James DiEugenio's Factoids about Howard Brennan
- Fred Litwin
- 52 minutes ago
- 13 min read
Hat Tip: Bill Brown was responsible for much of the research in this post.
A large part of his first part is about Howard Brennan, the eyewitness who saw Oswald fire from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
DiEugenio's sources are as follows:
Honest Answers by Vince Palamara.
The Assassination Chronicles by Edward Jap Epstein.
Breach of Trust by Gerald McKnight.
Rush to Judgment by Mark Lane.
No Case to Answer by Ian Griggs.
DiEugenio only has one reference to a primary document.
And guess which book is not mentioned at all?
Let's go through what DiEugenio writes about Brennan. It's a good exercise in how conspiracy factoids crowd out actual analysis.
How do they place Oswald on the Sixth Floor? Through the testimony of Howard Brennan. This guy has been wrecked so many times, it’s not funny.
And in Part One of his essay, DiEugenio writes:
And here comes the deus ex machina of the program: they rely on Howard Brennan to convict Oswald. We are to believe that no one associated with the show was familiar with the fact that Brennan had been torn to shreds all the way from 1966 (Edward Epstein, Inquest) to 2021 (Vince Palamara, Honest Answers).
What a way to write! Brennan "has been wrecked," and "torn to shreds." DiEugenio would have more credibility if he just noted that the Warren Commission did not base its conclusion that Oswald was a gunman based on Brennan's testimony.
Although the record indicates that Brennan was an accurate observer, he declined to make a positive identification of Oswald when he first saw him in the police lineup. The Commission, therefore, does not base its conclusion concerning the identity of the assassin on Brennan's subsequent certain identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man he saw fire the rifle. Immediately after the assassination, however, Brennan described to the police the man he saw in the window and then identified Oswald as the person who most nearly resembled the man he saw. The Commission is satisfied that, at the least, Brennan saw a man in the window who closely resembled Lee Harvey Oswald and that Brennan believes the man he saw was in fact Lee Harvey Oswald.
But DiEugenio has go much further, and the only way he can do that is by quoting conspiracy factoids.
In Epstein’s book, it was revealed that not even the Commission lawyers, e.g., Joe Ball, wanted to use Brennan. (The Assassination Chronicles, p. 143) As Ball noted, when the Commission did a reconstruction with Brennan, he had problems identifying a figure in the window.
The reconstruction was staged on March 20, 1964. DiEugenio doesn't tell his readers that Brennan said both of his eyes were "sandblasted" in January of 1964 and that this is why his eyesight was not good in March.
Ball also noted that Brennan stated that the shooter was standing while firing. He then stepped down out of sight. (McKnight, p. 109) Yet this was not possible since photographs showed the window was not open high enough to do that, unless the assassin was firing through glass, and there was no shattered glass found. So the Commission had to conclude that the sniper was kneeling. (Epstein, p. 144, Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, p. 83) But if that was the case, then how could Brennan give a description of height and weight? Which is what the program says happened.
Then there was the chain of evidence in the Brennan case. How did Brennan’s testimony originate, and then how was it passed on to the Dallas Police to be broadcast? Commission Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin wanted the FBI to provide this chain. But Director J. Edgar Hoover would not commit to any. (Gerald McKnight, Breach of Trust, p. 109) Why? Because there was confusion about its origins. Brennan said that he gave his info to a policeman, neither identified nor called by the Commission, and he took him to Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels. But the problem was that Sorrels was not in Dealey Plaza at that time, which was about ten minutes after the shooting. He did not arrive back there for about half an hour. (Lane, p. 86)
There really is no mystery here, if DiEugenio would stop relying upon Mark Lane.
It's true that Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrels only got to the YSBD at about 12:55 PM, well after the description of Oswald was broadcast by Police Inspector Herbert Sawyer.
