“Brennan also testified that Lee Harvey Oswald, whom he viewed in a police lineup on the night of the assassination, was the man he saw fire the shots from the sixth floor window of the Depository building.” ( Report, pg. 143 )

The above statement implies that Brennan identified Oswald at the police lineup as the man he saw fire shots.

He did no such thing.

Placing Oswald on the sixth floor with the rifle in his hands was tantamount to the Commission’s proving that he fired the shots at the motorcade in Dealey Plaza.
In order to do this, the Warren Report banked heavily on the testimony of a single witness, Howard Leslie Brennan.
The Commission gave Brennan top-billing as it had no other witness who was willing to say that they had seen Oswald in the window at the time of the shooting.

The Report stated that Brennan had identified Oswald has the man who fired the shots from the sixth floor window. ( pg. 143 )
It stressed that Brennan was in an “excellent position” ( ibid. ) to observe anyone in the window and described him as an “accurate observer” ( Pg. 145 ).

But his testimony, filled with errors, confusion, contradictions and physical impossibilities caused the Commission to recall him multiple times for clarity.
Had Brennan been the kind of witness the Commission’s supporters have represented him as being, the Commission would have had little or no problem with him.
But they did.

Brennan’s recalls

As an example of how confusing and contradictory Brennan’s Commission testimony was, Brennan had the distinction of being the only one of the Commission’s 542 witnesses to have been recalled to the witness stand three times in the same day. ( 3/24/64 )

Much of the Commission’s problem lie in the ability of Brennan to estimate the rifleman’s height, despite the fact that Brennan said he only saw the man “from his hips up” and that the man “was standing up” while shooting. ( 3 H 144 )

The Commission had a problem with its “star” witness’ crediblity.

The physical evidence showed that the only positions from which a rifleman could have fired from the sixth floor window would be if he were sitting or kneeling.

Brennan vs. the physical evidence

No matter how much the Warren Report massaged the facts, it could not establish Brennan’s credibility.
After the last explosion, Brennan said, the gunman “stepped down out of sight”. ( 19 H 470 )
Brennan said that the gunman was standing while shooting.
But the window sill was only 12 inches up from the floor and Commission Exhibit 1311 indicates that that was an impossibility.

The FBI photograph makes a mockery of Brennan’s claim that the gunman was standing while shooting.
Brennan also said that he could see the man “from the belt up.” ( 3 H 144 )
But Dillard Exhibit C shows the “sniper window only half open, dirty and with glare from the sun, making that an impossibility.

And it also inspires no more confidence in the Commission’s claim that Oswald was either “kneeling or sitting”.

From a kneeling or sitting position, Brennan could not have estimated the height and weight of the gunman from six stories down.
In addition, Brennan could never have seen the man’s face had he been standing in the window as dirty as it was.

Dillard Exhibits A&B taken seconds after the assassination, show how dirty the windows were and how the glare from the sun would have prevented anyone on the ground from identifying a man standing in the window.

Brennan and the lineup

At no time during his viewing of the police lineup did Brennan positively identify Oswald as the man he saw in the window firing. And this was AFTER he had seen Oswald TWICE on television.
At the lineup, Brennan selected Oswald as the person who most closely RESEMBLED the man he had seen in the window with the rifle, but he failed to make a positive identification.

Mr. BRENNAN. I told Mr. Sorrels and Captain Fritz at that time that Oswald–or the man in the lineup that I identified looking more like a closest resemblance to the man in the window than anyone in the lineup. ( 3 H 147 )
Mr. BELIN. Now, is there anything else you told the officers at the time of the lineup?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I told them that I could not make a positive identification. ( 3 H 148 )

Of course, both of the November 22nd police lineups had this configuration:

In spite of this ridiculous lineup designed to make Oswald the only choice, Brennan could not identify him.

When a witness uses terms like “looks like” or “resembles”, these are too vague to eliminate any doubt and thus are not recognized by the legal system as positive identifications.
Not only could Brennan not make a positive identification at the lineup, his excuses for not making that ID changed.

Excuses…………..

What makes Brennan’s refusal to initially identify Oswald as the shooter even more compelling is that he saw Oswald on TV TWICE BEFORE he went down to view the police lineup.
This was his first excuse why he didn’t identify Oswald.

