Buell Wesley Frazier

[Richard Smith]

All the evidence points to a slender white male named LHO.

 
I didn't realise that Brennan could tell his initials just by looking at him!!

That's quite a standard to apply under the circumstances.

The circumstances are that Brennan was using his eyes to look at someone, then describe that person.
His unbelievably basic description of the man he saw was still way off.
Because you're so blinded by your bias you don't see how ridiculous your point is about Brennan's estimation of the age of the man in the window.
You argue that Oswald looked older than he really was and that's why Brennan got his estimation so wrong, but what you fail to appreciate is that Brennan was comparing the age of the man in the window to Oswald himself!
When he actually saw Oswald, Brennan was struck by how much younger he looked compared to the man in the window.
Next you'll be arguing that Oswald looked almost a decade older in the TSBD building than he did elsewhere.

Brennan's description is certainly not "way off."  At worst he added a few years to balding Oswald's actual age (not a decade) and pounds to his weight while looking at him through a 6th floor window.  I would say it is remarkably accurate under the circumstances.  The fact that it was provided within a few minutes of the event means he was not influenced by the press coverage or some conspiracy to frame Oswald.  You really think that because Brennan was a few years off on estimating Oswald's age that that somehow raise doubt about all the evidence left behind that window including Oswald's prints and shell casings from his rifle?  Honestly, that is not very compelling.   

[Dan O'meara]

Brennan's description is certainly not "way off."  At worst he added a few years to balding Oswald's actual age (not a decade) and pounds to his weight while looking at him through a 6th floor window.  I would say it is remarkably accurate under the circumstances.  The fact that it was provided within a few minutes of the event means he was not influenced by the press coverage or some conspiracy to frame Oswald.  You really think that because Brennan was a few years off on estimating Oswald's age that that somehow raise doubt about all the evidence left behind that window including Oswald's prints and shell casings from his rifle?  Honestly, that is not very compelling.

You really think that because Brennan was a few years off on estimating Oswald's age that that somehow raise doubt about all the evidence left behind that window including Oswald's prints and shell casings from his rifle?

Strawman Smith strikes again 

I would say it is remarkably accurate under the circumstances.

 

[Richard Smith]

You really think that because Brennan was a few years off on estimating Oswald's age that that somehow raise doubt about all the evidence left behind that window including Oswald's prints and shell casings from his rifle?

Strawman Smith strikes again 

I would say it is remarkably accurate under the circumstances.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you are taking issue with since you didn't articulate a single point while acting like a petulant child upset to learn that there is no Santa Claus.  Oswald was balding and looked much older than 24.  I would have guessed his age as late 20s or early 30s.  Estimating his age as in his 30s is reasonable.  Particularly for someone who saw him through a 6th floor window.  The description is not "way off."  That is an absurd characterization.  It highlights the incredible bias that you bring to this case.  You would have us believe that it could only be Oswald if Brennan had performed like a circus worker and precisely guessed his age and weight.   In your fantasy world, any discrepancy in his estimate negates the real evidence such as Oswald's prints on the SN, the presence of his rifle, and fired shell casings on behind the window.   That's breathtaking and the only truly unresolved issue is not whether Oswald was the shooter but why anyone would go to such tortured lengths to try to exonerate him. 

[Martin Weidmann]

I'm not exactly sure what you are taking issue with since you didn't articulate a single point while acting like a petulant child upset to learn that there is no Santa Claus.  Oswald was balding and looked much older than 24.  I would have guessed his age as late 20s or early 30s.  Estimating his age as in his 30s is reasonable.  Particularly for someone who saw him through a 6th floor window.  The description is not "way off."  That is an absurd characterization.  It highlights the incredible bias that you bring to this case.  You would have us believe that it could only be Oswald if Brennan had performed like a circus worker and precisely guessed his age and weight.   In your fantasy world, any discrepancy in his estimate negates the real evidence such as Oswald's prints on the SN, the presence of his rifle, and fired shell casings on behind the window.   That's breathtaking and the only truly unresolved issue is not whether Oswald was the shooter but why anyone would go to such tortured lengths to try to exonerate him.

I'm not exactly sure what you are taking issue with

Quelle surprise 

It's always funny when a completely unreasonable man considers himself to be reasonable....

[Tom Sorensen]

It doesn't matter whether Brennan was "remarkably accurate" or "way off", he failed to recognize Oswald at the lineup. Game over. It's remarkable that Richard insists on stumping his small feet to evade this brutal fact.

[John Mytton]

It doesn't matter whether Brennan was "remarkably accurate" or "way off", he failed to recognize Oswald at the lineup. Game over. It's remarkable that Richard insists on stumping his small feet to evade this brutal fact.

Game over? Game over?

Sorry Tom but but neither you or I are in a position to make that assertion, it would come down to an unbiased Jury to balance the evidence and then they could draw their own conclusion.

1) As already stated, Brennan's first day affidavit and the subsequent Police radio broadcast closely matched Oswald's description and would be powerful evidence.
2) Oswald's fresh prints in the sniper's nest, the same window Brennan identified.
3) Oswald's rifle.
4) Oswald's flight from the scene of the crime.
5) Special agent Sorrels who testified at the line-up that Brennan told him that man 2, "Oswald" was the closest man.
6) Brennan's testimony under oath that he was afraid for his family because of a possible Communist connection. A very real worry.
7) Brennan stating categorially in his testimony under oath that he could have identified Oswald.

And there you have it, personally I believe it's a slam dunk.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Game over? Game over?

Sorry Tom but but neither you or I are in a position to make that assertion, it would come down to an unbiased Jury to balance the evidence and then they could draw their own conclusion.

1) As already stated, Brennan's first day affidavit and the subsequent Police radio broadcast closely matched Oswald's description and would be powerful evidence.
2) Oswald's fresh prints in the sniper's nest, the same window Brennan identified.
3) Oswald's rifle.
4) Oswald's flight from the scene of the crime.
5) Special agent Sorrels who testified at the line-up that Brennan told him that man 2, "Oswald" was the closest man.
6) Brennan's testimony under oath that he was afraid for his family because of a possible Communist connection. A very real worry.
7) Brennan stating categorially in his testimony under oath that he could have identified Oswald.

And there you have it, personally I believe it's a slam dunk.

JohnM

And there you have it, personally I believe it's a slam dunk.

And I, personally, believe you have been fooled.....  Go figure!

[Tom Sorensen]

Game over? Game over?

Sorry Tom but but neither you or I are in a position to make that assertion, it would come down to an unbiased Jury to balance the evidence and then they could draw their own conclusion.

1) As already stated, Brennan's first day affidavit and the subsequent Police radio broadcast closely matched Oswald's description and would be powerful evidence.
2) Oswald's fresh prints in the sniper's nest, the same window Brennan identified.
3) Oswald's rifle.
4) Oswald's flight from the scene of the crime.
5) Special agent Sorrels who testified at the line-up that Brennan told him that man 2, "Oswald" was the closest man.
6) Brennan's testimony under oath that he was afraid for his family because of a possible Communist connection. A very real worry.
7) Brennan stating categorially in his testimony under oath that he could have identified Oswald.

And there you have it, personally I believe it's a slam dunk.

JohnM

To my knowledge, no other witness pulled the commie card, certainly not those who pointed their finger at Oswald. Brennan's commie paranoia BS would be a hard sell in court, especially since it cured itself so quickly. "Under oath" only means you can get in trouble if you're caught lying. Your list would obviously not have stood unchallenged, so your jury argument is essentially moot; the defense would have destroyed it, especially "Oswald's rifle." —ROFL.