the president.  Can anyone believe that for real?  I do wonder if they actually believe this nonsense or whether it is like the endless "ghost hunter" shows where the participants must realize there are no ghosts but it's more fun and entertaining to pretend otherwise.

[Martin Weidmann]

Brennan wasn't "hounded" by anyone to confirm Oswald was the assassin.  In fact, it's exactly the opposite, he explained that he did not initially ID Oswald as the assassin because he was fearful to do so.

Brennan wasn't "hounded" by anyone to confirm Oswald was the assassin.

Really? He claimed in his affidavit of 11/22/63 that he would be able to identify the man he had seen, but then did not identify Oswald in the line up, despite that fact that - according to his own admission - he had seen Oswald's picture in the media, prior to that line up.

When a witness fails to identify a suspect in a line up, what other valid reason is there for law enforcement to contact him again, except to change his mind?

After he testified before the WC, Brennen executed an affidavit for the WC on May 7, 1964. In it he explained the reason for not identifying Oswald during the line up and then goes on to say that he could have identified him "very easily sooner than the FBI or the Secret Service wanted me" 

[John Iacoletti]

So why didn't they lie and say he identified Oswald at the time of the lineups? Brennan could be "hounded" to say he did. If they "hounded" him to ID Oswald later why not "hound" him at that time? Or "hound" him to say he did? This was all a sham, a fraud, a setup of Oswald: the lineups were a lie, the identification by the witnesses were all lies. But they "allowed" Brennan to not identify Oswald?

“The conspirators I just dreamed up in my head would never do X, therefore Oswald did it”, part 99999

The bottom line is that the only “witness” that supports what you want to believe failed to make a positive ID in the biased, unfair lineup— even after seeing Oswald on TV as the suspect.