Brennan talked to a policeman before he talked to Sorrels:
As Connelly notes, Brennan failed to identify Oswald at the first line-up he attended. Consider what ABC left out. Brennan told the FBI on the 23rd that he still could not be sure it was Oswald. (Commission Document 5, p. 12)
One of the more ridiculous statements by DiEugenio is the notion that Brennan was not at a lineup after the assassination:
But further, the late Ian Griggs surfaced fascinating information on this issue: namely, that he could not find Brennan’s name listed for any of the official line-ups. (No Case to Answer, pp. 85-90) Further, there were never more than four people in the lineups. But Brennan said there were six. Finally, Brennan could not recall if there was an African American among them. (Griggs, p. 91) This is Texas in 1963. In fact, Detective Will Fritz’s testimony on the matter suggests that Sorrels might have invented the line-up where Brennan made a positive ID after the fact. (ibid., p. 94)
You would think that perhaps DiEugenio would check out Griggs' assertion. Sometimes the Dallas police used the term showup rather than lineup:
Finally, there is the following, as related by Vince Palamara. As noted above, Brennan told the FBI that he could not positively identify Oswald even after he had seen Oswald on TV. (Honest Answers, p. 186) Further, Brennan testified that he did not see the rifle discharge, or recoil or the muzzle flash. (ibid)
It is unfortunate that DiEugenio has not read Howard Brennan's book. He spells out exactly why he did not positively identify Oswald (page 25):
I was led into a darkened room with lights at one end. When we arrived, a group of several men, perhaps as many as seven, were led in and made to stand in line with numbers over them. As soon as I saw him, I think he was number two. I knew without any doubt whatsoever that they had captured the man whom I saw fired the shot that killed President Kennedy. I felt a surge of emotion, a sense of outrage at this young man who had literally thrown the whole world into chaos. As I was looking at each of the men in the lineup, I saw a face that I recognized. It was a Dallas Detective that I knew. He was perhaps the most well-known of all the Dallas Police and his picture had been in the papers many times. If he was there, that meant only one thing. My privacy had been breached. I felt sick and a little betrayed. I'd come to City Hall with the understanding that I would be dealing only with the F.B.I. and/or the Secret Service, not the Dallas Police. The officer walked over to me sticking out his hand to shake. He greeted me by name and I knew if he knew who I was and what my connection with the case was, then others must know. He asked me, "Does the second man from the left look most like the man you saw?" He was talking about Oswald and I knew what he wanted me to say.
I felt even more angry and betrayed. I hadn't agreed to make an identification to local authorities. I knew that there were ways my identity could become known through the leaks in the police department and I didn't want any part of it. I knew that they had Oswald on enough charges that he wasn't going anyplace. He had been charged with resisting arrest and carrying a firearm without a permit. There was overwhelming evidence that he had killed Officer Tippett [sic] and so my identification in that moment wasn't absolutely necessary. If they needed me later, I knew I could identify him.
I said brusquely, "He looks like the man, but I can't say for sure!" I needed some time to think. I turned to Mr. Lish, who had detected my resentment and said, "Let's go back to the office. We have some talking to do." As we went, I commented that the man in the lineup wasn't dressed the same way the man in the window had been. "We forgot to tell you that he changed his clothes immediately after leaving the Depository," Lish said. When we reached the office, I responded angrily, "You promised me anonymity. You people haven't kept your word." Sorrels looked genuinely puzzled. "What do you mean?" "If this Detective knows who I am and what my connection with the assassination is, then it won't be long before everybody finds out." Sorrels tried to be reassuring. "We'll do everything we can to protect your identity, Mr. Brennan, but this isn't entirely our jurisdiction." I wasn't sure just what he meant, and said so. "There isn't anything we could do about it," Sorrels explained. "The law is clear that murder, even assassination, is a state offense and must be turned over to local officials for investigation and prosecution!"
So it was out and I had to deal with it. No matter how hard they might try, it was only a matter of time before people would find out that the unidentified witness whose description had helped catch Oswald was really Howard Brennan. Suddenly, I didn't feel very good. I felt very vulnerable, exposed to naked light, and I didn't like it one bit. I knew I was going to be sorry that I ever decided to get involved.
Brennan thought that others could be involved, and he feared for his safety.
Afterwards Brennan was sitting with his wife in his kitchen (page 27):
I was scared and wanted to get out. I didn't know who was out there in the night looking for me with the idea of doing the same thing Oswald had done to Kennedy. Maybe they already knew; maybe I had only a short time. If the F.B.I. had lost me once, maybe whoever was looking for me could get by them. They were, after all, only human. With all the precautions that had been taken to safeguard the life of the President, he had still been killed by a single assassin. It wouldn't be nearly so hard to get to me.
And then DiEugenio add this ridiculous factoid:
And then there is this: Brenan’s job supervisor said they took Brennan away for three weeks. He came back a nervous wreck. He would not talk about the assassination after that: “He was scared to death. They made him say what they wanted him to say.” (ibid., p. 187)
I went to Palamara's book and found that his source was Crossfire by Jim Marrs. I then went to page 25 in Crossfire, and found the following:
Brennan's job foreman, Sandy Speaker, told this author:
They took [Brennan] off for about three weeks. I don't know if they were Secret Service or FBI, but they were federal people. He came back a nervous wreck and within a year his hair had turned snow white. He wouldn't talk about [the assassination] after that. He was scared to death. They made him say what they wanted him to say.
Marrs talked to Speaker in 1987 and so this was 24 years after the fact. But was Sandy Speaker Brennan's foreman? I don't know. There is no mention of Sandy Speaker in Brennan's testimony or in his book.