Mr. BELIN. In the meantime, had you seen any pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald on television or in the newspapers?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, on television.
Mr. BELIN. About when was that, do you believe?
Mr. BRENNAN. I believe I reached home quarter to three or something of that, 15 minutes either way, and I saw his picture twice on television before I went down to the police station for the lineup.
Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the other?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is something I do not know. ( 3 H 147-148 )

But according to Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrels, Brennan DID know that seeing Oswald on TV affected his identification.
Sorrels testified that Brennan said, ” I’m sorry, I can’t do it. I was afraid seeing the television might have messed me up. I just can’t be positive. I’m sorry.” ( 7 H 355 )
But this wasn’t his only excuse for not identifying Oswald. And the second one was even nore bizarre.

……and excuses

The second of Brennan’s excuses for why he didn’t identify Oswald on the night of the assassination was “..out of fear. If it got to be a known fact that I was an eyewitness, my family or I . . . might not be safe.” ( 3 H 148 )

This is a curious statement because Brennan testified that he didn’t fear Oswald because, “I knew they already had the man ( Oswald ) for murder ( of Off. Tippit ) and I knew he would not be released.” ( ibid. )

So who did he fear ?

It becomes obvious when we read that Brennan thought the assassination to be a “Communist activity” ( Report, 145 ) meaning a conspiracy and that his fear was that Oswald had confederates who were still at large and might come after him or his family if he identified Oswald.

But the Report fails to explain how the death of Oswald relieved Brennan of this fear of retribution by others against him and his family.
Did Brennan think Oswald’s co-conspirators died with him ?

It also fails to point out that the idea of “security” for Brennan and his family was never mentioned until “some days later” when an “FBI or SS man” from Houston whose name might or might not have been “Williams” suggested to him, “did you do that ( not identify Oswald ) for security reasons or couldn’t you ? ” ( 3 H 148 )

“Reclaiming” Fantasy

On pages 956-957 of his 2007 piece of garbage, Reclaiming History, Vincent Bugliosi writes of Howard Brennan:

“After the first and second shots rang out in Dealey Plaza, a motorcade witness, Howard Brennan…… actually saw Oswald in the window holding his rifle.

Only 120 feet away from Oswald, he got a very good look as he watched, in horror, Oswald ( who he had seen in the window earlier, before the motorcade had arrived ) take deliberate aim and fire the final shot from his rifle.

At the police lineup that evening, Brennan picked Oswald out, saying, ‘He looks like him, but I cannot positively say,’ giving the police the reason that he had since seen Oswald on television and that could have ‘messed me up.’

However, Brennan signed an affidavit at the Dallas sheriff’s office within an hour after the shooting and before the lineup saying, ‘I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again.’

On December 18, 1963, Brennan told the FBI he was ‘sure’ that Oswald was the man he had seen in the window. And he later told the Warren Commission that in reality at the lineup, ‘with all fairness, I could have positively identified the man’ but did not do so out of fear. ‘If it got to be a known fact that I was an eyewitness, my family or I . . . might not be safe.’

Although Brennan did not positively identify Oswald at the lineup, he did say, as we’ve seen, that Oswald looked like the man . And we know Brennan is legitimate since the description of the man in the window that he gave to the authorities right after the shooting—a slender, white male about thirty years old, five feet ten inches—matches Oswald fairly closely, and had to have been the basis for the description of the man sent out over police radio just fifteen minutes after the shooting .”

Bugliosi’s intepretation is comical, at best.

On the one hand, he claims Brennan “picked Oswald out” while saying in the same sentence that Brennan told police, “I cannot positively say”.
How does one “pick” a suspect out of a lineup and then say, ” I can’t positively say” ? If you can’t positively say, you don’t pick him. LOL

He then goes on to say that Brennan told police that Oswald “looked like” the man and calls Brennan “legitimate” because his description of the man “matches Oswald fairly closely”.

“Looked like”, “resembles”, “matches fairly closely” are all “buzz” words and phrases indicating that the witness did not make a positive identifcation.

But Bugliosi, like the Warren Commission he supported, deceives the public by omitting telling us the complete story. It’s not what he tells you, but what he DOESN’T tell you—-what he hides — that calls into question his credibility.

Deception by Omission

Not only does Bugliosi try to put a positive spin on a failed witness identification, he does what all Warren Commission apologists do:
Bugliosi picks and chooses what information he wants the reader to know and thus he only tells you part of the story.