And Brennan didn't disappear for three weeks; he was moved to a different job to give him some privacy. Here is an excerpt from his book (pages 37-38):
When I arrived at the main office, Claude Wesley George, one of my superiors, met me. He had a concerned look on his face and, even before he said a word, I knew that he knew. "Howard," he said, "I got a phone call from the F.B.I." "I'm not surprised," I responded. "What did they want?" I already knew the answer. "They told me everything, at least I think they did. They told me you are the only eyewitness to the assassination." Claude was keeping his voice low, so as not to attract attention from others who were nearby. He leaned close and said, "They said they want you to continue to be in their protective custody for a while as a precautionary measure. They asked me to take you off the Katy job and reassign you somewhere where they can give you better security." No matter how it was phrased, I was under "house arrest" as a material witness. My freedom was about to be restricted. I realized that it was for my own good, but it made me feel uncomfortable, nonetheless. "It's OK with me if you want me to work inside somewhere Claude," I told him. "I'll do whatever you want." "For the time being, we want you to work in the tube, leading to the Republic Bank Building," Claude said. "This way they can give you better protection.
Brennan was now working inside in a tunnel which ran from the Republic Bank Building to a parking building on Harwood and Pacific Streets. For a while, his life changed (page 39):
The F.B.I. agents stationed themselves at each approach to my area of work and they were there all eight hours of my work day. If I took a break and went to another section, I could be sure that I was being followed. It was comforting and disconcerting at the same time. When I went to the bathroom, I always wondered if there was an F.B.I. agent in the next stall! After a while, in a few more days, I thought, this would become more or less a way of life for me. It was something I'd become accustomed to. In those days immediately following the assassination, there was a great fear that some international conspiracy was at work. If that were the case, I might still be in some danger. As the days passed, it would become more apparent that my life was no longer in any real danger and I began looking forward to the day when I could have my privacy back. What I didn't consider was that when the F.B.I. finally left me alone, my privacy would be invaded by other forces over which I had no control.
Brennan's health was affected by the non-stop questioning he faced over what he had witnessed. His phone rang off the hook, even after he had two different unlisted phone numbers. Fellow workers and family members only wanted to talk about the assassination. He could not escape it and his health deteriorated.
DiEugenio's last point centers on Brennan's reluctance to talk with the HSCA.
Later on, Brennan refused to talk to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) unless he was under subpoena. When the HSCA said they would do so, Brennan replied he would fight the subpoena. And if forced to appear, he would simply not say anything. In addition, he refused to sign any written statement. And even when offered immunity, he would not appear. (ibid., pp. 188-89)
Brennan clearly did not want to appear before the HSCA because of his health. But, under the right circumstances, he would have testified.
Palamara thinks all of this is insidious: (page 189)
Oswald was dead almost fifteen years at that point, Howard -- what did you have to hide? Are these the actions of a truthful man? Brennan was a fraud and he knew it. Knowing that the HSCA might actually subject him to a real cross examination, he did not want anything like that to surface. Whether this was the fact that he was pressured into identifying Oswald, or that he pretended to have knowledge he never really possessed to begin with in order to gain attention, we will likely never know.
Palamara then writes that Brennan "got his 'revenge': that silly 1987 book called Eyewitness to History."
This is scholarship? Is it any wonder that ABC did not rely upon voices like Palamara or DiEugenio?
DiEugenio removed the humanity from Howard Brennan's story. It's quite a shame. Howard Brennan deserved better.
Previous Relevant Links on James DiEugenio:
Was there a link between Ferenc Nagy and the OAS?
Information in a Time-Life memo originated from Paese Sera.
A purported CIA memo is actually the notes of an HSCA researcher.
DiEugenio repeats the story of Ralph Yates as told in James Douglass' s book JFK and the Unspeakable.
DiEugenio misquotes a Warren Commission memo.
DiEugenio runs away from the evidence.
DiEugenio cites a Joan Mellen story about Aynesworth that has no documentation.
James DiEugenio attacks another article about Oliver Stone.
James DiEugenio is unaware that an HSCA report on Oswald and the CIA was actually published.
Dan Hardway rebuts James DiEugenio.
Why does James DiEugenio write for one of the major agents of Russian disinformation?
Mr. DiEugenio thinks that I libeled him, but his accusations are all over the map.
Was Lee Harvey Oswald at an anti-Castro training camp in the summer of 1963?
Was David Ferrie at an anti-Castro training camp in the summer of 1963?
James DiEugenio accepts a phony story as fact.
Bill Boxley was not a CIA plant.
Clay Shaw was not Clay Bertrand.
A response to James DiEugenio about my writings.
Prouty couldn't back up any of his allegations when he was interviewed by the ARRB. You wouldn't believe the lame excuse offered up by DiEugenio.
Why does Oliver Stone support so many dictators?
DiEugenio has no understanding of Permindex/CMC
DiEugenio gets it all wrong on the Mannlicher-Carcano
The conclusion on the Mannlicher-Carcano
Over the past ten months, I have debunked every witness cited by DiEugenio regarding Clay Shaw and David Ferrie.