Bugliosi repeats Brennan’s ridiculous excuse that he failed to identify Oswald on the night of the assassination, “..out of fear. If it got to be a known fact that I was an eyewitness, my family or I . . . might not be safe.” ( 3 H 148 )

But Bugliosi fails to mention that Brennan thought the assassination to be a “Communist activity” meaning a conspiracy and that he feared Oswald had confederates who were still at large and might come after him or his family if he identified Oswald. ( Report, pg. 145 )

He fails to explain how the death of Oswald relieved Brennan of the fear of retribution against him and his family.

Bugliosi also fails to point out that the idea of “security” for Brennan and his family was never mentioned until “some days later” when an “FBI or SS man” from Houston whose name might have been ” Williams” “asked” him, “did you do that for security reasons or couldn’t you ? ” ( 3 H 148 )

He also fails to name the agent.

Bugliosi fails to point out that the FBI interview of December 18, 1963, when Brennan told the FBI he was “sure” that Oswald was the man he had seen in the window came long after Oswald was dead.

Bugliosi also fails to mention a January 1964 interview, where Brennan tells the FBI that seeing Oswald on TV, “did not help him retain the original impression of the man in the window with the rifle.”

In other words, seeing Oswald on TV made him forget about the man who he REALLY saw in the sixth floor window with the rifle.

Bugliosi avoids the fact that Brennan’s description of the “khaki” clothing the rifleman in the window was wearing, wasn’t only clothing NOT worn by Oswald that day, it wasn’t even clothing that Oswald owned.

Bugliosi also doesn’t tell you that when Brennan was shown the shirt Oswald was arrested in, Commission Exhibit 150, he did not identify that shirt as the one the rifleman was wearing. ( above )

Unless your suspect changed clothes, if your witness can’t identify the suspect’s clothing, he can’t identify the suspect. Without a change of clothing, it’s impossible to have the clothing wrong and the suspect right.

Like the Warren Commission Report ( pg. 144 ), Bugliosi cites Brennan for the man’s height and weight and age approximation.

This is his defintition of “fairly closely”.

And like the Report, he omits the fact that Brennan testified that the man in the window with the rifle was wearing “khaki” ( tan ) colored clothing or that Brennan failed to identify CE 150 as the shirt the rifleman was wearing. ( 3 H 161, above )

The Warren Commission concluded that the shirt Oswald was arrested in was the same shirt he fired the rifle in. But Brennan testified that Oswald was wearing different clothes at the lineup than at the time he saw him doing the shooting ( ibid. ).

So if you believe Brennan, then either:
a. ) Oswald changed his shirt and the shirt fibers from the arrested shirt were planted on the rifle, or
b. ) the man Brennan saw shooting was NOT Oswald.

Conclusion

Brennan made some strange statements during his testimony which were factually untrue.

For example, when asked how many men were in the lineup he witnessed, he testified, “a possibility seven more or less one” ( 3 H 147 )
But there were only two lineups on November 22nd and each one had only four men, including Oswald.

In this lineup, Oswald was placed with three police employees and Brennan still would not identify him.
That’s because the man although he could identify the man he saw, the man he saw in the window with the rifle wasn’t Oswald. And he knew it.

Wasn’t the same man, wasn’t the same clothing. And he knew it.

But once Oswald was dead, all of a sudden Brennan reassured the authorities that, “with all fairness, I could have positively identified the man” at the lineup.

It becomes obvious that Brennan’s excuse for being fearful for his and his family’s safety came at the suggestion of a Federal agent from Houston, whose agency and name he was not sure of, “some days later” after Oswald was dead.

Further damaging Brennan’s credibility was the fact that he chose the wrong window in Commission Exhibit 477 when asked to mark “B” the window where he saw the two Negroes.

The question then becomes, “what exactly did Howard Brennan see ?

In his book Breach of Trust, Gerald McKnight describes Howard Brennan this way:
“Brennan…appears to be one of those self-promoting bystanders who because of….the need to be associated with some great tragedy — pretend knowledge of the event when they actually have no information.” ( pg. 398 )

In the end, even the Commission was forced to take Brennan’s testimony with a grain of salt. Its report stated that because Brennan declined to make a positive identification of Oswald when he first saw him the 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.” ( Report pgs. 146-147 )

Howard Brennan, the Commission’s star witness, was no star at all.